City of Eureka release: 

Eureka will welcome the return of the Scenic Eclipse cruise ship on Sunday, May 7th, at 1:00 p.m., departing at 8:00 p.m. The ship will be led into the harbor by a boat parade and a private welcome party at Schneider dock that includes live music.

During their visit, ship guests can enjoy Old Town or participate in excursions that the Humboldt Bay Harbor District is coordinating. The tours will include a hiking in Trinidad, Humboldt Botanical Garden, Ferndale, and the Redwood Skywalk.

Local citizens who want to view the ships can watch from the Del Norte Street pier, the Park and Ride at Herrick Avenue, and the Samoa boat ramp at the north jetty.

The Scenic Eclipse visited our harbor last September, and we are delighted they have chosen to return!

The adage “get it in writing” applies to politics as much as anything else, and it would seem the California Legislature could learn a lesson or two.

Legislators and advocates have been pushing Gov. Gavin Newsom since last year to make good on a longtime promise to funnel money from a controversial tax penalty into the Covered California marketplace, making health insurance cheaper for nearly 1 million enrollees. The problem — or at least the argument Newsom has always made — is that state statute doesn’t require the penalty money to be used on health care. It goes directly into the general fund — where it has stayed for most of the past four years.

But legislators say that’s not what they intended when they voted on the measure in 2019. Senate leadership signaled its intent last week to ensure in writing that the money will “further lower the costs of health coverage for lower- and middle-income Californians” moving forward. The Senate budget proposal rejects Newsom’s plan to temporarily move $333.4 million in penalty money from an affordability reserve to the general fund, calling it a “rip-off” of Covered California funds.

“Our plan protects important advancements that California has made that has moved us towards a more equitable and sustainable economy,” Senate Budget Chairperson Nancy Skinner said during a press briefing last week.

In 2019, Newsom proposed and the Legislature passed a polarizing tax penalty on Californians without health insurance, known as the individual mandate, with verbal assurances that it would be used to lower health care costs for those who have insurance through Covered California, the state version of the Affordable Care Act marketplace. Though more than $1 billion has been collected in the past four years, the money has only been used once to lower costs for enrollees, about $355 million in 2020.

The Senate Democrats’ budget proposal, which relies on corporate tax hikes that Newsom swiftly rejected to avoid a variety of cuts, sets the stage for an intense period of negotiation between the Legislature and governor as they hash out a state spending plan in the face of diminishing tax revenue. The Senate’s counter proposal would mandate using the money to eliminate deductibles and copays for roughly 900,000 Covered California enrollees next year. It’s one of several health care funding battles heating up amid a bleak budget year, including a fight to infuse emergency cash into hospitals on the brink of closure.

Newsom is expected to disclose later this month an even more dismal financial picture for the state than the $22.5 billion deficit he projected in his January budget proposal.

“I’m trying to make sure that those dollars stay in this area to address affordability, and I’m not hearing from the administration that same commitment.”
— Assemblymember Joaquin Arambula, Democrat from Fresno

In a statement, Brandon Richards, a spokesperson for Newsom, said the governor will “continue to work with the California Legislature to develop the final budget package” in the coming months.

This is just one step in a long budget negotiation that will stretch to June. If the Senate’s counter proposal makes it into the state’s final budget come summer, leadership intends to end the diversion of penalty money permanently. Notably, Democratic leaders from the Assembly have not endorsed the Senate’s spending plan nor put forth their own proposal, but John Casey, communications director for Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, said both houses are interested in the issue.

“We’ll see what the May revision includes and the two houses will advance their priorities as best they can in negotiations afterward,” Casey said.

“A bitter pill”

In recent committee hearings, Assembly and Senate legislators have lambasted this particular proposal in Newsom’s budget.

“I’m trying to make sure that those dollars stay in this area to address affordability, and I’m not hearing from the administration that same commitment,” said Assemblymember Joaquin Arambula, a Fresno Democrat and chairperson of the Assembly budget subcommittee on health.

Sen. Caroline Menjivar, a newly elected Democrat from Van Nuys and chairperson of the Senate budget subcommittee on health, criticized the governor’s plan for saving money “on the backs of our low-income communities.”

On his first day in office, Newsom proposed reinstating a tax on people without health insurance to fund increased subsidies for people who have Covered California insurance. A previous federal version of the tax had been repealed by the Trump administration the year prior, which contributed to a 24% drop in enrollment in Covered California plans.

