What’s green and yellow all over and costs $52,000? Nope, it’s not a sports car with a flashy paint job or the world’s wealthiest duck, though water is supposed to run off of it pretty easily. It’s four new crosswalks on G Street in Arcata, branded with Cal Poly Humboldt’s logo and shining a blinding neon. 

The crosswalks are part of the “Green and Gold Corridor” project that Cal Poly Humboldt and the city of Arcata started working on together in 2022, when they decided to turn G Street into a nexus between the university and the city. Other additions to the street included Cal Poly Humboldt banners and flags. These crosswalks, located on G Street where it intersects at 14th and 8th streets, are the last addition to the collaboration. 

Emily Sinkhorn, Arcata’s environmental services director, told the Outpost that the city and Cal Poly Humboldt felt the crossworks would beautify the area and be symbols of the link between Cal Poly Humboldt and the university. 

“We saw an opportunity for G Street as a key connector between the city and the university,” Sinkhorn said, “and the crosswalks as physical reminders of that connection.”

The crosswalks were designed by Humboldt’s marketing team and reviewed by the city’s engineering and transportation departments. They’re made out of non-slip highly visible plastic. $12,000 came from the city, courtesy of American Rescue Plan Act money from 2021. Cal Poly Humboldt paid for the remaining $40,000. A Sacramento-based contractor put in the sidewalks. 

“The City and the University are always working together to strengthen the connection and relationship between students and the Arcata community, like hosting events in the downtown area, opening The Campus Store near the Plaza, and now, through the ‘Green & Gold Corridor,’” a statement from Cal Poly Humboldt to the Outpost said. “All of these efforts help students feel a stronger sense of belonging, make them feel more welcome, and encourage pride in the town where they live and learn.”

###

UPDATE, 1 p.m.: 

• EPD Releases Details on This Morning’s Fatal Collision; Everyone Involved is Cooperating, Police Say

###

Original Post: Officers with the Eureka Police Department are responding to a fatal traffic collision that occurred this morning on West Harris Street between Spring and Albee, southeast of Winco.

“If possible, please use alternate routes of travel,” the department advised via social media. “If utilizing W.Harris, please be patient as traffic flow is significantly impacted.”

An eyewitness tells Kym Kemp that the victim was a resident of the area. At the scene, officers have set up visual barriers on either side of the victim. A motorized medical travel scooter was left lying on its side in the righthand lane.

On Facebook, an employee of Poletski’s Appliance Center writes, “All of us at Poletskis are very sad to see this. We all became friends with this man he comes by here almost daily and talks to the workers. May he rest in peace .”

Eastbound traffic on Harris is being re-routed through the Winco parking lot.

We will update as more information becomes available.

Fall is in the air, and that means California drivers are gearing up for seasonal price increases at the pump. A plan by Gov. Gavin Newsom to hold down those spikes cleared the Assembly petroleum committee Thursday.

The proposal, the focus of a special legislative session, is set to head to an Assembly floor vote Tuesday.

California drivers typically pay higher prices for gas than the rest of the country, which is felt most acutely when seasonal maintenance at the state’s refiners pushes up prices. Newsom’s proposal would instate a yet-to-be-determined mandatory minimum amount of fuel that those refiners need to have on hand to lessen such spikes. The petroleum industry has decried the plan as costly and impractical, while Newsom’s office said the price spikes themselves are a result of corporate greed.

Experts said that the storage requirements would dampen the spikes as intended (the state projects up to about $2 billion in savings for California drivers) but wouldn’t address a large portion of the price difference between California and the rest of the country.

“This is not a panacea for all the issues in the California gas market,” Neale Mahoney, Stanford University economist, said in an interview with CalMatters. “This is, I would argue, an economically sound, well-targeted policy response to the problem of gas prices spiking whenever we have a disruption, even though we know disruptions happen and we should have some level of preparation.”

This is, I would argue, an economically sound, well-targeted policy.
— Neale Mahoney, Stanford University economist

Refiners argue that building up a reserve during the summer months, when demand is high and fuel is more challenging to blend, could lead to higher prices. They have also said that they lack tankage to store a reserve, an assertion the state and economists have pushed back on, and that it would be expensive and time-consuming to build more.

