window.__IS_SSR__=true
window.__INITIAL_STATE__={
"attachmentsReducer": {
"audio_0": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_0",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background0.jpg"
}
}
},
"audio_1": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_1",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background1.jpg"
}
}
},
"audio_2": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_2",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background2.jpg"
}
}
},
"audio_3": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_3",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background3.jpg"
}
}
},
"audio_4": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "audio_4",
"imgSizes": {
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/themes/KQED-unified/img/audio_bgs/background4.jpg"
}
}
},
"placeholder": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "placeholder",
"imgSizes": {
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-160x107.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 107,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"medium": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-800x533.jpg",
"width": 800,
"height": 533,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"medium_large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-768x512.jpg",
"width": 768,
"height": 512,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 680,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1536x1024.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"height": 1024,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"fd-lrg": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1536x1024.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"height": 1024,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"fd-med": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 680,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"fd-sm": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-800x533.jpg",
"width": 800,
"height": 533,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"height": 576,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"xxsmall": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-160x107.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 107,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"xsmall": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"small": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"xlarge": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 680,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1-1920x1280.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"height": 1280,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-32": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 32,
"height": 32,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-50": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 50,
"height": 50,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-64": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 64,
"height": 64,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-96": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 96,
"height": 96,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"guest-author-128": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 128,
"height": 128,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"detail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-1333x1333-1-160x160.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 160,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/KQED-Default-Image-816638274-2000x1333-1.jpg",
"width": 2000,
"height": 1333
}
}
},
"news_11700254": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_11700254",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "11700254",
"found": true
},
"parent": 11700225,
"imgSizes": {
"small": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/10062018_AW_GhostStory_103-520x347.jpg",
"width": 520,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 347
},
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/10062018_AW_GhostStory_103-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 576
},
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/10062018_AW_GhostStory_103-160x107.jpg",
"width": 160,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 107
},
"fd-sm": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/10062018_AW_GhostStory_103-960x640.jpg",
"width": 960,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 640
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/10062018_AW_GhostStory_103-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 372
},
"xsmall": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/10062018_AW_GhostStory_103-375x250.jpg",
"width": 375,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 250
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/10062018_AW_GhostStory_103-e1540151366310.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"height": 1280
},
"large": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/10062018_AW_GhostStory_103-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 680
},
"xlarge": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/10062018_AW_GhostStory_103-1180x787.jpg",
"width": 1180,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 787
},
"complete_open_graph": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/10062018_AW_GhostStory_103-1200x800.jpg",
"width": 1200,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 800
},
"guest-author-50": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/10062018_AW_GhostStory_103-50x50.jpg",
"width": 50,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 50
},
"guest-author-96": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/10062018_AW_GhostStory_103-96x96.jpg",
"width": 96,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 96
},
"medium": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/10062018_AW_GhostStory_103-800x533.jpg",
"width": 800,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 533
},
"guest-author-64": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/10062018_AW_GhostStory_103-64x64.jpg",
"width": 64,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 64
},
"guest-author-32": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/10062018_AW_GhostStory_103-32x32.jpg",
"width": 32,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 32
},
"fd-lrg": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/10062018_AW_GhostStory_103-1920x1280.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 1280
},
"fd-med": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/10062018_AW_GhostStory_103-1180x787.jpg",
"width": 1180,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 787
},
"full-width": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/10062018_AW_GhostStory_103-1920x1280.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 1280
},
"detail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/10062018_AW_GhostStory_103-150x150.jpg",
"width": 150,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 150
},
"guest-author-128": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/10062018_AW_GhostStory_103-128x128.jpg",
"width": 128,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 128
},
"xxsmall": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/10062018_AW_GhostStory_103-240x160.jpg",
"width": 240,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 160
}
},
"publishDate": 1540149082,
"modified": 1540149155,
"caption": "A lantern illuminates the sidewalk plaque dedicated to Mary Ellen Pleasant on the San Francisco Ghost Hunt tour",
"description": null,
"title": "10062018_AW_GhostStory_103",
"credit": "Anne Wernikoff / KQED",
"status": "inherit",
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_12007882": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_12007882",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "12007882",
"found": true
},
"title": "Supreme Court To Rule On California's Overcrowded Prisons",
"publishDate": 1728000644,
"status": "inherit",
"parent": 12007880,
"modified": 1773766214,
"caption": "California Department of Corrections officer looks on as inmates at Chino State Prison exercise in the yard Dec. 10, 2010, in Chino, California. ",
"credit": "Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images",
"altTag": "Imprisoned people wearing orange outfits hang out in an outdoor area of the prison, while a guard watches from a tower overhead.",
"description": "Prop 36 would roll back some criminal justice reforms ushered in under 2014's Prop 47, likely putting more people behind bars for drug and theft crimes. ",
"imgSizes": {
"medium": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/10/107520204_qed-800x540.jpg",
"width": 800,
"height": 540,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/10/107520204_qed-1020x689.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 689,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/10/107520204_qed-160x108.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 108,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/10/107520204_qed-1536x1038.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"height": 1038,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/10/107520204_qed-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/10/107520204_qed-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"height": 576,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/10/107520204_qed-1920x1297.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"height": 1297,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/10/107520204_qed.jpg",
"width": 1973,
"height": 1333
}
},
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_11753593": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_11753593",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "11753593",
"found": true
},
"title": "Health Care Activists Offer Free Health Screenings In Los Angeles",
"publishDate": 1560132050,
"status": "inherit",
"parent": 11753589,
"modified": 1747261759,
"caption": "Under the governor’s plan, Medi-Cal will stop enrolling new undocumented immigrants starting Jan. 1. Those already covered can keep their benefits, but adults over 18 will face a $100 monthly premium beginning in 2027. ",
"credit": "David McNew/Getty Images",
"altTag": "As part of a budget deal, low-income adults between the ages of 19 and 25 living in California illegally could become eligible for California's Medicaid program, Medi-Cal.",
"description": "As part of a budget deal, low-income adults between the ages of 19 and 25 living in California illegally could become eligible for California's Medicaid program, Medi-Cal. ",
"imgSizes": {
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2019/06/RS5067_NurseChecksBloodPressure-160x107.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 107,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"medium": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2019/06/RS5067_NurseChecksBloodPressure-800x533.jpg",
"width": 800,
"height": 533,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2019/06/RS5067_NurseChecksBloodPressure-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 680,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"complete_open_graph": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2019/06/RS5067_NurseChecksBloodPressure-1200x800.jpg",
"width": 1200,
"height": 800,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2019/06/RS5067_NurseChecksBloodPressure-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2019/06/RS5067_NurseChecksBloodPressure-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"height": 576,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2019/06/RS5067_NurseChecksBloodPressure-1920x1280.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"height": 1280,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"apple_news_ca_landscape_12_9": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2019/06/RS5067_NurseChecksBloodPressure-1832x1374.jpg",
"width": 1832,
"height": 1374,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"apple_news_ca_landscape_9_7": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2019/06/RS5067_NurseChecksBloodPressure-1376x1032.jpg",
"width": 1376,
"height": 1032,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"apple_news_ca_landscape_5_5": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2019/06/RS5067_NurseChecksBloodPressure-1044x783.jpg",
"width": 1044,
"height": 783,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"apple_news_ca_landscape_4_7": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2019/06/RS5067_NurseChecksBloodPressure-632x474.jpg",
"width": 632,
"height": 474,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"apple_news_ca_landscape_4_0": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2019/06/RS5067_NurseChecksBloodPressure-536x402.jpg",
"width": 536,
"height": 402,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"apple_news_ca_portrait_12_9": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2019/06/RS5067_NurseChecksBloodPressure-1122x1496.jpg",
"width": 1122,
"height": 1496,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"apple_news_ca_portrait_9_7": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2019/06/RS5067_NurseChecksBloodPressure-840x1120.jpg",
"width": 840,
"height": 1120,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"apple_news_ca_portrait_5_5": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2019/06/RS5067_NurseChecksBloodPressure-687x916.jpg",
"width": 687,
"height": 916,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"apple_news_ca_portrait_4_7": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2019/06/RS5067_NurseChecksBloodPressure-414x552.jpg",
"width": 414,
"height": 552,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"apple_news_ca_portrait_4_0": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2019/06/RS5067_NurseChecksBloodPressure-354x472.jpg",
"width": 354,
"height": 472,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"apple_news_ca_square_12_9": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2019/06/RS5067_NurseChecksBloodPressure-1472x1472.jpg",
"width": 1472,
"height": 1472,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"apple_news_ca_square_9_7": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2019/06/RS5067_NurseChecksBloodPressure-1104x1104.jpg",
"width": 1104,
"height": 1104,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"apple_news_ca_square_5_5": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2019/06/RS5067_NurseChecksBloodPressure-912x912.jpg",
"width": 912,
"height": 912,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"apple_news_ca_square_4_7": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2019/06/RS5067_NurseChecksBloodPressure-550x550.jpg",
"width": 550,
"height": 550,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"apple_news_ca_square_4_0": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2019/06/RS5067_NurseChecksBloodPressure-470x470.jpg",
"width": 470,
"height": 470,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2019/06/RS5067_NurseChecksBloodPressure-e1747249186287.jpg",
"width": 2000,
"height": 1333
}
},
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_12007365": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_12007365",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "12007365",
"found": true
},
"title": "AIDS Healthcare Foundation converts old Leland Hotel into an affordable rental housing units.",
"publishDate": 1727818223,
"status": "inherit",
"parent": 12007359,
"modified": 1727818479,
"caption": "Supporters of Prop 34 take issue with the political spending and advocacy the AIDS Healthcare has had on the topic of rent control. President \nMichael Weinstein is pictured here at the opening of an affordable housing project in September 2023.",
"credit": "Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images",
"altTag": "A man wearing a blue suit standing at a podium surrounded by balloons. He has a serious expression. A crowd in front of him has their eyes on him.",
"description": "AHF President Michael Weinstein at the opening of a newly renovated old Leland Hotel building that is converted into an affordable rental housing units",
"imgSizes": {
"medium": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/10/AHF-800x533.jpg",
"width": 800,
"height": 533,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/10/AHF-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 680,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/10/AHF-160x107.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 107,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/10/AHF-1536x1024.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"height": 1024,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/10/AHF-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/10/AHF-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"height": 576,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/10/AHF.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"height": 1280
}
},
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_12007210": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_12007210",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "12007210",
"found": true
},
"title": "IMG_9984.JPG_qed",
"publishDate": 1727730283,
"status": "inherit",
"parent": 12007197,
"modified": 1727730355,
"caption": "Advocates have tried to pass pro-rent control propositions in 2018 and 2020, but so far have failed. ",
"credit": "Farida Jhabvala Romero/KQED",
"altTag": "Two young people hold signs saying \"honk if your rent is too high\" and \"we deserve housing\" at a rally.",
"description": null,
"imgSizes": {
"medium": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/10/IMG_9984.JPG_qed-800x533.jpg",
"width": 800,
"height": 533,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/10/IMG_9984.JPG_qed-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 680,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/10/IMG_9984.JPG_qed-160x107.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 107,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/10/IMG_9984.JPG_qed-1536x1024.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"height": 1024,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/10/IMG_9984.JPG_qed-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/10/IMG_9984.JPG_qed-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"height": 576,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/10/IMG_9984.JPG_qed-1920x1280.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"height": 1280,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/10/IMG_9984.JPG_qed.jpg",
"width": 2000,
"height": 1333
}
},
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_10504575": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_10504575",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "10504575",
"found": true
},
"parent": 10504502,
"imgSizes": {
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/04/RS2826_cashregister20120522-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 576
},
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/04/RS2826_cashregister20120522-400x267.jpg",
"width": 400,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 267
},
"fd-sm": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/04/RS2826_cashregister20120522-960x640.jpg",
"width": 960,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 640
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/04/RS2826_cashregister20120522-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 372
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/04/RS2826_cashregister20120522-e1430162029879.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"height": 1280
},
"large": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/04/RS2826_cashregister20120522-1440x960.jpg",
"width": 1440,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 960
},
"guest-author-96": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/04/RS2826_cashregister20120522-96x96.jpg",
"width": 96,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 96
},
"medium": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/04/RS2826_cashregister20120522-800x533.jpg",
"width": 800,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 533
},
"guest-author-64": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/04/RS2826_cashregister20120522-64x64.jpg",
"width": 64,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 64
},
"guest-author-32": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/04/RS2826_cashregister20120522-32x32.jpg",
"width": 32,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 32
},
"fd-med": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/04/RS2826_cashregister20120522-1180x787.jpg",
"width": 1180,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 787
},
"detail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/04/RS2826_cashregister20120522-75x75.jpg",
"width": 75,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 75
},
"guest-author-128": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2015/04/RS2826_cashregister20120522-128x128.jpg",
"width": 128,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 128
}
},
"publishDate": 1430161977,
"modified": 1430174103,
"caption": "Labor and business groups could battle over a 2016 statewide initiative to raise the minimum wage.",
"description": "BRIDGEHAMPTON, NY - JUNE 15: Euros, from a recent sale, lay next to American currency in the cash register of Loaves & Fishes Cookshop June 15, 2008 in Bridgehampton, in the Hamptons section of Long Island, New York. Like several Hampton retailers, they have begun accepting Euros as payment, catering to the large amounts of visiting Europeans and the weak dollar. This is the first year they are doing so. (Photo by Annie Tritt/Getty Images)",
"title": "RS2826_cashregister20120522",
"credit": "Annie Tritt/Getty Images",
"status": "inherit",
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_11971776": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_11971776",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "11971776",
"found": true
},
"parent": 11971774,
"imgSizes": {
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/01/072623_San-Quentin_SN_01-CM-copy-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 576
},
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/01/072623_San-Quentin_SN_01-CM-copy-160x107.jpg",
"width": 160,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 107
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/01/072623_San-Quentin_SN_01-CM-copy-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 372
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/01/072623_San-Quentin_SN_01-CM-copy.jpg",
"width": 2000,
"height": 1333
},
"large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/01/072623_San-Quentin_SN_01-CM-copy-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 680
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/01/072623_San-Quentin_SN_01-CM-copy-1536x1024.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 1024
},
"full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/01/072623_San-Quentin_SN_01-CM-copy-1920x1280.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 1280
},
"medium": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/01/072623_San-Quentin_SN_01-CM-copy-800x533.jpg",
"width": 800,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 533
}
},
"publishDate": 1704487404,
"modified": 1704487469,
"caption": "The entry gate at San Quentin State Prison on July 26, 2023. ",
"description": null,
"title": "072623_San-Quentin_SN_01-CM copy",
"credit": "Semantha Norris/CalMatters",
"status": "inherit",
"altTag": "A prison guard in uniform stands in front of a gate with a building in the background.",
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_12006472": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_12006472",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "12006472",
"found": true
},
"title": "IMAG2652_qed",
"publishDate": 1727304382,
"status": "inherit",
"parent": 12006445,
"modified": 1727304484,
"caption": null,
"credit": null,
"altTag": "An easel displaying an image of a planned senior housing development sits on the open construction site where it will be built.",
"description": null,
"imgSizes": {
"medium": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/IMAG2652_qed-800x450.jpg",
"width": 800,
"height": 450,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/IMAG2652_qed-1020x574.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 574,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/IMAG2652_qed-160x90.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 90,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/IMAG2652_qed-1536x864.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"height": 864,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/IMAG2652_qed-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/IMAG2652_qed-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"height": 576,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/IMAG2652_qed-1920x1080.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"height": 1080,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/IMAG2652_qed.jpg",
"width": 2000,
"height": 1125
}
},
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_11911586": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_11911586",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "11911586",
"found": true
},
"parent": 11911582,
"imgSizes": {
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2022/04/GettyImages-1237212007-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 576
},
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2022/04/GettyImages-1237212007-160x107.jpg",
"width": 160,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 107
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2022/04/GettyImages-1237212007-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 372
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2022/04/GettyImages-1237212007-scaled.jpg",
"width": 2560,
"height": 1705
},
"2048x2048": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2022/04/GettyImages-1237212007-2048x1364.jpg",
"width": 2048,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 1364
},
"large": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2022/04/GettyImages-1237212007-1020x679.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 679
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2022/04/GettyImages-1237212007-1536x1023.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 1023
},
"full-width": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2022/04/GettyImages-1237212007-1920x1279.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 1279
},
"medium": {
"file": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2022/04/GettyImages-1237212007-800x533.jpg",
"width": 800,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg",
"height": 533
}
},
"publishDate": 1650409292,
"modified": 1650479454,
"caption": "The confluence of the San Joaquin River (left) and Tuolumne River (right) along the Dos Rios Ranch in 2021 in Modesto. The 2,100-acre Dos Rios Ranch Preserve is California's largest floodplain restoration project, designed to give the rivers room to breathe and restore traditional riparian habitats.",
"description": "The confluence of the San Joaquin River (left) and Tuolumne River (right) along the Dos Rios Ranch in 2021 in Modesto, CA. The 2,100-acre Do Rios Ranch Preserve is California's largest floodplain restoration project, designed to give the rivers room to breath and restore traditional riparian habitats. ",
"title": "rain climate change",
"credit": "Brian van der Brug/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images",
"status": "inherit",
"altTag": "An aerial view of two rivers snaking from the left and the right through a landscape of brown scrub and dark green trees. Where the rivers meet, they move off to the left of the photo.",
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_12005996": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_12005996",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "12005996",
"found": true
},
"title": "012",
"publishDate": 1727132043,
"status": "inherit",
"parent": 12005960,
"modified": 1731091192,
"caption": "Rainbow flags line the plaza in front of the San Francisco City Hall on June 26, 2013, following the rulings brought down by the Supreme Court on same sex marriage.",
"credit": "Deborah Svoboda/KQED",
"altTag": "A row of flagpoles displaying rainbow flags stands in front of San Francisco City Hall.",
"description": null,
"imgSizes": {
"medium": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/012-800x533.jpg",
"width": 800,
"height": 533,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/012-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 680,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/012-160x107.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 107,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/012-1536x1024.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"height": 1024,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/012-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/012-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"height": 576,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/012-1920x1280.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"height": 1280,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/012.jpg",
"width": 2000,
"height": 1333
}
},
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_12005767": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_12005767",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "12005767",
"found": true
},
"title": "iStock_000062678534_Full_qed",
"publishDate": 1726874706,
"status": "inherit",
"parent": 12005762,
"modified": 1726874782,
"caption": null,
"credit": "iStock",
"altTag": "A view from the back of a classroom full of children. One little girl raises her hand as a teacher standing at the head of the class points towards her.",
"description": null,
"imgSizes": {
"medium": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/iStock_000062678534_Full_qed-800x533.jpg",
"width": 800,
"height": 533,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/iStock_000062678534_Full_qed-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 680,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/iStock_000062678534_Full_qed-160x107.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 107,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/iStock_000062678534_Full_qed-1536x1024.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"height": 1024,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/iStock_000062678534_Full_qed-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/iStock_000062678534_Full_qed-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"height": 576,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/iStock_000062678534_Full_qed-1920x1280.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"height": 1280,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/iStock_000062678534_Full_qed.jpg",
"width": 2000,
"height": 1333
}
},
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
},
"news_12005328": {
"type": "attachments",
"id": "news_12005328",
"meta": {
"index": "attachments_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "12005328",
"found": true
},
"title": "240918-HUNTERSPOINTCRANE-16-BL-KQED",
"publishDate": 1726694288,
"status": "inherit",
"parent": 0,
"modified": 1726694313,
"caption": "James Bryant sits at Hillpoint Park overlooking the Hunters Point gantry crane at the naval shipyard in San Francisco on Sept. 18, 2024.",
"credit": "Beth LaBerge/KQED",
"altTag": null,
"description": null,
"imgSizes": {
"medium": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/240918-HUNTERSPOINTCRANE-16-BL-KQED-800x533.jpg",
"width": 800,
"height": 533,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"large": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/240918-HUNTERSPOINTCRANE-16-BL-KQED-1020x680.jpg",
"width": 1020,
"height": 680,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/240918-HUNTERSPOINTCRANE-16-BL-KQED-160x107.jpg",
"width": 160,
"height": 107,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"1536x1536": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/240918-HUNTERSPOINTCRANE-16-BL-KQED-1536x1024.jpg",
"width": 1536,
"height": 1024,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"post-thumbnail": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/240918-HUNTERSPOINTCRANE-16-BL-KQED-672x372.jpg",
"width": 672,
"height": 372,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"twentyfourteen-full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/240918-HUNTERSPOINTCRANE-16-BL-KQED-1038x576.jpg",
"width": 1038,
"height": 576,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"full-width": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/240918-HUNTERSPOINTCRANE-16-BL-KQED-1920x1280.jpg",
"width": 1920,
"height": 1280,
"mimeType": "image/jpeg"
},
"kqedFullSize": {
"file": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/240918-HUNTERSPOINTCRANE-16-BL-KQED.jpg",
"width": 2000,
"height": 1333
}
},
"isLoading": false,
"fetchFailed": false
}
},
"audioPlayerReducer": {
"postId": "stream_live",
"isPaused": true,
"isPlaying": false,
"pfsActive": false,
"pledgeModalIsOpen": true,
"playerDrawerIsOpen": false,
"liveAudioPlayStartedAt": 0,
"liveAudioPlayContext": ""
},
"authorsReducer": {
"ohubertallen": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "102",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "102",
"found": true
},
"name": "Olivia Allen-Price",
"firstName": "Olivia",
"lastName": "Allen-Price",
"slug": "ohubertallen",
"email": "oallenprice@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [
"news"
],
"title": "Senior Editor",
"bio": "Olivia Allen-Price is senior editor and host of the award-winning Bay Curious podcast. Prior to joining KQED in 2013, Olivia worked at The Baltimore Sun and The Virginian-Pilot in Norfolk, Va. She holds degrees in journalism and political science from Elon University. Her work has earned awards from the Society of Professional Journalists, the Hearst Foundation and Hearken. She loves to talk about running and curly hair.\r\n\r\nFollow: \u003ca href=\"https://twitter.com/oallenprice\">@oallenprice\u003c/a>\r\nEmail: \u003ca href=\"mailto:oallenprice@kqed.org\">oallenprice@kqed.org\u003c/a>",
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/07f7803c1f6be56f3be58ef276dfa64dce898502e0554408ef4858451a8294f7?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": "oallenprice",
"bluesky": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "arts",
"roles": [
"subscriber"
]
},
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"administrator"
]
},
{
"site": "pop",
"roles": [
"administrator"
]
},
{
"site": "bayareabites",
"roles": [
"contributor"
]
},
{
"site": "stateofhealth",
"roles": [
"administrator"
]
},
{
"site": "science",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Olivia Allen-Price | KQED",
"description": "Senior Editor",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/07f7803c1f6be56f3be58ef276dfa64dce898502e0554408ef4858451a8294f7?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/07f7803c1f6be56f3be58ef276dfa64dce898502e0554408ef4858451a8294f7?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/ohubertallen"
},
"scottshafer": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "255",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "255",
"found": true
},
"name": "Scott Shafer",
"firstName": "Scott",
"lastName": "Shafer",
"slug": "scottshafer",
"email": "sshafer@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [
"news"
],
"title": "KQED Contributor",
"bio": "Scott Shafer is a senior editor with the KQED Politics and Government desk. He is co-host of Political Breakdown, the award-winning radio show and podcast with a personal take on the world of politics. Scott came to KQED in 1998 to host the statewide\u003cem> California Report\u003c/em>. Prior to that he had extended stints in politics and government\u003cem>.\u003c/em> He uses that inside experience at KQED in his, reporting, hosting and analysis for the politics desk. Scott collaborated \u003cem>Political Breakdown a\u003c/em>nd on \u003cem>The Political Mind of Jerry Brown, \u003c/em>an eight-part series about the life and extraordinary political career of the former governor. For fun, he plays water polo with the San Francisco Tsunami.",
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a62ebae45b79d7aed1a39a0e3bf68104?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": "scottshafer",
"bluesky": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "stateofhealth",
"roles": [
"author"
]
},
{
"site": "science",
"roles": [
"author"
]
},
{
"site": "forum",
"roles": [
"subscriber"
]
},
{
"site": "liveblog",
"roles": [
"author"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Scott Shafer | KQED",
"description": "KQED Contributor",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a62ebae45b79d7aed1a39a0e3bf68104?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a62ebae45b79d7aed1a39a0e3bf68104?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/scottshafer"
},
"mlagos": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "3239",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "3239",
"found": true
},
"name": "Marisa Lagos",
"firstName": "Marisa",
"lastName": "Lagos",
"slug": "mlagos",
"email": "mlagos@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [
"news"
],
"title": "KQED Contributor",
"bio": "Marisa Lagos is a correspondent for KQED’s California Politics and Government Desk and co-hosts the award-winning show and podcast, Political Breakdown. At KQED, Lagos also conducts reporting, analysis and investigations into state, local and national politics for radio, TV, online and onstage. In 2022, she and co-host, Scott Shafer, moderated the only gubernatorial debate in California. In 2020, the \u003ci>Washington Post\u003c/i> named her one of the top political journalists in California; she was nominated for a Peabody and won several other awards for her work investigating the 2017 California wildfires. She has worked at the \u003ci>San Francisco Chronicle\u003c/i>, \u003ci>San Francisco Examiner\u003c/i> and \u003ci>Los Angeles Times\u003c/i>. A UC Santa Barbara graduate, she lives in San Francisco with her two sons and husband.",
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a261a0d3696fc066871ef96b85b5e7d2?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": "@mlagos",
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "arts",
"roles": [
"author"
]
},
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "science",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "forum",
"roles": [
"author"
]
},
{
"site": "liveblog",
"roles": [
"author"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Marisa Lagos | KQED",
"description": "KQED Contributor",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a261a0d3696fc066871ef96b85b5e7d2?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/a261a0d3696fc066871ef96b85b5e7d2?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/mlagos"
},
"carlysevern": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "3243",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "3243",
"found": true
},
"name": "Carly Severn",
"firstName": "Carly",
"lastName": "Severn",
"slug": "carlysevern",
"email": "csevern@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [
"news"
],
"title": "Senior Editor, Audience News ",
"bio": "Carly is KQED's Senior Editor of Audience News on the Digital News team, and has reported for the California Report Magazine, Bay Curious and KQED Arts. She's formerly the host of \u003ca href=\"http://ww2.kqed.org/pop/category/the-cooler/\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">The Cooler\u003c/a> podcast.",
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/2d8d6765f186e64c798cf7f0c8088a41?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": "teacupinthebay",
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "arts",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"administrator"
]
},
{
"site": "pop",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "futureofyou",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "about",
"roles": [
"administrator"
]
},
{
"site": "mindshift",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "bayareabites",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "stateofhealth",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "science",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "food",
"roles": [
"contributor"
]
},
{
"site": "forum",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "perspectives",
"roles": [
"administrator"
]
},
{
"site": "liveblog",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Carly Severn | KQED",
"description": "Senior Editor, Audience News ",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/2d8d6765f186e64c798cf7f0c8088a41?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/2d8d6765f186e64c798cf7f0c8088a41?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/carlysevern"
},
"afont": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "8637",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "8637",
"found": true
},
"name": "Amanda Font",
"firstName": "Amanda",
"lastName": "Font",
"slug": "afont",
"email": "afont@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [],
"title": "KQED Contributor",
"bio": "Amanda Font is a producer on \u003cem>The Latest\u003c/em> podcast, and the host and co-producer of the series \u003cem>Audible Cosmos\u003c/em>. She has previously worked as a producer and reporter on the \u003cem>Bay Curious\u003c/em> podcast, and director of \u003cem>The California Report Magazine\u003c/em>. She grew up in the deserts of Southern California and moved north for the trees. Amanda earned a B.A. from the BECA program at San Francisco State, where she worked in the university's radio station. Amanda Font is represented by SAG-AFTRA.",
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/d9e81cf0117d5849b9cfb7ab4b1422f1?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"add_users",
"create_users"
]
},
{
"site": "science",
"roles": []
},
{
"site": "forum",
"roles": [
"administrator"
]
},
{
"site": "perspectives",
"roles": [
"administrator"
]
},
{
"site": "radio",
"roles": [
"administrator"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Amanda Font | KQED",
"description": "KQED Contributor",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/d9e81cf0117d5849b9cfb7ab4b1422f1?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/d9e81cf0117d5849b9cfb7ab4b1422f1?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/afont"
},
"ecruzguevarra": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "8654",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "8654",
"found": true
},
"name": "Ericka Cruz Guevarra",
"firstName": "Ericka",
"lastName": "Cruz Guevarra",
"slug": "ecruzguevarra",
"email": "ecruzguevarra@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": true,
"staff_mastheads": [
"news"
],
"title": "Producer, The Bay Podcast",
"bio": "Ericka Cruz Guevarra is host of \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/podcasts/thebay\">\u003cem>The Bay\u003c/em>\u003c/a> podcast at KQED. Before host, she was the show’s producer. Her work in that capacity includes a three-part reported series on policing in Vallejo, which won a 2020 excellence in journalism award from the Society of Professional Journalists. Ericka has worked as a breaking news reporter at Oregon Public Broadcasting, helped produce the Code Switch podcast, and was KQED’s inaugural Raul Ramirez Diversity Fund intern. She’s also an alumna of NPR’s Next Generation Radio program. Send her an email if you have strong feelings about whether Fairfield and Suisun City are the Bay. Ericka is represented by SAG-AFTRA.",
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/accefc1de4bafc7e234b69bcb9b6f6536c130fd84709bc3069ef11a78787e1bb?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": "NotoriousECG",
"bluesky": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "arts",
"roles": [
"subscriber"
]
},
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"editor",
"manage_categories"
]
},
{
"site": "futureofyou",
"roles": [
"subscriber"
]
},
{
"site": "stateofhealth",
"roles": [
"subscriber"
]
},
{
"site": "science",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "forum",
"roles": [
"subscriber"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Ericka Cruz Guevarra | KQED",
"description": "Producer, The Bay Podcast",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/accefc1de4bafc7e234b69bcb9b6f6536c130fd84709bc3069ef11a78787e1bb?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/accefc1de4bafc7e234b69bcb9b6f6536c130fd84709bc3069ef11a78787e1bb?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/ecruzguevarra"
},
"fjhabvala": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "8659",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "8659",
"found": true
},
"name": "Farida Jhabvala Romero",
"firstName": "Farida",
"lastName": "Jhabvala Romero",
"slug": "fjhabvala",
"email": "fjhabvala@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": true,
"staff_mastheads": [
"news"
],
"title": "KQED Contributor",
"bio": "Farida Jhabvala Romero is a Labor Correspondent for KQED. She previously covered immigration. Farida was \u003ca href=\"https://www.ccnma.org/2022-most-influential-latina-journalists\">named\u003c/a> one of the 10 Most Influential Latina Journalists in California in 2022 by the California Chicano News Media Association. Her work has won awards from the Society of Professional Journalists (Northern California), as well as a national and regional Edward M. Murrow Award for the collaborative reporting projects “Dangerous Air” and “Graying California.” Before joining KQED, Farida worked as a producer at Radio Bilingüe, a national public radio network. Farida earned her master’s degree in journalism from Stanford University.",
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/f9f022d4e2609741874222a1e9d41f48fea74011aa7c615eef91d9a50c944ebe?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": "FaridaJhabvala",
"bluesky": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": "https://www.linkedin.com/in/faridajhabvala/",
"sites": [
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "stateofhealth",
"roles": [
"author"
]
},
{
"site": "liveblog",
"roles": [
"author"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Farida Jhabvala Romero | KQED",
"description": "KQED Contributor",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/f9f022d4e2609741874222a1e9d41f48fea74011aa7c615eef91d9a50c944ebe?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/f9f022d4e2609741874222a1e9d41f48fea74011aa7c615eef91d9a50c944ebe?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/fjhabvala"
},
"lesleymcclurg": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "11229",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "11229",
"found": true
},
"name": "Lesley McClurg",
"firstName": "Lesley",
"lastName": "McClurg",
"slug": "lesleymcclurg",
"email": "lmcclurg@KQED.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [
"news",
"science"
],
"title": "KQED Health Correspondent",
"bio": "Lesley McClurg is a health correspondent and fill-in host whose work is regularly rebroadcast on NPR and PBS programs. She’s earned multiple regional Emmy awards, a national and a regional Edward R. Murrow award, and was named Best Beat Reporter by the Association of Health Care Journalists. The Society of Professional Journalists has recognized her work several times, and the Society of Environmental Journalists spotlighted her coverage of California’s historic drought.\r\n\r\nBefore joining KQED in 2016, Lesley covered food and sustainability for Capital Public Radio, environmental issues for Colorado Public Radio, and reported for KUOW and KCTS 9 in Seattle. Away from the newsroom, she loves skiing with her daughter, mountain biking with her partner, and playing with Ollie, the family’s goldendoodle. On deadline, she runs almost entirely on chocolate chips.\r\n\r\n ",
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/bab49e972ea10c774fe0f5e29dba1722b158f7c0d58a360923d1389d380b2978?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": "lesleywmcclurg",
"bluesky": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "arts",
"roles": [
"author"
]
},
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "futureofyou",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "stateofhealth",
"roles": [
"author"
]
},
{
"site": "science",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "quest",
"roles": [
"subscriber"
]
},
{
"site": "forum",
"roles": [
"administrator"
]
},
{
"site": "liveblog",
"roles": [
"author"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Lesley McClurg | KQED",
"description": "KQED Health Correspondent",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/bab49e972ea10c774fe0f5e29dba1722b158f7c0d58a360923d1389d380b2978?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/bab49e972ea10c774fe0f5e29dba1722b158f7c0d58a360923d1389d380b2978?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/lesleymcclurg"
},
"vrancano": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "11276",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "11276",
"found": true
},
"name": "Vanessa Rancaño",
"firstName": "Vanessa",
"lastName": "Rancaño",
"slug": "vrancano",
"email": "vrancano@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [
"news"
],
"title": "Reporter",
"bio": "Vanessa Rancaño is a features reporter for KQED. She’s also covered homelessness and education for the station and reported from the Central Valley. Her work has aired across public radio, from flagship national news shows to longform narrative podcasts. Before taking up a mic, she worked as a freelance print journalist. She’s been recognized with a number of national and regional awards. Vanessa grew up in California's Central Valley. She's a former NPR Kroc Fellow, and a graduate of the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism.",
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/b3a383dfb0e7ee1c17568f2cf067904ab654d6e3de9743fc661f3c788ade1bed?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": "vanessarancano",
"bluesky": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "arts",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "liveblog",
"roles": [
"contributor"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Vanessa Rancaño | KQED",
"description": "Reporter",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/b3a383dfb0e7ee1c17568f2cf067904ab654d6e3de9743fc661f3c788ade1bed?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/b3a383dfb0e7ee1c17568f2cf067904ab654d6e3de9743fc661f3c788ade1bed?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/vrancano"
},
"ogpenn": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "11491",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "11491",
"found": true
},
"name": "Pendarvis Harshaw",
"firstName": "Pendarvis",
"lastName": "Harshaw",
"slug": "ogpenn",
"email": "ogpenn@gmail.com",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [
"arts"
],
"title": "Community Engagement Reporter",
"bio": "Pendarvis Harshaw is an educator, host and writer with KQED Arts.",
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/972b77ee8e3f346ae2b00622661187fbfabd059b5693bbdc1475ea7a722fd4cd?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": null,
"bluesky": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": "ogpenn",
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "arts",
"roles": [
"administrator"
]
},
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "bayareabites",
"roles": [
"author"
]
},
{
"site": "hiphop",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Pendarvis Harshaw | KQED",
"description": "Community Engagement Reporter",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/972b77ee8e3f346ae2b00622661187fbfabd059b5693bbdc1475ea7a722fd4cd?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/972b77ee8e3f346ae2b00622661187fbfabd059b5693bbdc1475ea7a722fd4cd?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/ogpenn"
},
"amontecillo": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "11649",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "11649",
"found": true
},
"name": "Alan Montecillo",
"firstName": "Alan",
"lastName": "Montecillo",
"slug": "amontecillo",
"email": "amontecillo@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [
"news"
],
"title": "KQED Contributor",
"bio": "Alan Montecillo is the senior editor of \u003cem>\u003ca href=\"http://kqed.org/thebay\">The Bay\u003c/a>, \u003c/em> KQED's local news podcast. Before moving to the Bay Area, he worked as a senior talk show producer for WILL in Champaign-Urbana, Illinois and at Oregon Public Broadcasting in Portland, Oregon. He has won journalism awards from the Society of Professional Journalists Northern California, the Public Media Journalists Association, The Signal Awards, and has also received a regional Edward R. Murrow award. Alan is a Filipino American from Hong Kong and a graduate of Reed College.",
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/268f53a2066899ea9efdd8a5900218b17c822d9862cbc9326cccec53ef41d349?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": "alanmontecillo",
"bluesky": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"editor",
"manage_categories"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Alan Montecillo | KQED",
"description": "KQED Contributor",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/268f53a2066899ea9efdd8a5900218b17c822d9862cbc9326cccec53ef41d349?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/268f53a2066899ea9efdd8a5900218b17c822d9862cbc9326cccec53ef41d349?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/amontecillo"
},
"abandlamudi": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "11672",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "11672",
"found": true
},
"name": "Adhiti Bandlamudi",
"firstName": "Adhiti",
"lastName": "Bandlamudi",
"slug": "abandlamudi",
"email": "abandlamudi@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [
"news"
],
"title": "KQED Housing Reporter",
"bio": "Adhiti Bandlamudi reports for KQED's Housing desk. She focuses on how housing gets built across the Bay Area. Before joining KQED in 2020, she reported for WUNC in Durham, North Carolina, WABE in Atlanta, Georgia and Capital Public Radio in Sacramento. In 2017, she was awarded a Kroc Fellowship at NPR where she reported on everything from sprinkles to the Golden State Killer's arrest. When she's not reporting, she's baking new recipes in her kitchen or watching movies with friends and family. She's originally from Georgia and has strong opinions about Great British Bake Off.",
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/868129c8b257bb99a3500e2c86a65400?s=600&d=mm&r=g",
"twitter": "oddity_adhiti",
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "arts",
"roles": [
"author"
]
},
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "liveblog",
"roles": [
"author"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Adhiti Bandlamudi | KQED",
"description": "KQED Housing Reporter",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/868129c8b257bb99a3500e2c86a65400?s=600&d=mm&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/868129c8b257bb99a3500e2c86a65400?s=600&d=mm&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/abandlamudi"
},
"eromero": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "11746",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "11746",
"found": true
},
"name": "Ezra David Romero",
"firstName": "Ezra David",
"lastName": "Romero",
"slug": "eromero",
"email": "eromero@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": true,
"staff_mastheads": [
"news",
"science"
],
"title": "Climate Reporter",
"bio": "Ezra David Romero is a climate reporter for KQED News. He covers the absence and excess of water in the Bay Area — think sea level rise, flooding and drought. For nearly a decade he’s covered how warming temperatures are altering the lives of Californians. He’s reported on farmers worried their pistachio trees aren’t getting enough sleep, families desperate for water, scientists studying dying giant sequoias, and alongside firefighters containing wildfires. His work has appeared on local stations across California and nationally on public radio shows like Morning Edition, Here and Now, All Things Considered and Science Friday. ",
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/c76404d287c10ed40224227551ac36e24352c7306f106632caf6fead76f8801f?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": "ezraromero",
"bluesky": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "arts",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "science",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "liveblog",
"roles": [
"author"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Ezra David Romero | KQED",
"description": "Climate Reporter",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/c76404d287c10ed40224227551ac36e24352c7306f106632caf6fead76f8801f?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/c76404d287c10ed40224227551ac36e24352c7306f106632caf6fead76f8801f?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/eromero"
},
"cbeale": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "11749",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "11749",
"found": true
},
"name": "Christopher Beale",
"firstName": "Christopher",
"lastName": "Beale",
"slug": "cbeale",
"email": "cbeale@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": true,
"staff_mastheads": [
"news"
],
"title": "Engineer/Producer/Reporter",
"bio": "\u003ca href=\"https://linktr.ee/realchrisjbeale\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Christopher J. Beale\u003c/a> is an award winning journalist, audio engineer, and media host living in San Francisco. \r\n\r\nChristopher works primarily as an audio engineer at KQED and serves as the sound designer for both the Bay Curious and Rightnowish podcasts. He is the host and producer of the LGBTQIA podcast and radio segment \u003ca href=\"https://stereotypespodcast.org\">Stereotypes\u003c/a>.",
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/dc485bf84788eb7e7414eb638e72407e?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": "realchrisjbeale",
"facebook": null,
"instagram": "http://instagram.com/realchrisjbeale",
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "arts",
"roles": [
"contributor"
]
},
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
},
{
"site": "forum",
"roles": [
"editor"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Christopher Beale | KQED",
"description": "Engineer/Producer/Reporter",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/dc485bf84788eb7e7414eb638e72407e?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/dc485bf84788eb7e7414eb638e72407e?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/cbeale"
},
"daisynguyen": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "11829",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "11829",
"found": true
},
"name": "Daisy Nguyen",
"firstName": "Daisy",
"lastName": "Nguyen",
"slug": "daisynguyen",
"email": "daisynguyen@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": true,
"staff_mastheads": [
"news"
],
"title": "KQED Contributor",
"bio": "I have covered early childhood education and child care for KQED since 2022. I focus on policies aimed at increasing access to early care and education and how they shape individual lives. I've been a journalist for more than two decades, with most of that time devoted to covering breaking news throughout California for The Associated Press. I grew up in San Francisco and studied at UC Davis and Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism. I live in Oakland with my husband and two kids.",
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/2da2127c27f7143b53ebd419800fd55f?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": "https://www.linkedin.com/in/daisynguyen/",
"sites": [
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"author"
]
},
{
"site": "liveblog",
"roles": [
"author"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Daisy Nguyen | KQED",
"description": "KQED Contributor",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/2da2127c27f7143b53ebd419800fd55f?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/2da2127c27f7143b53ebd419800fd55f?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/daisynguyen"
},
"jessicakariisa": {
"type": "authors",
"id": "11831",
"meta": {
"index": "authors_1716337520",
"id": "11831",
"found": true
},
"name": "Jessica Kariisa",
"firstName": "Jessica",
"lastName": "Kariisa",
"slug": "jessicakariisa",
"email": "jkariisa@kqed.org",
"display_author_email": false,
"staff_mastheads": [],
"title": "Producer, The Bay",
"bio": "Jessica Kariisa is the producer of The Bay. She first joined KQED as an intern for The California Report Magazine, after which she became an on-call producer. She reported a Bay Curious episode on the use of rap lyrics in criminal trials which won a Society of Professional Journalists award in 2023 for Excellence in Features Journalism and the 2023 Signal Award for Best Conversation Starter. She’s worked on podcasts for Snap Judgment and American Public Media. Before embarking on her audio career, she was a music journalist.\r\n\r\nJessica Kariisa is represented by SAG-AFTRA.",
"avatar": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/522e97b28ac0b3d411621c0fde8f3419c7b71ea2c5c262c57c4bb600963f328c?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twitter": null,
"bluesky": null,
"facebook": null,
"instagram": null,
"linkedin": null,
"sites": [
{
"site": "arts",
"roles": [
"author"
]
},
{
"site": "news",
"roles": [
"editor",
"manage_categories"
]
}
],
"headData": {
"title": "Jessica Kariisa | KQED",
"description": "Producer, The Bay",
"ogImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/522e97b28ac0b3d411621c0fde8f3419c7b71ea2c5c262c57c4bb600963f328c?s=600&d=blank&r=g",
"twImgSrc": "https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/522e97b28ac0b3d411621c0fde8f3419c7b71ea2c5c262c57c4bb600963f328c?s=600&d=blank&r=g"
},
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/author/jessicakariisa"
}
},
"pagesReducer": {
"news_program_bay-curious": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_33523",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "33523",
"score": 15.08906
},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Bay Curious",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "program",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Bay Curious Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 33540,
"slug": "bay-curious",
"isLoading": false,
"title": "Bay Curious",
"pageMeta": {
"site": "news",
"WpPageTemplate": "page-topic-editorial",
"currentPage": 9
},
"blocks": [
{
"blockName": "kqed/post-list",
"attrs": {
"layout": "cardArticle2",
"query": "posts/news?program=bay-curious",
"seeMore": false,
"paginated": true,
"page": 9
}
},
{
"blockName": "kqed/ad"
}
]
}
},
"pfsSessionReducer": {},
"postsReducer": {
"stream_live": {
"type": "live",
"id": "stream_live",
"audioUrl": "https://streams.kqed.org/kqedradio",
"title": "Live Stream",
"excerpt": "Live Stream information currently unavailable.",
"link": "/radio",
"featImg": "",
"label": {
"name": "KQED Live",
"link": "/"
}
},
"stream_kqedNewscast": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "stream_kqedNewscast",
"audioUrl": "https://www.kqed.org/.stream/anon/radio/RDnews/newscast.mp3?_=1",
"title": "KQED Newscast",
"featImg": "",
"label": {
"name": "88.5 FM",
"link": "/"
}
},
"news_11700225": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_11700225",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "11700225",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1728554402000
]
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "the-ghost-of-a-legend-how-a-san-francisco-civil-rights-icon-was-made-a-monster",
"title": "Ghost of a Legend: How a San Francisco Civil Rights Icon Was Made a Monster",
"publishDate": 1728554402,
"format": "image",
"headTitle": "Ghost of a Legend: How a San Francisco Civil Rights Icon Was Made a Monster | KQED",
"labelTerm": {},
"content": "\u003cp>\u003cem>This story first published online and aired on “Bay Curious” on Oct 25, 2018.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"#episode-transcript\">\u003ci>View the full episode transcript.\u003c/i>\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“What are the most haunted places in San Francisco?”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>That’s the question that \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/series/baycurious\">Bay Curious\u003c/a> listener Kelsey Poole asked us a few weeks ago. Which is how I found myself standing with her on the steep streets of San Francisco’s Pacific Heights neighborhood as the sun went down — on the San Francisco Ghost Hunt.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_11699617\" class=\"wp-caption alignnone\" style=\"max-width: 1920px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-11699617\" src=\"https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33251_composite_2-qut.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"1920\" height=\"1271\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33251_composite_2-qut.jpg 1920w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33251_composite_2-qut-160x106.jpg 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33251_composite_2-qut-800x530.jpg 800w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33251_composite_2-qut-1020x675.jpg 1020w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33251_composite_2-qut-1200x794.jpg 1200w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33251_composite_2-qut-1180x781.jpg 1180w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33251_composite_2-qut-960x636.jpg 960w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33251_composite_2-qut-240x159.jpg 240w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33251_composite_2-qut-375x248.jpg 375w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33251_composite_2-qut-520x344.jpg 520w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 1920px) 100vw, 1920px\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Christian Cagigal leading the San Francisco Ghost Hunt through Pacific Heights \u003ccite>(Anne Wernikoff/KQED)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>A Tennessee transplant to the Bay Area, Poole is actually already a fan of going on ghost tours when she travels, as a way to learn the history of a city she’s visiting — plus “you get some spooky stories that keep you up at night,” she says. But she’d never done one in San Francisco. \u003cem>(Want to go on a ghost hunt with the Bay Curious team on Nov. 1? \u003ca href=\"https://www.eventbrite.com/e/bay-curious-sf-ghost-hunt-tour-and-meetup-tickets-51352552868\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Details and tickets here\u003c/a>!)\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Ghost Hunt tour is led by performer Christian Cagigal, who leads us through these streets in full 19th century dress, top hat and clacking cane. From tales of ghostly apparitions to aristocrats meeting grisly ends, every corner brings another ghoulish story from San Francisco history.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_11700249\" class=\"wp-caption alignnone\" style=\"max-width: 1920px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-11700249\" src=\"https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33238_10062018_AW_GhostStory_11-qut.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"1920\" height=\"1401\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33238_10062018_AW_GhostStory_11-qut.jpg 1920w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33238_10062018_AW_GhostStory_11-qut-160x117.jpg 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33238_10062018_AW_GhostStory_11-qut-800x584.jpg 800w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33238_10062018_AW_GhostStory_11-qut-1020x744.jpg 1020w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33238_10062018_AW_GhostStory_11-qut-1200x876.jpg 1200w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33238_10062018_AW_GhostStory_11-qut-1180x861.jpg 1180w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33238_10062018_AW_GhostStory_11-qut-960x701.jpg 960w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33238_10062018_AW_GhostStory_11-qut-240x175.jpg 240w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33238_10062018_AW_GhostStory_11-qut-375x274.jpg 375w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33238_10062018_AW_GhostStory_11-qut-520x379.jpg 520w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 1920px) 100vw, 1920px\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Bay Curious listener Kelsey Poole \u003ccite>(Anne Wernikoff / KQED)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>There’s one stop on this tour we discovered, however, that tells a real-life story bigger than any Halloween legend: at the corner of Octavia and Bush streets, the place known as Mary Ellen Pleasant Memorial Park.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The ghost of Mary Ellen Pleasant — a 19th century entrepreneur who once lived in a now-vanished mansion nearby, and actually planted the eucalyptus trees above our heads — is said to still haunt this unlit corner. Her spirit is said to summon chills, frighten dogs and even throw eucalyptus nuts at passers-by. (For the record, we escaped unscathed that night.)\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_11700253\" class=\"wp-caption alignnone\" style=\"max-width: 1920px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"wp-image-11700253 size-full\" src=\"https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/10062018_AW_GhostStory_100-e1540151423725.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"1920\" height=\"1343\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Christian Cagigal holds up a photograph of 19th century San Francisco on his Ghost Hunt tour, at Mary Ellen Memorial Park \u003ccite>(Anne Wernikoff)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>Pleasant, Cagigal tells us, was born into slavery in the South and came to San Francisco in the mid-1800s — defying white society’s constraints to not only amass great wealth, but to use her power to advance the cause of civil rights in the city.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_11700602\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 291px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"wp-image-11700602 size-full\" src=\"https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/AAD-2997.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"291\" height=\"400\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/AAD-2997.jpg 291w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/AAD-2997-160x220.jpg 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/AAD-2997-240x330.jpg 240w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 291px) 100vw, 291px\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Photograph of Mary Ellen Pleasant, age 87. \u003ccite>(Courtesy San Francisco Public Library History Center)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>Yet she was \u003cem>also\u003c/em> described as a witch, a “voodoo queen” and even a murderer. What’s real here?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Her life is so enshrouded in mystery because she was her own spin doctor,” says Sacramento writer and performer Susheel Bibbs, who has studied Pleasant’s story for decades. Pleasant wrote three autobiographies — but each one contradicts the other on basic facts, such as the year of her birth.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>We do know that she was born in Georgia, and was raised in Nantucket, Massachusetts, “in indenture,” says Bibbs. There on the East Coast, the young Pleasant became a crucial figure in the civil rights fight, secretly teaming up with abolitionists and rescuing escaped slaves on the Underground Railroad.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Her double life actually including presenting as a white woman when she could.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“She was very used to being covert,” Bibbs says.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The death of her first husband left her rich, and she arrived in San Francisco in 1852 — still passing as white. She invested this sizable fortune in property by establishing boardinghouses and laundries: services that a town full of prospectors relied on.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_11700259\" class=\"wp-caption alignnone\" style=\"max-width: 1920px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-11700259\" src=\"https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33344_DSC_1169-qut.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"1920\" height=\"1280\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33344_DSC_1169-qut.jpg 1920w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33344_DSC_1169-qut-160x107.jpg 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33344_DSC_1169-qut-800x533.jpg 800w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33344_DSC_1169-qut-1020x680.jpg 1020w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33344_DSC_1169-qut-1200x800.jpg 1200w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33344_DSC_1169-qut-1180x787.jpg 1180w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33344_DSC_1169-qut-960x640.jpg 960w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33344_DSC_1169-qut-240x160.jpg 240w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33344_DSC_1169-qut-375x250.jpg 375w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33344_DSC_1169-qut-520x347.jpg 520w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 1920px) 100vw, 1920px\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Sacramento writer and performer Susheel Bibbs \u003ccite>(Carly Severn / KQED)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>In these spaces, she learned the private secrets of powerful men, and used them as another kind of currency, to rise in society. While wealthy white people of San Francisco knew her as the white boardinghouse proprietress, the city’s growing black community knew her \u003cem>real\u003c/em> identity.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>To them, she was known as “The Black City Hall,” who brought the Underground Railroad to the West and helped black people find employment. And almost a century before Rosa Parks, Pleasant challenged San Francisco’s segregated transit system in court, winning black people the right to ride the streetcars.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“My cause,” Pleasant wrote in one of her memoirs, “was the cause of freedom and equality for myself and for my people. And I’d rather be a corpse than a coward.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_11700604\" class=\"wp-caption alignnone\" style=\"max-width: 1007px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-11700604\" src=\"https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/Chron-3.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"1007\" height=\"565\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/Chron-3.png 1007w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/Chron-3-160x90.png 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/Chron-3-800x449.png 800w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/Chron-3-960x539.png 960w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/Chron-3-240x135.png 240w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/Chron-3-375x210.png 375w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/Chron-3-520x292.png 520w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 1007px) 100vw, 1007px\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Mary Ellen Pleasant pictured in the San Francisco Chronicle in 1899 \u003ccite>(Courtesy San Francisco Chronicle)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>After the Civil War, over a decade after she arrived in the city, Pleasant finally checked the box that said “Black” on the census of 1865. While this undoubtedly caused a stir, Pleasant continued to move in wealthy white circles.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But by the 1880s, the wild, mud-caked San Francisco that Mary Ellen Pleasant the capitalist had carved her way into had itself transformed into a “very much more overtly racist” city, says Bibbs.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Across the nation, emancipated slaves became a convenient scapegoat for the economy’s woes — and as a wealthy, older black woman, Pleasant now inspired suspicion, even fear. The press coined a racist nickname: “Mammy Pleasant.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Whispers grew that she had some otherworldly hold over the wealthy white people she was close to — especially when Pleasant became entangled in the scandalous 1883 trial of Nevada Sen. William Sharon, accused of seducing and then abandoning a young woman.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“It was like the O.J. Simpson trial” in notoriety, says Bibbs.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_11700255\" class=\"wp-caption alignnone\" style=\"max-width: 1920px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"wp-image-11700255 size-full\" src=\"https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/10062018_AW_GhostStory_102-e1540151451936.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"1920\" height=\"1280\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">The crowd listens to Christian Cagigal telling the story of Mary Ellen Pleasant on the San Francisco Ghost Hunt tour \u003ccite>(Anne Wernikoff / KQED)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>Lawyers for Sharon claimed that Pleasant, as the young woman’s friend, had used dark forces to manipulate her into entrapping the senator. And rather than rejecting the rumors, she defied them — encouraged them. She carried a voodoo doll in court, claiming she would use it to bring about his death. Wild thing is, he soon \u003cem>did\u003c/em> die during the trial.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Pleasant’s status as a “voodoo queen” grew, cementing her reputation as a quasi-mystical figure in San Francisco. To the public, voodoo meant blood magic and malevolent intent.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>To Mary Ellen Pleasant, however, the real voodoo — vodoun, or vodun — was actually her religion from her ancestral homeland of Haiti, says Bibbs.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Scandal followed scandal. When her business partner, a Scotsman named Thomas Bell, was found dead in Pleasant’s mansion in 1899, his widow collaborated on a full-page smear piece in the San Francisco Chronicle with the headline “The Queen of the Voodoos.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_11700490\" class=\"wp-caption alignnone\" style=\"max-width: 1359px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-11700490\" src=\"https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/Chron-2.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"1359\" height=\"867\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/Chron-2.png 1359w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/Chron-2-160x102.png 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/Chron-2-800x510.png 800w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/Chron-2-1020x651.png 1020w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/Chron-2-1200x766.png 1200w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/Chron-2-1180x753.png 1180w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/Chron-2-960x612.png 960w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/Chron-2-240x153.png 240w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/Chron-2-375x239.png 375w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/Chron-2-520x332.png 520w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 1359px) 100vw, 1359px\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">The “Queen of the Voodoos” article about Mary Ellen Pleasant in the San Francisco Chronicle \u003ccite>(Courtesy San Francisco Chronicle )\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>The press had used the language of the supernatural to describe her for years — but now, they made her into a flat-out monster, accusing her of witchcraft and heavily implying she murdered Bell.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>It’s telling who gets a legend — and who gets a ghost story. Mary Ellen Pleasant was demonized in her own lifetime. Yet in a system so loaded against a black woman in the public eye, playing with rumor, as she did, was perhaps the only way to play the game — even if it was ultimately her undoing.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>She died in 1904, in her 90s, and her obituary in the San Francisco Examiner was titled: “Mammy Pleasant Will Work Weird Spells No More.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>How we’re remembered depends on who’s telling your story. And with such varying accounts, “one could not tell \u003cem>who\u003c/em> she was,” says Bibbs. “Was she the … mother of civil rights, or was she a murderess?”\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_11700257\" class=\"wp-caption alignnone\" style=\"max-width: 1920px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-11700257\" src=\"https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33243_10062018_AW_GhostStory_76-qut.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"1920\" height=\"1311\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33243_10062018_AW_GhostStory_76-qut.jpg 1920w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33243_10062018_AW_GhostStory_76-qut-160x109.jpg 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33243_10062018_AW_GhostStory_76-qut-800x546.jpg 800w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33243_10062018_AW_GhostStory_76-qut-1020x696.jpg 1020w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33243_10062018_AW_GhostStory_76-qut-1200x819.jpg 1200w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33243_10062018_AW_GhostStory_76-qut-1180x806.jpg 1180w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33243_10062018_AW_GhostStory_76-qut-960x656.jpg 960w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33243_10062018_AW_GhostStory_76-qut-240x164.jpg 240w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33243_10062018_AW_GhostStory_76-qut-375x256.jpg 375w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33243_10062018_AW_GhostStory_76-qut-520x355.jpg 520w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 1920px) 100vw, 1920px\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">The San Francisco Ghost Hunt concludes in Room 407 — rumored to be haunted — of the Hotel Majestic in Pacific Heights \u003ccite>(Anne Wernikoff / KQED)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>Or as Christian Cagigal put it in closing on the San Francisco Ghost Hunt, under those eucalyptus trees she’s said to haunt: “When there’s three versions of your life story. We don’t know what to do with your life story…. And we \u003cem>forget\u003c/em> your story.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>He keeps Mary Ellen Pleasant on his ghost hunt, he says, “so we might start to remember.”\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2 id=\"episode-transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The nights are getting longer. Pumpkins are popping up on doorsteps all over town. And soon ghoulish trick or treaters may be knocking at your door. Today on Bay Curious, we’ve got a treat for you to kick off spooky season, all inspired by this question from a listener.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Kelsey Poole: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Hi, I’m Kelsey Poole and my question is, what are the most haunted places in San Francisco?\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">We sent Kelsey on a San Francisco Ghost Hunt tour to learn the haunted side of the city’s history.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Kelsey Poole: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">It’s a cool way to see the city and you get some spooky stories that keep you up at night.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">But what we didn’t expect to find on the tour was the real life story that would shake us the most. Something not found in many San Francisco history books. Something more significant than any Halloween legend.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">I’m Olivia Allen-Price, this is Bay Curious. Today we’re bringing back a story we first aired in 2018 about a crusading heroine who somehow became a demon in her own lifetime. That’s all just ahead. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Sponsor message\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Bay Curious reporter Carly Seven went along with Kelsey on the ghost tour and brings us the tale.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Christian Cagigal: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Alright ghost hunters. Gather ‘round, gather ‘round.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Carly Severn: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The San Francisco Ghost Hunt starts at dusk in the city’s Pacific Heights neighborhood in the shadow of those looming Victorians.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Christian Cagigal: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Hello and welcome to the San Francisco Ghost Hunt walking tour. Thank you.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Carly Severn: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Actor Christian Cagigal leads us around the steep streets in full 19th century dress – top hat and clacking cane. Every corner brings another ghoulish story from San Francisco history, from ghostly apparitions to an aristocrat who disappeared under grisly circumstances.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Christian Cagigal: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Windows and doors were said to slam shut throughout the entire house, as inside, they discovered the pickled body of George Atherton.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Carly Severn: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">But on one particularly dark street corner, our guide Christian places his flickering lantern down on the sidewalk to illuminate a large circular plaque under our feet, dedicated to a woman who lived and died here over a century ago.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Christian Cagigal: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">She was said to be worth $30 million. For anybody, anytime, that is an accomplishment. For a woman in the Victorian time, quite an accomplishment. For an African-American woman, for that time, almost unheard of. \u003c/span>\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Almost.\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> This, my friends, is Miss Mary Ellen Pleasant.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Carly Severn: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The excitable crowd on this tour has come to be scared. But sometimes Christian says they get more than they bargained for. Mary’s ghost is said to summon chills, frighten dogs, even throw nuts from the nearby eucalyptus trees at people like us.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Christian Cagigal: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Not on your head. From behind … on your back.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Carly Severn: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">After the crowds disperse into the night, I wondered: why would the soul still be so restless? I wanted to learn more about the flesh and blood Mary. And there’s one person who knows her better than most, Sacramento writer Susheel Bibbs.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Susheel Bibbs: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Her life is so enshrouded in mystery because she was her own spin doctor.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Carly Severn: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Mary wrote three autobiographies, but each one contradicts the other. Here’s what we do know about her.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Susheel Bibbs: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">She was born a slave in Georgia. She was raised in Nantucket in indenture.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Carly Severn:\u003c/b> \u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">There on the East Coast, years before she came to San Francisco, Mary was a crucial figure in the civil rights fight, secretly teaming up with abolitionists and rescuing escaped slaves on the Underground Railroad. In this world, nothing could ever be as it seemed.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Susheel Bibbs: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">She was very used to being covert, and she often said that words were made to conceal feelings and that she was good at it.\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Carly Severn: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">And that double life included presenting as a white woman when she could. Early on, she married well, and rich. And when she was widowed, she inherited all that money.\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Susheel Bibbs: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">$45,000 in gold from her husband’s estate.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Carly Severn: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">And she made the journey by steamer to San Francisco in 1852, still passing as white. She found a town filled with men come to make their gold rush fortunes. They were far from home and needed somewhere to live. So Mary buys up boarding houses and laundries.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Susheel Bibbs: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">All kinds of things that she thinks will be a niche in San Francisco to make more money.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Carly Severn: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Thing is, Mary also did the cooking and the cleaning for these men. Why? Because you can hear secrets that way. She had the dirty laundry of influential men, literally, and she was using it as leverage to further her real cause, bringing the Underground Railroad out west. You see, only San Francisco’s growing Black community knew her as a Black woman. They called her the Black City Hall, the place where you go to get what you need.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Susheel Bibbs: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">She helped African Americans get jobs on steamers and in homes and in her own businesses.\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Carly Severn: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Not only that, almost a century before Rosa Parks, Mary Ellen Pleasant challenged the city’s segregated transit system.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Susheel Bibbs: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">She won in and out of court, and in 1868, African Americans could ride the trolleys in San Francisco.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Carly Severn: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">After the Civil War. Over a decade after she arrived in the city, Mary finally checked the box that said Black on the census of 1865. Susheel, who also performs as Mary on stage, reads from her memoirs.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Susheel Bibbs: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">My cause was the cause of freedom and equality for myself and for my people, and I’d rather be a corpse than a coward.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Carly Severn: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">But by the 1880s, the wild mud-caked San Francisco that Mary Ellen Pleasant, the capitalist, had carved her way into, had itself transformed.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Susheel Bibbs: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Very much more overtly racist.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Carly Severn: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Across the nation, emancipated slaves became a convenient scapegoat for the economy’s woes. And as a wealthy, older Black woman, Mary now inspired suspicion, even fear. And that is how a heroine becomes a villain. Now, the press coined a racist nickname, Mammy Pleasant. And in 1883, she became entangled in the scandalous trial of a Nevada senator accused of seducing, then abandoning a young woman. That woman was Mary’s friend.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Susheel Bibbs: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">It was a trial like the O.J. Simpson trial of the 20th century and went all the way to New York and it was reported everywhere, every day.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Carly Severn: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Though she wasn’t on trial, Mary was painted as a sinister crone with an otherworldly hold over the white people she was close to. But rather than rejecting the rumors, she defied them, encouraged them even, during the senator’s trial.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Susheel Bibbs: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">At one point, she planted a voodoo doll and said that, you know, he would die. He did die during, over the course of the trials.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Carly Severn: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">To Mary Ellen Pleasant, voodoo wasn’t just some scare tactic. It was, vodoun, or vodun, a belief system from her ancestral homeland of Haiti.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Susheel Bibbs: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">It was Pleasant’s religion from the time she was a child. She was born the daughter of a voodoo priestess and the granddaughter of a voodoo priest from Haiti.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Carly Severn: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Scandal followed scandal. When her wealthy white business partner was found dead in her mansion, his widow collaborated on a full page smear piece in the San Francisco Chronicle. The headline…\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Paul Lancour (reading from newspaper): \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Queen of the Voodoos\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Carly Severn: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The press had used the language of the supernatural to describe her for years, and now they made her into a flat out monster. And the public turned on her.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Susheel Bibbs: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">They exploited those rumors and called her a blackmailer. They called her a baby stealer. So I would say that it was hate, revenge and racism.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Carly Severn: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Pleasant died in 1904, in her 90s. After such a life, so many achievements, this was the obituary she received in the San Francisco Examiner.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Paul Lancour (reading from a newspaper): \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Mammy Pleasant will work weird spells no more.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Carly Severn: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">It’s telling who gets a legend and who gets a ghost story. How we are remembered depends on who’s telling your story. Or as our tour guide, Christian put it ,under those haunted eucalyptus trees in San Francisco …\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Christian Cagigal: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">But when there’s three versions of your life story, we don’t know what to do with your life story. We stop telling your life story and we forget your story.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Carly Severn: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">He keeps Mary Ellen Pleasant on his ghost hunt, he says so that she’s not forgotten. But given Mary’s own penchant for mystery and a good story, then maybe you could choose a worse time to get to know Mary Ellen Pleasant than Halloween.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Before we go, let’s check back in with Kelsey, our question asker.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Carly Severn: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">What do you think about the story of Mary Ellen Pleasant?\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Kelsey Poole: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">It was really cool history I didn’t know before. But I hope she doesn’t throw a gumball at me.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Reporter Carly Seven. Thanks for bringing us this story. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Mark your calendars for a super fun event we have coming up. It’s a free and festive block party and open house at KQED headquarters in San Francisco’s Mission District. It’s called KQED Fest, and it’s a daylong celebration of local food, music, culture and your favorite KQED, PBS and NPR programs. Bay Curious will be live on stage talking about the statewide propositions that we recently covered in our Prop Fest series. So be sure to swing by and say hello. I’ll be there. It all goes down on October 19th. Find details and register for free at kqed.org/live. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Bay Curious is made in San Francisco at member-supported KQED. Our show is produced by Amanda Font, Christopher Beale, Ana De Almeida Amaral and me, Olivia Allen-Price. Additional support from Victoria Mauleon, Jen Chien, Katie Sprenger, Maha Sanad, Holly Kernan and the whole KQED family.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">I’m Olivia Ellen Price, and I hope to see you at KQED Fest. Thanks for listening!\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[baycuriousquestion]\u003c/p>\n\n",