“The individual mandate was not intended to create funds for other government programs outside of health care from my perspective.”
— Assemblymember Jim Wood, Democrat from Santa Rosa

New taxes always trigger a legislative skirmish, but this one gave even Democratic lawmakers and powerful advocacy groups pause: Theoretically, the tax would encourage more people to get health insurance, lowering the overall cost for everyone in the marketplace, but the penalty would come out of the pockets of the state’s poorest residents — those who forego insurance because it’s too expensive.

The Legislature ultimately approved the tax in 2019 with the understanding that the projected $1.4 billion in revenue over three years would be used to lower insurance costs.

The majority of that money, however, has stayed in the state’s general fund. Newsom has previously argued that the federal government’s more generous COVID-19 subsidies, which extend through 2025, render additional state spending unnecessary, especially at a time when California faces a growing deficit.

But legislators in both the Senate and the Assembly say that’s not what they voted for.

“The individual mandate was not intended to create funds for other government programs outside of health care from my perspective,” Assemblymember Jim Wood said during a recent budget subcommittee meeting. “I don’t think I would have supported it if that was the way I thought it would end up.”

Wood, a Democrat from Santa Rosa who leads the Assembly Health Committee, called the diversion to the general fund “a bitter pill to swallow.”

During the hearing, Department of Finance analyst Matt Aguilera argued using the money to alleviate the deficit would not impact current services under Covered California.

“Everybody is concerned about affordability. There’s agreement on that. Just due to the economic situation this may not be a good time to start up new programs,” Aguilera said.

But advocates argue using the revenue from the individual mandate penalty wouldn’t be new spending. It would be fulfilling an existing commitment.

Costs keep rising

Last year, in tandem with a measure to ensure the penalty money no longer got diverted, the Covered California board approved a plan to eliminate deductibles for the state’s mid-tier coverage option, which is widely considered the most cost-effective insurance option. When Newsom vetoed the policy bill citing a “downturn in revenues,” the plan was abandoned.

“Last year this was a priority for everybody: the health plans, business groups, both the Assembly and Senate prioritized it in their budgets, health advocates, Covered California itself. Everybody lined up to support this,” said Rachel Linn Gish, communications director for Health Access California, a consumer advocacy lobbying group. “The only person we didn’t have was the governor.”

Instead, deductibles jumped from $3,700 for an individual and $7,400 for a family with a mid-tier plan to $4,750 and $9,500, respectively. Health Access is sponsoring another measure this year to ensure money appropriated for Covered California affordability measures is used for that purpose.

“One of the most direct and impactful ways we can make sure consumers get health care access right now is by lowering the cost of care,” Linn Gish said. “The 2025 (federal subsidy) sunset was the governor’s main sticking point…but to us, it’s 2023. Why can’t we help people now?”

Senate Democrats also rejected delays and cuts to investments in the state’s health care workforce, including a $49.8 million cut to training programs for public health workers. Michelle Gibbons, executive director of the County Health Executives Association of California, said the money was sorely needed after decades of public health budget cuts left the state scrambling to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic.

“We can’t even begin to grow the pipeline of microbiologists, lab directors, epidemiologists — very skilled positions — without these programs and investments,” Gibbons said.

It’s unclear, however, how feasible the Senate Democrats’ proposal is with the state facing an economic downturn. Most of the cuts avoided are funded through a $6 billion proposed corporate tax hike and $5 billion suspension of a major tax credit, which Newsom rejected within hours of the proposal’s release.

###

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

Amid the clank and clatter of the factory floor in Dearborn, Michigan, self-moving robotic vehicles transport the 1,600-pound batteries that power Ford’s flagship electric pickup truck to workers in various stations, who rush to bolt them to other parts.

After workers inspect each battery, the robot moves it along a track to the next station, then wedges itself between two idling robotic arms. One arm is overhead, dangling the 2023 F-150 Lightning’s chassis, while the other swiftly moves to pick up the massive battery and attach it to the chassis.

Assisted by more robots, workers quickly assemble the remaining parts: the aluminum frame, tires, cab and truck bed. Then the completed pickup truck — which has a long wait list of potential buyers — undergoes a final round of inspections and testing here at Ford’s Rouge Electric Vehicle Center.

From Michigan to Georgia to the Bay Area to overseas, a new age of car manufacturing has arrived, spurred by California’s landmark mandate to end new sales of gasoline-powered cars in a dozen years. Already the transition to electric vehicles is exposing automakers to myriad challenges as they rush to ramp up production.

“Demand for electric cars is rising even faster than ever before,” said Darren Palmer, Ford’s vice president of electric vehicle programs. “It’s changed the way we work, it’s changed everything.”

