Is Ross Rowley the only person in Humboldt who knows what a limerick is? You be the judge.

MEASURE A

There were some pot growers in Humboldt
When prices and profits did tumble
They said let’s grow more, from mountains to shore
The bigger the better, we will not be fettered
Supply and demand be damned.

— Dianne Higgins

We went out to see the night sky
The Pleiades and Venus to spy
When we got there and saw nothing but glare
To the heavens we sent up our prayer
May the hoop houses go bye-bye

— Betsy Watson

There once was a planner who gave not a care
What neighbors and land and rivers could bear
He lets cannabis rule
And now looks a fool
Caught in a twisted and biased affair

— Meighan O’Brien

A forest does not like a cannabis farm
To wildlife and soils they only do harm
They remove food to eat
And places to sleep
Put mammals and birds in a state of alarm

— Patrick Mulligan

Politicians who give in to the fad
Are cowards and cowed by the in crowd
to suport just one percent of those they represent
While the rest of us are thrown under the bus
And the growers threaten to break bad.

— Ken Miller

MEASURE C

County measure named “C” fairly pales,
Compared to Measure “A,” where they rail.
For the Fire Hall’s tax
No one’s grinding an ax
Out in Fieldbrook and in Glendale

— Ross Rowley

SECOND DISTRICT SUPERVISOR

The 2nd’s a race for hobknobbers
Bushnell and McClendon and Roberts
Will they have their own bias?
Up there on the dais
For ranchers, weed farmers or loggers?

— Ross Rowley

ASSEMBLY

Now here’s a fine man name of Myers
To bring salmon back he aspires
He has all our goals
Takes us over the shoals
Vote Myers to get your desires

— Margaret Dickinson

###

OK, Margaret Dickinson also did pretty well.

PREVIOUSLY:

• It’s ELECTION LIMERICK Time Once Again! Please Send Us Your Letters of Support For Local Candidates and Measures, But Only in the Form of a Limerick
• ELECTION LIMERICK ROUNDUP! Here’s the First Batch of Political Poetry Sent to LoCO. We Tried to Be Forgiving.

The city-from-scratch that tech billionaires want to build in Solano County is getting the hard sell, with the backers promising new housing, better jobs and more — promises that will cost in the hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars — plus a pledge that county taxpayers outside the new community won’t have to pay for any of it.

The backers call these pledges, contained in a proposed countywide ballot initiative, “guarantees.” They say they’ll be legally bound to honor them.

But skeptical legal experts and local officials dispute the idea that the project’s developers will be obligated by law to deliver on the so-called guarantees. Because the issues would put California in uncharted territory, odds are some disputes would have to be resolved in court.

The Silicon Valley tech billionaires aim to put a nearly 100-page ballot initiative before county voters in November. The group has formed a company called California Forever — whose subsidiary Flannery Associates has spent $900 million to buy 62,000 acres of farmland (about the size of Sacramento) in the area since 2017 — that proposes to build on 17,500 acres of that land (about the size of Vacaville). They plan for the new community to attract an initial 50,000 residents, and eventually up to 400,000, which would double the population of the county.

The company is backed by a group of venture capitalists — including Michael Moritz, LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, Netscape co-founder Marc Andreessen and Emerson Collective founder Laurene Powell Jobs — to create this new town. They promise, through California Forever and its chief executive, Jan Sramek, to spend a lot more money to build and develop the community. They say it will alleviate the state’s housing crisis, create well-paying jobs and build a walkable community on the outskirts of the Bay Area.

Although the project’s promoters insist Solano County residents outside the proposed community won’t get stuck with any new taxes or fiscal responsibilities, they acknowledge the state of California will. And those state taxpayers, of course, also include all of Solano County’s taxpayers.

“The goal is to be the master developer of this and be a real steward of the land,” Sramek said in an interview with CalMatters last week. He added that the investors in the project are in it for the next few decades at least.

Despite taking part in some contentious town-halls and other public meetings, and suing county farmers they accuse of price-fixing, Sramek and California Forever are courting voters with wide-ranging “guarantees.”

Those promises — whose dollar amounts will gradually increase with the community’s population, reaching the pledged totals at 50,000 residents — include:

• Up to $400 million in down-payment assistance to help Solano County residents buy homes in the new community and new affordable housing
• Up to $200 million invested into the county’s existing downtowns
• Up to $70 million for college, training and educational programs for Solano County residents
• Thousands of new jobs that will pay 125% of the average annual income in the county
• An unknown sum for infrastructure for the new community, such as schools, a transportation system and more

Skeptics abound.

“They can promise they can do a thing,” said Mary-Beth Moylan, a University of the Pacific law professor and expert on California initiatives, who said the promises are not legally binding. “But when you get into things like commitment of taxpayer money, that’s not something they can guarantee.”

Solano County Supervisor Erin Hannigan represents Vallejo, and while she’s not necessarily against the project, she agreed with Moylan. “I think (the promises promoters call guarantees) will falsely entice people to think this is a good thing” when she said there is not enough information for voters to make an informed decision. “Who’s going to enforce it? You can’t put a directive on a municipality.”

Sramek pointed to initiative language that says the community would not be able to begin development without an environmental impact report, and without reaching a development agreement with the county that would incorporate enforcement of the so-called guarantees.

California law does not allow for statutory development agreements to be passed by initiative, per a 2018 appellate court ruling. This proposed initiative refers to a development agreement that is supposed to include many of California Forever’s promises, but the company will still have to iron out details with the county.

California Forever’s backers have up to 180 days to collect 13,062 signatures after they publish the final initiative title and summary in the legals section of print newspapers in the area, said John Gardner, assistant country registrar. The company can’t do that until it gets the initiative title and summary back from the registrar after submitting a revised version of the initiative Feb. 14; the registrar is waiting on county counsel to rewrite the initiative title and summary before passing that back to California Forever. For the initiative to qualify for the November ballot, all other subsequent steps, including validation of the signatures by the registrar and a final approval by the Board of Supervisors, must be completed by Aug. 8, Gardner said.