"blocks": [],
"excerpt": "One of San Francisco's purported 'ghosts' has a remarkable real-life story often left out of San Francisco's history books. ",
"status": "publish",
"parent": 0,
"modified": 1728518035,
"stats": {
"hasAudio": false,
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": true,
"hasPolis": false,
"paragraphCount": 93,
"wordCount": 3242
},
"headData": {
"title": "Ghost of a Legend: How a San Francisco Civil Rights Icon Was Made a Monster | KQED",
"description": "One of San Francisco's purported 'ghosts' has a remarkable real-life story often left out of San Francisco's history books. ",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogDescription": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"twDescription": "",
"twImgId": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Ghost of a Legend: How a San Francisco Civil Rights Icon Was Made a Monster",
"datePublished": "2024-10-10T03:00:02-07:00",
"dateModified": "2024-10-09T16:53:55-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"source": "Bay Curious",
"sourceUrl": "https://www.kqed.org/news/series/baycurious",
"audioUrl": "https://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/pdst.fm/e/chrt.fm/track/G6C7C3/traffic.megaphone.fm/KQINC4958860274.mp3?updated=1728503701",
"sticky": false,
"audioTrackLength": 656,
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/11700225/the-ghost-of-a-legend-how-a-san-francisco-civil-rights-icon-was-made-a-monster",
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>\u003cem>This story first published online and aired on “Bay Curious” on Oct 25, 2018.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"#episode-transcript\">\u003ci>View the full episode transcript.\u003c/i>\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“What are the most haunted places in San Francisco?”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>That’s the question that \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/series/baycurious\">Bay Curious\u003c/a> listener Kelsey Poole asked us a few weeks ago. Which is how I found myself standing with her on the steep streets of San Francisco’s Pacific Heights neighborhood as the sun went down — on the San Francisco Ghost Hunt.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_11699617\" class=\"wp-caption alignnone\" style=\"max-width: 1920px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-11699617\" src=\"https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33251_composite_2-qut.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"1920\" height=\"1271\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33251_composite_2-qut.jpg 1920w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33251_composite_2-qut-160x106.jpg 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33251_composite_2-qut-800x530.jpg 800w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33251_composite_2-qut-1020x675.jpg 1020w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33251_composite_2-qut-1200x794.jpg 1200w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33251_composite_2-qut-1180x781.jpg 1180w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33251_composite_2-qut-960x636.jpg 960w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33251_composite_2-qut-240x159.jpg 240w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33251_composite_2-qut-375x248.jpg 375w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33251_composite_2-qut-520x344.jpg 520w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 1920px) 100vw, 1920px\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Christian Cagigal leading the San Francisco Ghost Hunt through Pacific Heights \u003ccite>(Anne Wernikoff/KQED)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>A Tennessee transplant to the Bay Area, Poole is actually already a fan of going on ghost tours when she travels, as a way to learn the history of a city she’s visiting — plus “you get some spooky stories that keep you up at night,” she says. But she’d never done one in San Francisco. \u003cem>(Want to go on a ghost hunt with the Bay Curious team on Nov. 1? \u003ca href=\"https://www.eventbrite.com/e/bay-curious-sf-ghost-hunt-tour-and-meetup-tickets-51352552868\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Details and tickets here\u003c/a>!)\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Ghost Hunt tour is led by performer Christian Cagigal, who leads us through these streets in full 19th century dress, top hat and clacking cane. From tales of ghostly apparitions to aristocrats meeting grisly ends, every corner brings another ghoulish story from San Francisco history.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_11700249\" class=\"wp-caption alignnone\" style=\"max-width: 1920px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-11700249\" src=\"https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33238_10062018_AW_GhostStory_11-qut.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"1920\" height=\"1401\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33238_10062018_AW_GhostStory_11-qut.jpg 1920w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33238_10062018_AW_GhostStory_11-qut-160x117.jpg 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33238_10062018_AW_GhostStory_11-qut-800x584.jpg 800w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33238_10062018_AW_GhostStory_11-qut-1020x744.jpg 1020w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33238_10062018_AW_GhostStory_11-qut-1200x876.jpg 1200w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33238_10062018_AW_GhostStory_11-qut-1180x861.jpg 1180w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33238_10062018_AW_GhostStory_11-qut-960x701.jpg 960w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33238_10062018_AW_GhostStory_11-qut-240x175.jpg 240w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33238_10062018_AW_GhostStory_11-qut-375x274.jpg 375w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33238_10062018_AW_GhostStory_11-qut-520x379.jpg 520w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 1920px) 100vw, 1920px\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Bay Curious listener Kelsey Poole \u003ccite>(Anne Wernikoff / KQED)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>There’s one stop on this tour we discovered, however, that tells a real-life story bigger than any Halloween legend: at the corner of Octavia and Bush streets, the place known as Mary Ellen Pleasant Memorial Park.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The ghost of Mary Ellen Pleasant — a 19th century entrepreneur who once lived in a now-vanished mansion nearby, and actually planted the eucalyptus trees above our heads — is said to still haunt this unlit corner. Her spirit is said to summon chills, frighten dogs and even throw eucalyptus nuts at passers-by. (For the record, we escaped unscathed that night.)\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_11700253\" class=\"wp-caption alignnone\" style=\"max-width: 1920px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"wp-image-11700253 size-full\" src=\"https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/10062018_AW_GhostStory_100-e1540151423725.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"1920\" height=\"1343\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Christian Cagigal holds up a photograph of 19th century San Francisco on his Ghost Hunt tour, at Mary Ellen Memorial Park \u003ccite>(Anne Wernikoff)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>Pleasant, Cagigal tells us, was born into slavery in the South and came to San Francisco in the mid-1800s — defying white society’s constraints to not only amass great wealth, but to use her power to advance the cause of civil rights in the city.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_11700602\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 291px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"wp-image-11700602 size-full\" src=\"https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/AAD-2997.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"291\" height=\"400\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/AAD-2997.jpg 291w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/AAD-2997-160x220.jpg 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/AAD-2997-240x330.jpg 240w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 291px) 100vw, 291px\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Photograph of Mary Ellen Pleasant, age 87. \u003ccite>(Courtesy San Francisco Public Library History Center)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>Yet she was \u003cem>also\u003c/em> described as a witch, a “voodoo queen” and even a murderer. What’s real here?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“Her life is so enshrouded in mystery because she was her own spin doctor,” says Sacramento writer and performer Susheel Bibbs, who has studied Pleasant’s story for decades. Pleasant wrote three autobiographies — but each one contradicts the other on basic facts, such as the year of her birth.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>We do know that she was born in Georgia, and was raised in Nantucket, Massachusetts, “in indenture,” says Bibbs. There on the East Coast, the young Pleasant became a crucial figure in the civil rights fight, secretly teaming up with abolitionists and rescuing escaped slaves on the Underground Railroad.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Her double life actually including presenting as a white woman when she could.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“She was very used to being covert,” Bibbs says.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The death of her first husband left her rich, and she arrived in San Francisco in 1852 — still passing as white. She invested this sizable fortune in property by establishing boardinghouses and laundries: services that a town full of prospectors relied on.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_11700259\" class=\"wp-caption alignnone\" style=\"max-width: 1920px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-11700259\" src=\"https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33344_DSC_1169-qut.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"1920\" height=\"1280\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33344_DSC_1169-qut.jpg 1920w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33344_DSC_1169-qut-160x107.jpg 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33344_DSC_1169-qut-800x533.jpg 800w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33344_DSC_1169-qut-1020x680.jpg 1020w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33344_DSC_1169-qut-1200x800.jpg 1200w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33344_DSC_1169-qut-1180x787.jpg 1180w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33344_DSC_1169-qut-960x640.jpg 960w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33344_DSC_1169-qut-240x160.jpg 240w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33344_DSC_1169-qut-375x250.jpg 375w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33344_DSC_1169-qut-520x347.jpg 520w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 1920px) 100vw, 1920px\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Sacramento writer and performer Susheel Bibbs \u003ccite>(Carly Severn / KQED)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>In these spaces, she learned the private secrets of powerful men, and used them as another kind of currency, to rise in society. While wealthy white people of San Francisco knew her as the white boardinghouse proprietress, the city’s growing black community knew her \u003cem>real\u003c/em> identity.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>To them, she was known as “The Black City Hall,” who brought the Underground Railroad to the West and helped black people find employment. And almost a century before Rosa Parks, Pleasant challenged San Francisco’s segregated transit system in court, winning black people the right to ride the streetcars.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“My cause,” Pleasant wrote in one of her memoirs, “was the cause of freedom and equality for myself and for my people. And I’d rather be a corpse than a coward.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_11700604\" class=\"wp-caption alignnone\" style=\"max-width: 1007px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-11700604\" src=\"https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/Chron-3.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"1007\" height=\"565\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/Chron-3.png 1007w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/Chron-3-160x90.png 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/Chron-3-800x449.png 800w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/Chron-3-960x539.png 960w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/Chron-3-240x135.png 240w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/Chron-3-375x210.png 375w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/Chron-3-520x292.png 520w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 1007px) 100vw, 1007px\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">Mary Ellen Pleasant pictured in the San Francisco Chronicle in 1899 \u003ccite>(Courtesy San Francisco Chronicle)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>After the Civil War, over a decade after she arrived in the city, Pleasant finally checked the box that said “Black” on the census of 1865. While this undoubtedly caused a stir, Pleasant continued to move in wealthy white circles.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But by the 1880s, the wild, mud-caked San Francisco that Mary Ellen Pleasant the capitalist had carved her way into had itself transformed into a “very much more overtly racist” city, says Bibbs.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Across the nation, emancipated slaves became a convenient scapegoat for the economy’s woes — and as a wealthy, older black woman, Pleasant now inspired suspicion, even fear. The press coined a racist nickname: “Mammy Pleasant.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Whispers grew that she had some otherworldly hold over the wealthy white people she was close to — especially when Pleasant became entangled in the scandalous 1883 trial of Nevada Sen. William Sharon, accused of seducing and then abandoning a young woman.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“It was like the O.J. Simpson trial” in notoriety, says Bibbs.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_11700255\" class=\"wp-caption alignnone\" style=\"max-width: 1920px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"wp-image-11700255 size-full\" src=\"https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/10062018_AW_GhostStory_102-e1540151451936.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"1920\" height=\"1280\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">The crowd listens to Christian Cagigal telling the story of Mary Ellen Pleasant on the San Francisco Ghost Hunt tour \u003ccite>(Anne Wernikoff / KQED)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>Lawyers for Sharon claimed that Pleasant, as the young woman’s friend, had used dark forces to manipulate her into entrapping the senator. And rather than rejecting the rumors, she defied them — encouraged them. She carried a voodoo doll in court, claiming she would use it to bring about his death. Wild thing is, he soon \u003cem>did\u003c/em> die during the trial.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Pleasant’s status as a “voodoo queen” grew, cementing her reputation as a quasi-mystical figure in San Francisco. To the public, voodoo meant blood magic and malevolent intent.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>To Mary Ellen Pleasant, however, the real voodoo — vodoun, or vodun — was actually her religion from her ancestral homeland of Haiti, says Bibbs.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Scandal followed scandal. When her business partner, a Scotsman named Thomas Bell, was found dead in Pleasant’s mansion in 1899, his widow collaborated on a full-page smear piece in the San Francisco Chronicle with the headline “The Queen of the Voodoos.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_11700490\" class=\"wp-caption alignnone\" style=\"max-width: 1359px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-11700490\" src=\"https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/Chron-2.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"1359\" height=\"867\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/Chron-2.png 1359w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/Chron-2-160x102.png 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/Chron-2-800x510.png 800w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/Chron-2-1020x651.png 1020w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/Chron-2-1200x766.png 1200w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/Chron-2-1180x753.png 1180w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/Chron-2-960x612.png 960w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/Chron-2-240x153.png 240w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/Chron-2-375x239.png 375w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/Chron-2-520x332.png 520w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 1359px) 100vw, 1359px\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">The “Queen of the Voodoos” article about Mary Ellen Pleasant in the San Francisco Chronicle \u003ccite>(Courtesy San Francisco Chronicle )\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>The press had used the language of the supernatural to describe her for years — but now, they made her into a flat-out monster, accusing her of witchcraft and heavily implying she murdered Bell.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>It’s telling who gets a legend — and who gets a ghost story. Mary Ellen Pleasant was demonized in her own lifetime. Yet in a system so loaded against a black woman in the public eye, playing with rumor, as she did, was perhaps the only way to play the game — even if it was ultimately her undoing.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>She died in 1904, in her 90s, and her obituary in the San Francisco Examiner was titled: “Mammy Pleasant Will Work Weird Spells No More.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>How we’re remembered depends on who’s telling your story. And with such varying accounts, “one could not tell \u003cem>who\u003c/em> she was,” says Bibbs. “Was she the … mother of civil rights, or was she a murderess?”\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_11700257\" class=\"wp-caption alignnone\" style=\"max-width: 1920px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-11700257\" src=\"https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33243_10062018_AW_GhostStory_76-qut.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"1920\" height=\"1311\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33243_10062018_AW_GhostStory_76-qut.jpg 1920w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33243_10062018_AW_GhostStory_76-qut-160x109.jpg 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33243_10062018_AW_GhostStory_76-qut-800x546.jpg 800w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33243_10062018_AW_GhostStory_76-qut-1020x696.jpg 1020w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33243_10062018_AW_GhostStory_76-qut-1200x819.jpg 1200w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33243_10062018_AW_GhostStory_76-qut-1180x806.jpg 1180w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33243_10062018_AW_GhostStory_76-qut-960x656.jpg 960w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33243_10062018_AW_GhostStory_76-qut-240x164.jpg 240w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33243_10062018_AW_GhostStory_76-qut-375x256.jpg 375w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/10/RS33243_10062018_AW_GhostStory_76-qut-520x355.jpg 520w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 1920px) 100vw, 1920px\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">The San Francisco Ghost Hunt concludes in Room 407 — rumored to be haunted — of the Hotel Majestic in Pacific Heights \u003ccite>(Anne Wernikoff / KQED)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>Or as Christian Cagigal put it in closing on the San Francisco Ghost Hunt, under those eucalyptus trees she’s said to haunt: “When there’s three versions of your life story. We don’t know what to do with your life story…. And we \u003cem>forget\u003c/em> your story.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>He keeps Mary Ellen Pleasant on his ghost hunt, he says, “so we might start to remember.”\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-content post-body\">\u003ch2 id=\"episode-transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The nights are getting longer. Pumpkins are popping up on doorsteps all over town. And soon ghoulish trick or treaters may be knocking at your door. Today on Bay Curious, we’ve got a treat for you to kick off spooky season, all inspired by this question from a listener.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Kelsey Poole: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Hi, I’m Kelsey Poole and my question is, what are the most haunted places in San Francisco?\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">We sent Kelsey on a San Francisco Ghost Hunt tour to learn the haunted side of the city’s history.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Kelsey Poole: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">It’s a cool way to see the city and you get some spooky stories that keep you up at night.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">But what we didn’t expect to find on the tour was the real life story that would shake us the most. Something not found in many San Francisco history books. Something more significant than any Halloween legend.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">I’m Olivia Allen-Price, this is Bay Curious. Today we’re bringing back a story we first aired in 2018 about a crusading heroine who somehow became a demon in her own lifetime. That’s all just ahead. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Sponsor message\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Bay Curious reporter Carly Seven went along with Kelsey on the ghost tour and brings us the tale.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Christian Cagigal: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Alright ghost hunters. Gather ‘round, gather ‘round.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Carly Severn: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The San Francisco Ghost Hunt starts at dusk in the city’s Pacific Heights neighborhood in the shadow of those looming Victorians.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Christian Cagigal: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Hello and welcome to the San Francisco Ghost Hunt walking tour. Thank you.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Carly Severn: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Actor Christian Cagigal leads us around the steep streets in full 19th century dress – top hat and clacking cane. Every corner brings another ghoulish story from San Francisco history, from ghostly apparitions to an aristocrat who disappeared under grisly circumstances.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Christian Cagigal: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Windows and doors were said to slam shut throughout the entire house, as inside, they discovered the pickled body of George Atherton.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Carly Severn: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">But on one particularly dark street corner, our guide Christian places his flickering lantern down on the sidewalk to illuminate a large circular plaque under our feet, dedicated to a woman who lived and died here over a century ago.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Christian Cagigal: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">She was said to be worth $30 million. For anybody, anytime, that is an accomplishment. For a woman in the Victorian time, quite an accomplishment. For an African-American woman, for that time, almost unheard of. \u003c/span>\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Almost.\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> This, my friends, is Miss Mary Ellen Pleasant.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Carly Severn: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The excitable crowd on this tour has come to be scared. But sometimes Christian says they get more than they bargained for. Mary’s ghost is said to summon chills, frighten dogs, even throw nuts from the nearby eucalyptus trees at people like us.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Christian Cagigal: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Not on your head. From behind … on your back.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Carly Severn: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">After the crowds disperse into the night, I wondered: why would the soul still be so restless? I wanted to learn more about the flesh and blood Mary. And there’s one person who knows her better than most, Sacramento writer Susheel Bibbs.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Susheel Bibbs: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Her life is so enshrouded in mystery because she was her own spin doctor.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Carly Severn: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Mary wrote three autobiographies, but each one contradicts the other. Here’s what we do know about her.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Susheel Bibbs: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">She was born a slave in Georgia. She was raised in Nantucket in indenture.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Carly Severn:\u003c/b> \u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">There on the East Coast, years before she came to San Francisco, Mary was a crucial figure in the civil rights fight, secretly teaming up with abolitionists and rescuing escaped slaves on the Underground Railroad. In this world, nothing could ever be as it seemed.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Susheel Bibbs: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">She was very used to being covert, and she often said that words were made to conceal feelings and that she was good at it.\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Carly Severn: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">And that double life included presenting as a white woman when she could. Early on, she married well, and rich. And when she was widowed, she inherited all that money.\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Susheel Bibbs: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">$45,000 in gold from her husband’s estate.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Carly Severn: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">And she made the journey by steamer to San Francisco in 1852, still passing as white. She found a town filled with men come to make their gold rush fortunes. They were far from home and needed somewhere to live. So Mary buys up boarding houses and laundries.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Susheel Bibbs: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">All kinds of things that she thinks will be a niche in San Francisco to make more money.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Carly Severn: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Thing is, Mary also did the cooking and the cleaning for these men. Why? Because you can hear secrets that way. She had the dirty laundry of influential men, literally, and she was using it as leverage to further her real cause, bringing the Underground Railroad out west. You see, only San Francisco’s growing Black community knew her as a Black woman. They called her the Black City Hall, the place where you go to get what you need.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Susheel Bibbs: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">She helped African Americans get jobs on steamers and in homes and in her own businesses.\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Carly Severn: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Not only that, almost a century before Rosa Parks, Mary Ellen Pleasant challenged the city’s segregated transit system.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Susheel Bibbs: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">She won in and out of court, and in 1868, African Americans could ride the trolleys in San Francisco.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Carly Severn: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">After the Civil War. Over a decade after she arrived in the city, Mary finally checked the box that said Black on the census of 1865. Susheel, who also performs as Mary on stage, reads from her memoirs.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Susheel Bibbs: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">My cause was the cause of freedom and equality for myself and for my people, and I’d rather be a corpse than a coward.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Carly Severn: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">But by the 1880s, the wild mud-caked San Francisco that Mary Ellen Pleasant, the capitalist, had carved her way into, had itself transformed.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Susheel Bibbs: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Very much more overtly racist.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Carly Severn: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Across the nation, emancipated slaves became a convenient scapegoat for the economy’s woes. And as a wealthy, older Black woman, Mary now inspired suspicion, even fear. And that is how a heroine becomes a villain. Now, the press coined a racist nickname, Mammy Pleasant. And in 1883, she became entangled in the scandalous trial of a Nevada senator accused of seducing, then abandoning a young woman. That woman was Mary’s friend.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Susheel Bibbs: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">It was a trial like the O.J. Simpson trial of the 20th century and went all the way to New York and it was reported everywhere, every day.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Carly Severn: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Though she wasn’t on trial, Mary was painted as a sinister crone with an otherworldly hold over the white people she was close to. But rather than rejecting the rumors, she defied them, encouraged them even, during the senator’s trial.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Susheel Bibbs: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">At one point, she planted a voodoo doll and said that, you know, he would die. He did die during, over the course of the trials.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Carly Severn: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">To Mary Ellen Pleasant, voodoo wasn’t just some scare tactic. It was, vodoun, or vodun, a belief system from her ancestral homeland of Haiti.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Susheel Bibbs: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">It was Pleasant’s religion from the time she was a child. She was born the daughter of a voodoo priestess and the granddaughter of a voodoo priest from Haiti.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Carly Severn: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Scandal followed scandal. When her wealthy white business partner was found dead in her mansion, his widow collaborated on a full page smear piece in the San Francisco Chronicle. The headline…\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Paul Lancour (reading from newspaper): \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Queen of the Voodoos\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Carly Severn: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The press had used the language of the supernatural to describe her for years, and now they made her into a flat out monster. And the public turned on her.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Susheel Bibbs: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">They exploited those rumors and called her a blackmailer. They called her a baby stealer. So I would say that it was hate, revenge and racism.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Carly Severn: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Pleasant died in 1904, in her 90s. After such a life, so many achievements, this was the obituary she received in the San Francisco Examiner.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Paul Lancour (reading from a newspaper): \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Mammy Pleasant will work weird spells no more.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Carly Severn: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">It’s telling who gets a legend and who gets a ghost story. How we are remembered depends on who’s telling your story. Or as our tour guide, Christian put it ,under those haunted eucalyptus trees in San Francisco …\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Christian Cagigal: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">But when there’s three versions of your life story, we don’t know what to do with your life story. We stop telling your life story and we forget your story.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Carly Severn: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">He keeps Mary Ellen Pleasant on his ghost hunt, he says so that she’s not forgotten. But given Mary’s own penchant for mystery and a good story, then maybe you could choose a worse time to get to know Mary Ellen Pleasant than Halloween.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Before we go, let’s check back in with Kelsey, our question asker.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Carly Severn: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">What do you think about the story of Mary Ellen Pleasant?\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Kelsey Poole: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">It was really cool history I didn’t know before. But I hope she doesn’t throw a gumball at me.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Reporter Carly Seven. Thanks for bringing us this story. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Mark your calendars for a super fun event we have coming up. It’s a free and festive block party and open house at KQED headquarters in San Francisco’s Mission District. It’s called KQED Fest, and it’s a daylong celebration of local food, music, culture and your favorite KQED, PBS and NPR programs. Bay Curious will be live on stage talking about the statewide propositions that we recently covered in our Prop Fest series. So be sure to swing by and say hello. I’ll be there. It all goes down on October 19th. Find details and register for free at kqed.org/live. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Bay Curious is made in San Francisco at member-supported KQED. Our show is produced by Amanda Font, Christopher Beale, Ana De Almeida Amaral and me, Olivia Allen-Price. Additional support from Victoria Mauleon, Jen Chien, Katie Sprenger, Maha Sanad, Holly Kernan and the whole KQED family.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">I’m Olivia Ellen Price, and I hope to see you at KQED Fest. Thanks for listening!\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/div>"
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "baycuriousquestion",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": ""
},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/11700225/the-ghost-of-a-legend-how-a-san-francisco-civil-rights-icon-was-made-a-monster",
"authors": [
"3243"
],
"programs": [
"news_33523",
"news_34552"
],
"series": [
"news_17986"
],
"categories": [
"news_8",
"news_33520"
],
"tags": [
"news_18426",
"news_24211",
"news_4750",
"news_18816",
"news_33812"
],
"featImg": "news_11700254",
"label": "source_news_11700225"
},
"news_12007880": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_12007880",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "12007880",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1728036056000
]
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "transcript-proposition-36-would-increase-penalties-for-some-drug-and-theft-crimes",
"title": "Proposition 36 Would Increase Penalties for Some Drug and Theft Crimes",
"publishDate": 1728036056,
"format": "standard",
"headTitle": "Proposition 36 Would Increase Penalties for Some Drug and Theft Crimes | KQED",
"labelTerm": {},
"content": "\u003cp>\u003cem>Ana De Almeida Amaral contributed to this episode. \u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/propfest\">Prop Fest\u003c/a> is a collaboration from Bay Curious and The Bay podcasts, where we break down each of the 10 statewide propositions that will be on your November 2024 ballot. Check out \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/voterguide\">KQED’s Voter Guide\u003c/a> for more information on state and local races.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In 2014, Californians passed Prop 47, a criminal justice reform measure aimed at sending fewer low-level offenders for drug and theft crimes to prison. Now, Californians are being asked if they want to roll back some of those reforms, and increase the penalties. KQED Politics Correspondent and co-host of Political Breakdown Marisa Lagos takes us through the history, data and arguments of this prop.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c!-- iframe plugin v.4.3 wordpress.org/plugins/iframe/ -->\u003cbr>\n\u003ciframe loading=\"lazy\" frameborder=\"0\" height=\"200\" scrolling=\"no\" src=\"https://playlist.megaphone.fm?e=KQINC2352266478&light=true\" width=\"100%\" class=\"iframe-class\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a transcript of the episode.\u003c/em>\u003cb>\u003cbr>\n\u003c/b>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> \u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">So, recently I was in one of those big box stores in search of a humble can of shaving cream… I make my way to the pharmacy section. Find the right aisle. But then I get to the shelf and … my shaving cream is locked behind plexiglass.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> Been there before. But with toothpaste. And Tums. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> Right. I mean, we’re talking about a can of shaving cream that costs $2.19… and yet, there I was. Ringing a bell, having someone unlock this cabinet for me, annoyed that this is the state of affairs where I live…\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Ericka Cruz Guevarra: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Also I don’t know if it’s \u003c/span>\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">just a me thing, \u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">but I get super self conscious about inconveniencing employees for some toothpaste. But I digress …\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> Same. The proliferation of these plexiglass cases for shaving cream and toothpaste, is just one example of how rising concerns about crime and theft are changing how we live. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Ericka Cruz Guevarra: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">But proponents of Prop 36 want to take these measures even further – waaaaay beyond some plexiglass case at the local Target. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">I’m Olivia Allen-Price, host of Bay Curious.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> And I’m Ericka Cruz Guevarra, host of The Bay. And y’all – we’ve made it! To the final episode of Prop Fest, our ten part series that goes deep on the California propositions.\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">All so you can vote with confidence! Today we’re digging into Proposition 36, which would increase penalties for some drug and theft-related crimes. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> It’s a rollback of criminal justice reforms from a decade ago – and would put more people behind bars in California.\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> But doing so would cost the state money that would otherwise be used for treatment programs that are working.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Ericka Cruz Guevarra: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">We’ll get into it all, right after this. Stay with us. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">SPONSOR MESSAGE\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Alrighty, for our final day of Prop Fest, we’re discussing Prop 36, which will read about like this on your ballot..\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Samantha Lim:\u003c/b> Prop 36 is a statute that allows felony charges and increases sentences for certain drug and theft crimes.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> \u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">To help us understand what’s at stake with Prop 36, I’m joined by KQED politics correspondent and co-host of the podcast Political Breakdown, Marisa Lagos. Hey, Marisa.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Marisa Lagos: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> \u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Hey, Olivia.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">So Prop 36 has a lot of parts to it which will break down one at a time in just a minute. But to kick us off broadly, what is Prop 36 flooking to do?\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/b> \u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">I mean, essentially it is looking to crack down on both shoplifting and sort of low level thefts and drug use, which its backers say are sort of the responsible for a lot of the homelessness and kind of the crisis you see in retail stores where everything is locked up. And what they see is really a chaotic sort of state of play on the ground here in California.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Now, Prop 36 has undone some of the changes that voters ushered in in 2014 with the passage of Prop 47, which, you know, is one of the probably biggest criminal justice reforms that California has ever passed. Let’s walk through a little bit like what did that prop do? Because so much of 36 is about unwinding, undoing 47.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Marisa Lagos: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">When Prop 47 passed, we were kind of in this era of trying to reverse a lot of the tough on crime laws. And that wasn’t just out of the goodness of everybody’s heart in California, it’s because the Supreme Court of the United States told California, your prisons are overcrowded. It’s resulting in unsafe conditions for prisoners, and you must figure out a way to reduce the prison population, or we’re just going to start letting people out of the state prisons. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">And so this was one in a series of initiatives that were put forward both by the Democratic governor at the time, Jerry Brown, passed by lawmakers. And then this one was one that kind of came from the outside. Proponents gathered signatures and put it on the ballot. And essentially their argument at the time was, hey, why are we wasting bed space on people who aren’t actually a danger to society? They’re drug users. They’re poor people who are stealing because they’re poor. They should not be in state prison. They should be getting help. And if we pass this, we can use the money we’d save on putting them in prison to actually help them. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Let’s use it for reentry programs, for drug treatment, programs, for rehabilitation. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Prop 47 passed in 2014 with nearly 60% California voters voting in favor. How’s it all gone over?\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Marisa Lagos: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">I think you can argue it did what it set out to do. It saved $800 million a year in prison costs. And that money was invested into programs that have largely had very successful track records. I mean, if you look at the recidivism rates of people who are just let out of state prison versus those who go into Prop 47-funded programs, there’s no comparison. People who participate in these 47 funded programs are incredibly unlikely to re-offend. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">And so I think part of what we’re talking about here is like. It’s almost like folks are having two different conversations because the proponents of Prop 47 would say, look, we saved this money. We helped people in the process. And the folks on the other side are like, Yeah, but we still have problems with homelessness and drug use and theft. And so, you know, I don’t think anybody who promoted Prop 47 argued that this would end those other issues. I think the question is whether Prop 47 contributed to them. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> And that’s a question that’s tricky to answer from a data perspective. What can we say about?\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> Alright well first let’s talk about theft. In truth, really, a lot of the of problems we’ve seen from a numbers perspective actually only went up in the last couple of years. The first several years after Prop 47 passed, there was n ot a huge spike in shoplifting, there was not a huge spike in a lot of the types of, you know, retail theft that have gotten so much attention. But since the pandemic, we have seen some upticks. \u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">And I’ll just flag because this is who’s backing this: law enforcement never liked Prop 47. And so a lot of what we’re seeing now, I think, is a reaction to a policy that was always sort of reviled within the police and prosecutor community.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">So you talked a little bit about how Prop 47 worked. What were some of the critiques that people have had about Prop 47?\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Marisa Lagos: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Right. So I think people who are critical of this see it as kind of letting people off the hook. They think that a misdemeanor is not a serious enough consequence. If somebody is repeatedly shoplifting, if somebody is going into a store again and again and stealing an amount that’s under $950, which is that felony threshold. But that, you know, they know they can get away with it, essentially. And so what we have seen is a real decrease in the number of arrests that are made for those types of thefts. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">And then obviously, we have seen just an explosion of the fentanyl crisis on our streets. You know, in our hospitals. You just have such a dire situation with this incredibly addictive drug that also is so strong that it leads to a lot of overdoses. And so, you know, I think the people backing Prop 36 think that there is a tie between what changed in 2014 with Prop 47 and the fentanyl crisis, and it’s not just because the drugs are stronger, but it’s because. There is not an incentive for drug users to accept treatment if they get arrested. \u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> I know this is a pretty important nuance in this one – can you explain how those incentives have changed?\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> So prior to Prop 47, a lot of district attorneys, if they had somebody who was clearly a drug addict, not necessarily somebody selling drugs, would say, “Hey, you have an option here. You can either take a year in prison or jail. Or you could take drug treatment. And if you complete this drug treatment program, we will wipe that off your record. You will not have a felony drug possession charge anymore.” And a lot of people would take that. But if you’re told it’s going to be a slap on the wrist and a small fine, or maybe you don’t even get arrested at all, you might say, I’m going to keep using.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">What we have seen since Prop 47 passed is a real decrease in the number of people who are willing to go into these diversion programs like drug court. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">And I talked to Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig. He’s a big proponent of Prop 36, and he says that he has seen this reality in his own county, even as they’ve really tried to put resources into these drug courts.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Jeff Reisig: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The percentage of the population that these new prop 47 programs are serving is like 15% or lower of the total population of individuals that used to be present in drug courts across California. It may be even lower than that in some places, but I can the data in Yolo shows that we used to on average have anywhere from 340 to 500 people a year in drug courts. And the only way you get into a drug court is if, you know, you were caught with possession of hard drugs, right? Meth. Heroin. Cocaine. Fentanyl. PCP. And then after prop 47 passed, those drug courts just slowly started to disappear because there was no incentive anymore for people to participate. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Voters are now being asked if they want to bring back these harsher penalties. How did this get on the ballot in the first place and why this 180?\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Marisa Lagos: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Yeah. So I mentioned before that this has always been a policy that was very disliked by prosecutors and law enforcement. So district attorneys were kind of the lead folks who crafted Prop 36 and went out to get signatures from voters to put it on the ballot. At the time, as they were collecting these signatures, there was a debate happening in Sacramento about what I’ve alluded to, which is a real crisis for retailers in terms of not just simple shoplifting, people coming in and stealing small amounts of things, but also organized retail theft rings who are coming in. You know, you’ve seen those videos of the smash and grabs, but that’s the tip of the iceberg. You know, we’ve seen a lot of organized criminal gangs essentially target big box stores, small mom and pop stores, steal huge amounts of things and then resell them maybe on online marketplaces or on the street. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">As prosecutors were pushing this ballot measure, a lot of these retailers were getting very frustrated that in the past few years, the legislature and Democratic governor hadn’t been willing to take on this issue. And so a lot of them – Home Depot, Wal-Mart, Target – put in $500,000, $1 million to help get this on the ballot there. It is not clear whether they are going to continue to support this ballot measure, because we did see the legislature and Governor Gavin Newsom actually really tackle this issue this year and pass a huge package of laws that are broadly aimed at the more serious organized retail crime issue. But this is something that I think prosecutors had had their eye on for a long time, and they saw the politics shifting as we came out of the pandemic and the visibility of this retail theft issue became so apparent to voters. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">And so, you know, it went viral on social media. We’ve seen so much outrage on cable news and in the media in general. And I think it just really built to a breaking point where they were … it was very easy for them to ask voters to sign this. And we’re seeing polling now that it’s very likely to pass.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">OK, so that all brings us to where we are this year, considering Proposition 36. It proposes a lot of different changes, and I want to step through some of them now. So let’s start with how it would increase punishments for drug crimes.\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cb>Marisa Lagos: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">So Prop 36 would create something they’re calling treatment mandated felonies. Essentially, it would say if you have been arrested and prosecuted \u003c/span>\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">previously\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> for drug possession that a prosecutor would have the option to charge you with a felony on a third arrest, and if they did they could also offer you something like drug court, where you participate in treatment, and if you complete that treatment the charge would be expunged and you receive no jail time. So, treatment mandated felony is what they’re calling it, but to be clear, nobody would be forced into treatment … they would have the option to take the felony or go into drug treatment.\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">I’ll note that there’s nothing in this ballot measure to increase funding for treatment. And so I think there are open questions about whether if this were to pass, there would actually be enough beds for all the folks who might get arrested and prosecuted under Prop 36. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> Alright, and how would Prop 36 impact theft crimes?\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Marisa Lagos: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Yeah, I mean under Prop 36, if you’re a repeat thief, you can also be charged with a felony, even if it’s for a small amount of something, you know, worth less than $950. And this is for people who have two previous convictions. So, prosecutors could send you to prison or county jail for repeatedly stealing things. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">This is one of the kind of hearts of the prop 47 criticisms is that one person could sort of repeatedly go into the same store and never face a felony, even if they’re targeting the same place and, you know, really racking up big losses for that store and putting the employees at risk. So this kind of tries to get at that by saying, “hey, look, we’re not going to throw the book at you the first time you steal a small amount of something. But if you keep doing it, we can charge you with a felony by aggregating those offenses together.”\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">And can you just break down for people who aren’t sort of living in the criminal justice world? Felony, misdemeanor. What is the difference there?\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Marisa Lagos: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Yeah. So a misdemeanor is a crime. It can net you up to a year in county jail and fines. So if you get arrested for a misdemeanor, there’s some sort of discretion for a police officer whether they’re going to cite you right there, say a jaywalking ticket, or maybe if you get arrested for something more serious that they can take you and book you into county jail, you know, a misdemeanor DUI, for example, or something like that. A felony generally comes with more serious criminal penalties, including jail or prison time. It also tends to stick on your record longer. It can affect your ability to get a job later on. It can affect your ability to get housing to coach Little League, things like that. It’s a far more serious criminal penalty and one that has kind of longer lasting impacts on somebody’s life beyond just whatever the sentences for the felony that they’re convicted of.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Prop 36 also ups the stakes for people who are charged with selling or providing drugs. Can you sort of explain that, that part of this?\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> So essentially, Prop 36 says that if you are caught selling or providing drugs to somebody, you could be admonished in court that if you continue to do this, you could get charged with murder. So, for example, if a dealer is given this warning in court, and then someone were to die because of drugs they sold, a prosecutor would have a better case for a murder charge and it definitely is something that harkens back to the kind of tough on crime laws of the 90s.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Now, on the ballot, this prop is titled The Increased Drug and Theft Penalties and Reduce Homelessness Initiative. But we haven’t talked that much about homelessness. What does this prop have to do with homelessness?\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/b> \u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">I mean, nothing directly. But as I said before, I think some of the proponents are really connecting the dots between poverty, drug use and homelessness, and particularly drug use and homelessness. You know, Jeff Reisig, the Yolo County D.A., has talked to me extensively about his nephew, who is a drug user, who is homeless and who has a very supportive, large family, who is willing to support him and get him into treatment, and he will not do it. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Jeff Reisig:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> My nephew, I told you, is a poster child for this whole deal. I mean, literally the poster child because he started using heroin in 2014, and he’s been on the streets ever since, and he steals every day to support his habit. And it’s all misdemeanors. And it’s just a big like, we want to force him into treatment. We want him to be compelled into treatment, but there’s no tool for that. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Marisa Lagos: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">And so for someone like Reisig, he feels like if people are homeless and using drugs and they just keep getting essentially misdemeanor tickets for stealing or for that drug use, they’re just going to continue to hurt themselves and the communities around them and that this could be a way to essentially get them into that treatment that they need, that it could push them to do something that they may not be willing to do otherwise.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">If Prop 36 passes, what kind of impact could this have on our prison population and thus the budget?\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Marisa Lagos: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Right. So it would definitely cut into that $800 million that we have been saving because of Prop 47. The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office did do their own analysis of this. They’re not sure exactly what will happen because we don’t know, you know, how many people will get caught stealing or doing drugs, how many people prosecutors will choose to charge with felonies. But they’re estimating that it could cost tens of millions of dollars a year, to hundreds of millions of dollars a year in added incarceration costs. It’s a lot of money. It is still in the context of a over $100 billion state budget, a tiny percentage of that, something like one half of 1%. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">But, you know, I think that you can argue that there will be obviously huge implications for the people who end up locked up. They say that up to a few thousand people could end up in jail and prison who would not be there otherwise. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">And then also any of these programs that are doing good work in communities around rehabilitation or reentry, if they’re losing out on that money, there could be sort of domino effects there, because it’s not just the people that are going to be, you know, prosecuted under this. The people who will miss out on opportunities to get help because that money is now being spent on those prosecutions and jailings.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">What are supporters of Prop 36 sort of arguing and who are they?\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Marisa Lagos: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Right. So I mentioned the prosecutors, the District Attorney Association of California as the biggest proponent. We also saw major retailers like Target, Wal-Mart, Walgreens, Home Depot and initially back this. I’m waiting to hear if they’re going to continue to support this or if they’re just going to stay neutral. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">I think most interestingly, big city mayors – San Francisco’s London Breed, San Jose’s Matt Mahan, San Diego’s Todd Gloria. These are all pretty liberal Democrats who are backing this. I think that they see what we’re seeing reflected in polls, which show that this is wildly popular and that people are blaming them for a lot of these very visible issues both on the streets and in stores.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The California Republican Party is in support and I would say in the state legislature, we’ve seen kind of a split between more moderate members who do support this and more liberal members who are very reticent to return to any sort of tough on crime laws.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">And let’s talk opposition. What’s the case being made there and who’s making it? \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Marisa Lagos: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The most high profile opponent of Prop 36 is definitely our Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom. He’s really been a long time proponent for these criminal justice reforms. He also backed Prop 64 to legalize marijuana, which had the effect of essentially like wiping a lot of people’s records. And so this is something I think he feels really strongly about. And he has been really reticent to admit any problems with Prop 47 because it is something that he has backed and I think believes in.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Gov. Gavin Newsom: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Everyone I know is rushing to reform Prop 47 to raise the threshold. OK. That’s not the fundamental issue. The fundamental issue is the other issues that are not 47 related. And that is the nature of retail theft has changed. It’s not just the onesie, twosies – yes, that’s an issue, I don’t deny that – but it’s also become deeply organized. And that’s what we need to go after. And that’s a whole different thing. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Marisa Lagos: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">He’s out there. You have the legislative leadership who also shepherded a lot of these bills to tackle organized retail theft in opposition. The state Democratic Party has voted to oppose it. And then you have, I think, what you would expect, which is a lot of these criminal justice reform and civil liberties groups. Californians for Safety and Justice, who wrote Prop 47, the ACLU, the Anti Recidivism Coalition. These are groups that are largely on the ground working with the populations that were impacted by 47 that would be impacted by 36. And they say we’ve been down this road before and it didn’t work.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">I sat down this year with Tinisch Hollins. She leads Californians for Safety and Justice, which originally wrote Prop 47 and has been one of the biggest leaders in pushing criminal justice reforms.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Tinisch Hollins:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> We’ve tried tough on crime right? Right. You tried. We’ve tried different policy. We don’t. We not only have scientific data or we have lived experience, and we have decades of proof that that doesn’t work. It doesn’t work as appropriate interventions for addiction.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> Another thing, talking to Tinisch and a lot of folks within this world is that they feel like police and law enforcement have not been using the tools that they have at their disposal already to get at these problems. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">I mentioned before, you know, you can arrest someone for a misdemeanor. We’ve seen a real pulling back by police since Prop 47 passed. Crime rates have held largely steady in a lot of these kind of property crimes. But clearance rates, which is essentially the arrest rates — how likely are you to get arrested for something? — have gone down by almost half in the last decade or two. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">And so if you’re in San Francisco and you commit a property crime, only 5% of those people get arrested. That’s not to say prosecuted, just arrested. And prosecutors can’t make a case if there’s no arrest. So Tinisch, I think, feels like this is not necessarily calling for a change in law and policy, but a change in how we apply the laws that already exist.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Tinisch Hollins: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">We already have laws on the books to address those issues, right? Like selling fentanyl is a crime is a felony, right? People can go to jail or prison for that. The question is, “what is the challenge with making arrests?” I’m from San Francisco. I see this all the time. Right? So there’s a lot of public concern around it, and rightfully so, because the tools that law enforcement currently have are not being used. They’re being underutilized.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">And how are things looking on the spending front for this one?\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Marisa Lagos: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">It is very uneven. I think about $9 million has been raised on the pro-Prop 36 side versus less than $200,000 for the opposition. Again, I think that this campaign is really just starting in earnest. Having someone like the governor on your side, on the no side, is a huge opportunity for what’s called earned media, right? You don’t have to go out and spend money if you’re the governor. You just talk and people put you on TV. But it does seem to me like the criminal justice reform advocates and the people on the no side, in some ways aren’t spending a lot of political capital and money to try to fight this, maybe because they feel like it’s kind of a foregone conclusion.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/b> \u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">All right. Such a fascinating topic. Thank you for breaking it all down for us, Marisa. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Marisa Lagos: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Thank you.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Marisa Lagos is KQED’s politics correspondent and co-host of the podcast Political Breakdown.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Alrighty, here’s a semi-condensed review of all that….\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">A vote yes on 36 means…\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">You want to increase sentences for certain drug and theft crimes. \u003c/span>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">You want to establish a new classification of crime, called a \u003c/span>\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">treatment-mandated felony \u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">that could be issued for certain drug offenses. These would give people charged with some drug felonies the option to get drug treatment instead, and have their record expunged.\u003c/span>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">You want judges to be able to warn drug distributors that they could face murder charges if they are caught distributing drugs that lead to a death.\u003c/span>\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">A vote no would keep things they way they are now.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> And that’s a wrap on Prop Fest!\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> Pfew! It has been a journey, but thank you so much for coming along on the ride. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> If you found Prop Fest helpful, please share it with a friend, or give us some love on social media. We want to get the word out so everyone can listen before those ballots are due!\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">If you’re a new listener, welcome! We hope you’ll stick around. I’m Olivia Allen-Price, the host of Bay Curious, which is a weekly podcast that explores the hidden true stories of the San Francisco Bay Area.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Ericka Cruz Guevarra: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">And I’m Ericka Cruz Guevarra, host of The Bay. We are local, Bay Area news to keep you rooted.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Subscribe to both shows to feel more connected to your Bay Area community, and in the know about what’s going on here!\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> Prop Fest is made with love by Alan Montecillo, Jessica Kariisa, Olivia Allen-Price, Amanda Font, Christopher Beale, Ana De Almeda Amaral, and me, Ericka Cruz Guevarra.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">We get extra support from Katie Sprenger, Jen Chien, Maha Sanad, Holly Kernan …\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Ericka Cruz Guevarra: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">…and the whole KQED family. Thank you so much for listening!\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> We hope we’ve helped you to vote with confidence. Have a good one.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\n",
"blocks": [],
"excerpt": "Californians are being asked if they want to increase the penalties for some drug and theft crimes.",
"status": "publish",
"parent": 0,
"modified": 1730240932,
"stats": {
"hasAudio": true,
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"paragraphCount": 92,
"wordCount": 5139
},
"headData": {
"title": "Proposition 36 Would Increase Penalties for Some Drug and Theft Crimes | KQED",
"description": "Californians are being asked if they want to increase the penalties for some drug and theft crimes.",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogDescription": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"twDescription": "",
"twImgId": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Proposition 36 Would Increase Penalties for Some Drug and Theft Crimes",
"datePublished": "2024-10-04T03:00:56-07:00",
"dateModified": "2024-10-29T15:28:52-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"source": "Prop Fest",
"sourceUrl": "https://www.kqed.org/propfest",
"audioUrl": "https://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/pdst.fm/e/chrt.fm/track/G6C7C3/traffic.megaphone.fm/KQINC2352266478.mp3?updated=1728009391",
"sticky": false,
"nprStoryId": "kqed-12007880",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/12007880/transcript-proposition-36-would-increase-penalties-for-some-drug-and-theft-crimes",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>\u003cem>Ana De Almeida Amaral contributed to this episode. \u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/propfest\">Prop Fest\u003c/a> is a collaboration from Bay Curious and The Bay podcasts, where we break down each of the 10 statewide propositions that will be on your November 2024 ballot. Check out \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/voterguide\">KQED’s Voter Guide\u003c/a> for more information on state and local races.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In 2014, Californians passed Prop 47, a criminal justice reform measure aimed at sending fewer low-level offenders for drug and theft crimes to prison. Now, Californians are being asked if they want to roll back some of those reforms, and increase the penalties. KQED Politics Correspondent and co-host of Political Breakdown Marisa Lagos takes us through the history, data and arguments of this prop.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c!-- iframe plugin v.4.3 wordpress.org/plugins/iframe/ -->\u003cbr>\n\u003ciframe loading=\"lazy\" frameborder=\"0\" height=\"200\" scrolling=\"no\" src=\"https://playlist.megaphone.fm?e=KQINC2352266478&light=true\" width=\"100%\" class=\"iframe-class\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a transcript of the episode.\u003c/em>\u003cb>\u003cbr>\n\u003c/b>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> \u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">So, recently I was in one of those big box stores in search of a humble can of shaving cream… I make my way to the pharmacy section. Find the right aisle. But then I get to the shelf and … my shaving cream is locked behind plexiglass.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> Been there before. But with toothpaste. And Tums. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> Right. I mean, we’re talking about a can of shaving cream that costs $2.19… and yet, there I was. Ringing a bell, having someone unlock this cabinet for me, annoyed that this is the state of affairs where I live…\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Ericka Cruz Guevarra: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Also I don’t know if it’s \u003c/span>\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">just a me thing, \u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">but I get super self conscious about inconveniencing employees for some toothpaste. But I digress …\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> Same. The proliferation of these plexiglass cases for shaving cream and toothpaste, is just one example of how rising concerns about crime and theft are changing how we live. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Ericka Cruz Guevarra: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">But proponents of Prop 36 want to take these measures even further – waaaaay beyond some plexiglass case at the local Target. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">I’m Olivia Allen-Price, host of Bay Curious.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> And I’m Ericka Cruz Guevarra, host of The Bay. And y’all – we’ve made it! To the final episode of Prop Fest, our ten part series that goes deep on the California propositions.\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">All so you can vote with confidence! Today we’re digging into Proposition 36, which would increase penalties for some drug and theft-related crimes. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> It’s a rollback of criminal justice reforms from a decade ago – and would put more people behind bars in California.\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> But doing so would cost the state money that would otherwise be used for treatment programs that are working.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Ericka Cruz Guevarra: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">We’ll get into it all, right after this. Stay with us. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">SPONSOR MESSAGE\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Alrighty, for our final day of Prop Fest, we’re discussing Prop 36, which will read about like this on your ballot..\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Samantha Lim:\u003c/b> Prop 36 is a statute that allows felony charges and increases sentences for certain drug and theft crimes.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> \u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">To help us understand what’s at stake with Prop 36, I’m joined by KQED politics correspondent and co-host of the podcast Political Breakdown, Marisa Lagos. Hey, Marisa.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Marisa Lagos: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> \u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Hey, Olivia.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">So Prop 36 has a lot of parts to it which will break down one at a time in just a minute. But to kick us off broadly, what is Prop 36 flooking to do?\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/b> \u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">I mean, essentially it is looking to crack down on both shoplifting and sort of low level thefts and drug use, which its backers say are sort of the responsible for a lot of the homelessness and kind of the crisis you see in retail stores where everything is locked up. And what they see is really a chaotic sort of state of play on the ground here in California.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Now, Prop 36 has undone some of the changes that voters ushered in in 2014 with the passage of Prop 47, which, you know, is one of the probably biggest criminal justice reforms that California has ever passed. Let’s walk through a little bit like what did that prop do? Because so much of 36 is about unwinding, undoing 47.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Marisa Lagos: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">When Prop 47 passed, we were kind of in this era of trying to reverse a lot of the tough on crime laws. And that wasn’t just out of the goodness of everybody’s heart in California, it’s because the Supreme Court of the United States told California, your prisons are overcrowded. It’s resulting in unsafe conditions for prisoners, and you must figure out a way to reduce the prison population, or we’re just going to start letting people out of the state prisons. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">And so this was one in a series of initiatives that were put forward both by the Democratic governor at the time, Jerry Brown, passed by lawmakers. And then this one was one that kind of came from the outside. Proponents gathered signatures and put it on the ballot. And essentially their argument at the time was, hey, why are we wasting bed space on people who aren’t actually a danger to society? They’re drug users. They’re poor people who are stealing because they’re poor. They should not be in state prison. They should be getting help. And if we pass this, we can use the money we’d save on putting them in prison to actually help them. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Let’s use it for reentry programs, for drug treatment, programs, for rehabilitation. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Prop 47 passed in 2014 with nearly 60% California voters voting in favor. How’s it all gone over?\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Marisa Lagos: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">I think you can argue it did what it set out to do. It saved $800 million a year in prison costs. And that money was invested into programs that have largely had very successful track records. I mean, if you look at the recidivism rates of people who are just let out of state prison versus those who go into Prop 47-funded programs, there’s no comparison. People who participate in these 47 funded programs are incredibly unlikely to re-offend. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">And so I think part of what we’re talking about here is like. It’s almost like folks are having two different conversations because the proponents of Prop 47 would say, look, we saved this money. We helped people in the process. And the folks on the other side are like, Yeah, but we still have problems with homelessness and drug use and theft. And so, you know, I don’t think anybody who promoted Prop 47 argued that this would end those other issues. I think the question is whether Prop 47 contributed to them. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> And that’s a question that’s tricky to answer from a data perspective. What can we say about?\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> Alright well first let’s talk about theft. In truth, really, a lot of the of problems we’ve seen from a numbers perspective actually only went up in the last couple of years. The first several years after Prop 47 passed, there was n ot a huge spike in shoplifting, there was not a huge spike in a lot of the types of, you know, retail theft that have gotten so much attention. But since the pandemic, we have seen some upticks. \u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">And I’ll just flag because this is who’s backing this: law enforcement never liked Prop 47. And so a lot of what we’re seeing now, I think, is a reaction to a policy that was always sort of reviled within the police and prosecutor community.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">So you talked a little bit about how Prop 47 worked. What were some of the critiques that people have had about Prop 47?\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Marisa Lagos: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Right. So I think people who are critical of this see it as kind of letting people off the hook. They think that a misdemeanor is not a serious enough consequence. If somebody is repeatedly shoplifting, if somebody is going into a store again and again and stealing an amount that’s under $950, which is that felony threshold. But that, you know, they know they can get away with it, essentially. And so what we have seen is a real decrease in the number of arrests that are made for those types of thefts. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">And then obviously, we have seen just an explosion of the fentanyl crisis on our streets. You know, in our hospitals. You just have such a dire situation with this incredibly addictive drug that also is so strong that it leads to a lot of overdoses. And so, you know, I think the people backing Prop 36 think that there is a tie between what changed in 2014 with Prop 47 and the fentanyl crisis, and it’s not just because the drugs are stronger, but it’s because. There is not an incentive for drug users to accept treatment if they get arrested. \u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> I know this is a pretty important nuance in this one – can you explain how those incentives have changed?\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> So prior to Prop 47, a lot of district attorneys, if they had somebody who was clearly a drug addict, not necessarily somebody selling drugs, would say, “Hey, you have an option here. You can either take a year in prison or jail. Or you could take drug treatment. And if you complete this drug treatment program, we will wipe that off your record. You will not have a felony drug possession charge anymore.” And a lot of people would take that. But if you’re told it’s going to be a slap on the wrist and a small fine, or maybe you don’t even get arrested at all, you might say, I’m going to keep using.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">What we have seen since Prop 47 passed is a real decrease in the number of people who are willing to go into these diversion programs like drug court. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">And I talked to Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig. He’s a big proponent of Prop 36, and he says that he has seen this reality in his own county, even as they’ve really tried to put resources into these drug courts.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Jeff Reisig: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The percentage of the population that these new prop 47 programs are serving is like 15% or lower of the total population of individuals that used to be present in drug courts across California. It may be even lower than that in some places, but I can the data in Yolo shows that we used to on average have anywhere from 340 to 500 people a year in drug courts. And the only way you get into a drug court is if, you know, you were caught with possession of hard drugs, right? Meth. Heroin. Cocaine. Fentanyl. PCP. And then after prop 47 passed, those drug courts just slowly started to disappear because there was no incentive anymore for people to participate. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Voters are now being asked if they want to bring back these harsher penalties. How did this get on the ballot in the first place and why this 180?\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Marisa Lagos: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Yeah. So I mentioned before that this has always been a policy that was very disliked by prosecutors and law enforcement. So district attorneys were kind of the lead folks who crafted Prop 36 and went out to get signatures from voters to put it on the ballot. At the time, as they were collecting these signatures, there was a debate happening in Sacramento about what I’ve alluded to, which is a real crisis for retailers in terms of not just simple shoplifting, people coming in and stealing small amounts of things, but also organized retail theft rings who are coming in. You know, you’ve seen those videos of the smash and grabs, but that’s the tip of the iceberg. You know, we’ve seen a lot of organized criminal gangs essentially target big box stores, small mom and pop stores, steal huge amounts of things and then resell them maybe on online marketplaces or on the street. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">As prosecutors were pushing this ballot measure, a lot of these retailers were getting very frustrated that in the past few years, the legislature and Democratic governor hadn’t been willing to take on this issue. And so a lot of them – Home Depot, Wal-Mart, Target – put in $500,000, $1 million to help get this on the ballot there. It is not clear whether they are going to continue to support this ballot measure, because we did see the legislature and Governor Gavin Newsom actually really tackle this issue this year and pass a huge package of laws that are broadly aimed at the more serious organized retail crime issue. But this is something that I think prosecutors had had their eye on for a long time, and they saw the politics shifting as we came out of the pandemic and the visibility of this retail theft issue became so apparent to voters. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">And so, you know, it went viral on social media. We’ve seen so much outrage on cable news and in the media in general. And I think it just really built to a breaking point where they were … it was very easy for them to ask voters to sign this. And we’re seeing polling now that it’s very likely to pass.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">OK, so that all brings us to where we are this year, considering Proposition 36. It proposes a lot of different changes, and I want to step through some of them now. So let’s start with how it would increase punishments for drug crimes.\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cb>Marisa Lagos: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">So Prop 36 would create something they’re calling treatment mandated felonies. Essentially, it would say if you have been arrested and prosecuted \u003c/span>\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">previously\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> for drug possession that a prosecutor would have the option to charge you with a felony on a third arrest, and if they did they could also offer you something like drug court, where you participate in treatment, and if you complete that treatment the charge would be expunged and you receive no jail time. So, treatment mandated felony is what they’re calling it, but to be clear, nobody would be forced into treatment … they would have the option to take the felony or go into drug treatment.\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">I’ll note that there’s nothing in this ballot measure to increase funding for treatment. And so I think there are open questions about whether if this were to pass, there would actually be enough beds for all the folks who might get arrested and prosecuted under Prop 36. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> Alright, and how would Prop 36 impact theft crimes?\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Marisa Lagos: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Yeah, I mean under Prop 36, if you’re a repeat thief, you can also be charged with a felony, even if it’s for a small amount of something, you know, worth less than $950. And this is for people who have two previous convictions. So, prosecutors could send you to prison or county jail for repeatedly stealing things. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">This is one of the kind of hearts of the prop 47 criticisms is that one person could sort of repeatedly go into the same store and never face a felony, even if they’re targeting the same place and, you know, really racking up big losses for that store and putting the employees at risk. So this kind of tries to get at that by saying, “hey, look, we’re not going to throw the book at you the first time you steal a small amount of something. But if you keep doing it, we can charge you with a felony by aggregating those offenses together.”\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">And can you just break down for people who aren’t sort of living in the criminal justice world? Felony, misdemeanor. What is the difference there?\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Marisa Lagos: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Yeah. So a misdemeanor is a crime. It can net you up to a year in county jail and fines. So if you get arrested for a misdemeanor, there’s some sort of discretion for a police officer whether they’re going to cite you right there, say a jaywalking ticket, or maybe if you get arrested for something more serious that they can take you and book you into county jail, you know, a misdemeanor DUI, for example, or something like that. A felony generally comes with more serious criminal penalties, including jail or prison time. It also tends to stick on your record longer. It can affect your ability to get a job later on. It can affect your ability to get housing to coach Little League, things like that. It’s a far more serious criminal penalty and one that has kind of longer lasting impacts on somebody’s life beyond just whatever the sentences for the felony that they’re convicted of.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Prop 36 also ups the stakes for people who are charged with selling or providing drugs. Can you sort of explain that, that part of this?\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> So essentially, Prop 36 says that if you are caught selling or providing drugs to somebody, you could be admonished in court that if you continue to do this, you could get charged with murder. So, for example, if a dealer is given this warning in court, and then someone were to die because of drugs they sold, a prosecutor would have a better case for a murder charge and it definitely is something that harkens back to the kind of tough on crime laws of the 90s.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Now, on the ballot, this prop is titled The Increased Drug and Theft Penalties and Reduce Homelessness Initiative. But we haven’t talked that much about homelessness. What does this prop have to do with homelessness?\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/b> \u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">I mean, nothing directly. But as I said before, I think some of the proponents are really connecting the dots between poverty, drug use and homelessness, and particularly drug use and homelessness. You know, Jeff Reisig, the Yolo County D.A., has talked to me extensively about his nephew, who is a drug user, who is homeless and who has a very supportive, large family, who is willing to support him and get him into treatment, and he will not do it. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Jeff Reisig:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> My nephew, I told you, is a poster child for this whole deal. I mean, literally the poster child because he started using heroin in 2014, and he’s been on the streets ever since, and he steals every day to support his habit. And it’s all misdemeanors. And it’s just a big like, we want to force him into treatment. We want him to be compelled into treatment, but there’s no tool for that. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Marisa Lagos: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">And so for someone like Reisig, he feels like if people are homeless and using drugs and they just keep getting essentially misdemeanor tickets for stealing or for that drug use, they’re just going to continue to hurt themselves and the communities around them and that this could be a way to essentially get them into that treatment that they need, that it could push them to do something that they may not be willing to do otherwise.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">If Prop 36 passes, what kind of impact could this have on our prison population and thus the budget?\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Marisa Lagos: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Right. So it would definitely cut into that $800 million that we have been saving because of Prop 47. The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office did do their own analysis of this. They’re not sure exactly what will happen because we don’t know, you know, how many people will get caught stealing or doing drugs, how many people prosecutors will choose to charge with felonies. But they’re estimating that it could cost tens of millions of dollars a year, to hundreds of millions of dollars a year in added incarceration costs. It’s a lot of money. It is still in the context of a over $100 billion state budget, a tiny percentage of that, something like one half of 1%. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">But, you know, I think that you can argue that there will be obviously huge implications for the people who end up locked up. They say that up to a few thousand people could end up in jail and prison who would not be there otherwise. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">And then also any of these programs that are doing good work in communities around rehabilitation or reentry, if they’re losing out on that money, there could be sort of domino effects there, because it’s not just the people that are going to be, you know, prosecuted under this. The people who will miss out on opportunities to get help because that money is now being spent on those prosecutions and jailings.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">What are supporters of Prop 36 sort of arguing and who are they?\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Marisa Lagos: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Right. So I mentioned the prosecutors, the District Attorney Association of California as the biggest proponent. We also saw major retailers like Target, Wal-Mart, Walgreens, Home Depot and initially back this. I’m waiting to hear if they’re going to continue to support this or if they’re just going to stay neutral. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">I think most interestingly, big city mayors – San Francisco’s London Breed, San Jose’s Matt Mahan, San Diego’s Todd Gloria. These are all pretty liberal Democrats who are backing this. I think that they see what we’re seeing reflected in polls, which show that this is wildly popular and that people are blaming them for a lot of these very visible issues both on the streets and in stores.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The California Republican Party is in support and I would say in the state legislature, we’ve seen kind of a split between more moderate members who do support this and more liberal members who are very reticent to return to any sort of tough on crime laws.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">And let’s talk opposition. What’s the case being made there and who’s making it? \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Marisa Lagos: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The most high profile opponent of Prop 36 is definitely our Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom. He’s really been a long time proponent for these criminal justice reforms. He also backed Prop 64 to legalize marijuana, which had the effect of essentially like wiping a lot of people’s records. And so this is something I think he feels really strongly about. And he has been really reticent to admit any problems with Prop 47 because it is something that he has backed and I think believes in.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Gov. Gavin Newsom: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Everyone I know is rushing to reform Prop 47 to raise the threshold. OK. That’s not the fundamental issue. The fundamental issue is the other issues that are not 47 related. And that is the nature of retail theft has changed. It’s not just the onesie, twosies – yes, that’s an issue, I don’t deny that – but it’s also become deeply organized. And that’s what we need to go after. And that’s a whole different thing. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Marisa Lagos: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">He’s out there. You have the legislative leadership who also shepherded a lot of these bills to tackle organized retail theft in opposition. The state Democratic Party has voted to oppose it. And then you have, I think, what you would expect, which is a lot of these criminal justice reform and civil liberties groups. Californians for Safety and Justice, who wrote Prop 47, the ACLU, the Anti Recidivism Coalition. These are groups that are largely on the ground working with the populations that were impacted by 47 that would be impacted by 36. And they say we’ve been down this road before and it didn’t work.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">I sat down this year with Tinisch Hollins. She leads Californians for Safety and Justice, which originally wrote Prop 47 and has been one of the biggest leaders in pushing criminal justice reforms.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Tinisch Hollins:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> We’ve tried tough on crime right? Right. You tried. We’ve tried different policy. We don’t. We not only have scientific data or we have lived experience, and we have decades of proof that that doesn’t work. It doesn’t work as appropriate interventions for addiction.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Marisa Lagos:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> Another thing, talking to Tinisch and a lot of folks within this world is that they feel like police and law enforcement have not been using the tools that they have at their disposal already to get at these problems. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">I mentioned before, you know, you can arrest someone for a misdemeanor. We’ve seen a real pulling back by police since Prop 47 passed. Crime rates have held largely steady in a lot of these kind of property crimes. But clearance rates, which is essentially the arrest rates — how likely are you to get arrested for something? — have gone down by almost half in the last decade or two. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">And so if you’re in San Francisco and you commit a property crime, only 5% of those people get arrested. That’s not to say prosecuted, just arrested. And prosecutors can’t make a case if there’s no arrest. So Tinisch, I think, feels like this is not necessarily calling for a change in law and policy, but a change in how we apply the laws that already exist.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Tinisch Hollins: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">We already have laws on the books to address those issues, right? Like selling fentanyl is a crime is a felony, right? People can go to jail or prison for that. The question is, “what is the challenge with making arrests?” I’m from San Francisco. I see this all the time. Right? So there’s a lot of public concern around it, and rightfully so, because the tools that law enforcement currently have are not being used. They’re being underutilized.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">And how are things looking on the spending front for this one?\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Marisa Lagos: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">It is very uneven. I think about $9 million has been raised on the pro-Prop 36 side versus less than $200,000 for the opposition. Again, I think that this campaign is really just starting in earnest. Having someone like the governor on your side, on the no side, is a huge opportunity for what’s called earned media, right? You don’t have to go out and spend money if you’re the governor. You just talk and people put you on TV. But it does seem to me like the criminal justice reform advocates and the people on the no side, in some ways aren’t spending a lot of political capital and money to try to fight this, maybe because they feel like it’s kind of a foregone conclusion.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/b> \u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">All right. Such a fascinating topic. Thank you for breaking it all down for us, Marisa. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Marisa Lagos: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Thank you.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Marisa Lagos is KQED’s politics correspondent and co-host of the podcast Political Breakdown.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Alrighty, here’s a semi-condensed review of all that….\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">A vote yes on 36 means…\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cul>\n\u003cli style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">You want to increase sentences for certain drug and theft crimes. \u003c/span>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">You want to establish a new classification of crime, called a \u003c/span>\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">treatment-mandated felony \u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">that could be issued for certain drug offenses. These would give people charged with some drug felonies the option to get drug treatment instead, and have their record expunged.\u003c/span>\u003c/li>\n\u003cli style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">You want judges to be able to warn drug distributors that they could face murder charges if they are caught distributing drugs that lead to a death.\u003c/span>\u003c/li>\n\u003c/ul>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">A vote no would keep things they way they are now.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> And that’s a wrap on Prop Fest!\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> Pfew! It has been a journey, but thank you so much for coming along on the ride. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> If you found Prop Fest helpful, please share it with a friend, or give us some love on social media. We want to get the word out so everyone can listen before those ballots are due!\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">If you’re a new listener, welcome! We hope you’ll stick around. I’m Olivia Allen-Price, the host of Bay Curious, which is a weekly podcast that explores the hidden true stories of the San Francisco Bay Area.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Ericka Cruz Guevarra: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">And I’m Ericka Cruz Guevarra, host of The Bay. We are local, Bay Area news to keep you rooted.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Subscribe to both shows to feel more connected to your Bay Area community, and in the know about what’s going on here!\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> Prop Fest is made with love by Alan Montecillo, Jessica Kariisa, Olivia Allen-Price, Amanda Font, Christopher Beale, Ana De Almeda Amaral, and me, Ericka Cruz Guevarra.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">We get extra support from Katie Sprenger, Jen Chien, Maha Sanad, Holly Kernan …\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Ericka Cruz Guevarra: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">…and the whole KQED family. Thank you so much for listening!\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "floatright"
},
"numeric": [
"floatright"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> We hope we’ve helped you to vote with confidence. Have a good one.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/12007880/transcript-proposition-36-would-increase-penalties-for-some-drug-and-theft-crimes",
"authors": [
"3239",
"102",
"11649",
"8654",
"11831",
"8637",
"11749"
],
"programs": [
"news_33523",
"news_28779"
],
"series": [
"news_17986"
],
"categories": [
"news_34167",
"news_8",
"news_33520",
"news_13"
],
"tags": [
"news_28606",
"news_34648"
],
"featImg": "news_12007882",
"label": "source_news_12007880"
},
"news_12007174": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_12007174",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "12007174",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1727949609000
]
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "transcript-should-proposition-35-make-a-tax-to-help-fund-medi-cal-permanent-and-limit-how-the-money-is-used",
"title": "Should Proposition 35 Make a Tax to Help Fund Medi-Cal Permanently and Limit How the Money Is Used?",
"publishDate": 1727949609,
"format": "audio",
"headTitle": "Should Proposition 35 Make a Tax to Help Fund Medi-Cal Permanently and Limit How the Money Is Used? | KQED",
"labelTerm": {},
"content": "\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/propfest\">Prop Fest\u003c/a> is a collaboration from Bay Curious and The Bay podcasts, where we break down each of the 10 statewide propositions that will be on your November 2024 ballot. Check out \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/voterguide\">KQED’s Voter Guide\u003c/a> for more information on state and local races.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Today, KQED Health Correspondent Lesley McClurg joins us to explain Prop. 35, which aims to improve Medi-Cal access by making an existing tax on health insurance companies permanent and restricting the allocation of funds to certain Medi-Cal providers.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c!-- iframe plugin v.4.3 wordpress.org/plugins/iframe/ -->\u003cbr>\n\u003ciframe loading=\"lazy\" frameborder=\"0\" height=\"200\" scrolling=\"no\" src=\"https://playlist.megaphone.fm?e=KQINC3989968798&light=true\" width=\"100%\" class=\"iframe-class\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a transcript of the episode.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra: \u003c/strong>About 14 million Californians rely on Medi-Cal as their primary source of health insurance.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> Medi-Cal covers some of the state’s most vulnerable patients. Low-income people, seniors and people with disabilities.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra: \u003c/strong>Despite it being a lifeline for so many people, some folks are worried that state funding for Medi-Cal isn’t stable.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/strong>I’m Olivia Allen-Price, host of Bay Curious.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra: \u003c/strong>And I’m Ericka Cruz Guevarra, host of The Bay and welcome to Prop Fest, a 10 part series where we break down all the statewide ballot measures you’ll be deciding on this November.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/strong>Today on Prop Fest, Prop 35 aims to guarantee state funding for Medi-Cal through this wonky tax that no one really pays much attention to.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra: \u003c/strong>But it could make the difference between some Medi-Cal providers getting money and others losing out.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> We’ll get into all that and more right after this.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">[SPONSOR MESSAGE]\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra: \u003c/strong>Today we’re digging into Prop 35. Here’s how it reads on your ballot.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>VO:\u003c/b> Prop 35 makes permanent the existing tax on managed health care insurance plans, which, if approved by the federal government, provides revenues to pay for Medi-Cal health care services.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra: \u003c/strong>We hit up KQED health correspondent Lesley McClurg to help us understand how this lifeline for so many Californians is currently funded and how Prop 35 could change that.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Prop 35 is about funding Medi-Cal, right? What is the backstory here? Exactly? How did this get on the ballot?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Lesley McClurg : \u003c/strong>Medi-Cal is the insurance that the state offers to folks with a limited income or who are on disability. Unfortunately, the problem with Medi-Cal is that there aren’t enough providers willing to give those services or open up their doors to Medi-Cal patients because reimbursement rates for Medi-Cal patients are much lower than for private insurers. More and more people need Medi-Cal, so you want to increase what those providers are making so they have the incentives to do so.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So the California Hospital Association, the California Medical Association, these big groups, are arguing that we need to increase pay to providers to ensure that patients get that care. One way that they get paid or they get funding for Medi-Cal is through this very obscure policy called the managed care tax. This is basically a tax that the state can levy on managed care plans.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>A managed care plan is like a Kaiser Permanente or an Anthem Blue Cross and when the state taxes these health care plans, they actually like it. Because the way this sort of works is that the state taxes the health care plans and then the federal government matches those dollars. Let’s say a plan covers 100 patients, a dollar a patient. When the state taxes them that dollar, the feds give the states $2. It doubles the amount of money that’s available for Medi-Cal patients. And this is one way that, since 2009, the state of California has been able to get more money and filter it towards Medi-Cal patients.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra: \u003c/strong>So what exactly would Prop 35 change?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Lesley McClurg: \u003c/strong>So right now, every few years, there’s what’s called an MCO tax. This managed care tax has been voted into place by the legislature. What would change under Prop 35 is that it would make this tax permanent. So we’re not giving over the possibility that it wouldn’t be voted into place. Right now it’s a little open about how those funds are going to get spent once they make it from the feds to the state. And Prop 35 narrows that window and make sure that certain groups, certain providers get those funds. So it makes it permanent and it directs the funding more specifically.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra: \u003c/strong>Yeah, so let’s talk more about who is behind this. I mean, who is really pushing for Prop 35’s success?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Lesley McClurg: \u003c/strong>So the areas where the allocations will be increased would be primary care, specialty care, emergency services, family planning. These are all areas that would would get more direct funding from this tax. And so it’s not surprising then that the groups that represent these doctors are in favor.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jodi Hicks: \u003c/strong>What we’re doing is ensuring that this fee is extended permanently and that it’s sustainable, permanent funding that providers can count on.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Lesley McClurg:\u003c/strong> So Jodi Hicks is the president of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, and she has been a major supporter because family planning is a group that will benefit from this bill. And she says that this will increase access to her patients.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Jodi Hicks: \u003c/b>What we want is a primary care provider in any part of the community to be incentivized to take all patients in that community.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra: \u003c/strong>And what’s the argument for directing the funds through this tax specifically?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Lesley McClurg: \u003c/strong>No one is arguing that you should take away the MCO tax. In fact, the MCO tax is a necessary way to pull down money from the feds, or a good way for the state to pull down money from the Feds. What is important about Prop 35 is that it is going to make this tax permanent and it also, again, allocates these dollars in a very specific way, rather than giving it up to the legislature to decide how those funds are going to be spent. This has come to a head in our current environment because right now, for example, we’re in this situation where we have a huge budget deficit and there is fear that these dollars that are supposed to be spent on Medi-Cal funding will be used in some other way for different services. And so proponents want to ensure that these dollars coming from the feds go only to health care and go towards Medi-Cal funding.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra: \u003c/strong> And that said, Lesley, not all providers are on board with Prop 35, right? Who are some of the opponents and what are their arguments against this ballot measure?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Lesley McClurg: \u003c/strong> There are some definite groups that won’t benefit from Prop 35. Community health workers, community behavioral health workers, private duty nurses. And also, these funds would not go towards Medi-Cal patients who are under the age of five. So that makes certain groups not support the proposition, like the California Pan Ethnic Health Network, The Children’s Partnership, the California Alliance for Retired Americans, Courage California, the League of Women Voters. So these groups are worried about these specific groups that are are not going to benefit from Prop 35.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Mayra Alvarez: \u003c/strong>The difference driving our opposition to Proposition 35 is the restriction imposed by the proposition on how the funds can be used.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Lesley McClurg: \u003c/strong> Mayra Alvarez is the president of The Children’s Partnership, which is an advocacy organization to ensure that health care is available for all children. And her primary argument is that there are going to be some groups that don’t benefit and that we shouldn’t limit how the MCO tax or these funds, these billions of dollars are going to be distributed.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Mayra Alvarez: \u003c/b> The allocation of funding under Proposition 35 is decided by a group of selected provider organizations. So I don’t disagree about the specificity of making this permanent. What we are concerned with is what are the billions of dollars that will be lost as a result of locking in these rates.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra: \u003c/strong>And I guess, how do proponents respond to that argument that Prop 35 creates a sort of “winner” and “loser” situation?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Lesley McClurg: \u003c/strong>They argue that there is some flexibility in the way that it has been written. There’s not automatic funding going to those groups, but there is flexibility and in how the money will be spent and it could be allocated to those groups. So it’s not necessarily going to hurt them. They’re just not automatic recipients.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> So, Lesley, the California Democratic and Republican parties are both for Prop 35. But one person who is not a big supporter is Governor Gavin Newsom. What is his position on Prop 35?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Lesley McClurg: \u003c/strong>He has not taken an official position. In some press conferences, he has hinted that he may not support it. And his language has been that he does not want the legislature to be hamstrung or limited in the way that they spend the MCO tax.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Prop 35 would limit the MCO taxed to just being used in health care. And in a year like right now, where we have this huge budget deficit that might hamstring other services like education, important services that may be needed. We might need to move these funds around to ensure that other services are not cut. There are some media organizations that have come out in favor of Prop 35 like the Sacramento Bee, but there’s also other media outlets like the Mercury News, the San Francisco Chronicle, the San Diego Union-Tribune. All of these media outlets have argued that this is a maze. This is a budgetary maze that should not be before voters.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra: \u003c/strong>What do we know about campaign spending on both the yes and the no sides?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Lesley McClurg : \u003c/strong>So there hasn’t been any spending so far on the no side. There’s been about almost $81 million raised on the pro side. So big, big funding is going into this right now to ensure that it passes.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra: \u003c/strong> And I guess despite the fact that this is a pretty complicated proposition, do we have any sense yet, Lesley, of whether or not this thing will actually pass or how voters are feeling about it?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Lesley McClurg: \u003c/strong>Yeah, polling data right now is showing that it would most likely pass by about 63%. So currently right now, it’s looking pretty positive for the proposition.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra: \u003c/strong>All right, Lesley. Well, thank you so much for breaking this one down. I appreciate it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Lesley McClurg: \u003c/strong> Thank you.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra: \u003c/strong>In a nutshell, a vote yes on Prop 35 means an existing state tax on health plans that provides funding for certain health programs will become permanent, while also creating new rules around how that money can be spent. A vote no means these new rules would not go into effect and that this existing law on health plans would end in 2027 unless the legislature decides to keep it going.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/strong>And that’s it for this edition of Prop Fest. You can find transcripts for this episode and past ones at \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/propfest\">kqed.org/prop fest\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> Prop Fest is a collaboration between The Bay and Bay Curious. It’s made by Alan Montecillo, Jessica Kariisa, Olivia Allen-Price, Amanda Font, Christopher Beale, Ana De Almeida Amaral, and me, Ericka Cruz Guevarra.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">We get extra support from Katie Sprenger, Jen Chien, Maha Sanad, Holly Kernan, and the whole KQED family\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra: \u003c/strong> Tomorrow, we’ll bring you the final episode of Prop Fest with Prop 36.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> You’ve already made it this far, so make sure you stick around for that one.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra: \u003c/strong>Subscribe to The Bay and Bay Curious so you don’t miss out. Peace.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"blocks": [],
"excerpt": "Today, KQED Health Correspondent Lesley McClurg joins us to explain Prop. 35.",
"status": "publish",
"parent": 0,
"modified": 1730169333,
"stats": {
"hasAudio": true,
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"paragraphCount": 54,
"wordCount": 2110
},
"headData": {
"title": "Should Proposition 35 Make a Tax to Help Fund Medi-Cal Permanently and Limit How the Money Is Used? | KQED",
"description": "Today, KQED Health Correspondent Lesley McClurg joins us to explain Prop. 35.",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogDescription": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"twDescription": "",
"twImgId": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Should Proposition 35 Make a Tax to Help Fund Medi-Cal Permanently and Limit How the Money Is Used?",
"datePublished": "2024-10-03T03:00:09-07:00",
"dateModified": "2024-10-28T19:35:33-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"source": "Prop Fest 2024",
"audioUrl": "https://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/chrt.fm/track/G6C7C3/traffic.megaphone.fm/KQINC3989968798.mp3?updated=1727726812",
"sticky": false,
"nprStoryId": "kqed-12007174",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/12007174/transcript-should-proposition-35-make-a-tax-to-help-fund-medi-cal-permanent-and-limit-how-the-money-is-used",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/propfest\">Prop Fest\u003c/a> is a collaboration from Bay Curious and The Bay podcasts, where we break down each of the 10 statewide propositions that will be on your November 2024 ballot. Check out \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/voterguide\">KQED’s Voter Guide\u003c/a> for more information on state and local races.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Today, KQED Health Correspondent Lesley McClurg joins us to explain Prop. 35, which aims to improve Medi-Cal access by making an existing tax on health insurance companies permanent and restricting the allocation of funds to certain Medi-Cal providers.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c!-- iframe plugin v.4.3 wordpress.org/plugins/iframe/ -->\u003cbr>\n\u003ciframe loading=\"lazy\" frameborder=\"0\" height=\"200\" scrolling=\"no\" src=\"https://playlist.megaphone.fm?e=KQINC3989968798&light=true\" width=\"100%\" class=\"iframe-class\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a transcript of the episode.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra: \u003c/strong>About 14 million Californians rely on Medi-Cal as their primary source of health insurance.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> Medi-Cal covers some of the state’s most vulnerable patients. Low-income people, seniors and people with disabilities.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra: \u003c/strong>Despite it being a lifeline for so many people, some folks are worried that state funding for Medi-Cal isn’t stable.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/strong>I’m Olivia Allen-Price, host of Bay Curious.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra: \u003c/strong>And I’m Ericka Cruz Guevarra, host of The Bay and welcome to Prop Fest, a 10 part series where we break down all the statewide ballot measures you’ll be deciding on this November.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/strong>Today on Prop Fest, Prop 35 aims to guarantee state funding for Medi-Cal through this wonky tax that no one really pays much attention to.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra: \u003c/strong>But it could make the difference between some Medi-Cal providers getting money and others losing out.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> We’ll get into all that and more right after this.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">[SPONSOR MESSAGE]\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra: \u003c/strong>Today we’re digging into Prop 35. Here’s how it reads on your ballot.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>VO:\u003c/b> Prop 35 makes permanent the existing tax on managed health care insurance plans, which, if approved by the federal government, provides revenues to pay for Medi-Cal health care services.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra: \u003c/strong>We hit up KQED health correspondent Lesley McClurg to help us understand how this lifeline for so many Californians is currently funded and how Prop 35 could change that.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Prop 35 is about funding Medi-Cal, right? What is the backstory here? Exactly? How did this get on the ballot?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Lesley McClurg : \u003c/strong>Medi-Cal is the insurance that the state offers to folks with a limited income or who are on disability. Unfortunately, the problem with Medi-Cal is that there aren’t enough providers willing to give those services or open up their doors to Medi-Cal patients because reimbursement rates for Medi-Cal patients are much lower than for private insurers. More and more people need Medi-Cal, so you want to increase what those providers are making so they have the incentives to do so.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So the California Hospital Association, the California Medical Association, these big groups, are arguing that we need to increase pay to providers to ensure that patients get that care. One way that they get paid or they get funding for Medi-Cal is through this very obscure policy called the managed care tax. This is basically a tax that the state can levy on managed care plans.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>A managed care plan is like a Kaiser Permanente or an Anthem Blue Cross and when the state taxes these health care plans, they actually like it. Because the way this sort of works is that the state taxes the health care plans and then the federal government matches those dollars. Let’s say a plan covers 100 patients, a dollar a patient. When the state taxes them that dollar, the feds give the states $2. It doubles the amount of money that’s available for Medi-Cal patients. And this is one way that, since 2009, the state of California has been able to get more money and filter it towards Medi-Cal patients.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra: \u003c/strong>So what exactly would Prop 35 change?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Lesley McClurg: \u003c/strong>So right now, every few years, there’s what’s called an MCO tax. This managed care tax has been voted into place by the legislature. What would change under Prop 35 is that it would make this tax permanent. So we’re not giving over the possibility that it wouldn’t be voted into place. Right now it’s a little open about how those funds are going to get spent once they make it from the feds to the state. And Prop 35 narrows that window and make sure that certain groups, certain providers get those funds. So it makes it permanent and it directs the funding more specifically.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra: \u003c/strong>Yeah, so let’s talk more about who is behind this. I mean, who is really pushing for Prop 35’s success?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Lesley McClurg: \u003c/strong>So the areas where the allocations will be increased would be primary care, specialty care, emergency services, family planning. These are all areas that would would get more direct funding from this tax. And so it’s not surprising then that the groups that represent these doctors are in favor.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Jodi Hicks: \u003c/strong>What we’re doing is ensuring that this fee is extended permanently and that it’s sustainable, permanent funding that providers can count on.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Lesley McClurg:\u003c/strong> So Jodi Hicks is the president of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, and she has been a major supporter because family planning is a group that will benefit from this bill. And she says that this will increase access to her patients.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Jodi Hicks: \u003c/b>What we want is a primary care provider in any part of the community to be incentivized to take all patients in that community.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra: \u003c/strong>And what’s the argument for directing the funds through this tax specifically?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Lesley McClurg: \u003c/strong>No one is arguing that you should take away the MCO tax. In fact, the MCO tax is a necessary way to pull down money from the feds, or a good way for the state to pull down money from the Feds. What is important about Prop 35 is that it is going to make this tax permanent and it also, again, allocates these dollars in a very specific way, rather than giving it up to the legislature to decide how those funds are going to be spent. This has come to a head in our current environment because right now, for example, we’re in this situation where we have a huge budget deficit and there is fear that these dollars that are supposed to be spent on Medi-Cal funding will be used in some other way for different services. And so proponents want to ensure that these dollars coming from the feds go only to health care and go towards Medi-Cal funding.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra: \u003c/strong> And that said, Lesley, not all providers are on board with Prop 35, right? Who are some of the opponents and what are their arguments against this ballot measure?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Lesley McClurg: \u003c/strong> There are some definite groups that won’t benefit from Prop 35. Community health workers, community behavioral health workers, private duty nurses. And also, these funds would not go towards Medi-Cal patients who are under the age of five. So that makes certain groups not support the proposition, like the California Pan Ethnic Health Network, The Children’s Partnership, the California Alliance for Retired Americans, Courage California, the League of Women Voters. So these groups are worried about these specific groups that are are not going to benefit from Prop 35.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Mayra Alvarez: \u003c/strong>The difference driving our opposition to Proposition 35 is the restriction imposed by the proposition on how the funds can be used.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Lesley McClurg: \u003c/strong> Mayra Alvarez is the president of The Children’s Partnership, which is an advocacy organization to ensure that health care is available for all children. And her primary argument is that there are going to be some groups that don’t benefit and that we shouldn’t limit how the MCO tax or these funds, these billions of dollars are going to be distributed.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Mayra Alvarez: \u003c/b> The allocation of funding under Proposition 35 is decided by a group of selected provider organizations. So I don’t disagree about the specificity of making this permanent. What we are concerned with is what are the billions of dollars that will be lost as a result of locking in these rates.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra: \u003c/strong>And I guess, how do proponents respond to that argument that Prop 35 creates a sort of “winner” and “loser” situation?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Lesley McClurg: \u003c/strong>They argue that there is some flexibility in the way that it has been written. There’s not automatic funding going to those groups, but there is flexibility and in how the money will be spent and it could be allocated to those groups. So it’s not necessarily going to hurt them. They’re just not automatic recipients.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> So, Lesley, the California Democratic and Republican parties are both for Prop 35. But one person who is not a big supporter is Governor Gavin Newsom. What is his position on Prop 35?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Lesley McClurg: \u003c/strong>He has not taken an official position. In some press conferences, he has hinted that he may not support it. And his language has been that he does not want the legislature to be hamstrung or limited in the way that they spend the MCO tax.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Prop 35 would limit the MCO taxed to just being used in health care. And in a year like right now, where we have this huge budget deficit that might hamstring other services like education, important services that may be needed. We might need to move these funds around to ensure that other services are not cut. There are some media organizations that have come out in favor of Prop 35 like the Sacramento Bee, but there’s also other media outlets like the Mercury News, the San Francisco Chronicle, the San Diego Union-Tribune. All of these media outlets have argued that this is a maze. This is a budgetary maze that should not be before voters.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra: \u003c/strong>What do we know about campaign spending on both the yes and the no sides?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Lesley McClurg : \u003c/strong>So there hasn’t been any spending so far on the no side. There’s been about almost $81 million raised on the pro side. So big, big funding is going into this right now to ensure that it passes.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra: \u003c/strong> And I guess despite the fact that this is a pretty complicated proposition, do we have any sense yet, Lesley, of whether or not this thing will actually pass or how voters are feeling about it?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Lesley McClurg: \u003c/strong>Yeah, polling data right now is showing that it would most likely pass by about 63%. So currently right now, it’s looking pretty positive for the proposition.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra: \u003c/strong>All right, Lesley. Well, thank you so much for breaking this one down. I appreciate it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Lesley McClurg: \u003c/strong> Thank you.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra: \u003c/strong>In a nutshell, a vote yes on Prop 35 means an existing state tax on health plans that provides funding for certain health programs will become permanent, while also creating new rules around how that money can be spent. A vote no means these new rules would not go into effect and that this existing law on health plans would end in 2027 unless the legislature decides to keep it going.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/strong>And that’s it for this edition of Prop Fest. You can find transcripts for this episode and past ones at \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/propfest\">kqed.org/prop fest\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> Prop Fest is a collaboration between The Bay and Bay Curious. It’s made by Alan Montecillo, Jessica Kariisa, Olivia Allen-Price, Amanda Font, Christopher Beale, Ana De Almeida Amaral, and me, Ericka Cruz Guevarra.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">We get extra support from Katie Sprenger, Jen Chien, Maha Sanad, Holly Kernan, and the whole KQED family\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra: \u003c/strong> Tomorrow, we’ll bring you the final episode of Prop Fest with Prop 36.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> You’ve already made it this far, so make sure you stick around for that one.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "floatright"
},
"numeric": [
"floatright"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra: \u003c/strong>Subscribe to The Bay and Bay Curious so you don’t miss out. Peace.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/12007174/transcript-should-proposition-35-make-a-tax-to-help-fund-medi-cal-permanent-and-limit-how-the-money-is-used",
"authors": [
"8654",
"11229",
"11649",
"102",
"11831",
"11749",
"8637"
],
"programs": [
"news_33523",
"news_28779"
],
"series": [
"news_17986"
],
"categories": [
"news_457",
"news_8",
"news_33520",
"news_13"
],
"tags": [
"news_28606",
"news_32839",
"news_33812",
"news_34592",
"news_22598"
],
"featImg": "news_11753593",
"label": "source_news_12007174"
},
"news_12007359": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_12007359",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "12007359",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1727863242000
]
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "transcript-proposition-34-limits-how-prescription-drug-revenue-can-be-spent-by-certain-providers",
"title": "Proposition 34 Limits How Prescription Drug Revenue Can Be Spent By Certain Providers",
"publishDate": 1727863242,
"format": "standard",
"headTitle": "Proposition 34 Limits How Prescription Drug Revenue Can Be Spent By Certain Providers | KQED",
"labelTerm": {},
"content": "\u003cp>\u003cem>Aaron Schrank and Ana De Almeida Amaral contributed to this episode.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/propfest\">Prop Fest\u003c/a> is a collaboration from Bay Curious and The Bay podcasts, where we break down each of the 10 statewide propositions that will be on your November 2024 ballot. Check out \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/voterguide\">KQED’s Voter Guide\u003c/a> for more information on state and local races.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Today, we take a closer look at Prop 34, which takes aim at how revenues earned through a federal drug pricing program are spent by a very specific number of providers. On the surface it seems like a healthcare prop, but underneath it all is a proxy war over rent control. Reporter \u003ca href=\"https://www.kcrw.com/people/aaron-schrank\">Aaron Schrank\u003c/a>, who has been covering Prop 34 for NPR member station \u003ca href=\"https://www.kcrw.com/\">KCRW\u003c/a> in Los Angeles, helps us understand what’s at stake.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c!-- iframe plugin v.4.3 wordpress.org/plugins/iframe/ -->\u003cbr>\n\u003ciframe loading=\"lazy\" frameborder=\"0\" height=\"200\" scrolling=\"no\" src=\"https://playlist.megaphone.fm?e=KQINC5380710933&light=true\" width=\"100%\" class=\"iframe-class\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a transcript of the episode.\u003c/em>\u003cb>\u003c/b>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> Quite often there’s a prop or two on California’s ballot that seems like it’s about one thing, but it’s mostly about something else.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> Meet Proposition 34. The \u003c/span>\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">healthcare\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> prop that’s drawing big spending from \u003c/span>\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">landlord\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> groups. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> Behind it all is a proxy war over rent control, and likely how one organization is spending money made through a federal drug pricing program.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> I’m Ericka Cruz Guevarra. Host of The Bay.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">And I’m Olivia Allen-Price, Host of Bay Curious. This is Prop Fest, our 10 part series that goes in deep on the propositions you’ll be voting on this November. \u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cb>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> All so you can vote smart. Today we’re getting into the weeds on what is going on in Proposition 34 – about prescription drug spending.\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> But also about rent control. We’ll explain why, right after this.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">[SPONSOR MESSAGE]\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> Proposition 34 is one of the trickier measures California voters must consider this year. Here’s about how it will read on your ballot…\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>VO: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Proposition 34 is a statute that restricts spending of prescription drug revenues by certain health care providers. It also authorizes statewide negotiation of Medi-Cal drug prices. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Joining me today is Reporter Aaron Schrank, who has been covering Prop 34 for NPR member station KCRW in Los Angeles. Welcome Aaron.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Aaron Shrank: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Happy to be here!\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Before we get too far into the weeds on this one, broadly, what is Prop 34 aiming to do?\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Aaron Schrank:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> Well it is hard to avoid weeds on this particular proposition but broadly, Prop 34 would place new restrictions on how certain\u003c/span> \u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">healthcare providers can use the revenue they earn through a federal drug discount program. \u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">But more to the point: the measure is aiming to limit the political spending of one particular health care provider called the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. That foundation (as listeners of the previous Propfest episode may recall) is the primary backer of another measure on this year’s ballot which would expand rent control in California.\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">There’s also another minor provision in Prop 34 that would permanently authorize a program called Medi-Cal Rx, which is already in place, and allows California to negotiate Medi-Cal drug prices on a statewide basis.\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">At the heart of this is how funding is used that comes from a specific federal program. It’s called the 340B Drug Pricing Program. Can you explain what that is and how it works?\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Aaron Schrank: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Yes. 340B is a piece of federal legislation passed in the early 90s requiring pharmaceutical drug manufacturers to give significant discounts on the price of drugs to health care providers that focus on serving low-income and at-risk patients. Those discounts can be between 25 percent and about 50 percent off the retail price of the drugs. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Then, if the health providers give the drugs to a patient who has insurance, those providers can bill the insurance company for reimbursement based on the full cost of the drug. This, in turn, creates a stream of revenue for these social safety net health providers, allowing them to basically make money which they can use to further their operations. \u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Now, the intention of 340B was to help these providers stretch their resources in order to serve more patients and to provide more comprehensive services to disadvantaged communities. We’re talking about things like offering free care for uninsured patients or offering free vaccines. However, Congress didn’t actually specify any of that in the law, so there is currently no legal requirement for how this 340B revenue must be used.\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">And what are the proponents of Prop 34 looking to change about that?\u003c/span>\u003cb>\u003cbr>\n\u003c/b>\u003cb>\u003cbr>\n\u003c/b>\u003cb>Aaron Schrank:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> Well, they’re looking to establish a legal requirement for how that revenue can be used within the state of California –– or at least how some providers can use it. If approved, Prop 34 would require certain providers to spend 98 percent of those 340B revenues on “direct patient care.” \u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Here’s Yes on 34 spokesperson Nathan Click:\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Nathan Click: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">We need real transparency on 340b dollars. And we need real guardrails on this program. Fundamentally our entire message is that uh, dollars meant for patients, should be spent on patients.\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cb>Aaron Schrank: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">The measure’s definition of “direct patient care” includes medical, dental, pharmaceutical or behavioral health services directly administered to individual patients. It also specifies that they must be health care services that are regularly provided by other health providers in the community. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Prop 34 also establishes penalties. A provider that doesn’t comply with that 98 percent rule would have their healthcare license and tax exempt status permanently revoked. \u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cb>\u003cbr>\n\u003c/b>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">But it’s not \u003c/span>\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">all \u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">health care providers who would have to meet these new requirements, right?\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Aaron Schrank:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> That’s right, and that’s where this takes a bit of a turn. The law would only apply to 340B providers who meet some very specific conditions. First, they must have spent at least $100 million over a decade on purposes that do not qualify as direct patient care. Next, they must own –– or have previously owned –– one or more apartment buildings. And finally, the apartment buildings they own have to have been collectively cited for at least 500 health and safety violations.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">So that narrows things down a bit. Now, I should say the backers of this proposal do claim to believe that their measure would apply to more than one health care provider, but there’s really only one entity that we can be fairly certain would be impacted by the passage of Prop 34, and that is the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. \u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003cb>\u003cbr>\nOlivia Allen-Price:\u003c/b> Okay, so what is the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and why are they seemingly being singled out with this Proposition?\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Aaron Schrank:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> The AIDS Healthcare Foundation, or AHF, is the largest AIDS organization in the world. It was founded in Los Angeles in 1987, initially to provide hospice care to people dying of AIDS. As treatments and life expectancy for AIDS patients improved, AHF began opening clinics and then expanded nationally and internationally over the years. Today, they serve 2 million patients across 17 states and 47 countries.\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">The organization has more recently also gotten into housing. Back in 2017, they launched the Healthy Housing Foundation, which purchases and renovates existing buildings, primarily here in Los Angeles, where it has about 1,400 apartment units. CEO Michael Weinstein told me he sees housing as an extension of the organization’s existing mission.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Michael Weinstein: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Our mission is both medicine and advocacy. And under medicine, we consider housing to be a component of that.\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Aaron Schrank:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> He says that housing is the number one determinant of health, and that being unhoused is a huge health risk. \u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">It’s worth mentioning that AHF has an annual budget of about 2.5 billion dollars. The vast majority of their revenue comes from their network of 62 pharmacies, which is largely a result of its participation in that 340B program. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Now, as to why they seem to be in the cross-hairs of this ballot measure. The backers of Prop 34 don’t like how AHF uses that revenue, particularly when the organization spends money on political activity. Between 2015 and 2020, AHF spent more than $110 million on ballot measure campaigns in California, including two previous attempts to expand rent control. The California Apartment Association, which is a lobbying group that represents apartment landlords, spent many millions to help defeat those two previous rent control measures. \u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">And, again, this year, the AHF is the main sponsor of another rent control proposition – Prop 33. And the same landlord lobbying groups that have spent millions campaigning against AHF’s rent control measures are the ones sponsoring Proposition 34. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> So, is Prop 34 really about housing, and not that much about health care at all?\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Aaron Schrank: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Well, if you look at who is spending money to convince voters to approve this measure, it’s clear that this does have a lot to do with housing, and with the politics of housing and rent control specifically. The measure’s impact on health care is mostly limited to the question of how this one healthcare provider can spend its money. And backers of the proposition would argue that AIDS Healthcare Foundation’s spending on things like apartment buildings and rent control campaigns comes at the expense of patient care.\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Now, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation has positioned themselves as a pro-tenant group, and a group trying to help people experiencing homelessness, but to further complicate things, they’ve been criticized for the conditions in some of their low-incoming housing facilities. Can you elaborate on that?\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Aaron Schrank:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> Sure, as I mentioned, AHF has purchased several old hotels and small apartment complexes, mostly in the Skid Row area of downtown Los Angeles. There have been lots of complaints and reports of squalid conditions at those sites. The Los Angeles Times reported that the rate of code enforcement and public health complaints at AHF buildings is three times higher than those at other Skid Row nonprofits. \u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">AHF has also been criticized for evicting\u003c/span> \u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">tenants for unpaid rent, while simultaneously publicly advocating against evictions. Many tenants have filed lawsuits against the organization, citing substandard living conditions.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">So, despite the controversy and criticism, CEO Michael Weinstein defends the organization’s approach to housing. He says many of the buildings AHF has purchased are a century-old and that previous owners are in some cases partly liable for their condition. He says his organization has spent millions on renovations, and he stresses that his tenants have some of the cheapest rents available in the city. The tenants I’ve spoken with were paying between $400 and $650 a month. Which is obviously well below the market average. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">But that certainly all contributes to the controversy around AIDS Healthcare Foundation.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Hm, if Prop 34 passes, what will happen to the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, if they don’t meet the spending requirements?\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Aaron Schrank: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">I’ll note that it’s unclear exactly how much AHF spends on direct patient care right now, but it’s safe to say that it is certainly under that 98 percent threshold. So, if Prop 34 passes, it would likely mean that AHF would have to stop operating as a healthcare provider in California.\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">I asked CEO Michael Weinstein what would happen to his organization if voters approve Prop 34…\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Michael Weinstein:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> That’s 16, 000 patients that we serve across California who would have to look for another provider and retaining people with HIV in care is extremely important both in terms of breaking the chain of infection, but also for their health. There’s tens of thousands of more patients who go to our STD services, our free STD services. Yeah, so I mean, it would be very deleterious, and it would put an extra burden on the county and state who have to care for those patients.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Aaron Schrank: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">It’s also worth mentioning that, if voters do approve Prop 34, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation will still have some legal recourse to challenge the law. The organization believes that the measure is unconstitutional, based on the Constitution’s Bill of Attainder Clauses, which prohibit state legislatures from passing targeted statutes imposing punishment on specific actors without trial. So, if passed, this is almost certain to end up before a judge. \u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">This prop also has implications for Medi-Cal drug prices. Can you walk us through that?\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb> Aaron Schrank: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Sure, so Medi-Cal is the state’s Medicaid program; it’s a public insurance program that provides coverage to low-income Californians, including coverage for prescription drugs.\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">In 2019, Governor Gavin Newsom signed an executive order to save the state money on prescription drug purchases made through Medi-Cal. It did this basically by authorizing state agencies to negotiate with drug manufacturers together as a single entity for lower prices — and by requiring Medi-Cal to pay pharmacies directly for prescription drugs. This is known as the Medi-Cal Rx program. If passed, Prop 34 would enshrine that program into permanent law.\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">The campaign for Prop. 34 has been running a barrage of ads claiming that this particular provision would “drastically cut the costs of prescription drugs for Medi-Cal patients.” While that certainly sounds good, that claim is misleading, because again this is already happening and the measure is not proposing anything new in this regard, just more of an administrative update to keep it going. \u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">I asked Yes on 34 spokesperson Nathan Click about this…\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Nathan Click: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">The next governor, whoever that might be, could take this executive order off the books. The next governor will be able to do that with a stroke of a pen. It’s not in statute. It’s only by executive order. This would codify that executive order and make those important savings permanent. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> If this prop fails, what would happen to Medi-cal Rx?\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Aaron Schrank: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Nothing. Newsom’s executive order is in place. But as Click points out, it would remain open to potentially being undone by a future governor. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Who’s supporting prop 34 and why? \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Aaron Schrank:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> The primary supporter and financial backer of Proposition 34 is the California Apartment Association, which is a lobbying group that represents corporate rental property landlords. The top donors to the campaign for prop 34 are Equity Residential, which is the fifth largest owner of apartments in the country, and Essex Property Trust, which is the 11th largest. The Yes on 34 campaign has also been endorsed by the Republican Party of California, the ALS Association, the San Francisco Women’s Cancer Network, as well State Assemblyman Evan Low, a Democrat who represents Silicon Valley. These supporters all have issues with how the AIDS Healthcare Foundation has been operating, in one domain or another. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Alright, and I can probably guess but, who opposes Prop 34 and why?\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Aaron Schrank: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">The main opposition to Prop 34, unsurprisingly, is the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. They are saying they are being targeted and that the landlord lobby is using the guise of representing patients when this is really about stifling the movement for rent control. Here’s AIDS Healthcare Foundation CEO Michael Weinstein:\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cb>Michael Weinstein: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">What you’ve seen this year that you’ve never seen before is, um, a moneyed interest putting an initiative on the ballot with the specific purpose of silencing and exacting revenge against their opponent. And that’s what 34 is. It seeks revenge. I mean, pure and simple. It does not pass the laugh test that the California Apartment Association is so concerned about patient care and access. I don’t know of any time they’ve ever taken any interest in that before.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>\u003c/b>\u003cb>Aaron Schrank: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Other groups opposing Prop 34 include Consumer Watchdog, the National Organization for Women, the Dolores Huerta Foundation and the League of Women Voters. \u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cb>\u003cbr>\n\u003c/b>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">It sounds like there are, kind of, a few ways voters could approach voting on Prop 34.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Aaron Schrank: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Yeah. There’s a lot to consider. If you have strong feelings one way or the other about the AIDS Healthcare Foundation’s rent control measure, Prop 33, you might also vote for or against 34 based on that. Or you might vote depending on how you think that 340B money should be spent. But there is also a question of: Do you think propositions should be used in this way? Essentially weaponized in disputes between various interest groups. We’ve seen a lot of this before when labor unions and companies are hashing things out, most recently on the ballot with dialysis clinics. I think some voters will be overwhelmed and frustrated being dragged into this one, and will vote accordingly.\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">What does funding look like on this prop?\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Aaron Schrank:\u003c/b> \u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">As of late last month, the California Apartment Association and its supporters had spent $30 million in support of Proposition 34. Meanwhile, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation had spent just over $1 million fighting it.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>\u003ci>\u003c/i>\u003c/b>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Lot’s to consider on this one. Reporter Aaron Shrank, thank you so much for walking us through it.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Aaron Schrank: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Thank you so much, Olivia.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">In review, a vote yes on prop 34 would limit how a small number of healthcare providers – potentially only one, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation – can spend their revenues from the 340B Drug Price Discount Program. It would also permanently authorize Medi-cal Rx. A vote no means these new rules would not go into effect.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> We really hope you’ve been getting what you need out of Prop Fest so far. You can find transcripts for this episode, and past ones at \u003c/span>\u003ca href=\"http://kqed.org/propfest\">\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">KQED.org/propfest\u003c/span>\u003c/a>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">If you value the work we’re doing here, please consider donating to KQED to support it! We’re a public media station that runs on listener donations to survive, and every contribution makes a difference. Learn more at \u003c/span>\u003ca href=\"http://kqed.org/donate\">\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">KQED.org/donate\u003c/span>\u003c/a>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> Prop Fest is a collaboration between The Bay and Bay Curious. It’s made by Alan Montecillo, Jessica Kariisa, Olivia Allen-Price, Amanda Font, Christopher Beale, Ana De Almeida Amaral, and me, Ericka Cruz Guevarra.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">We get extra support from Katie Sprenger, Jen Chien, Maha Sanad, Holly Kernan, and the whole KQED family\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cb>Ericka Cruz Guevarra: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Tomorrow we will get into Prop 35, which could change how we fund Medical – a lifeline for low income, disabled Californians. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Be sure you’re subscribed to The Bay and Bay Curious so you don’t miss out. We’ll see ya tomorrow.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\n",
"blocks": [],
"excerpt": "On the surface, Proposition 34 seems like a healthcare prop, but underneath it all is a proxy war over rent control.",
"status": "publish",
"parent": 0,
"modified": 1730311142,
"stats": {
"hasAudio": true,
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"paragraphCount": 60,
"wordCount": 3272
},
"headData": {
"title": "Proposition 34 Limits How Prescription Drug Revenue Can Be Spent By Certain Providers | KQED",
"description": "On the surface, Proposition 34 seems like a healthcare prop, but underneath it all is a proxy war over rent control.",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogDescription": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"twDescription": "",
"twImgId": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Proposition 34 Limits How Prescription Drug Revenue Can Be Spent By Certain Providers",
"datePublished": "2024-10-02T03:00:42-07:00",
"dateModified": "2024-10-30T10:59:02-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"source": "Prop Fest",
"sourceUrl": "https://www.kqed.org/propfest",
"audioUrl": "https://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/pdst.fm/e/chrt.fm/track/G6C7C3/traffic.megaphone.fm/KQINC5380710933.mp3?updated=1727829021",
"sticky": false,
"nprStoryId": "kqed-12007359",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/12007359/transcript-proposition-34-limits-how-prescription-drug-revenue-can-be-spent-by-certain-providers",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>\u003cem>Aaron Schrank and Ana De Almeida Amaral contributed to this episode.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/propfest\">Prop Fest\u003c/a> is a collaboration from Bay Curious and The Bay podcasts, where we break down each of the 10 statewide propositions that will be on your November 2024 ballot. Check out \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/voterguide\">KQED’s Voter Guide\u003c/a> for more information on state and local races.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Today, we take a closer look at Prop 34, which takes aim at how revenues earned through a federal drug pricing program are spent by a very specific number of providers. On the surface it seems like a healthcare prop, but underneath it all is a proxy war over rent control. Reporter \u003ca href=\"https://www.kcrw.com/people/aaron-schrank\">Aaron Schrank\u003c/a>, who has been covering Prop 34 for NPR member station \u003ca href=\"https://www.kcrw.com/\">KCRW\u003c/a> in Los Angeles, helps us understand what’s at stake.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c!-- iframe plugin v.4.3 wordpress.org/plugins/iframe/ -->\u003cbr>\n\u003ciframe loading=\"lazy\" frameborder=\"0\" height=\"200\" scrolling=\"no\" src=\"https://playlist.megaphone.fm?e=KQINC5380710933&light=true\" width=\"100%\" class=\"iframe-class\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a transcript of the episode.\u003c/em>\u003cb>\u003c/b>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> Quite often there’s a prop or two on California’s ballot that seems like it’s about one thing, but it’s mostly about something else.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> Meet Proposition 34. The \u003c/span>\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">healthcare\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> prop that’s drawing big spending from \u003c/span>\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">landlord\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> groups. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> Behind it all is a proxy war over rent control, and likely how one organization is spending money made through a federal drug pricing program.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> I’m Ericka Cruz Guevarra. Host of The Bay.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">And I’m Olivia Allen-Price, Host of Bay Curious. This is Prop Fest, our 10 part series that goes in deep on the propositions you’ll be voting on this November. \u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cb>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> All so you can vote smart. Today we’re getting into the weeds on what is going on in Proposition 34 – about prescription drug spending.\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> But also about rent control. We’ll explain why, right after this.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">[SPONSOR MESSAGE]\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> Proposition 34 is one of the trickier measures California voters must consider this year. Here’s about how it will read on your ballot…\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>VO: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Proposition 34 is a statute that restricts spending of prescription drug revenues by certain health care providers. It also authorizes statewide negotiation of Medi-Cal drug prices. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Joining me today is Reporter Aaron Schrank, who has been covering Prop 34 for NPR member station KCRW in Los Angeles. Welcome Aaron.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Aaron Shrank: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Happy to be here!\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Before we get too far into the weeds on this one, broadly, what is Prop 34 aiming to do?\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Aaron Schrank:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> Well it is hard to avoid weeds on this particular proposition but broadly, Prop 34 would place new restrictions on how certain\u003c/span> \u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">healthcare providers can use the revenue they earn through a federal drug discount program. \u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">But more to the point: the measure is aiming to limit the political spending of one particular health care provider called the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. That foundation (as listeners of the previous Propfest episode may recall) is the primary backer of another measure on this year’s ballot which would expand rent control in California.\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">There’s also another minor provision in Prop 34 that would permanently authorize a program called Medi-Cal Rx, which is already in place, and allows California to negotiate Medi-Cal drug prices on a statewide basis.\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">At the heart of this is how funding is used that comes from a specific federal program. It’s called the 340B Drug Pricing Program. Can you explain what that is and how it works?\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Aaron Schrank: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Yes. 340B is a piece of federal legislation passed in the early 90s requiring pharmaceutical drug manufacturers to give significant discounts on the price of drugs to health care providers that focus on serving low-income and at-risk patients. Those discounts can be between 25 percent and about 50 percent off the retail price of the drugs. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Then, if the health providers give the drugs to a patient who has insurance, those providers can bill the insurance company for reimbursement based on the full cost of the drug. This, in turn, creates a stream of revenue for these social safety net health providers, allowing them to basically make money which they can use to further their operations. \u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Now, the intention of 340B was to help these providers stretch their resources in order to serve more patients and to provide more comprehensive services to disadvantaged communities. We’re talking about things like offering free care for uninsured patients or offering free vaccines. However, Congress didn’t actually specify any of that in the law, so there is currently no legal requirement for how this 340B revenue must be used.\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">And what are the proponents of Prop 34 looking to change about that?\u003c/span>\u003cb>\u003cbr>\n\u003c/b>\u003cb>\u003cbr>\n\u003c/b>\u003cb>Aaron Schrank:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> Well, they’re looking to establish a legal requirement for how that revenue can be used within the state of California –– or at least how some providers can use it. If approved, Prop 34 would require certain providers to spend 98 percent of those 340B revenues on “direct patient care.” \u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Here’s Yes on 34 spokesperson Nathan Click:\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Nathan Click: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">We need real transparency on 340b dollars. And we need real guardrails on this program. Fundamentally our entire message is that uh, dollars meant for patients, should be spent on patients.\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cb>Aaron Schrank: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">The measure’s definition of “direct patient care” includes medical, dental, pharmaceutical or behavioral health services directly administered to individual patients. It also specifies that they must be health care services that are regularly provided by other health providers in the community. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Prop 34 also establishes penalties. A provider that doesn’t comply with that 98 percent rule would have their healthcare license and tax exempt status permanently revoked. \u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cb>\u003cbr>\n\u003c/b>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">But it’s not \u003c/span>\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">all \u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">health care providers who would have to meet these new requirements, right?\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Aaron Schrank:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> That’s right, and that’s where this takes a bit of a turn. The law would only apply to 340B providers who meet some very specific conditions. First, they must have spent at least $100 million over a decade on purposes that do not qualify as direct patient care. Next, they must own –– or have previously owned –– one or more apartment buildings. And finally, the apartment buildings they own have to have been collectively cited for at least 500 health and safety violations.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">So that narrows things down a bit. Now, I should say the backers of this proposal do claim to believe that their measure would apply to more than one health care provider, but there’s really only one entity that we can be fairly certain would be impacted by the passage of Prop 34, and that is the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. \u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003cb>\u003cbr>\nOlivia Allen-Price:\u003c/b> Okay, so what is the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and why are they seemingly being singled out with this Proposition?\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Aaron Schrank:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> The AIDS Healthcare Foundation, or AHF, is the largest AIDS organization in the world. It was founded in Los Angeles in 1987, initially to provide hospice care to people dying of AIDS. As treatments and life expectancy for AIDS patients improved, AHF began opening clinics and then expanded nationally and internationally over the years. Today, they serve 2 million patients across 17 states and 47 countries.\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">The organization has more recently also gotten into housing. Back in 2017, they launched the Healthy Housing Foundation, which purchases and renovates existing buildings, primarily here in Los Angeles, where it has about 1,400 apartment units. CEO Michael Weinstein told me he sees housing as an extension of the organization’s existing mission.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Michael Weinstein: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Our mission is both medicine and advocacy. And under medicine, we consider housing to be a component of that.\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Aaron Schrank:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> He says that housing is the number one determinant of health, and that being unhoused is a huge health risk. \u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">It’s worth mentioning that AHF has an annual budget of about 2.5 billion dollars. The vast majority of their revenue comes from their network of 62 pharmacies, which is largely a result of its participation in that 340B program. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Now, as to why they seem to be in the cross-hairs of this ballot measure. The backers of Prop 34 don’t like how AHF uses that revenue, particularly when the organization spends money on political activity. Between 2015 and 2020, AHF spent more than $110 million on ballot measure campaigns in California, including two previous attempts to expand rent control. The California Apartment Association, which is a lobbying group that represents apartment landlords, spent many millions to help defeat those two previous rent control measures. \u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">And, again, this year, the AHF is the main sponsor of another rent control proposition – Prop 33. And the same landlord lobbying groups that have spent millions campaigning against AHF’s rent control measures are the ones sponsoring Proposition 34. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> So, is Prop 34 really about housing, and not that much about health care at all?\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Aaron Schrank: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Well, if you look at who is spending money to convince voters to approve this measure, it’s clear that this does have a lot to do with housing, and with the politics of housing and rent control specifically. The measure’s impact on health care is mostly limited to the question of how this one healthcare provider can spend its money. And backers of the proposition would argue that AIDS Healthcare Foundation’s spending on things like apartment buildings and rent control campaigns comes at the expense of patient care.\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Now, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation has positioned themselves as a pro-tenant group, and a group trying to help people experiencing homelessness, but to further complicate things, they’ve been criticized for the conditions in some of their low-incoming housing facilities. Can you elaborate on that?\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Aaron Schrank:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> Sure, as I mentioned, AHF has purchased several old hotels and small apartment complexes, mostly in the Skid Row area of downtown Los Angeles. There have been lots of complaints and reports of squalid conditions at those sites. The Los Angeles Times reported that the rate of code enforcement and public health complaints at AHF buildings is three times higher than those at other Skid Row nonprofits. \u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">AHF has also been criticized for evicting\u003c/span> \u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">tenants for unpaid rent, while simultaneously publicly advocating against evictions. Many tenants have filed lawsuits against the organization, citing substandard living conditions.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">So, despite the controversy and criticism, CEO Michael Weinstein defends the organization’s approach to housing. He says many of the buildings AHF has purchased are a century-old and that previous owners are in some cases partly liable for their condition. He says his organization has spent millions on renovations, and he stresses that his tenants have some of the cheapest rents available in the city. The tenants I’ve spoken with were paying between $400 and $650 a month. Which is obviously well below the market average. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">But that certainly all contributes to the controversy around AIDS Healthcare Foundation.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Hm, if Prop 34 passes, what will happen to the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, if they don’t meet the spending requirements?\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Aaron Schrank: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">I’ll note that it’s unclear exactly how much AHF spends on direct patient care right now, but it’s safe to say that it is certainly under that 98 percent threshold. So, if Prop 34 passes, it would likely mean that AHF would have to stop operating as a healthcare provider in California.\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">I asked CEO Michael Weinstein what would happen to his organization if voters approve Prop 34…\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Michael Weinstein:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> That’s 16, 000 patients that we serve across California who would have to look for another provider and retaining people with HIV in care is extremely important both in terms of breaking the chain of infection, but also for their health. There’s tens of thousands of more patients who go to our STD services, our free STD services. Yeah, so I mean, it would be very deleterious, and it would put an extra burden on the county and state who have to care for those patients.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Aaron Schrank: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">It’s also worth mentioning that, if voters do approve Prop 34, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation will still have some legal recourse to challenge the law. The organization believes that the measure is unconstitutional, based on the Constitution’s Bill of Attainder Clauses, which prohibit state legislatures from passing targeted statutes imposing punishment on specific actors without trial. So, if passed, this is almost certain to end up before a judge. \u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">This prop also has implications for Medi-Cal drug prices. Can you walk us through that?\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb> Aaron Schrank: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Sure, so Medi-Cal is the state’s Medicaid program; it’s a public insurance program that provides coverage to low-income Californians, including coverage for prescription drugs.\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">In 2019, Governor Gavin Newsom signed an executive order to save the state money on prescription drug purchases made through Medi-Cal. It did this basically by authorizing state agencies to negotiate with drug manufacturers together as a single entity for lower prices — and by requiring Medi-Cal to pay pharmacies directly for prescription drugs. This is known as the Medi-Cal Rx program. If passed, Prop 34 would enshrine that program into permanent law.\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">The campaign for Prop. 34 has been running a barrage of ads claiming that this particular provision would “drastically cut the costs of prescription drugs for Medi-Cal patients.” While that certainly sounds good, that claim is misleading, because again this is already happening and the measure is not proposing anything new in this regard, just more of an administrative update to keep it going. \u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">I asked Yes on 34 spokesperson Nathan Click about this…\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Nathan Click: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">The next governor, whoever that might be, could take this executive order off the books. The next governor will be able to do that with a stroke of a pen. It’s not in statute. It’s only by executive order. This would codify that executive order and make those important savings permanent. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> If this prop fails, what would happen to Medi-cal Rx?\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Aaron Schrank: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Nothing. Newsom’s executive order is in place. But as Click points out, it would remain open to potentially being undone by a future governor. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Who’s supporting prop 34 and why? \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Aaron Schrank:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> The primary supporter and financial backer of Proposition 34 is the California Apartment Association, which is a lobbying group that represents corporate rental property landlords. The top donors to the campaign for prop 34 are Equity Residential, which is the fifth largest owner of apartments in the country, and Essex Property Trust, which is the 11th largest. The Yes on 34 campaign has also been endorsed by the Republican Party of California, the ALS Association, the San Francisco Women’s Cancer Network, as well State Assemblyman Evan Low, a Democrat who represents Silicon Valley. These supporters all have issues with how the AIDS Healthcare Foundation has been operating, in one domain or another. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Alright, and I can probably guess but, who opposes Prop 34 and why?\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Aaron Schrank: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">The main opposition to Prop 34, unsurprisingly, is the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. They are saying they are being targeted and that the landlord lobby is using the guise of representing patients when this is really about stifling the movement for rent control. Here’s AIDS Healthcare Foundation CEO Michael Weinstein:\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cb>Michael Weinstein: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">What you’ve seen this year that you’ve never seen before is, um, a moneyed interest putting an initiative on the ballot with the specific purpose of silencing and exacting revenge against their opponent. And that’s what 34 is. It seeks revenge. I mean, pure and simple. It does not pass the laugh test that the California Apartment Association is so concerned about patient care and access. I don’t know of any time they’ve ever taken any interest in that before.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>\u003c/b>\u003cb>Aaron Schrank: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Other groups opposing Prop 34 include Consumer Watchdog, the National Organization for Women, the Dolores Huerta Foundation and the League of Women Voters. \u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cb>\u003cbr>\n\u003c/b>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">It sounds like there are, kind of, a few ways voters could approach voting on Prop 34.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Aaron Schrank: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Yeah. There’s a lot to consider. If you have strong feelings one way or the other about the AIDS Healthcare Foundation’s rent control measure, Prop 33, you might also vote for or against 34 based on that. Or you might vote depending on how you think that 340B money should be spent. But there is also a question of: Do you think propositions should be used in this way? Essentially weaponized in disputes between various interest groups. We’ve seen a lot of this before when labor unions and companies are hashing things out, most recently on the ballot with dialysis clinics. I think some voters will be overwhelmed and frustrated being dragged into this one, and will vote accordingly.\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">What does funding look like on this prop?\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Aaron Schrank:\u003c/b> \u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">As of late last month, the California Apartment Association and its supporters had spent $30 million in support of Proposition 34. Meanwhile, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation had spent just over $1 million fighting it.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>\u003ci>\u003c/i>\u003c/b>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Lot’s to consider on this one. Reporter Aaron Shrank, thank you so much for walking us through it.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Aaron Schrank: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Thank you so much, Olivia.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">In review, a vote yes on prop 34 would limit how a small number of healthcare providers – potentially only one, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation – can spend their revenues from the 340B Drug Price Discount Program. It would also permanently authorize Medi-cal Rx. A vote no means these new rules would not go into effect.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> We really hope you’ve been getting what you need out of Prop Fest so far. You can find transcripts for this episode, and past ones at \u003c/span>\u003ca href=\"http://kqed.org/propfest\">\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">KQED.org/propfest\u003c/span>\u003c/a>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">If you value the work we’re doing here, please consider donating to KQED to support it! We’re a public media station that runs on listener donations to survive, and every contribution makes a difference. Learn more at \u003c/span>\u003ca href=\"http://kqed.org/donate\">\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">KQED.org/donate\u003c/span>\u003c/a>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\"> Prop Fest is a collaboration between The Bay and Bay Curious. It’s made by Alan Montecillo, Jessica Kariisa, Olivia Allen-Price, Amanda Font, Christopher Beale, Ana De Almeida Amaral, and me, Ericka Cruz Guevarra.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">We get extra support from Katie Sprenger, Jen Chien, Maha Sanad, Holly Kernan, and the whole KQED family\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cb>Ericka Cruz Guevarra: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Tomorrow we will get into Prop 35, which could change how we fund Medical – a lifeline for low income, disabled Californians. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "floatright"
