Sept. 17
The San Diego Union-Tribune on California homelessness:
Given the way President Donald Trump sometimes mocks California; many residents might be inclined to take his recent comments about wanting to help the state with its homelessness problems with a grain of salt. The White House budget actually sought to cut federal rental assistance for 250,000 families. And in comments to reporters aboard Air Force One on Tuesday as he flew west, Trump seemed to frame California’s population of tens of thousands of homeless people as a problem not because they represent an immense human tragedy but because they annoy the rich. He said many live in “our best highways, our best streets, our best entrances to buildings … where people in those buildings pay tremendous taxes, where they went to those locations because of the prestige.”
If Trump is not just campaigning against Democratic policy failures - if he’s serious about the federal government working with the nation’s most populous state to take on a vexing problem - then he should listen to Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom and Republican San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer.
In a letter to the president on Monday, Newsom, Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg and the presidents of the California State Association of Counties and the California League of Cities called on his administration to expand by 50,000 the number of housing vouchers available to the very poor and veterans in California through two existing federal programs. Recognizing the state’s high cost of housing, they also called on Trump to increase the value of vouchers and to seek to “incentivize landlords” to help those with vouchers find stable housing.
Faulconer labeled California’s homelessness “a true humanitarian crisis” in a Sept. 7 speech to a Republican gathering in Indian Wells, calling it “the issue” in the state. He said that while homelessness remains a serious problem in San Diego, the city could credibly claim to be making progress through bridge shelters, parking lots where it’s OK to sleep in one’s vehicle and other programs.
The mayor said San Diego’s three large tent shelters offering nearly 700 beds - and a newly approved fourth - help because they “bridge the gap between unsafe street camps and a permanent home, with housing navigators, medical facilities and mental health clinicians.” He said three gated parking lots where people can live in their vehicles is important as a “home-of-last-resort.” Trump could help on both fronts by giving the city access to unused or underused federal or military property where more shelters and parking lots could set up.
Faulconer’s speech made a useful distinction between those who are homeless because they can’t afford rent and those who are homeless because of mental health or addiction issues. Trump can’t help much with the former problem, which must be addressed by making it easier to build new housing in California. But Trump can help some with the latter problem by pushing the Department of Veteran Affairs to do a better job helping homeless veterans.
Unfortunately, according to a report in The Washington Post, his primary view of how to help California deal with homelessness is by pursuing a federal “crackdown” on homeless encampments in which people would be forcibly relocated to government camps. This is troubling on at least two legal fronts. The first is that it would be federal interference of an unprecedented nature in local governance. The second is that there appears to be no legal proviso allowing Trump to forcibly relocate people who haven’t committed federal crimes.
The president’s visit may lead him to more pragmatic views of what the federal government can and should do. Californians should hope so. The more help the state gets with homelessness, the better.
___
Sept. 17
The Sacramento Bee on vaping ban:
When President Trump outshines the California State Legislature on a public health issue, you know something’s fishy. Yet last week the president surprised many when he said he would direct the Food and Drug Administration to pull flavored vaping products and e-cigarettes from store shelves.
Michigan banned the sale of flavored vaping products earlier this month. Not to be outdone, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has also announced a ban.
The bold moves against e-cigarettes and vapes - the latest in nicotine addiction technology - come after seven Americans died from a mysterious vape-induced lung illness. They include a Tulare County man who died this week of “severe pulmonary injury associated with vaping,” according to The Fresno Bee. Dozens more have been seriously injured or hospitalized due to e-cigarettes, which include devices used to vaporize marijuana products.
It’s been nothing but bad news for the vaping industry these days - except in the California State Capitol. A strong bill to ban the sale of flavored vaping products was sidelined without a hearing in a committee controlled by Assemblyman Adam Gray, D-Merced, earlier this summer.
In its place, Gray offered up a weaker bill. It mysteriously vaporized at the last minute. No big loss there. The American Cancer Society Action Network had called the first draft of Gray’s proposal “a complete sham.” State Sen. Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, told Politico it was “an industry-sponsored plan that doesn’t help alleviate the epidemic of youth vaping.”
Surely, Gray’s actions had nothing to do with the fact that vaping and tobacco companies have poured lots of money into his campaign coffers. Juul, which markets a vaping device popular with school children, donated “$33,800 to Gray and his associated fundraising committees,” according to a story by CALmatters’ Ben Christopher.
The tobacco companies didn’t hesitate to reward Gray handsomely for killing off the bills. “On the first business day after the legislative year came to a close, Assemblyman Adam Gray accepted $25,000 to his ballot measure committee from Philip Morris USA, the maker of America’s most popular cigarette, Marlboro,” reported Scott Lay of The Nooner.
