In 2017, faced with President Donald Trump’s threat to crack down on illegal immigration, Gavin Newsom urged his fellow Democrats to fight back with “sanctuary policies” aimed to shield immigrants in the country without authorization from deportations.

“You are looking at the poster child for sanctuary policy,” Newsom, then California’s lieutenant governor, said on one of his gubernatorial campaign stops that year. He touted his record as former mayor of San Francisco, which has for decades limited local law enforcement’s participation in federal immigration operations.

“What the heck is wrong with the Democratic Party that we don’t have the courage to stand up for it?” Newsom said. “…It’s about people. And it’s about a fundamental principle about trust.”

But the once-vocal Trump critic has now grown quieter: As Trump again promises sweeping deportations, Newsom has avoided the word “sanctuary” after frequently evoking it during Trump’s first term. He’s had vetoed before — and now promised to veto again — legislation that would expand “sanctuary” protections to immigrants in state custody.

Newsom is among many prominent California Democrats taking a more muted tone on immigration while working to preserve existing protections for immigrants in the state without legal authorization, instead of expanding them to include more people in state prison.

Their reluctance comes as Trump returns to the White House more determined and experienced to fulfill his campaign promises: He has pledged to carry out the “largest deportation operation in American history.” He has also threatened to prosecute local officials who decline to help federal authorities carry out deportations and withhold federal funding from “sanctuary” cities and states — at a time when the January wildfires made California more dependent on federal aid for disaster recovery.

This week California Republicans introduced legislation to preempt local ordinances from going beyond the state’s 2017 “sanctuary law” protections, and to require local law enforcement to cooperate with federal immigration authorities for those convicted of violent crimes and certain other misdemeanors. Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones of San Diego told KQED that he’s spoken to some Democratic colleagues and the reaction has been “more positive than I expected.”

The hesitance among Democrats to speak up as boldly about immigration could also reflect shifting voter sentiment, experts say. Last year, a Gallup poll found that more than half of Americans said they wanted to see immigration to the United States decrease — the first time since 2005 that a majority of its survey respondents held that view. More recent polls find that how people feel about deporting unauthorized immigrants often hinges on how the deportations are carried out and who are targeted. Most polls do show a majority of Americans want such immigrants deported if they’re convicted of violent crimes.

Democrats nationwide — who have for more than a decade taken a “staunchly pro-immigration” stance “without any recognition of possible compromise” — may be pivoting on the issue, said Mindy Romero, founder and director of the Center for Inclusive Democracy at the University of Southern California.

“The discussion of the day, immediately post the 2024 election, was this focus about Democrats getting it wrong on the economy and on immigration,” Romero said. “…I think they are hedging their bets by staying quiet on an issue that they are … seeing how it plays out and people’s reactions to it.”

But it’s a balancing act for those California Democrats: While there may be political benefits in staying put, the lack of a forceful response to Trump’s immigration policies may risk alienating base voters and drawing primary challenges from the left.

“By not speaking out, these local officials are potentially risking not getting re-elected,” said Loren Collingwood, a professor at the University of New Mexico who specializes in sanctuary city laws.

The lack of more vocal resistance among Democratic leaders has already drawn criticism from some progressives.

“I think it’s disgusting, everything that’s going on, and it’s also sad to hear that a lot of our elected officials are hesitant,” said San Jose City Councilmember Peter Ortiz, who championed a resolution earlier this month to reaffirm the city’s “sanctuary” ordinance protecting undocumented immigrants.

“Now is not the time for Democratic leadership to second guess what’s right,” he said. “Abraham Lincoln didn’t do a poll to see if it was popular to free the slaves. We’ve got to have individuals stand for what’s right, and not for what’s popular.”

Sanctuary: A highly politicized word

While there’s no legal definition of “sanctuary” policies, they generally mean policies prohibiting the use of local or state government resources to cooperate with federal immigration authorities.

In 1971, Berkeley became the first sanctuary city to provide refuge for sailors who protested the Vietnam War. And in the 1980s, churches declared themselves sanctuaries for Central American refugees when then-President Ronald Reagan attempted to deny them asylum.

But the term has been highly politicized in recent years, especially as Trump began targeting sanctuary cities during his first term. In resistance to Trump’s threats, the state passed a “sanctuary state” law in 2017 to prohibit cooperation with federal immigration authorities in most cases, except when the immigrants here illegally are convicted of certain crimes, mostly felonies and violent offenses.

“It became politicized because it has become the linchpin here, the bulwark against threats of mass deportation,” said Angela Chan, an assistant chief attorney at the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office who co-authored the city’s “sanctuary” ordinance as well as California’s “sanctuary state” law, which took effect in 2018 in resistance to Trump’s immigration policies.

“Under Trump, he has taken the politicization to a new level,” Chan said.