},
"numeric": [
"floatright"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Be sure you’re subscribed to The Bay and Bay Curious so you don’t miss out. We’ll see ya tomorrow.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/12007359/transcript-proposition-34-limits-how-prescription-drug-revenue-can-be-spent-by-certain-providers",
"authors": [
"102",
"8654",
"11649",
"8637",
"11831",
"11749"
],
"programs": [
"news_33523",
"news_28779"
],
"series": [
"news_17986"
],
"categories": [
"news_31795",
"news_457",
"news_6266",
"news_8",
"news_33520"
],
"tags": [
"news_33812"
],
"featImg": "news_12007365",
"label": "source_news_12007359"
},
"news_12007197": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_12007197",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "12007197",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1727776857000
]
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "transcript-proposition-33-would-end-state-limits-on-rent-control",
"title": "Proposition 33 Would End State Limits on Rent Control",
"publishDate": 1727776857,
"format": "standard",
"headTitle": "Proposition 33 Would End State Limits on Rent Control | KQED",
"labelTerm": {},
"content": "\u003cp>\u003cem>Editor’s Note: An earlier version of this podcast episode said that nothing would change immediately if Prop 33 passes. In fact, \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12011500/if-proposition-33-passes-these-bay-area-cities-would-see-big-rent-control-changes\">several communities have laws that would immediately go into effect\u003c/a>. \u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/propfest\">Prop Fest\u003c/a> is a collaboration from Bay Curious and The Bay podcasts, where we break down each of the 10 statewide propositions that will be on your November 2024 ballot. Check out \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/voterguide\">KQED’s Voter Guide\u003c/a> for more information on state and local races.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Today, reporter Vanessa Rancaño helps us understand what’s at stake in Proposition 33, which would remove state limits on rent control that have been in place since 1995, and give power back to local governments to enact or change rent control policies.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c!-- iframe plugin v.4.3 wordpress.org/plugins/iframe/ -->\u003cbr>\n\u003ciframe loading=\"lazy\" frameborder=\"0\" height=\"200\" scrolling=\"no\" src=\"https://playlist.megaphone.fm?e=KQINC3223859608&light=true\" width=\"100%\" class=\"iframe-class\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a transcript of the episode.\u003cbr>\n\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> I’ve been renting my place here in the Bay Area for 9 years and once a year, around the time when our lease terms are due for renewal. I start to get anxious about what that rent increase might look like.\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">(Music)\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Ericka Cruz Guevarra: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">That’s a real fear! \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Renters in California pay about 50 percent more for housing than renters in other states. Which means a lot of people are spending about as much as they can afford on rent. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> Big rent increases price a lot of people out of their homes every year.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">One way local governments have tried to give renters a bit more stability is by enacting rent control laws. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> But caps set by the state mean they can only go so far… I’m Ericka Cruz Guevarra, host of The Bay\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">And I’m Olivia Allen-Price, host of Bay Curious. Today we’re moving in on Prop 33, which would give authority back to local governments to enact or change rent control laws.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> We’ve seen similar props in 2018 and 2020, and voters didn’t go for it. But polling shows the tide could be turning.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">We’ll get into what exactly Prop 33 would do … plus an overview on the debate about rent control. Does it lower rents? Or have the opposite effect?\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Ericka Cruz Guevarra: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">That’s all just ahead on Prop Fest. Stay tuned…\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">SPONSOR BREAK\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Let’s dive deep into Proposition 33, which will read like this on your ballot. \u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cb>Amanda Font: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Proposition 33 is a state statue that expands local governments’ authority to enact rent control on residential property. \u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">This is one of the big ticket items on this year’s ballot. With tens of millions of dollars being spent on both sides. Because this one impacts people’s wallets. Here to wade through it with us is KQED housing reporter Vanessa Rancaño. Welcome, Vanessa. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Vanessa Rancaño: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Hello. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">So let’s start big picture. What is Proposition 33 aiming to do? \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Vanessa Rancaño:\u003c/b> \u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">It aims to give local governments more power to regulate rents. They do this via rent control laws. So these are policies that cap annual rent increases. At the moment, there’s a state law that sets some parameters on how far rent control Laws can go in California. But if Prop 33 passes, those limits would be removed. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">There is rent control already in some Bay Area cities like San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose. So cities do have some ability to enact rent control, right?\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Vanessa Rancaño: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Yeah, they definitely do, but they can only go so far. And that’s because of this state law called the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act that’s been around since 1995. And it’s sort of key to understand that before we can unpack Prop 33. \u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">(Music)\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">All right. Well, let’s get into Costa-Hawkins, Where to begin? Walk us through it. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Vanessa Rancaño: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Sure. So the context for this law is that there was a swell of tenant activism in the 70s and 80s, which led to the passage of a number of local rent control laws. And at the time, people were struggling to pay rent for a bunch of reasons. We weren’t building enough, there was inflation, wages weren’t rising. And in 1978, Prop 13 passed here in California, limiting property taxes homeowners pay. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Now, tenants had been promised that because landlords would be paying less in taxes, those savings were going to trickle down to them and they’d be paying less in rent. But that did not happen. Rents, in fact, rose. And tenants rights groups felt duped. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">So in response to all these different factors, we saw a handful of cities pass rent control laws that limited how much a landlord could raise rent. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">What we see then is a backlash against that increase in tenant power. Some people blamed rent control for the housing shortage. They thought rent control scared off developers from building new apartments because they wouldn’t be able to make as high a profit. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">So that’s the background when in 1995 these two state lawmakers, Democratic Senator Jim Costa and Republican Assemblymember Phil Hawkins, put forward legislation to curb rent control. It passes by just one vote and shapes rent control policy across California for decades. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Now, what exactly does Costa-Hawkins do? \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Vanessa Rancaño: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">So it does two big things. It exempts single family homes, condos and anything built after 1995 from rent control. That’s why you see rent controlled units tend to be older. The idea there is that to encourage new construction you’ve got to exempt new apartments from rent control. For cities that had existing rent control laws in place Costa-Hawkins froze the cutoff dates for how old a unit had to be to be eligible for rent control under those laws. So, for example, in Oakland, the cutoff is 1983. Berkeley, it’s 1980. San Jose, San Francisco—nothing built after 1979 can have rent control. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The second really important thing that Costa-Hawkins does is it eliminates what’s called \u003c/span>\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">vacancy control\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">. That ties rent control to an apartment instead of to the tenant. So under Costa-Hawkins we have \u003c/span>\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">vacancy decontrol\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">. It means that if a tenant moves out of a rent controlled apartment, the landlord can raise the rent up to market rate, as high as they want. They’re only limited in terms of how much they can raise the rent a year to year after a tenant moves in. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">At this point Costa-Hawkins has been on the books in California for just shy of 30 years. Can you talk about what kind of impacts have seen?\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Vanessa Rancaño: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Well, I think we can say that we see fewer people Living in rent controlled apartments than we might otherwise. We also see rent control apartments getting older. So our stock of rent controlled apartments dwindles because buildings get redeveloped. I think it’s really hard to say if limits on rent control have had any impact on development because there are just so many other factors in play. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">But developers would certainly say that they like them, I would assume. \u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cb>Vanessa Rancaño: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Yes. \u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">So this year we’re voting on Prop 33. What would it do exactly? \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Vanessa Rancaño: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">It would take us back to before Costa-Hawkins and hand the power to make decisions on rent control back to local governments. To be clear, it does not mean that suddenly rent control is going to be in every town, affecting every home or anything even close to that. But it does open the door for communities to make local rent control decisions without being limited by state law. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">I feel like I’m having déja vu with this one because people have tried to overturn Costa-Hawkins before. Right? \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Vanessa Rancaño: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Yeah, there were two efforts, one in 2018 and one in 2020, that took aim at the law and voters shot both of those down. There are some powerful interests that really do not want to see the expansion of rent control. Landlord groups, real estate groups. They have put a lot of money into fighting these statewide initiatives and they have so far been successful. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Now, rent control is controversial even among those who want to see lower rents. Can you explain why? \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Vanessa Rancaño: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Yeah. I mean, traditionally, economists have seen rent control as a really bad idea. They argue that rent caps are inefficient, that they create scarcity and drive up rents in non-regulated buildings. I came across this survey from 1992 that found over 90% of economists agreed that these policies drive down the quantity and quality of available housing. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Ya know, Bay Curious actually did an explainer that covered some of those things about rent control back in 2018. So I would say if the efficacy of rent control is really important to how you vote, you might go give that a listen for some additional context. We’ll link to it in our show notes or just head online and search something like: “Bay Curious Rent Control 2018” and it should be the first thing that pops up.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Vanessa Rancaño: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Yes, that is a great overview of the arguments. I think the only thing I would add is that more recently we have seen some economists come forward to argue that there is research and there are real world examples that refute this traditional narrative, which they say is based more on economic theory than empirical evidence. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Mark Paul is a Rutgers economist who studies rent control and also very much supports it. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Mark Paul: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Most mainstream economists are taught these theoretical models where perfect competition exists, there’s no such thing as market power, you know where landlords have more power than renters. In their models that they’re thinking about this there’s unlimited supply of affordable housing, homelessness doesn’t exist, and corporate landlords that use algorithmic pricing to jack prices up, something that we see the Federal Trade Commission going after corporate landlords for, things like that can’t exist because they would just get outcompeted. But I think people underestimate the bias most economists have against government intervention.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Hmm so it sounds like not all economists are necessarily on the same page the way they might have been at one time? \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Vanessa Rancaño: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Yes. So last year, a group of 32 economists wrote this letter to the Federal Housing Finance Agency lobbying for the use of rent control across the country. And what they’re arguing is that all this naysaying that we see about rent control mirrors economists’ traditional opposition to minimum wage laws. They predicted that minimum wage laws were going to lead to widespread joblessness, and we haven’t actually seen that happen. \u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> Hm Interesting. Are there any components of rent control that folks who do study this \u003c/span>\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">can \u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">agree on?\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">(music)\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Vanessa Rancaño: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">So here is what I think we can safely say. There is research evidence that rent control does work to hold rents down for tenants in eligible units. But how much varies a lot across policies and studies. There is also evidence that it can have unintended consequences. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">So the places where there’s agreement about what those consequences are: that it can lead to a decline in housing quality, because landlords have less incentive to maintain their properties. It can lead to a reduction in the number of rental housing units on the market because landlords convert apartments to condos. So there are studies that have found that more moderate forms of rent control can avoid some of these unintended consequences. And then the economists, those who support rent control argue that if you put in place other regulations, along with rent control, you can get around some of these consequences. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">So, for instance, you can do things to try to prevent landlords from converting their apartments to condos. You can allow landlords to pass along maintenance costs to renters to sort of incentivize them to continue to maintain their properties. So things like that. \u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">I know one critique of rent control has been it can be pretty blunt in terms of who it actually helps. Can you explain that?\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Vanessa Rancaño: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">I will say that you know, there are many people who argue that even if you put in place the strongest, best rent control policy, it’s not necessarily going to reach the right people, right? Because it is tied to a property rather than a person. Michael Manville is a UCLA Urban planning professor who studies rent control. \u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cb>Michael Manville: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">If we’re serious about helping our most vulnerable tenants, that’s really going to involve some combination of making housing in general just much more plentiful, and spending money in targeted subsidies for low-income people. Because the thing is, even if you have the most powerful, strong rent control law, you could end up holding down the rent for a bunch of people who don’t necessarily need that assistance. And letting a bunch of people who do need that assistance pay a very high housing costs because they aren’t fortunate enough to be in a rent controlled unit. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">All right. Walk us through who is opposing Prop 33 and why. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Vanessa Rancaño: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">In general, it’s landlord and real estate interests. And what they argue is that these policies ultimately are counterproductive, that they will lead to less new construction and ultimately housing prices will just go up, that rental prices will go up. I’ve also heard from landlords that, you know, their property taxes keep going up, but they’re seeing stricter caps on how much they can raise the rent and that makes it really tough for them to maintain their properties. And many of them are just really frustrated. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Who is supporting this measure and why? \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Vanessa Rancaño: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">So the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and its president, Michael Weinstein is the chief proponent of not just Prop 33, but also the last two attempts to roll back Costa-Hawkins in 2018 and 2020. The California Democratic Party is also backing it. Some tenant advocacy groups. Some unions. Francisco Dueñas runs Housing Now California it’s a coalition of organizations advocating for pro renter policies. They very much support Prop 33. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Francisco Dueñas: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">We see that they help provide stability for tenants. That it helps prevent or protect against, you know, surprise increases in rents. And I think that’s the biggest benefit that people really look towards, is just knowing that their rents are not going to rise 100%, you know, from one month to the next when they’re lease ends.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Vanessa Rancaño: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">And in general all these folks argue that the rent is just too high, that people are getting pushed out of cities. People are ending up homeless. And, you know, at the very least that we should do something to protect people from huge surprise rent increases. They point out that while we do have a state rent control law, it passed in 2019 and it limits annual increases to 10%, it’s just too high, they say. And that law sunsets in 2030 in any case. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Other arguments I’ve heard are that homeowners are benefiting from a form of price control in the form of fixed rate mortgages. And we should, you know, extend similar protections to renters. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Beyond all that, there are people who argue that we should rethink how we approach housing in this country, that we should reframe it as a fundamental human right rather than a commodity. And they see rent control as one small step in that direction.\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cb>Francisco Dueñas: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The profit motive shouldn’t be the only thing that leads the policy when it comes to housing because then, you know, everybody but the highest bidder is losing out if our housing policy is only focused on profit and, you know, outcomes.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">I do want to underline that support coming from the AIDS Healthcare Foundation on this prop, because that plays into what we’ll be talking about tomorrow, Proposition 34, which some have seen as a proposition built specifically to take aim at the AIDS Healthcare Foundation for their advocacy on rent control issues over the years. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Vanessa, this is one of the most expensive measures from a spending perspective that we’re seeing. Can you tell us how that’s all shaking out so far?\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Vanessa Rancaño: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Oh my god. People are spending so much money on this. So to date, it’s over $40 million to support this proposition. The vast majority of that is coming from the AIDS HealthCare Foundation. In terms of opposition, they’ve raised over $65 million. The vast majority of that is coming from the California Apartment Association and the California Association of Realtors. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Woo! Spendy. Vanessa Rancaño is a housing reporter at KQED. Vanessa, thanks for breaking this down for us. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Vanessa Rancaño: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Thanks for having me.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/b> \u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Let’s review. A vote yes on Prop 33 means you want local governments to have the power to enact or change their own rent control laws. A vote no on Prop 33 would keep state limits on rent control in place. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">That’s it on Prop 33. You can find audio and transcripts of this episode, and all the others in our Prop Fest series at \u003c/span>\u003ca href=\"http://kqed.org/propfest\">\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">KQED.org/propfest\u003c/span>\u003c/a>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">. While you’re on the KQED website, be sure to check out our voter guide, which has lots more important information about your statewide and local elections. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Ericka Cruz Guevarra: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Prop Fest is a collaboration between The Bay and Bay Curious podcasts. It’s made by…\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Alan Montecillo\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Olivia Allen-Price\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Jessica Kariisa\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>Amanda Font\u003cbr>\nChristopher Beale\u003cbr>\n\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Ana De Almeda Amaral\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">And me, Ericka Cruz Guevarra\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">We get extra support from\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Jen Chien\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Katie Sprenger\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Maha Sanad\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Holly Kernan\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">And the whole KQED family\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Ericka Cruz Guevarra: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Tomorrow we will get into Prop 34, which would limit how some healthcare providers can spend money earned through a federal drug pricing program. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">It looks like a healthcare bill, but it actually has a lot to do with rent control. We’ll spill the tea on that tomorrow – but be sure you’re subscribed so you don’t miss out.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> Thanks for listening to Prop Fest. Peace.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\n",
"blocks": [],
"excerpt": "Reporter Vanessa Rancaño discusses what's at stake in Proposition 33, which would remove state limits on rent control that have been in place since 1995, and give power back to local governments to enact or change rent control policies.",
"status": "publish",
"parent": 0,
"modified": 1730754747,
"stats": {
"hasAudio": true,
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"paragraphCount": 71,
"wordCount": 3321
},
"headData": {
"title": "Proposition 33 Would End State Limits on Rent Control | KQED",
"description": "Reporter Vanessa Rancaño discusses what's at stake in Proposition 33, which would remove state limits on rent control that have been in place since 1995, and give power back to local governments to enact or change rent control policies.",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogDescription": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"twDescription": "",
"twImgId": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Proposition 33 Would End State Limits on Rent Control",
"datePublished": "2024-10-01T03:00:57-07:00",
"dateModified": "2024-11-04T13:12:27-08:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"source": "Prop Fest 2024",
"sourceUrl": "https://www.kqed.org/propfest",
"audioUrl": "https://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/pdst.fm/e/chrt.fm/track/G6C7C3/traffic.megaphone.fm/KQINC3223859608.mp3?updated=1727730711",
"sticky": false,
"nprStoryId": "kqed-12007197",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/12007197/transcript-proposition-33-would-end-state-limits-on-rent-control",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>\u003cem>Editor’s Note: An earlier version of this podcast episode said that nothing would change immediately if Prop 33 passes. In fact, \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/12011500/if-proposition-33-passes-these-bay-area-cities-would-see-big-rent-control-changes\">several communities have laws that would immediately go into effect\u003c/a>. \u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/propfest\">Prop Fest\u003c/a> is a collaboration from Bay Curious and The Bay podcasts, where we break down each of the 10 statewide propositions that will be on your November 2024 ballot. Check out \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/voterguide\">KQED’s Voter Guide\u003c/a> for more information on state and local races.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Today, reporter Vanessa Rancaño helps us understand what’s at stake in Proposition 33, which would remove state limits on rent control that have been in place since 1995, and give power back to local governments to enact or change rent control policies.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c!-- iframe plugin v.4.3 wordpress.org/plugins/iframe/ -->\u003cbr>\n\u003ciframe loading=\"lazy\" frameborder=\"0\" height=\"200\" scrolling=\"no\" src=\"https://playlist.megaphone.fm?e=KQINC3223859608&light=true\" width=\"100%\" class=\"iframe-class\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a transcript of the episode.\u003cbr>\n\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> I’ve been renting my place here in the Bay Area for 9 years and once a year, around the time when our lease terms are due for renewal. I start to get anxious about what that rent increase might look like.\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">(Music)\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Ericka Cruz Guevarra: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">That’s a real fear! \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Renters in California pay about 50 percent more for housing than renters in other states. Which means a lot of people are spending about as much as they can afford on rent. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> Big rent increases price a lot of people out of their homes every year.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">One way local governments have tried to give renters a bit more stability is by enacting rent control laws. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> But caps set by the state mean they can only go so far… I’m Ericka Cruz Guevarra, host of The Bay\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">And I’m Olivia Allen-Price, host of Bay Curious. Today we’re moving in on Prop 33, which would give authority back to local governments to enact or change rent control laws.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> We’ve seen similar props in 2018 and 2020, and voters didn’t go for it. But polling shows the tide could be turning.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">We’ll get into what exactly Prop 33 would do … plus an overview on the debate about rent control. Does it lower rents? Or have the opposite effect?\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Ericka Cruz Guevarra: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">That’s all just ahead on Prop Fest. Stay tuned…\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">SPONSOR BREAK\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Let’s dive deep into Proposition 33, which will read like this on your ballot. \u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cb>Amanda Font: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Proposition 33 is a state statue that expands local governments’ authority to enact rent control on residential property. \u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">This is one of the big ticket items on this year’s ballot. With tens of millions of dollars being spent on both sides. Because this one impacts people’s wallets. Here to wade through it with us is KQED housing reporter Vanessa Rancaño. Welcome, Vanessa. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Vanessa Rancaño: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Hello. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">So let’s start big picture. What is Proposition 33 aiming to do? \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Vanessa Rancaño:\u003c/b> \u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">It aims to give local governments more power to regulate rents. They do this via rent control laws. So these are policies that cap annual rent increases. At the moment, there’s a state law that sets some parameters on how far rent control Laws can go in California. But if Prop 33 passes, those limits would be removed. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">There is rent control already in some Bay Area cities like San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose. So cities do have some ability to enact rent control, right?\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Vanessa Rancaño: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Yeah, they definitely do, but they can only go so far. And that’s because of this state law called the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act that’s been around since 1995. And it’s sort of key to understand that before we can unpack Prop 33. \u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">(Music)\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">All right. Well, let’s get into Costa-Hawkins, Where to begin? Walk us through it. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Vanessa Rancaño: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Sure. So the context for this law is that there was a swell of tenant activism in the 70s and 80s, which led to the passage of a number of local rent control laws. And at the time, people were struggling to pay rent for a bunch of reasons. We weren’t building enough, there was inflation, wages weren’t rising. And in 1978, Prop 13 passed here in California, limiting property taxes homeowners pay. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Now, tenants had been promised that because landlords would be paying less in taxes, those savings were going to trickle down to them and they’d be paying less in rent. But that did not happen. Rents, in fact, rose. And tenants rights groups felt duped. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">So in response to all these different factors, we saw a handful of cities pass rent control laws that limited how much a landlord could raise rent. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">What we see then is a backlash against that increase in tenant power. Some people blamed rent control for the housing shortage. They thought rent control scared off developers from building new apartments because they wouldn’t be able to make as high a profit. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">So that’s the background when in 1995 these two state lawmakers, Democratic Senator Jim Costa and Republican Assemblymember Phil Hawkins, put forward legislation to curb rent control. It passes by just one vote and shapes rent control policy across California for decades. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Now, what exactly does Costa-Hawkins do? \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Vanessa Rancaño: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">So it does two big things. It exempts single family homes, condos and anything built after 1995 from rent control. That’s why you see rent controlled units tend to be older. The idea there is that to encourage new construction you’ve got to exempt new apartments from rent control. For cities that had existing rent control laws in place Costa-Hawkins froze the cutoff dates for how old a unit had to be to be eligible for rent control under those laws. So, for example, in Oakland, the cutoff is 1983. Berkeley, it’s 1980. San Jose, San Francisco—nothing built after 1979 can have rent control. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The second really important thing that Costa-Hawkins does is it eliminates what’s called \u003c/span>\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">vacancy control\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">. That ties rent control to an apartment instead of to the tenant. So under Costa-Hawkins we have \u003c/span>\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">vacancy decontrol\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">. It means that if a tenant moves out of a rent controlled apartment, the landlord can raise the rent up to market rate, as high as they want. They’re only limited in terms of how much they can raise the rent a year to year after a tenant moves in. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">At this point Costa-Hawkins has been on the books in California for just shy of 30 years. Can you talk about what kind of impacts have seen?\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Vanessa Rancaño: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Well, I think we can say that we see fewer people Living in rent controlled apartments than we might otherwise. We also see rent control apartments getting older. So our stock of rent controlled apartments dwindles because buildings get redeveloped. I think it’s really hard to say if limits on rent control have had any impact on development because there are just so many other factors in play. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">But developers would certainly say that they like them, I would assume. \u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cb>Vanessa Rancaño: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Yes. \u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">So this year we’re voting on Prop 33. What would it do exactly? \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Vanessa Rancaño: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">It would take us back to before Costa-Hawkins and hand the power to make decisions on rent control back to local governments. To be clear, it does not mean that suddenly rent control is going to be in every town, affecting every home or anything even close to that. But it does open the door for communities to make local rent control decisions without being limited by state law. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">I feel like I’m having déja vu with this one because people have tried to overturn Costa-Hawkins before. Right? \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Vanessa Rancaño: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Yeah, there were two efforts, one in 2018 and one in 2020, that took aim at the law and voters shot both of those down. There are some powerful interests that really do not want to see the expansion of rent control. Landlord groups, real estate groups. They have put a lot of money into fighting these statewide initiatives and they have so far been successful. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Now, rent control is controversial even among those who want to see lower rents. Can you explain why? \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Vanessa Rancaño: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Yeah. I mean, traditionally, economists have seen rent control as a really bad idea. They argue that rent caps are inefficient, that they create scarcity and drive up rents in non-regulated buildings. I came across this survey from 1992 that found over 90% of economists agreed that these policies drive down the quantity and quality of available housing. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Ya know, Bay Curious actually did an explainer that covered some of those things about rent control back in 2018. So I would say if the efficacy of rent control is really important to how you vote, you might go give that a listen for some additional context. We’ll link to it in our show notes or just head online and search something like: “Bay Curious Rent Control 2018” and it should be the first thing that pops up.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Vanessa Rancaño: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Yes, that is a great overview of the arguments. I think the only thing I would add is that more recently we have seen some economists come forward to argue that there is research and there are real world examples that refute this traditional narrative, which they say is based more on economic theory than empirical evidence. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Mark Paul is a Rutgers economist who studies rent control and also very much supports it. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Mark Paul: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Most mainstream economists are taught these theoretical models where perfect competition exists, there’s no such thing as market power, you know where landlords have more power than renters. In their models that they’re thinking about this there’s unlimited supply of affordable housing, homelessness doesn’t exist, and corporate landlords that use algorithmic pricing to jack prices up, something that we see the Federal Trade Commission going after corporate landlords for, things like that can’t exist because they would just get outcompeted. But I think people underestimate the bias most economists have against government intervention.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Hmm so it sounds like not all economists are necessarily on the same page the way they might have been at one time? \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Vanessa Rancaño: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Yes. So last year, a group of 32 economists wrote this letter to the Federal Housing Finance Agency lobbying for the use of rent control across the country. And what they’re arguing is that all this naysaying that we see about rent control mirrors economists’ traditional opposition to minimum wage laws. They predicted that minimum wage laws were going to lead to widespread joblessness, and we haven’t actually seen that happen. \u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> Hm Interesting. Are there any components of rent control that folks who do study this \u003c/span>\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">can \u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">agree on?\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003ci>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">(music)\u003c/span>\u003c/i>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Vanessa Rancaño: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">So here is what I think we can safely say. There is research evidence that rent control does work to hold rents down for tenants in eligible units. But how much varies a lot across policies and studies. There is also evidence that it can have unintended consequences. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">So the places where there’s agreement about what those consequences are: that it can lead to a decline in housing quality, because landlords have less incentive to maintain their properties. It can lead to a reduction in the number of rental housing units on the market because landlords convert apartments to condos. So there are studies that have found that more moderate forms of rent control can avoid some of these unintended consequences. And then the economists, those who support rent control argue that if you put in place other regulations, along with rent control, you can get around some of these consequences. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">So, for instance, you can do things to try to prevent landlords from converting their apartments to condos. You can allow landlords to pass along maintenance costs to renters to sort of incentivize them to continue to maintain their properties. So things like that. \u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">I know one critique of rent control has been it can be pretty blunt in terms of who it actually helps. Can you explain that?\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Vanessa Rancaño: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">I will say that you know, there are many people who argue that even if you put in place the strongest, best rent control policy, it’s not necessarily going to reach the right people, right? Because it is tied to a property rather than a person. Michael Manville is a UCLA Urban planning professor who studies rent control. \u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cb>Michael Manville: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">If we’re serious about helping our most vulnerable tenants, that’s really going to involve some combination of making housing in general just much more plentiful, and spending money in targeted subsidies for low-income people. Because the thing is, even if you have the most powerful, strong rent control law, you could end up holding down the rent for a bunch of people who don’t necessarily need that assistance. And letting a bunch of people who do need that assistance pay a very high housing costs because they aren’t fortunate enough to be in a rent controlled unit. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">All right. Walk us through who is opposing Prop 33 and why. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Vanessa Rancaño: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">In general, it’s landlord and real estate interests. And what they argue is that these policies ultimately are counterproductive, that they will lead to less new construction and ultimately housing prices will just go up, that rental prices will go up. I’ve also heard from landlords that, you know, their property taxes keep going up, but they’re seeing stricter caps on how much they can raise the rent and that makes it really tough for them to maintain their properties. And many of them are just really frustrated. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Who is supporting this measure and why? \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Vanessa Rancaño: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">So the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and its president, Michael Weinstein is the chief proponent of not just Prop 33, but also the last two attempts to roll back Costa-Hawkins in 2018 and 2020. The California Democratic Party is also backing it. Some tenant advocacy groups. Some unions. Francisco Dueñas runs Housing Now California it’s a coalition of organizations advocating for pro renter policies. They very much support Prop 33. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Francisco Dueñas: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">We see that they help provide stability for tenants. That it helps prevent or protect against, you know, surprise increases in rents. And I think that’s the biggest benefit that people really look towards, is just knowing that their rents are not going to rise 100%, you know, from one month to the next when they’re lease ends.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Vanessa Rancaño: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">And in general all these folks argue that the rent is just too high, that people are getting pushed out of cities. People are ending up homeless. And, you know, at the very least that we should do something to protect people from huge surprise rent increases. They point out that while we do have a state rent control law, it passed in 2019 and it limits annual increases to 10%, it’s just too high, they say. And that law sunsets in 2030 in any case. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Other arguments I’ve heard are that homeowners are benefiting from a form of price control in the form of fixed rate mortgages. And we should, you know, extend similar protections to renters. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Beyond all that, there are people who argue that we should rethink how we approach housing in this country, that we should reframe it as a fundamental human right rather than a commodity. And they see rent control as one small step in that direction.\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cb>Francisco Dueñas: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The profit motive shouldn’t be the only thing that leads the policy when it comes to housing because then, you know, everybody but the highest bidder is losing out if our housing policy is only focused on profit and, you know, outcomes.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">I do want to underline that support coming from the AIDS Healthcare Foundation on this prop, because that plays into what we’ll be talking about tomorrow, Proposition 34, which some have seen as a proposition built specifically to take aim at the AIDS Healthcare Foundation for their advocacy on rent control issues over the years. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Vanessa, this is one of the most expensive measures from a spending perspective that we’re seeing. Can you tell us how that’s all shaking out so far?\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Vanessa Rancaño: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Oh my god. People are spending so much money on this. So to date, it’s over $40 million to support this proposition. The vast majority of that is coming from the AIDS HealthCare Foundation. In terms of opposition, they’ve raised over $65 million. The vast majority of that is coming from the California Apartment Association and the California Association of Realtors. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Woo! Spendy. Vanessa Rancaño is a housing reporter at KQED. Vanessa, thanks for breaking this down for us. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Vanessa Rancaño: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Thanks for having me.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/b> \u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Let’s review. A vote yes on Prop 33 means you want local governments to have the power to enact or change their own rent control laws. A vote no on Prop 33 would keep state limits on rent control in place. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">That’s it on Prop 33. You can find audio and transcripts of this episode, and all the others in our Prop Fest series at \u003c/span>\u003ca href=\"http://kqed.org/propfest\">\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">KQED.org/propfest\u003c/span>\u003c/a>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">. While you’re on the KQED website, be sure to check out our voter guide, which has lots more important information about your statewide and local elections. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Ericka Cruz Guevarra: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Prop Fest is a collaboration between The Bay and Bay Curious podcasts. It’s made by…\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Alan Montecillo\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Olivia Allen-Price\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Jessica Kariisa\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>Amanda Font\u003cbr>\nChristopher Beale\u003cbr>\n\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Ana De Almeda Amaral\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">And me, Ericka Cruz Guevarra\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">We get extra support from\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Jen Chien\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Katie Sprenger\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Maha Sanad\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Holly Kernan\u003cbr>\n\u003c/span>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">And the whole KQED family\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Ericka Cruz Guevarra: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Tomorrow we will get into Prop 34, which would limit how some healthcare providers can spend money earned through a federal drug pricing program. \u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Olivia Allen-Price: \u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\">It looks like a healthcare bill, but it actually has a lot to do with rent control. We’ll spill the tea on that tomorrow – but be sure you’re subscribed so you don’t miss out.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "floatright"
},
"numeric": [
"floatright"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cb>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/b>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> Thanks for listening to Prop Fest. Peace.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/12007197/transcript-proposition-33-would-end-state-limits-on-rent-control",
"authors": [
"102",
"11276",
"8637",
"8654",
"11649",
"11831",
"11749"
],
"programs": [
"news_33523",
"news_28779"
],
"series": [
"news_17986"
],
"categories": [
"news_6266",
"news_8",
"news_33520",
"news_13"
],
"tags": [
"news_28606",
"news_32839",
"news_1775",
"news_33812",
"news_17968",
"news_34594",
"news_22598"
],
"featImg": "news_12007210",
"label": "source_news_12007197"
},
"news_12006890": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_12006890",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "12006890",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1727690412000
]
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "transcript-prop-32-raises-the-minimum-wage-to-18-an-hour",
"title": "Proposition 32 Raises the Minimum Wage to $18 an Hour",
"publishDate": 1727690412,
"format": "audio",
"headTitle": "Proposition 32 Raises the Minimum Wage to $18 an Hour | KQED",
"labelTerm": {},
"content": "\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/propfest\">Prop Fest\u003c/a> is a collaboration from Bay Curious and The Bay podcasts, where we break down each of the 10 statewide propositions that will be on your November 2024 ballot. Check out \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/voterguide\">KQED’s Voter Guide\u003c/a> for more information on state and local races.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Today, KQED labor correspondent Farida Jhabvala Romero breaks down Prop. 32, which would raise the statewide minimum wage to $18 an hour.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c!-- iframe plugin v.4.3 wordpress.org/plugins/iframe/ -->\u003cbr>\n\u003ciframe loading=\"lazy\" frameborder=\"0\" height=\"200\" scrolling=\"no\" src=\"https://playlist.megaphone.fm?e=KQINC1869781659&light=true\" width=\"100%\" class=\"iframe-class\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a transcript of the episode.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:00:03] So I was at the grocery store the other day, and I couldn’t believe my eyes when I saw that the jar of mayo that I needed to get was….wait for it…$9.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price \u003c/strong>[00:00:17] You are not imagining it. Food prices, among other things, are getting more expensive.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:00:22] And as you know, California is already an expensive state to live in. So when you add up rent, gas, and groceries, things get real, real fast.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price \u003c/strong>[00:00:35] Prop 32 proposes one way to help Californians keep up with the rising cost of everyday life by raising the state’s minimum wage to $18 an hour.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:00:47] But some worry doing this will only make things more expensive than they already are. And when it comes to fights about the minimum wage, we’ve heard that argument before. I’m Ericka Cruz Guevara.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price \u003c/strong>[00:01:02] And I’m Olivia Allen-Price. Welcome to Prop Fest, a collaboration between the Bay and Bay Curious where we help you get smart on all the statewide propositions on your ballot this November.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:01:13] The push for livable wages in California is not new, and it’s usually driven by workers and labor unions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price \u003c/strong>[00:01:22] But the effort to get prop 32 on the ballot has a much more unusual beginning. We’ll get into that and more on prop 32 right after this.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:01:39] Today we’re diving deep into prop 32. The minimum wage increase. Here’s how it’ll look on your ballot.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Voiceover \u003c/strong>[00:01:48] Prop 32 raises minimum wage as follows. For employers with 26 or more employees to $17 immediately $18 on January 1st, 2025 for employers with 25 or fewer employees to $17 on January 1st, 2025. $18 on January 1st, 2026.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:02:12] Today, we hit up KQED labor correspondent for Farida Jhabvala Romero to help us understand what prop 32 is all about.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:02:22] Farida, California, I feel like, is no stranger to fights around raising the minimum wage. We’ve kind of seen these debates before, but remind us what exactly those debates have look like over the years and where we stand right now.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Farida Jhabvala Romero \u003c/strong>[00:02:38] Well, we know that over the last decade, the state’s minimum wage has doubled from $8 an hour to 16, which is what we have now. The last big jump came through a bill approved by the legislature and signed by then governor Jerry Brown in 2016. Another thing is that we’ve passed state laws that increase the minimum wage for some industries, like fast food. So now half a million fast food workers in the state are making at least $20 an hour since April. Dozens of local cities and counties have also passed their own higher minimum wage. In L.A., it’s $17.28. In San Francisco, it’s more than $18 an hour. And then in Emeryville, here in the Bay area, it has one of the highest wage floors in the country, actually, at $19.36 an hour.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:03:41] So, I mean, Farida, we know that a lot of folks have pushed to raise the minimum wage in California. Like unions in particular, many Democratic lawmakers, the governor as well. But how did prop 32 get on the ballot? Did it come from the same groups who’ve been pushing for this in the past?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Farida Jhabvala Romero \u003c/strong>[00:04:03] Well, prop 32 has a sort of unusual story because the main financial backer for it is a guy called Joe Sanberg, who grew up in Orange County.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Joe Sanberg \u003c/strong>[00:04:15] When you raise wages for your workers, they do better for your company. They have more money to spend in their communities, which creates more economic prosperity for local communities.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Farida Jhabvala Romero \u003c/strong>[00:04:25] He’s an investor and also an anti-poverty advocate. He spent more than $10 million of his own money to help this measure qualify for the ballot. He says he’s not making any money out of this ad, that he wants to use his resources to help fellow Californians because of his own experience.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Joe Sanberg \u003c/strong>[00:04:44] I grew up in working class family. My mom raised me by herself. We lost our home to foreclosure when I was a teenager. I saw firsthand how hard it is for a single mom to raise kids in California.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Farida Jhabvala Romero \u003c/strong>[00:04:56] The main supporters intended to qualify for the ballot in 2022, but they missed a key deadline, and so it was basically delayed for voters to this election in November.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:05:10] Can you break down just a little bit more exactly for you to what proposition 32 would do? Because as you said, the the statewide minimum wage is $16 an hour, but it’s also higher in some cities in certain industries. So what kind of change would prop 32 make exactly.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Farida Jhabvala Romero \u003c/strong>[00:05:29] Yeah. So prop 32 would not impact the higher minimum wages set by cities, counties or the industry specific, minimum wages that the state has approved for fast food or the health care industry. What it would do is it would raise the minimum wage to at least $18 an hour. By 2026, bigger businesses with more than 25 employees would have to do it faster by 2025, and that employers with 25 or fewer workers would start paying $17 an hour next year, and then 18 in 2026. And then from then on, the minimum wage would adjust annually tied to inflation. So those are smaller increases that are expected. And then it’s important to note that the minimum wage in the state is already set to keep going up. And without this proposition passing, it will likely be around $17 an hour in 2026, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office. The backers of prop 32 estimate that around 2 million people would directly benefit from the race, especially outside big metro areas. You know, like outside the San Francisco Bay area around L.A., San Diego. And we’re talking about the lowest paid workers in the state. So those are often cashiers, retail salespeople, farm workers, home health and personal personal care aides and other workers. The workers that we’re talking about live mostly in the Central Valley and other rural areas of the state, in the northern part of the state. And that’s actually something that proponents point out is that these are workers that are also often not unionized. So they, you know, they really need this.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:07:30] And Farida, who is lining up behind prop 32 and really coming out in support of it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Farida Jhabvala Romero \u003c/strong>[00:07:37] So supporters include some some unions. One of them is Unite Here local 11. They represent thousands of workers in hotels, sports arenas, restaurants. Then there’s the Service Employees International Union, which has many large unions in California, and they’ve endorsed prop 32. You know, they represent people who would definitely benefit from this. And then the other big supporter is One Fair Wage, which is a group that advocates for employers to pay a living wage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Saru Jayaraman \u003c/strong>[00:08:09] I know so many workers who work in restaurants in San Francisco and live in Tracy in Stockton, and they go home once a week. They live in their cars during the week.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Farida Jhabvala Romero \u003c/strong>[00:08:17] Saru Jayaraman directs One Fair Wage. I mean, they make the basic argument that this is a critical time, because we already know that $16 an hour is not enough to afford the basics in California.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Saru Jayaraman \u003c/strong>[00:08:36] I think the initiative Is critical because the legislature this time has not acted the way it should have. It should have passed a higher minimum wage already.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Farida Jhabvala Romero \u003c/strong>[00:08:45] And so they see this proposition as a critical first step. She feels like there hasn’t been more mobilization, you know, and noise from unions, on this in part because many of the workers who directly benefit are not unionized.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Saru Jayaraman \u003c/strong>[00:09:03] The overwhelming majority of minimum wage workers rely on the legislature to give them a raise. And when they don’t get it to the legislature, the only mechanism they then have is at the ballot.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Farida Jhabvala Romero \u003c/strong>[00:09:15] But, you know, other proponents like Joe Sanberg, the main financial backer for prop 32, also told me that it would have been impossible to qualify the measure for the ballot without union volunteers and without union support. Now that we just have weeks before the election, the coalition of proponents will be more active.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:09:42] And who’s coming out on the no side on this, Frida. And what’s the argument there?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Farida Jhabvala Romero \u003c/strong>[00:09:48] Opponents are mostly business groups. We’re talking about the California Restaurant Association, the California Chamber of Commerce. Some of the arguments against prop 32 are very similar to those against the fast food minimum wage I was telling you about when that was being considered. And it’s basically that, you know, employers will need to cut work hours and jobs or raise prices to be able to afford the higher payroll costs. And they say it’s bad timing also because Californians are already, reeling from a super high cost of living.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ron Fong \u003c/strong>[00:10:32] $2 doesn’t sound like a lot, but when you factor that over thousands of employees, it gets to be a big amount.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Farida Jhabvala Romero \u003c/strong>[00:10:39] I spoke with Ron Fong, who’s president and CEO of the California Grocers Association. They represent large chains like Whole Foods and Costco and then a lot smaller, you know, grocery retailers.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ron Fong \u003c/strong>[00:10:52] Especially for grocery stores. Grocery stores operate on a very low, net margin.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Farida Jhabvala Romero \u003c/strong>[00:10:58] And he says this proposition will likely make these businesses increase prices because it would affect their bottom line.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ron Fong \u003c/strong>[00:11:06] The only way we can recapture that is by raising prices. And, you know, that’s been proven time and time again is the number one concern amongst, you know, U.S. citizens.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:11:18] And, I mean, we’ve heard that argument before, right, Farida? I mean, it’s a it’s a pretty common one when it comes to debates around, raising wages for workers. But what do we actually know about. that and whether or not it’s it’s true — and that actually does happen when wages for workers are increased.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Farida Jhabvala Romero \u003c/strong>[00:11:41] So I spoke with a couple of economists who do research on minimum wage and follow these debates. They told me that minimum wage increases to the levels that we’ve had so far, you know, which are gradual, relatively small increases. They don’t really have a big impact on jobs. So they’re not the big job killers that, business groups, sometimes, you know, fear. Also, they have a very small impact on prices. You know, one of the impacts might be that the prices end up going, higher, but it’s a relatively small increase as well. California, you know, is the first state to implement a minimum wage for fast food workers of $20 an hour. And so that’s been in effect since April. So we’ve had a couple of months of some data on jobs. You know, a lot of people have a lot of complaints, you know, a lot of business owners saying that they’ve had to work, cut work hours, or cut jobs in and raise some prices. But if you look at the overall data and talk to economists, they’ll tell you, that they haven’t seen a huge impact yet.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:12:55] Let’s talk about the money being spent on the yes and no sides here. Frida. Has there been much campaign spending on either side of this proposition?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Farida Jhabvala Romero \u003c/strong>[00:13:06] So most of the campaign spending was done to qualify the measure for the ballot. And so that was, you know, before because like I was telling you, there were aiming to put that in the 2022 election ballot. There’s the Working Hero Action for the Living Wage Act, which has reported contributions of almost $11 million, and that’s, backed mostly by Joe Sanberg. Then there’s the Kevin De Leon believing in a better California ballot measure committee, and they’ve, reported contributions of almost $600,000. And then in the opposition side, there’s Californians Against Job Losses and Higher Prices. No, on prop 32. They, have reported contributions of $65,000. I spoke with Joe Sanberg recently and he said there’s going to be a lot more movement now, especially to try to convince younger voters who are more likely to support this proposition. There was a recent Public Policy Institute of California survey that showed likely voters were really divided on prop 32, with just 50% saying they would support it. But their biggest levels of support came among renters and then people making less than $40,000 a year, and also younger voters. Joe Sandberg believes that, you know, with Vice President Kamala Harris entering the race for the white House, that that will attract a lot more voters to the ballot box. And, they will support this proposition. But we’ll we’ll see.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:14:59] Well, for you to thank you so much for breaking this down for us. I really appreciate it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Farida Jhabvala Romero \u003c/strong>[00:15:02] Thank you. Ericka.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:15:08] In summary, a vote yes on prop 32 would raise the state minimum wage floor to $18 an hour in 2026. After that, it would go up each year based on how fast prices are rising. A vote no means the state minimum wage would likely be at $17 an hour in 2026, and would go up based on prices after that. And that’s it for proposition 32. If this episode helped you out, do me a favor and tell just one friend about Prop Fest because good friends help their friends vote smart. Just send them to kqed.org/prop fest.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price \u003c/strong>[00:15:59] Prop Fest is a collaboration between the Bay and Bay Curious Podcasts. It’s produced by Alan Montecillo, Jessica Kariisa, Ericka Cruz Guevara, Amanda Font, Christopher Beale, Ana de Almeida Amaral and me, Olivia Ellen Price.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:16:14] We get extra support from Jen Chien, Katie Sprenger, Maha Sanad, Holly Kernan.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price \u003c/strong>[00:16:20] Our show is made in San Francisco at member supported KQED. If you value podcasts like this one, please consider becoming a sustaining member of KQED. Learn more at KQED.org/Donate. I’m Olivia Allen-Price.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:16:34] I’m Ericka Cruz Guevara. We’ll be back tomorrow with an explainer on proposition 33, which asks, Should California remove statewide rent control limits?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price \u003c/strong>[00:16:46] We’ll talk to you then.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"blocks": [],
"excerpt": "Today, KQED labor correspondent Farida Jhabvala Romero breaks down Prop. 32, which would raise the statewide minimum wage to $18 an hour.",
"status": "publish",
"parent": 0,
"modified": 1729130325,
"stats": {
"hasAudio": true,
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"paragraphCount": 6,
"wordCount": 2821
},
"headData": {
"title": "Proposition 32 Raises the Minimum Wage to $18 an Hour | KQED",
"description": "Today, KQED labor correspondent Farida Jhabvala Romero breaks down Prop. 32, which would raise the statewide minimum wage to $18 an hour.",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogDescription": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"twDescription": "",
"twImgId": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Proposition 32 Raises the Minimum Wage to $18 an Hour",
"datePublished": "2024-09-30T03:00:12-07:00",
"dateModified": "2024-10-16T18:58:45-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"source": "Prop Fest 2024",
"audioUrl": "https://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/chrt.fm/track/G6C7C3/traffic.megaphone.fm/KQINC1869781659.mp3?updated=1727468288",
"sticky": false,
"nprStoryId": "kqed-12006890",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/12006890/transcript-prop-32-raises-the-minimum-wage-to-18-an-hour",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/propfest\">Prop Fest\u003c/a> is a collaboration from Bay Curious and The Bay podcasts, where we break down each of the 10 statewide propositions that will be on your November 2024 ballot. Check out \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/voterguide\">KQED’s Voter Guide\u003c/a> for more information on state and local races.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Today, KQED labor correspondent Farida Jhabvala Romero breaks down Prop. 32, which would raise the statewide minimum wage to $18 an hour.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c!-- iframe plugin v.4.3 wordpress.org/plugins/iframe/ -->\u003cbr>\n\u003ciframe loading=\"lazy\" frameborder=\"0\" height=\"200\" scrolling=\"no\" src=\"https://playlist.megaphone.fm?e=KQINC1869781659&light=true\" width=\"100%\" class=\"iframe-class\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a transcript of the episode.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:00:03] So I was at the grocery store the other day, and I couldn’t believe my eyes when I saw that the jar of mayo that I needed to get was….wait for it…$9.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price \u003c/strong>[00:00:17] You are not imagining it. Food prices, among other things, are getting more expensive.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:00:22] And as you know, California is already an expensive state to live in. So when you add up rent, gas, and groceries, things get real, real fast.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price \u003c/strong>[00:00:35] Prop 32 proposes one way to help Californians keep up with the rising cost of everyday life by raising the state’s minimum wage to $18 an hour.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:00:47] But some worry doing this will only make things more expensive than they already are. And when it comes to fights about the minimum wage, we’ve heard that argument before. I’m Ericka Cruz Guevara.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price \u003c/strong>[00:01:02] And I’m Olivia Allen-Price. Welcome to Prop Fest, a collaboration between the Bay and Bay Curious where we help you get smart on all the statewide propositions on your ballot this November.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:01:13] The push for livable wages in California is not new, and it’s usually driven by workers and labor unions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price \u003c/strong>[00:01:22] But the effort to get prop 32 on the ballot has a much more unusual beginning. We’ll get into that and more on prop 32 right after this.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:01:39] Today we’re diving deep into prop 32. The minimum wage increase. Here’s how it’ll look on your ballot.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Voiceover \u003c/strong>[00:01:48] Prop 32 raises minimum wage as follows. For employers with 26 or more employees to $17 immediately $18 on January 1st, 2025 for employers with 25 or fewer employees to $17 on January 1st, 2025. $18 on January 1st, 2026.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:02:12] Today, we hit up KQED labor correspondent for Farida Jhabvala Romero to help us understand what prop 32 is all about.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:02:22] Farida, California, I feel like, is no stranger to fights around raising the minimum wage. We’ve kind of seen these debates before, but remind us what exactly those debates have look like over the years and where we stand right now.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Farida Jhabvala Romero \u003c/strong>[00:02:38] Well, we know that over the last decade, the state’s minimum wage has doubled from $8 an hour to 16, which is what we have now. The last big jump came through a bill approved by the legislature and signed by then governor Jerry Brown in 2016. Another thing is that we’ve passed state laws that increase the minimum wage for some industries, like fast food. So now half a million fast food workers in the state are making at least $20 an hour since April. Dozens of local cities and counties have also passed their own higher minimum wage. In L.A., it’s $17.28. In San Francisco, it’s more than $18 an hour. And then in Emeryville, here in the Bay area, it has one of the highest wage floors in the country, actually, at $19.36 an hour.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:03:41] So, I mean, Farida, we know that a lot of folks have pushed to raise the minimum wage in California. Like unions in particular, many Democratic lawmakers, the governor as well. But how did prop 32 get on the ballot? Did it come from the same groups who’ve been pushing for this in the past?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Farida Jhabvala Romero \u003c/strong>[00:04:03] Well, prop 32 has a sort of unusual story because the main financial backer for it is a guy called Joe Sanberg, who grew up in Orange County.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Joe Sanberg \u003c/strong>[00:04:15] When you raise wages for your workers, they do better for your company. They have more money to spend in their communities, which creates more economic prosperity for local communities.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Farida Jhabvala Romero \u003c/strong>[00:04:25] He’s an investor and also an anti-poverty advocate. He spent more than $10 million of his own money to help this measure qualify for the ballot. He says he’s not making any money out of this ad, that he wants to use his resources to help fellow Californians because of his own experience.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Joe Sanberg \u003c/strong>[00:04:44] I grew up in working class family. My mom raised me by herself. We lost our home to foreclosure when I was a teenager. I saw firsthand how hard it is for a single mom to raise kids in California.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Farida Jhabvala Romero \u003c/strong>[00:04:56] The main supporters intended to qualify for the ballot in 2022, but they missed a key deadline, and so it was basically delayed for voters to this election in November.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:05:10] Can you break down just a little bit more exactly for you to what proposition 32 would do? Because as you said, the the statewide minimum wage is $16 an hour, but it’s also higher in some cities in certain industries. So what kind of change would prop 32 make exactly.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Farida Jhabvala Romero \u003c/strong>[00:05:29] Yeah. So prop 32 would not impact the higher minimum wages set by cities, counties or the industry specific, minimum wages that the state has approved for fast food or the health care industry. What it would do is it would raise the minimum wage to at least $18 an hour. By 2026, bigger businesses with more than 25 employees would have to do it faster by 2025, and that employers with 25 or fewer workers would start paying $17 an hour next year, and then 18 in 2026. And then from then on, the minimum wage would adjust annually tied to inflation. So those are smaller increases that are expected. And then it’s important to note that the minimum wage in the state is already set to keep going up. And without this proposition passing, it will likely be around $17 an hour in 2026, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office. The backers of prop 32 estimate that around 2 million people would directly benefit from the race, especially outside big metro areas. You know, like outside the San Francisco Bay area around L.A., San Diego. And we’re talking about the lowest paid workers in the state. So those are often cashiers, retail salespeople, farm workers, home health and personal personal care aides and other workers. The workers that we’re talking about live mostly in the Central Valley and other rural areas of the state, in the northern part of the state. And that’s actually something that proponents point out is that these are workers that are also often not unionized. So they, you know, they really need this.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:07:30] And Farida, who is lining up behind prop 32 and really coming out in support of it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Farida Jhabvala Romero \u003c/strong>[00:07:37] So supporters include some some unions. One of them is Unite Here local 11. They represent thousands of workers in hotels, sports arenas, restaurants. Then there’s the Service Employees International Union, which has many large unions in California, and they’ve endorsed prop 32. You know, they represent people who would definitely benefit from this. And then the other big supporter is One Fair Wage, which is a group that advocates for employers to pay a living wage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Saru Jayaraman \u003c/strong>[00:08:09] I know so many workers who work in restaurants in San Francisco and live in Tracy in Stockton, and they go home once a week. They live in their cars during the week.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Farida Jhabvala Romero \u003c/strong>[00:08:17] Saru Jayaraman directs One Fair Wage. I mean, they make the basic argument that this is a critical time, because we already know that $16 an hour is not enough to afford the basics in California.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Saru Jayaraman \u003c/strong>[00:08:36] I think the initiative Is critical because the legislature this time has not acted the way it should have. It should have passed a higher minimum wage already.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Farida Jhabvala Romero \u003c/strong>[00:08:45] And so they see this proposition as a critical first step. She feels like there hasn’t been more mobilization, you know, and noise from unions, on this in part because many of the workers who directly benefit are not unionized.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Saru Jayaraman \u003c/strong>[00:09:03] The overwhelming majority of minimum wage workers rely on the legislature to give them a raise. And when they don’t get it to the legislature, the only mechanism they then have is at the ballot.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Farida Jhabvala Romero \u003c/strong>[00:09:15] But, you know, other proponents like Joe Sanberg, the main financial backer for prop 32, also told me that it would have been impossible to qualify the measure for the ballot without union volunteers and without union support. Now that we just have weeks before the election, the coalition of proponents will be more active.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:09:42] And who’s coming out on the no side on this, Frida. And what’s the argument there?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Farida Jhabvala Romero \u003c/strong>[00:09:48] Opponents are mostly business groups. We’re talking about the California Restaurant Association, the California Chamber of Commerce. Some of the arguments against prop 32 are very similar to those against the fast food minimum wage I was telling you about when that was being considered. And it’s basically that, you know, employers will need to cut work hours and jobs or raise prices to be able to afford the higher payroll costs. And they say it’s bad timing also because Californians are already, reeling from a super high cost of living.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ron Fong \u003c/strong>[00:10:32] $2 doesn’t sound like a lot, but when you factor that over thousands of employees, it gets to be a big amount.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Farida Jhabvala Romero \u003c/strong>[00:10:39] I spoke with Ron Fong, who’s president and CEO of the California Grocers Association. They represent large chains like Whole Foods and Costco and then a lot smaller, you know, grocery retailers.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ron Fong \u003c/strong>[00:10:52] Especially for grocery stores. Grocery stores operate on a very low, net margin.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Farida Jhabvala Romero \u003c/strong>[00:10:58] And he says this proposition will likely make these businesses increase prices because it would affect their bottom line.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ron Fong \u003c/strong>[00:11:06] The only way we can recapture that is by raising prices. And, you know, that’s been proven time and time again is the number one concern amongst, you know, U.S. citizens.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:11:18] And, I mean, we’ve heard that argument before, right, Farida? I mean, it’s a it’s a pretty common one when it comes to debates around, raising wages for workers. But what do we actually know about. that and whether or not it’s it’s true — and that actually does happen when wages for workers are increased.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Farida Jhabvala Romero \u003c/strong>[00:11:41] So I spoke with a couple of economists who do research on minimum wage and follow these debates. They told me that minimum wage increases to the levels that we’ve had so far, you know, which are gradual, relatively small increases. They don’t really have a big impact on jobs. So they’re not the big job killers that, business groups, sometimes, you know, fear. Also, they have a very small impact on prices. You know, one of the impacts might be that the prices end up going, higher, but it’s a relatively small increase as well. California, you know, is the first state to implement a minimum wage for fast food workers of $20 an hour. And so that’s been in effect since April. So we’ve had a couple of months of some data on jobs. You know, a lot of people have a lot of complaints, you know, a lot of business owners saying that they’ve had to work, cut work hours, or cut jobs in and raise some prices. But if you look at the overall data and talk to economists, they’ll tell you, that they haven’t seen a huge impact yet.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:12:55] Let’s talk about the money being spent on the yes and no sides here. Frida. Has there been much campaign spending on either side of this proposition?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Farida Jhabvala Romero \u003c/strong>[00:13:06] So most of the campaign spending was done to qualify the measure for the ballot. And so that was, you know, before because like I was telling you, there were aiming to put that in the 2022 election ballot. There’s the Working Hero Action for the Living Wage Act, which has reported contributions of almost $11 million, and that’s, backed mostly by Joe Sanberg. Then there’s the Kevin De Leon believing in a better California ballot measure committee, and they’ve, reported contributions of almost $600,000. And then in the opposition side, there’s Californians Against Job Losses and Higher Prices. No, on prop 32. They, have reported contributions of $65,000. I spoke with Joe Sanberg recently and he said there’s going to be a lot more movement now, especially to try to convince younger voters who are more likely to support this proposition. There was a recent Public Policy Institute of California survey that showed likely voters were really divided on prop 32, with just 50% saying they would support it. But their biggest levels of support came among renters and then people making less than $40,000 a year, and also younger voters. Joe Sandberg believes that, you know, with Vice President Kamala Harris entering the race for the white House, that that will attract a lot more voters to the ballot box. And, they will support this proposition. But we’ll we’ll see.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:14:59] Well, for you to thank you so much for breaking this down for us. I really appreciate it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Farida Jhabvala Romero \u003c/strong>[00:15:02] Thank you. Ericka.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:15:08] In summary, a vote yes on prop 32 would raise the state minimum wage floor to $18 an hour in 2026. After that, it would go up each year based on how fast prices are rising. A vote no means the state minimum wage would likely be at $17 an hour in 2026, and would go up based on prices after that. And that’s it for proposition 32. If this episode helped you out, do me a favor and tell just one friend about Prop Fest because good friends help their friends vote smart. Just send them to kqed.org/prop fest.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price \u003c/strong>[00:15:59] Prop Fest is a collaboration between the Bay and Bay Curious Podcasts. It’s produced by Alan Montecillo, Jessica Kariisa, Ericka Cruz Guevara, Amanda Font, Christopher Beale, Ana de Almeida Amaral and me, Olivia Ellen Price.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:16:14] We get extra support from Jen Chien, Katie Sprenger, Maha Sanad, Holly Kernan.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price \u003c/strong>[00:16:20] Our show is made in San Francisco at member supported KQED. If you value podcasts like this one, please consider becoming a sustaining member of KQED. Learn more at KQED.org/Donate. I’m Olivia Allen-Price.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:16:34] I’m Ericka Cruz Guevara. We’ll be back tomorrow with an explainer on proposition 33, which asks, Should California remove statewide rent control limits?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "floatright"