Ahead of signature-gathering for the East Solano Homes, Jobs, and Clean Energy Initiative — which asks voters to rezone farmland and amend the county’s urban-growth-restricting General Plan — here’s a breakdown of the “guarantees” and a look at a key sticking point: the effect of a new community on Travis Air Force Base.

Taxpayer and smart-growth promises

The initiative says California Forever won’t impose any new taxes or fiscal obligations on Solano County residents outside the new community.

Any costs to the county, including current and future administrative costs, already are being reimbursed by the company, Sramek said.

Bill Emlen, Solano County Administrator, confirmed through a county spokesperson that the company has a reimbursement agreement with Solano County.

But Emlen added that because the project is being pursued through the initiative process, “we are evaluating what additional costs may be recoverable from the project proponents based on county staff time that will be required. Given the scope and scale of the proposal we believe the costs will be significant and there are already costs incurred that have not been reimbursed.”

Other potential future expenses include the cost of law enforcement. Because the new community would be unincorporated, the county sheriff’s office would be responsible — but Sramek said California Forever would pay for those costs.

“We would set up a community facilities district which could also provide services, controlled by the county,” Sramek said, adding that it would be similar to Rio Vista’s arrangement with the sheriffs. Rio Vista Mayor Ron Kott said his city pays the county for 12 full-time sheriff’s deputies.

But some of the planned infrastructure will involve or eventually involve costs to the state — and therefore Solano County residents.

California Forever’s initiative also promises that after the first 50,000 residents, its financial commitments would continue to scale up in proportion to the community’s growth. So if the community doubles, so would the dollar amounts mentioned in the guarantees.

Jobs promise

The initiative says the new community will provide 15,000 new jobs that will pay 125% of the county’s average annual income. That works out to new jobs needing to pay at least $83,850 annually, based on the most recent weekly wage numbers for Solano County from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

But elected officials and others have questioned this so-called guarantee, partly because California Forever has not disclosed which employers are interested in coming to the proposed community, which its backers envision as hosting different types of employers, from small businesses to big ones, from coffee shops to stores. Sramek said he plans to share specific names “between now and November.”

Sramek said the new community will have “the opportunity to bring tech jobs” to the area — not just in software but also in “hard tech” such as advanced manufacturing, aerospace and defense, something akin to what he said Silicon Valley had before it ran out of space and housing in the region became too expensive for manufacturing workers to afford.

Considering the tech-industry backers of the proposed community, “if anybody can make it happen, it would be them,” said Kott, the mayor of Rio Vista, which would be the new community’s nearest neighbor.

Other mayors say there certainly will be construction jobs, especially for the first few years.

“That’s very different from long-term economic-development jobs that could sustain a community going forward,” said Steve Young, mayor of Benicia.

Robert McConnell, mayor of Vallejo, said “labor unions are the biggest supporter of this project,” referring to the fact that California Forever put together an advisory committee that included a few union leaders.

“They can promise they can do a thing. But when you get into things like commitment of taxpayer money, that’s not something they can guarantee.”
— Mary-Beth Moylan, Law professor and ballot initiatives expert, University of the Pacific

But Jon Riley, executive director of the Napa/Solano Central Labor Council, which consists of 48 affiliated unions in the region, said labor has not taken a stance — though he was on the committee, along with other public officials and business leaders. Until the unions take a vote on whether to support the initiative, he said he would not be doing interviews.

The initiative states that if the jobs “guarantee” is not met, the county won’t have to approve any more home development beyond that for the first 50,000 residents.

Hannigan, from the Board of Supervisors, again: “The ‘guarantees’ are tied to progress. It’s hard to hang your hat on it.”

Housing promises

Perhaps the key selling point of the proposed community are the 40,000 to 160,000 new homes that could be built at the edge of the San Francisco Bay Area, a region where places to live are in desperately short supply.

Sramek and other California Forever representatives stress that this isn’t your typical sprawling commuter suburb, and that the town will consist of a dense mix of apartments, condos, town- and rowhouses and backyard cottages, all across a matrix of bike paths and pedestrian-friendly boulevards. This meticulous vision of city life is meant to appeal to design geeks, urbanists and people who spent a lot of time playing SimCity growing up. But the heart of the new town would still be a 48-minute bicycle ride from downtown Rio Vista, the next closest community, according to Google Maps. There aren’t immediate plans to incorporate the city into current public bus and rail networks, as that would require buy-in from regional and state public transportation agencies. In the meantime, the company plans to start with a private shuttle system, California Forever’s planning chief, Gabriel Metcalf, said in a recent interview with the pro-development publication SF YIMBY.

Cattle graze on land where California Forever plans on putting its new city in Solano County, on Feb. 16, 2024. The contentious development would be located between Travis Air Force Base and Rio Vista. Photo by Loren Elliott for CalMatters Credit: Loren Elliott

An exceedingly optimistic projection of how much it would cost to build even just 40,000 units would be less than $10 billion. Both Sramek and Metcalf have said that California Forever isn’t likely to front all of that money, but would instead play the role of “master developer,” in which they build the infrastructure and secure the legal right to build before selling off individual parcels to builders.

Whatever arrangement the company arrives at, building a fully fledged town out of nothing won’t be cheap.

In addition to the pledge to build new homes by the thousands, the billionaire-backed venture is also offering, as one of its “guarantees,” to spend $400 million on affordable housing developments and down-payment assistance for future residents.

What kinds of affordable housing projects will get built and for which types of residents? How will any down-payment assistance grants be divided up and under what terms? Who will be tasked with overseeing this nearly half-a-billion dollar spending bonanza?

That is all TBD.

Sramek said such details would be hammered out through a “community engagement process” and negotiations with the county government, assuming the ballot measure passes. Those negotiations would culminate in a broader development agreement that would spell out the when, where and how of the entire town-building project. Developers regularly enter into such legally binding contracts with local governments over the nitty-gritty of how a project gets built.