Seasonal maintenance drives higher prices, profits

Until the last decade, experts said, the difference between California’s prices and the national average was primarily made up of state taxes on gasoline and environmental fees. California also has a more emissions-friendly blend of gas than the rest of the country, which pushes up the cost further. But after a 2015 explosion at a refinery in Torrance, Calif., owned by ExxonMobil at the time, the premium paid for gas in California rose still further, vastly outpacing the national average.

The high baseline price of gas in California makes price spikes all the more painful for consumers. The main driver for the spikes, according to the governor’s office and experts, is the small number of refiners in California and their seasonal maintenance schedule.

California in recent years has seen a consolidation of refinery ownership. When a refinery goes down for maintenance, it is not contributing the same amount of fuel to the market as it typically does. That makes remaining fuel on the market more valuable, driving up prices temporarily.

Newsom’s proposal seeks to smooth prices during these maintenance shutdowns. Legislation from 2022 gave the state access to information from California’s refineries, including how much fuel they have on hand. The state then determined that the lack of supply during maintenance is a “key factor” behind the spikes.

Requiring refiners to stockpile higher levels of gas would ensure “we have enough supply that it doesn’t incentivize that trading behavior that increases prices,” said California Energy Commission spokesperson Lindsay Buckley.

Refiners in this current market won’t accumulate enough gas to dampen spikes on their own because they make more money when prices spike and so “don’t have the incentive to do what a competitive market would do and do what’s in the interest of the California customer,” Stanford’s Mahoney said

Experts also point out that Australia and Japan have put into place reserves to smooth out price spikes.

Potential problems with stockpiling gas

For all their promise, gasoline reserve mandates need to be carefully implemented, experts said. Newsom’s plan is vague, leaving many specifics, including the size of the reserve itself, up to a to-be-created panel. Buckley said it would be up to Energy Commission staff to implement the plan once it’s fleshed out.

But University of California Berkeley economist Severin Borenstein, who testified at a hearing on Newsom’s proposal last week, said there also need to be safeguards against using the gasoline reserves to score political points rather than to limit price spikes.

“Once you have inventory like this, it is going to be very tempting for whoever has political power to try to release that inventory when it is helpful to them to push down gasoline prices,” he testified at the hearing before the Assembly Committee on Petroleum and Gasoline Supply.

The Western States Petroleum Association, an industry group, said in a Sept. 19 letter to the state that not only is there not enough supply to store additional excess of, there isn’t enough storage for the reserve, and building even one more tank would take “the better part of a decade” and cost “tens of millions of dollars.”

“You’re asking a just-in-time system to slow down and back up the pipes just in case you have price volatility,” Mark Nechodom, senior director of science and technology for WSPA, said in an interview with CalMatters.

You’re asking a just-in-time system to slow down and back up the pipes just in case you have price volatility.
— Mark Nechodom, senior director of science and technology, Western States Petroleum Association

Experts and Buckley told CalMatters that no extra storage should need to be built, as the stock could be built up during non-maintenance times of the year. The state Division of Petroleum Market Oversight has said that refiners ended this summer with 2.4 million fewer barrels in storage than the 12.3 million barrels they had at the start of the year, a reduction the refiners have blamed on the scramble to meet demand during the busy travel season and on the fuel blend they produce in the summer, which is more difficult to refine. Refiners who lack storage capacity could buy storage credits from other refiners to make up the difference, experts added.

An amended version of Newsom’s plan would require that refiners store gas in existing tanks rather than build new ones, Politico reported.

The refiners say Newsom’s plans add to a long list of requirements that are disincentivizing production of gas in the state, and that this would further hinder investments, which could increase prices. “The uniqueness on top of uniqueness on top of uniqueness has made this not the kind of environment that refiners want to continue to invest in,” said Eloy Garcia, lobbyist for industry group the WSPA at last week’s hearing. “You are further and further making this a unique refining environment when you need refiners to stay in California.”