},
"numeric": [
"floatright"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price \u003c/strong>[00:16:46] We’ll talk to you then.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/12006890/transcript-prop-32-raises-the-minimum-wage-to-18-an-hour",
"authors": [
"8654",
"8659",
"102",
"11749",
"11831",
"11649",
"8637"
],
"programs": [
"news_33523"
],
"series": [
"news_17986"
],
"categories": [
"news_34551",
"news_8",
"news_33520",
"news_13"
],
"tags": [
"news_28606",
"news_32839",
"news_33812",
"news_6675",
"news_22598"
],
"featImg": "news_10504575",
"label": "source_news_12006890"
},
"news_12006359": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_12006359",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "12006359",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1727431227000
]
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "transcript-proposition-6-would-abolish-involuntary-servitude-in-prisons-and-jails",
"title": "Proposition 6 Would Abolish Involuntary Servitude in Prisons",
"publishDate": 1727431227,
"format": "audio",
"headTitle": "Proposition 6 Would Abolish Involuntary Servitude in Prisons | KQED",
"labelTerm": {},
"content": "\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/propfest\">Prop Fest\u003c/a> is a collaboration from Bay Curious and The Bay podcasts, where we break down each of the 10 statewide propositions that will be on your November 2024 ballot. Check out \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/voterguide\">KQED’s Voter Guide\u003c/a> for more information on state and local races.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Today, arts and culture columnist Pendarvis Harshaw joins us to break down Prop. 6, an amendment to the California Constitution that would ban forced labor in prisons.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This episode has been updated to clarify the status of California’s volunteer firefighter program.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c!-- iframe plugin v.4.3 wordpress.org/plugins/iframe/ -->\u003cbr>\n\u003ciframe loading=\"lazy\" frameborder=\"0\" height=\"200\" scrolling=\"no\" src=\"https://playlist.megaphone.fm?e=KQINC1694673417&light=true\" width=\"100%\" class=\"iframe-class\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a transcript of the episode.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:00:02] Let’s take it back to history class real quick. In 1865, the U.S. ratified the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, otherwise known as the Prohibition Clause.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price \u003c/strong>[00:00:17] This is the clause that we were all taught banned slavery and involuntary servitude in the United States once and for all.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:00:25] Which it did, except not completely. I’m Ericka Cruz Guevarra.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price \u003c/strong>[00:00:32] And I’m Olivia Allen-Price. And you’re listening to Prop Fest, a collaboration between the Bay and Bay Curious where we help you get smart on all the statewide propositions on your ballot this year.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:00:45] The Constitution says slavery and involuntary servitude are prohibited except as punishment for convicted crimes.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price \u003c/strong>[00:00:54] That exception has allowed dozens of states, including California, to force incarcerated people to work in prisons whether they want to or not.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:01:04] Proposition 6 hopes to close that loophole once and for all and begin limiting forced labor in California state prisons.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price \u003c/strong>[00:01:14] Today, we’re going to break down Proposition 6 for you right after this.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:01:22] Today we’re talking about Proposition 6. Here’s how it will read on your ballot. Prop 6 amends the California Constitution to remove current provision that allows jails and prisons to impose involuntary servitude to punish crime, i.e., forcing incarcerated persons to work. Today, we talk with KQED arts and culture columnist Pendarvis Harshaw to help us break down what Prop 6 is all about.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:01:51] Your story on prison labor mentions a poultry processing enterprise at a state prison near the Central Valley. I mean, there’s really it seems like a really wide range of jobs that California inmates are doing.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Pendarvis Harshaw \u003c/strong>[00:02:24] It’s the notion of what you can see, you know about, what you don’t see. You have no idea. People who are residents of different institutions around the state work on everything from furniture that appears in college dorm rooms to license plates and and things of that nature, even working internally and doing maintenance. Somebody told me about working on the big industrial dryers inside of a women’s facility. There are a lot of education or jobs or even counseling jobs that people who are incarcerated do as well.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:02:59] And some of this is, I mean, really dangerous work, right?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Pendarvis Harshaw \u003c/strong>[00:03:04] Yeah. There’s the maintenance work that that can be done inside of prisons. Definitely dangerous. And not all jobs are blue collar or a front line. There are a lot of education or jobs or even counseling jobs that people who are incarcerated do as well. Folks have shared with me that some of them make $0.11 an hour or $0.14 an hour. And a lot of that goes not even directly into their pocket, can go into anything from health care to restitution. There are people who work for ducats or tokens, which essentially goes to time earned against their sentence. So they might get out sooner because of their labor. In southern states you’ve seen there are examples of people who work in chain gangs. And so the parallels between that and slavery are like clear present.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:03:55] Because there are also consequences for some folks inside of prisons. If you don’t want to work right.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Pendarvis Harshaw \u003c/strong>[00:04:02] If you get assigned a job and you do not work, then yes, you can be penalized.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:04:06] So enter then Prop 6 Pen, which would amend California’s constitution and prohibit the state from punishing inmates with involuntary work assignments. Can you talk a little bit more about the changes that Prop 6 would make exactly.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Pendarvis Harshaw \u003c/strong>[00:04:27] Prop six would essentially ban involuntary servitude in California prisons. California’s just the latest to try to close this loophole in the past two years. Alabama, Oregon, Tennessee and Vermont have all passed legislation in order to change this. This is a byproduct of years of work from different organizations and legislators.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Asm. Lori Wilson \u003c/strong>[00:04:48] California is among only 16 states with an exception clause for involuntary servitude.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Pendarvis Harshaw \u003c/strong>[00:04:55] This particular year, Legislative Black Caucus. Lori Wilson did a lot of work to get this off the ground.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Asm. Lori Wilson \u003c/strong>[00:05:01] Slavery takes on the modern form of involuntary servitude, including forced labor in prisons. Slavery is wrong, and all forms in California should be clear and denouncing that in our Constitution.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Pendarvis Harshaw \u003c/strong>[00:05:16] There’s been a lot of support by the organization that I talked to, all of us or None, which is a community group that’s based in Oakland, California. Their work is to help formerly incarcerated folks return to society, as well as to get behind initiatives like this.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Lawrence Cox \u003c/strong>[00:05:33] We want to give people the choice of whether or not they choose to work.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Pendarvis Harshaw \u003c/strong>[00:05:38] Lawrence Cox is one of three people that I talk to who work for All of Us Or None. They filled me in on some background.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Lawrence Cox \u003c/strong>[00:05:44] For us here in California. This is the fourth consecutive year that we’ve attempted to make that reach the ballot.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Pendarvis Harshaw \u003c/strong>[00:05:51] Saying it’s about humanity, it’s about labor rights. And then beyond that, it’s about this capitalist system. And Lawrence Cox talked about this.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Lawrence Cox \u003c/strong>[00:06:00] We’re not only trying to change the Constitution because we’re not talking about symbolism. We’re focused on creating airtight solutions that prevent the exploitation of individuals.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:06:12] Who else do we know is for Prop six?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Pendarvis Harshaw \u003c/strong>[00:06:17] Other organizations that are in favor of Prop six are orgs that do the work for people who are incarcerated, families who are incarcerated and people who are reentering society. So the anti recidivism coalition, ACLU of Northern California, organizations that are on the frontlines working with these folks who have been impacted by the system.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:06:37] And do we know what like the money is looking like in terms of support for Prop six? Who’s throwing coin basically into the Yes on Prop six campaign?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Pendarvis Harshaw \u003c/strong>[00:06:49] It’s it’s a tilted scale. Nearly $500,000 worth of support behind Prop six. And there have been $0 spent on the no side.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:07:03] There’s no official opposition to Prop six, but the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association has said it opposes it. There have also been a few newspaper editorial boards that call on voters to reject Prop six. The Bay Area News Group argued in a recent op ed that says, quote, Requiring inmates to sweep floors, clean the bathrooms or cook in the kitchen is reasonable. If we expect the same of ourselves and our children, if we insist members of the military conduct those chores, certainly we can ask incarcerated, convicted criminals to do the same, unquote. This also isn’t the first time advocates have tried to pass a similar idea. Back in 2020, the End Slavery in California Act was first introduced. But after two years in the legislature, it failed because lawmakers were worried about how much it would cost. That’s why this time, Prop six allows inmates to volunteer for work assignments without pay, but only if they want to.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:08:18] Well, I know you visited San Quentin earlier this year, and I’m curious where you heard from people. Did any of this sort of conversation that we’re having now come up in your visit there?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Pendarvis Harshaw \u003c/strong>[00:08:31] It came up naturally. I was in San Quentin in early August, tagging along with a group of journalists, doing a more or less a media day just to get a sense of the media that was being produced out of San Quentin. And of course, if you’re producing media, you’re working and you should be compensated for your work. And so naturally, the conversation would come up like, how much do you make? It was mind blowing because it was said like it was just common or even laughed at like here, you know, just making a little $0.14 here and there, almost saying it in jest or saying it and moving on to the next topic. People have told me that they are looking for employment or some type of work because busy hands stay out of trouble, more or less. The people that I talked to much older understand how prison works and know that by being occupied with their time, it’s a benefit to them. How much do people get compensated? How many people can work? What type of rights do they have? It’s start of a much larger discussion, or probably even the continuation of a conversation that’s been happening for some time.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:09:34] Well, Pen, thank you so much for breaking this down for us. We really appreciate it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Pendarvis Harshaw \u003c/strong>[00:09:39] Thank you. Thank you for having me.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:09:44] In a nutshell, a yes vote on Prop six means involuntary servitude would not be allowed as punishment for crime and that California prisons would not be allowed to discipline people in prison who refuse to work. A no vote means involuntary servitude would continue to be allowed as punishment for a crime in California. And that is it for today’s episode of Prop Fest. If you missed our other episodes, you can always find them at kqed.org/prop fest. Stay locked in and make sure you are subscribed so you don’t miss out on the next ones.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price \u003c/strong>[00:10:30] Prop fest is a collaboration between the Bay and Bay Curious Podcasts. It is produced by Alan Montecillo, Ericka Cruz Guevarra, Christopher Beale, Amanda Font, Jessica Kariisa, and me, Olivia Allen-Price.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:10:45] We get extra support from Jen Chien, Katie Sprenger, Maha Sanad, and Holly Kernan.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price \u003c/strong>[00:10:52] And the whole KQED family. For more super helpful info on both state and local elections, make sure to bookmark KQED is handy Election guide at kqed.org/voter Guide.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:11:06] I’m Ericka Cruz Guevarra.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price \u003c/strong>[00:11:08] And I’m Olivia Allen-Price. We’ll be back next week with an explainer on prop 32, which would raise California’s minimum wage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:11:16] Talk to you then.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"blocks": [],
"excerpt": "Arts and culture columnist Pendarvis Harshaw joins us to break down Prop. 6, an amendment to the California Constitution that would ban forced labor in prisons and jails.",
"status": "publish",
"parent": 0,
"modified": 1728329887,
"stats": {
"hasAudio": true,
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"paragraphCount": 7,
"wordCount": 2029
},
"headData": {
"title": "Proposition 6 Would Abolish Involuntary Servitude in Prisons | KQED",
"description": "Arts and culture columnist Pendarvis Harshaw joins us to break down Prop. 6, an amendment to the California Constitution that would ban forced labor in prisons and jails.",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogDescription": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"twDescription": "",
"twImgId": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Proposition 6 Would Abolish Involuntary Servitude in Prisons",
"datePublished": "2024-09-27T03:00:27-07:00",
"dateModified": "2024-10-07T12:38:07-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"source": "Prop Fest 2024",
"sourceUrl": "https://www.kqed.org/propfest",
"audioUrl": "https://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/chrt.fm/track/G6C7C3/traffic.megaphone.fm/KQINC1694673417.mp3?updated=1727286540",
"sticky": false,
"nprStoryId": "kqed-12006359",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/12006359/transcript-proposition-6-would-abolish-involuntary-servitude-in-prisons-and-jails",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/propfest\">Prop Fest\u003c/a> is a collaboration from Bay Curious and The Bay podcasts, where we break down each of the 10 statewide propositions that will be on your November 2024 ballot. Check out \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/voterguide\">KQED’s Voter Guide\u003c/a> for more information on state and local races.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cspan style=\"font-weight: 400\">Today, arts and culture columnist Pendarvis Harshaw joins us to break down Prop. 6, an amendment to the California Constitution that would ban forced labor in prisons.\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This episode has been updated to clarify the status of California’s volunteer firefighter program.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c!-- iframe plugin v.4.3 wordpress.org/plugins/iframe/ -->\u003cbr>\n\u003ciframe loading=\"lazy\" frameborder=\"0\" height=\"200\" scrolling=\"no\" src=\"https://playlist.megaphone.fm?e=KQINC1694673417&light=true\" width=\"100%\" class=\"iframe-class\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a transcript of the episode.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:00:02] Let’s take it back to history class real quick. In 1865, the U.S. ratified the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, otherwise known as the Prohibition Clause.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price \u003c/strong>[00:00:17] This is the clause that we were all taught banned slavery and involuntary servitude in the United States once and for all.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:00:25] Which it did, except not completely. I’m Ericka Cruz Guevarra.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price \u003c/strong>[00:00:32] And I’m Olivia Allen-Price. And you’re listening to Prop Fest, a collaboration between the Bay and Bay Curious where we help you get smart on all the statewide propositions on your ballot this year.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:00:45] The Constitution says slavery and involuntary servitude are prohibited except as punishment for convicted crimes.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price \u003c/strong>[00:00:54] That exception has allowed dozens of states, including California, to force incarcerated people to work in prisons whether they want to or not.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:01:04] Proposition 6 hopes to close that loophole once and for all and begin limiting forced labor in California state prisons.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price \u003c/strong>[00:01:14] Today, we’re going to break down Proposition 6 for you right after this.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:01:22] Today we’re talking about Proposition 6. Here’s how it will read on your ballot. Prop 6 amends the California Constitution to remove current provision that allows jails and prisons to impose involuntary servitude to punish crime, i.e., forcing incarcerated persons to work. Today, we talk with KQED arts and culture columnist Pendarvis Harshaw to help us break down what Prop 6 is all about.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:01:51] Your story on prison labor mentions a poultry processing enterprise at a state prison near the Central Valley. I mean, there’s really it seems like a really wide range of jobs that California inmates are doing.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Pendarvis Harshaw \u003c/strong>[00:02:24] It’s the notion of what you can see, you know about, what you don’t see. You have no idea. People who are residents of different institutions around the state work on everything from furniture that appears in college dorm rooms to license plates and and things of that nature, even working internally and doing maintenance. Somebody told me about working on the big industrial dryers inside of a women’s facility. There are a lot of education or jobs or even counseling jobs that people who are incarcerated do as well.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:02:59] And some of this is, I mean, really dangerous work, right?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Pendarvis Harshaw \u003c/strong>[00:03:04] Yeah. There’s the maintenance work that that can be done inside of prisons. Definitely dangerous. And not all jobs are blue collar or a front line. There are a lot of education or jobs or even counseling jobs that people who are incarcerated do as well. Folks have shared with me that some of them make $0.11 an hour or $0.14 an hour. And a lot of that goes not even directly into their pocket, can go into anything from health care to restitution. There are people who work for ducats or tokens, which essentially goes to time earned against their sentence. So they might get out sooner because of their labor. In southern states you’ve seen there are examples of people who work in chain gangs. And so the parallels between that and slavery are like clear present.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:03:55] Because there are also consequences for some folks inside of prisons. If you don’t want to work right.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Pendarvis Harshaw \u003c/strong>[00:04:02] If you get assigned a job and you do not work, then yes, you can be penalized.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:04:06] So enter then Prop 6 Pen, which would amend California’s constitution and prohibit the state from punishing inmates with involuntary work assignments. Can you talk a little bit more about the changes that Prop 6 would make exactly.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Pendarvis Harshaw \u003c/strong>[00:04:27] Prop six would essentially ban involuntary servitude in California prisons. California’s just the latest to try to close this loophole in the past two years. Alabama, Oregon, Tennessee and Vermont have all passed legislation in order to change this. This is a byproduct of years of work from different organizations and legislators.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Asm. Lori Wilson \u003c/strong>[00:04:48] California is among only 16 states with an exception clause for involuntary servitude.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Pendarvis Harshaw \u003c/strong>[00:04:55] This particular year, Legislative Black Caucus. Lori Wilson did a lot of work to get this off the ground.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Asm. Lori Wilson \u003c/strong>[00:05:01] Slavery takes on the modern form of involuntary servitude, including forced labor in prisons. Slavery is wrong, and all forms in California should be clear and denouncing that in our Constitution.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Pendarvis Harshaw \u003c/strong>[00:05:16] There’s been a lot of support by the organization that I talked to, all of us or None, which is a community group that’s based in Oakland, California. Their work is to help formerly incarcerated folks return to society, as well as to get behind initiatives like this.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Lawrence Cox \u003c/strong>[00:05:33] We want to give people the choice of whether or not they choose to work.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Pendarvis Harshaw \u003c/strong>[00:05:38] Lawrence Cox is one of three people that I talk to who work for All of Us Or None. They filled me in on some background.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Lawrence Cox \u003c/strong>[00:05:44] For us here in California. This is the fourth consecutive year that we’ve attempted to make that reach the ballot.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Pendarvis Harshaw \u003c/strong>[00:05:51] Saying it’s about humanity, it’s about labor rights. And then beyond that, it’s about this capitalist system. And Lawrence Cox talked about this.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Lawrence Cox \u003c/strong>[00:06:00] We’re not only trying to change the Constitution because we’re not talking about symbolism. We’re focused on creating airtight solutions that prevent the exploitation of individuals.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:06:12] Who else do we know is for Prop six?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Pendarvis Harshaw \u003c/strong>[00:06:17] Other organizations that are in favor of Prop six are orgs that do the work for people who are incarcerated, families who are incarcerated and people who are reentering society. So the anti recidivism coalition, ACLU of Northern California, organizations that are on the frontlines working with these folks who have been impacted by the system.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:06:37] And do we know what like the money is looking like in terms of support for Prop six? Who’s throwing coin basically into the Yes on Prop six campaign?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Pendarvis Harshaw \u003c/strong>[00:06:49] It’s it’s a tilted scale. Nearly $500,000 worth of support behind Prop six. And there have been $0 spent on the no side.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:07:03] There’s no official opposition to Prop six, but the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association has said it opposes it. There have also been a few newspaper editorial boards that call on voters to reject Prop six. The Bay Area News Group argued in a recent op ed that says, quote, Requiring inmates to sweep floors, clean the bathrooms or cook in the kitchen is reasonable. If we expect the same of ourselves and our children, if we insist members of the military conduct those chores, certainly we can ask incarcerated, convicted criminals to do the same, unquote. This also isn’t the first time advocates have tried to pass a similar idea. Back in 2020, the End Slavery in California Act was first introduced. But after two years in the legislature, it failed because lawmakers were worried about how much it would cost. That’s why this time, Prop six allows inmates to volunteer for work assignments without pay, but only if they want to.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:08:18] Well, I know you visited San Quentin earlier this year, and I’m curious where you heard from people. Did any of this sort of conversation that we’re having now come up in your visit there?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Pendarvis Harshaw \u003c/strong>[00:08:31] It came up naturally. I was in San Quentin in early August, tagging along with a group of journalists, doing a more or less a media day just to get a sense of the media that was being produced out of San Quentin. And of course, if you’re producing media, you’re working and you should be compensated for your work. And so naturally, the conversation would come up like, how much do you make? It was mind blowing because it was said like it was just common or even laughed at like here, you know, just making a little $0.14 here and there, almost saying it in jest or saying it and moving on to the next topic. People have told me that they are looking for employment or some type of work because busy hands stay out of trouble, more or less. The people that I talked to much older understand how prison works and know that by being occupied with their time, it’s a benefit to them. How much do people get compensated? How many people can work? What type of rights do they have? It’s start of a much larger discussion, or probably even the continuation of a conversation that’s been happening for some time.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:09:34] Well, Pen, thank you so much for breaking this down for us. We really appreciate it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Pendarvis Harshaw \u003c/strong>[00:09:39] Thank you. Thank you for having me.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:09:44] In a nutshell, a yes vote on Prop six means involuntary servitude would not be allowed as punishment for crime and that California prisons would not be allowed to discipline people in prison who refuse to work. A no vote means involuntary servitude would continue to be allowed as punishment for a crime in California. And that is it for today’s episode of Prop Fest. If you missed our other episodes, you can always find them at kqed.org/prop fest. Stay locked in and make sure you are subscribed so you don’t miss out on the next ones.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price \u003c/strong>[00:10:30] Prop fest is a collaboration between the Bay and Bay Curious Podcasts. It is produced by Alan Montecillo, Ericka Cruz Guevarra, Christopher Beale, Amanda Font, Jessica Kariisa, and me, Olivia Allen-Price.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:10:45] We get extra support from Jen Chien, Katie Sprenger, Maha Sanad, and Holly Kernan.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price \u003c/strong>[00:10:52] And the whole KQED family. For more super helpful info on both state and local elections, make sure to bookmark KQED is handy Election guide at kqed.org/voter Guide.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:11:06] I’m Ericka Cruz Guevarra.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price \u003c/strong>[00:11:08] And I’m Olivia Allen-Price. We’ll be back next week with an explainer on prop 32, which would raise California’s minimum wage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "floatright"
},
"numeric": [
"floatright"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:11:16] Talk to you then.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/12006359/transcript-proposition-6-would-abolish-involuntary-servitude-in-prisons-and-jails",
"authors": [
"8654",
"11491",
"102",
"11649",
"8637",
"11831",
"11749"
],
"programs": [
"news_33523",
"news_28779"
],
"series": [
"news_17986"
],
"categories": [
"news_6188",
"news_8",
"news_33520",
"news_13"
],
"tags": [
"news_28606",
"news_32839",
"news_33812",
"news_34560",
"news_28645",
"news_24207",
"news_22598"
],
"featImg": "news_11971776",
"label": "source_news_12006359"
},
"news_12006445": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_12006445",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "12006445",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1727344842000
]
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "transcript-proposition-5-would-lower-the-voting-threshold-for-certain-local-bond-measures",
"title": "Proposition 5 Would Lower the Voting Threshold for Certain Local Bond Measures",
"publishDate": 1727344842,
"format": "audio",
"headTitle": "Proposition 5 Would Lower the Voting Threshold for Certain Local Bond Measures | KQED",
"labelTerm": {},
"content": "\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/propfest\">Prop Fest\u003c/a> is a collaboration from Bay Curious and The Bay podcasts, where we break down each of the 10 statewide propositions that will be on your November 2024 ballot. Check out \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/voterguide\">KQED’s Voter Guide\u003c/a> for more information on state and local races.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Today, reporter Adhiti Bandlamudi helps us parse through the nuances of Proposition 5, which asks voters to lower the threshold to pass local bonds for affordable housing and public infrastructure from a two-thirds majority to 55%.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This episode has been updated from a previous version to clarify ramifications of Proposition 13.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c!-- iframe plugin v.4.3 wordpress.org/plugins/iframe/ -->\u003cbr>\n\u003ciframe loading=\"lazy\" frameborder=\"0\" height=\"200\" scrolling=\"no\" src=\"https://playlist.megaphone.fm?e=KQINC3997284697&light=true\" width=\"100%\" class=\"iframe-class\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a transcript of the episode. \u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> Let’s take a quick trip through some recent election results for local bond measures around California, shall we…?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> 2020. Measure A. San Diego. A $900 million bond for low-income, substance abuse, and mental health service housing.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> Failed with 57% of voters in favor.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> 2022. Measure L. City of Berkeley. A $650 million bond to fund housing and infrastructure.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> Failed with 59% of voters in favor.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> 2022. Proposition A. San Francisco. A $400 million bond for transit improvements and repairs.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> Failed with 65% of voters in favor.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> I’m noticing a trend…\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> Indeed! California makes it difficult for local governments to borrow money. They have to ask voters for permission – and then get a SUPERMAJORITY of votes – that’s two-thirds of the vote or 66.67%. That’s meant a lot of local bond measures fail, even when they have a lot of public support.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> But Proposition 5 could change that.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Olivia Allen-Price: I’m Olivia Allen-Price, host of Bay Curious.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> And I’m Ericka Cruz Guevarra, host of The Bay. This is Prop Fest – our podcast series that goes deep on explaining the props on California’s ballot.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> We’re covering ten props in ten days, all so you can vote with confidence this November.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> Prop 5 is looking to lower the threshold of voter support needed to pass local bond measures for housing and public infrastructure projects.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> I know it sounds pretty wonky – but this one could have a big impact for local budgets … and for homeowners.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> Because if more bonds start passing someone has to pay for them. And it’s probably you … or your landlord … who then passes that cost on to you.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> We’ll get into the details on Proposition 5 just ahead on Prop Fest.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>SPONSOR MESSAGE\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> Let’s get into it on Proposition 5. Here’s how it will appear on your ballot…\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Voiceover:\u003c/strong> Proposition 5 ALLOWS LOCAL BONDS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE WITH 55% VOTER APPROVAL. It’s a constitutional amendment that was placed on the ballot by the state legislature.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> To help explain what’s at stake with Prop 5. I’m joined by reporter Adhiti Bandlamudi Hey, Adhiti.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Adhiti Bandlamudi:\u003c/strong> Hey, Olivia.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> So Prop 5 impacts how we pass local bonds in this state. So I want to start with a quick refresher for people. What exactly is a bond?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Adhiti Bandlamudi:\u003c/strong> Okay, so bonds are a way for state and local governments to raise money for big projects that they want to do now, but pay over time. You might think of it as sort of like a 30-year mortgage you might have on a house, right? The bank gives you a bunch of money upfront to buy the house, and then you pay it back in small installments with interest over time. Government bonds work kind of the same way, except instead of being used to buy a house, the government uses the money for all sorts of things like renovating schools, fixing potholes, funding public transportation, things like that.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> And right now, if a local government in California wants to borrow money, they always have to get voter approval. And not just the majority of the vote, but actually two thirds of the vote. The state, on the other hand, only needs 55% of voters’ support for their bonds. So it’s essentially harder for a city or county to pass a bond than it is for the state. What could Prop 5 change about that?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Adhiti Bandlamudi:\u003c/strong> So Prop 5 wants to lower that threshold of votes that local governments would need to get from two thirds to 55%, but only for two types of bonds, affordable housing and for public infrastructure projects. Affordable housing bonds would mean money to build new affordable housing funding, down payment assistance programs, or a low income housing support, for example. Public infrastructure bonds could mean money for road repairs, water management, parks, hospitals, stuff like that. This prop also includes a rule that local governments have to put accountability measures in place so if they issue a bond. Taxpayers know where their money is going. And the interesting thing to note here is that back in 2000, voters passed a proposition that lowered the voter threshold to 55% for school bonds. So this is already something that has come up before the voters and they approved it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> Can you walk through why there’s this focus specifically on housing affordability and public infrastructure bonds?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Adhiti Bandlamudi:\u003c/strong> Yeah. I mean, California’s housing affordability crisis impacts everyone. And it’s growing worse and worse every year. So much so that more people are losing their homes or moving out of the state entirely. Public infrastructure is also hard to fund. There are some hospitals that are falling into disrepair, and it’s been hard for them to get funding. Even just getting a bike lane installed on a road can be really expensive. And, you know, bond measures have some results. For example, in 2019, San Francisco passed Prop eight, which approved $600 million in bonds for affordable housing. And some of that money went to fund Shirley Chisholm Village, a development for educators in the San Francisco Unified School District. So, teacher housing. And it’s set to open this fall.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> And why lower the voter threshold?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Adhiti Bandlamudi:\u003c/strong> In short, they want more of these local bonds to have a better chance of passing. A lot of local bond measures have failed recently, despite having incredibly strong voter support. Here’s Edie Irons, who works for All Homes, an affordable housing advocacy group.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Edie Irons:\u003c/strong> I was just looking at a list of like ten measures for housing across the state in the last just handful of years that failed. Because they got 55%, 59%, 60%, 66%. It’s too high of a bar. You know, a two thirds threshold is not actually a functional way to govern.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> Now, if Prop 5 passes, do we have a sense of how many more of these local bond measures would pass?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Adhiti Bandlamudi:\u003c/strong> The Legislative Analyst’s Office has done an analysis on recent local election results, and they say an additional 20% to 50% of local bond measures would have passed under Proposition Five’s lower voter approval requirement.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> Okay. Yeah, that’s quite a bit. Now, this two thirds threshold that currently exists was set back in 1978 with the passage of Proposition 13. Folks will remember that Prop 13 was all about limiting property tax increases for homeowners. Can you walk us through why that two thirds threshold was part of Prop 13?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Adhiti Bandlamudi:\u003c/strong> Totally. So when Prop 13 was introduced to the voters in the late 70s, it came at a time when property taxes were fluctuating a lot, partially because there was a huge population boom leading to an increase in demand for housing and a lot of inflation.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Here’s anti-tax activist Howard Jarvis, one of the big proponents of Prop 13, in a 1978 debate…\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Howard Jarvis (Archival Tape):\u003c/strong> \u003cem>The second objective of the amendment is to enable elderly people unlimited incomes, which there are 3 or 4 million in this state, to be able to retain the homes that they have bought and paid for. And who are in serious danger today, because of rapidly escalating property taxes, of losing their homes.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Adhiti Bandlamudi:\u003c/strong> The property taxes rose so much that some people living on their retirements, who were on a fixed income, couldn’t keep up and some even lost their homes. Prop 13 came in and said, we’re going to make sure property taxes are tied to the home’s value when you bought the home, not the current market value, which could fluctuate. And what it also said is that it would make it harder for local governments to raise those property taxes through bond measures.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In California, our state government is primarily funded by income taxes. So the money you probably see taken out of your paycheck every few weeks. Our local governments are funded primarily through property taxes. So language in Prop 13 set the threshold to pass a local bond to two thirds to make it harder to pass bonds and thus less likely, homeowners would see property tax increases.\u003cbr>\nSo if Prop 5 this year passes, local governments will have an easier time approving bond measures, and it’s more likely that homeowners will see property tax increases.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And that’s the thing. Opponents of Prop 5 are worried about that. It chips away at some of those protections Prop 13 has held in place for decades.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> There are many critiques of Prop 13, and the implications it’s had on everything from the cost of housing to income inequality … but for the purposes of this episode, know Prop 13 had a drastic and immediate impact on the amount of money going to local governments. And that’s taken a toll on everything that’s traditionally funded by local government – like schools and local infrastructure.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> Adhiti, Prop 13 has long been called, you know, a political third rail, something that just cannot be touched because it’s so popular with many homeowners in California. Is that still the case if we’re seeing, you know, things like Prop 5 on our ballot?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Adhiti Bandlamudi:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I wanted to figure that out. And so I talked to Mark Baldassare from the Public Policy Institute of California for this. Back in 2018, he had done a survey on how people felt about Prop 13 at that time.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Mark Baldassare:\u003c/strong> Pretty consistently. More than 6 in 10 people in California in our polling say that they feel overall Proposition 13 has been mostly a good thing. So convincing people that something that the voters passed even a long time ago needs to be changed is a hurdle. And it might impact their own taxes and ultimately their cost of living at a time when people are very sensitive about rising costs of living in California.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Adhiti Bandlamudi:\u003c/strong> Now, to be fair, I don’t know how many people will read Prop 5 text and think about Prop 13. I also don’t know how many people will read about Prop 5 and think about their property taxes increasing because not everyone realizes that local bond measures are funded through property tax hikes. But if Prop 5 passes, it could be a bellwether for Prop 13 future as we see more of its protections chipped away year after year.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> Now, I know there’s been some controversy about the language of the measure or basically what voters will read on the ballot. What are opponents saying about that?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Adhiti Bandlamudi:\u003c/strong> Yeah, there has been a lot of concern about the language of this prop. It doesn’t specify that the 55% threshold is a decrease from the existing two thirds threshold. And many, like former San Jose Councilmember Johnny Khamis, are concerned that voters won’t fully understand what they’re voting on.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Johnny Khamis\u003c/strong>: I think it’s misleading. The best I can say is it’s a proposition that is going to be reducing the threshold to passing a new tax when in fact the language on the ballot makes you feel like you’re increasing the voting threshold. So I think it’s misleading and dishonest.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Adhiti Bandlamudi:\u003c/strong> There was even a court case over the language on the ballot, but ultimately, the language on the ballot was permitted to remain as is.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> This prop has a lot of ramifications for property taxes, as we’ve been talking about already. But how does California stack up against other states currently on that front?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Adhiti Bandlamudi:\u003c/strong> Yeah, California’s property tax rates aren’t that high when you compare us to other states. In fact, our property tax rates are actually kind of low. But because our property values here are really high, the amount people end up paying can feel like a lot. And because property taxes can only increase by a little bit every year, it can be really hard for local governments to keep up with maintaining their cities, especially if they have huge population booms.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> Which probably accounts for a lot of Bay Area regions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Adhiti Bandlamudi:\u003c/strong> Very much so.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> Now, how did Prop 5 end up on the ballot?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Adhiti Bandlamudi:\u003c/strong> The legislature voted to put Prop 5 on the ballot last year. It’s part of a series of attempts to solve the state’s increasingly dire housing crisis. This is just one way local governments could raise money to approach housing affordability at the local level. It’s a change that has to be voted on by Californians because it would mean a change to the state’s constitution.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> Take us through who is in support of this one and why.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Adhiti Bandlamudi:\u003c/strong> Lots of organizations support this proposition, including the California Democratic Party. California YIMBY also known as Yes in My Backyard, California Housing Partnership and the California Apartment Association, among many, many, many others. Affordable housing activists are really excited about this bond, particularly because we’re coming out of a kind of lackluster year when it comes to funding for housing at the state level. We had two multibillion dollar bond measures that were going to go before the voters but died along the way.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Some argue that Prop 13 has made it hard for local governments to spend money locally, and they have to rely on the state to pass these big bond measures. And then that money trickles its way down to the cities that need it. I spoke with Amie Fishman from the nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California about this.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Amie Fishman\u003c/strong>: Our focus is on how do we empower local communities to directly address their own affordable housing and infrastructure needs. And Prop 5 allows communities to take control of their futures, really, and make the necessary investments without waiting for state intervention.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> And who’s lining up in opposition.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Adhiti Bandlamudi:\u003c/strong> Generally, groups that are anti-tax. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association has been against this initiative since it was just a proposal. The California Chamber of Commerce is against it and the very powerful California Association of Realtors. Here’s former San Jose Councilmember Johnny Khamis again.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Johnny Khamis:\u003c/strong> It actually reverses a lot of the protections that we had under Prop 13. It actually makes it much easier to pass new bonds, new, you know, which I think that we do need a good infrastructure. We do need things. But I also am very cognizant of the fact that my mom received her property tax bill in November that she has to pay. And there’s currently, you know, my mom, who’s retired and is on a limited income has 17– already 17 taxes that are not her property tax. So these are 17 parcel measures from anything from the water district to the county to the school boards to the you name it. There’s 17 currently. You know, I think that this could open the floodgates to new propositions and taxes and make and make it much harder for seniors like my mother to live in the area.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Adhiti Bandlamudi:\u003c/strong> Now, this proposition does have some accountability measures there, but people worry about whether the rules will actually be followed. Bond money is sometimes misappropriated, even with accountability measures in place.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> And how is the campaign spending shaking out here?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Adhiti Bandlamudi:\u003c/strong> As of mid-September, when we’re recording this conversation, the opponents of Prop 5 have raised almost $30 million to fight this. Meanwhile, the ‘yes’ camp has raised about 5 million. But I should add, a lot of that $30 million from the ‘no’ camp came from realty groups, but their opposition has cooled slightly because the legislature made some concessions before this was placed on the ballot. There is now language in Prop 5 that bans local governments from using the bond money to buy up existing single family homes and converting them into affordable units, something the realty groups didn’t want to happen. And just to make it clear, this proposition lowers the voter threshold, but people still have to vote in order for a bond measure to pass. So it’s not like cities can just pass bond measures without say so from the taxpayers.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> All right. Well, thank you for walking us through this one. It was way more complicated than I anticipated when I first read it. Housing reporter Adhiti Bandlamudi, thanks again.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Adhiti Bandlamudi:\u003c/strong> Thanks for having me. This was really complicated.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> We made it through.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In summary, a vote yes on Prop 5 means you want the threshold of voter support needed for local affordable housing and public infrastructure bonds to be lowered from two thirds to 55%. This means it’s more likely that bonds will pass and more funding will be available for those types of projects. A vote no on Prop 5 means you want to keep that two thirds threshold in place and you want to maintain Prop 13 protections against property tax increases.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> That’s a wrap on Prop 5. Thanks for tuning in to Prop Fest – a collaboration between The Bay and Bay Curious podcasts.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> If you’re finding these episodes valuable, please share them with a friend, tell your neighbors, post about them on social media… We put a ton of work into these episodes and we really want people to find them before Election Day.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> Prop Fest is produced by Amanda Font, Christopher Beale, Ana De Almeda Amaral, Olivia Allen-Price, Alan Montecillo, Jessica Kariisa, And me Ericka Cruz Guevarra\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> Extra support from Katie Sprenger, Jen Chien, Maha Sanad, Holly Kernan, And the whole KQED family\u003cbr>\nEricka Cruz Guevarra: You can find audio and transcripts for this series at KQED.org/PropFest …\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> Our show is made in San Francisco at member-supported KQED. Join your friends and neighbors and support our work today. Give at KQED.org/donate.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> I’m Olivia Allen-Price\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> And I’m Ericka Cruz Guevarra. We’ll be back tomorrow with an explainer on Proposition 6 – which looks to end involuntary servitude for incarcerated people. Thanks for listening.\u003c/p>\n\n",
"blocks": [],
"excerpt": "Local bond measures currently require a two-thirds majority to pass. Should that be lowered? ",
"status": "publish",
"parent": 0,
"modified": 1729130372,
"stats": {
"hasAudio": true,
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"paragraphCount": 83,
"wordCount": 3395
},
"headData": {
"title": "Proposition 5 Would Lower the Voting Threshold for Certain Local Bond Measures | KQED",
"description": "Local bond measures currently require a two-thirds majority to pass. Should that be lowered? ",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogDescription": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"twDescription": "",
"twImgId": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Proposition 5 Would Lower the Voting Threshold for Certain Local Bond Measures",
"datePublished": "2024-09-26T03:00:42-07:00",
"dateModified": "2024-10-16T18:59:32-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"source": "Prop Fest 2024",
"sourceUrl": "https://www.kqed.org/propfest",
"audioUrl": "https://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/pdst.fm/e/chrt.fm/track/G6C7C3/traffic.megaphone.fm/KQINC3997284697.mp3?updated=1727304297",
"sticky": false,
"nprStoryId": "kqed-12006445",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/12006445/transcript-proposition-5-would-lower-the-voting-threshold-for-certain-local-bond-measures",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/propfest\">Prop Fest\u003c/a> is a collaboration from Bay Curious and The Bay podcasts, where we break down each of the 10 statewide propositions that will be on your November 2024 ballot. Check out \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/voterguide\">KQED’s Voter Guide\u003c/a> for more information on state and local races.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Today, reporter Adhiti Bandlamudi helps us parse through the nuances of Proposition 5, which asks voters to lower the threshold to pass local bonds for affordable housing and public infrastructure from a two-thirds majority to 55%.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This episode has been updated from a previous version to clarify ramifications of Proposition 13.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c!-- iframe plugin v.4.3 wordpress.org/plugins/iframe/ -->\u003cbr>\n\u003ciframe loading=\"lazy\" frameborder=\"0\" height=\"200\" scrolling=\"no\" src=\"https://playlist.megaphone.fm?e=KQINC3997284697&light=true\" width=\"100%\" class=\"iframe-class\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a transcript of the episode. \u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> Let’s take a quick trip through some recent election results for local bond measures around California, shall we…?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> 2020. Measure A. San Diego. A $900 million bond for low-income, substance abuse, and mental health service housing.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> Failed with 57% of voters in favor.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> 2022. Measure L. City of Berkeley. A $650 million bond to fund housing and infrastructure.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> Failed with 59% of voters in favor.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> 2022. Proposition A. San Francisco. A $400 million bond for transit improvements and repairs.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> Failed with 65% of voters in favor.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> I’m noticing a trend…\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> Indeed! California makes it difficult for local governments to borrow money. They have to ask voters for permission – and then get a SUPERMAJORITY of votes – that’s two-thirds of the vote or 66.67%. That’s meant a lot of local bond measures fail, even when they have a lot of public support.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> But Proposition 5 could change that.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Olivia Allen-Price: I’m Olivia Allen-Price, host of Bay Curious.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> And I’m Ericka Cruz Guevarra, host of The Bay. This is Prop Fest – our podcast series that goes deep on explaining the props on California’s ballot.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> We’re covering ten props in ten days, all so you can vote with confidence this November.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> Prop 5 is looking to lower the threshold of voter support needed to pass local bond measures for housing and public infrastructure projects.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> I know it sounds pretty wonky – but this one could have a big impact for local budgets … and for homeowners.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> Because if more bonds start passing someone has to pay for them. And it’s probably you … or your landlord … who then passes that cost on to you.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> We’ll get into the details on Proposition 5 just ahead on Prop Fest.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>SPONSOR MESSAGE\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> Let’s get into it on Proposition 5. Here’s how it will appear on your ballot…\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Voiceover:\u003c/strong> Proposition 5 ALLOWS LOCAL BONDS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE WITH 55% VOTER APPROVAL. It’s a constitutional amendment that was placed on the ballot by the state legislature.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> To help explain what’s at stake with Prop 5. I’m joined by reporter Adhiti Bandlamudi Hey, Adhiti.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Adhiti Bandlamudi:\u003c/strong> Hey, Olivia.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> So Prop 5 impacts how we pass local bonds in this state. So I want to start with a quick refresher for people. What exactly is a bond?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Adhiti Bandlamudi:\u003c/strong> Okay, so bonds are a way for state and local governments to raise money for big projects that they want to do now, but pay over time. You might think of it as sort of like a 30-year mortgage you might have on a house, right? The bank gives you a bunch of money upfront to buy the house, and then you pay it back in small installments with interest over time. Government bonds work kind of the same way, except instead of being used to buy a house, the government uses the money for all sorts of things like renovating schools, fixing potholes, funding public transportation, things like that.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> And right now, if a local government in California wants to borrow money, they always have to get voter approval. And not just the majority of the vote, but actually two thirds of the vote. The state, on the other hand, only needs 55% of voters’ support for their bonds. So it’s essentially harder for a city or county to pass a bond than it is for the state. What could Prop 5 change about that?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Adhiti Bandlamudi:\u003c/strong> So Prop 5 wants to lower that threshold of votes that local governments would need to get from two thirds to 55%, but only for two types of bonds, affordable housing and for public infrastructure projects. Affordable housing bonds would mean money to build new affordable housing funding, down payment assistance programs, or a low income housing support, for example. Public infrastructure bonds could mean money for road repairs, water management, parks, hospitals, stuff like that. This prop also includes a rule that local governments have to put accountability measures in place so if they issue a bond. Taxpayers know where their money is going. And the interesting thing to note here is that back in 2000, voters passed a proposition that lowered the voter threshold to 55% for school bonds. So this is already something that has come up before the voters and they approved it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> Can you walk through why there’s this focus specifically on housing affordability and public infrastructure bonds?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Adhiti Bandlamudi:\u003c/strong> Yeah. I mean, California’s housing affordability crisis impacts everyone. And it’s growing worse and worse every year. So much so that more people are losing their homes or moving out of the state entirely. Public infrastructure is also hard to fund. There are some hospitals that are falling into disrepair, and it’s been hard for them to get funding. Even just getting a bike lane installed on a road can be really expensive. And, you know, bond measures have some results. For example, in 2019, San Francisco passed Prop eight, which approved $600 million in bonds for affordable housing. And some of that money went to fund Shirley Chisholm Village, a development for educators in the San Francisco Unified School District. So, teacher housing. And it’s set to open this fall.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> And why lower the voter threshold?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Adhiti Bandlamudi:\u003c/strong> In short, they want more of these local bonds to have a better chance of passing. A lot of local bond measures have failed recently, despite having incredibly strong voter support. Here’s Edie Irons, who works for All Homes, an affordable housing advocacy group.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Edie Irons:\u003c/strong> I was just looking at a list of like ten measures for housing across the state in the last just handful of years that failed. Because they got 55%, 59%, 60%, 66%. It’s too high of a bar. You know, a two thirds threshold is not actually a functional way to govern.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> Now, if Prop 5 passes, do we have a sense of how many more of these local bond measures would pass?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Adhiti Bandlamudi:\u003c/strong> The Legislative Analyst’s Office has done an analysis on recent local election results, and they say an additional 20% to 50% of local bond measures would have passed under Proposition Five’s lower voter approval requirement.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> Okay. Yeah, that’s quite a bit. Now, this two thirds threshold that currently exists was set back in 1978 with the passage of Proposition 13. Folks will remember that Prop 13 was all about limiting property tax increases for homeowners. Can you walk us through why that two thirds threshold was part of Prop 13?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Adhiti Bandlamudi:\u003c/strong> Totally. So when Prop 13 was introduced to the voters in the late 70s, it came at a time when property taxes were fluctuating a lot, partially because there was a huge population boom leading to an increase in demand for housing and a lot of inflation.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Here’s anti-tax activist Howard Jarvis, one of the big proponents of Prop 13, in a 1978 debate…\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Howard Jarvis (Archival Tape):\u003c/strong> \u003cem>The second objective of the amendment is to enable elderly people unlimited incomes, which there are 3 or 4 million in this state, to be able to retain the homes that they have bought and paid for. And who are in serious danger today, because of rapidly escalating property taxes, of losing their homes.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Adhiti Bandlamudi:\u003c/strong> The property taxes rose so much that some people living on their retirements, who were on a fixed income, couldn’t keep up and some even lost their homes. Prop 13 came in and said, we’re going to make sure property taxes are tied to the home’s value when you bought the home, not the current market value, which could fluctuate. And what it also said is that it would make it harder for local governments to raise those property taxes through bond measures.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In California, our state government is primarily funded by income taxes. So the money you probably see taken out of your paycheck every few weeks. Our local governments are funded primarily through property taxes. So language in Prop 13 set the threshold to pass a local bond to two thirds to make it harder to pass bonds and thus less likely, homeowners would see property tax increases.\u003cbr>\nSo if Prop 5 this year passes, local governments will have an easier time approving bond measures, and it’s more likely that homeowners will see property tax increases.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And that’s the thing. Opponents of Prop 5 are worried about that. It chips away at some of those protections Prop 13 has held in place for decades.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> There are many critiques of Prop 13, and the implications it’s had on everything from the cost of housing to income inequality … but for the purposes of this episode, know Prop 13 had a drastic and immediate impact on the amount of money going to local governments. And that’s taken a toll on everything that’s traditionally funded by local government – like schools and local infrastructure.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> Adhiti, Prop 13 has long been called, you know, a political third rail, something that just cannot be touched because it’s so popular with many homeowners in California. Is that still the case if we’re seeing, you know, things like Prop 5 on our ballot?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Adhiti Bandlamudi:\u003c/strong> Yeah, I wanted to figure that out. And so I talked to Mark Baldassare from the Public Policy Institute of California for this. Back in 2018, he had done a survey on how people felt about Prop 13 at that time.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Mark Baldassare:\u003c/strong> Pretty consistently. More than 6 in 10 people in California in our polling say that they feel overall Proposition 13 has been mostly a good thing. So convincing people that something that the voters passed even a long time ago needs to be changed is a hurdle. And it might impact their own taxes and ultimately their cost of living at a time when people are very sensitive about rising costs of living in California.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Adhiti Bandlamudi:\u003c/strong> Now, to be fair, I don’t know how many people will read Prop 5 text and think about Prop 13. I also don’t know how many people will read about Prop 5 and think about their property taxes increasing because not everyone realizes that local bond measures are funded through property tax hikes. But if Prop 5 passes, it could be a bellwether for Prop 13 future as we see more of its protections chipped away year after year.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> Now, I know there’s been some controversy about the language of the measure or basically what voters will read on the ballot. What are opponents saying about that?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Adhiti Bandlamudi:\u003c/strong> Yeah, there has been a lot of concern about the language of this prop. It doesn’t specify that the 55% threshold is a decrease from the existing two thirds threshold. And many, like former San Jose Councilmember Johnny Khamis, are concerned that voters won’t fully understand what they’re voting on.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Johnny Khamis\u003c/strong>: I think it’s misleading. The best I can say is it’s a proposition that is going to be reducing the threshold to passing a new tax when in fact the language on the ballot makes you feel like you’re increasing the voting threshold. So I think it’s misleading and dishonest.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Adhiti Bandlamudi:\u003c/strong> There was even a court case over the language on the ballot, but ultimately, the language on the ballot was permitted to remain as is.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> This prop has a lot of ramifications for property taxes, as we’ve been talking about already. But how does California stack up against other states currently on that front?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Adhiti Bandlamudi:\u003c/strong> Yeah, California’s property tax rates aren’t that high when you compare us to other states. In fact, our property tax rates are actually kind of low. But because our property values here are really high, the amount people end up paying can feel like a lot. And because property taxes can only increase by a little bit every year, it can be really hard for local governments to keep up with maintaining their cities, especially if they have huge population booms.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> Which probably accounts for a lot of Bay Area regions.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Adhiti Bandlamudi:\u003c/strong> Very much so.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> Now, how did Prop 5 end up on the ballot?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Adhiti Bandlamudi:\u003c/strong> The legislature voted to put Prop 5 on the ballot last year. It’s part of a series of attempts to solve the state’s increasingly dire housing crisis. This is just one way local governments could raise money to approach housing affordability at the local level. It’s a change that has to be voted on by Californians because it would mean a change to the state’s constitution.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> Take us through who is in support of this one and why.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Adhiti Bandlamudi:\u003c/strong> Lots of organizations support this proposition, including the California Democratic Party. California YIMBY also known as Yes in My Backyard, California Housing Partnership and the California Apartment Association, among many, many, many others. Affordable housing activists are really excited about this bond, particularly because we’re coming out of a kind of lackluster year when it comes to funding for housing at the state level. We had two multibillion dollar bond measures that were going to go before the voters but died along the way.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Some argue that Prop 13 has made it hard for local governments to spend money locally, and they have to rely on the state to pass these big bond measures. And then that money trickles its way down to the cities that need it. I spoke with Amie Fishman from the nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California about this.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Amie Fishman\u003c/strong>: Our focus is on how do we empower local communities to directly address their own affordable housing and infrastructure needs. And Prop 5 allows communities to take control of their futures, really, and make the necessary investments without waiting for state intervention.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> And who’s lining up in opposition.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Adhiti Bandlamudi:\u003c/strong> Generally, groups that are anti-tax. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association has been against this initiative since it was just a proposal. The California Chamber of Commerce is against it and the very powerful California Association of Realtors. Here’s former San Jose Councilmember Johnny Khamis again.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Johnny Khamis:\u003c/strong> It actually reverses a lot of the protections that we had under Prop 13. It actually makes it much easier to pass new bonds, new, you know, which I think that we do need a good infrastructure. We do need things. But I also am very cognizant of the fact that my mom received her property tax bill in November that she has to pay. And there’s currently, you know, my mom, who’s retired and is on a limited income has 17– already 17 taxes that are not her property tax. So these are 17 parcel measures from anything from the water district to the county to the school boards to the you name it. There’s 17 currently. You know, I think that this could open the floodgates to new propositions and taxes and make and make it much harder for seniors like my mother to live in the area.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Adhiti Bandlamudi:\u003c/strong> Now, this proposition does have some accountability measures there, but people worry about whether the rules will actually be followed. Bond money is sometimes misappropriated, even with accountability measures in place.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> And how is the campaign spending shaking out here?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Adhiti Bandlamudi:\u003c/strong> As of mid-September, when we’re recording this conversation, the opponents of Prop 5 have raised almost $30 million to fight this. Meanwhile, the ‘yes’ camp has raised about 5 million. But I should add, a lot of that $30 million from the ‘no’ camp came from realty groups, but their opposition has cooled slightly because the legislature made some concessions before this was placed on the ballot. There is now language in Prop 5 that bans local governments from using the bond money to buy up existing single family homes and converting them into affordable units, something the realty groups didn’t want to happen. And just to make it clear, this proposition lowers the voter threshold, but people still have to vote in order for a bond measure to pass. So it’s not like cities can just pass bond measures without say so from the taxpayers.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> All right. Well, thank you for walking us through this one. It was way more complicated than I anticipated when I first read it. Housing reporter Adhiti Bandlamudi, thanks again.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Adhiti Bandlamudi:\u003c/strong> Thanks for having me. This was really complicated.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> We made it through.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In summary, a vote yes on Prop 5 means you want the threshold of voter support needed for local affordable housing and public infrastructure bonds to be lowered from two thirds to 55%. This means it’s more likely that bonds will pass and more funding will be available for those types of projects. A vote no on Prop 5 means you want to keep that two thirds threshold in place and you want to maintain Prop 13 protections against property tax increases.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> That’s a wrap on Prop 5. Thanks for tuning in to Prop Fest – a collaboration between The Bay and Bay Curious podcasts.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> If you’re finding these episodes valuable, please share them with a friend, tell your neighbors, post about them on social media… We put a ton of work into these episodes and we really want people to find them before Election Day.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> Prop Fest is produced by Amanda Font, Christopher Beale, Ana De Almeda Amaral, Olivia Allen-Price, Alan Montecillo, Jessica Kariisa, And me Ericka Cruz Guevarra\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> Extra support from Katie Sprenger, Jen Chien, Maha Sanad, Holly Kernan, And the whole KQED family\u003cbr>\nEricka Cruz Guevarra: You can find audio and transcripts for this series at KQED.org/PropFest …\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> Our show is made in San Francisco at member-supported KQED. Join your friends and neighbors and support our work today. Give at KQED.org/donate.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> I’m Olivia Allen-Price\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "floatright"
},
"numeric": [
"floatright"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> And I’m Ericka Cruz Guevarra. We’ll be back tomorrow with an explainer on Proposition 6 – which looks to end involuntary servitude for incarcerated people. Thanks for listening.\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/12006445/transcript-proposition-5-would-lower-the-voting-threshold-for-certain-local-bond-measures",
"authors": [
"102",
"8637",
"11649",
"8654",
"11831",
"11672"
],
"programs": [
"news_33523",
"news_28779"
],
"series": [
"news_17986"
],
"categories": [
"news_6266",
"news_8",
"news_33520",
"news_13"
],
"tags": [
"news_28606",
"news_32839",
"news_33812",
"news_34577",
"news_22598"
],
"featImg": "news_12006472",
"label": "source_news_12006445"
},
"news_12005954": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_12005954",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "12005954",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1727258401000
]
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "transcript-proposition-4-would-raise-10-billion-in-bonds-for-climate-projects",
"title": "Proposition 4 Would Raise $10 Billion in Bonds for Climate Projects",
"publishDate": 1727258401,
"format": "audio",
"headTitle": "Proposition 4 Would Raise $10 Billion in Bonds for Climate Projects | KQED",
"labelTerm": {},