“Now is not the time for Democratic leadership to second guess what’s right. Abraham Lincoln didn’t do a poll to see if it was popular to free the slaves.”
— San Jose City Councilmember Peter Ortiz

During Trump’s first term, Newsom was a keen advocate for sanctuary policies. Soon after Trump was elected, Newsom urged California’s state universities to declare themselves “sanctuary campuses” for undocumented immigrant students. He called Trump a “bully” and praised the state for passing its sanctuary state law “in the face of the Trump administration.” He touted San Francisco’s sanctuary city ordinances, saying that he had made a mistake in his mayoral tenure to ignore the policies and order local law enforcement to turn over young in-custody immigrants without legal authorization to federal immigration agents.

In his inaugural speech in 2019, the new governor urged California to become “a house that provides shelter to all who need it and sanctuary to all who seek it.”

This year, Newsom has all but distanced himself from the rhetoric. At his request, the state Legislature approved $50 million in spending to “Trump-proof” California, including $25 million to provide immigrants with legal services. But even in promoting that, Newsom stressed that the funding was not meant to shield those convicted of felonies, urging state lawmakers to clarify it if needed.

“His record speaks for itself,” said Newsom spokesperson Diana Crofts-Pelayo in an email, after CalMatters asked Newsom’s office about the governor’s tonal shift.

The California Democratic Party has not said much either. Party spokesperson Robin Swanson said the party has “uplifted voices from our elected leaders” and pointed to posts from Democratic officials it has reposted to promote educational training and statements about mass deportations.

The only public comment the party made online was from Yvette Martinez, its executive director, who stressed the party’s general support for immigrants, in a way that left ambiguous whether the party was referring to those who immigrated illegally.

“The California Democratic Party remains committed to protecting and uplifting all communities, recognizing that our state’s strength and prosperity are deeply rooted in the contributions of immigrants,” Martinez said in a Feb. 3 social media post.

In 2017, however, then party-chair Eric Bauman was loud in his support for the sanctuary state law. He deemed the use of state resources to deport undocumented immigrants “unconscionable and dangerously corrosive to the trust law enforcement needs from the community to keep Californians safe.”

“Californians welcome our undocumented brothers and sisters,” he said.

When asked why the party has been less vocal this year on sanctuary policies, party chair Rusty Hicks did not answer the question but said in a statement instead: “California Democrats stand with our hardworking immigrant Californians who help move the Golden State forward.”

Mayors of some of the most liberal cities have also backed away from talk of sanctuary ordinances.

In San Francisco, Mayor Daniel Lurie declined to sign a non-binding resolution to reaffirm the city’s sanctuary ordinance, arguing it’s his policy not to “comment or act on urging resolutions.”

San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan, who deemed San Jose a “welcoming city,” told CalMatters in a statement “the term ‘sanctuary’ doesn’t have a clear legal definition and has become politicized by both ends of the ideological spectrum.”

But he stood by the city’s policies to not assist in federal immigration sweeps. “That’s because whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican or anything in between, the fundamental responsibility of government is keeping people safe,” he said. “And our police department can’t do that if people are scared to call 911 or bear witness to a crime.”

‘Hedging their bets’ on immigration

Efforts to expand protections for unauthorized immigrants in California have been non-starters.

Assemblymember Mike Gipson, a Los Angeles Democrat, has unsuccessfully pushed for a bill to prevent state correctional officers from helping federal immigration authorities deport immigrants here illegally in custody — legislation Newsom previously vetoed.

The city of Los Angeles adopted a sanctuary city ordinance in December, but within two weeks, the city council revised the policy to exempt unauthorized immigrants convicted of serious felonies from the protections — largely in line with the state law.

City officials and state lawmakers are holding the line against Trump’s immigration policies as they face more aggressive threats from his administration.

The president tried to withhold federal grants from sanctuary cities during his first term. While a federal court initially blocked it, a higher court reversed the decision in 2019, arguing it was legal to give applicants who cooperated with immigration authorities preferential treatment.

Cutting federal funding to sanctuary cities could take away billions of dollars from California’s biggest cities, whose budgets rely in part on federal money. San Francisco, for example, stands to lose as much as $3 billion in federal funding, according to a lawsuit the city filed against the Trump administration, challenging Trump’s threat to withhold dollars from sanctuary cities.

“(Trump) has Republican control of the House and the Senate, and he has said and already shown that he’s serious about enacting many of the policies that he pledged during his campaign,” Romero said. “And he’s doing it aggressively.”

“The Democrats got dominated, got drenched during the past election, so I think everyone’s still licking the wounds and recovering from the defeat.”
— San Francisco political consultant David Ho

But the largely muted response to Trump among Democrats may also be a signal that they are recalibrating their messaging on immigration after seeing its base moving rightward during the presidential election, partly fueled by the aggressive Republican outreach on immigration, experts say.

“The Democrats got dominated, got drenched during the past election, so I think everyone’s still licking the wounds and recovering from the defeat,” said David Ho, a longtime San Francisco political consultant.

During the election, Trump and his loyalists dialed up fears over illegal immigration by making it “about life and death,” Romero said.