The industry is grappling with supply chain constraints, fierce competition for crucial raw battery materials, and a rush to start producing cheaper, U.S.-made batteries — while also getting new assembly plants up and running in time to meet California’s ambitious timeline. At the same time, the autoworker union has raised fears about job security and workplace safety during the industry’s rapid transformation.

At Ford’s River Rouge complex in Michigan, factory workers build electric and gas-powered F-150 pickup trucks on assembly lines. Photo by Emily Elconin for CalMatters

Forty-four major factories already produce electric vehicles in the United States, and several automakers, including Toyota, Hyundai and Ford, are now building massive new factories to assemble electric cars, as well as new battery manufacturing plants. The investment in new U.S. factories: more than $40 billion.

Tesla has long-dominated the market, selling more than a million cars last year. Still, some companies, particularly Toyota — which sold only a few hundred all-electric cars in the U.S. last year and recalled them for faulty wheels — have been resistant and slow to make the change, industry experts say. Instead, Toyota remains focused on its hybrids instead.

“Demand for electric cars is rising even faster than ever before. It’s changed the way we work, it’s changed everything.”
— Darren Palmer, Ford vice president of electric vehicle programs

At Ford, Palmer says they’re up to the task. By the end of this year, the automaker plans to produce at least 150,000 F-150 Lightnings a year — more than four times the number the company initially planned.

Facing California’s mandate, “we know that we will move to all-electric eventually — we’re all-in,” Palmer said, adding that “there’s a whole load of states that are all following California.”

“A challenge for a company like ours,” he said, “is how do you manage that transition?”

Revamping assembly lines — and the workforce

As one of the Big Three U.S. automakers, the Ford Motor Company has been a leader in the auto market since the company was founded more than a century ago, producing many of the gas-guzzling cars Americans love to drive. But California is now forcing Ford and the rest of the global auto industry to move quickly to zero-emission models.

Vehicles account for about half of all greenhouse gas emissions in California, making them the state’s single largest source warming the planet and polluting the air with smog and soot.

Adopted by the Air Resources Board last August, California’s mandate requires 35% of new 2026 cars sold in the state to be zero-emissions — almost double the current sales — then ramping up to 68% in 2030 until reaching 100% in 2035.

California drives the U.S. auto market — one out of every 10 cars is sold there — and at least 17 other states have pledged to enact California’s rules. Putting even more pressure on automakers, the Biden administration last month followed California’s lead in proposing its own stringent measures to scale up production of electric vehicles nationwide.

Darren Palmer, Ford’s vice president of electric vehicle programs, says the company is “all-in” when it comes to meeting California’s mandate to phase out gasoline cars. “It’s changed the way we work, it’s changed everything,” he said. Photo by Emily Elconin for CalMatters

Automakers will have to sell almost 12 million electric cars in California by 2035. Only about 838,000 electric vehicles were on California’s roads in 2021.

Such a rapid transformation of the giant industry is unprecedented.

“We just don’t have the production capacity today to satisfy that potential need in the future,” said Erich Muehlegger, a UC Davis professor of economics who analyzes electric vehicle market trends. “Automakers are in the process of developing that, but it’s not something that can be done overnight.”

During California’s rulemaking last year, the auto industry pushed for looser requirements, calling them “too aggressive” and “extremely challenging.” But now, as the state’s deadlines loom, many automakers are focusing their engineering skills and investments on achieving them.

“We just don’t have the production capacity today to satisfy that potential need in the future…It’s not something that can be done overnight.”
— Erich Muehlegger, UC Davis professor of economics

State air-quality officials say they are confident that manufacturers can scale up to meet the deadlines. California is already two years ahead of schedule in achieving its 2025 target of selling 1.5 million zero-emission vehicles. About 19% of new cars in California last year were emissions-free.

“Now we are moving all the way to zero,” said Air Resources Board Chair Liane Randolph. “We’re very optimistic that we are going to see dramatically increasing deployment going forward.”

Ford announced a surge in its investments in electric vehicle production: about $50 billion globally for electric vehicles and battery materials through 2026 — up from $30 billion — with a goal of producing 2 million electric vehicles.

But to manufacture electric cars and pickups, Ford has to totally revamp its assembly lines and retrain its workforce.It’s a vastly different process than building a truck with an internal combustion engine. The all-electric version of the Ford F-150 pickup truck has far fewer parts than its gasoline-powered counterpart: no spark plugs, pistons, fuel tank, oil filter, multi-speed transmission, timing belt, muffler or catalytic converter — to mention only a few. Internal combustion engines have thousands of parts while electric power systems have only six main components.