"content": "\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/propfest\">Prop Fest\u003c/a> is a collaboration from Bay Curious and The Bay podcasts, where we break down each of the 10 statewide propositions that will be on your November 2024 ballot. Check out \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/voterguide\">KQED’s Voter Guide\u003c/a> for more information on state and local races.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Today, KQED climate reporter Ezra David Romero breaks down Proposition 4, a $10 billion bond for climate and environment-related projects across the state.\u003c/p>\n\u003cdiv class=\"card card--enclosed grey\">\n\u003cp id=\"embed-code\" class=\"inconsolata\">\n\u003c!-- iframe plugin v.4.3 wordpress.org/plugins/iframe/ -->\u003cbr>\n\u003ciframe loading=\"lazy\" frameborder=\"0\" height=\"200\" scrolling=\"no\" src=\"https://playlist.megaphone.fm/?e=KQINC8420453070&light=true\" width=\"100%\" class=\"iframe-class\">\u003c/iframe>\n\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a transcript of the episode.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:00:00] California has got some of the most ambitious climate goals in the country and the world.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price \u003c/strong>[00:00:06] In 2022, the state released the world’s first plan to achieve net zero carbon pollution.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:00:13] But we’re not going to get there overnight or for free.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price \u003c/strong>[00:00:17] It’s going to take a radical reimagining of how we live life in California.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:00:24] I’m Ericka Cruz Guevarra.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price \u003c/strong>[00:00:26] And I’m Olivia Allen-Price. And you’re listening to Prop Fest, a collaboration between the Bay and Bay curious where we help you get smart on all the statewide propositions on your ballot this year.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:00:39] Earlier this year, the state legislature passed a $10 billion bond to invest in climate change programs and solutions. And now it needs voters final seal of approval.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price \u003c/strong>[00:00:51] And it’s coming to you in the form of proposition for the climate bond.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:00:56] This proposal to borrow more money for climate change solutions comes at a time when the state made some tough decisions on climate related programs because of a big budget deficit.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price \u003c/strong>[00:01:08] So now it’s up to voters to decide how much of a priority climate change solutions are. By voting to approve or reject this $10 billion bond.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:01:18] Today, we’re going to break down Proposition 4 for you right after this.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:01:28] Today we’re talking about Proposition four. Here’s how it will read on your ballot.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Voiceover \u003c/strong>[00:01:33] Prop 4 authorizes 10 billion in general obligation bonds for water, wildfire prevention and protection of communities and lands.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:01:41] We hit up climate reporter Ezra David Romero to break down what this prop will mean for you. Well, Ezra, so we’ve got another bond on the ballot this November. This time voters are being asked to borrow $10 billion for investments in climate change solutions. What is the back story like? How did this get on the ballot in the first place?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero \u003c/strong>[00:02:04] Yeah. To understand that, we have to go back a couple of years, when environmental lobbyists started lobbying the legislature to like say, look, let’s have a climate bond. Let’s create some big projects that can hopefully protect the state from wildfires and floods and things like that. About two years ago, both sides of the state legislature came up with two different bond measures for about $15 billion each to, you know, combat climate change across California. But at the same time, California was going through this really big, huge budget deficit. Right? And this year, we had about a $46.8 billion budget deficit, which meant that some of these climate programs were also going to get cut. It was really about like, how can we do this? Like really big infrastructure projects that can make sure our future is safe when it comes to wildfires, when it comes to flood, maybe like sea level rise, drought, things like that. And the fight to get this climate bond this year was actually like quite until the end. The two sides of the legislature came together and created one climate bond. And it really wasn’t even in real language until the day before it was due a few months ago. And that’s because a few things like the state only had a certain amount of bonding capacity. How much money the state’s really willing to like go in debt for. And then there were like competing bonds and housing and education. And then also, like climate groups really wanted this thing. But ultimately it happened. And now we have like a $10 billion bond that voters can potentially vote for in November.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:03:39] Right. And clearly, lawmakers believe that addressing climate change with this bond was important enough. So what exactly was their rationale behind this? How did they talk about that in the state legislature?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero \u003c/strong>[00:03:53] Yeah, I think it’s really quite simple. We live in a state that has all these climate effects happening right now. Just think of this year, right? We had major wildfires in Southern California just this past month. We had major flooding in Los Angeles, you know, earlier in the year. We had extreme hot days in Sacramento for like a couple of weeks. Right. And then we had the fourth largest fire in California history called the Park Fire near Chico. So we had all these things happening at the same time. We needed to prepare for the future because all these things could get worse.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Asm. Damon Connolly \u003c/strong>[00:04:26] People are living the consequences right now in our state.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero \u003c/strong>[00:04:31] I spoke to Damon Connolly. He’s the assemblymember for the San Rafael area. And he basically said, you know, like his area floods, his area burns, and like this climate bond would help protect his region, hopefully from future climate change when it comes to flooding and drought and fires in the future.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Asm. Damon Connolly \u003c/strong>[00:04:49] The climate bond proposal will ensure that our investments in climate resilience are bolstered rather than falling by the wayside.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:04:58] So this climate bond passed in the legislature and now voters will decide whether or not to approve it. And the official name is actually got a lot going on in it. It’s the Safe Drinking Water, Drought Preparedness and Clean Air Bond Act of 2024. It’s got lots of things going in there. Ezra, what would Prop 4 do exactly, though?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero \u003c/strong>[00:05:24] Yeah, you’re right. It does have like this big name and that’s because it’s this big bond to do many things. And I think to like get Californians across the state to vote for it. It has to do a lot of things. Right, because the climate effects in, say, Southern California aren’t the same in Central California or Northern California or the Bay Area. First, it provides funds for some of those programs that were cut because of the budget cuts, and that’s a smaller amount. And then in a really big way I think the second thing it does is going to be used mostly for these big infrastructure projects like improving levees or the storm water systems that capture water during storms, preparing homes for wildfires and thinning the forests that could burn or preparing for the drought when it comes to like water supplies. A lot of this money is going to go to water and flooding about $3.8 billion, the most money out of the entire bond in one area. One of those areas is water recycling. You know, that’s where our water from, our toilets or our showers, you know, goes into like a water plant. And then it’s like cleaned up in, say, in the San Francisco Bay area. It goes back into the bay. But the idea there is they want to spend $400 million to make these plants into more of a water recycling plant where we reuse that water perhaps for drinking or for our gardens or our lawns and things like that. And that’s really important because in the future, as we have more droughts, like we’re going to have like a smaller water supply.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:06:56] And we talked about some statewide programs getting cut from the governor’s budget because of this budget deficit that the state is facing. But what kinds of climate programs could actually get restored with the money from this bond?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero \u003c/strong>[00:07:15] One program really sticks out to me. That’s the Transformative Climate Communities Program. And that’s all about like making sure communities themselves can come up with their own ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in their own communities. In the budget, in the in the over the past two years, that program was basically zeroed out. And this bond, if like California voters vote for it like could restore that project to $150 million. And that project has helped communities all over California like Arvin, Stockton, Bakersfield, Pomona, Coachella, San Diego. So it’s really helped communities all across the state. And that funding could come back.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:07:55] Yeah, that’s I mean, that’s a huge difference as far as $0 to $150 million for this program.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero \u003c/strong>[00:08:01] Yeah, definitely. You know, it could bring to life this program and allow grants to be given to more communities. Basically, that program cycles a number of grants every year, and this will allow them to potentially give more grants to communities if voters vote for it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:08:19] So, I mean, it seems pretty clear that Democrats in the legislature who who voted for this bond and approved it in the legislature earlier this year are for this bond. But who else is supporting Proposition 4?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero \u003c/strong>[00:08:35] Well, there’s this really big group of environmental groups and nature based groups and firefighter groups that all came together and made a letter to the legislature earlier this year. And they asked the legislature to support this. So there’s groups like Latino Outdoors and there Save the Bay. And then there’s the California Environmental Voters Organization.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Mike Young \u003c/strong>[00:08:56] Climate change, whether you believe it or not, it’s happening. It’s not a belief system. It’s just the science. And sooner or later, we’re going to face those consequences. And many people already are.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero \u003c/strong>[00:09:06] I spoke to Mike Young. He’s a senior political organizing director at California Environmental Voters. He basically really loves this plan because it’s going to help create California, you know, that maybe can withstand droughts and wildfires and sea level rise in the future.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Mike Young \u003c/strong>[00:09:19] Lot of times environmental benefits are that people relate to or the ones that they can see the most. Seeing California build out clean energy infrastructure, especially solar and offshore wind is going to be really helpful.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:09:32] And who’s coming out against Prop 4?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero \u003c/strong>[00:09:35] In my reporting, I didn’t find very many groups or people against it. I only found two. There is the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. They didn’t respond to my emails for comment. They say the bond is a most expensive way for the government to pay for things. Secondly, they say that some of the money could go towards technology that’s like maybe not proven. Third, they think California should like maybe find other ways that don’t and care so much debt for the state.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Sen. Brian Jones \u003c/strong>[00:10:02] The bottom line on Proposition 4 is it is the most expensive way to fund government.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero \u003c/strong>[00:10:08] And then there’s Senate GOP leader Brian Jones.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Sen. Brian Jones \u003c/strong>[00:10:11] Many of the items that are being proposed to be paid for in this bond do not rise to the level of being a long term infrastructure project. For example, grants for exhibits and galleries at zoos and museums.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero \u003c/strong>[00:10:27] He wrote an op-ed in Calmatters. His whole point was that, like, the taxpayers are going to have to pay for this and it’s just too expensive.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Sen. Brian Jones \u003c/strong>[00:10:35] In my opinion, Proposition 4 pays long term for short term projects and should be rejected by the voters.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:10:45] And let’s talk about the money here, Ezra. Who’s funding the support and opposition for Prop four?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero \u003c/strong>[00:10:53] Well, the people for it, the organizations for it have raised about $700,000. Those are most of those environmental groups that I talked about a little bit earlier. And the opponents from to my knowledge, haven’t raised anything. And I found some new polling from the Public Policy Institute of California that came out recently. And they found that like 65% of voters would likely vote yes for the climate bond and that 3 in 4 likely voters say the outcome of Proposition 4 is very important or somewhat important. And I think it all comes down to like Californians are living through all this. Right? And it’s top of mind.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:11:28] At the end of the day as to how much will this bond cost Californians.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero \u003c/strong>[00:11:34] Yeah. Bonds always mean debt. So repaying the money could cost about $400 million a year for about 40 years. That’s according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office. And altogether, that’s about $16 billion in total.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:11:48] Well, Ezra, thank you so much for breaking down Prop four for us. I appreciate it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero \u003c/strong>[00:11:52] Hey, no problem.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:11:54] In a nutshell, a yes. Vote on this measure means the state could borrow $10 billion to fund various activities aimed at conserving natural resources, as well as responding to the causes and effects of climate change. A vote no means the state could not borrow $10 billion to fund various conservation and climate change related projects.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:12:25] And that is it for today’s episode of Prop Fest. You can always find our other prop these episodes and share them with your friends at KQED Dawgs Prop Fest. Stay locked in and make sure you’re subscribed so you don’t miss out on the next ones.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price \u003c/strong>[00:12:44] Prop fest is a collaboration between the Bay and Bay Curious Podcasts. It is produced by Alan Montecillo, Jessica Kariisa, Ericka Cruz Guevarra, Amanda Font, Christopher Beale, Ana De Almeida Amaral, and me, Olivia-Allen Price.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:12:58] We get extra support from Jen Chien, Katie Sprenger, Maha Sanad, and Holly Kernan.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price \u003c/strong>[00:13:05] And the whole KQED family. Our show is made in San Francisco at member supported KQED. If you value podcasts like this one, please consider becoming a sustaining member of KQED. Learn more at kqed.org/donate.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:13:21] I’m Ericka Cruz Guevara.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price \u003c/strong>[00:13:22] And I’m Olivia Allen-Price. We’ll be back tomorrow with an explainer on Proposition five, a change in how we approve local bonds. I’m already needing some help with that one.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:13:33] And I am right there with you, Olivia. Peace.\u003c/p>\n\u003c/div>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n",
"blocks": [],
"excerpt": "KQED climate reporter Ezra David Romero breaks down Proposition 4, a $10 billion bond for climate and environment-related projects across the state.",
"status": "publish",
"parent": 0,
"modified": 1728068692,
"stats": {
"hasAudio": true,
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"paragraphCount": 5,
"wordCount": 2737
},
"headData": {
"title": "Proposition 4 Would Raise $10 Billion in Bonds for Climate Projects | KQED",
"description": "KQED climate reporter Ezra David Romero breaks down Proposition 4, a $10 billion bond for climate and environment-related projects across the state.",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogDescription": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"twDescription": "",
"twImgId": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Proposition 4 Would Raise $10 Billion in Bonds for Climate Projects",
"datePublished": "2024-09-25T03:00:01-07:00",
"dateModified": "2024-10-04T12:04:52-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"source": "Prop Fest 2024",
"audioUrl": "https://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/chrt.fm/track/G6C7C3/traffic.megaphone.fm/KQINC8420453070.mp3?updated=1727198819",
"sticky": false,
"nprStoryId": "kqed-12005954",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/12005954/transcript-proposition-4-would-raise-10-billion-in-bonds-for-climate-projects",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/propfest\">Prop Fest\u003c/a> is a collaboration from Bay Curious and The Bay podcasts, where we break down each of the 10 statewide propositions that will be on your November 2024 ballot. Check out \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/voterguide\">KQED’s Voter Guide\u003c/a> for more information on state and local races.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Today, KQED climate reporter Ezra David Romero breaks down Proposition 4, a $10 billion bond for climate and environment-related projects across the state.\u003c/p>\n\u003cdiv class=\"card card--enclosed grey\">\n\u003cp id=\"embed-code\" class=\"inconsolata\">\n\u003c!-- iframe plugin v.4.3 wordpress.org/plugins/iframe/ -->\u003cbr>\n\u003ciframe loading=\"lazy\" frameborder=\"0\" height=\"200\" scrolling=\"no\" src=\"https://playlist.megaphone.fm/?e=KQINC8420453070&light=true\" width=\"100%\" class=\"iframe-class\">\u003c/iframe>\n\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a transcript of the episode.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:00:00] California has got some of the most ambitious climate goals in the country and the world.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price \u003c/strong>[00:00:06] In 2022, the state released the world’s first plan to achieve net zero carbon pollution.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:00:13] But we’re not going to get there overnight or for free.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price \u003c/strong>[00:00:17] It’s going to take a radical reimagining of how we live life in California.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:00:24] I’m Ericka Cruz Guevarra.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price \u003c/strong>[00:00:26] And I’m Olivia Allen-Price. And you’re listening to Prop Fest, a collaboration between the Bay and Bay curious where we help you get smart on all the statewide propositions on your ballot this year.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:00:39] Earlier this year, the state legislature passed a $10 billion bond to invest in climate change programs and solutions. And now it needs voters final seal of approval.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price \u003c/strong>[00:00:51] And it’s coming to you in the form of proposition for the climate bond.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:00:56] This proposal to borrow more money for climate change solutions comes at a time when the state made some tough decisions on climate related programs because of a big budget deficit.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price \u003c/strong>[00:01:08] So now it’s up to voters to decide how much of a priority climate change solutions are. By voting to approve or reject this $10 billion bond.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:01:18] Today, we’re going to break down Proposition 4 for you right after this.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:01:28] Today we’re talking about Proposition four. Here’s how it will read on your ballot.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Voiceover \u003c/strong>[00:01:33] Prop 4 authorizes 10 billion in general obligation bonds for water, wildfire prevention and protection of communities and lands.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:01:41] We hit up climate reporter Ezra David Romero to break down what this prop will mean for you. Well, Ezra, so we’ve got another bond on the ballot this November. This time voters are being asked to borrow $10 billion for investments in climate change solutions. What is the back story like? How did this get on the ballot in the first place?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero \u003c/strong>[00:02:04] Yeah. To understand that, we have to go back a couple of years, when environmental lobbyists started lobbying the legislature to like say, look, let’s have a climate bond. Let’s create some big projects that can hopefully protect the state from wildfires and floods and things like that. About two years ago, both sides of the state legislature came up with two different bond measures for about $15 billion each to, you know, combat climate change across California. But at the same time, California was going through this really big, huge budget deficit. Right? And this year, we had about a $46.8 billion budget deficit, which meant that some of these climate programs were also going to get cut. It was really about like, how can we do this? Like really big infrastructure projects that can make sure our future is safe when it comes to wildfires, when it comes to flood, maybe like sea level rise, drought, things like that. And the fight to get this climate bond this year was actually like quite until the end. The two sides of the legislature came together and created one climate bond. And it really wasn’t even in real language until the day before it was due a few months ago. And that’s because a few things like the state only had a certain amount of bonding capacity. How much money the state’s really willing to like go in debt for. And then there were like competing bonds and housing and education. And then also, like climate groups really wanted this thing. But ultimately it happened. And now we have like a $10 billion bond that voters can potentially vote for in November.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:03:39] Right. And clearly, lawmakers believe that addressing climate change with this bond was important enough. So what exactly was their rationale behind this? How did they talk about that in the state legislature?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero \u003c/strong>[00:03:53] Yeah, I think it’s really quite simple. We live in a state that has all these climate effects happening right now. Just think of this year, right? We had major wildfires in Southern California just this past month. We had major flooding in Los Angeles, you know, earlier in the year. We had extreme hot days in Sacramento for like a couple of weeks. Right. And then we had the fourth largest fire in California history called the Park Fire near Chico. So we had all these things happening at the same time. We needed to prepare for the future because all these things could get worse.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Asm. Damon Connolly \u003c/strong>[00:04:26] People are living the consequences right now in our state.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero \u003c/strong>[00:04:31] I spoke to Damon Connolly. He’s the assemblymember for the San Rafael area. And he basically said, you know, like his area floods, his area burns, and like this climate bond would help protect his region, hopefully from future climate change when it comes to flooding and drought and fires in the future.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Asm. Damon Connolly \u003c/strong>[00:04:49] The climate bond proposal will ensure that our investments in climate resilience are bolstered rather than falling by the wayside.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:04:58] So this climate bond passed in the legislature and now voters will decide whether or not to approve it. And the official name is actually got a lot going on in it. It’s the Safe Drinking Water, Drought Preparedness and Clean Air Bond Act of 2024. It’s got lots of things going in there. Ezra, what would Prop 4 do exactly, though?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero \u003c/strong>[00:05:24] Yeah, you’re right. It does have like this big name and that’s because it’s this big bond to do many things. And I think to like get Californians across the state to vote for it. It has to do a lot of things. Right, because the climate effects in, say, Southern California aren’t the same in Central California or Northern California or the Bay Area. First, it provides funds for some of those programs that were cut because of the budget cuts, and that’s a smaller amount. And then in a really big way I think the second thing it does is going to be used mostly for these big infrastructure projects like improving levees or the storm water systems that capture water during storms, preparing homes for wildfires and thinning the forests that could burn or preparing for the drought when it comes to like water supplies. A lot of this money is going to go to water and flooding about $3.8 billion, the most money out of the entire bond in one area. One of those areas is water recycling. You know, that’s where our water from, our toilets or our showers, you know, goes into like a water plant. And then it’s like cleaned up in, say, in the San Francisco Bay area. It goes back into the bay. But the idea there is they want to spend $400 million to make these plants into more of a water recycling plant where we reuse that water perhaps for drinking or for our gardens or our lawns and things like that. And that’s really important because in the future, as we have more droughts, like we’re going to have like a smaller water supply.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:06:56] And we talked about some statewide programs getting cut from the governor’s budget because of this budget deficit that the state is facing. But what kinds of climate programs could actually get restored with the money from this bond?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero \u003c/strong>[00:07:15] One program really sticks out to me. That’s the Transformative Climate Communities Program. And that’s all about like making sure communities themselves can come up with their own ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in their own communities. In the budget, in the in the over the past two years, that program was basically zeroed out. And this bond, if like California voters vote for it like could restore that project to $150 million. And that project has helped communities all over California like Arvin, Stockton, Bakersfield, Pomona, Coachella, San Diego. So it’s really helped communities all across the state. And that funding could come back.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:07:55] Yeah, that’s I mean, that’s a huge difference as far as $0 to $150 million for this program.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero \u003c/strong>[00:08:01] Yeah, definitely. You know, it could bring to life this program and allow grants to be given to more communities. Basically, that program cycles a number of grants every year, and this will allow them to potentially give more grants to communities if voters vote for it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:08:19] So, I mean, it seems pretty clear that Democrats in the legislature who who voted for this bond and approved it in the legislature earlier this year are for this bond. But who else is supporting Proposition 4?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero \u003c/strong>[00:08:35] Well, there’s this really big group of environmental groups and nature based groups and firefighter groups that all came together and made a letter to the legislature earlier this year. And they asked the legislature to support this. So there’s groups like Latino Outdoors and there Save the Bay. And then there’s the California Environmental Voters Organization.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Mike Young \u003c/strong>[00:08:56] Climate change, whether you believe it or not, it’s happening. It’s not a belief system. It’s just the science. And sooner or later, we’re going to face those consequences. And many people already are.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero \u003c/strong>[00:09:06] I spoke to Mike Young. He’s a senior political organizing director at California Environmental Voters. He basically really loves this plan because it’s going to help create California, you know, that maybe can withstand droughts and wildfires and sea level rise in the future.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Mike Young \u003c/strong>[00:09:19] Lot of times environmental benefits are that people relate to or the ones that they can see the most. Seeing California build out clean energy infrastructure, especially solar and offshore wind is going to be really helpful.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:09:32] And who’s coming out against Prop 4?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero \u003c/strong>[00:09:35] In my reporting, I didn’t find very many groups or people against it. I only found two. There is the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. They didn’t respond to my emails for comment. They say the bond is a most expensive way for the government to pay for things. Secondly, they say that some of the money could go towards technology that’s like maybe not proven. Third, they think California should like maybe find other ways that don’t and care so much debt for the state.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Sen. Brian Jones \u003c/strong>[00:10:02] The bottom line on Proposition 4 is it is the most expensive way to fund government.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero \u003c/strong>[00:10:08] And then there’s Senate GOP leader Brian Jones.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Sen. Brian Jones \u003c/strong>[00:10:11] Many of the items that are being proposed to be paid for in this bond do not rise to the level of being a long term infrastructure project. For example, grants for exhibits and galleries at zoos and museums.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero \u003c/strong>[00:10:27] He wrote an op-ed in Calmatters. His whole point was that, like, the taxpayers are going to have to pay for this and it’s just too expensive.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Sen. Brian Jones \u003c/strong>[00:10:35] In my opinion, Proposition 4 pays long term for short term projects and should be rejected by the voters.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:10:45] And let’s talk about the money here, Ezra. Who’s funding the support and opposition for Prop four?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero \u003c/strong>[00:10:53] Well, the people for it, the organizations for it have raised about $700,000. Those are most of those environmental groups that I talked about a little bit earlier. And the opponents from to my knowledge, haven’t raised anything. And I found some new polling from the Public Policy Institute of California that came out recently. And they found that like 65% of voters would likely vote yes for the climate bond and that 3 in 4 likely voters say the outcome of Proposition 4 is very important or somewhat important. And I think it all comes down to like Californians are living through all this. Right? And it’s top of mind.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:11:28] At the end of the day as to how much will this bond cost Californians.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero \u003c/strong>[00:11:34] Yeah. Bonds always mean debt. So repaying the money could cost about $400 million a year for about 40 years. That’s according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office. And altogether, that’s about $16 billion in total.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:11:48] Well, Ezra, thank you so much for breaking down Prop four for us. I appreciate it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero \u003c/strong>[00:11:52] Hey, no problem.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:11:54] In a nutshell, a yes. Vote on this measure means the state could borrow $10 billion to fund various activities aimed at conserving natural resources, as well as responding to the causes and effects of climate change. A vote no means the state could not borrow $10 billion to fund various conservation and climate change related projects.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:12:25] And that is it for today’s episode of Prop Fest. You can always find our other prop these episodes and share them with your friends at KQED Dawgs Prop Fest. Stay locked in and make sure you’re subscribed so you don’t miss out on the next ones.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price \u003c/strong>[00:12:44] Prop fest is a collaboration between the Bay and Bay Curious Podcasts. It is produced by Alan Montecillo, Jessica Kariisa, Ericka Cruz Guevarra, Amanda Font, Christopher Beale, Ana De Almeida Amaral, and me, Olivia-Allen Price.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:12:58] We get extra support from Jen Chien, Katie Sprenger, Maha Sanad, and Holly Kernan.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price \u003c/strong>[00:13:05] And the whole KQED family. Our show is made in San Francisco at member supported KQED. If you value podcasts like this one, please consider becoming a sustaining member of KQED. Learn more at kqed.org/donate.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:13:21] I’m Ericka Cruz Guevara.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price \u003c/strong>[00:13:22] And I’m Olivia Allen-Price. We’ll be back tomorrow with an explainer on Proposition five, a change in how we approve local bonds. I’m already needing some help with that one.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp style=\"font-weight: 400\">\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra \u003c/strong>[00:13:33] And I am right there with you, Olivia. Peace.\u003c/p>\n\u003c/div>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "floatright"
},
"numeric": [
"floatright"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/12005954/transcript-proposition-4-would-raise-10-billion-in-bonds-for-climate-projects",
"authors": [
"8654",
"11746",
"102",
"11831",
"8637",
"11749",
"11649"
],
"programs": [
"news_33523",
"news_28779"
],
"series": [
"news_17986"
],
"categories": [
"news_34165",
"news_8",
"news_33520"
],
"tags": [
"news_32839",
"news_33812",
"news_34560",
"news_28645",
"news_34559",
"news_22598"
],
"featImg": "news_11911586",
"label": "source_news_12005954"
},
"news_12005960": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_12005960",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "12005960",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1727172055000
]
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "proposition-3-would-enshrine-marriage-equality-into-californias-constitution",
"title": "Proposition 3 Would Enshrine Marriage Equality into California's Constitution",
"publishDate": 1727172055,
"format": "audio",
"headTitle": "Proposition 3 Would Enshrine Marriage Equality into California’s Constitution | KQED",
"labelTerm": {},
"content": "\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/propfest\">Prop Fest\u003c/a> is a collaboration from Bay Curious and The Bay podcasts, where we break down each of the 10 statewide propositions that will be on your November 2024 ballot. Check out \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/voterguide\">KQED’s Voter Guide\u003c/a> for more information on state and local races.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In this episode, we’re discussing Prop 3, which would add a constitutional amendment stating that all people have a right to marry regardless of sex or race. It would also strip out language that currently defines marriage as being between a man and woman only. To help us break it down we speak with Scott Shafer, co-host of \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/podcasts/politicalbreakdown\">Political Breakdown\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c!-- iframe plugin v.4.3 wordpress.org/plugins/iframe/ -->\u003cbr>\n\u003ciframe loading=\"lazy\" frameborder=\"0\" height=\"200\" scrolling=\"no\" src=\"https://playlist.megaphone.fm/?e=KQINC9687023038\" width=\"100%\" class=\"iframe-class\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a transcript of the episode. \u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>[Music: Wedding March]\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> Same-sex marriage has been legal in the United States for nine years…\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> …And legal here in California for eleven years.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> So you might be surprised to know that the California Constitution still says same-sex marriage is banned.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>[Wedding March slows down and stops]\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> I’m Olivia Allen-Price … Host of Bay Curious.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> And I’m Ericka Cruz Guevarra, Host of The Bay. And you’re listening to Prop Fest – A breakdown of ALL the statewide propositions on your ballot this year.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> Spooky season is just around the corner, and as luck would have it, today we’re going to talk about zombies. Specifically the “zombie law” that bans same-sex marriage in California…\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra\u003c/strong>: It’s dead, but it could resurrect!\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> Californians will vote on Prop 3 to decide if we should take that same-sex marriage ban out of the state constitution and replace it with something that affirms marriage is for everyone.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guavarra:\u003c/strong> And if I remember correctly, California’s history on same-sex marriage is pretty complicated.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> Super complicated. Today, we’re going back on the twisty, turny road of same-sex marriage legalization in this state. Because it helps explain why that zombie law is there in the first place. Then we’ll break down what exactly is up for consideration with Prop 3\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guavarra:\u003c/strong> That’s coming up on Prop Fest, a collaboration between The Bay and Bay. Curious. Stay with us.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>SPONSOR MESSAGE\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> Today we’re talking about Proposition 3. Here’s how it will read on your ballot…\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Voiceover:\u003c/strong> Prop 3 is a constitutional right to marriage proposed by the state legislature. It amends the California Constitution to recognize the fundamental right to marry, regardless of sex or race. It also removes language in the California Constitution stating that marriage is only between a man and a woman.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> Essentially it overwrites a ban on same-sex marriage that’s currently in California’s constitution. Because same-sex marriage is legal federally, that ban is unenforceable or a zombie law. So let’s start with a history lesson on how exactly we got here with KQED’s Scott Shafer, who is the co-host of Political Breakdown, a daily podcast about California politics. Hey, Scott.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Hey, Olivia.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> So walk us back. When did California voters first weigh in on the issue of same-sex marriage?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> You’d have to go back to around the year 2000. That was when some states began issuing civil unions to same-sex couples. And it was kind of ‘marriage lite’. It wasn’t all the rights, legal rights of marriage that now gay couples and lesbian couples enjoy. But it was a recognition that these relationships were important and that they should be afforded some rights. For example, the right to visit your partner in the hospital, which was not a given in a lot of states. And so states like Vermont and Hawaii and Massachusetts began talking about rights for same-sex couples. And that really concerned a lot of religious conservatives.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And so in the year 2000, a state senator from Southern California named Pete Knight got a ballot measure on the November ballot, Proposition 22, which changed the family code in the state of California, and said that marriage was only between a man and a woman. That passed pretty easily with about 61% of the vote. And that’s where it stayed until Gavin Newsom got elected mayor in San Francisco in the year 2003. A few weeks after becoming mayor in San Francisco…\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Gov. Gavin Newsom (archival tape):\u003c/strong> \u003cem>Today, San Francisco took the step to make the case that we believe in the words in the California Constitution, and we took action to implement that.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Gavin Newsom decided he was going to allow the county of San Francisco to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. And this stunned people. It kind of came out of the blue and within hours, people started flocking to San Francisco City Hall, lining up and taking their vows, taking marriage licenses out from the recorder’s office. And it became a huge national story.\u003cbr>\nIt was pretty widely expected that the courts would shut this down because Newsom really didn’t have any legal right to be doing this. But 4,000 couples lined up over the course of a few weeks to get married at City Hall, and they became known as ‘Newsom twosomes.’ A lot of people sort of assumed that those would not really hold up legally. But it was, you know, a validation of relationships and it really became a huge international story.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> But questionable legally, as we soon find out. Right. What happens next?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> So after this went on for a few weeks, there was a lawsuit filed by several parties to stop the marriages and declare them unconstitutional or illegal. And so the marriages were stopped. And a few months later, the California Supreme Court said, ‘You know what? Yes, these marriages are not valid. All the people who got married sorry, folks, you’re not married anymore and you have to stop doing this.’ And that’s where it stood for some time.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> I can’t imagine being married, and then you wake up one day and find a headline that you’re not anymore. That must have been really tough. But people didn’t give up. You know, they wanted those rights back. So what happens next?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> So there was a lawsuit filed in the state of California in which Proposition 22, which had passed in the year 2000, was challenged as being unconstitutional. And it went to the California Supreme Court. And in May of 2008, the court declared that, in fact, Prop 22 was unconstitutional. And so there was a a kind of euphoria among same-sex marriage supporters on the day that the Supreme Court in California ruled by a 4 to 3 margin, that, yeah, in fact, same-sex couples could legally get married and many did.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Archival clip of couple at San Francisco City Hall:\u003c/strong> \u003cem>We’ve been planning this for a year to actually be able to get married and be a part of this time in history, and time in our history is amazing.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> In that window of time in 2008, some 17,000 same-sex couples rushed to their city halls and county offices to take out marriage licenses and tie the knot. But at the same time, there was a group of religious conservatives, a group called Protect Marriage dot com was collecting the signatures to put on the ballot– a ballot measure that became known as Proposition 8, which declared again, as a constitutional amendment, that marriage in California was between one man and one woman.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So voters by 52% to 48% passed Proposition 8. It was kind of a shock for liberal, what we thought was liberal California, which had easily voted for Barack Obama over John McCain in that very same election, voted more narrowly, but nonetheless to take away the right of same-sex couples to get married. And there was a lot of anger. And there were some very, you know, big protests that broke out across California from LGBT folks and their supporters protesting the vote. But there it was. I mean, it was now the law of the land in California\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>News Clips:\u003c/strong> \u003cem>“Shame on you!/Supporters of gay marriage targeted L.A.’s Mormon temple protesting the more than $15 million the church poured into passing proposition 8…/Equal rights! Equal rights!/For the third straight day thousands marched in California protesting the election night passing of Proposition 8, banning same-sex marriage.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> So after all the protests, there was a lawsuit filed in state court to try to overturn Prop 8, saying that it was a violation of the state constitution. But after considering all of the arguments on both sides, the state Supreme Court, which, you know, just like a year earlier had said same-sex marriage was legal, said no. Now the voters have changed the Constitution. And if the voters have done it, then it is in fact, constitutional. So that was, we thought, the end of the road.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> But then things move on to federal court. So we’re leveling up here. Where do we go next?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Not too long after the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, there was an effort to file in federal court very quietly. You know, there was this really small group of people, including the Human Rights Campaign, which is based in Washington. Rob Reiner, the director, who came together and said, ‘why don’t we put our own legal case together? We’ll find some plaintiffs and we’ll file it in federal court in San Francisco and see what’ll happen. Maybe, maybe we can get this legalized that way.’\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And there was a huge disagreement within the LGBTQ and the legal rights, civil rights communities, because there was a concern that if they filed this in federal court, the outcome was very unclear. And so there was a fear that it would be a setback for the movement ultimately if they didn’t win.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> And how does that case make its way through the courts?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Well, you know, these cases are assigned randomly. The backers of same-sex marriage really caught a break because the judge to whom this was assigned was Vaughn Walker. Vaughn Walker, although he was appointed by a Republican president, was known as kind of a Libertarian. He was also known as being gay. He wasn’t particularly open about it, but I think people thought, wow, this guy is a Libertarian. He’s gay and he is going to consider this case. Maybe we do have a chance of getting a favorable ruling.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>One of the things that Vaughn Walker did at the very beginning that surprised everybody is that he called for an actual trial with evidence and witnesses and testimony on the record. And this surprised everybody. And I think in particular, the folks who were supporting the idea of legalizing same-sex marriage were really happy because this gave them a chance to put all of these arguments against same-sex marriage on trial. And a lot of those arguments, as came out during the course of the trial, really weren’t based in fact. They weren’t backed up by any kind of evidence or research. They were really kind of fringy–A lot of them considered homophobic, honestly, that really didn’t hold up under scrutiny.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> And how did it go?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Well, it was fascinating. I sat in on the courtroom for those two weeks of testimony here in San Francisco at the federal court building. And there was some very emotional testimony from the plaintiffs. There were a lesbian couple from Berkeley, two gay men from Los Angeles. They talked about the importance of getting married to them, why it was important to them, what it would mean for them to have this very public acknowledgment of their relationship. A historian from Yale testified.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And on the other side, there was a very small number of witnesses, maybe four. And they withered under cross-examination, Their testimony didn’t hold up. Subsequently, actually, some of them changed their minds about same-sex marriage. And so after several months of taking it all into consideration, Judge Vaughn Walker issued his ruling in August of 2010, striking down Prop 8, saying it was in violation of the U.S. Constitution and the equal protection and due process clauses.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> And with that decision, Prop 8 officially becomes a zombie law in California, still on the books, but it’s not enforceable. But just like supporters of same sex marriage had been, the Prop 8, people weren’t going to give up yet. There’s an appeal.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yes. And in fact, Judge Vaughn Walker, although he struck down Prop 8, he put that on hold. He issued a stay. And that gave the supporters of Prop 8 an opportunity to appeal. And so they went to the Ninth Circuit. The appeals court upheld the lower court ruling and then they appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. And it took until 2013, three years after the initial ruling, striking down Prop 8 for the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in on same-sex marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> So what really started as Newsom kind of going rogue and marrying people at San Francisco City Hall has now snowballed into the highest court in the United States, taking up the issue, essentially.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Exactly. And this issue was just a California ballot measure. And it wasn’t a very clean decision, ultimately. The attorneys for the ‘No on Prop 8’ side, they would have liked it if the U.S. Supreme Court said right then and there, ‘Same-sex marriage should be legal throughout the country.’ They didn’t do that. They didn’t issue a decision on the merits. What they said was, ‘You guys who are challenging this law, you don’t have standing, you don’t have legal standing. You’re not really directly affected by Proposition 8. Therefore, we’re going to let the lower court decision stand because you all don’t have a right to be here.’\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> Got it. So same-sex marriage is legal, but only in California and various other states at that point had legalized it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Correct. So it did apply to California. It was back on in California. So same-sex couples could get married, but it did not apply nationwide.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> So then how do we get to the place where we are today, where it’s legal nationwide?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> So once Proposition 8 was struck down, yes, gay marriage, same-sex marriage was legal here in California, but not nationwide. But then a couple of years later, there was another case brought by a plaintiff named Jim Obergefell. He lived in Ohio and he wanted to get married to his partner. And he made a very similar case to the U.S. Supreme Court based on the 14th Amendment and the due process and equal protection clauses, saying that he should not be barred from getting married just because he’s gay. And in a 5 to 4 decision, the Supreme Court decided that, yes, in fact, same-sex marriage should be legal nationwide. That was a historic ruling and it changed everything. It changed the landscape.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> So this year we’re voting on Prop 3. How does Prop 3 tie into all this history?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> So the 2013 decision striking down Prop 8 invalidated Prop 8. But, you know, the law was on the books. Technically, it was a zombie law. And there was concern in Sacramento that it could come back to life like a zombie. If, for example, the U.S. Supreme Court, you know, decided for whatever reason, that maybe that Obergefell decision was wrongly decided. We’ve seen that with abortion.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>That said, Congress did pass legislation sort of enshrining the right to same-sex marriage into law in 2022. So it would be much harder to overturn that now. But in Sacramento, some of the opponents of Prop 8 said, you know what? Let’s just strip this out of the California Constitution once and for all. And so the state legislature, without any dissenting votes in the assembly or the Senate, voted to put Prop 3 on the ballot. That’s what we’re voting on in November. It would replace that language that the voters passed with Prop 8, with language saying that all people have the right to get married and that it’s a part of their fundamental right to enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> You’ve sort of answered, I think, a part of this, but maybe you won’t elaborate. You know, Prop 8 has been sitting there, you know, in California’s constitution, unenforceable for a decade. Why make this change now?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> It is somewhat symbolic on one hand, because, as you say, you know, it can’t be enforced. But I think it’s also kind of a statement that not just getting rid of the old language, but affirming, you know, in a positive way, the right to same-sex marriage, enshrining that in the law. Something similar happened, you know, a couple of years ago with abortion in California. Abortion is legal here. But there was a ballot measure fundamentally enshrining it into the state constitution as a way of really making an emphatic statement that this is a fundamental right that women should have. And I think they also want to send a message maybe to the rest of the country to show how far California has come. So they’re hoping that this ballot measure will pass overwhelmingly. And really just kind of put an exclamation point on this change in attitude and law. You know, that gay couples now can rely on.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> Now, back in 2008, when Prop 8 was passed, it had a lot of financial support from the Mormon temple and other religious organizations. What does opposition to Prop 3 look like at this point?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Right now, the opponents of Proposition 3 have $0. You know, they have to file financial statements with the state of California. And in the most recent filing, they literally had raised no money whatsoever. The yes side, on the other hand, has raised at least $4 million. And it has widespread political support from Governor Newsom, virtually every statewide elected official, if not everyone. The California Democratic Party, organized labor, the labor federation. There are corporations and just many others who are happy to give money to this cause, to take this anti-gay language out of the state constitution.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>I don’t want to suggest that, like everyone now supports same-sex marriage because that’s not the case. Even though there were no no votes in the state legislature, there were a number of legislators, mostly Republicans, who just skipped the vote. They didn’t vote at all. It’s hard to say exactly whether they would have been yes or no. My guess is they oppose same-sex marriage, but didn’t really want to put their names to the opposition to Proposition 3.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And there are some groups that still, you know, have put ballot arguments in the voter guide. There’s a group called the California Capital Connection. They have an alliance with independent Baptist ministers and churches to put out a statement. And their statement reads, ‘God instituted marriage and defined it as a union between a man and a woman. And you know that people cannot redefine what God has already defined.’ So there’s definitely still opposition to same-sex marriage. It’s just that the broad public has really shifted in support.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> All right. Well, Scott Shafer is the co-host of Political Breakdown KQED daily podcast, all about California politics. Scott, before you go, just tell people what can they expect from you on the podcast over the next couple of weeks before Election Day?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> California has a lot of races in play that will either help the Democrats take the House or keep it a Republican majority. It’s going to be an exciting sprint to Election Day.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> All right. Well, thanks for helping us out today, Scott.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yes, happy to do it. Thank you for doing it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> In summary, a vote yes on Prop 3 would take language that defines marriage as between a man and a woman out of California’s constitution. And it adds into the Constitution the right to marry regardless of sex or race.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>A vote no on Prop 3 would keep the same-sex marriage ban in California’s constitution. There would be no change in who can marry.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>That’s it for Proposition 3. If you’re a new listener, just tuning in for our Prop Fest series, be sure to subscribe to the Bay Curious podcast. Every Thursday we drop episodes that explore listener questions about the San Francisco Bay Area. It’s a lot of fun, and we always learn so much – so if you’re digging Prop Fest so far, I think you’ll enjoy our other work too.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> Prop Fest is a collaboration between The Bay and Bay Curious podcasts. It is produced by Amanda Font, Christopher Beale, Ana De Almeda Amaral, Olivia Allen-Price, Alan Montecillo, Jessica Kariisa, and me Ericka Cruz Guevarra.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> Extra support from Katie Sprenger, Jen Chien, Maha Sanad, Holly Kernan, And the whole KQED family\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> You can find audio and transcripts for this series at KQED.org/PropFest.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> Our show is made in San Francisco at member-supported KQED. If you value podcasts like this one, please consider becoming a sustaining member of KQED. Learn more at KQED.org/donate.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> I’m Olivia Allen-Price\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> And I’m Ericka Cruz Guevarra. We’ll be back tomorrow with an explainer on Proposition 4 – the climate change bond.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> We’ll see ya then!\u003c/p>\n\n",
"blocks": [],
"excerpt": "Same-sex marriage is already legal in California, but Prop 3 would make sure a 'zombie law' gets removed from the books. ",
"status": "publish",
"parent": 0,
"modified": 1729130479,
"stats": {
"hasAudio": true,
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": false,
"hasPolis": false,
"paragraphCount": 78,
"wordCount": 3919
},
"headData": {
"title": "Proposition 3 Would Enshrine Marriage Equality into California's Constitution | KQED",
"description": "Same-sex marriage is already legal in California, but Prop 3 would make sure a 'zombie law' gets removed from the books. ",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogDescription": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"twDescription": "",
"twImgId": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Proposition 3 Would Enshrine Marriage Equality into California's Constitution",
"datePublished": "2024-09-24T03:00:55-07:00",
"dateModified": "2024-10-16T19:01:19-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"source": "Prop Fest 2024",
"sourceUrl": "https://www.kqed.org/propfest",
"audioUrl": "https://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/pdst.fm/e/chrt.fm/track/G6C7C3/traffic.megaphone.fm/KQINC9687023038.mp3?updated=1727123763",
"sticky": false,
"nprStoryId": "kqed-12005960",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/12005960/proposition-3-would-enshrine-marriage-equality-into-californias-constitution",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/propfest\">Prop Fest\u003c/a> is a collaboration from Bay Curious and The Bay podcasts, where we break down each of the 10 statewide propositions that will be on your November 2024 ballot. Check out \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/voterguide\">KQED’s Voter Guide\u003c/a> for more information on state and local races.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In this episode, we’re discussing Prop 3, which would add a constitutional amendment stating that all people have a right to marry regardless of sex or race. It would also strip out language that currently defines marriage as being between a man and woman only. To help us break it down we speak with Scott Shafer, co-host of \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/podcasts/politicalbreakdown\">Political Breakdown\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c!-- iframe plugin v.4.3 wordpress.org/plugins/iframe/ -->\u003cbr>\n\u003ciframe loading=\"lazy\" frameborder=\"0\" height=\"200\" scrolling=\"no\" src=\"https://playlist.megaphone.fm/?e=KQINC9687023038\" width=\"100%\" class=\"iframe-class\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a transcript of the episode. \u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>[Music: Wedding March]\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> Same-sex marriage has been legal in the United States for nine years…\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> …And legal here in California for eleven years.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> So you might be surprised to know that the California Constitution still says same-sex marriage is banned.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>[Wedding March slows down and stops]\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> I’m Olivia Allen-Price … Host of Bay Curious.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> And I’m Ericka Cruz Guevarra, Host of The Bay. And you’re listening to Prop Fest – A breakdown of ALL the statewide propositions on your ballot this year.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> Spooky season is just around the corner, and as luck would have it, today we’re going to talk about zombies. Specifically the “zombie law” that bans same-sex marriage in California…\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra\u003c/strong>: It’s dead, but it could resurrect!\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> Californians will vote on Prop 3 to decide if we should take that same-sex marriage ban out of the state constitution and replace it with something that affirms marriage is for everyone.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guavarra:\u003c/strong> And if I remember correctly, California’s history on same-sex marriage is pretty complicated.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> Super complicated. Today, we’re going back on the twisty, turny road of same-sex marriage legalization in this state. Because it helps explain why that zombie law is there in the first place. Then we’ll break down what exactly is up for consideration with Prop 3\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guavarra:\u003c/strong> That’s coming up on Prop Fest, a collaboration between The Bay and Bay. Curious. Stay with us.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>SPONSOR MESSAGE\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> Today we’re talking about Proposition 3. Here’s how it will read on your ballot…\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Voiceover:\u003c/strong> Prop 3 is a constitutional right to marriage proposed by the state legislature. It amends the California Constitution to recognize the fundamental right to marry, regardless of sex or race. It also removes language in the California Constitution stating that marriage is only between a man and a woman.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> Essentially it overwrites a ban on same-sex marriage that’s currently in California’s constitution. Because same-sex marriage is legal federally, that ban is unenforceable or a zombie law. So let’s start with a history lesson on how exactly we got here with KQED’s Scott Shafer, who is the co-host of Political Breakdown, a daily podcast about California politics. Hey, Scott.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Hey, Olivia.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> So walk us back. When did California voters first weigh in on the issue of same-sex marriage?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> You’d have to go back to around the year 2000. That was when some states began issuing civil unions to same-sex couples. And it was kind of ‘marriage lite’. It wasn’t all the rights, legal rights of marriage that now gay couples and lesbian couples enjoy. But it was a recognition that these relationships were important and that they should be afforded some rights. For example, the right to visit your partner in the hospital, which was not a given in a lot of states. And so states like Vermont and Hawaii and Massachusetts began talking about rights for same-sex couples. And that really concerned a lot of religious conservatives.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And so in the year 2000, a state senator from Southern California named Pete Knight got a ballot measure on the November ballot, Proposition 22, which changed the family code in the state of California, and said that marriage was only between a man and a woman. That passed pretty easily with about 61% of the vote. And that’s where it stayed until Gavin Newsom got elected mayor in San Francisco in the year 2003. A few weeks after becoming mayor in San Francisco…\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Gov. Gavin Newsom (archival tape):\u003c/strong> \u003cem>Today, San Francisco took the step to make the case that we believe in the words in the California Constitution, and we took action to implement that.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Gavin Newsom decided he was going to allow the county of San Francisco to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. And this stunned people. It kind of came out of the blue and within hours, people started flocking to San Francisco City Hall, lining up and taking their vows, taking marriage licenses out from the recorder’s office. And it became a huge national story.\u003cbr>\nIt was pretty widely expected that the courts would shut this down because Newsom really didn’t have any legal right to be doing this. But 4,000 couples lined up over the course of a few weeks to get married at City Hall, and they became known as ‘Newsom twosomes.’ A lot of people sort of assumed that those would not really hold up legally. But it was, you know, a validation of relationships and it really became a huge international story.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> But questionable legally, as we soon find out. Right. What happens next?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> So after this went on for a few weeks, there was a lawsuit filed by several parties to stop the marriages and declare them unconstitutional or illegal. And so the marriages were stopped. And a few months later, the California Supreme Court said, ‘You know what? Yes, these marriages are not valid. All the people who got married sorry, folks, you’re not married anymore and you have to stop doing this.’ And that’s where it stood for some time.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> I can’t imagine being married, and then you wake up one day and find a headline that you’re not anymore. That must have been really tough. But people didn’t give up. You know, they wanted those rights back. So what happens next?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> So there was a lawsuit filed in the state of California in which Proposition 22, which had passed in the year 2000, was challenged as being unconstitutional. And it went to the California Supreme Court. And in May of 2008, the court declared that, in fact, Prop 22 was unconstitutional. And so there was a a kind of euphoria among same-sex marriage supporters on the day that the Supreme Court in California ruled by a 4 to 3 margin, that, yeah, in fact, same-sex couples could legally get married and many did.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Archival clip of couple at San Francisco City Hall:\u003c/strong> \u003cem>We’ve been planning this for a year to actually be able to get married and be a part of this time in history, and time in our history is amazing.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> In that window of time in 2008, some 17,000 same-sex couples rushed to their city halls and county offices to take out marriage licenses and tie the knot. But at the same time, there was a group of religious conservatives, a group called Protect Marriage dot com was collecting the signatures to put on the ballot– a ballot measure that became known as Proposition 8, which declared again, as a constitutional amendment, that marriage in California was between one man and one woman.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>So voters by 52% to 48% passed Proposition 8. It was kind of a shock for liberal, what we thought was liberal California, which had easily voted for Barack Obama over John McCain in that very same election, voted more narrowly, but nonetheless to take away the right of same-sex couples to get married. And there was a lot of anger. And there were some very, you know, big protests that broke out across California from LGBT folks and their supporters protesting the vote. But there it was. I mean, it was now the law of the land in California\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>News Clips:\u003c/strong> \u003cem>“Shame on you!/Supporters of gay marriage targeted L.A.’s Mormon temple protesting the more than $15 million the church poured into passing proposition 8…/Equal rights! Equal rights!/For the third straight day thousands marched in California protesting the election night passing of Proposition 8, banning same-sex marriage.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> So after all the protests, there was a lawsuit filed in state court to try to overturn Prop 8, saying that it was a violation of the state constitution. But after considering all of the arguments on both sides, the state Supreme Court, which, you know, just like a year earlier had said same-sex marriage was legal, said no. Now the voters have changed the Constitution. And if the voters have done it, then it is in fact, constitutional. So that was, we thought, the end of the road.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> But then things move on to federal court. So we’re leveling up here. Where do we go next?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Not too long after the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, there was an effort to file in federal court very quietly. You know, there was this really small group of people, including the Human Rights Campaign, which is based in Washington. Rob Reiner, the director, who came together and said, ‘why don’t we put our own legal case together? We’ll find some plaintiffs and we’ll file it in federal court in San Francisco and see what’ll happen. Maybe, maybe we can get this legalized that way.’\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And there was a huge disagreement within the LGBTQ and the legal rights, civil rights communities, because there was a concern that if they filed this in federal court, the outcome was very unclear. And so there was a fear that it would be a setback for the movement ultimately if they didn’t win.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> And how does that case make its way through the courts?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Well, you know, these cases are assigned randomly. The backers of same-sex marriage really caught a break because the judge to whom this was assigned was Vaughn Walker. Vaughn Walker, although he was appointed by a Republican president, was known as kind of a Libertarian. He was also known as being gay. He wasn’t particularly open about it, but I think people thought, wow, this guy is a Libertarian. He’s gay and he is going to consider this case. Maybe we do have a chance of getting a favorable ruling.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>One of the things that Vaughn Walker did at the very beginning that surprised everybody is that he called for an actual trial with evidence and witnesses and testimony on the record. And this surprised everybody. And I think in particular, the folks who were supporting the idea of legalizing same-sex marriage were really happy because this gave them a chance to put all of these arguments against same-sex marriage on trial. And a lot of those arguments, as came out during the course of the trial, really weren’t based in fact. They weren’t backed up by any kind of evidence or research. They were really kind of fringy–A lot of them considered homophobic, honestly, that really didn’t hold up under scrutiny.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> And how did it go?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Well, it was fascinating. I sat in on the courtroom for those two weeks of testimony here in San Francisco at the federal court building. And there was some very emotional testimony from the plaintiffs. There were a lesbian couple from Berkeley, two gay men from Los Angeles. They talked about the importance of getting married to them, why it was important to them, what it would mean for them to have this very public acknowledgment of their relationship. A historian from Yale testified.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And on the other side, there was a very small number of witnesses, maybe four. And they withered under cross-examination, Their testimony didn’t hold up. Subsequently, actually, some of them changed their minds about same-sex marriage. And so after several months of taking it all into consideration, Judge Vaughn Walker issued his ruling in August of 2010, striking down Prop 8, saying it was in violation of the U.S. Constitution and the equal protection and due process clauses.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> And with that decision, Prop 8 officially becomes a zombie law in California, still on the books, but it’s not enforceable. But just like supporters of same sex marriage had been, the Prop 8, people weren’t going to give up yet. There’s an appeal.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yes. And in fact, Judge Vaughn Walker, although he struck down Prop 8, he put that on hold. He issued a stay. And that gave the supporters of Prop 8 an opportunity to appeal. And so they went to the Ninth Circuit. The appeals court upheld the lower court ruling and then they appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. And it took until 2013, three years after the initial ruling, striking down Prop 8 for the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in on same-sex marriage.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> So what really started as Newsom kind of going rogue and marrying people at San Francisco City Hall has now snowballed into the highest court in the United States, taking up the issue, essentially.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Exactly. And this issue was just a California ballot measure. And it wasn’t a very clean decision, ultimately. The attorneys for the ‘No on Prop 8’ side, they would have liked it if the U.S. Supreme Court said right then and there, ‘Same-sex marriage should be legal throughout the country.’ They didn’t do that. They didn’t issue a decision on the merits. What they said was, ‘You guys who are challenging this law, you don’t have standing, you don’t have legal standing. You’re not really directly affected by Proposition 8. Therefore, we’re going to let the lower court decision stand because you all don’t have a right to be here.’\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> Got it. So same-sex marriage is legal, but only in California and various other states at that point had legalized it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Correct. So it did apply to California. It was back on in California. So same-sex couples could get married, but it did not apply nationwide.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> So then how do we get to the place where we are today, where it’s legal nationwide?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> So once Proposition 8 was struck down, yes, gay marriage, same-sex marriage was legal here in California, but not nationwide. But then a couple of years later, there was another case brought by a plaintiff named Jim Obergefell. He lived in Ohio and he wanted to get married to his partner. And he made a very similar case to the U.S. Supreme Court based on the 14th Amendment and the due process and equal protection clauses, saying that he should not be barred from getting married just because he’s gay. And in a 5 to 4 decision, the Supreme Court decided that, yes, in fact, same-sex marriage should be legal nationwide. That was a historic ruling and it changed everything. It changed the landscape.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> So this year we’re voting on Prop 3. How does Prop 3 tie into all this history?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> So the 2013 decision striking down Prop 8 invalidated Prop 8. But, you know, the law was on the books. Technically, it was a zombie law. And there was concern in Sacramento that it could come back to life like a zombie. If, for example, the U.S. Supreme Court, you know, decided for whatever reason, that maybe that Obergefell decision was wrongly decided. We’ve seen that with abortion.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>That said, Congress did pass legislation sort of enshrining the right to same-sex marriage into law in 2022. So it would be much harder to overturn that now. But in Sacramento, some of the opponents of Prop 8 said, you know what? Let’s just strip this out of the California Constitution once and for all. And so the state legislature, without any dissenting votes in the assembly or the Senate, voted to put Prop 3 on the ballot. That’s what we’re voting on in November. It would replace that language that the voters passed with Prop 8, with language saying that all people have the right to get married and that it’s a part of their fundamental right to enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> You’ve sort of answered, I think, a part of this, but maybe you won’t elaborate. You know, Prop 8 has been sitting there, you know, in California’s constitution, unenforceable for a decade. Why make this change now?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> It is somewhat symbolic on one hand, because, as you say, you know, it can’t be enforced. But I think it’s also kind of a statement that not just getting rid of the old language, but affirming, you know, in a positive way, the right to same-sex marriage, enshrining that in the law. Something similar happened, you know, a couple of years ago with abortion in California. Abortion is legal here. But there was a ballot measure fundamentally enshrining it into the state constitution as a way of really making an emphatic statement that this is a fundamental right that women should have. And I think they also want to send a message maybe to the rest of the country to show how far California has come. So they’re hoping that this ballot measure will pass overwhelmingly. And really just kind of put an exclamation point on this change in attitude and law. You know, that gay couples now can rely on.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> Now, back in 2008, when Prop 8 was passed, it had a lot of financial support from the Mormon temple and other religious organizations. What does opposition to Prop 3 look like at this point?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Right now, the opponents of Proposition 3 have $0. You know, they have to file financial statements with the state of California. And in the most recent filing, they literally had raised no money whatsoever. The yes side, on the other hand, has raised at least $4 million. And it has widespread political support from Governor Newsom, virtually every statewide elected official, if not everyone. The California Democratic Party, organized labor, the labor federation. There are corporations and just many others who are happy to give money to this cause, to take this anti-gay language out of the state constitution.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>I don’t want to suggest that, like everyone now supports same-sex marriage because that’s not the case. Even though there were no no votes in the state legislature, there were a number of legislators, mostly Republicans, who just skipped the vote. They didn’t vote at all. It’s hard to say exactly whether they would have been yes or no. My guess is they oppose same-sex marriage, but didn’t really want to put their names to the opposition to Proposition 3.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>And there are some groups that still, you know, have put ballot arguments in the voter guide. There’s a group called the California Capital Connection. They have an alliance with independent Baptist ministers and churches to put out a statement. And their statement reads, ‘God instituted marriage and defined it as a union between a man and a woman. And you know that people cannot redefine what God has already defined.’ So there’s definitely still opposition to same-sex marriage. It’s just that the broad public has really shifted in support.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> All right. Well, Scott Shafer is the co-host of Political Breakdown KQED daily podcast, all about California politics. Scott, before you go, just tell people what can they expect from you on the podcast over the next couple of weeks before Election Day?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> California has a lot of races in play that will either help the Democrats take the House or keep it a Republican majority. It’s going to be an exciting sprint to Election Day.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> All right. Well, thanks for helping us out today, Scott.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Scott Shafer:\u003c/strong> Yes, happy to do it. Thank you for doing it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> In summary, a vote yes on Prop 3 would take language that defines marriage as between a man and a woman out of California’s constitution. And it adds into the Constitution the right to marry regardless of sex or race.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>A vote no on Prop 3 would keep the same-sex marriage ban in California’s constitution. There would be no change in who can marry.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>That’s it for Proposition 3. If you’re a new listener, just tuning in for our Prop Fest series, be sure to subscribe to the Bay Curious podcast. Every Thursday we drop episodes that explore listener questions about the San Francisco Bay Area. It’s a lot of fun, and we always learn so much – so if you’re digging Prop Fest so far, I think you’ll enjoy our other work too.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> Prop Fest is a collaboration between The Bay and Bay Curious podcasts. It is produced by Amanda Font, Christopher Beale, Ana De Almeda Amaral, Olivia Allen-Price, Alan Montecillo, Jessica Kariisa, and me Ericka Cruz Guevarra.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> Extra support from Katie Sprenger, Jen Chien, Maha Sanad, Holly Kernan, And the whole KQED family\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> You can find audio and transcripts for this series at KQED.org/PropFest.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> Our show is made in San Francisco at member-supported KQED. If you value podcasts like this one, please consider becoming a sustaining member of KQED. Learn more at KQED.org/donate.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> I’m Olivia Allen-Price\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> And I’m Ericka Cruz Guevarra. We’ll be back tomorrow with an explainer on Proposition 4 – the climate change bond.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "floatright"
},
"numeric": [
"floatright"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> We’ll see ya then!\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/12005960/proposition-3-would-enshrine-marriage-equality-into-californias-constitution",
"authors": [
"102",
"8637",
"11649",
"8654",
"11831",
"255"
],
"programs": [
"news_33523",
"news_28779"
],
"series": [
"news_17986"
],
"categories": [
"news_34168",
"news_8",
"news_33520"
],
"tags": [
"news_28606",
"news_32839",
"news_33812",
"news_20004",
"news_28645",
"news_34563",
"news_322",
"news_22598"
],
"featImg": "news_12005996",
"label": "source_news_12005960"
},
"news_12005762": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_12005762",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "12005762",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1727085639000
]
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "transcript-proposition-2-asks-voters-to-approve-10-billion-in-school-bonds",
"title": "Proposition 2 Asks Voters to Approve $10 Billion in School Bonds",
"publishDate": 1727085639,
"format": "audio",
"headTitle": "Proposition 2 Asks Voters to Approve $10 Billion in School Bonds | KQED",
"labelTerm": {
"term": 28779,
"site": "news"
},
"content": "\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/propfest\">Prop Fest\u003c/a> is a collaboration from Bay Curious and The Bay podcasts, where we break down each of the 10 statewide propositions that will be on your November 2024 ballot. Check out \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/voterguide\">KQED’s Voter Guide\u003c/a> for more information on state and local races.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Today we’re discussing Proposition 2, a $10 billion school bond for repair, upgrade and construction of school facilities. Our guest is Daisy Nguyen, KQED’s Early Childhood Education Reporter.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c!-- iframe plugin v.4.3 wordpress.org/plugins/iframe/ -->\u003cbr>\n\u003ciframe loading=\"lazy\" frameborder=\"0\" height=\"200\" scrolling=\"no\" src=\"https://playlist.megaphone.fm/?e=KQINC8306699730&light=true\" width=\"100%\" class=\"iframe-class\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a transcript of the episode.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> Let’s say your kid’s school has a leaky roof, or turns out there’s lead in the school water fountains from old pipes. How do you fix it?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> [00:00:10] The obvious answer is money. But whether there’s money set aside to make those repairs isn’t always guaranteed in California.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> [00:00:18] I’m Ericka Cruz Guevarra, host of The Bay.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> [00:00:21] And I’m Olivia Allen-Price, host of Bay Curious. Welcome to Prop Fest. For the next few weeks. Our teams at The Bay and Bay Curious are bringing you breakdowns of each statewide ballot proposition on the California ballot this year, all to help you vote with confidence this November.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[baycuriouspodcastinfo]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> [00:00:38] Unlike most other states, California doesn’t have a permanent funding source for school repairs, things like broken air conditioners or a leaky roof.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> [00:00:49] Instead, that money comes from state or local bonds passed by voters year to year.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> [00:00:55] And that means if your school needs repairs, the money isn’t always guaranteed.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> [00:01:01] But this year, California voters have a chance to raise money with Prop 2.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> [00:01:06] In our very first episode of Prop Fest, we’re going to break down everything you need to know about Proposition 2. The school bond measure. That’s coming up right after the break.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> [00:01:23] Today we’re talking about Proposition 2. Here’s how it will read on your ballot.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Voiceover:\u003c/strong> [00:01:29] Prop 2 authorizes $10 billion in general obligation bonds for repair, upgrade and construction of facilities at K-through-12 public schools, including charter schools, community colleges and career technical education programs, including for improvement of health and safety conditions and classroom upgrades.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> [00:01:51] To understand how this proposition got on the ballot, we hit up KQED’s early childhood education reporter Daisy Nguyen.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Daisy Nguyen:\u003c/strong> [00:01:59] Thousands of school buildings across California are in poor shape and the state’s school repair fund is almost empty. There was a study by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California that found 38% of students from kindergarten to 12th grade go to schools that don’t meet the minimum facility standards. You may have heard of the recent controversy at Oakland Unified School District.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Newscaster:\u003c/strong> [00:02:31] Oakland School District plans to install more water dispensing stations at campuses after discovering high levels of lead and some water.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Daisy Nguyen:\u003c/strong> [00:02:39] A routine sampling of water across the school district found that multiple school sites had elevated levels of lead.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Newscaster:\u003c/strong> [00:02:47] At last night’s Oakland school board meeting, parents were angry and concerned.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Daisy Nguyen:\u003c/strong> [00:02:52] That led to schools having to shut off some of their water fountains and replacing water sources with bottles.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> [00:03:05] And you’re talking about a range of problems with facilities and buildings at California’s schools. How do schools normally pay for repairs like these?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Daisy Nguyen:\u003c/strong> [00:03:18] So unlike many other states, California doesn’t pay for school repairs through a permanent funding stream. The money comes from state and local bonds. Traditionally, the state would match half of a school district’s new construction project and 60% of its renovation projects. And there would be up to local districts to raise funds, usually through a local bond. What winds up happening is that it creates some inequities because wealthier districts can raise more money for repairs through local bonds because their local property values are higher, which means they end up generating more money from local property taxes. Smaller and lower income districts struggle to raise enough bond money to pay for the school repairs. Sometimes they can’t even pass a local bond at all, so they end up relying on state bond money for repairs and maybe not meeting all of their needs. The money from the last successful school bond was passed in 2016, and that’s been spent.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> [00:04:28] What does Prop. 2 do exactly?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Daisy Nguyen:\u003c/strong> [00:04:32] Prop 2 proposes to raise $10 billion to help fix or improve educational facilities in public schools, including charter schools and community colleges. It proposes to increase the state’s share of the project costs by as much as 5%. And also the state would generally pay a higher share of the costs in those lower resourced school districts, the one with the lower property values. Prop 2 also proposes to provide additional funding to school districts that want to build or renovate transitional kindergarten facilities. As you may know, this study is in the middle of expanding this new grade level for four year olds. But a lot of schools say they don’t have enough classrooms that meet the state standards for TK. Four year old students need to have bathrooms nearby and enough outdoor play area and indoor space to move around because they are going to be the youngest students entering the school system. And Prop 2 would also allow up to $115 million in renovation funds to be used for reducing lead levels in water at public school sites. So directly helping a school district like OUSD resolve its issues.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> [00:06:00] And Daisy, how did Prop 2 get on the ballot and who’s putting it forward?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Daisy Nguyen:\u003c/strong> [00:06:05] The governor and lawmakers put it on the ballot. They’re saying the money is badly needed to fix the state’s many aging facilities to ensure a safer environment for learning. They say with increasing threats from flooding, heat waves and wildfires, schools really need things like air filters, air conditioners and shade structures to make the schools more climate resilient. And it’s being supported by some major groups like teachers unions, builders, as well as the Association of California School Administrators.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Daryl Camp:\u003c/strong> [00:06:42] Even though we passed our local bond, there’s still a need for more dollars so we can accelerate our progress.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Daisy Nguyen:\u003c/strong> [00:06:49] Dr. Daryl Camp is superintendent of the San Lorenzo Unified School District. It’s a small district in the East Bay between San Leandro, Hayward and Castro Valley. He’s also the incoming president of the Association of California School Administrators. Dr. Daryl Camp talked about some kind of unsexy projects, as he calls it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Daryl Camp:\u003c/strong> [00:07:12] Things like the roof. You know, no one realizes something’s wrong with the roof until it rains. Our youngest building is 60 years old. We have some buildings that are, you know, been around for three quarters of a century.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Daisy Nguyen:\u003c/strong> [00:07:24] And he also wants to bring in some HVAC systems, meaning heating and ventilation and air conditioning. In his school district, they have some pretty hot days where they’ve had to either cancel class in the middle of the day or not have it at all because it was just too warm to be in the classroom for students.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Daryl Camp: [\u003c/strong>00:07:46] And just anecdotally, you know, I was in the public schools in Alameda County growing up. We didn’t need air conditioning. When you go into our classrooms now, if we can combine another local bond with the state dollars, we have a greater likelihood that we’ll be able to have all of our classrooms with air conditioning.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> [00:08:04] And what about the other side? Who’s against this?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Daisy Nguyen:\u003c/strong> [00:08:08] The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, which is a very prominent taxpayers group in California, are opposed to Prop 2. They say taxpayers will have to pay back that $10 billion bond, plus another $8 billion in interest over the next 35 or so years. They say it’s just irresponsible to borrow money, billions of dollars, to pay for more school buildings when enrollment in the state’s K-12 and community college system is declining.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Susan Shelley:\u003c/strong> [00:08:40] If you keep doing this, you are stealing from the future.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Daisy Nguyen:\u003c/strong> [00:08:44] Susan Shelley is vice president of communications for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Susan Shelley:\u003c/strong> [00:08:50] Every future budget has to pay these bond payments with interest.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Daisy Nguyen:\u003c/strong> [00:08:56] She said that local taxpayers will also have to shoulder a bigger burden through those local bond measures that school districts will have to raise in order to match the state’s state funds. And she says in general that it’s just irresponsible to borrow for projects that could have been paid for if the state had better manage its finances.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Susan Shelley:\u003c/strong> [00:09:19] We know the school buildings are aging. Is that news? Where have they been with all the prior spending? Why did they not address these problems? The government of California should be prioritizing according to the real needs of the people of California. And if they’re not, they should be held accountable and not rewarded with more money.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> [00:09:44] Who’s spending on both sides of this ballot measure. Daisy, what do we know about that?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Daisy Nguyen:\u003c/strong> [00:09:51] No one is spending money on the no side, but the side that’s spending money to campaign for a yes vote on Prop 2 includes the California Building Industry Association, the Coalition for Adequate School Housing and the School Administrators Association that I mentioned and a couple of other groups. As of now, the yes side has raised $3.6 million. Back in 2020, the school bond was to raise $15 billion. That did not pass. And this time, the governor and lawmakers are hoping voters could stomach a $10 billion bond.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> [00:10:38] Daisy, thank you so much.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Daisy Nguyen:\u003c/strong> [00:10:40] Thank you.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> [00:10:47] According to polling from the Public Policy Institute of California, 54% of likely voters say they would vote yes on Prop 2, with 44% saying they would vote no. In a nutshell, a vote yes on Prop 2 gives the state permission to borrow $10 billion to build new or renovate existing public school and community college facilities. A vote no means you do not want the state to borrow $10 billion to renovate school facilities.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> [00:11:22] And that is it for our very first episode of Prop Fest. How are we doing? How we feeling? Feeling smarter, Ready to vote? Well, there’s plenty more where that came from. From now until October 4th, the Bay and Bay curious teams here at KQED are going to be dropping breakdowns of each and every one of the statewide propositions on the ballot this year to leave you feeling ready to vote this November. So stay locked in and make sure you’re subscribed to the bay so you don’t miss out on the next ones.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> [00:11:55] Prop Fest is a collaboration between the Bay and Bay Curious podcasts. It’s produced by Alan Montecillo, Jessica Kariisa, Ericka Cruz Guevarra, Amanda Font, Christopher Beale, Ana De Almeida Amaral, and me, Olivia Allen-Price.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> [00:12:09] We get extra support from Jen Chien, Katie Sprenger, Maha Sanad, Holly Kernan and the whole KQED family. Music Courtesy of Audio Network.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> [00:12:20] You can find audio and transcripts for this series at kqed.org/prop fest.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> [00:12:26] Our show is made in San Francisco at member supported KQED. If you value podcasts like this one, please consider becoming a sustaining member of KQED. Learn more at kqed.org/donate.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> [00:12:40] I’m Olivia Allen-Price.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> [00:12:41] And I’m Ericka Cruz Guevarra. We will be back tomorrow with an explainer on Proposition 3, an amendment to California’s same sex marriage ban.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> [00:12:50] We’ll see you then.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[baycuriousquestion]\u003c/p>\n\n",