“The narrative that was pushed wasn’t just ‘We shouldn’t have immigrants breaking the law by coming into our country illegally.’ It wasn’t about hurting your economy,” she said. “It was ‘they are going to hurt your family and maybe kill your daughter.’”

Democrats, however, did not put on much of an effective defense to counter that narrative, Collingwood said. “All (voters) are hearing is this negative information about the border. …And that’s all basically saying ‘immigrants are dangerous, immigrants are scary.’ We don’t know who they are, and you don’t have the flip-side narrative.”

While there isn’t enough post-election polling to show how much immigration swung voters toward Trump, it’s not a chance Democrats want to take, Romero said.

“We are in a shifting environment,” she said. “And on top of that, the Democrats … are conscious of not sounding like they are just against everything. If you are against everything, you lose the ability for people sometimes to listen.”

But by not speaking up more forcefully for immigrant protections, some Democrats may risk frustrating their base.

“It’s puzzling for local officials in particular blue cities and urban cores … to shy away from a core Democratic issue around immigrant rights,” Ho said. “To be the mayor of a major city like San Francisco, where we have a long history of civil rights struggle and gains, I do expect our leaders to be much more vocal and intentional.”

Drawing a line with ‘the bad guys’

Democratic leaders nationwide — including former President Joe Biden and former Vice President Kamala Harris — also shifted toward a more forceful tone on illegal immigration, with Biden and Harris advocating for more executive power to shut down the southern border.

In California, Democrats have long debated where to draw the line on protecting immigrants from deportations. In 2017, the bill to establish “sanctuary state” policies split Democratic lawmakers, with some supporting the exclusion of people convicted of certain crimes from the state’s protection. Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi, a Torrance Democrat and a former prosecutor, said at the time the state shouldn’t shield immigrants if they assaulted a peace officer.

“I’ve been a champion of immigrants,” he said in 2017. “I’ve supported legal and undocumented immigrants, but I draw the line with the bad guys.”

When asked this week whether he continues to distinguish law-abiding immigrants from those with a criminal background, Muratsuchi told CalMatters “I don’t have any problem with deporting serious and violent criminals.”

Muratsuchi declined to elaborate further or comment on how the state or cities should react to Trump’s immigration policies. But this year, he did introduce Assembly Bill 49, which would limit federal immigration authorities from accessing schools and daycare centers without a warrant.

Some city officials have also stressed that they do not wish to shield criminals from federal law enforcement.

“My general view is if you are in our city or country and you’re undocumented, and you’re committing serious or violent crimes, you should be deported and I don’t think that’s very controversial,” Mahan, the San Jose mayor, said in a CNN interview. And following an immigration raid last month, Mahan said he hopes federal immigration authorities target “violent and serious criminals” instead of “law-abiding” residents.

Efforts to make that distinction have upset some immigrant advocacy groups and progressive Democrats.

An earlier draft of San Jose’s sanctuary city resolution — adopted earlier this month — emphasized the city’s intent to protect “law-abiding” residents. Ortiz, the councilmember, proposed to scratch that during a Feb. 4 city council meeting.

“I … worry that this language plays on a false premise debunked time and time again that immigrants commit crimes at a higher rate than native-born citizens despite (the) opposite being proven true,” he said.

Rhetoric distinguishing “criminals” from “law-abiding” residents could risk stigmatizing the already vulnerable undocumented immigrant community, said Andrea Guerrero, executive director of advocacy group Alliance San Diego. Regardless of their criminal records, she argued, they enjoy Fourth Amendment protections from unreasonable searches and seizures from the government.

“It’s divisive politics. It’s feeding into stereotypes,” Guerrero said. “More than anything, it’s creating this idea that there are people worthy of constitutional protections and there are people who are not worthy. And the second we go down the road … we are weakening the strength of (the constitution) and the strength of our democracy.”

###

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

California’s K-12 schools are getting some clarity on how to handle the Trump administration’s sweeping orders to abolish diversity, equity and inclusion programs.

The answer is: Do nothing. Not yet, anyway.

“Time to take a breath. Just because Trump ordered it, doesn’t mean it’s going to happen,” Noelle Ellerson Ng, a legislative advocate for the School Superintendents Association, told California school administrators last week. “Executive orders on their own can’t really accomplish much … There’s a distinct difference between activity and productivity.”

Last week, the U.S. Department of Education announced it may withhold funding for any school that has programs focused on race. That could include clubs, activities, prizes, graduation ceremonies “and all other aspects of student, academic and campus life,” according to the directive.

“With this guidance, the Trump Administration is directing schools to end the use of racial preferences and race stereotypes in their programs and activities — a victory for justice, civil rights laws, and the Constitution,” Craig Trainor, acting assistant secretary for civil rights for the education department, said in a statement.

Schools have until Feb. 28 to end the programs.

On Friday, a judge temporarily blocked some of Trump’s orders related to diversity, equity and inclusion. The ruling prevents the federal government from cutting funding, but it doesn’t stop it from investigating schools’ race-related programs – at least for now.