Another caveat on Newsom’s plan is that while it could help reduce price spikes, it won’t solve the broader issue of California’s higher gas prices, experts said. One of the largest contributors to California’s gas prices exceeding other states’ is something Borenstein has dubbed the “mystery gasoline surcharge.” Since the 2015 Torrance explosion, gas prices have routinely been higher than the rest of the country, and taxes, environmental fees, and supply shortages don’t explain it. The “mystery surcharge” accounts for about 40 cents per gallon, he said, or about $60 billion from Californians since 2015.

It’s not clear why prices remained high for years after the Torrance explosion; the refinery came back online a year later. The state sued two multinational gasoline firms for allegedly using the incident to launch “a scheme to drive up gas prices for their own profit.” A federal judge gave preliminary approval to a $13.9 million settlement of the case last month.

Some factors that might be affecting the price premium, Borenstein said, are California’s unique relationship with various industry players, from suppliers down to gas stations. The state has a higher share than the rest of the country, he said, of both branded gas (think big producers like Chevron) and contracts between refiners and gas stations – called a “dealer tank wagon” arrangement – that impose provisions like fees and fixed charges, giving refiners more influence over the consumer-facing price.

“It’s pretty much unheard of outside of California,” he said. And while refiners say they don’t control the price at the pump, “they have a lot more control over retail stations.”

This, he said, may be contributing to another issue unique to California, in which there are significant price disparities between different gas stations, even within the same city. Discount stations, for example, that don’t use big brands’ gasoline, often have significantly cheaper gas prices.

And while the state government is currently investigating the mystery surcharge, storage requirements likely won’t solve for it.

###

CalMatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.

Heading into the final four days before his midnight Monday deadline, Gov. Gavin Newsom will need to decide whether to sign or veto 465 bills still on his desk.

So far, he’s blocked 102 of 526 measures he’s acted on since the Legislature adjourned Aug. 31, or nearly 20%. That compares to a 15% veto rate in 2023, when he blocked 156 bills. He had a similar veto percentage in 2022, including some significant bills. In 2021, he vetoed fewer than 8%.

While the Legislature can override vetoes, it takes a two-thirds vote in both the Assembly and Senate and that hasn’t happened since 1979. Governors can also allow bills to become law without their signature, but that doesn’t occur very often, either.

So in most cases, lawmakers try again the next session, often tailoring their proposals to avoid Newsom’s veto pen.

“In most instances, legislators try to work with the governor and the governor’s administration in trying to address the concerns that are in the veto message, as opposed to saying simply that their approach is the right one,” said veteran lobbyist Chris Micheli.

On some high-profile and contentious bills, whatever Newsom says publicly about why he issued a veto, there can be a healthy dose of politics involved — as well as the push and pull of various interest groups.

“Whether it’s an election year or it’s not an election year, political considerations will impact not just the legislation going through the legislative process, but also whether or not a bill results in a gubernatorial signature or veto,” Micheli said. “But that’s a small number by my estimate.”

A Newsom spokesperson said the veto messages speak for themselves.

Here are the main reasons Newsom gives for his vetoes. (When he gives multiple reasons, it’s counted in all categories.)

It’s bad policy

Newsom cited policy problems as his reason for vetoing one third of the bills — the second largest category. These are bills that he didn’t agree with or had language that was too broad.

For example, Senate Bill 804 would have let community service officers testify at preliminary hearings. In the governor’s veto message, he wrote that the bill raises concerns about “the reliability of evidence presented at a critical stage of criminal proceedings.”

SB 1170 would have allowed candidates to use campaign funds to address mental health-related issues that arise during a campaign, but Newsom wrote that it could allow for other changes to campaign fund use that go “beyond what a reasonable donor would expect.”

And SB 1432 aimed to let hospitals seek five more years to meet seismic safety standards. “In the aftermath of an earthquake, not only would these hospitals be unable to provide emergency care to victims, but they would also require emergency response efforts to be diverted to rapidly evacuate and transfer patients to other facilities,” Newsom said in his veto message.

It’d strain the budget

For the third year in a row, the most common reason Newsom gave for vetoing a bill was budget concerns — about 40%.

Newsom and the Legislature had to make sweeping cuts to some programs and dip into the state’s reserves to close the $56 billion budget hole over the next two years. The deficit also played a central role in decisions during the session to shelve hundreds of bills. The state’s financial crunch accounted for 41% of vetos last year, according to Micheli.