That agreement would also dictate some of the terms under which new homes actually get built in the hypothetical new community. But Sramek and the other backers of California Forever have a clear preference for how construction should take place: quickly.

The ballot measure would require the county to approve preliminary applications for development, including those for new housing, within 60 days. That’s blow-your-hair-back-fast, by California development standards.

Then, assuming a project is consistent with zoning and a set of broad design rules, the initiative dictates that the county would have no choice but to approve them — no discretion and no public hearings. The decision would also be exempt from environmental review and any related lawsuits. In housing policy jargon, this approach to development is known as “by-right” or “ministerial” approval, a glidepath standard that “yes in my backyard” advocates have been inserting into state law for specific, favored project types. This would make the entire community a YIMBY-happy oasis of ministerial approval, a complete inversion of the status quo in neighboring San Francisco.

The county and California Forever will be able to tinker with the details of the approval process in a future development agreement. But legally they can only fill in gaps left by the ballot measure. They can’t override it.

“Our goal is that a complying project can be approved in 10 days,” Metcalf said in the SF YIMBY interview. “We’re not looking to have people involved in telling other people what they can build.”

“When I hear ‘guarantee,’ I don’t know how they’re going to guarantee anything.”
— Daryl Halls, Executive Director, Solano Transportation Authority

That vision has already stirred up additional opposition from some local elected officials.

In an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, Democratic U.S. Rep. John Garamendi, whose district includes the neighboring Travis Air Force Base, expressed concern over the “the inability of the county government to control what goes on” in the new development.

But there may be limits to how much the ballot measure can do to speed up the growth process. Before developers can start dropping homes onto cow pastures, they first need to legally divide the land up into individual parcels — a process known as subdivision.

California courts tend to “give Solano County discretion over subdivision approvals,” UC Davis law professor Chris Elmendorf said in an email. “I don’t think the ballot measure can make subdivision approvals ministerial.”

Translation: He doesn’t think California Forever can streamline every step of the development process with a single ballot measure.

This isn’t the first time private money has sought to build an out-of-nowhere city, not even in California. In the late 1950s the Irvine Company commissioned “starchitecht” William Pereira to design from scratch a city to serve the newest University of California campus in Orange County. Thus: Irvine.

But the history of proposed cities is also littered with extravagant failures, especially in unincorporated Solano County.

An area of land where California Forever plans on building its new city in Solano County. Photo by Loren Elliott for CalMatters

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, in 1913, a wealthy cadre of San Franciscans, including the then-owner of that paper, bought up nearly 100,000 acres of north Bay Area farmland in the hopes of building Solano City — “the most beautiful city in America.” The project went bankrupt before a single house was built.

In more recent history, a San Francisco developer spent the early 1980s trying to build Manzanita, a 2,000-home subdevelopment not so far from the current plot selected by California Forever. Even the pitch made by developer Hiram Woo sounds familiar in 2024: “A self-contained community with families of different income levels living together with a lot of amenities they can enjoy,” he told the San Francisco Examiner at the time.

That project, along with another one nearby, prompted a public backlash from locals worried about sprawl and the loss of agricultural open space. In 1984, voters enacted a county-wide “orderly growth” policy, which requires any new development outside Solano’s seven current cities to receive electoral approval before it can break ground. A year later, the local electorate voted down the Manzanita project by a two-to-one margin.

Four decades later the policy is still in place, which is why California Forever’s vision is in Solano County voters’ hands.

Transportation promise

California Forever also promises in the ballot initiative to pay “more than its proportionate share of costs” to upgrade Highways 12 and 113, the two main ways to get to the proposed community.

Sramek said “proportionate share” will be tied to how much the new community’s residents use those highways, and those terms will be specified in the development agreement.

The initiative also says “future improvements shall be developed with Solano Transportation Authority, Caltrans, and other stakeholders.” That means other costs would be shouldered by local and state taxpayers, because highway projects involve multiple agencies.

The Solano Transportation Authority is neutral on the project, said Daryl Halls, its executive director. But he has questions.

“When I hear ‘guarantee,’ I don’t know how they’re going to guarantee anything,” he said, particularly when it comes to widening or making other improvements to highways, where regional and state partnerships are critical.

“There’s a lot of taking your turn,” Halls said. “We’re competing against 57 other counties for projects.” He also said that highway projects take a lot of time, and involve air-quality concerns, environmental studies and more.

Another agency likely to be involved would be the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, which handles transportation planning and financing for the Bay Area.

“The goal is to be the master developer of this and be a real steward of the land.”
— Jan Sramek, chief executive of California Forever

Rebecca Long, its director of legislation and public affairs, said she read the proposal, which also included a possible rail connection between the new community and the Fairfield-Vacaville Amtrak station.

Long said she saw “no guarantee of a funding stream of this magnitude that could fund these projects. They would have to secure massive discretionary (government) grants, which are not particularly favorable toward highway-widening projects.” In addition, she said if the planned highway-widening were to be funded and approved, “you’re looking at a decade at a minimum to go from designing it to constructing it.”

As for other transportation, the rapid-shuttle program Metcalf spoke of would be made up of buses within the county and financed by California Forever. In the long run, he said such a program could run between Sacramento and the Bay Area.

“We can be a catalyst and primary funder of transportation lines,” Metcalf said on stage at Solano Economic Development Corporation’s annual meeting in early February.

Schools and scholarships promises

Usually, California schools are built with state and local funds, with cities asking residents to approve local bonds that can then be repaid over decades. The question, then, is which will come first, the schools or the taxpayer base of the new community?

California Forever’s initiative says its new community’s schools will be paid for by state school construction programs, school facility improvement grants and other sources.

But Sramek said his plan is for the community to have everything it needs “from Day 1,” including schools. That means “it’s very possible that we will subsidize a school,” he said, then expect to be paid back as the community grows.