>Watch workers assemble Ford’s popular F-150 Lightning pickup at the company’s Rouge Electric Vehicle Center in Dearborn, Michigan.

The union representing General Motors, Ford and Chrysler workers says the transition could threaten job security. United Auto Workers estimated in 2018 that electrification could result in a loss of about 35,000 jobs among its 400,000 members.

For instance, the traditional, gas-powered model of the F-150 is assembled by 4,400 workers at Ford’s Dearborn factory, while the all-electric version, assembled next door, takes only about one-sixth of the workforce, 750 employees.

Laura Dickerson, director of United Auto Workers Region 1 in Michigan, said maintaining good-paying, middle class jobs will be critical to ensuring a successful transition to electric vehicles. Dickerson said workers who build cars don’t enter the industry because they’re passionate about gas-powered engines or electric vehicles — they do it because the jobs provide financial security.

“Moving into the future, we just need to make sure that we protect the work because those are environmentally friendly jobs,” she said.

Workers “don’t know if they’ll get burnt by (EV materials)…They don’t know if something else will develop, because all of this is new. There are a lot of unknowns.”
— Laura Dickerson, United Auto Workers

Ford representatives declined to address questions about employee retention or layoffs, but said the company would be hiring additional employees as it expands its electric vehicle center. Ford will reassign an 800-person crew this fall, moving them from the plant that builds traditional F-150s, and plans to hire 300 new employees this year. In all, the F-150 Lightning plant will employ about 1,800.

The struggle to maintain good-paying jobs while producing electric vehicles has already led to clashes between some automakers and their employees. At a GM plant in 2019, nearly 50,000 unionized employees went on strike during contract negotiations when the automaker announced plans to shut down some plants that produce gas-powered cars and shift to electric car production.Volkswagen’s top executive also predicted job losses, saying building an electric car takes “30% less effort” than building an internal combustion engine.

Left: A worker helps build a Ford F-150 Lightning at the Rouge Electric Vehicle Center. Right: A worker inspects the electric pickup trucks as they move down the assembly line. Photos by Emily Elconin for CalMatters

Dickerson said auto workers have expressed additional concerns about potential health and safety issues from working with batteries.

Many materials are highly flammable and can be explosive, and exposure to hazardous metals such as lead can cause health problems, she said. Workers had to be trained to safely handle the materials, along with high-voltage electric connections.

“Working in manufacturing can be dangerous and with electric vehicles, some of those dangers — we’re unaware of,” Dickerson said.

Dickerson said some minor accidents have likely occurred, but so far she knows of no fatal or serious accidents. The biggest concerns, she said, are whether the handling of the metals could expose workers to health problems in the future.

“They don’t know if they’ll get burnt by something, they don’t know if something else will develop from that down the line, because all of this is new,” she added. “There are a lot of unknowns to it and so people are very nervous.”

In response to the union’s concerns, Ford spokesperson Kelli Felker said the company takes “the safety of our workforce very seriously. Our manufacturing processes are designed to keep our workforce safe.”

Investing billions in EV assembly plants

When the first all-electric F-150 Lightning was unveiled in a live-streamed event broadcast in New York’s Times Square and the Las Vegas strip, U.S. consumers rushed to buy the vehicle that Ford dubbed “the truck of the future.”

But the demand for the electric version of the nation’s most popular pickup far exceeded the supply, creating long wait lists: Ford received more than 200,000 reservations for the F-150 Lightning in late 2021, creating a three-year backlog — months before the first models were available for sale. Consumers bought more than 15,000 in the first six months it was sold in 2022, according to a January sales report.

So Ford responded with a big surge in production, announcing it will now make 150,000 electric trucks a year, five times more than initially planned. Ford says demand for 2023 F-150 Lightnings is still outstripping supply, but that new customers likely will be able to begin placing orders this month.

“The F-150 is the vehicle that built America, so we made it electric,” Palmer said. “As soon as we realized the demand that was going to come, we started increasing production. Now that normally takes years and years for most companies. But at Ford, that’s what we’re very good at.”

Ford’s century-old River Rouge complex in Michigan is called a “cathedral of manufacturing.” The company’s all-electric F-150 pickup is manufactured there, as well as its bestselling gasoline-powered version. Photo by Emily Elconin for CalMatters

The electric vehicle portion of Ford’s massive, century-old Dearborn River Rouge complex, which one executive called a “cathedral of manufacturing,” is still expanding as pressure ramps up to produce more models.