Nearly every high school in California has at least some programs focused on students’ race. Black, Latino and Asian student clubs are common, as are celebrations like Chinese New Year or Cinco de Mayo. In recent years, more students — particularly Native American students — have worn ethnic regalia to graduation ceremonies, or even held separate ceremonies.

About 8% of California’s K-12 funding comes from the federal government, mostly as payments for special education and Title I grants for schools where at least 40% of the student population is low-income. If the federal money disappears, those schools and students will be most affected.

Attorney General Rob Bonta said he was reviewing the Department of Education’s directive, but in general, he said that DEI programs are legal and schools have a right to promote them.

“This is not the time to run. The governor is going to fight, the attorney general is going to fight, and we’re going to fight, too.”
— Angie Barfield, executive director of Black Students of California United

In a joint announcement in January with 12 other state attorneys general, Bonta called Trump’s anti-DEI efforts “unnecessary and disingenuous.”

“The administration is targeting lawful policies and programs that are beneficial to all Americans,” they wrote. “These policies and programs are not only consistent with state and federal anti-discrimination laws, they foster environments where everyone has an opportunity to succeed.”

Attorney General weighs in

State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment, but earlier in February he urged schools to “stay focused” and not get distracted by Trump’s orders.

“Now is not the time to be distracted by external efforts to demean and divide,” Thurmond wrote to school authorities. “Please continue to stay the course with local programs that are producing results. Now is the time when our students need consistency, support, and community more than ever.”

Some parents were dismayed at the directive, saying it would limit their children’s exposure to other cultures. Katie Walton, a mother of three Native American children, said she worried how it would impact Native American programs and curriculum, particularly a recently passed state law requiring schools to teach about the genocide of Native Californians during the Spanish and Gold Rush eras.

“Me and my husband will teach our kids what they need to know, but I’m worried about all the other kids who might not get this information,” said Walton, who lives in Madera County and whose children are part of the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians. “It makes me sad.”

Angie Barfield, executive director of Black Students of California United, said she’s received calls from school administrators throughout the state who are unsure whether to disband their campus Black student clubs.

She tells them to “stand firm.”

“This is not the time to run,” Barield said. “The governor is going to fight, the attorney general is going to fight, and we’re going to fight, too.”

Black student clubs began decades ago

At least 3,000 high school students in California belong to Black student clubs, although the number is probably much higher, Barfield said. The groups date from the late 1960s, when students at San Francisco State started the first Black student union, and have spread to high schools and colleges nationwide.

Traditionally open to everyone, the clubs give students a chance to socialize, discuss issues and advocate for the needs of Black students. The students in Barfield’s organization also go on college tours, run a youth senate and advocate for student health.

“These clubs have a long track record of supporting not just Black students, but all students,” Barfield said. “This order is taking us backwards.”

Ng and her colleagues are advising school administrators to consult with school boards, lawyers and community members to see what their options are, and how to respond. But, she said, it’s important to stay calm until there’s more specific information from Washington, D.C., such as a Congressional order.

“Regardless of what the Trump administration does, public school doors are still open and kids still show up,” Ng said. “So quitting is not an option, and we have to figure out how to respond.”

Since taking office in January, Trump has made a series of other steps to reshape public schools, some of which are already moving forward. He vowed to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education, legalize vouchers for parents to use public money to send their children to private school, and overhaul Title IX, which bans discrimination based on gender.

Earlier this month, the so-called Department of Government Efficiency canceled $900 million in education contracts, which paid for reviews of teaching strategies, literacy programs and special education support, among other services.

Trump also eliminated a law enforcement provision that protected schools, hospitals and other “sensitive locations” from immigration enforcement. That move has thrown immigrant communities into panic, with parents in some areas afraid to send their children to school.

###

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

Glynafay (Davis) Teasley of Fortuna passed away Saturday, February 22, 2025, at Redwood Memorial Hospital at 10:33 pm at the age of 85 years old. She was born on April 4, 1939 in Elsie’s McDonalds Home in Okanogan, Washington to Frank and Pauline Davis. She is one of twelve children.

Her older siblings who went before her were John, Charles, Mary Frances, Ruthie, and Marylee. Her living siblings are Melvin, William, Shirley, Ronald “Ronnie”, Thelma, and Fenton.

Glynafay grew up in the state of Washington.

She went to school clear up to 9th grade.

During the summer, Glynafay spent time picking apples and she also spent time painting store front windows.

She got married at fifteen to Gordan Leroy Weight. They had four children: Martin “Marty,” Glynamarie “Glyna,” Connan Leann and Deborah “Debbie.” They were married for six years before they got a divorce.

She got married to Hubert Harold Teasley on 24 Jun 1961 in Reno, Nevada. They had five children: Brenda Gail, Rocky Harold, Parnellie, Rodney Wayne, and Holly Ann. They were married for 38 years until Hubert’s death.

Two years later Glynafay got married to Justo Maldonado. They were married for six years when he passed away from Alzheimers.

She then married Robert “Bob” until his death from Alzheimer.