“Every governor and his or her staff, they’re going to look at the policy implications. Second, the fiscal implications,” Micheli said. “A negative fiscal consideration this year, last year and the prior year has been an overriding factor in many instances.”

For example, the governor vetoed AB 1840, which would have allowed undocumented applicants to apply for a homebuyer assistance program. In his veto message, Newsom wrote that there is “finite funding” available and that this change would have to be considered in the state budget.

Another bill that Newsom squashed because of the budget was AB 544, which would have provided funding so three counties could test in-person voting in jails.

But even if an author attempts to address their bill in the budget, it may not be enough. State Sen. Caroline Menjivar, a Van Nuys Democrat, secured $5 million for SB 954, which would have required public high schools to provide condoms to students.

Newsom vetoed the bill, writing that “one-time funding does not adequately address the fiscal concerns associated with this bill.”

It may not be legal

For a couple of bills so far, Newsom said that courts should decide on an issue before he gives his signature.

His second veto of a bill relating to undocumented Californians, SB 2586, would have let undocumented students work on campus. In his message, Newsom wrote that, “it is critical that the courts address the legality of such a policy and the novel legal theory behind this legislation before proceeding.”

It’s up to local officials

Sometimes Newsom vetoes a bill because it’s an issue that could be solved at the local level.

For example, AB 1950 would have created a state task force to research reparations for people displaced in the Chavez Ravine area in Los Angeles. In his veto message, Newsom wrote that it is “an issue best addressed by stakeholders closest to the Chavez Ravine community.”

It’s not needed

Newsom vetoed another large percentage of bills because he sees them as unnecessary given the work the state is already doing on an issue.

SB 936 would have required Caltrans to conduct a road safety study and come up with an improvement plan. In Newsom’s message, he wrote that Caltrans is already working on road safety, so the bill would be redundant.

Despite the governor’s explanation of Caltrans’ current efforts, bill author Sen. Kelly Seyarto, a Republican from Murrieta, wrote in a press release that he is “deeply disappointed by the veto, as it sends a message that road safety isn’t being prioritized at a time when fatalities are on the rise.”

AB 2903 would have required state homelessness programs to more closely track and report spending data. However, Newsom wrote in his veto message that he’s already signed legislation that strengthens reporting requirements for California’s two largest programs.

That didn’t satisfy the bill author, Assemblymember Josh Hoover, a Republican from Folsom. “Governor Newsom is doubling down on his failed response to homelessness,” Hoover posted on X. “Our state has spent billions of taxpayer dollars in recent years only to see the homeless population increase statewide.”

It’s too soon

Newsom dubbed another small portion of bills as “premature,” such as SB 1220, which would have banned agencies from staffing call centers with AI or automated decision-making systems if it gets rid of a human job.

Last year, Newsom signed an executive order for the state to evaluate how to use AI in its workforce, so the bill would create guidelines before the ones from the order are announced, he wrote in his veto message.

SB 1050 would have allowed Californians who had land taken from them or their families for racially motivated reasons to apply for compensation. But implementing the bill is “impossible,” according to Newsom, because there’s no agency to do so.

###

CalMatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.

California’s governor signed a slate of bills today aimed at beginning the process of reparations for Black descendants of enslaved people, including a measure that requires the state to apologize for perpetuating slavery.

The headliner bill signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom requires officials to sign and display a plaque in the state Capitol that includes the following: “The State of California apologizes for perpetuating the harms African Americans faced by having imbued racial prejudice through segregation, public and private discrimination, and unequal disbursal of state and federal funding and declares that such actions shall not be repeated.”

California joins a half-dozen states, including Alabama and Florida, in issuing such a formal apology.

Slavery wasn’t officially legal in California but was tolerated in the state’s early history. The formal apology was one of more than 100 recommendations made in a 2023 report by a California task force on reparations for the effects of slavery. The panel found that discriminatory laws and unlawful property seizures contributed to significant gaps in wealth, education, and health for generations of Black Californians. The task force recommended direct cash payments for descendants to repair the damage, but so far, the Legislature has not taken up that recommendation.