"blocks": [],
"excerpt": null,
"status": "publish",
"parent": 0,
"modified": 1728068681,
"stats": {
"hasAudio": true,
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": true,
"hasPolis": false,
"paragraphCount": 56,
"wordCount": 2236
},
"headData": {
"title": "Proposition 2 Asks Voters to Approve $10 Billion in School Bonds | KQED",
"description": "Prop Fest is a collaboration from Bay Curious and The Bay podcasts, where we break down each of the 10 statewide propositions that will be on your November 2024 ballot. Check out KQED's Voter Guide for more information on state and local races. Today we're discussing Proposition 2, a $10 billion school bond for repair, upgrade and construction of school facilities. Our guest is Daisy Nguyen, KQED's Early Childhood Education Reporter. This is a transcript of the episode. Ericka Cruz Guevarra: Let's say your kid's school has a leaky roof, or turns out there's lead in the school water fountains",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogDescription": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"twDescription": "",
"twImgId": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "Proposition 2 Asks Voters to Approve $10 Billion in School Bonds",
"datePublished": "2024-09-23T03:00:39-07:00",
"dateModified": "2024-10-04T12:04:41-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"audioUrl": "https://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/pdst.fm/e/chrt.fm/track/G6C7C3/traffic.megaphone.fm/KQINC8306699730.mp3?updated=1726874532",
"sticky": false,
"nprStoryId": "kqed-12005762",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/12005762/transcript-proposition-2-asks-voters-to-approve-10-billion-in-school-bonds",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/propfest\">Prop Fest\u003c/a> is a collaboration from Bay Curious and The Bay podcasts, where we break down each of the 10 statewide propositions that will be on your November 2024 ballot. Check out \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/voterguide\">KQED’s Voter Guide\u003c/a> for more information on state and local races.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Today we’re discussing Proposition 2, a $10 billion school bond for repair, upgrade and construction of school facilities. Our guest is Daisy Nguyen, KQED’s Early Childhood Education Reporter.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c!-- iframe plugin v.4.3 wordpress.org/plugins/iframe/ -->\u003cbr>\n\u003ciframe loading=\"lazy\" frameborder=\"0\" height=\"200\" scrolling=\"no\" src=\"https://playlist.megaphone.fm/?e=KQINC8306699730&light=true\" width=\"100%\" class=\"iframe-class\">\u003c/iframe>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cem>This is a transcript of the episode.\u003c/em>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> Let’s say your kid’s school has a leaky roof, or turns out there’s lead in the school water fountains from old pipes. How do you fix it?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> [00:00:10] The obvious answer is money. But whether there’s money set aside to make those repairs isn’t always guaranteed in California.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> [00:00:18] I’m Ericka Cruz Guevarra, host of The Bay.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> [00:00:21] And I’m Olivia Allen-Price, host of Bay Curious. Welcome to Prop Fest. For the next few weeks. Our teams at The Bay and Bay Curious are bringing you breakdowns of each statewide ballot proposition on the California ballot this year, all to help you vote with confidence this November.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003caside class=\"alignleft utils-parseShortcode-shortcodes-__bayCuriousPodcastShortcode__bayCurious\">\u003cimg src=https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/bayCuriousLogo.png alt=\"Bay Curious Podcast\" loading=\"lazy\" />\n \u003ca href=\"/news/series/baycurious\">Bay Curious\u003c/a> is a podcast that answers your questions about the Bay Area.\n Subscribe on \u003ca href=\"https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/bay-curious/id1172473406\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Apple Podcasts\u003c/a>,\n \u003ca href=\"http://www.npr.org/podcasts/500557090/bay-curious\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">NPR One\u003c/a> or your favorite podcast platform.\u003c/aside>\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> [00:00:38] Unlike most other states, California doesn’t have a permanent funding source for school repairs, things like broken air conditioners or a leaky roof.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> [00:00:49] Instead, that money comes from state or local bonds passed by voters year to year.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> [00:00:55] And that means if your school needs repairs, the money isn’t always guaranteed.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> [00:01:01] But this year, California voters have a chance to raise money with Prop 2.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> [00:01:06] In our very first episode of Prop Fest, we’re going to break down everything you need to know about Proposition 2. The school bond measure. That’s coming up right after the break.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> [00:01:23] Today we’re talking about Proposition 2. Here’s how it will read on your ballot.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Voiceover:\u003c/strong> [00:01:29] Prop 2 authorizes $10 billion in general obligation bonds for repair, upgrade and construction of facilities at K-through-12 public schools, including charter schools, community colleges and career technical education programs, including for improvement of health and safety conditions and classroom upgrades.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> [00:01:51] To understand how this proposition got on the ballot, we hit up KQED’s early childhood education reporter Daisy Nguyen.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Daisy Nguyen:\u003c/strong> [00:01:59] Thousands of school buildings across California are in poor shape and the state’s school repair fund is almost empty. There was a study by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California that found 38% of students from kindergarten to 12th grade go to schools that don’t meet the minimum facility standards. You may have heard of the recent controversy at Oakland Unified School District.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Newscaster:\u003c/strong> [00:02:31] Oakland School District plans to install more water dispensing stations at campuses after discovering high levels of lead and some water.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Daisy Nguyen:\u003c/strong> [00:02:39] A routine sampling of water across the school district found that multiple school sites had elevated levels of lead.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Newscaster:\u003c/strong> [00:02:47] At last night’s Oakland school board meeting, parents were angry and concerned.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Daisy Nguyen:\u003c/strong> [00:02:52] That led to schools having to shut off some of their water fountains and replacing water sources with bottles.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> [00:03:05] And you’re talking about a range of problems with facilities and buildings at California’s schools. How do schools normally pay for repairs like these?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Daisy Nguyen:\u003c/strong> [00:03:18] So unlike many other states, California doesn’t pay for school repairs through a permanent funding stream. The money comes from state and local bonds. Traditionally, the state would match half of a school district’s new construction project and 60% of its renovation projects. And there would be up to local districts to raise funds, usually through a local bond. What winds up happening is that it creates some inequities because wealthier districts can raise more money for repairs through local bonds because their local property values are higher, which means they end up generating more money from local property taxes. Smaller and lower income districts struggle to raise enough bond money to pay for the school repairs. Sometimes they can’t even pass a local bond at all, so they end up relying on state bond money for repairs and maybe not meeting all of their needs. The money from the last successful school bond was passed in 2016, and that’s been spent.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> [00:04:28] What does Prop. 2 do exactly?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Daisy Nguyen:\u003c/strong> [00:04:32] Prop 2 proposes to raise $10 billion to help fix or improve educational facilities in public schools, including charter schools and community colleges. It proposes to increase the state’s share of the project costs by as much as 5%. And also the state would generally pay a higher share of the costs in those lower resourced school districts, the one with the lower property values. Prop 2 also proposes to provide additional funding to school districts that want to build or renovate transitional kindergarten facilities. As you may know, this study is in the middle of expanding this new grade level for four year olds. But a lot of schools say they don’t have enough classrooms that meet the state standards for TK. Four year old students need to have bathrooms nearby and enough outdoor play area and indoor space to move around because they are going to be the youngest students entering the school system. And Prop 2 would also allow up to $115 million in renovation funds to be used for reducing lead levels in water at public school sites. So directly helping a school district like OUSD resolve its issues.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> [00:06:00] And Daisy, how did Prop 2 get on the ballot and who’s putting it forward?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Daisy Nguyen:\u003c/strong> [00:06:05] The governor and lawmakers put it on the ballot. They’re saying the money is badly needed to fix the state’s many aging facilities to ensure a safer environment for learning. They say with increasing threats from flooding, heat waves and wildfires, schools really need things like air filters, air conditioners and shade structures to make the schools more climate resilient. And it’s being supported by some major groups like teachers unions, builders, as well as the Association of California School Administrators.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Daryl Camp:\u003c/strong> [00:06:42] Even though we passed our local bond, there’s still a need for more dollars so we can accelerate our progress.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Daisy Nguyen:\u003c/strong> [00:06:49] Dr. Daryl Camp is superintendent of the San Lorenzo Unified School District. It’s a small district in the East Bay between San Leandro, Hayward and Castro Valley. He’s also the incoming president of the Association of California School Administrators. Dr. Daryl Camp talked about some kind of unsexy projects, as he calls it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Daryl Camp:\u003c/strong> [00:07:12] Things like the roof. You know, no one realizes something’s wrong with the roof until it rains. Our youngest building is 60 years old. We have some buildings that are, you know, been around for three quarters of a century.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Daisy Nguyen:\u003c/strong> [00:07:24] And he also wants to bring in some HVAC systems, meaning heating and ventilation and air conditioning. In his school district, they have some pretty hot days where they’ve had to either cancel class in the middle of the day or not have it at all because it was just too warm to be in the classroom for students.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Daryl Camp: [\u003c/strong>00:07:46] And just anecdotally, you know, I was in the public schools in Alameda County growing up. We didn’t need air conditioning. When you go into our classrooms now, if we can combine another local bond with the state dollars, we have a greater likelihood that we’ll be able to have all of our classrooms with air conditioning.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> [00:08:04] And what about the other side? Who’s against this?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Daisy Nguyen:\u003c/strong> [00:08:08] The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, which is a very prominent taxpayers group in California, are opposed to Prop 2. They say taxpayers will have to pay back that $10 billion bond, plus another $8 billion in interest over the next 35 or so years. They say it’s just irresponsible to borrow money, billions of dollars, to pay for more school buildings when enrollment in the state’s K-12 and community college system is declining.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Susan Shelley:\u003c/strong> [00:08:40] If you keep doing this, you are stealing from the future.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Daisy Nguyen:\u003c/strong> [00:08:44] Susan Shelley is vice president of communications for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Susan Shelley:\u003c/strong> [00:08:50] Every future budget has to pay these bond payments with interest.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Daisy Nguyen:\u003c/strong> [00:08:56] She said that local taxpayers will also have to shoulder a bigger burden through those local bond measures that school districts will have to raise in order to match the state’s state funds. And she says in general that it’s just irresponsible to borrow for projects that could have been paid for if the state had better manage its finances.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Susan Shelley:\u003c/strong> [00:09:19] We know the school buildings are aging. Is that news? Where have they been with all the prior spending? Why did they not address these problems? The government of California should be prioritizing according to the real needs of the people of California. And if they’re not, they should be held accountable and not rewarded with more money.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> [00:09:44] Who’s spending on both sides of this ballot measure. Daisy, what do we know about that?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Daisy Nguyen:\u003c/strong> [00:09:51] No one is spending money on the no side, but the side that’s spending money to campaign for a yes vote on Prop 2 includes the California Building Industry Association, the Coalition for Adequate School Housing and the School Administrators Association that I mentioned and a couple of other groups. As of now, the yes side has raised $3.6 million. Back in 2020, the school bond was to raise $15 billion. That did not pass. And this time, the governor and lawmakers are hoping voters could stomach a $10 billion bond.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> [00:10:38] Daisy, thank you so much.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Daisy Nguyen:\u003c/strong> [00:10:40] Thank you.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> [00:10:47] According to polling from the Public Policy Institute of California, 54% of likely voters say they would vote yes on Prop 2, with 44% saying they would vote no. In a nutshell, a vote yes on Prop 2 gives the state permission to borrow $10 billion to build new or renovate existing public school and community college facilities. A vote no means you do not want the state to borrow $10 billion to renovate school facilities.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> [00:11:22] And that is it for our very first episode of Prop Fest. How are we doing? How we feeling? Feeling smarter, Ready to vote? Well, there’s plenty more where that came from. From now until October 4th, the Bay and Bay curious teams here at KQED are going to be dropping breakdowns of each and every one of the statewide propositions on the ballot this year to leave you feeling ready to vote this November. So stay locked in and make sure you’re subscribed to the bay so you don’t miss out on the next ones.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> [00:11:55] Prop Fest is a collaboration between the Bay and Bay Curious podcasts. It’s produced by Alan Montecillo, Jessica Kariisa, Ericka Cruz Guevarra, Amanda Font, Christopher Beale, Ana De Almeida Amaral, and me, Olivia Allen-Price.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> [00:12:09] We get extra support from Jen Chien, Katie Sprenger, Maha Sanad, Holly Kernan and the whole KQED family. Music Courtesy of Audio Network.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> [00:12:20] You can find audio and transcripts for this series at kqed.org/prop fest.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> [00:12:26] Our show is made in San Francisco at member supported KQED. If you value podcasts like this one, please consider becoming a sustaining member of KQED. Learn more at kqed.org/donate.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> [00:12:40] I’m Olivia Allen-Price.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ericka Cruz Guevarra:\u003c/strong> [00:12:41] And I’m Ericka Cruz Guevarra. We will be back tomorrow with an explainer on Proposition 3, an amendment to California’s same sex marriage ban.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen-Price:\u003c/strong> [00:12:50] We’ll see you then.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "floatright"
},
"numeric": [
"floatright"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "baycuriousquestion",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": ""
},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\n\u003c/div>\u003c/p>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
}
],
"link": "/news/12005762/transcript-proposition-2-asks-voters-to-approve-10-billion-in-school-bonds",
"authors": [
"11649",
"8654",
"11831",
"102",
"8637",
"11829"
],
"programs": [
"news_33523",
"news_28779"
],
"series": [
"news_17986"
],
"categories": [
"news_18540",
"news_8",
"news_33520"
],
"tags": [
"news_20013",
"news_32839",
"news_33812",
"news_28645",
"news_17102",
"news_22598"
],
"featImg": "news_12005767",
"label": "news_28779"
},
"news_12005257": {
"type": "posts",
"id": "news_12005257",
"meta": {
"index": "posts_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "12005257",
"score": null,
"sort": [
1726740031000
]
},
"guestAuthors": [],
"slug": "the-hunters-point-cranes-legacy-is-both-majestic-and-troubling",
"title": "The Hunters Point Crane's Legacy Is Both Majestic and Troubling",
"publishDate": 1726740031,
"format": "standard",
"headTitle": "The Hunters Point Crane’s Legacy Is Both Majestic and Troubling | KQED",
"labelTerm": {
"term": 33523,
"site": "news"
},
"content": "\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"#episode-transcript\">\u003cem>View the full episode transcript.\u003c/em>\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[dropcap]A[/dropcap]fter breakfast and coffee every morning, James Bryant heads out the front door. From his home on a hill in San Francisco, he sees the Hunters Point Gantry Crane, what he calls the “West Coast Statue of Liberty.” The metal monolith sits on the edge of the Bay at the old Hunters Point Naval Shipyard.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“It is huge, and it’s breathtaking,” said Bryant, who has lived in San Francisco’s Bayview neighborhood for over four decades and is a neighborhood historian. “The gantry crane represents what New York has in their bay, what we have in our bay.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[baycuriouspodcastinfo]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The crane is 450 feet tall and 730 feet long, so big it can be seen from three counties. It weighs as much as the Eiffel Tower. It’s an iconic piece of infrastructure, not unlike the Sutro Tower or the Bay Bridge, but perhaps the more underrated cousin.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The crane was used to load ships from the 1940s to the 1970s. For some, it’s a celebrated Bay Area icon worth. There’s even \u003ca href=\"https://www.hunterspointcrane.com/\">a whole fan website for the old crane\u003c/a>, where they sell merchandise and tell some of its history.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>However, the legacy and effect of the crane are much more profound than its metal form.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Bay Curious listener Olivia Grubert wrote to Bay Curious asking for more information about the crane. So, let’s take a closer look.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad fullwidth]\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>The crane’s history\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>To understand how the Hunters Point Gantry Crane came to be, we have to go back to the late 1940s when the Cold War started between the United States, the Soviet Union and their respective allies.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The U.S. Navy built the crane in 1947 for $2.5 million. At this point, it looked like a giant table from afar. On two sides, the crane loaded massive gun turrets onto warships. Altogether, it could lift more than a million pounds. The goal was to fix and load up ships fast so they could get back to battle.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_12005067\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 2000px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-12005067\" src=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/240917-Hunters-Point-Gantry-Crane-SFPL-01-KQED.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"2000\" height=\"1523\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/240917-Hunters-Point-Gantry-Crane-SFPL-01-KQED.jpg 2000w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/240917-Hunters-Point-Gantry-Crane-SFPL-01-KQED-800x609.jpg 800w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/240917-Hunters-Point-Gantry-Crane-SFPL-01-KQED-1020x777.jpg 1020w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/240917-Hunters-Point-Gantry-Crane-SFPL-01-KQED-160x122.jpg 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/240917-Hunters-Point-Gantry-Crane-SFPL-01-KQED-1536x1170.jpg 1536w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/240917-Hunters-Point-Gantry-Crane-SFPL-01-KQED-1920x1462.jpg 1920w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 2000px) 100vw, 2000px\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">The Hunters Point Naval Shipyard in San Francisco on June 25, 1953. \u003ccite>(Courtesy of San Francisco Public Library)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>“The boats would pull in, and they were lifted and loaded,” Bryant said. “The idea was that we’re going to war and need to load these ships right now. These ships were major.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Navy also tested missiles on the crane — Polaris, hydrogen bomb-tipped missiles. At Hunters Point, the Navy initially hurled missiles into the bay and retrieved them after. Later, the military shot them into mid-air, but an apparatus prevented them from flight. In the ’70s, when the Navy wanted to test more potent Poseidon missiles on the crane, they attached a 170-foot arch to strengthen it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>At the shipyard, the Navy also decontaminated ships after atomic bomb tests and established the Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory. This process contaminated the soil in and around the base with radioactive chemicals, heavy metals and petroleum fuels.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Navy base remained active until 1974, and after that, a private company used the property for ship repair for a short period of time. The base was declared one of the nation’s most contaminated sites in 1989. The crane has remained, standing unused for decades.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_12005326\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 2000px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-12005326\" src=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/240918-HUNTERSPOINTCRANE-12-BL-KQED.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"2000\" height=\"1333\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/240918-HUNTERSPOINTCRANE-12-BL-KQED.jpg 2000w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/240918-HUNTERSPOINTCRANE-12-BL-KQED-800x533.jpg 800w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/240918-HUNTERSPOINTCRANE-12-BL-KQED-1020x680.jpg 1020w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/240918-HUNTERSPOINTCRANE-12-BL-KQED-160x107.jpg 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/240918-HUNTERSPOINTCRANE-12-BL-KQED-1536x1024.jpg 1536w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/240918-HUNTERSPOINTCRANE-12-BL-KQED-1920x1280.jpg 1920w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 2000px) 100vw, 2000px\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">the Hunters Point gantry crane at the naval shipyard in San Francisco on Sept. 18, 2024. \u003ccite>(Beth LaBerge/KQED)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003ch2>A complex legacy\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>While the history of the crane itself is relatively straightforward, its legacy is complex. On one hand, the Navy brought jobs to the Bay Area, much-needed jobs for people who had left the South.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The shipyard employed as many as 18,000 people at its peak, many of whom were Black. They built and serviced ships for wartime efforts. Bryant said they came from the South — places like Alabama, Mississippi and Texas. For many of them, the shipyard jobs allowed them to buy homes.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Bryant said the crane reminds many people in the Bayview of the prosperity they were afforded by working at the shipyard.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“It was prosperity because they got to own a home,” he said. “They got to live in the best weather. You can’t beat the Bayview weather.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>On the other hand, the Hunters Point Crane is a reminder of another legacy. Radioactive contamination is still in the ground all these years later. The Navy is working on cleaning up the site, and just last year, the Navy \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/science/1985646/radioactive-object-found-at-san-franciscos-hunters-point-naval-shipyard-raises-new-concerns\">unearthed two radioactive objects there\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_12005325\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 2000px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-12005325\" src=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/240918-HUNTERSPOINTCRANE-05-BL-KQED.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"2000\" height=\"1333\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/240918-HUNTERSPOINTCRANE-05-BL-KQED.jpg 2000w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/240918-HUNTERSPOINTCRANE-05-BL-KQED-800x533.jpg 800w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/240918-HUNTERSPOINTCRANE-05-BL-KQED-1020x680.jpg 1020w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/240918-HUNTERSPOINTCRANE-05-BL-KQED-160x107.jpg 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/240918-HUNTERSPOINTCRANE-05-BL-KQED-1536x1024.jpg 1536w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/240918-HUNTERSPOINTCRANE-05-BL-KQED-1920x1280.jpg 1920w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 2000px) 100vw, 2000px\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">An abandoned building at the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard in San Francisco on Sept. 18, 2024. \u003ccite>(Beth LaBerge/KQED)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>The Navy did not respond to KQED’s email with a comment. But in the past, the Navy defended its remedies.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Community advocates like Bryant have called for a more thorough site cleanup for years.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“It can be eradicated. If it were on the other side of town, it would have been gone,” said Byrant, who worked for the Navy in the 1970s at the shipyard in public relations.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>All these years later, Bryant is now 70 and still raves about the crane but is worried about the contamination in the ground beneath it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“You can almost hear the buildings talking to you, [saying] there’s history here that no one’s talking about,” he said. “The Navy ships that went in there were loaded with nuclear stuff, which is one of the reasons why it is still sitting there because it was a little contaminated.”\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>‘Still work to be done’\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>Someone who knows a lot about this contamination and how it could be hurting the community is Arieann Harrison.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Harrison’s mother, Marie Harrison, pushed for the cleanup of the shipyard for decades before passing away in 2019 from lung disease. Harrison took up her mantle in a way and now leads the Marie Harrison Community Foundation, focused on environmental justice.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>She is \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/science/1979614/for-these-black-bayview-hunters-point-residents-reparations-include-safeguarding-against-rising-toxic-contamination\">advocating for an “absolute cleanup of the shipyard.\u003c/a>” But she believes there’s a “huge chance” the Navy will leave contamination in the ground.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Harrison grew up very close to the shipyard and believes over time, she was exposed to radioactive contamination. A local doctor tested her for contaminants and found high levels of a bunch of them — contaminants like lead, manganese, uranium and plutonium.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>A scientist told her that her case looks like “that of people serving in the military.” Because of all that new information, she’s worried her health issues are related to the contamination. The doctor who took Harrison’s tests and those of more than 150 others plans to create a registry of their results. She wants to expand testing across the community.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_12005327\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 2000px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-12005327\" src=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/240918-HUNTERSPOINTCRANE-14-BL-KQED.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"2000\" height=\"1333\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/240918-HUNTERSPOINTCRANE-14-BL-KQED.jpg 2000w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/240918-HUNTERSPOINTCRANE-14-BL-KQED-800x533.jpg 800w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/240918-HUNTERSPOINTCRANE-14-BL-KQED-1020x680.jpg 1020w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/240918-HUNTERSPOINTCRANE-14-BL-KQED-160x107.jpg 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/240918-HUNTERSPOINTCRANE-14-BL-KQED-1536x1024.jpg 1536w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/240918-HUNTERSPOINTCRANE-14-BL-KQED-1920x1280.jpg 1920w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 2000px) 100vw, 2000px\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">James Bryant stands at Hillpoint Park overlooking the Hunters Point gantry crane at the naval shipyard in San Francisco on Sept. 18, 2024. \u003ccite>(Beth LaBerge/KQED)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>“I am still angry, and I am still hopeful for the future,” she said. “I have a lot of a vested interest in making sure that if it’s the last thing I do, things improve.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Harrison wants all the contaminated soil removed from the site. The Navy has removed some of it. Its solutions also include treating or sealing the contaminated soil under a thick layer of asphalt or dirt to contain it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But Harrison worries those remedies aren’t enough because scientists expect human-caused climate change to raise sea levels. That could push water up from underneath the toxic site and spread the contamination into the Bay and the community.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Unless the Navy removes toxic soil, she believes rising seas will cause the contamination “to seep out into the greater Bay Area.” Over the last year, the Navy announced it found several radioactive objects within the site, \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/science/1985646/radioactive-object-found-at-san-franciscos-hunters-point-naval-shipyard-raises-new-concerns\">raising concerns about the efficacy of the cleanup\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Earlier this year, the Navy acknowledged for \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/11979473/us-navy-acknowledges-toxic-groundwater-rising-in-bayview-hunters-point\">the first time that potentially toxic groundwater could surface at the shipyard in just over a decade\u003c/a>. The Navy said it’s taken steps to protect against a 100-year storm and three feet of sea-level rise, like extending a seawall and landfill cap.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In June, an environmental justice nonprofit filed \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/science/1993505/cleanup-of-san-francisco-superfund-site-has-been-badly-mishandled-lawsuit-alleges\">a lawsuit alleging “egregious” mishandling of the cleanup of radioactive contamination\u003c/a> at the site.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Harrison is apprehensive about the contamination left underground because the city of San Francisco hopes to allow developers to build \u003ca href=\"https://sfocii.org/projects/hunters-point-shipyard-candlestick-point-2/overview\">thousands of homes on the site\u003c/a>. If and when developers build those homes, many people who live in them will have a view of the Hunters Point Crane.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>For Harrison, the crane is a daily reminder of the contamination left in her community.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“To me, [the crane] signifies that there’s still work to be done,” she said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[baycuriousquestion]\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2 id=\"episode-transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>\u003ci>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/i>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen Price: \u003c/strong>Every time Olivia Grubert drives over the Bay Bridge from Oakland, she notices this thing perched on the edge of the bay on the south side of the city.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Grubert:\u003c/strong> You see this massive structure just kind of all by itself. And it seems that no one really knows too much about it. I keep pointing it out.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen Price: \u003c/strong>It turns out that metal monolith has a name. It’s called the Hunters Point Gantry Crane. From a distance, you see the structure looks like an outline of a dining table with four legs and a rectangular top on top of that table on one side. A wide arch reaches up to the sky. And this thing is big. So big it can be seen from at least three counties. Olivia sent us this question:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Grubert: \u003c/strong>I live in Oakland, and I was curious, can you tell us about the massive crane at Hunters Point? How did it used to operate and why is it still around today?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen Price: \u003c/strong>The Hunters Point Gantry crane is 450 feet tall and 730 feet long. It weighs as much as the Eiffel Tower. It’s an iconic piece of infrastructure, not unlike the Sutro Tower or the Bay Bridge, but perhaps the more underrated cousin. What else is there to know? A whole lot. I’m Olivia Allen Price. On today’s episode, we dig into the Crane’s history by talking to San Francisco locals who see the crane as a piece of ingenuity, but also as a reminder of how actions by the U.S. Navy decades ago still haunt San Franciscans today. We’ll get into all of that just after a quick break. Stay with us.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[SPONSOR MESSAGE]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen Price: \u003c/strong>To help us answer Olivia’s question about the Hunters Point Crane, we’ve got KQED climate reporter Ezra David Romero here. Hey, Ezra.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero: \u003c/strong>Hey, Olivia. Yeah. Whenever I think of the Hunters Point Crane, I always think of those cranes at the Port of Oakland that you can see from the Bay Bridge. I was always told that they inspired the imperial walkers. You know, those like creatures that walk in the snow in the \u003cem>Star Wars\u003c/em> film \u003cem>The Empire Strikes Back\u003c/em>. I personally love that scene where the rebel alliance takes down an imperial walker on the snow planet, Hoth.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen Price: \u003c/strong>But Bay Curious did an episode in 2017 demystifying that idea. George Lucas is on record saying there’s no connection. Sorry, Ezra.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero: \u003c/strong>It may not have inspired George Lucas, but I learned the notion of the crane being related to war isn’t farfetched. James Bryant has lived in the Bayview for more than 40 years. He’s known in the community as a neighborhood historian. I took our question asker Olivia Grubert, to meet him.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>James Bryant: \u003c/strong>This is my house right here. I’m not going to disturb my wife. I’m gonna park here. Watch your step.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero: \u003c/strong>But from his front porch, he sees the old gantry crane off in the distance every single day.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>James Bryant: \u003c/strong>There it is. What a picture. The west coast Statue of Liberty, right here. The Gantry Crane represents what New York has in their bay, we have in our bay.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero: \u003c/strong>To me and Olivia, from this vantage point, it kind of looks like a futuristic metal space dog guarding San Francisco.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>James Bryant: \u003c/strong>It is huge and it’s breathtaking. You ever seen a crane like this anywhere in the world?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Grubert: \u003c/strong>I’m really excited we have this here.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero: \u003c/strong>To understand how the Hunters Point Gantry Crane came to be. We have to go back in time to the late 1940s when the Cold War started between the United States, the Soviet Union, and the respective allies.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[music]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero: \u003c/strong>The crane was built in 1947 for $2.5 million. At this point, it looked like a giant table from afar. On two sides, the crane loaded massive gun turrets on the warships.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>James Bryant: \u003c/strong>The overhead was being operated on two sides of the columns or the boats pulled in and they were being, you know, lifted, loaded.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero: \u003c/strong>All together, it could lift over 1 million pounds. The goal was to fix and load up ships fast so they could get back to battle.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>James Bryant: \u003c/strong>The crane was used for loading like four or five ships at once. It was an idea that, you know what, we’re going to war and we need to load these ships like, right now. Because, you know, these ships were major.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero: \u003c/strong>The Navy also tested missiles on the crane, Polaris missiles, which are hydrogen bomb tipped. I wasn’t able to find any archival recordings of a missile test from the Hunters Point Crane. But here’s what one sounded like in 1960 being shot out of a submarine off the Florida coast.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Archival Tape: \u003c/strong>The George Washington goes down some 50 to 60 feet below the surface and the time for launching is at hand.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero: \u003c/strong>At Hunters Point, the missiles were originally hurled into the bay and then later retrieved. Later they were shot into midair, but an apparatus prevented them from flight. In the 70s, when the Navy wanted to test stronger Poseidon missiles on the crane, they attached a 170 foot arch to strengthen it. Here’s a Poseidon being launched by the Navy off the Florida coast in 1972.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>[Archival Tape]\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero: \u003c/strong>At the shipyard, the Navy decontaminated ships after atomic bomb tests and established the Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory. This process contaminated the soil in and around the base with radioactive chemicals, heavy metals, and petroleum fuels. The Navy base remained active until 1974 and was used by a private company for ship repair after that. The base was declared one of the nation’s most contaminated sites in 1989. The crane has remained unused for decades. While the history of the crane is quite straightforward, its legacy is complex. On one hand, the Navy brought jobs to the Bay Area, much needed jobs for people who had left the South. The shipyard employed as many as 18,000 people at its peak, many of whom were black. They built in-service ships for wartime efforts.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>James Bryant: \u003c/strong>They came up from Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, and, you know, they were looking for some sort of prosperity. And imagine people who went in there, got jobs, ended up being homeowners.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero: \u003c/strong>So, it represented, like, prosperity, like opportunity.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>James Bryant: \u003c/strong>There was two things for people who came up from the south and didn’t have a job. They didn’t have opportunity in those southern states. And it was prosperity because they got to own a home. They got to live in the best weather. You can’t beat this where they can’t beat the Bayview weather, right?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero: \u003c/strong>But on the other hand, the hunters point crane is a reminder of another legacy. Radioactive contamination is still on the ground all these years later. The Navy is working on cleaning up the site. And just last year, two soil samples unearthed radioactive objects there. The Navy did not respond to my emails for comment. But in the past, the Navy defended its remedies. Community advocates like James have for years called for a more thorough cleanup of the site.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>James Bryant: \u003c/strong>It could be eradicated. If it was on the other side of town, it would have been gone. You know what I mean? If it was a Sea Cliff, there would have never been an issue because the value of the homes and stuff, it should be prosperity again. That should switch Bayview Hunters Point from none to prosperity. It could provide jobs.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero: \u003c/strong>In the late 1970s. James worked for the Navy at the shipyard in public relations.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>James Bryant: \u003c/strong>I said, okay, but there’s something about me that you might know up front. And this was that. I don’t lie. I went along with that project for about two years.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero: \u003c/strong>He left that job because he did not agree with a message the Navy wanted to portray about the contamination left at the shipyard. James now owns a public relations firm in the Bayview. All these years later, James is now 70 and still raves about the crane, but is worried about the contamination left in the ground beneath it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>James Bryant: \u003c/strong>You can almost hear the buildings talk to you. There’s history here that no one is talking about. Somehow the Navy ships that went in there were loaded with the nuclear stuff, which is one of the reasons why it is still sitting there, because it was a little contaminated.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero: \u003c/strong>A little contaminated?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>James Bryant: \u003c/strong>Just a little [laughs]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero: \u003c/strong>Someone who knows a lot about this contamination and how it could be hurting the community is Arieann Harrison. We’re at her office.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Arieann Harrison \u003c/strong>How are you? Oh, you look so cute.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero: \u003c/strong>Good to see you.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero: \u003c/strong>I met Ariana a few years ago. Her mom, Marie Harrison, pushed for the cleanup of the shipyard for decades before passing away in 2019 from lung disease. Ariana took up her mom’s mantle in a way, and now leads the Marie Harrison Community Foundation, which is focused on environmental justice.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Arieann Harrison \u003c/strong>Right now, we’re still at, you know, absolutely clean up of the shipyard. Even though we know that there’s a really big, huge chance they’re not going to take all that stuff off from under the ground.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero: \u003c/strong>Erin grew up very close to the shipyard and believes she was exposed to the radioactive contamination. A local doctor tested her for contaminants and found a bunch of them.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Arieann Harrison: \u003c/strong>For me to see elevated levels of lead, which we usually see that in low income areas anyway. And manganese and, you know, radioactive isotopes and metals and all that other stuff that’s not good for you. And then to come back positive for PCI 24 — uranium and plutonium. I mean, come on, man, you know. And you have a scientist as saying that your case is that of people that were serving in the military, people that tested positive for this stuff. Come on. What do you do with that information?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero: \u003c/strong>Because of all that new information, she’s worried her health issues are related to the contamination. The doctor who took Ariana’s tests and more than 150 others plans to create a registry of their results. She wants to expand testing across the community.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Arieann Harrison \u003c/strong>I remain hopeful. If you want to get yourself to our early grave, you can stay bitter, right? And stay angry. That was affecting my health, too. I am still angry and I know that and is still hopeful at the same time, for the future, you know. I have a lot of a vested interest in making sure if it’s the last thing I do, that things improve.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero: \u003c/strong>Ariana believes a more thorough cleanup is needed. She wants all of the contaminated soil removed from the site, but the Navy has removed some of it. IT solutions also include treating or sealing the contaminated soil under a thick layer of asphalt or dirt to contain it. But she’s also worried those remedies aren’t enough because human caused climate change is expected to raise sea levels. That could push water up from underneath the toxic site and spread the contamination into the bay and the community.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Arieann Harrison: \u003c/strong>Later on down the line, a year or two or three from now, because we don’t know what the science is projecting, what sea level rise is going to look like, that this stuff that’s under the ground is definitely going to seep out to the Greater Bay Area.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero: \u003c/strong>Earlier this year, the Navy acknowledged for the first time that potentially toxic groundwater could surface at the shipyard in just over a decade. They say they’ve taken steps to protect against a 100-year storm and three feet of sea level rise like extending a seawall and a landfill cap. Their findings raise questions about the city’s plan to build thousands of homes here. If and when those homes are built. Many will have a view of the Hunters Point crane. For some, it’s an icon to be celebrated. There’s even a whole fan website for the old crane where they sell merchandise and tell some of the history behind it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Arieann Harrison: \u003c/strong>We know that maybe they want to preserve that, which is fine as long as they, you know, do their best to clean up all the crap that’s around it you know. But to me, it signifies that there’s still work to be done. It’s like when you have war, there’s always a fallout.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero: \u003c/strong>It’s just that Arieann doesn’t want that fallout to any longer be on the shores of San Francisco. And in her case, the crane is a daily reminder of contamination left in her community.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[Music]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen Price: \u003c/strong>That was KQED’s Ezra David Romero. Thanks to Olivia Grubert for asking this week’s question. If you’ve got a question you’d like to hear answered on Bay Curious, head to Baycurious.org and ask. Next Monday is the start of Propfest, our podcast series that digs in deep on the propositions on California’s ballot this year. For two weeks, we’ll be dropping a new episode every Monday through Friday, each one covering one of the ten propositions that you’ll be voting on. We hope you’ll tune in so you can vote with confidence on the issues that matter to you. And honestly, the ones that maybe don’t matter to you yet, but you might care more about after you listen. It all kicks off Monday, September 23rd, so be sure you’re subscribed to Bay Curious so you don’t miss a thing. Bay Curious is made in San Francisco at member supported KQED. Our show is made by Amanda Font, Christopher Beal, Ana De Almeida Amaral, and me, Olivia Allen Price. Additional support from Jen Chien, Katrina Schwartz, Maha Sanad, Holly Kernan, and the whole KQED family. I’m Olivia Allen Price. We will see you next Monday. Bye!\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[ad floatright]\u003c/p>\n",
"blocks": [],
"excerpt": "Built in the '40s, the 450-foot-tall, 730-foot-long crane is an iconic Bay Area structure. But it was also part of a process that contaminated the soil in and around the area with radioactive chemicals, heavy metals and petroleum fuels.",
"status": "publish",
"parent": 0,
"modified": 1726856629,
"stats": {
"hasAudio": false,
"hasVideo": false,
"hasChartOrMap": false,
"iframeSrcs": [],
"hasGoogleForm": false,
"hasGallery": false,
"hasHearkenModule": true,
"hasPolis": false,
"paragraphCount": 96,
"wordCount": 4077
},
"headData": {
"title": "The Hunters Point Crane's Legacy Is Both Majestic and Troubling | KQED",
"description": "Built in the '40s, the 450-foot-tall, 730-foot-long crane is an iconic Bay Area structure. But it was also part of a process that contaminated the soil in and around the area with radioactive chemicals, heavy metals and petroleum fuels.",
"ogTitle": "",
"ogDescription": "",
"ogImgId": "",
"twTitle": "",
"twDescription": "",
"twImgId": "",
"schema": {
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "NewsArticle",
"headline": "The Hunters Point Crane's Legacy Is Both Majestic and Troubling",
"datePublished": "2024-09-19T03:00:31-07:00",
"dateModified": "2024-09-20T11:23:49-07:00",
"image": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"isAccessibleForFree": "True",
"publisher": {
"@type": "NewsMediaOrganization",
"@id": "https://www.kqed.org/#organization",
"name": "KQED",
"logo": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"url": "https://www.kqed.org",
"sameAs": [
"https://www.facebook.com/KQED",
"https://twitter.com/KQED",
"https://www.instagram.com/kqed/",
"https://www.tiktok.com/@kqedofficial",
"https://www.linkedin.com/company/kqed",
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeC0IOo7i1P_61zVUWbJ4nw"
]
}
}
},
"audioUrl": "https://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/pdst.fm/e/chrt.fm/track/G6C7C3/traffic.megaphone.fm/KQINC4643811059.mp3?updated=1726731612",
"sticky": false,
"nprStoryId": "kqed-12005257",
"excludeFromSiteSearch": "Include",
"articleAge": "0",
"path": "/news/12005257/the-hunters-point-cranes-legacy-is-both-majestic-and-troubling",
"audioTrackLength": null,
"parsedContent": [
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003cp>\u003ca href=\"#episode-transcript\">\u003cem>View the full episode transcript.\u003c/em>\u003c/a>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003cspan class=\"utils-parseShortcode-shortcodes-__dropcapShortcode__dropcap\">A\u003c/span>\u003c/p>\u003cp>fter breakfast and coffee every morning, James Bryant heads out the front door. From his home on a hill in San Francisco, he sees the Hunters Point Gantry Crane, what he calls the “West Coast Statue of Liberty.” The metal monolith sits on the edge of the Bay at the old Hunters Point Naval Shipyard.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“It is huge, and it’s breathtaking,” said Bryant, who has lived in San Francisco’s Bayview neighborhood for over four decades and is a neighborhood historian. “The gantry crane represents what New York has in their bay, what we have in our bay.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003caside class=\"alignleft utils-parseShortcode-shortcodes-__bayCuriousPodcastShortcode__bayCurious\">\u003cimg src=https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/bayCuriousLogo.png alt=\"Bay Curious Podcast\" loading=\"lazy\" />\n \u003ca href=\"/news/series/baycurious\">Bay Curious\u003c/a> is a podcast that answers your questions about the Bay Area.\n Subscribe on \u003ca href=\"https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/bay-curious/id1172473406\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Apple Podcasts\u003c/a>,\n \u003ca href=\"http://www.npr.org/podcasts/500557090/bay-curious\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">NPR One\u003c/a> or your favorite podcast platform.\u003c/aside>\u003c/p>\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The crane is 450 feet tall and 730 feet long, so big it can be seen from three counties. It weighs as much as the Eiffel Tower. It’s an iconic piece of infrastructure, not unlike the Sutro Tower or the Bay Bridge, but perhaps the more underrated cousin.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The crane was used to load ships from the 1940s to the 1970s. For some, it’s a celebrated Bay Area icon worth. There’s even \u003ca href=\"https://www.hunterspointcrane.com/\">a whole fan website for the old crane\u003c/a>, where they sell merchandise and tell some of its history.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>However, the legacy and effect of the crane are much more profound than its metal form.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Bay Curious listener Olivia Grubert wrote to Bay Curious asking for more information about the crane. So, let’s take a closer look.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "ad",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": "fullwidth"
},
"numeric": [
"fullwidth"
]
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>The crane’s history\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>To understand how the Hunters Point Gantry Crane came to be, we have to go back to the late 1940s when the Cold War started between the United States, the Soviet Union and their respective allies.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The U.S. Navy built the crane in 1947 for $2.5 million. At this point, it looked like a giant table from afar. On two sides, the crane loaded massive gun turrets onto warships. Altogether, it could lift more than a million pounds. The goal was to fix and load up ships fast so they could get back to battle.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_12005067\" class=\"wp-caption alignright\" style=\"max-width: 2000px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-12005067\" src=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/240917-Hunters-Point-Gantry-Crane-SFPL-01-KQED.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"2000\" height=\"1523\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/240917-Hunters-Point-Gantry-Crane-SFPL-01-KQED.jpg 2000w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/240917-Hunters-Point-Gantry-Crane-SFPL-01-KQED-800x609.jpg 800w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/240917-Hunters-Point-Gantry-Crane-SFPL-01-KQED-1020x777.jpg 1020w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/240917-Hunters-Point-Gantry-Crane-SFPL-01-KQED-160x122.jpg 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/240917-Hunters-Point-Gantry-Crane-SFPL-01-KQED-1536x1170.jpg 1536w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/240917-Hunters-Point-Gantry-Crane-SFPL-01-KQED-1920x1462.jpg 1920w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 2000px) 100vw, 2000px\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">The Hunters Point Naval Shipyard in San Francisco on June 25, 1953. \u003ccite>(Courtesy of San Francisco Public Library)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>“The boats would pull in, and they were lifted and loaded,” Bryant said. “The idea was that we’re going to war and need to load these ships right now. These ships were major.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Navy also tested missiles on the crane — Polaris, hydrogen bomb-tipped missiles. At Hunters Point, the Navy initially hurled missiles into the bay and retrieved them after. Later, the military shot them into mid-air, but an apparatus prevented them from flight. In the ’70s, when the Navy wanted to test more potent Poseidon missiles on the crane, they attached a 170-foot arch to strengthen it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>At the shipyard, the Navy also decontaminated ships after atomic bomb tests and established the Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory. This process contaminated the soil in and around the base with radioactive chemicals, heavy metals and petroleum fuels.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The Navy base remained active until 1974, and after that, a private company used the property for ship repair for a short period of time. The base was declared one of the nation’s most contaminated sites in 1989. The crane has remained, standing unused for decades.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_12005326\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 2000px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-12005326\" src=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/240918-HUNTERSPOINTCRANE-12-BL-KQED.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"2000\" height=\"1333\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/240918-HUNTERSPOINTCRANE-12-BL-KQED.jpg 2000w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/240918-HUNTERSPOINTCRANE-12-BL-KQED-800x533.jpg 800w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/240918-HUNTERSPOINTCRANE-12-BL-KQED-1020x680.jpg 1020w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/240918-HUNTERSPOINTCRANE-12-BL-KQED-160x107.jpg 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/240918-HUNTERSPOINTCRANE-12-BL-KQED-1536x1024.jpg 1536w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/240918-HUNTERSPOINTCRANE-12-BL-KQED-1920x1280.jpg 1920w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 2000px) 100vw, 2000px\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">the Hunters Point gantry crane at the naval shipyard in San Francisco on Sept. 18, 2024. \u003ccite>(Beth LaBerge/KQED)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003ch2>A complex legacy\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>While the history of the crane itself is relatively straightforward, its legacy is complex. On one hand, the Navy brought jobs to the Bay Area, much-needed jobs for people who had left the South.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>The shipyard employed as many as 18,000 people at its peak, many of whom were Black. They built and serviced ships for wartime efforts. Bryant said they came from the South — places like Alabama, Mississippi and Texas. For many of them, the shipyard jobs allowed them to buy homes.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Bryant said the crane reminds many people in the Bayview of the prosperity they were afforded by working at the shipyard.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“It was prosperity because they got to own a home,” he said. “They got to live in the best weather. You can’t beat the Bayview weather.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>On the other hand, the Hunters Point Crane is a reminder of another legacy. Radioactive contamination is still in the ground all these years later. The Navy is working on cleaning up the site, and just last year, the Navy \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/science/1985646/radioactive-object-found-at-san-franciscos-hunters-point-naval-shipyard-raises-new-concerns\">unearthed two radioactive objects there\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_12005325\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 2000px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-12005325\" src=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/240918-HUNTERSPOINTCRANE-05-BL-KQED.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"2000\" height=\"1333\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/240918-HUNTERSPOINTCRANE-05-BL-KQED.jpg 2000w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/240918-HUNTERSPOINTCRANE-05-BL-KQED-800x533.jpg 800w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/240918-HUNTERSPOINTCRANE-05-BL-KQED-1020x680.jpg 1020w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/240918-HUNTERSPOINTCRANE-05-BL-KQED-160x107.jpg 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/240918-HUNTERSPOINTCRANE-05-BL-KQED-1536x1024.jpg 1536w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/240918-HUNTERSPOINTCRANE-05-BL-KQED-1920x1280.jpg 1920w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 2000px) 100vw, 2000px\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">An abandoned building at the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard in San Francisco on Sept. 18, 2024. \u003ccite>(Beth LaBerge/KQED)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>The Navy did not respond to KQED’s email with a comment. But in the past, the Navy defended its remedies.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Community advocates like Bryant have called for a more thorough site cleanup for years.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“It can be eradicated. If it were on the other side of town, it would have been gone,” said Byrant, who worked for the Navy in the 1970s at the shipyard in public relations.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>All these years later, Bryant is now 70 and still raves about the crane but is worried about the contamination in the ground beneath it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“You can almost hear the buildings talking to you, [saying] there’s history here that no one’s talking about,” he said. “The Navy ships that went in there were loaded with nuclear stuff, which is one of the reasons why it is still sitting there because it was a little contaminated.”\u003c/p>\n\u003ch2>‘Still work to be done’\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>Someone who knows a lot about this contamination and how it could be hurting the community is Arieann Harrison.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Harrison’s mother, Marie Harrison, pushed for the cleanup of the shipyard for decades before passing away in 2019 from lung disease. Harrison took up her mantle in a way and now leads the Marie Harrison Community Foundation, focused on environmental justice.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>She is \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/science/1979614/for-these-black-bayview-hunters-point-residents-reparations-include-safeguarding-against-rising-toxic-contamination\">advocating for an “absolute cleanup of the shipyard.\u003c/a>” But she believes there’s a “huge chance” the Navy will leave contamination in the ground.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Harrison grew up very close to the shipyard and believes over time, she was exposed to radioactive contamination. A local doctor tested her for contaminants and found high levels of a bunch of them — contaminants like lead, manganese, uranium and plutonium.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>A scientist told her that her case looks like “that of people serving in the military.” Because of all that new information, she’s worried her health issues are related to the contamination. The doctor who took Harrison’s tests and those of more than 150 others plans to create a registry of their results. She wants to expand testing across the community.\u003c/p>\n\u003cfigure id=\"attachment_12005327\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\" style=\"max-width: 2000px\">\u003cimg loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"size-full wp-image-12005327\" src=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/240918-HUNTERSPOINTCRANE-14-BL-KQED.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"2000\" height=\"1333\" srcset=\"https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/240918-HUNTERSPOINTCRANE-14-BL-KQED.jpg 2000w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/240918-HUNTERSPOINTCRANE-14-BL-KQED-800x533.jpg 800w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/240918-HUNTERSPOINTCRANE-14-BL-KQED-1020x680.jpg 1020w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/240918-HUNTERSPOINTCRANE-14-BL-KQED-160x107.jpg 160w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/240918-HUNTERSPOINTCRANE-14-BL-KQED-1536x1024.jpg 1536w, https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2024/09/240918-HUNTERSPOINTCRANE-14-BL-KQED-1920x1280.jpg 1920w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 2000px) 100vw, 2000px\">\u003cfigcaption class=\"wp-caption-text\">James Bryant stands at Hillpoint Park overlooking the Hunters Point gantry crane at the naval shipyard in San Francisco on Sept. 18, 2024. \u003ccite>(Beth LaBerge/KQED)\u003c/cite>\u003c/figcaption>\u003c/figure>\n\u003cp>“I am still angry, and I am still hopeful for the future,” she said. “I have a lot of a vested interest in making sure that if it’s the last thing I do, things improve.”\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Harrison wants all the contaminated soil removed from the site. The Navy has removed some of it. Its solutions also include treating or sealing the contaminated soil under a thick layer of asphalt or dirt to contain it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>But Harrison worries those remedies aren’t enough because scientists expect human-caused climate change to raise sea levels. That could push water up from underneath the toxic site and spread the contamination into the Bay and the community.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Unless the Navy removes toxic soil, she believes rising seas will cause the contamination “to seep out into the greater Bay Area.” Over the last year, the Navy announced it found several radioactive objects within the site, \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/science/1985646/radioactive-object-found-at-san-franciscos-hunters-point-naval-shipyard-raises-new-concerns\">raising concerns about the efficacy of the cleanup\u003c/a>.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Earlier this year, the Navy acknowledged for \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/news/11979473/us-navy-acknowledges-toxic-groundwater-rising-in-bayview-hunters-point\">the first time that potentially toxic groundwater could surface at the shipyard in just over a decade\u003c/a>. The Navy said it’s taken steps to protect against a 100-year storm and three feet of sea-level rise, like extending a seawall and landfill cap.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>In June, an environmental justice nonprofit filed \u003ca href=\"https://www.kqed.org/science/1993505/cleanup-of-san-francisco-superfund-site-has-been-badly-mishandled-lawsuit-alleges\">a lawsuit alleging “egregious” mishandling of the cleanup of radioactive contamination\u003c/a> at the site.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>Harrison is apprehensive about the contamination left underground because the city of San Francisco hopes to allow developers to build \u003ca href=\"https://sfocii.org/projects/hunters-point-shipyard-candlestick-point-2/overview\">thousands of homes on the site\u003c/a>. If and when developers build those homes, many people who live in them will have a view of the Hunters Point Crane.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>For Harrison, the crane is a daily reminder of the contamination left in her community.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>“To me, [the crane] signifies that there’s still work to be done,” she said.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "component",
"content": "",
"name": "baycuriousquestion",
"attributes": {
"named": {
"label": ""
},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-body\">\u003c/div>",
"attributes": {
"named": {},
"numeric": []
}
},
{
"type": "contentString",
"content": "\u003cdiv class=\"post-content post-body\">\u003ch2 id=\"episode-transcript\">Episode Transcript\u003c/h2>\n\u003cp>\u003ci>This is a computer-generated transcript. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.\u003c/i>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen Price: \u003c/strong>Every time Olivia Grubert drives over the Bay Bridge from Oakland, she notices this thing perched on the edge of the bay on the south side of the city.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Grubert:\u003c/strong> You see this massive structure just kind of all by itself. And it seems that no one really knows too much about it. I keep pointing it out.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen Price: \u003c/strong>It turns out that metal monolith has a name. It’s called the Hunters Point Gantry Crane. From a distance, you see the structure looks like an outline of a dining table with four legs and a rectangular top on top of that table on one side. A wide arch reaches up to the sky. And this thing is big. So big it can be seen from at least three counties. Olivia sent us this question:\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Grubert: \u003c/strong>I live in Oakland, and I was curious, can you tell us about the massive crane at Hunters Point? How did it used to operate and why is it still around today?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen Price: \u003c/strong>The Hunters Point Gantry crane is 450 feet tall and 730 feet long. It weighs as much as the Eiffel Tower. It’s an iconic piece of infrastructure, not unlike the Sutro Tower or the Bay Bridge, but perhaps the more underrated cousin. What else is there to know? A whole lot. I’m Olivia Allen Price. On today’s episode, we dig into the Crane’s history by talking to San Francisco locals who see the crane as a piece of ingenuity, but also as a reminder of how actions by the U.S. Navy decades ago still haunt San Franciscans today. We’ll get into all of that just after a quick break. Stay with us.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[SPONSOR MESSAGE]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen Price: \u003c/strong>To help us answer Olivia’s question about the Hunters Point Crane, we’ve got KQED climate reporter Ezra David Romero here. Hey, Ezra.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero: \u003c/strong>Hey, Olivia. Yeah. Whenever I think of the Hunters Point Crane, I always think of those cranes at the Port of Oakland that you can see from the Bay Bridge. I was always told that they inspired the imperial walkers. You know, those like creatures that walk in the snow in the \u003cem>Star Wars\u003c/em> film \u003cem>The Empire Strikes Back\u003c/em>. I personally love that scene where the rebel alliance takes down an imperial walker on the snow planet, Hoth.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen Price: \u003c/strong>But Bay Curious did an episode in 2017 demystifying that idea. George Lucas is on record saying there’s no connection. Sorry, Ezra.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero: \u003c/strong>It may not have inspired George Lucas, but I learned the notion of the crane being related to war isn’t farfetched. James Bryant has lived in the Bayview for more than 40 years. He’s known in the community as a neighborhood historian. I took our question asker Olivia Grubert, to meet him.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>James Bryant: \u003c/strong>This is my house right here. I’m not going to disturb my wife. I’m gonna park here. Watch your step.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero: \u003c/strong>But from his front porch, he sees the old gantry crane off in the distance every single day.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>James Bryant: \u003c/strong>There it is. What a picture. The west coast Statue of Liberty, right here. The Gantry Crane represents what New York has in their bay, we have in our bay.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero: \u003c/strong>To me and Olivia, from this vantage point, it kind of looks like a futuristic metal space dog guarding San Francisco.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>James Bryant: \u003c/strong>It is huge and it’s breathtaking. You ever seen a crane like this anywhere in the world?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Grubert: \u003c/strong>I’m really excited we have this here.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero: \u003c/strong>To understand how the Hunters Point Gantry Crane came to be. We have to go back in time to the late 1940s when the Cold War started between the United States, the Soviet Union, and the respective allies.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[music]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero: \u003c/strong>The crane was built in 1947 for $2.5 million. At this point, it looked like a giant table from afar. On two sides, the crane loaded massive gun turrets on the warships.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>James Bryant: \u003c/strong>The overhead was being operated on two sides of the columns or the boats pulled in and they were being, you know, lifted, loaded.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero: \u003c/strong>All together, it could lift over 1 million pounds. The goal was to fix and load up ships fast so they could get back to battle.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>James Bryant: \u003c/strong>The crane was used for loading like four or five ships at once. It was an idea that, you know what, we’re going to war and we need to load these ships like, right now. Because, you know, these ships were major.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero: \u003c/strong>The Navy also tested missiles on the crane, Polaris missiles, which are hydrogen bomb tipped. I wasn’t able to find any archival recordings of a missile test from the Hunters Point Crane. But here’s what one sounded like in 1960 being shot out of a submarine off the Florida coast.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Archival Tape: \u003c/strong>The George Washington goes down some 50 to 60 feet below the surface and the time for launching is at hand.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero: \u003c/strong>At Hunters Point, the missiles were originally hurled into the bay and then later retrieved. Later they were shot into midair, but an apparatus prevented them from flight. In the 70s, when the Navy wanted to test stronger Poseidon missiles on the crane, they attached a 170 foot arch to strengthen it. Here’s a Poseidon being launched by the Navy off the Florida coast in 1972.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>[Archival Tape]\u003c/strong>\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero: \u003c/strong>At the shipyard, the Navy decontaminated ships after atomic bomb tests and established the Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory. This process contaminated the soil in and around the base with radioactive chemicals, heavy metals, and petroleum fuels. The Navy base remained active until 1974 and was used by a private company for ship repair after that. The base was declared one of the nation’s most contaminated sites in 1989. The crane has remained unused for decades. While the history of the crane is quite straightforward, its legacy is complex. On one hand, the Navy brought jobs to the Bay Area, much needed jobs for people who had left the South. The shipyard employed as many as 18,000 people at its peak, many of whom were black. They built in-service ships for wartime efforts.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>James Bryant: \u003c/strong>They came up from Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, and, you know, they were looking for some sort of prosperity. And imagine people who went in there, got jobs, ended up being homeowners.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero: \u003c/strong>So, it represented, like, prosperity, like opportunity.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>James Bryant: \u003c/strong>There was two things for people who came up from the south and didn’t have a job. They didn’t have opportunity in those southern states. And it was prosperity because they got to own a home. They got to live in the best weather. You can’t beat this where they can’t beat the Bayview weather, right?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero: \u003c/strong>But on the other hand, the hunters point crane is a reminder of another legacy. Radioactive contamination is still on the ground all these years later. The Navy is working on cleaning up the site. And just last year, two soil samples unearthed radioactive objects there. The Navy did not respond to my emails for comment. But in the past, the Navy defended its remedies. Community advocates like James have for years called for a more thorough cleanup of the site.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>James Bryant: \u003c/strong>It could be eradicated. If it was on the other side of town, it would have been gone. You know what I mean? If it was a Sea Cliff, there would have never been an issue because the value of the homes and stuff, it should be prosperity again. That should switch Bayview Hunters Point from none to prosperity. It could provide jobs.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero: \u003c/strong>In the late 1970s. James worked for the Navy at the shipyard in public relations.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>James Bryant: \u003c/strong>I said, okay, but there’s something about me that you might know up front. And this was that. I don’t lie. I went along with that project for about two years.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero: \u003c/strong>He left that job because he did not agree with a message the Navy wanted to portray about the contamination left at the shipyard. James now owns a public relations firm in the Bayview. All these years later, James is now 70 and still raves about the crane, but is worried about the contamination left in the ground beneath it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>James Bryant: \u003c/strong>You can almost hear the buildings talk to you. There’s history here that no one is talking about. Somehow the Navy ships that went in there were loaded with the nuclear stuff, which is one of the reasons why it is still sitting there, because it was a little contaminated.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero: \u003c/strong>A little contaminated?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>James Bryant: \u003c/strong>Just a little [laughs]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero: \u003c/strong>Someone who knows a lot about this contamination and how it could be hurting the community is Arieann Harrison. We’re at her office.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Arieann Harrison \u003c/strong>How are you? Oh, you look so cute.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero: \u003c/strong>Good to see you.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero: \u003c/strong>I met Ariana a few years ago. Her mom, Marie Harrison, pushed for the cleanup of the shipyard for decades before passing away in 2019 from lung disease. Ariana took up her mom’s mantle in a way, and now leads the Marie Harrison Community Foundation, which is focused on environmental justice.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Arieann Harrison \u003c/strong>Right now, we’re still at, you know, absolutely clean up of the shipyard. Even though we know that there’s a really big, huge chance they’re not going to take all that stuff off from under the ground.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero: \u003c/strong>Erin grew up very close to the shipyard and believes she was exposed to the radioactive contamination. A local doctor tested her for contaminants and found a bunch of them.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Arieann Harrison: \u003c/strong>For me to see elevated levels of lead, which we usually see that in low income areas anyway. And manganese and, you know, radioactive isotopes and metals and all that other stuff that’s not good for you. And then to come back positive for PCI 24 — uranium and plutonium. I mean, come on, man, you know. And you have a scientist as saying that your case is that of people that were serving in the military, people that tested positive for this stuff. Come on. What do you do with that information?\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero: \u003c/strong>Because of all that new information, she’s worried her health issues are related to the contamination. The doctor who took Ariana’s tests and more than 150 others plans to create a registry of their results. She wants to expand testing across the community.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Arieann Harrison \u003c/strong>I remain hopeful. If you want to get yourself to our early grave, you can stay bitter, right? And stay angry. That was affecting my health, too. I am still angry and I know that and is still hopeful at the same time, for the future, you know. I have a lot of a vested interest in making sure if it’s the last thing I do, that things improve.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero: \u003c/strong>Ariana believes a more thorough cleanup is needed. She wants all of the contaminated soil removed from the site, but the Navy has removed some of it. IT solutions also include treating or sealing the contaminated soil under a thick layer of asphalt or dirt to contain it. But she’s also worried those remedies aren’t enough because human caused climate change is expected to raise sea levels. That could push water up from underneath the toxic site and spread the contamination into the bay and the community.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Arieann Harrison: \u003c/strong>Later on down the line, a year or two or three from now, because we don’t know what the science is projecting, what sea level rise is going to look like, that this stuff that’s under the ground is definitely going to seep out to the Greater Bay Area.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero: \u003c/strong>Earlier this year, the Navy acknowledged for the first time that potentially toxic groundwater could surface at the shipyard in just over a decade. They say they’ve taken steps to protect against a 100-year storm and three feet of sea level rise like extending a seawall and a landfill cap. Their findings raise questions about the city’s plan to build thousands of homes here. If and when those homes are built. Many will have a view of the Hunters Point crane. For some, it’s an icon to be celebrated. There’s even a whole fan website for the old crane where they sell merchandise and tell some of the history behind it.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Arieann Harrison: \u003c/strong>We know that maybe they want to preserve that, which is fine as long as they, you know, do their best to clean up all the crap that’s around it you know. But to me, it signifies that there’s still work to be done. It’s like when you have war, there’s always a fallout.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Ezra David Romero: \u003c/strong>It’s just that Arieann doesn’t want that fallout to any longer be on the shores of San Francisco. And in her case, the crane is a daily reminder of contamination left in her community.\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>[Music]\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003cstrong>Olivia Allen Price: \u003c/strong>That was KQED’s Ezra David Romero. Thanks to Olivia Grubert for asking this week’s question. If you’ve got a question you’d like to hear answered on Bay Curious, head to Baycurious.org and ask. Next Monday is the start of Propfest, our podcast series that digs in deep on the propositions on California’s ballot this year. For two weeks, we’ll be dropping a new episode every Monday through Friday, each one covering one of the ten propositions that you’ll be voting on. We hope you’ll tune in so you can vote with confidence on the issues that matter to you. And honestly, the ones that maybe don’t matter to you yet, but you might care more about after you listen. It all kicks off Monday, September 23rd, so be sure you’re subscribed to Bay Curious so you don’t miss a thing. Bay Curious is made in San Francisco at member supported KQED. Our show is made by Amanda Font, Christopher Beal, Ana De Almeida Amaral, and me, Olivia Allen Price. Additional support from Jen Chien, Katrina Schwartz, Maha Sanad, Holly Kernan, and the whole KQED family. I’m Olivia Allen Price. We will see you next Monday. Bye!\u003c/p>\n\u003cp>\u003c/p>\n\u003c/div>"