Ford now sells three all-electric models in the U.S. — the F-150 Lightning, the e-Transit van and the Mustang Mach-e — and will start building another electric pickup truck, called Project T3, in 2025, at BlueOval City, a $5.6 billion, 3,600-acre vehicle and battery mega-factory under construction in Tennessee.

BlueOval City is Ford’s largest investment in electric vehicle production to date, expected to provide about 5,700 new jobs and have the capacity to churn out at least 500,000 electric vehicles annually, according to Ermal Faulkner, the project’s site director.

The factory project has faced delays due to weather, although construction is on schedule with plans to open the plant in 2025, he said. Some supply chain delays and battery problems have also disrupted Ford’s EV production. In February, a battery fire temporarily stalled production of the F-150 Lightning.

To stay competitive, GM is producing the F-150 Lightning’s biggest rival — the new Chevy Silverado EV, an all-electric version of its best-selling pickup truck expected to be released later this year. The 4.5 million square foot factory near Detroit, which opened in 2021 and is expanding, also will manufacture GMC Hummer EVs and the self-driving electric Cruise Origin.GM, which expects to produce a total of 600,000 electric vehicles a year, is the only major automaker that has pledged to stop selling gasoline-powered cars around the world by 2035.

The EV wars: Fierce competition for car buyers

Economists are increasingly seeing growing competition among U.S. and overseas automakers in the EV market. That includes everything from sourcing necessary battery materials to offering competitive pricing for new models. Last year, U.S. customers bought more than 800,000 all-electric vehicles, nearly doubling from 2021 and totaling about 6% all vehicle sales.

Competition remains fierce as legacy automakers try to catch up to Tesla, which still dominates the market with two-thirds of all electric vehicle sales and the nation’s two top-selling models. Tesla has car assembly plants in the East Bay city of Fremont, as well as in Texas, Germany and China, and has invested in a $6.2 billion lithium-ion battery cell gigafactory in Nevada, with $3.6 billion more expected.

A 2023 electric Ford F-150 Lightning is assembled at Ford’s Rouge complex in Michigan. Photo by Emily Elconin for CalMatters

In response to Tesla slashing its prices in January for some of its models by 20%, Ford reduced the price of its Mach-E by up to $5,900.

Still, Ford and other legacy automakers like GM continue to trail behind in sales, although in the first three months of the year, GM did outsell Ford in electric cars by nearly two-to-one.

Ford’s automotive engineers are trying to change that.

Just five miles from the electric vehicle manufacturing plant in Dearborn, teams of engineers behind the glassy, reflective exterior of Ford’s world headquarters are racing to design more efficient and lighter-weight batteries. Their mission: To reduce the high upfront price tag of its electric models.

They’re rethinking battery chemistry and the components they use to hold the battery. The new batteries are one of the most important technologies of the clean energy future, said Charles Poon, the company’s director of electrified systems engineering.

Ford’s new strategy involves creating alternatives to batteries made with expensive nickel, cobalt or manganese, which are in high demand. Instead, the automaker is developing new, cheaper technology to incorporate more batteries made of lithium-iron-phosphate. Both Tesla and VW have announced that it will be the go-to for their standard-range EVs in U.S. and European markets.

Ford also is trying to replace heavy materials in its 1,600-pound battery pack without compromising the power output. The goal is to make future batteries more energy-dense, lighter and cheaper, Poon said.

“We’re working on it super hard,” Poon said. “We have new hardware technology, chemistry design and battery cell design to increase overall acceptance.”

Charles Poon, Ford’s director of electrified systems engineering , says developing new lighter, cheaper battery technologies is critical. Photo by Emily Elconin for CalMatters

Poon said the new lithium-iron-phosphate batteries would be far less expensive, which will yield vehicles that are more affordable than existing models. Reducing battery costs is critical because the high cost of electric vehicles is a major barrier to consumers. The average price of an electric car as of February was $58,385 — about $9,600 more than the average car — although it dropped from about $65,000 last year. Lower-end fully electric cars start around $27,500.

Teaming with Chinese battery companies

Rob Williams, a maintenance and engineering manager at the Rouge Electric Vehicle Center, said battery production delays have been one of the assembly line’s biggest challenges.

Access to critical battery minerals poses significant barriers to meeting California’s EV requirements, said Muehlegger of UC Davis. Ford also had to halt production in 2022 due to a computer chip shortage, and he said the industry still hasn’t recovered from supply chain disruptions it faced during the pandemic.

“If we are moving very quickly toward a world in which a high fraction of the new car fleet is going to be electric vehicles and not conventional vehicles, there’s a tremendous amount of battery capacity that needs to be created,” he said.