The California Legislative Black Caucus advanced 14 priority bills in January, including a proposal to provide financial aid for communities harmed by discrimination, another requiring the state to examine banned books in prisons, and another that would protect the right to wear “natural and protective” hairstyles in all competitive sports.

Newsom signed most of those 14 bills, but advocates have described many of them as only symbolic, noting that California political leaders have shied away from enacting more substantial reparations legislation.

On Wednesday, Newsom vetoed two of the Black Caucus’ slate of bills. One would have created a process for Black families to file a claim with the state if they believed the government seized their property through eminent domain due to discriminatory motives and without providing fair compensation. The other would have required Medi-Cal, the state’s public health insurance plan, to cover culturally relevant and medically supportive foods or nutrition interventions when deemed necessary by a healthcare provider.

Newsom said he vetoed the eminent domain bill, SB 1050 by Sen. Steven Bradford, because the state agency to carry out its provisions doesn’t exist. “I thank the author for his commitment to redressing past racial injustices,” Newsom wrote in his veto message.

Still, the governor’s vetoes dealt another blow to the years-long effort to help the state of California atone for its racist past, an effort being watched nationwide.

It followed what reparations advocates described as a crushing defeat last month. In the final hours of the legislative session, Black lawmakers blocked two reparations bills – one that would have created an agency to review reparations claims, including those of unjust property takings, and another that would have created a fund for future reparations payments. Newsom’s office declined to comment on those bills, saying the governor does not typically comment on pending legislation.

The caucus cited concerns that the Legislature would not have enough oversight over the agency’s operations. Assemblymember Lori Wilson, the caucus chairperson, declined to comment on the reparations fund bill because it wasn’t part of the caucus’s priority package.

The bills were blocked after Newsom’s administration pushed for the bill to create the agency that would have evaluated claims of unjust property takings to be turned into legislation that would have allocated $6 million to the California State University system to study how to implement the reparations task force’s recommendations, according to a document with proposed amendments.

The Alliance for Reparations, Reconciliation, and Truth, a coalition of Black power-building and justice groups in California, issued a statement expressing disappointment in Newsom’s veto of SB 1050.

“While SB 1050 and other important measures failed this session, we acknowledge the complexities of the current fiscal and political environment and remain committed to advocating for meaningful and impactful progress. We urge our community and allies to remain steadfast,” the group wrote.

The Coalition for a Just and Equitable California also expressed frustration with Newsom’s veto.

“The decision is yet another example of political leaders paying lip service to reparative justice while cowering in the face of true reparative action,” the group’s statement read. The group noted the legislation passed with more than 70 votes in the 80-member Assembly and 37 votes in the 40-member Senate and called on the Legislature to override Newsom’s veto.

“SB 1050 was not just a bill; it was a lifeline to families who have suffered generational harm due to wrongful property seizures. The veto sends a message that the state is unwilling to confront the full breath of its historical injustices,” the coalition wrote in a written statement.

###

CalMatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.

Thrill to the spectacle of Logic and Accuracy Testing from the primary election two years ago.

Press release from the Humboldt County Elections Office:

The Humboldt County Office of Elections invites members of the Humboldt County Civil Grand Jury, political party organizations, the media and any member of the public interested in the election process to observe all aspects of the November 5, 2024 General Election. There are many upcoming opportunities to observe the election process.

Logic and Accuracy Testing

Logic and accuracy testing of the county’s voting machines will begin on Friday, Sep. 27 at 10 a.m. Before each election, the Office of Elections tests ballots and equipment to ensure correct readings of all ballot types. Ballot counting equipment is also tested to ensure it is fully functional and counting votes accurately. A Logic and Accuracy Observer Panel of up to two people will be convened, pursuant to the California Secretary of State’s approved logic and accuracy procedures, to certify the validity and outcome of the testing. This process is open to the public.

Ballot Processing

Vote by mail ballot processing will begin Tuesday, Oct. 8 at 8 a.m. and ballot counting will continue through Election Day on Nov. 5. Results from counted vote by mail ballots will be available shortly after 8 p.m. on Election Day. Counting will resume on Thursday, Nov. 7 and will continue through certification of the election on Thursday, Dec. 5. All ballot processing and counting will take place at the Humboldt County Office of Elections, located at 2426 Sixth St. in Eureka. This process is also open for public observation.