In the past few decades, California’s K-12 schools have been financed about 50-50 by the state and local governments, said Jeff Vincent, director of the UC Berkeley Center for Cities & Schools, adding that cities can end up paying more depending on how specialized or fancy a campus might be. Cities also collect developer fees that go toward school construction.

“I suppose it’s conceptually possible they could front the money, then get repaid,” Vincent said, adding that to collect state funding, the new community would have to meet eligibility requirements related to expected number of students.

But even if California Forever fronts the money for construction of a school, it will still need to go through state approvals that could take a long time. From conception to design to construction, two to three years would be an overly optimistic timeline, Vincent said.

He offered rough estimates of how much schools cost to build: $25 million for elementary schools, $50 million for middle schools and $100 million and often more for high schools.

The California Education Department referred CalMatters to the Solano County Office of Education, whose superintendent refused requests to talk with CalMatters for this story. “There are several unknowns and variables at this point, so it feels too soon to speak to the topic,” said Jennifer Leonard, a spokesperson for the county’s education office.

The California Office of Public School Construction also did not return calls for comment.

A separate “guarantee” for scholarships in the initiative says California Forever’s investors will spend $70 million toward college, training and education, whose details are supposed to be included in the development agreement. It’s what Sramek called a “community benefit” that California Forever would grant to existing Solano County residents.

Water and ‘Green Solano’ promises

Sramek said California Forever has secured enough water for the 50,000 initial residents of the proposed community, and maybe even the first 100,000.

The water rights came from the land the company has bought, he said, and are sourced from groundwater and the Sacramento River. The company could buy more water to supplement that, but wouldn’t need it for the first buildout, he said.

The water-supply verification process would not be handled at the state level, said Ryan Endean, a spokesperson for the California Department of Water Resources.

The Solano County Water Agency has not received a proposal to provide water to California Forever, said Alexander Rabidoux, assistant general manager for the agency. If and when it does, the agency’s board would discuss such a proposal publicly, Rabidoux said.

“Do we want to vote for an initiative that will undermine what we’ve been working toward, which is to drive growth and investment into our seven cities?”
— Princess Washington, Mayor Pro Tem, Suisun City

Other officials, many of whom have been dealing with water and drought issues for years, are concerned about the effects on their water supply.

Kott, the mayor of Rio Vista, said he has talked with California Forever about a possible memorandum of understanding about water. “The development they’re proposing is north and west of our city and could affect our water supply,” Kott said.

Catherine Moy, mayor of Fairfield, said “Flannery’s land gets its groundwater from the same sub-basin as Suisun Valley,” which is trying to grow its wine industry. “We need to raise that question quite a bit… the impacts are real.”

The Green Solano “guarantee” commits $30 million toward improving parks and trails, and “supporting Solano’s agriculture economy, including family farms and agricultural workers.”

Sramek said that in the company’s conversations with the community, there is disagreement about where this money might go. It could fund trails, go toward habitat conversation or help young farmers who want to get into the business, he said. California Forever will commit the money and the development agreement could spell out how the money would be allocated, he said.

Greenbelt Alliance, a Bay Area nonprofit that’s dedicated to protecting open space, is among the opponents of the proposed new community. It also belongs to Solano Together, a coalition of opponents to the project, and is collecting funds for a planned competing ballot initiative if California Forever’s initiative qualifies for the ballot.

“It is pretty bold to include a promise to ‘protect and improve open space and agriculture’ in an initiative that simultaneously asks voters to approve development of over 17,000 acres of open space and agriculture,” said Sadie Wilson, director of Planning and Research at Greenbelt Alliance.

Solano County downtowns promise

California Forever’s initiative promises a $200 million investment in the seven existing downtowns of Vallejo, Fairfield, Benicia, Vacaville, Suisun City, Rio Vista and Dixon, proportionate to their populations. Sramek said this would be a commercial investment — meaning the company expects returns — that would involve the company owning and operating buildings in the downtowns around the county.

Some mayors of existing downtowns say the promised investment sounds good, but they don’t know how it would work yet.

“Would it be nice to have another $25 million to $30 million invested in downtown?” asked Vacaville Mayor John Carli. “Sure… but I haven’t heard how Vacaville would get that money.”

Kott, mayor of Rio Vista, is worried about the new community diverting shoppers, and therefore sales taxes, from his town.

“We’re probably going to feel the most effects,” Kott said. “Unfortunately everyone else in the county will be voting for this. I see upsides and downsides.”

Princess Washington, mayor pro tem of Suisun City, said on stage during the Solano Economic Development Corporation meeting: “Do we want to vote for an initiative that will undermine what we’ve been working toward, which is to drive growth and investment into our seven cities?”

But Kott added that California Forever appears to be willing to listen to its neighbors’ concerns, such as when the company added in its plans a park that Kott says will act as a buffer between the new development and his city, which will allow Rio Vista to keep its small-town feel: “If you’re willing to work with them, they’re willing to work with us.”

Concerns about Travis Air Force Base

If approved, the new community would be built between Rio Vista and Travis Air Force Base. That’s important for many reasons.

“Landing and takeoff space is impacted by the project,” state Sen. Bill Dodd, the Democrat whose district includes Solano County, told CalMatters. “There are safety and security problems. Travis is the largest employer and economic driver in Solano County.”

California Forever’s promises, such as down-payment assistance and scholarships, also extend to the base’s residents, according to its CEO’s public statements and the company’s website.

And in response to continued concerns about Travis, California Forever last week submitted a reworded initiative that included designating 4,200 acres as “Travis Compatible Infrastructure,” which would limit the new community’s uses in that area to infrastructure, agriculture and habitat preservation.

Sandy Person, executive director of the Travis Community Consortium — a group of civic and business leaders that advocates for the interests of the base — said she is “not able to comment at this time.” The consortium has said that Travis has a $2.7 billion annual economic impact on the region.

###

Laurene Powell Jobs oversees the Emerson Collective, which has donated to CalMatters. CalMatters retains full authority over editorial content, maintaining a firewall between news coverage decisions and revenue sources.