“There will be a lot of pressure to innovate in this industry. But how quickly the industry is able to innovate — and how quickly the industry shifts away from battery technologies that it’s using now to two new battery technologies that we haven’t discovered yet — it’s hard to know.”

Left: Automated equipment assists workers who assemble F-150 Lightnings at Ford ‘s Rouge complex. Right: The pickup truck’s massive battery weighs 1,600 pounds. Photos by Emily Elconin for CalMatters

A big part of the reason the auto industry is experiencing supply chain problems is because many materials, including nickel, lithium and cobalt, come from China, which Muehlegger said has become very efficient in refining and producing batteries. There’s only one lithium mine in the United States, located in Nevada.

Switching to U.S.-made components is essential so car buyers can qualify for federal tax credits. For sales to qualify for credits of up to $7,500 in the Inflation Reduction Act, automakers must adhere to strict rules that call for components to be produced or manufactured in North America.

Only 14 models qualify for the credit under new rules released by the Biden administration in April. Ford’s F-150 Lightning is listed as one of the few qualifying trucks, but the vehicle’s high upfront price tag could make it ineligible for the federal incentives. Currently, Ford’s truck models range from $59,974 to $98,070; to qualify, cars must have a price tag below $55,000, and trucks or larger SUVs under $80,000.

Diversifying and building a new supply chain from scratch in U.S.-friendly countries could delay production, since it takes years to build up, said Muehlegger, of UC Davis.

That’s why Ford has partnered with a Chinese battery supplier, SK On, to build a new lithium-iron-phosphate battery plant in Michigan: By building its own batteries, Ford hopes to obtain a steady stream of materials.

Tesla, in a move to ensure its cars qualify for the consumer tax credit, is trying to secure a similar partnership with a Chinese company to build a lithium-iron-phosphate battery manufacturing plant in Texas.

Palmer, Ford’s vice president of electric vehicle programs, said the company has already secured 100% of the annual battery supply needed for 600,000 vehicles and 70% of the battery materials it needs for an annual global production rate of 2 million electric vehicles by 2026.“If we hadn’t done this, if we waited two years to invest, we would be in such trouble to be able to secure the amount of materials needed,” Palmer said.

An electric Ford F-150 Lightning undergoes a water test after assembly. Photo by Emily Elconin for CalMatters

Part of Tesla’s dominating success has been building its own extensive charging network for its vehicles, said David Reichmuth, a senior engineer at the Union of Concerned Scientists’ clean transportation program. Other automakers should be prioritizing that, too, he said, because insufficient public chargers have been a huge barrier for renters, multi-family home residents and low-income residents.

“If they’re going to sell these vehicles,” Reichmuth said, “they need to make sure drivers have a positive experience.”

###

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

Phyllis S Warnow, a talented artist and loving mother, passed away on April 26, 2023, at the age of 84. She was born on December 3, 1938, in San Francisco and moved to Eureka when she was young. She was one of eight children born to Patrick and Doris Mandel. 

She married Charles Grover Warnow, with whom she had four children, and the two of them owned and operated Warnow Construction.

Phyllis was kind, soft-spoken, smart, and fiercely loved her family. She had a passion for riding quads and small motorbikes with her friends, and she enjoyed gardening in her backyard, growing fruit trees from seeds. She was a talented painter and created the most beautiful oil paintings. She baked the best water biscuits and cinnamon rolls.

Her children grew up surrounded by animals at their little farm in Elk River. They had had a pony named Tina. The pony would come to the front door and put her mouth on the doorknob and wiggle it. My mom would open the door and give the pony carrots or a piece of Big Loaf bread. The children even rode that pony into the house, because it was so tiny. Phyllis really loved that pony.

Phyllis’ love for dogs was immense, and she had a special bond with her Rottweiler, Charlie, who was her protector, and her little Flossy.

Phyllis was preceded in death by her son Chuck Warnow. She is survived by her son Steve Warnow and his wife, Sherrie; her daughters Linda Warnow and Brenda Nelson; and her grandchildren Brian, Brittney, Andrew, Aren, Alisha, Joey, Vincent and Charleese.

A service to celebrate Phyllis’s life will be held on Saturday, May 6 at 12:00 p.m. at the Eureka Pentecostal Church, located at the end of Hoover Street — 1060 Hoover Street, Eureka. All friends and family are invited to attend and pay their respects.

###

###

The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors unanimously passed an anti-hate resolution denouncing “bigoted and racist hate speech” during today’s meeting. 