Glynafay worked for Saint Luke Manor for 20 years until she had a heart attack at the age of 60.

She loved roses and as a kid I remember the back yard being surrounded with roses. She had a collection of angels, cookie jars, salt and pepper shakers, and Disney character dolls.

She had an old red King James Bible that she read all of the time of where it was literally falling apart from her reading it and marking passages of verses.

She could draw a picture of anything and taught us kids how, but only a few of us had the talent to draw.

She taught all of us girls how to cook, bake, clean, sew, embroidery, etc.

She did not believe in saying you could not do something. She pushed us to accomplish our goals. Whenever I told her I did not want to something, she would tell me suck it up buttercup and do it. I was pushed along with others to do what we felt was impossible. One funny story was when my mom decided to have a sit-down strike from cleaning and cooking to let the family know how much she needed our help. We were asking our dad what was wrong with mom, because she never sat down. She leaves behind her children & their spouses: Martin & Elanore Weight, Redding; Glynamarie of Reno, Nevada; Connan & Bob of Fortuna; Deborah & Gerry Valdovinos of Galt, California; Brenda & Ronald Mason of Elk Grove, California; Rocky & Sherry Teasley of Maine; Parnellie & Manuel Meras of Fortuna; Holly & Christian of Fortuna; and numerous grandchildren, great- and great-great-grandchildren.

The funeral service will take place at Goble’s Fortuna Mortuary in Fortuna, California on Saturday, March 1, at 3 p.m. Reception to follow. All friends and family are invited. Arrangements are under the direction of Goble’s Fortuna Mortuary, Fortuna.

Michael Allen Walkner passed away peacefully, surrounded by family, at Mad River Hospital on Wednesday, Feb. 12, 2025. He was 78 years old. He had been suffering from Lewy Body dementia for the past several years and had recently been diagnosed with prostate cancer.

He was born in Milwaukee, Wisconsin on June 26, 1946, the second of three sons born to Engelbert Walkner Jr. and Buelah Walkner (nee: Seyler). When he was eight years old, his life changed forever. His father drowned tragically when a boat he was in capsized during a storm while on a family fishing trip.

After his father’s death, Mike moved to Neenah, Wisconsin with his mother and brother, Tom, to be close to his mother’s brother and his family. Mike graduated from Neenah High School, where he played football and baseball, in 1964. He graduated from the University of Wisconsin – Stevens Point in 1968 with a B.S. degree in biology.

After graduation from college, Mike enlisted in the U.S. Army and served on active duty from 1968 to 1971. After basic and advanced training as a combat engineer, he entered Officers Candidate School, was commissioned a Second Lieutenant in 1970 and was deployed to South Korea, where he served as commanding officer of a unit until his discharge in 1971. He obtained the rank of first lieutenant while he served in Korea.

In 1971 Mike married Judy (nee: Bily) in Hawaii. Their daughter, Jessie, was born in 1974 and their son, Casey, was born in 1976. During their marriage both Mike and Judy were employed in the medical industry, Judy as a licensed physical therapist and Mike as a licensed clinical laboratory scientist. Their employment took them to medical facilities in both Montana and Wisconsin. While married, Mike obtained a Master’s degree in Hospital Administration from the University of Wisconsin – Eau Claire.

While living in Minocqua, Wisconsin, Mike and Judy divorced in 1993. During this transition time, Mike commuted to a school in Minnesota, where he became licensed as a massage therapist. Jessie went with him and took classes at the University of Minnesota. Together they shared an apartment for Jessie, while Mike traveled weekly to Minocqua to maintain his employment status. After this year in Minnesota, Judy, Jessie and Casey moved to Northern California. Mike stayed in Minocqua until 1996, employed as the head of the laboratory at the Howard Young Medical Center in Minocqua.

At the end of 1996 Mike moved to Humboldt County to be close to his son and daughter. Mike was hired as a clinical laboratory scientist at the Northern California Blood Bank in Eureka, where he worked until he retired in 2017.

In 1997, Mike met and began dating Carolyn Ames and they were married on Jan. 5, 2001 in Eureka. Mike and Carolyn were both employed in the medical field. Mike as a clinical laboratory scientist, and Carolyn as a RN. They both were also massage practitioners, which is how they met. They spent many years juggling a life between family, full time employment, dedication to service, and building projects. Next January, they would have celebrated their 25th wedding anniversary. Mike and Carolyn loved the outdoors, taking trips to our national parks, as well as travel abroad. One of the highlights of their travels was a trip to Europe, in which Mike was able to spend time with distant relatives on his father’s side.

Mike was intelligent, loyal, funny and hard-working. He was a great husband, father, brother and a friend to many.

He was an avid reader, enjoyed swimming, woodworking, walking his dog, Gracie, camping, watching his grandchildren grow and was an avid Green Bay Packer fan. He enjoyed researching his family through genealogy. He was known for planting apple trees wherever he lived. Mike was not especially fond of Trivia games, but everyone wanted him on their team, because he knew minor details about everything. Mike’s love for family will truly be missed by all.