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

When Mel McKernan moved in with her new roommate Braedon Ellis, they bonded quickly. Every night she would stay up until 1 a.m. just waiting for Ellis to get back from her job so they could watch TV together. McKernan, 19, was a second-year student at Seattle University. Ellis was 20 and working as a Domino’s delivery driver.

“She genuinely was the light of my life,” recalled McKernan, who has since transferred to UC Berkeley. “She had this beautiful purple hair. I felt like that was just an aura that she carried around with her.”

McKernan thought she had made a friend for life. The two young women lived with two other roommates in a beautiful waterfront house in Kenmore, Washington. But behind the walls, a darkness lurked. Their other roommates were addicted to fentanyl, an extremely potent synthetic opioid.

McKernan had braced herself for the possibility of losing a roommate. But she never expected it to be Ellis. Their magnetic connection severed when Ellis overdosed from a combination of drugs that included fentanyl.

“It completely changed my view on opioids,” McKernan said. “Because I was like, this could hit anyone. It can hit literally anyone.”

Braedon Ellis. Photo courtesy of Dionne Waltz

Fentanyl is now the leading cause of drug-related deaths nationwide. After a new wave of deadly overdoses among Californians 15 to 24 started to rise in 2019, lawmakers turned to California’s public colleges and universities to offer life-saving resources to its students.

The Campus Opioid Safety Act, which took effect Jan. 1, 2023, required campus health centers at most public colleges and universities to offer students free Narcan, a nasal spray that can reverse an opioid overdose. Some colleges and universities have since armed students with Narcan, but not all have followed suit.

The rise of fentanyl deaths

Today, when someone in the United States dies of a drug-related overdose, it’s usually linked to fentanyl. That’s a change from 20 years ago, when prescription opioids like OxyContin were the leading killer, according to Theo Krzywicki, founder and CEO of End Overdose, a national nonprofit based in Los Angeles aimed at eliminating drug-related overdose deaths, especially among teens and young adults.

“Fentanyl is a very different drug than OxyContin,” Krzywicki said. “The way people use it has changed.” Because fentanyl delivers a stronger and shorter-lived high than other opioids, people often use more of it, he said, and build up a tolerance to it quickly.

For years, the opioid epidemic hit middle-aged Californians harder, but the new wave brought on a rise in death rates for teens and young adults. By 2021, teens 15 to 19 were five times as likely to die from an opioid overdose compared to 2019. For 20- to 24-year-olds, they were over three times as likely. Rates for adults between 25 and 75 years old, meanwhile, roughly doubled in the same time frame.

Recently, opioid-related fatalities among the state’s young people have started to reverse. While death rates for adults 25 and over continue to rise, rates have declined for people under 25. Since 2021, per-capita rates for opioid-related overdose deaths dropped by over a third for Californians 15 to 19 and 20 to 24.

Rising awareness could be what’s driving the recent decline, according to a statement from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health. College-aged students increasingly use social media to spread information about the risks of fentanyl and where to find life-saving resources such as Narcan. Young people also tend to have stronger support systems and are less likely to use drugs alone, according to the statement.

Lawmakers require colleges to combat the crisis

Melissa Hurtado, a Democratic Central Valley state senator, introduced the Campus Opioid Safety Act, or SB 367, in February of 2021. She said she chose to target college campuses after hearing story after story of young people overdosing in her district.

“It was just such a serious threat,” Hurtado said. “And it still is.”

State Sen. Melissa Hurtado speaks at a press conference on Oct. 14, 2022. Photo by Larry Valenzuela, CalMatters/CatchLight Local

This January, another law, AB 461, went into effect that added fentanyl test strips to the requirements. The small paper strips can be used by drug users to check if their supply contains fentanyl. Counterfeit prescription pills, made to look like OxyContin or Adderall, often contain fentanyl, according to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.

The act requires campus health centers at California State University campuses and community colleges to order free Narcan through a state program called the Naloxone Distribution Project. Schools also must educate their students about preventing overdoses, and let them know where they can find opioid overdose reversal medication. The law “requests” the University of California system to do the same, stopping short of a requirement because of the system’s constitutional autonomy.

At least 100 public colleges in California have Narcan somewhere on campus, according to data from the state distribution project that included a list of all applications from colleges and universities. Although not required by law, some private universities like Stanford also offer Narcan to students.

Every UC and Cal State has ordered Narcan from the state distribution project in the last two years, with the exception of CSU Maritime Academy. However, CSU Maritime said in an email statement that Narcan is available through their student health center.

Fourteen of California’s 72 physical community college districts were not represented in the data, but Narcan could still be on those campuses. Victor Valley College, in San Bernardino County, ordered Narcan through its police department, so the request was categorized as law enforcement. DeAnza College in Santa Clara County received its supply of Narcan from the county health department, according to college spokesperson Marisa Spatafore.

Cal State Bakersfield gets the word out

Hurtado represents much of Kern County, one of the deadliest counties for opioid-related overdoses among young people. In 2022, 15- to 19-year-olds in Kern County fatally overdosed on opioids at a rate three times higher than the statewide rate for the same age group, according to the California Department of Public Health. For 20- to 24-year-olds, the rate was twice as high.

The county is home to Cal State Bakersfield, whose health education department has given out about 60 boxes of Narcan to its students since January 2023. After completing a short online training, students can drop by the campus health clinic to pick up the opioid reversal drug.

Lauren Hedlund, a health educator at Cal State Bakersfield, said her team gets the word out to students through tabling, activities, and flyers. They also bring Narcan directly to classrooms if an instructor requests it. The instructor shows the training video beforehand, then the health education team visits the class to answer questions and hand out Narcan.

“It’s just making sure that I can reach as many students as possible so that they’re aware,” Hedlund said. She added that even if a student never needs the resources, they could know someone who does.