The resolution, and an attached letter signed by over 60 elected officials and local leaders, call out a “vicious” message that was recently sent to county supervisors containing “hate speech that threatened the lives of [LGBTQ+] and Black communities in Humboldt County.” The letter underscores the county’s commitment to “foster a safe, equitable environment for all community members to live and thrive.”

The hate-filled message originally appeared on an online petition calling to “End Drag Events for Kids in Humboldt County, CA” that was created by local website Lost Coast Populist. The message was written by one of the petition’s signatories – someone using the name “William” – and subsequently sent to each of the county supervisors, among others. 

“[There] was very repulsive language that was being used [in the message],” County Administrative Officer Elishia Hayes said during today’s discussion. “Accordingly, staff has been working very diligently over the last week to determine what the best approach and response was to that language, recognizing that it’s been circulating through our community and that it is hurtful, not only to our community members but also to our staff.”

But it turns out the message was a false flag.

As detailed in a recent post by the Outpost’s Ryan Burns, “William” offered an apology to the community in a follow-up message posted to the petition. The internet troll admitted to writing the vile message as a way to “get both sides to start a conversation about avoiding violence,” adding that he assumed it would be deleted right away.

Fourth District Supervisor Natalie Arroyo acknowledged that “the statement itself was maybe a nothing burger,” but emphasized the need to take threatening comments seriously.

“I mean, any time there’s any kind of threat of violence at a school they lock down the whole school,” Arroyo said. “We have to take these things pretty darn seriously. … I don’t think the point is whether or not this was a real threat; the point is that there are many people in our community who experience hate speech, who are vulnerable and being targeted. Frankly, all of us here on the board live with a lot of relative privilege and there are a lot of folks in our community who don’t. I see this as the very least we can do to stand up for our values and to make them explicit and clear.”

Third District Supervisor Mike Wilson asked for staff’s perspective on responding to threats made by potential trolls and whether it is appropriate to “giv[e] air to something that maybe doesn’t deserve it.”

Dr. Jeremy Clark, the diversity, equity, and inclusion manager for the Department of Human Resources, said staff had considered the possibility of ignoring the message but ultimately felt it was an opportunity to “double down” on the county’s stance against hate speech.

“I think that we came to the conclusion that these words hurt,” he explained. “Whether they were written with the intent to troll or whether they were written to elicit some sort of reaction. … When really faced with that dichotomy [of] sort of erring on the side of caution and condemning such repugnant language or …  not giving it any air, [we decided] that we would err on the side of staff any day of the week.”

Second District Supervisor Michelle Bushnell emphasized that the message in question had “instilled fear” in the community. “It’s not right to have to live in fear no matter what you choose in your life,” she said.

First District Supervisor Rex Bohn made a motion to accept the resolution, which was seconded by Bushnell. 

A few members of the public called in to defend the Lost Coast Populist’s petition, including the website’s creator Donnie Creekmore, who condemned the “revolting, threatening and hateful” message that was sent to the board. He added that he has “provided all of the data that we have” to the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office.

“That being said, your resolution no longer has a real threat to point towards,” he said. 

Reverend Tyrell Bramwell, the contentious leader of St. Mark’s Church in Ferndale, called the resolution “dangerous” and said the county’s actions “are stirring up hate.”

“You encourage people in our county to disdain the church and you’re driving a wedge between people,” he said. “I know you’re not intending to do that, but that is what’s happening. … Please be aware that your motions and your vote can have consequences for the city leaders in Ferndale and for the Christians in Ferndale who are being hated by LGBTQ activists and using your actions as precedent for affirmation of their actions.”

Jim Glover, chair of the Humboldt County Human Rights Commission, spoke in favor of the resolution and said it “speaks to what kind of county we want to have.”

Glover | Screenshot

“I’m also here as an individual who’s part of … one of those vulnerable groups in our community and it’s important to me to make sure that people younger than myself don’t have to be raised in a community where they are fearful, no matter what their persuasions are, or whatever their physical situation or mental situation,” Glover said. “I want to compliment the board for considering this motion and this resolution. I thought the wording was excellent and I would support it any day of the week.”

Following public comment, Bushnell addressed Bramwell’s assertion that the resolution excluded religious communities. “In part of this resolution, it says there has been an increase in discrimination, hateful, derogatory language and acts of hate towards … lots of things, including religious communities,” she said. “I think it’s very inclusive of all; it’s not just inclusive of one.”

Bohn agreed with Bushnell, noting that the “statement is general; it’s common sense.”

“We need to address this and … this isn’t about going after anybody’s petition [or] anybody’s feelings,” he said. “There are going to be contrasting opinions. … So, I appreciate this resolution because it moves what everybody should feel in a roundabout way. … And I think as we move forward we can all do better.”