He was preceded in death by his mother and father, his brother Donald Walkner, sister-in-law Jane Walkner, his grandson Riley. His brother-in-law, Guy Ames, brother-in-law, Brad Ames, father-in-law, Bob Ames, & mother-in-law, Mary Jean Ames.

He is survived by his wife of 24 years, Carolyn; his brother Thomas (Kathleen), his son Casey Walkner (Laura), daughter, Jessie Burns, son, Guy Walkner (Ashley), daughter, Cicely (Jaimal ); grandchildren Adam (Tessa), Owen, Scarlett, Wylie, Coyle, Tatum, Baylee, Callie, great-grandson Alex, sister-in-law Kathy Sherwin (Ray), nieces Polly Lipinski (Luis), Amy Walkner, Rachel Armstrong (Brad), nephews Craig Walkner, and Clint Walkner (Courtney) and Adrian Sherwin (Kate).

His graveside service will be held on March 8, 2025, at 2:30 p.m. at Greenwood Cemetery in Arcata. A celebration of life will be held, following this service at the Arcata Veteran’s Hall.

Donations can be made to the Eureka Food Bank, in Mike’s name. Flowers can be delivered to the Greenwood Cemetery.

###

The obituary above was submitted on behalf of Mike Walkner’s loved ones. The Lost Coast Outpost runs obituaries of Humboldt County residents at no charge. See guidelines here. Email news@lostcoastoutpost.com.

Another brutally long Board of Supervisors meeting today, with a wide variety of topics discussed and another couple punted down the road for later consideration. Supervisor Natalie Arroyo was out on assignment in Los Angeles with the U.S. Coast Guard’s Pacific Strike Team, which is helping our neighbors to the south with wildfire recovery.

The meeting is still going as of this writing, with several items left to go after a long closed session dealing with lawsuits and labor negotiations wraps up. But let’s get in the chips.

Bridgeville Cannabis Operation Gets Reprieve

The county’s Planning and Building Department came out swinging for Mana Farms, LLC – a 10,000-square-foot licensed cannabis operation in the Bridgeville area. The department had already suspended the operation’s cannabis license in October of last year; it came to the board with a long argument – seven pages, with tons of attachments — for why the board should revoke that license entirely.

In short: Staff argued that the operation had been found to be in violation of its cannabis cultivation permit on numerous occasions and in a number of different ways. It was using generators to power operations, rather than solar power. Required tests of the property’s well were not performed. Junk was piled around the premises, some of which led to a hazard to wildlife. Most importantly, it was discovered, through a search warrant obtained California Department of Fish and Wildlife and served on the site on Oct. 24, 2024, that it was the operation was illegally taking water from Little Larabee Creek.

“Taking water from an illegal source that has the potential to damage the environment is egregious enough to warrant suspension and revocation,” Planning Director John Ford told the board at the opening of proceedings.

But Kathy Hall, Mana Farms’ owner, and Vanessa Valare, her consultant, had a different story to tell. Valare went first. Hall had acquired the property and the operation relatively recently, she said. A lot of the junk found around the property, which included discarded monofilament netting, was actually from a neighbor, and it had been decided that the neighbor was supposed to clean it up. That hadn’t happened. As for the illegal water diversion: Her client had been confused about her legal rights to the water in the creek, as often happens, or whether she could use that water to supplement the well that was supposed to be the sole source of water for the farm, according to the terms of the permit.

In any case, Valare said, her client was working diligently to comply with the terms of the permit. After receiving her shutdown notice from county staff, she had stopped waiting for the neighbor to fulfill his obligations and cleaned up all the junk from the property herself. She had every intention of operating within the terms of her permit, given the chance.

“With farms going out of business left and right, I see this as an opportunity to offer a carrot, not only a stick, to our farmers that are left in this county,” Valare said.

“So yeah, I know this all looks bad,” Hall began, when it was her turn. “We have worked hard — we’ve worked really hard — to come into compliance with stuff, especially the last few months.”

Hall acknowledged that the biggest issue was over the illegal diversion from the creek. She noted that a previous landowner did have a state permit to use some of the Little Larabee Creek water for domestic purposes, and assumed – even though there is no home at the location now, and even though the county’s cannabis permit was conditioned on using the well for water – that she could continue to pump from the creek. She said she only pulled water out of the creek to balance out the pH levels from the well, which were testing high, which was not good for her cannabis plants.

When it came back to the board for discussion, it became immediately clear that Supervisor Steve Madrone was in a forgiving mood.

“One of the things that does impress me is the efforts that Ms. Hall has made since buying the property only a year, year and a half ago, to clean up,” Madrone said. “I mean, I’ve heard nothing here today about, no, I don’t want to do this. I’m not going to do that.”

“Is it your intention to continue to work as quickly as you can to meet all these other conditions that have now been made clear to you?” Madrone asked.

“Yes, and I mean, if I have the opportunity,” Hall responded. “And now moving forward, just understanding a little more like how each agency works — that was a huge misunderstanding on my part.”