Some colleges lag behind

More than a year after the law went into effect, some colleges have yet to put Narcan in the hands of students. Elsewhere in Kern County, community colleges in Taft, Ridgecrest, and Bakersfield do not have a program for distributing Narcan to students. Bakersfield College is currently working on setting up a vending machine that would stock Narcan, menstrual products, and other health items, according to Marissa Perez, a medical assistant at the college.

In the East Bay Area, Peralta Community College District received Narcan from the state early last year, but until recently, no efforts were made to make it available through the student health center. The district initially distributed the Narcan to its security staff. No Narcan trainings have been held for students, although the safety department held a training this year at an event for college employees.

Students can request a single packaged dose of Narcan through the district’s public safety office, according to a Feb. 14 announcement sent by associate director of public safety Amy Marshall. The email was sent to employees, but not to students. Marshall informed CalMatters via email that the health center received Narcan on Feb. 20. However, the district’s associate vice chancellor of educational services, Tina Vasconcellos, clarified in an email to CalMatters that the Narcan would be for health center staff to use within the clinic, and that they would not distribute Narcan to students.

A spokesperson from Hurtado’s office confirmed that even if a college has Narcan somewhere on campus, the school needs to offer it to students to comply with the law.

UC Berkeley students steer efforts

Crushed after losing her close friend, McKernan dropped out of Seattle University and took a year off college to stay home in Sacramento. Now 21, she’s finding her footing as a transfer student at UC Berkeley, where she majors in social welfare. She’s fervent about spreading harm reduction resources like Narcan, destigmatizing addiction, and addressing the deeper systemic issues that lead to addiction.

First: UC Berkeley End Overdose Co-Presidents Shannon McCabe (left) and Tyler Mahomes (right) pass out free fentanyl test strips at Sproul Plaza on campus in Berkeley on Jan. 23, 2024. Last: A box of Narcan nasal spray at UC Berkeley student organization End Overdose’s table at Sproul Plaza on Jan. 23, 2024. The organization passes out free fentanyl test strips to students, and gives other organizations training on Narcan usage. Photos by Juliana Yamada for CalMatters.

At her former university, McKernan had tried to organize her fellow students around overdose prevention, but struggled to find enough volunteers. So when she saw students from End Overdose’s UC Berkeley chapter handing out fentanyl test strips in Sproul Plaza on a recent afternoon, she asked immediately if she could join, offering to share infographics she’d made for social media.

Before her roommate’s death, she knew her household would benefit from Narcan, but she didn’t find out where to access it in time. “A lot of people, including myself, just learn about it too late,” McKernan said.

Tyler Mahomes, a legal studies major at UC Berkeley, founded the chapter of End Overdose last year. It’s one of the organization’s many college chapters across the United States, where students spread overdose prevention awareness and resources to fellow students. Mahomes’ team brings Narcan directly to fraternities and other student groups, and works with his university to patch holes in their harm reduction efforts. For example, he notified the university when his dorm hadn’t been restocked with overdose safety kits containing Narcan.

The students can even go where the university cannot. Last fall, the chapter volunteered at the Portola Music Festival in San Francisco to hand out Narcan to festival-goers.

Students are receptive to End Overdose’s peer-to-peer, non-judgemental approach. “They don’t see us as this administrative force,” Mahomes said. “We’re students like them […] so they feel very comfortable.”

The approach has already seen some results. According to Mahomes, one student at a frat party recovered from an overdose after someone used Narcan provided by End Overdose.

The spark that went out

Ellis, the purple-haired light of McKernan’s life, left behind her mother and an 8-year-old brother when fentanyl took her life. Her mother, Dionne Waltz, would find out two days later, while driving to pick her son up from school.

Ellis was a “fireball,” Waltz recalled. She still misses her daughter’s kind and generous spirit. When they went out for coffee, Ellis would insist on covering the tab, even paying for the car behind them. Even though she didn’t make a lot of money, she’d always save up to buy her little brother something nice for Christmas.

Two years later, the initial shock has faded. Waltz still grieves her only daughter. But she sees flickers of her spark everywhere: in the sunsets, in the birds, and in anything bright pink, one of Ellis’ favorite colors.

“On the inside there’s that hollow echo all the time,” Waltz said. “I think about her every single day.”

Dionne Waltz and Braedon Ellis. Photo courtesy of Dionne Waltz

When Ellis’ spark went out, another was lit. McKernan vowed not to lose another friend to an overdose. She believes that just starting a conversation about Narcan could save others.

“Because if you’re educated and you’re prepared, it’s so much less likely that you’re going to lose a life to overdose,” McKernan said.

###

Khan is a fellow with the CalMatters College Journalism Network, a collaboration between CalMatters and student journalists from across California. This story and other higher education coverage are supported by the College Futures Foundation.

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

There is a certain class of Eureka citizen that loses their minds quite easily when it comes to their motor vehicular freedom.

First they lost their mind about the loss of downtown parking lots.

Next they lost their mind about bulb-outs.

It seems that any new development that threatens their ability to drive speedily in a straight line to their desired destination and to park their motor vehicle right in front of that destination, freely and without restriction of any sort, will cause members of this class of citizenry to panic and grumble anew.

Well, load up the Michael Jackson popcorn meme because here comes this new thing. The Lost Coast Outpost was not previously hip to Assembly Bill 413 – the “Daylighting Saves Lives Bill,” which was signed into law last October – until the city tweeted about it a few minutes ago, and we assume most readers were in the same boat.

Here is that tweet:

Red zones will be painted at intersections throughout the City.

AB413 aims to improve visibility for drivers and pedestrians.

For more information contact the Eureka Public Works Department at 707-441-4203 or publicworks@ci.eureka.ca.gov pic.twitter.com/6Ju4OJTUff

— City of Eureka (@CityofEureka) February 21, 2024

Hoo, mammy! You catch that? No more curbside parking within 20 feet of an intersection! The city’s gonna go out and start painting new red zones for ya soon.