1% Manual Tally 

Pursuant to California Election Code Sections 336.5 and 15360, one percent of the voting precincts in an election are randomly selected for manual tallying of ballot votes to verify the accuracy of the automated count. Additionally, one precinct for each contest not included in the initial random selection is also manually tallied. Humboldt County’s random draw for the 1% manual tally will take place on Thursday, Nov. 7, with the tally starting  on Wednesday, Nov. 13 at 8 a.m. This process is open to the public and shall continue daily until completed, excluding on weekends and holidays unless otherwise determined by the Humboldt County Registrar of Voters.

How to Observe the Election Process

Observers will be welcomed at the Elections Office and at Vote Center locations while they are open through Election Day. Those interested in observing any aspect of the November 5, 2024 General Election process must contact the Elections Office at least 24 hours in advance.

For more information, please call 707-445-7481 or email humboldt_elections@co.humboldt.ca.us.

The Humboldt County Office of Elections is committed to providing the best possible service to voters, districts, candidates and interested parties and ensuring all eligible residents have an opportunity to exercise their right to vote and observe the election process. For more information on the November 5, 2024 election, please visit humboldtgov.org/elections.

About the Humboldt County Office of Elections

The Humboldt County Office of Elections is dedicated to conducting fair, accurate and transparent elections, ensuring the voice of the community is heard and that electoral integrity is maintained. The Elections Office is committed to upholding the democratic process, providing reliable information and maintaining an open line of communication with the public.

For more information, visit humboldtgov.org/elections.

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s funding plan for California schools violates the state’s constitution and could endanger school funding in years to come, according to a lawsuit filed today in Sacramento.

The California School Boards Association, which filed the suit, has been outspoken in its opposition to the plan since Newsom introduced his revised budget in May. The state already passed its budget and the lawsuit won’t affect money that’s already been allotted to schools, but the association hopes a judge will strike down what they described as Newsom’s “funding maneuver.”

The governor, trying to preserve funding for schools amid a tight economic climate, made up an $8.8 billion shortfall in the Proposition 98 school funding guarantee by borrowing from the state’s general fund.

“The manipulation … is unacceptable as it removes a funding safety net that has served schools for more than three decades and could be used by future governors and legislatures to avoid complying with the Proposition 98 funding guarantee,” association president Albert Gonzalez said.

Newsom’s office said the accounting move was not only legal, but saved schools from potential budget cuts.

“Because general fund revenues were significantly lower than estimated … the recalculated minimum guarantee for fiscal year 2022-23 is roughly $8.8 billion less than previously calculated,” Joe Stephenshaw, the state’s director of finance, wrote to legislative leaders in July. “To help address this decrease in the minimum guarantee without impacting school district and community college district budgets,” the budget shifts some spending sources.

Proposition 98, passed nearly 40 years ago, sets a minimum funding guarantee for California’s public schools. Based on a complex set of formulas, the guarantee is roughly 40% of the state’s budget, and pays for things such as teacher salaries and day-to-day operating expenses at the state’s 10,000 schools.

Newsom has invested heavily in schools during his stint as governor, funneling billions to programs like community schools, improved school meals, student mental health and other initiatives. He’s said that these programs are especially important as students recover from the pandemic, academically as well as emotionally.

California’s per-pupil spending, which used to be among the nation’s lowest, is now above average, according to the Public Policy Institute of California. In 2022-23, California spent $19,475 per student, counting revenue from all sources.

Overall, the education budget this year was $134 billion.

Schools are facing a precarious budget outlook, as federal pandemic relief money expires, absenteeism remains high and enrollment continues to drop in many parts of the state. California funds schools based on attendance, so fewer students in classrooms equals less revenue from the state.

Meanwhile, schools are trying to find money to maintain programs that have proven successful, such as academic tutoring, after-school programs and summer school. They’re also grappling with teacher shortages in some subjects, and raising salaries to attract and retain staff.

###

CalMatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.