With that, the sentiment of the room shifted, and it became clear that Planning’s push to revoke the cannabis cultivation license was going to fail. Supervisor Mike Wilson used to occasion to beef up the conditions placed on the operation. It should be reaffirmed that no water can be taken from the creek to fuel cannabis operations; there should be an increased inspection regime, including no-notice inspections, at Mana Farms’ expense; and that issues with solar power generation being used to power the farms should be resolved.

Hall said that this was all OK with her. Board Chair Michelle Bushnell, in whose district the farm is located, had a final thing to say before the vote.

“My message to the applicant would be that if you have another violation you’re going to be revocated by this board,” Bushnell said. “And amendments that are going to put be put forth on your permit — you need to adhere to them. And that you are going to get unannounced inspections, probably a lot of them. And so please comply with your permit.”

With that, the board voted unanimously to bring the issue back before the board on March 25, at which point it would presumably renew the operation under these new, more stringent conditions.

ACV is … Booming?

Forty-one percent of Humboldt County people who are going to fly somewhere fly out of our own airport, according to a new study performed for the county by Volare Volaire Aviation, Inc., a consulting firm.

Doesn’t sound very good, does it? Almost 60 percent of our people who plan to take an airplane drive three to five hours — to San Francisco or Oakland or Santa Rosa or Sacramento or Medford — to do so, perhaps driving straight past McKinleyville’s California Redwood Coast-Humboldt County Airport (ACV) on the way.

And yet the message Volaire’s Jack Penning had for the board today was a very upbeat one. Why? Because 41 percent is a great deal larger than a truly miserable 23 percent, which was the rate we were flying ACV just a few years ago, in the pre-pandemic year of 2019.

“My main point is this airport is doing the best that it has done in its history, in terms of passenger service and performance,” Penning said. “It’s serving this county the best it ever has. There is room to grow, and that’s very encouraging.”

So, the good news: A larger percentage of our people are using our airport. That is due in part, no doubt, to the fact that average one-way ticket prices out of ACV have gone way down – from $313 in 2014 to $231 in 2024. (Penning didn’t mention this, but a lot of that seems due to the entry of budget carrier Avelo, with its cheap flights to Burbank and – once upon a time – Las Vegas.)

The other good news, in Volaire’s view, is the same as the bad news: Only 41 percent of Humboldt County fliers use our airport. What if prices continue to fall? What if we can add some new routes? If we can capture more of the 60 percent who get in their cars before they fly, here’s a lot of room to grow. The study shows that if every local who buys plane tickets buys them to fly out of ACV, there’s enough demand to support 11 departures per day.

So what’s the plan? The county’s first priority, Penning said, is to get a regular route to Seattle. We currently fly south (San Francisco, Los Angeles, Burbank) and east (Denver). We lack a route north. But over the next 10 or 15 years, Volaire envisions new routes to a multitude of locations – Salt Lake City, Phoenix, Portland, Las Vegas.

There are a lot of challenges, and most of them are at the macroeconomic level. Aircraft production has slowed down a lot over recent years, with engineering problems at both Boeing and Airbus. There’s a shortage of pilots. And in the face of this scarcity, we’re competing with airports all across the nation, many of which are offering airlines big incentives to establish new services.

Penning had a concrete example of the pressure these industry-wide factors place on our local services. Avelo’s flights between ACV and Las Vegas – see here and here — were profitable, he said. This route was canceled, he said, only because the airline could make more money on a specific route on the East Coast.

On the other side of the coin, another macroeconomic trend: The rise of remote work. More and more people living where they want to live, unconstrained by their jobs, is a big opportunity for Humboldt air travel, Penning said.

“Guess where people want to live?” Penning said. “They want to live in great places. This is a great place to live. We are seeing a huge influx, especially from the L.A. area … Those people are mobile and they get on flights. So this is going to support more service for us as we move forward.”

Find a slideshow on the Volaire study here; those who would like to crunch numbers more deeply may check out this other link.

Odds and Ends

• Remember this big weed bust in the Table Bluff area last year? Well, apart from all his other problems, the person who owns the cannabis license for Humboldt Emerald Triangle, LLC – Uonan (John) Uonan – owes the county about $150,000 in back Measure S taxes, according to a staff report. Also, Planning Director John Ford told the board that Uonan has been, uh, hard to get hold of lately.

So the board revoked his weed license.

There was kind of an interesting wrinkle in the brief discussion around this item. A new person has bought the Table Bluff farm, and that person is going to pursue a new cannabis license for the property. Since the Measure S taxes follow the license and not the land, the county is likely out that $150,000 forever. It can’t place a lien on the land – at least in cases where the licenseholder and the landowner are different people.

Supervisor Madrone wondered: Given the cost of pursuing a new cannabis license, why doesn’t this new person just assume that $150,000 Measure S debt and take over Uonan’s license? But Ford said that the new person hasn’t had any more luck getting in contact with Uonan than the county has, and the county is “very, very strict” about requiring both parties to sign off on the transfer of a license, above and beyond the transfer of a deed to the property.