Though this will indubitably reduce the supply of Eureka’s most precious resource — parking — anyone who has ever tried to peer around a parked car at an intersection can see the logic, here. Whether you’re walking, biking or driving, sometimes you’re risking your life edging your way out into the intersection.

“The rising rate of pedestrian fatalities is unacceptable,” said Jared Sanchez, the policy director of advocacy group CalBike, in a press release sent out upon Gov. Newsom’s signature of the bill. “Daylighting is an inexpensive and effective way for California to begin to reduce that trend.”

This year’s race for Humboldt Superior Court judge has been the most contentious in living memory.

Last night, April Van Dyke, who is challenging incumbent Greg Kreis, released a video on her Instagram account to discuss her partial facial paralysis, which she says she has had since childhood. Van Dyke said she was moved to record the statement in response to online commentary on the subject — according to the candidate, this has ranged from the notion that her campaign photos show her smirking at justice to hints that she has suffered a debilitating stroke.

Neither of those things are true, Van Dyke said in her video, which generally urged people not to focus so much on the physical attributes of others. Watch the video below:

Meanwhile,  in the wake of a state judicial ethics commission’s accusations against Kreis, Deputy District Attorney Jessica Watson has launched a write-in campaign for the seat. A statement sent out over the weekend said that the action against Kreis, which was filed after the deadline to get on the ballot, compelled her to offer voters an alternative.

Why is Van Dyke not an alternative? “I feel as though I’m in a better position to serve this community,” Watson told the Outpost yesterday. She cited her roots in the community — she first moved her to attend Humboldt State 20 years ago, whereas Van Dyke has lived here only since 2019 — and the fact that as an attorney she has worked on all sides of the bench: civil cases, criminal prosecution, criminal defense.

Does a write-in candidate have a realistic chance? “I’m definitely gonna try,” Watson said. “I only have about two and a half weeks to do it, but I’m going to do as much as I can.”

Here’s Watson’s website. Her full statement, sent out over the weekend, can be found below.

Press release from Jessica Watson:

I am Jessica Watson, and I am asking for your support as a write-in candidate for Humboldt County Superior Court Judge. There is some speculation about why I entered the race as a write-in candidate. There seems to be an unspoken expectation that we’ll vote for an incumbent judge. However, with the Judicial Council’s recent release of alleged ethical violations against the incumbent, I can no longer adhere to the unspoken expectation. Sadly, this information became available after ballots were printed and mailed. Nonetheless, these allegations are so significant and numerous that they require action.

This is our community, yours and mine. Judges are entrusted with decisions that fundamentally affect our lives and prosperity. Those who have been before a judge in any capacity understand how vital it is to have no appearance of impropriety. We trust that there is nothing guiding judicial decisions other than the facts and the law. When this trust is broken, then it must be repaired.

I am compelled to run as a write-in candidate because I believe we need judges who restore trust in our judicial system and work on behalf of the people with integrity and a sense of fairness.

I moved to Humboldt from the Bay Area twenty years ago, to attend Humboldt State University. My husband is also an HSU graduate. (Go Lumberjacks!) I have dedicated my legal career to improving the lives of Humboldt County residents. I have worked as a criminal defense attorney and as an attorney for a local nonprofit, Humboldt Center for Constitutional Rights. For the past ten years I have been a Deputy District Attorney, representing you with the hope of making a positive change in our community. I will continue with that endeavor.

WRITE IN WATSON – IT’S WHAT’S RIGHT!

The top four candidates vying to become California’s next U.S. senator arrived at Universal Studios in Hollywood last night for their last live televised debate — a final chance to sway undecided debate-watchers — before the March 5 primary.

The debate hosted by NBC4 and Telemundo 52 drew Democratic U.S. Reps. Barbara Lee, Katie Porter and Adam Schiff, as well as Steve Garvey, a Republican and former L.A. Dodgers star.

Broadcast in both English and Spanish, the hour-long event was an opportunity for candidates to reach Spanish-speaking Latino voters, who could help determine winners up and down the ballot in March — if they turn out.

The candidates have stressed for months the importance of reaching Latino voters, who are the biggest racial and ethnic group in California but the least likely to vote. Lee, Porter and Schiff have participated in two forums targeting Latino voters, including a November event on immigration issues and another hosted by the Spanish-language broadcast network Univision on Saturday, which Garvey declined to attend.

But recent polling among Latino voters shows a large portion still undecided in this race. A California Elections and Policy poll published earlier this month showed that 31% of likely Latino voters were undecided.

While most Latinos nationwide speak English proficiently, some researchers say airing Spanish-language ads still helps political campaigns resonate with and turn out Latino voters. But in the Senate race, even as campaigns dropped millions on digital and TV ads statewide, they have spent little on Spanish-language advertising, Politico reported.

Here are some key highlights:

Latino outreach

All three Democrats received the same question:

Why should Latino voters trust you, even though Democrats failed to overhaul the immigration system when they controlled both the White House and Congress?

Porter — who often tries to distinguish herself from others she deems “career politicians” in Washington, D.C. — blamed her colleagues in Congress.

“I’m not satisfied with what Democrats or Republicans have been delivering,” she said. “I’m not going to offer you the status quo because the status quo has been unacceptable and not enough for millions of Americans. I’m tired of hearing about comprehensive immigration reform. I want to do it.”

“Comprehensive immigration reform” is just what Lee and Schiff championed next. All three have supported — or even co-sponsored — bills to provide a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and their children.

“Our Latino community should not trust us. They should grade us based on the work that we have done, our voting record and exactly what we believe in,” Lee said, pledging to work with California’s U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla on providing legal status for long-term U.S. residents and farmworkers.

Schiff — endorsed by both the United Farm Workers and the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights’s Action Fund — said the failure to “reform” the immigration system in 2010 was “on our party.” To pass it, Democrats would have to “do it ourselves” and get rid of the filibuster — a political tactic often used to prolong a floor debate and slow down legislative actions.