The board approved the item in a unanimous 5-0 vote.

###

Shortly after the board’s decision, California Senate Majority Leader Mike McGuire and Assemblymember Jim Wood released the following joint statement support of the resolution:

At a time when hate speech and hate crimes have hit historic highs across the nation, here at home on the North Coast we must stop it in its tracks and take a unified no tolerance approach. We applaud the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors, Tribal and community leaders for standing up and condemning the horrific rhetoric and extremism that’s become all too common in our polarized society. We stand ready to assist the county with any and all state resources to keep those neighbors who may be targeted safe and ensure we can stop future incidents of this type of devastating and vile hate.

###

Check back at the Outpost tomorrow for more coverage of today’s Board of Supervisors meeting.

HUMBOLDT TODAY: The Humboldt County Supervisors discussed a resolution condemning hate speech; State Senator Mike McGuire is set to host a town hall discussing wildfire preparedness; plus, it’s Humboldt Bike Month! Those stories and more in today’s online newscast with John Kennedy O’Connor.

FURTHER READING: 

• NEED GROCERIES? With Emergency CalFresh Benefits Coming to an End, Arcata House Partnership is Opening Additional Free Food Pantry in Valley West
• CONVERSATIONS: The Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners of Providence St. Joseph Tell Us How They Support Victims

HUMBOLDT TODAY can be viewed on LoCO’s homepage each night starting at 6 p.m.

Want to LISTEN to HUMBOLDT TODAY? Subscribe to the podcast version here.

###

Whether you’re homeless, low-income or just struggling to cover the high price of groceries, Arcata House Partnership invites you to help feed yourself and your family by using the free food pantry in Valley West, which is opening this week. 

Florence Carroll, administrative specialist for Arcata House, told the Outpost that the local nonprofit is concerned that more people will struggle to cover food costs in the coming months, as emergency food assistance programs made available during the pandemic come to an end. 

“With the cost of groceries going up, we’ve seen a lot of food insecurity in the area,” Carroll said in a phone interview Tuesday morning. “Now that emergency allotments are all ending, we’re going to see a lot more food insecurity.”

In 2020, as many people struggled from financial issues compounded by COVID, the Families First Coronavirus Response Act authorized emergency Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) funding, increasing the amount of state benefits available. For all Calfresh recipients, benefits were boosted to the maximum allowable amount for their household size, or $95 was added to those already receiving the maximum benefits amount. California also introduced the Pandemic-EBT program, which provides benefits for school-age children who would have been receiving free or reduced price meals at school, but didn’t have access during school closures.

Now, with the Federal Public Health Emergency ending on May 11, the Pandemic-EBT program will close out at the end of this school year and CalFresh emergency allotments will end on May 26, leaving around 5 million Californians  to see a dramatic drop in their benefit amounts at a time when food price inflation and the cost of living in California are extremely high. 

This sudden and dramatic loss of benefits has many food banks worried about the impacts, Carroll said, and the California Association of Food Banks warns that “California is facing a catastrophic hunger crisis in 2023.” 

This is why Arcata House Partnership, which already operates a food pantry on Wednesdays, is adding a second food pantry to help those who might be struggling to cover food costs in the coming months. The second food pantry will be in the Arcata House administrative building on Valley West Boulevard. 

Arcata House opened this temporary food pantry for the first time last summer, and Carroll said that it was very useful to the people in the Valley West neighborhood. This year, the nonprofit is expanding the number of weeks the pantry will be open, so that more people can be served. Carroll said it is important to have a food bank location in Valley West, where there are many unhoused people and low income families, who may have a difficult time making it over to the food pantry at the Arcata House Annex in downtown Arcata. 

But Carroll wanted to be clear that this service is not only for homeless or low income folks. Anyone, regardless of their income or housing status, is welcome to come get groceries. All of the food is donated by local grocery stores, which is also helping our area reach its zero-waste goals and come into alignment with California’s organic waste bill, SB 1383. 

“I think it’s good to point out that the food is from overstock from grocery stores,” Carroll said. “So this service also reduces waste.” 

The Valley West Food Pantry will be open at 4677 Valley West Blvd. every Friday from 4 to 6 p.m., starting this Friday, May 5 and ending on Sept. 29. Arcata House’s regular food pantry is open on Wednesdays from 4 to 6 p.m. at the Annex, 501 9th Street, Arcata. 

Arcata House is also looking for volunteers to help run the pantry. If you are interested in helping out, call 707-826-4528 ext 104, or email volunteer@arcatahouse.org