These complications, and others like them, are scheduled to come back before the board on March 25, as part of a more general discussion around holding cannabis license holders accountable for their Measure S obligations.

###

• A pair of items associated with some new Williamson Act agricultural preserves – one in the Ferndale bottoms and another near the intersection of Myrtle Avenue and Freshwater Road – were postponed. Director Ford said that there was some sort of problem with the staff report on one of the items was mistaken, and so he requested the delay. He didn’t say what the problem was, but we do note that the staff report associated with the Freshwater parcel was posted to the county’s system in conjunction with both items.

###

• Early in the meeting, many people spoke movingly in tribute to Dr. Ruby Bayan, a psychiatrist and co-founder of Waterfront Recovery, on the occasion of her retirement. Founded in 2017, Waterfront is Humboldt County’s only residential, medicine-based center for treating people with mental health and substance abuse issues. (Our Ryan Burns wrote about it when it opened.)

“Dr. Bayan, I’m not going to say a lot but what I want to say is thank you for all the lives that you saved here in Humboldt County,” said Supervisor Madrone. “Because truly that’s what you’ve done. You and your staff have been there at these crucial times for people, and you have really saved lives.”

The board passed a resolution commending Bayan for her work.

“I would like to thank the community of Humboldt for allowing me to fulfill my life’s mission as a doctor,” she said, in accepting that resolution. “Before I became a doctor, I had an agreement that should I become a doctor, I will take care of the most broken children. And it was shown to me that it was not pediatrics. No one can be more broken than those people who have substance abuse and mental health”

Waterfront Recovery has a whole page of tributes to “Dr. B” on their site. She will be succeeded as medical director by Dr. Landon Whittington, who you can meet here.

(AUDIO) B1G $uAV on KHUM

It’s been an unusually sun-filled February here in Humboldt, right? Not bad, not bad. Truly, it’s a great time to work on your mental and/or physical health by reconnecting with nature in the outdoor wonderland we call home. Get out, friends!

B1G $uAV really hopes you will. In fact, he even went so far as to make you a soundtrack for your next forest jaunt. 

Yes, the local hip hop artist and Cal Poly Humboldt wildlife management and conservation graduate — real name José Juan Rodriguez Gutierrez — is out promoting the release of his locally produced music video for the “eco trap” song “Nature Rizz.” Feast your eyes and ears on that below.

Why are you still inside, people?! On his Instagram account, B1G $uAV boasts that “if Steve Irwin and Tupac had a baby that spoke Spanish, it’d be me.” He expanded on his influences and why he chooses to fuse hip hop and his love of nature during an interview on KHUM Radio this week with DJ Lizzerd Kween .

“This whole project came about because I grew up in a big city my whole life and so when I say moving to Humboldt changed my life, I mean that desde el fondo mi corazón — from the bottom of my heart,” $uAV said on KHUM. “I just want to be able to reconnect people [with nature] and let them know, hey, if you’re getting a little stressed out today, go touch some grass! Go look at the clouds, go lay down and enjoy the ocean views we have in Trinidad or that we have down in SoHum.”

Hear B1G $uAV’s full KHUM interview at the top of this post. Other topics include:

• His favorite Humboldt nature spots
• How his wildlife studies at Cal Poly Humboldt influenced his art
• His plans for future single releases 
• His favorite animals to sing to

# # #

PREVIOUS LIZZERD KWEEN:

• (AUDIO) Are You Down to Experiment With Sobriety and Gut Health, Humboldt? The Water Kefiry, a Local Ferment Factory, Would Like to Help You With That

Speed-demon riders will soon be able to bomb what may be some of the steepest routes in Humboldt County when the new mountain biking trails on the Hoopa Valley Reservation are finished.

Part of a year-long partnership between the Mountain Bike Tribal Trail Alliance (MBTTA) and the Hoopa Valley Tribe, seven trails will be built on the reservation, totaling about eight miles in length. 

One has been completed. The trails in the McKinleyville Community Forest tend to drop about 200 feet in a mile — this one plummets 1,300 feet in a mile down the side of Big Hill. The other six will be about as steep or even steeper. 

The MBTTA and the Hoopa Valley Tribe are looking for volunteers, both Native and not, to help clear the trails. It’s not incredibly difficult work; Shaun Fyfe, leader of the MBTTA’s partnership with the tribe, said he and one other person managed to clear the first trail in a day. 

Fyfe and the Hoopa Valley Tribe hope that building these trails provide some much-needed recreational opportunities for the youth on the reservation. Trail work is rewarding, Fyfe said, and riding the trails is even more fun. 

“We want to have the trails close to home for that local community,” Fyfe said. “Having the local Native youth have trails that they’re building, that they’ll have ownership of, that they’ll be able to ride and share with other [youth from surrounding areas]…We can share our trails we’ve developed together…It’s really rewarding for the trail builders, because the work is easy to see, and the reward is immediate.”