}
],
"link": "/news/12005257/the-hunters-point-cranes-legacy-is-both-majestic-and-troubling",
"authors": [
"11746"
],
"programs": [
"news_33523"
],
"series": [
"news_17986"
],
"categories": [
"news_19906",
"news_8",
"news_356"
],
"tags": [
"news_18426",
"news_1700",
"news_20023",
"news_27626"
],
"featImg": "news_12005328",
"label": "news_33523"
}
},
"podcastsReducer": {
"isFetching": false,
"fetchFailed": false,
"hasFetched": false,
"podcasts": {}
},
"radioProgramsReducer": {
"isFetching": false,
"fetchFailed": false,
"hasFetched": false,
"radioPrograms": {}
},
"radioSearchSegmentsReducer": {},
"programsReducer": {
"all-things-considered": {
"id": "all-things-considered",
"title": "All Things Considered",
"info": "Every weekday, \u003cem>All Things Considered\u003c/em> hosts Robert Siegel, Audie Cornish, Ari Shapiro, and Kelly McEvers present the program's trademark mix of news, interviews, commentaries, reviews, and offbeat features. Michel Martin hosts on the weekends.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 1pm-2pm, 4:30pm-6:30pm\u003cbr />SAT-SUN 5pm-6pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/All-Things-Considered-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/all-things-considered/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/all-things-considered"
},
"american-suburb-podcast": {
"id": "american-suburb-podcast",
"title": "American Suburb: The Podcast",
"tagline": "The flip side of gentrification, told through one town",
"info": "Gentrification is changing cities across America, forcing people from neighborhoods they have long called home. Call them the displaced. Now those priced out of the Bay Area are looking for a better life in an unlikely place. American Suburb follows this migration to one California town along the Delta, 45 miles from San Francisco. But is this once sleepy suburb ready for them?",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/American-Suburb-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/news/series/american-suburb-podcast",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 19
},
"link": "/news/series/american-suburb-podcast/",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/RBrW",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?mt=2&id=1287748328",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/American-Suburb-p1086805/",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/series/american-suburb-podcast/feed/podcast",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkMzMDExODgxNjA5"
}
},
"baycurious": {
"id": "baycurious",
"title": "Bay Curious",
"tagline": "Exploring the Bay Area, one question at a time",
"info": "KQED’s new podcast, Bay Curious, gets to the bottom of the mysteries — both profound and peculiar — that give the Bay Area its unique identity. And we’ll do it with your help! You ask the questions. You decide what Bay Curious investigates. And you join us on the journey to find the answers.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Bay-Curious-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Bay Curious",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/news/series/baycurious",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 3
},
"link": "/podcasts/baycurious",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/bay-curious/id1172473406",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/500557090/bay-curious",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/category/bay-curious-podcast/feed/podcast",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/9a90d476-aa04-455d-9a4c-0871ed6216d4/bay-curious",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/bay-curious",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/6O76IdmhixfijmhTZLIJ8k"
}
},
"bbc-world-service": {
"id": "bbc-world-service",
"title": "BBC World Service",
"info": "The day's top stories from BBC News compiled twice daily in the week, once at weekends.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 9pm-10pm, TUE-FRI 1am-2am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/BBC-World-Service-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/live:bbc_world_service",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "BBC World Service"
},
"link": "/radio/program/bbc-world-service",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/global-news-podcast/id135067274?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/BBC-World-Service-p455581/",
"rss": "https://podcasts.files.bbci.co.uk/p02nq0gn.rss"
}
},
"californiareport": {
"id": "californiareport",
"title": "The California Report",
"tagline": "California, day by day",
"info": "KQED’s statewide radio news program providing daily coverage of issues, trends and public policy decisions.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-California-Report-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The California Report",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/californiareport",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 8
},
"link": "/californiareport",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/kqeds-the-california-report/id79681292",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/26099305-72af-4542-9dde-ac1807fe36d5/kqed-s-the-california-report",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/432285393/the-california-report",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqedfm-kqeds-the-california-report-podcast-8838",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/tag/tcram/feed/podcast"
}
},
"californiareportmagazine": {
"id": "californiareportmagazine",
"title": "The California Report Magazine",
"tagline": "Your state, your stories",
"info": "Every week, The California Report Magazine takes you on a road trip for the ears: to visit the places and meet the people who make California unique. The in-depth storytelling podcast from the California Report.",
"airtime": "FRI 4:30pm-5pm, 6:30pm-7pm, 11pm-11:30pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-California-Report-Magazine-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The California Report Magazine",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/californiareportmagazine",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 10
},
"link": "/californiareportmagazine",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-california-report-magazine/id1314750545",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkM3NjkwNjk1OTAz",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/564733126/the-california-report-magazine",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/the-california-report-magazine",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/tag/tcrmag/feed/podcast"
}
},
"city-arts": {
"id": "city-arts",
"title": "City Arts & Lectures",
"info": "A one-hour radio program to hear celebrated writers, artists and thinkers address contemporary ideas and values, often discussing the creative process. Please note: tapes or transcripts are not available",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/05/cityartsandlecture-300x300.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.cityarts.net/",
"airtime": "SUN 1pm-2pm, TUE 10pm, WED 1am",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "City Arts & Lectures"
},
"link": "https://www.cityarts.net",
"subscribe": {
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/City-Arts-and-Lectures-p692/",
"rss": "https://www.cityarts.net/feed/"
}
},
"closealltabs": {
"id": "closealltabs",
"title": "Close All Tabs",
"tagline": "Your irreverent guide to the trends redefining our world",
"info": "Close All Tabs breaks down how digital culture shapes our world through thoughtful insights and irreverent humor.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/CAT_2_Tile-scaled.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Close All Tabs",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/closealltabs",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 1
},
"link": "/podcasts/closealltabs",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/close-all-tabs/id214663465",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC6993880386",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/92d9d4ac-67a3-4eed-b10a-fb45d45b1ef2/close-all-tabs",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/6LAJFHnGK1pYXYzv6SIol6?si=deb0cae19813417c"
}
},
"code-switch-life-kit": {
"id": "code-switch-life-kit",
"title": "Code Switch / Life Kit",
"info": "\u003cem>Code Switch\u003c/em>, which listeners will hear in the first part of the hour, has fearless and much-needed conversations about race. Hosted by journalists of color, the show tackles the subject of race head-on, exploring how it impacts every part of society — from politics and pop culture to history, sports and more.\u003cbr />\u003cbr />\u003cem>Life Kit\u003c/em>, which will be in the second part of the hour, guides you through spaces and feelings no one prepares you for — from finances to mental health, from workplace microaggressions to imposter syndrome, from relationships to parenting. The show features experts with real world experience and shares their knowledge. Because everyone needs a little help being human.\u003cbr />\u003cbr />\u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510312/codeswitch\">\u003cem>Code Switch\u003c/em> offical site and podcast\u003c/a>\u003cbr />\u003ca href=\"https://www.npr.org/lifekit\">\u003cem>Life Kit\u003c/em> offical site and podcast\u003c/a>\u003cbr />",
"airtime": "SUN 9pm-10pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Code-Switch-Life-Kit-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/code-switch-life-kit",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/podcast/1112190608?mt=2&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubnByLm9yZy9yc3MvcG9kY2FzdC5waHA_aWQ9NTEwMzEy",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/3bExJ9JQpkwNhoHvaIIuyV",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510312/podcast.xml"
}
},
"commonwealth-club": {
"id": "commonwealth-club",
"title": "Commonwealth Club of California Podcast",
"info": "The Commonwealth Club of California is the nation's oldest and largest public affairs forum. As a non-partisan forum, The Club brings to the public airwaves diverse viewpoints on important topics. The Club's weekly radio broadcast - the oldest in the U.S., dating back to 1924 - is carried across the nation on public radio stations and is now podcasting. Our website archive features audio of our recent programs, as well as selected speeches from our long and distinguished history. This podcast feed is usually updated twice a week and is always un-edited.",
"airtime": "THU 10pm, FRI 1am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Commonwealth-Club-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.commonwealthclub.org/podcasts",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "Commonwealth Club of California"
},
"link": "/radio/program/commonwealth-club",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/commonwealth-club-of-california-podcast/id976334034?mt=2",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5jb21tb253ZWFsdGhjbHViLm9yZy9hdWRpby9wb2RjYXN0L3dlZWtseS54bWw",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Commonwealth-Club-of-California-p1060/"
}
},
"forum": {
"id": "forum",
"title": "Forum",
"tagline": "The conversation starts here",
"info": "KQED’s live call-in program discussing local, state, national and international issues, as well as in-depth interviews.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 9am-11am, 10pm-11pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Forum-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Forum with Mina Kim and Alexis Madrigal",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/forum",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 9
},
"link": "/forum",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/kqeds-forum/id73329719",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkM5NTU3MzgxNjMz",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/432307980/forum",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqedfm-kqeds-forum-podcast",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC9557381633"
}
},
"freakonomics-radio": {
"id": "freakonomics-radio",
"title": "Freakonomics Radio",
"info": "Freakonomics Radio is a one-hour award-winning podcast and public-radio project hosted by Stephen Dubner, with co-author Steve Levitt as a regular guest. It is produced in partnership with WNYC.",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/05/freakonomicsRadio.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "http://freakonomics.com/",
"airtime": "SUN 1am-2am, SAT 3pm-4pm",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "WNYC"
},
"link": "/radio/program/freakonomics-radio",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/4s8b",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/freakonomics-radio/id354668519",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/WNYC-Podcasts/Freakonomics-Radio-p272293/",
"rss": "https://feeds.feedburner.com/freakonomicsradio"
}
},
"fresh-air": {
"id": "fresh-air",
"title": "Fresh Air",
"info": "Hosted by Terry Gross, \u003cem>Fresh Air from WHYY\u003c/em> is the Peabody Award-winning weekday magazine of contemporary arts and issues. One of public radio's most popular programs, Fresh Air features intimate conversations with today's biggest luminaries.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 7pm-8pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Fresh-Air-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/fresh-air/",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/fresh-air",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/4s8b",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=214089682&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Fresh-Air-p17/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/381444908/podcast.xml"
}
},
"here-and-now": {
"id": "here-and-now",
"title": "Here & Now",
"info": "A live production of NPR and WBUR Boston, in collaboration with stations across the country, Here & Now reflects the fluid world of news as it's happening in the middle of the day, with timely, in-depth news, interviews and conversation. Hosted by Robin Young, Jeremy Hobson and Tonya Mosley.",
"airtime": "MON-THU 11am-12pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Here-And-Now-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "http://www.wbur.org/hereandnow",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/here-and-now",
"subsdcribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?mt=2&id=426698661",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Here--Now-p211/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510051/podcast.xml"
}
},
"hidden-brain": {
"id": "hidden-brain",
"title": "Hidden Brain",
"info": "Shankar Vedantam uses science and storytelling to reveal the unconscious patterns that drive human behavior, shape our choices and direct our relationships.",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/05/hiddenbrain.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/series/423302056/hidden-brain",
"airtime": "SUN 7pm-8pm",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "NPR"
},
"link": "/radio/program/hidden-brain",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/hidden-brain/id1028908750?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/Science-Podcasts/Hidden-Brain-p787503/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510308/podcast.xml"
}
},
"how-i-built-this": {
"id": "how-i-built-this",
"title": "How I Built This with Guy Raz",
"info": "Guy Raz dives into the stories behind some of the world's best known companies. How I Built This weaves a narrative journey about innovators, entrepreneurs and idealists—and the movements they built.",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/05/howIBuiltThis.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510313/how-i-built-this",
"airtime": "SUN 7:30pm-8pm",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/how-i-built-this",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/3zxy",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/how-i-built-this-with-guy-raz/id1150510297?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/Arts--Culture-Podcasts/How-I-Built-This-p910896/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510313/podcast.xml"
}
},
"hyphenacion": {
"id": "hyphenacion",
"title": "Hyphenación",
"tagline": "Where conversation and cultura meet",
"info": "What kind of no sabo word is Hyphenación? For us, it’s about living within a hyphenation. Like being a third-gen Mexican-American from the Texas border now living that Bay Area Chicano life. Like Xorje! Each week we bring together a couple of hyphenated Latinos to talk all about personal life choices: family, careers, relationships, belonging … everything is on the table. ",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Hyphenacion_FinalAssets_PodcastTile.png",
"imageAlt": "KQED Hyphenación",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/hyphenacion",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 15
},
"link": "/podcasts/hyphenacion",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/hyphenaci%C3%B3n/id1191591838",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/2p3Fifq96nw9BPcmFdIq0o?si=39209f7b25774f38",
"youtube": "https://www.youtube.com/c/kqedarts",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/6c3dd23c-93fb-4aab-97ba-1725fa6315f1/hyphenaci%C3%B3n",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC2275451163"
}
},
"jerrybrown": {
"id": "jerrybrown",
"title": "The Political Mind of Jerry Brown",
"tagline": "Lessons from a lifetime in politics",
"info": "The Political Mind of Jerry Brown brings listeners the wisdom of the former Governor, Mayor, and presidential candidate. Scott Shafer interviewed Brown for more than 40 hours, covering the former governor's life and half-century in the political game – and Brown has some lessons he'd like to share. ",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-Political-Mind-of-Jerry-Brown-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The Political Mind of Jerry Brown",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/jerrybrown",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 18
},
"link": "/podcasts/jerrybrown",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/790253322/the-political-mind-of-jerry-brown",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/id1492194549",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/series/jerrybrown/feed/podcast/",
"tuneIn": "http://tun.in/pjGcK",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/the-political-mind-of-jerry-brown",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/54C1dmuyFyKMFttY6X2j6r?si=K8SgRCoISNK6ZbjpXrX5-w",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/44420f75-3b0e-4301-ab3b-16da6b09e543/the-political-mind-of-jerry-brown"
}
},
"latino-usa": {
"id": "latino-usa",
"title": "Latino USA",
"airtime": "MON 1am-2am, SUN 6pm-7pm",
"info": "Latino USA, the radio journal of news and culture, is the only national, English-language radio program produced from a Latino perspective.",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/latinoUsa.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "http://latinousa.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/latino-usa",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/xtTd",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=79681317&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Latino-USA-p621/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510016/podcast.xml"
}
},
"marketplace": {
"id": "marketplace",
"title": "Marketplace",
"info": "Our flagship program, helmed by Kai Ryssdal, examines what the day in money delivered, through stories, conversations, newsworthy numbers and more. Updated Monday through Friday at about 3:30 p.m. PT.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 4pm-4:30pm, MON-WED 6:30pm-7pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Marketplace-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.marketplace.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "American Public Media"
},
"link": "/radio/program/marketplace",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=201853034&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/APM-Marketplace-p88/",
"rss": "https://feeds.publicradio.org/public_feeds/marketplace-pm/rss/rss"
}
},
"masters-of-scale": {
"id": "masters-of-scale",
"title": "Masters of Scale",
"info": "Masters of Scale is an original podcast in which LinkedIn co-founder and Greylock Partner Reid Hoffman sets out to describe and prove theories that explain how great entrepreneurs take their companies from zero to a gazillion in ingenious fashion.",
"airtime": "Every other Wednesday June 12 through October 16 at 8pm (repeats Thursdays at 2am)",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Masters-of-Scale-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://mastersofscale.com/",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "WaitWhat"
},
"link": "/radio/program/masters-of-scale",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "http://mastersofscale.app.link/",
"rss": "https://rss.art19.com/masters-of-scale"
}
},
"mindshift": {
"id": "mindshift",
"title": "MindShift",
"tagline": "A podcast about the future of learning and how we raise our kids",
"info": "The MindShift podcast explores the innovations in education that are shaping how kids learn. Hosts Ki Sung and Katrina Schwartz introduce listeners to educators, researchers, parents and students who are developing effective ways to improve how kids learn. We cover topics like how fed-up administrators are developing surprising tactics to deal with classroom disruptions; how listening to podcasts are helping kids develop reading skills; the consequences of overparenting; and why interdisciplinary learning can engage students on all ends of the traditional achievement spectrum. This podcast is part of the MindShift education site, a division of KQED News. KQED is an NPR/PBS member station based in San Francisco. You can also visit the MindShift website for episodes and supplemental blog posts or tweet us \u003ca href=\"https://twitter.com/MindShiftKQED\">@MindShiftKQED\u003c/a> or visit us at \u003ca href=\"/mindshift\">MindShift.KQED.org\u003c/a>",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Mindshift-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED MindShift: How We Will Learn",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/mindshift/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 12
},
"link": "/podcasts/mindshift",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/mindshift-podcast/id1078765985",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkM1NzY0NjAwNDI5",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/464615685/mind-shift-podcast",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/stories-teachers-share",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/0MxSpNYZKNprFLCl7eEtyx"
}
},
"morning-edition": {
"id": "morning-edition",
"title": "Morning Edition",
"info": "\u003cem>Morning Edition\u003c/em> takes listeners around the country and the world with multi-faceted stories and commentaries every weekday. Hosts Steve Inskeep, David Greene and Rachel Martin bring you the latest breaking news and features to prepare you for the day.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 3am-9am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Morning-Edition-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/morning-edition/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/morning-edition"
},
"onourwatch": {
"id": "onourwatch",
"title": "On Our Watch",
"tagline": "Deeply-reported investigative journalism",
"info": "For decades, the process for how police police themselves has been inconsistent – if not opaque. In some states, like California, these proceedings were completely hidden. After a new police transparency law unsealed scores of internal affairs files, our reporters set out to examine these cases and the shadow world of police discipline. On Our Watch brings listeners into the rooms where officers are questioned and witnesses are interrogated to find out who this system is really protecting. Is it the officers, or the public they've sworn to serve?",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/On-Our-Watch-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "On Our Watch from NPR and KQED",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/onourwatch",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 11
},
"link": "/podcasts/onourwatch",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/podcast/id1567098962",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5ucHIub3JnLzUxMDM2MC9wb2RjYXN0LnhtbD9zYz1nb29nbGVwb2RjYXN0cw",
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/onourwatch",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/0OLWoyizopu6tY1XiuX70x",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/On-Our-Watch-p1436229/",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/show/on-our-watch",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510360/podcast.xml"
}
},
"on-the-media": {
"id": "on-the-media",
"title": "On The Media",
"info": "Our weekly podcast explores how the media 'sausage' is made, casts an incisive eye on fluctuations in the marketplace of ideas, and examines threats to the freedom of information and expression in America and abroad. For one hour a week, the show tries to lift the veil from the process of \"making media,\" especially news media, because it's through that lens that we see the world and the world sees us",
"airtime": "SUN 2pm-3pm, MON 12am-1am",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/onTheMedia.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/otm",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "wnyc"
},
"link": "/radio/program/on-the-media",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/on-the-media/id73330715?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/On-the-Media-p69/",
"rss": "http://feeds.wnyc.org/onthemedia"
}
},
"pbs-newshour": {
"id": "pbs-newshour",
"title": "PBS NewsHour",
"info": "Analysis, background reports and updates from the PBS NewsHour putting today's news in context.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 3pm-4pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/PBS-News-Hour-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.pbs.org/newshour/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "pbs"
},
"link": "/radio/program/pbs-newshour",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/pbs-newshour-full-show/id394432287?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/PBS-NewsHour---Full-Show-p425698/",
"rss": "https://www.pbs.org/newshour/feeds/rss/podcasts/show"
}
},
"perspectives": {
"id": "perspectives",
"title": "Perspectives",
"tagline": "KQED's series of daily listener commentaries since 1991",
"info": "KQED's series of daily listener commentaries since 1991.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Perspectives_Tile_Final.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Perspectives",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/perspectives/",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 14
},
"link": "/perspectives",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/id73801135",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/432309616/perspectives",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/perspectives/category/perspectives/feed/",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly93dzIua3FlZC5vcmcvcGVyc3BlY3RpdmVzL2NhdGVnb3J5L3BlcnNwZWN0aXZlcy9mZWVkLw"
}
},
"planet-money": {
"id": "planet-money",
"title": "Planet Money",
"info": "The economy explained. Imagine you could call up a friend and say, Meet me at the bar and tell me what's going on with the economy. Now imagine that's actually a fun evening.",
"airtime": "SUN 3pm-4pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/planetmoney.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/sections/money/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/planet-money",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/M4f5",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/planet-money/id290783428?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/Business--Economics-Podcasts/Planet-Money-p164680/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510289/podcast.xml"
}
},
"politicalbreakdown": {
"id": "politicalbreakdown",
"title": "Political Breakdown",
"tagline": "Politics from a personal perspective",
"info": "Political Breakdown is a new series that explores the political intersection of California and the nation. Each week hosts Scott Shafer and Marisa Lagos are joined with a new special guest to unpack politics -- with personality — and offer an insider’s glimpse at how politics happens.",
"airtime": "THU 6:30pm-7pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Political-Breakdown-2024-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Political Breakdown",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/politicalbreakdown",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 5
},
"link": "/podcasts/politicalbreakdown",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/political-breakdown/id1327641087",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/e0c2d153-ad36-4c8d-901d-f1da6a724824/political-breakdown",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/572155894/political-breakdown",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/political-breakdown",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/07RVyIjIdk2WDuVehvBMoN",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/tag/political-breakdown/feed/podcast"
}
},
"possible": {
"id": "possible",
"title": "Possible",
"info": "Possible is hosted by entrepreneur Reid Hoffman and writer Aria Finger. Together in Possible, Hoffman and Finger lead enlightening discussions about building a brighter collective future. The show features interviews with visionary guests like Trevor Noah, Sam Altman and Janette Sadik-Khan. Possible paints an optimistic portrait of the world we can create through science, policy, business, art and our shared humanity. It asks: What if everything goes right for once? How can we get there? Each episode also includes a short fiction story generated by advanced AI GPT-4, serving as a thought-provoking springboard to speculate how humanity could leverage technology for good.",
"airtime": "SUN 2pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Possible-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.possible.fm/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "Possible"
},
"link": "/radio/program/possible",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/possible/id1677184070",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/730YpdUSNlMyPQwNnyjp4k"
}
},
"pri-the-world": {
"id": "pri-the-world",
"title": "PRI's The World: Latest Edition",
"info": "Each weekday, host Marco Werman and his team of producers bring you the world's most interesting stories in an hour of radio that reminds us just how small our planet really is.",
"airtime": "MON-FRI 2pm-3pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-World-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.pri.org/programs/the-world",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "PRI"
},
"link": "/radio/program/pri-the-world",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/pris-the-world-latest-edition/id278196007?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/News--Politics-Podcasts/PRIs-The-World-p24/",
"rss": "http://feeds.feedburner.com/pri/theworld"
}
},
"radiolab": {
"id": "radiolab",
"title": "Radiolab",
"info": "A two-time Peabody Award-winner, Radiolab is an investigation told through sounds and stories, and centered around one big idea. In the Radiolab world, information sounds like music and science and culture collide. Hosted by Jad Abumrad and Robert Krulwich, the show is designed for listeners who demand skepticism, but appreciate wonder. WNYC Studios is the producer of other leading podcasts including Freakonomics Radio, Death, Sex & Money, On the Media and many more.",
"airtime": "SUN 12am-1am, SAT 2pm-3pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/radiolab1400.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/radiolab/",
"meta": {
"site": "science",
"source": "WNYC"
},
"link": "/radio/program/radiolab",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/radiolab/id152249110?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/RadioLab-p68032/",
"rss": "https://feeds.wnyc.org/radiolab"
}
},
"reveal": {
"id": "reveal",
"title": "Reveal",
"info": "Created by The Center for Investigative Reporting and PRX, Reveal is public radios first one-hour weekly radio show and podcast dedicated to investigative reporting. Credible, fact based and without a partisan agenda, Reveal combines the power and artistry of driveway moment storytelling with data-rich reporting on critically important issues. The result is stories that inform and inspire, arming our listeners with information to right injustices, hold the powerful accountable and improve lives.Reveal is hosted by Al Letson and showcases the award-winning work of CIR and newsrooms large and small across the nation. In a radio and podcast market crowded with choices, Reveal focuses on important and often surprising stories that illuminate the world for our listeners.",
"airtime": "SAT 4pm-5pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/reveal300px.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.revealnews.org/episodes/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/reveal",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/reveal/id886009669",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Reveal-p679597/",
"rss": "http://feeds.revealradio.org/revealpodcast"
}
},
"rightnowish": {
"id": "rightnowish",
"title": "Rightnowish",
"tagline": "Art is where you find it",
"info": "Rightnowish digs into life in the Bay Area right now… ish. Journalist Pendarvis Harshaw takes us to galleries painted on the sides of liquor stores in West Oakland. We'll dance in warehouses in the Bayview, make smoothies with kids in South Berkeley, and listen to classical music in a 1984 Cutlass Supreme in Richmond. Every week, Pen talks to movers and shakers about how the Bay Area shapes what they create, and how they shape the place we call home.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Rightnowish-Podcast-Tile-500x500-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Rightnowish with Pendarvis Harshaw",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/rightnowish",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 16
},
"link": "/podcasts/rightnowish",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/721590300/rightnowish",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/arts/programs/rightnowish/feed/podcast",
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/rightnowish/id1482187648",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/rightnowish",
"google": "https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vS1FJTkMxMjU5MTY3NDc4",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/7kEJuafTzTVan7B78ttz1I"
}
},
"science-friday": {
"id": "science-friday",
"title": "Science Friday",
"info": "Science Friday is a weekly science talk show, broadcast live over public radio stations nationwide. Each week, the show focuses on science topics that are in the news and tries to bring an educated, balanced discussion to bear on the scientific issues at hand. Panels of expert guests join host Ira Flatow, a veteran science journalist, to discuss science and to take questions from listeners during the call-in portion of the program.",
"airtime": "FRI 11am-1pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Science-Friday-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/science-friday",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/science-friday",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=73329284&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Science-Friday-p394/",
"rss": "http://feeds.wnyc.org/science-friday"
}
},
"snap-judgment": {
"id": "snap-judgment",
"title": "Snap Judgment",
"tagline": "Real stories with killer beats",
"info": "The Snap Judgment radio show and podcast mixes real stories with killer beats to produce cinematic, dramatic radio. Snap's musical brand of storytelling dares listeners to see the world through the eyes of another. This is storytelling... with a BEAT!! Snap first aired on public radio stations nationwide in July 2010. Today, Snap Judgment airs on over 450 public radio stations and is brought to the airwaves by KQED & PRX.",
"airtime": "SAT 1pm-2pm, 9pm-10pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Snap-Judgment-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Snap Judgment",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://snapjudgment.org",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 4
},
"link": "https://snapjudgment.org",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/snap-judgment/id283657561",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/449018144/snap-judgment",
"stitcher": "https://www.pandora.com/podcast/snap-judgment/PC:241?source=stitcher-sunset",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/3Cct7ZWmxHNAtLgBTqjC5v",
"rss": "https://snap.feed.snapjudgment.org/"
}
},
"soldout": {
"id": "soldout",
"title": "SOLD OUT: Rethinking Housing in America",
"tagline": "A new future for housing",
"info": "Sold Out: Rethinking Housing in America",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Sold-Out-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Sold Out: Rethinking Housing in America",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/soldout",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 13
},
"link": "/podcasts/soldout",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/911586047/s-o-l-d-o-u-t-a-new-future-for-housing",
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/introducing-sold-out-rethinking-housing-in-america/id1531354937",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/soldout",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/38dTBSk2ISFoPiyYNoKn1X",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/sold-out-rethinking-housing-in-america",
"tunein": "https://tunein.com/radio/SOLD-OUT-Rethinking-Housing-in-America-p1365871/"
}
},
"spooked": {
"id": "spooked",
"title": "Spooked",
"tagline": "True-life supernatural stories",
"info": "",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Spooked-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED Spooked",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://spookedpodcast.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 7
},
"link": "https://spookedpodcast.org/",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/spooked/id1279361017",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/549547848/snap-judgment-presents-spooked",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/76571Rfl3m7PLJQZKQIGCT",
"rss": "https://feeds.simplecast.com/TBotaapn"
}
},
"tech-nation": {
"id": "tech-nation",
"title": "Tech Nation Radio Podcast",
"info": "Tech Nation is a weekly public radio program, hosted by Dr. Moira Gunn. Founded in 1993, it has grown from a simple interview show to a multi-faceted production, featuring conversations with noted technology and science leaders, and a weekly science and technology-related commentary.",
"airtime": "FRI 10pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Tech-Nation-Radio-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "http://technation.podomatic.com/",
"meta": {
"site": "science",
"source": "Tech Nation Media"
},
"link": "/radio/program/tech-nation",
"subscribe": {
"rss": "https://technation.podomatic.com/rss2.xml"
}
},
"ted-radio-hour": {
"id": "ted-radio-hour",
"title": "TED Radio Hour",
"info": "The TED Radio Hour is a journey through fascinating ideas, astonishing inventions, fresh approaches to old problems, and new ways to think and create.",
"airtime": "SUN 3pm-4pm, SAT 10pm-11pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/tedRadioHour.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/ted-radio-hour/?showDate=2018-06-22",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/ted-radio-hour",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/8vsS",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=523121474&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/TED-Radio-Hour-p418021/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/510298/podcast.xml"
}
},
"thebay": {
"id": "thebay",
"title": "The Bay",
"tagline": "Local news to keep you rooted",
"info": "Host Devin Katayama walks you through the biggest story of the day with reporters and newsmakers.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-Bay-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The Bay",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/thebay",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 2
},
"link": "/podcasts/thebay",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-bay/id1350043452",
"amazon": "https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/d800ea4c-7a2c-42f2-b861-edaf78a5db0b/the-bay",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/586725995/the-bay",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/the-bay",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/4BIKBKIujizLHlIlBNaAqQ",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC8259786327"
}
},
"thelatest": {
"id": "thelatest",
"title": "The Latest",
"tagline": "Trusted local news in real time",
"info": "",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/The-Latest-2025-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The Latest",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/thelatest",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 6
},
"link": "/thelatest",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-latest-from-kqed/id1197721799",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/1257949365/the-latest-from-k-q-e-d",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/5KIIXMgM9GTi5AepwOYvIZ?si=bd3053fec7244dba",
"rss": "https://feeds.megaphone.fm/KQINC9137121918"
}
},
"theleap": {
"id": "theleap",
"title": "The Leap",
"tagline": "What if you closed your eyes, and jumped?",
"info": "Stories about people making dramatic, risky changes, told by award-winning public radio reporter Judy Campbell.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-Leap-Podcast-Tile-703x703-1.jpg",
"imageAlt": "KQED The Leap",
"officialWebsiteLink": "/podcasts/theleap",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "kqed",
"order": 17
},
"link": "/podcasts/theleap",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-leap/id1046668171",
"npr": "https://www.npr.org/podcasts/447248267/the-leap",
"stitcher": "https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kqed/the-leap",
"spotify": "https://open.spotify.com/show/3sSlVHHzU0ytLwuGs1SD1U",
"rss": "https://ww2.kqed.org/news/programs/the-leap/feed/podcast"
}
},
"the-moth-radio-hour": {
"id": "the-moth-radio-hour",
"title": "The Moth Radio Hour",
"info": "Since its launch in 1997, The Moth has presented thousands of true stories, told live and without notes, to standing-room-only crowds worldwide. Moth storytellers stand alone, under a spotlight, with only a microphone and a roomful of strangers. The storyteller and the audience embark on a high-wire act of shared experience which is both terrifying and exhilarating. Since 2008, The Moth podcast has featured many of our favorite stories told live on Moth stages around the country. For information on all of our programs and live events, visit themoth.org.",
"airtime": "SAT 8pm-9pm and SUN 11am-12pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/theMoth.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://themoth.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "prx"
},
"link": "/radio/program/the-moth-radio-hour",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-moth-podcast/id275699983?mt=2",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/The-Moth-p273888/",
"rss": "http://feeds.themoth.org/themothpodcast"
}
},
"the-new-yorker-radio-hour": {
"id": "the-new-yorker-radio-hour",
"title": "The New Yorker Radio Hour",
"info": "The New Yorker Radio Hour is a weekly program presented by the magazine's editor, David Remnick, and produced by WNYC Studios and The New Yorker. Each episode features a diverse mix of interviews, profiles, storytelling, and an occasional burst of humor inspired by the magazine, and shaped by its writers, artists, and editors. This isn't a radio version of a magazine, but something all its own, reflecting the rich possibilities of audio storytelling and conversation. Theme music for the show was composed and performed by Merrill Garbus of tUnE-YArDs.",
"airtime": "SAT 10am-11am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-New-Yorker-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.wnycstudios.org/shows/tnyradiohour",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "WNYC"
},
"link": "/radio/program/the-new-yorker-radio-hour",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/id1050430296",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/podcasts/WNYC-Podcasts/New-Yorker-Radio-Hour-p803804/",
"rss": "https://feeds.feedburner.com/newyorkerradiohour"
}
},
"the-sam-sanders-show": {
"id": "the-sam-sanders-show",
"title": "The Sam Sanders Show",
"info": "One of public radio's most dynamic voices, Sam Sanders helped launch The NPR Politics Podcast and hosted NPR's hit show It's Been A Minute. Now, the award-winning host returns with something brand new, The Sam Sanders Show. Every week, Sam Sanders and friends dig into the culture that shapes our lives: what's driving the biggest trends, how artists really think, and even the memes you can't stop scrolling past. Sam is beloved for his way of unpacking the world and bringing you up close to fresh currents and engaging conversations. The Sam Sanders Show is smart, funny and always a good time.",
"airtime": "FRI 12-1pm AND SAT 11am-12pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/The-Sam-Sanders-Show-Podcast-Tile-400x400-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.kcrw.com/shows/the-sam-sanders-show/latest",
"meta": {
"site": "arts",
"source": "KCRW"
},
"link": "https://www.kcrw.com/shows/the-sam-sanders-show/latest",
"subscribe": {
"rss": "https://feed.cdnstream1.com/zjb/feed/download/ac/28/59/ac28594c-e1d0-4231-8728-61865cdc80e8.xml"
}
},
"the-splendid-table": {
"id": "the-splendid-table",
"title": "The Splendid Table",
"info": "\u003cem>The Splendid Table\u003c/em> hosts our nation's conversations about cooking, sustainability and food culture.",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/The-Splendid-Table-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.splendidtable.org/",
"airtime": "SUN 10-11 pm",
"meta": {
"site": "radio",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/the-splendid-table"
},
"this-american-life": {
"id": "this-american-life",
"title": "This American Life",
"info": "This American Life is a weekly public radio show, heard by 2.2 million people on more than 500 stations. Another 2.5 million people download the weekly podcast. It is hosted by Ira Glass, produced in collaboration with Chicago Public Media, delivered to stations by PRX The Public Radio Exchange, and has won all of the major broadcasting awards.",
"airtime": "SAT 12pm-1pm, 7pm-8pm",
"imageSrc": "https://ww2.kqed.org/radio/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2018/04/thisAmericanLife.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.thisamericanlife.org/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "wbez"
},
"link": "/radio/program/this-american-life",
"subscribe": {
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=201671138&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"rss": "https://www.thisamericanlife.org/podcast/rss.xml"
}
},
"tinydeskradio": {
"id": "tinydeskradio",
"title": "Tiny Desk Radio",
"info": "We're bringing the best of Tiny Desk to the airwaves, only on public radio.",
"airtime": "SUN 8pm and SAT 9pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/300x300-For-Member-Station-Logo-Tiny-Desk-Radio-@2x.png",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/series/g-s1-52030/tiny-desk-radio",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/tinydeskradio",
"subscribe": {
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/g-s1-52030/rss.xml"
}
},
"wait-wait-dont-tell-me": {
"id": "wait-wait-dont-tell-me",
"title": "Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me!",
"info": "Peter Sagal and Bill Kurtis host the weekly NPR News quiz show alongside some of the best and brightest news and entertainment personalities.",
"airtime": "SUN 10am-11am, SAT 11am-12pm, SAT 6pm-7pm",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Wait-Wait-Podcast-Tile-300x300-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/wait-wait-dont-tell-me/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/wait-wait-dont-tell-me",
"subscribe": {
"npr": "https://rpb3r.app.goo.gl/Xogv",
"apple": "https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?s=143441&mt=2&id=121493804&at=11l79Y&ct=nprdirectory",
"tuneIn": "https://tunein.com/radio/Wait-Wait-Dont-Tell-Me-p46/",
"rss": "https://feeds.npr.org/344098539/podcast.xml"
}
},
"weekend-edition-saturday": {
"id": "weekend-edition-saturday",
"title": "Weekend Edition Saturday",
"info": "Weekend Edition Saturday wraps up the week's news and offers a mix of analysis and features on a wide range of topics, including arts, sports, entertainment, and human interest stories. The two-hour program is hosted by NPR's Peabody Award-winning Scott Simon.",
"airtime": "SAT 5am-10am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Weekend-Edition-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/weekend-edition-saturday/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/weekend-edition-saturday"
},
"weekend-edition-sunday": {
"id": "weekend-edition-sunday",
"title": "Weekend Edition Sunday",
"info": "Weekend Edition Sunday features interviews with newsmakers, artists, scientists, politicians, musicians, writers, theologians and historians. The program has covered news events from Nelson Mandela's 1990 release from a South African prison to the capture of Saddam Hussein.",
"airtime": "SUN 5am-10am",
"imageSrc": "https://cdn.kqed.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Weekend-Edition-Podcast-Tile-360x360-1.jpg",
"officialWebsiteLink": "https://www.npr.org/programs/weekend-edition-sunday/",
"meta": {
"site": "news",
"source": "npr"
},
"link": "/radio/program/weekend-edition-sunday"
}
},
"racesReducer": {},
"racesGenElectionReducer": {},
"racesGenElection2026Reducer": {},
"radioSchedulesReducer": {},
"listsReducer": {
"posts/news?program=bay-curious": {
"isFetching": false,
"latestQuery": {
"from": 96,
"size": 12
},
"vitalsOnly": false,
"totalRequested": 12,
"isLoading": false,
"isLoadingMore": true,
"total": {
"value": 493,
"relation": "eq"
},
"items": [
"news_11700225",
"news_12007880",
"news_12007174",
"news_12007359",
"news_12007197",
"news_12006890",
"news_12006359",
"news_12006445",
"news_12005954",
"news_12005960",
"news_12005762",
"news_12005257"
],
"complete": true
}
},
"recallGuideReducer": {
"intros": {},
"policy": {},
"candidates": {}
},
"savedArticleReducer": {
"articles": [],
"status": {}
},
"newslettersReducer": {
"isFetching": false,
"fetchFailed": false,
"hasFetched": false,
"newsletters": {},
"isSubscribing": false,
"isUnsubscribing": false,
"subscribedNewsletters": {}
},
"termsReducer": {
"about": {
"name": "About",
"type": "terms",
"id": "about",
"slug": "about",
"link": "/about",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"arts": {
"name": "Arts & Culture",
"grouping": [
"arts",
"pop",
"trulyca"
],
"description": "KQED Arts provides daily in-depth coverage of the Bay Area's music, art, film, performing arts, literature and arts news, as well as cultural commentary and criticism.",
"type": "terms",
"id": "arts",
"slug": "arts",
"link": "/arts",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"artschool": {
"name": "Art School",
"parent": "arts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "artschool",
"slug": "artschool",
"link": "/artschool",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"bayareabites": {
"name": "KQED food",
"grouping": [
"food",
"bayareabites",
"checkplease"
],
"parent": "food",
"type": "terms",
"id": "bayareabites",
"slug": "bayareabites",
"link": "/food",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"bayareahiphop": {
"name": "Bay Area Hiphop",
"type": "terms",
"id": "bayareahiphop",
"slug": "bayareahiphop",
"link": "/bayareahiphop",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"campaign21": {
"name": "Campaign 21",
"type": "terms",
"id": "campaign21",
"slug": "campaign21",
"link": "/campaign21",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"careers": {
"name": "Careers",
"type": "terms",
"id": "careers",
"slug": "careers",
"link": "/careers",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"checkplease": {
"name": "KQED food",
"grouping": [
"food",
"bayareabites",
"checkplease"
],
"parent": "food",
"type": "terms",
"id": "checkplease",
"slug": "checkplease",
"link": "/food",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"education": {
"name": "Education",
"grouping": [
"education"
],
"type": "terms",
"id": "education",
"slug": "education",
"link": "/education",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"elections": {
"name": "Elections",
"type": "terms",
"id": "elections",
"slug": "elections",
"link": "/elections",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"events": {
"name": "Events",
"type": "terms",
"id": "events",
"slug": "events",
"link": "/events",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"event": {
"name": "Event",
"alias": "events",
"type": "terms",
"id": "event",
"slug": "event",
"link": "/event",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"filmschoolshorts": {
"name": "Film School Shorts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "filmschoolshorts",
"slug": "filmschoolshorts",
"link": "/filmschoolshorts",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"food": {
"name": "KQED food",
"grouping": [
"food",
"bayareabites",
"checkplease"
],
"type": "terms",
"id": "food",
"slug": "food",
"link": "/food",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"forum": {
"name": "Forum",
"relatedContentQuery": "posts/forum?",
"parent": "news",
"type": "terms",
"id": "forum",
"slug": "forum",
"link": "/forum",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"futureofyou": {
"name": "Future of You",
"grouping": [
"science",
"futureofyou"
],
"parent": "science",
"type": "terms",
"id": "futureofyou",
"slug": "futureofyou",
"link": "/futureofyou",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"jpepinheart": {
"name": "KQED food",
"relatedContentQuery": "posts/food,bayareabites,checkplease",
"parent": "food",
"type": "terms",
"id": "jpepinheart",
"slug": "jpepinheart",
"link": "/food",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"liveblog": {
"name": "Live Blog",
"type": "terms",
"id": "liveblog",
"slug": "liveblog",
"link": "/liveblog",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"livetv": {
"name": "Live TV",
"parent": "tv",
"type": "terms",
"id": "livetv",
"slug": "livetv",
"link": "/livetv",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"lowdown": {
"name": "The Lowdown",
"relatedContentQuery": "posts/lowdown?",
"parent": "news",
"type": "terms",
"id": "lowdown",
"slug": "lowdown",
"link": "/lowdown",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"mindshift": {
"name": "Mindshift",
"parent": "news",
"description": "MindShift explores the future of education by highlighting the innovative – and sometimes counterintuitive – ways educators and parents are helping all children succeed.",
"type": "terms",
"id": "mindshift",
"slug": "mindshift",
"link": "/mindshift",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"news": {
"name": "News",
"grouping": [
"news",
"forum"
],
"type": "terms",
"id": "news",
"slug": "news",
"link": "/news",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"newsletters": {
"name": "newsletters",
"type": "terms",
"id": "newsletters",
"slug": "newsletters",
"link": "/newsletters",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"perspectives": {
"name": "Perspectives",
"parent": "radio",
"type": "terms",
"id": "perspectives",
"slug": "perspectives",
"link": "/perspectives",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"podcasts": {
"name": "Podcasts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "podcasts",
"slug": "podcasts",
"link": "/podcasts",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"pop": {
"name": "Pop",
"parent": "arts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "pop",
"slug": "pop",
"link": "/pop",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"pressroom": {
"name": "Pressroom",
"type": "terms",
"id": "pressroom",
"slug": "pressroom",
"link": "/pressroom",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"quest": {
"name": "Quest",
"parent": "science",
"type": "terms",
"id": "quest",
"slug": "quest",
"link": "/quest",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"radio": {
"name": "Radio",
"grouping": [
"forum",
"perspectives"
],
"description": "Listen to KQED Public Radio – home of Forum and The California Report – on 88.5 FM in San Francisco, 89.3 FM in Sacramento, 88.3 FM in Santa Rosa and 88.1 FM in Martinez.",
"type": "terms",
"id": "radio",
"slug": "radio",
"link": "/radio",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"root": {
"name": "KQED",
"image": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/2020/02/KQED-OG-Image@1x.png",
"imageWidth": 1200,
"imageHeight": 630,
"headData": {
"title": "KQED | News, Radio, Podcasts, TV | Public Media for Northern California",
"description": "KQED provides public radio, television, and independent reporting on issues that matter to the Bay Area. We’re the NPR and PBS member station for Northern California."
},
"type": "terms",
"id": "root",
"slug": "root",
"link": "/root",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"science": {
"name": "Science",
"grouping": [
"science",
"futureofyou"
],
"description": "KQED Science brings you award-winning science and environment coverage from the Bay Area and beyond.",
"type": "terms",
"id": "science",
"slug": "science",
"link": "/science",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"stateofhealth": {
"name": "State of Health",
"parent": "science",
"type": "terms",
"id": "stateofhealth",
"slug": "stateofhealth",
"link": "/stateofhealth",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"support": {
"name": "Support",
"type": "terms",
"id": "support",
"slug": "support",
"link": "/support",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"thedolist": {
"name": "The Do List",
"parent": "arts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "thedolist",
"slug": "thedolist",
"link": "/thedolist",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"trulyca": {
"name": "Truly CA",
"grouping": [
"arts",
"pop",
"trulyca"
],
"parent": "arts",
"type": "terms",
"id": "trulyca",
"slug": "trulyca",
"link": "/trulyca",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"tv": {
"name": "TV",
"type": "terms",
"id": "tv",
"slug": "tv",
"link": "/tv",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"voterguide": {
"name": "Voter Guide",
"parent": "elections",
"alias": "elections",
"type": "terms",
"id": "voterguide",
"slug": "voterguide",
"link": "/voterguide",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"guiaelectoral": {
"name": "Guia Electoral",
"parent": "elections",
"alias": "elections",
"type": "terms",
"id": "guiaelectoral",
"slug": "guiaelectoral",
"link": "/guiaelectoral",
"taxonomy": "site"
},
"news_program_bay-curious": {
"isLoading": true
},
"news_33523": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_33523",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "33523",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Bay Curious",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "program",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Bay Curious Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 33540,
"slug": "bay-curious",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/program/bay-curious"
},
"source_news_11700225": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "source_news_11700225",
"meta": {
"override": true
},
"name": "Bay Curious",
"link": "https://www.kqed.org/news/series/baycurious",
"isLoading": false
},
"source_news_12007880": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "source_news_12007880",
"meta": {
"override": true
},
"name": "Prop Fest",
"link": "https://www.kqed.org/propfest",
"isLoading": false
},
"source_news_12007174": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "source_news_12007174",
"meta": {
"override": true
},
"name": "Prop Fest 2024",
"isLoading": false
},
"source_news_12007359": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "source_news_12007359",
"meta": {
"override": true
},
"name": "Prop Fest",
"link": "https://www.kqed.org/propfest",
"isLoading": false
},
"source_news_12007197": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "source_news_12007197",
"meta": {
"override": true
},
"name": "Prop Fest 2024",
"link": "https://www.kqed.org/propfest",
"isLoading": false
},
"source_news_12006890": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "source_news_12006890",
"meta": {
"override": true
},
"name": "Prop Fest 2024",
"isLoading": false
},
"source_news_12006359": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "source_news_12006359",
"meta": {
"override": true
},
"name": "Prop Fest 2024",
"link": "https://www.kqed.org/propfest",
"isLoading": false
},
"source_news_12006445": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "source_news_12006445",
"meta": {
"override": true
},
"name": "Prop Fest 2024",
"link": "https://www.kqed.org/propfest",
"isLoading": false
},
"source_news_12005954": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "source_news_12005954",
"meta": {
"override": true
},
"name": "Prop Fest 2024",
"isLoading": false
},
"source_news_12005960": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "source_news_12005960",
"meta": {
"override": true
},
"name": "Prop Fest 2024",
"link": "https://www.kqed.org/propfest",
"isLoading": false
},
"news_34552": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_34552",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "34552",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "baycurious",
"slug": "baycurious",
"taxonomy": "program",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "baycurious | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null
},
"ttid": 34569,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/program/baycurious"
},
"news_17986": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_17986",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "17986",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": "https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sites/10/2016/11/BayCuriousLogoFinal01-e1493662037229.png",
"name": "Bay Curious",
"description": "\u003ch2>A podcast exploring the Bay Area one question at a time\u003c/h2>\r\n\r\n\u003caside>\r\n\u003cdiv style=\"width: 100%; padding-right: 20px;\">\r\n\r\nKQED’s \u003cstrong>Bay Curious\u003c/strong> gets to the bottom of the mysteries — both profound and peculiar — that give the Bay Area its unique identity. And we’ll do it with your help! You ask the questions. You decide what Bay Curious investigates. And you join us on the journey to find the answers.\r\n\u003cbr />\r\n\u003cspan class=\"alignleft\">\u003ca href=\"https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/id1172473406\">\u003cimg width=\"75px\" src=\"https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2016/11/DownloadOniTunes_100x100.png\">\u003c/a> \u003ca href=\"https://goo.gl/app/playmusic?ibi=com.google.PlayMusic&isi=691797987&ius=googleplaymusic&link=https://play.google.com/music/m/Ipi2mc5aqfen4nr2daayiziiyuy?t%3DBay_Curious\">\u003cimg width=\"75px\" src=\"https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2016/11/Google_Play_100x100.png\">\u003c/a>\u003c/span>\u003c/div>\r\n\u003c/aside> \r\n\u003ch2>What's your question?\u003c/h2>\r\n\u003cdiv id=\"huxq6\" class=\"curiosity-module\" data-pym-src=\"//modules.wearehearken.com/kqed/curiosity_modules/133\">\u003c/div>\r\n\u003cscript src=\"//assets.wearehearken.com/production/thirdparty/p.m.js\">\u003c/script>\r\n\u003ch2>Bay Curious monthly newsletter\u003c/h2>\r\nWe're launching it soon! \u003ca href=\"https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdEtzbyNbSQkRHCCAkKhoGiAl3Bd0zWxhk0ZseJ1KH_o_ZDjQ/viewform\" target=\"_blank\">Sign up\u003c/a> so you don't miss it when it drops.\r\n",
"taxonomy": "series",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": "A podcast exploring the Bay Area one question at a time KQED’s Bay Curious gets to the bottom of the mysteries — both profound and peculiar — that give the Bay Area its unique identity. And we’ll do it with your help! You ask the questions. You decide what Bay Curious investigates. And you join us on the journey to find the answers. What's your question? Bay Curious monthly newsletter We're launching it soon! Sign up so you don't miss it when it drops.",
"title": "Bay Curious Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 18020,
"slug": "baycurious",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/series/baycurious"
},
"news_8": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_8",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "8",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "News",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "category",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "News Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 8,
"slug": "news",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/news"
},
"news_33520": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_33520",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "33520",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Podcast",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "category",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Podcast Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 33537,
"slug": "podcast",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/podcast"
},
"news_18426": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_18426",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "18426",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Bay Curious",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Bay Curious Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 18460,
"slug": "bay-curious",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/bay-curious"
},
"news_24211": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_24211",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "24211",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "BayCurious",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "BayCurious Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 24228,
"slug": "baycurious",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/baycurious"
},
"news_4750": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_4750",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "4750",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "civil rights",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "civil rights Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 4769,
"slug": "civil-rights",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/civil-rights"
},
"news_18816": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_18816",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "18816",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Halloween",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Halloween Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 18833,
"slug": "halloween",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/halloween"
},
"news_33812": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_33812",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "33812",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Interests",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Interests Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 33829,
"slug": "interests",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/interests"
},
"news_28779": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_28779",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "28779",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "The Bay",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "program",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": "The Bay is a daily news and culture program from KQED that covers the latest headlines, trends, and stories that matter to the Bay Area.",
"title": "The Bay Area Archives | KQED",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 28796,
"slug": "the-bay",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/program/the-bay"
},
"news_34167": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_34167",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "34167",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "Criminal Justice",
"slug": "criminal-justice",
"taxonomy": "category",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "Criminal Justice Archives | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null
},
"ttid": 34184,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/criminal-justice"
},
"news_13": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_13",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "13",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "Politics",
"slug": "politics",
"taxonomy": "category",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "Politics | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null
},
"ttid": 13,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/politics"
},
"news_28606": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_28606",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "28606",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Bay Curious Prop Fest",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Bay Curious Prop Fest Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 28623,
"slug": "bay-curious-prop-fest",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/bay-curious-prop-fest"
},
"news_34648": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_34648",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "34648",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "prop 36",
"slug": "prop-36",
"taxonomy": "tag",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "prop 36 | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null
},
"ttid": 34665,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/prop-36"
},
"news_457": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_457",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "457",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Health",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "category",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Health Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 16998,
"slug": "health",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/health"
},
"news_32839": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_32839",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "32839",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Election 2024",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Election 2024 Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 32856,
"slug": "election-2024",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/election-2024"
},
"news_34592": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_34592",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "34592",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "Proposition 35",
"slug": "proposition-35",
"taxonomy": "tag",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "Proposition 35 | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null,
"metaRobotsNoIndex": "noindex"
},
"ttid": 34609,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/proposition-35"
},
"news_22598": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_22598",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "22598",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "The Bay",
"description": "\u003cimg class=\"alignnone size-medium wp-image-11638190\" src=\"https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/02/TheBay_1200x6301.png\" alt=\"\" />\r\n\u003cbr/>\r\n\r\nEvery good story starts local. So that’s where we start. \u003ci>The Bay\u003c/i> is storytelling for daily news. KQED host Devin Katayama talks with reporters to help us make sense of what’s happening in the Bay Area. One story. One conversation. One idea.\r\n\r\n\u003cstrong>Subscribe to The Bay:\u003c/strong>\r\n\r\n\u003ca href=\"https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-bay/id1350043452?mt=2\">\u003cimg src=\"https://ww2.kqed.org/news/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2018/01/Listen_on_Apple_Podcasts_sRGB_US-e1515635079510.png\" />\u003c/a>",
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": "Every good story starts local. So that’s where we start. The Bay is storytelling for daily news. KQED host Devin Katayama talks with reporters to help us make sense of what’s happening in the Bay Area. One story. One conversation. One idea. Subscribe to The Bay:",
"title": "The Bay Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 22615,
"slug": "the-bay",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/the-bay"
},
"news_33738": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_33738",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "33738",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "California",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "interest",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "California Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 33755,
"slug": "california",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/interest/california"
},
"news_31795": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_31795",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "31795",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "California",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "category",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "California Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 31812,
"slug": "california",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/california"
},
"news_6266": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_6266",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "6266",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Housing",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "category",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Housing Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 6290,
"slug": "housing",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/housing"
},
"news_1775": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_1775",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "1775",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "housing",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "housing Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 1790,
"slug": "housing",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/housing"
},
"news_17968": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_17968",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "17968",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "Politics",
"slug": "politics",
"taxonomy": "tag",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "Politics | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null
},
"ttid": 18002,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/politics"
},
"news_34594": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_34594",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "34594",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "Proposition-33",
"slug": "proposition-33",
"taxonomy": "tag",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "Proposition-33 | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null
},
"ttid": 34611,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/proposition-33"
},
"news_33739": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_33739",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "33739",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Housing",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "interest",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Housing Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 33756,
"slug": "housing",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/interest/housing"
},
"news_34551": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_34551",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "34551",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "Labor",
"slug": "labor",
"taxonomy": "category",
"description": "We examine worker safety, workplace regulation, employment trends and union organizing.",
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "Labor | KQED News",
"description": "We examine worker safety, workplace regulation, employment trends and union organizing.",
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null
},
"ttid": 34568,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/labor"
},
"news_6675": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_6675",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "6675",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "proposition 32",
"slug": "proposition-32",
"taxonomy": "tag",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "proposition 32 | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null,
"metaRobotsNoIndex": "noindex"
},
"ttid": 6699,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/proposition-32"
},
"news_6188": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_6188",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "6188",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Law and Justice",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "category",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Law and Justice Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 6212,
"slug": "law-and-justice",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/law-and-justice"
},
"news_34560": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_34560",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "34560",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "podcasts",
"slug": "podcasts",
"taxonomy": "tag",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "podcasts | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null
},
"ttid": 34577,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/podcasts"
},
"news_28645": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_28645",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "28645",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "prop fest",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "prop fest Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 28662,
"slug": "prop-fest",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/prop-fest"
},
"news_24207": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_24207",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "24207",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "proposition 6",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "proposition 6 Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 24224,
"slug": "proposition-6",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/proposition-6"
},
"news_33745": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_33745",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "33745",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Criminal Justice",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "interest",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Criminal Justice Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 33762,
"slug": "criminal-justice",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/interest/criminal-justice"
},
"news_33733": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_33733",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "33733",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "News",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "interest",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "News Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 33750,
"slug": "news",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/interest/news"
},
"news_34577": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_34577",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "34577",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "proposition-5",
"slug": "proposition-5",
"taxonomy": "tag",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "proposition-5 | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null,
"metaRobotsNoIndex": "noindex"
},
"ttid": 34594,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/proposition-5"
},
"news_34165": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_34165",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "34165",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "Climate",
"slug": "climate",
"taxonomy": "category",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "Climate Archives | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null
},
"ttid": 34182,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/climate"
},
"news_34559": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_34559",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "34559",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "proposition 4",
"slug": "proposition-4",
"taxonomy": "tag",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "proposition 4 | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null
},
"ttid": 34576,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/proposition-4"
},
"news_34168": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_34168",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "34168",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "Guides and Explainers",
"slug": "guides-and-explainers",
"taxonomy": "category",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "Guides and Explainers Archives | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null
},
"ttid": 34185,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/guides-and-explainers"
},
"news_20004": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_20004",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "20004",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "LGBTQ",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "LGBTQ Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 20021,
"slug": "lgbtq",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/lgbtq"
},
"news_34563": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_34563",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "34563",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"name": "Proposition-3",
"slug": "proposition-3",
"taxonomy": "tag",
"description": null,
"featImg": null,
"headData": {
"title": "Proposition-3 | KQED News",
"description": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogDescription": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"twDescription": null,
"twImgId": null,
"metaRobotsNoIndex": "noindex"
},
"ttid": 34580,
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/proposition-3"
},
"news_322": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_322",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "322",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "same-sex marriage",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "same-sex marriage Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 330,
"slug": "same-sex-marriage",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/same-sex-marriage"
},
"news_18540": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_18540",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "18540",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Education",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "category",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Education Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 2595,
"slug": "education",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/education"
},
"news_20013": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_20013",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "20013",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "education",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "education Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 20030,
"slug": "education",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/education"
},
"news_17102": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_17102",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "17102",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Proposition 2",
"description": "Proposition 2 has passed, and California will overhaul its rainy day fund to pay down more debt and provide a bigger buffer against future state budget shortfalls. Get \u003ca href=\"http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/maps/ballot-measures/prop/2/\" target=\"_blank\">detailed election results\u003c/a> for Proposition 2 from the secretary of state.",
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": "Proposition 2 has passed, and California will overhaul its rainy day fund to pay down more debt and provide a bigger buffer against future state budget shortfalls. Get detailed election results for Proposition 2 from the secretary of state.",
"title": "Proposition 2 Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 17131,
"slug": "proposition-2",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/proposition-2"
},
"news_19906": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_19906",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "19906",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Environment",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "category",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Environment Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 19923,
"slug": "environment",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/environment"
},
"news_356": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_356",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "356",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Science",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "category",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Science Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 364,
"slug": "science",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/category/science"
},
"news_1700": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_1700",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "1700",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Bayview Hunters Point",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Bayview Hunters Point Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 1712,
"slug": "bayview-hunters-point",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/bayview-hunters-point"
},
"news_20023": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_20023",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "20023",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "environment",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "environment Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 20040,
"slug": "environment",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/environment"
},
"news_27626": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_27626",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "27626",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "featured-news",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "tag",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "featured-news Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 27643,
"slug": "featured-news",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/tag/featured-news"
},
"news_33744": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_33744",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "33744",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "Peninsula",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "interest",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "Peninsula Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 33761,
"slug": "peninsula",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/interest/peninsula"
},
"news_33729": {
"type": "terms",
"id": "news_33729",
"meta": {
"index": "terms_1716263798",
"site": "news",
"id": "33729",
"found": true
},
"relationships": {},
"featImg": null,
"name": "San Francisco",
"description": null,
"taxonomy": "interest",
"headData": {
"twImgId": null,
"twTitle": null,
"ogTitle": null,
"ogImgId": null,
"twDescription": null,
"description": null,
"title": "San Francisco Archives | KQED News",
"ogDescription": null
},
"ttid": 33746,
"slug": "san-francisco",
"isLoading": false,
"link": "/news/interest/san-francisco"
}
},
"userPermissionsReducer": {
"wpLoggedIn": false
},
"eventsReducer": {},
"fssReducer": {},
"tvDailyScheduleReducer": {},
"tvWeeklyScheduleReducer": {},
"tvPrimetimeScheduleReducer": {},
"tvMonthlyScheduleReducer": {},
"userAccountReducer": {
"user": {
"email": null,
"emailStatus": "EMAIL_UNVALIDATED",
"loggedStatus": "LOGGED_OUT",
"loggingChecked": false,
"articles": [],
"firstName": null,
"lastName": null,
"phoneNumber": null,
"fetchingMembership": false,
"membershipError": false,
"memberships": [
{
"id": null,
"startDate": null,
"firstName": null,
"lastName": null,
"familyNumber": null,
"memberNumber": null,
"memberSince": null,
"expirationDate": null,
"pfsEligible": false,
"isSustaining": false,
"membershipLevel": "Prospect",
"membershipStatus": "Non Member",
"lastGiftDate": null,
"renewalDate": null,
"lastDonationAmount": null
}
]
},
"authModal": {
"isOpen": false,
"view": "LANDING_VIEW"
},
"error": null
},
"youthMediaReducer": {},
"checkPleaseReducer": {
"filterData": {
"region": {
"key": "Restaurant Region",
"filters": [
"Any Region"
]
},
"cuisine": {
"key": "Restaurant Cuisine",
"filters": [
"Any Cuisine"
]
}
},
"restaurantDataById": {},
"restaurantIdsSorted": [],
"error": null
},
"userAgentReducer": {
"userAgent": "Mozilla/5.0 AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko; compatible; ClaudeBot/1.0; +claudebot@anthropic.com)",
"isBot": true
}
}