Philip Morris is a subsidiary of Altria, which also owns a large stake in Juul.
Thankfully, Michigan has stepped up to the challenge - followed by President Trump, Gov. Cuomo and, kinda sorta, Gov. Gavin Newsom. On Monday, Newsom unveiled an executive order to address what he called the “youth vaping crisis.”
Newsom said he supports a ban on the sale of flavored vaping products, but his order is weak juice. It requires the California Department of Public Health to launch a $20 million advertising campaign to warn of vaping’s dangers. “He also directs the California tax collection department to step up enforcement of existing fees and regulations of electronic cigarettes,” according to a story by Sacramento Bee reporter Sophia Bollag.
It’s toothless. But look on the bright side: Gov. Newsom just put the vaping industry on notice that California will enact a ban next year. That’s great news.
Even before vaping started to kill people, it had spawned a crisis of youth addiction in schools across the country. In 2018, one out of five high school students reported having vaped. After decades of decline, the percentage of teens using tobacco products started rising again.
Vaping companies like Juul claim their products help adults to quit smoking cigarettes. In reality, vaping is just a new way to sell nicotine addiction to kids. That’s why Altria, the parent company of Marlboro cigarettes, invested $13 billion in Juul last year.
The youth addiction crisis - sparked by nicotine products with kid-friendly flavors like bubble gum, cherry and “unicorn puke” - inspired cities like Sacramento and San Francisco to adopt bans.
It remains to be seen whether President Trump will make good on his threat to go after vaping or quickly lose interest. Fortunately for Californians, Sacramento Assemblyman Kevin McCarty will remain focused on eradicating the epidemic.
He co-authored Assembly Bill 739, which would ban the retail sale of flavored products. On Monday, he made it clear the bill will be back.
“We fully support the Governor’s belief that these products should be banned, and we look forward to working with him to pass legislation that will bring an end to this public health crisis and protect the youth in our state,” said McCarty in a statement.
In 2020, it’s on Gov. Newsom to follow through and keep his word. He must work with the Legislature to overcome vape industry lobbying and ensure that California joins Michigan, New York - and President Trump - in banning these addictive poisons.
___
Sept. 17
The San Jose Mercury News and East Bay Times on college athletes profiting from endorsements:
The NCAA knows a thing or two about making a buck.
The governing body of college athletics, which operates as a nonprofit organization, reported revenues of $1.1 billion for the 2017 fiscal year. NCAA President Mark Emmert walked away with $2.9 million that year. But not a dime went to the athletes primarily responsible for raking in the dough. Even though 86% of college athletes live below the poverty line.
State Sen. Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, finds that appalling.
Good for her.
Her legislation, SB 206, would require California’s public and private colleges and universities to permit athletes to market themselves and receive payment for endorsement deals. The bill is such a no-brainer that the Assembly and Senate both passed it unanimously. Gov. Gavin Newsom should sign it into law and tell the NCAA to stop exploiting young athletes, the vast majority of whom will never play professional sports.
When it comes to bullying, the NCAA has few peers. So it came as no surprise that Emmert and the organization’s governing body sent Newsom a letter last week threatening the state.
“If the bill becomes law and California’s 58 NCAA schools are compelled to allow an unrestricted name, image and likeness scheme,” the letter said, “it would erase the critical distinction between college and professional athletics and, because it gives those schools an unfair recruiting advantage, would result in them eventually being unable to compete in NCAA competitions.”
The NCAA’s assertion that it cares about competitive balance is laughable. Try telling that to the schools that get thrashed on the gridiron every year by the likes of Alabama, Clemson, Oklahoma, Ohio State and Notre Dame.
No, the bottom line in this debate is money.
The NCAA loves to market its student-athletes as amateurs who play for the love of game. But one of the reasons colleges don’t want their athletes to be considered employees is they don’t want to be responsible for providing health care for injured players. Colleges aren’t required to provide health care for athletes when they are hurt, and when a player has a serious injury, it is the parent’s insurance that is primarily responsible for paying the costs for treatment.
The NCAA also doesn’t want players taking a piece of its very lucrative pie.
The University of Oregon, for example, signed a deal last December with Fanatics Inc., the world’s largest seller of licensed sports gear, for $23 million. If one of its star players signed an endorsement deal to market his or her likeness on T-shirts, sweatshirts, jackets and hats, it could reduce the university’s sales.
Skinner’s legislation is a matter of simple fairness. The NCAA and its member schools make millions off the athletes who perform on the playing fields. These athletes shouldn’t be blocked from making money off their name, image or likeness by what is an absurd rule.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.