But why should Latino voters trust Republicans such as former President Donald Trump, who reportedly opposed a bipartisan immigration deal to avoid giving President Joe Biden a victory?

Garvey, who received the question, blamed the bill for not doing enough to “secure the border,” even though the bill would have given Biden emergency power to shut down the border.

All three Democrats said they would not have voted for the bill package, arguing it did not go far enough to protect immigrants.

War and peace

The candidates diverged on America’s role in the world and whether the country should provide foreign aid.

Lee — who has been the most consistent of the candidates to oppose increasing military funding and the only one to call for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza — disagreed with most of her opponents on multiple issues.

She was the only Democrat to directly oppose the U.S. deploying troops to Taiwan if it were attacked by China. Garvey said “no troops on the ground.” Porter said she would “support safeguarding us from the threats of China,” while Schiff sided with Biden, who has supported deploying troops.

On the bipartisan deal to provide $60 billion in aid to Ukraine, Lee was the only one to express concerns with certain provisions.

Garvey was asked to “defend” Trump’s foreign policy agenda but did not answer the question, instead telling the TV audience that he would do “everything to maintain your security.”

Climate change

When asked about the Diablo Canyon Power Plant in San Luis Obispo County — California’s last nuclear power plant, which is scheduled to shut down after 2030 — all three Democrats agreed it must eventually be decommissioned, and some agreed with Newsom’s schedule.

But will the candidates embrace nuclear energy?

Schiff, while stressing the nation should move away from fossil fuel and invest in new energy, said nuclear energy must be part of the discussion.

Lee said she does not support nuclear power. Porter said she sees nuclear waste “in my own backyard,” noting she is part of the bipartisan Fusion Caucus in Congress that’s focused on new technology that reduces hazardous waste.

Garvey, however, supported keeping Diablo Canyon open and also said fossil fuels should be here to stay.

“This country runs on gas and oil,” he said. “When it’s all said and done, the people will decide. They are the ones that will tell us what they can afford and what they need.”

Clashes between Schiff and Porter

Schiff and Porter went toe-to-toe, trading blows on multiple issues from child care to corporate donations.

While talking about inflation, Porter claimed Schiff did not sign on as co-sponsors of two bills to lower child care costs. She was referring to the Child Care for Working Families Act, which would cap child care costs at 7% of a family’s household income, and the Child Care for Every Community Act, which would waive child care fees for low-income families, her campaign told CalMatters.

Schiff countered that he has authored his own. “There’s nothing easier than putting your name on a bill. Where you see the real legislators is that they write their own legislation,” he said.

Schiff’s campaign pointed to two bills he helped introduce, including the Child Care Stabilization Act to extend funding for child care providers and the Affordable Housing and Childcare Investment Act to fund for more child care facilities.

The two also clashed on their record accepting campaign contributions from corporations. Porter — who has touted her record of never having accepted corporate PAC money — has criticized Schiff for accepting a total of $2 million from corporate PAC throughout his career. His campaign has not cashed checks from corporate PACs this election.

Schiff, however, accused Porter of taking contributions from oil, banking and pharmaceutical industries. Her campaign swore off contributions from executives associated with those industries.

When asked for proof, Schiff’s campaign pointed to statistics collected by OpenSecrets, a nonpartisan nonprofit that tracks money in politics.

Data shows Porter’s campaign collected more than $171,000 from individuals who worked in the energy and natural resources sector, $290,000 from those who worked in the pharmaceutical and health products industry and almost $3 million from the finance, insurance and real estate industry, which includes commercial banking.

The data does not distinguish between contributions from executives and those from low-level employees.

The two also again clashed on earmarks — a process members of Congress use to secure federal funding for their own districts. Porter has argued that the process breeds corruption and has refused to make requests, noting she has instead testified in hearings and written support letters for district-specific federal funding.

“Washington gave sweetheart deals to certain defense contractors through earmarks, and there is a candidate on this stage who has done that again and again, getting earmarks for his private corporate donors who are big defense contractors,” Porter said, referring to Schiff’s early-career campaign contributions from PACs and lobbyists tied to for-profit companies he helped deliver funding to.

Porter did not attack Lee, who also requested earmark funding.

Schiff argued that not requesting the funding would only benefit lawmakers from other states, stating that Porter “prefers a political talking point.”

“Any senator who won’t do that is going to be a gift to every other state of the union, who will fight for resources for their state.”

Despite their clashes, Schiff, who is leading in the polls, and Porter, who is trying to finish in the top two, have adopted seemingly similar political strategies.

Schiff has lambasted Garvey in debates, mailers and TV ads on his past votes for former President Donald Trump — a campaign tactic experts have said could help elevate Garvey’s profile and thrust him into the top two, likely guaranteeing Schiff an easier path to victory if he finishes as the top candidate on March 5.

Porter’s campaign has slammed Schiff for propping up Garvey, deeming it in her fundraising messages as a “sneaky play” to “push Katie out of the top two.”

But her campaign engaged in a similar tactic targeting Eric Early, a GOP attorney who is lagging in polls and fundraising despite winning the endorsement of a dozen local Republican parties. “MAGA Republican Eric Early proudly stands with Donald Trump, while Steve Garvey refuses to tell us who he supports,” the ad said.

Porter invoked Early’s name again on stage, arguing he is “100% MAGA.”

Porter spokesperson Nathan Click defended the ad, telling Politico the clip simply works to “set the record straight about Republican Trump-worshipper Eric Early and dodging waffler Steve Garvey.”

###

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

The biggest challenge facing lawmakers and Gov. Gavin Newsom is the state budget deficit — and it just got bigger.

Today, the Legislative Analyst’s Office projected the shortfall as $15 billion higher, or $73 billion.

The analyst’s office had pegged the 2024-25 deficit at $58 billion in January, using Newsom’s revenue estimates when he presented his initial budget proposal.

On Friday, Newsom’s Department of Finance reported that preliminary General Fund cash receipts in January were $5 billion below (or nearly 20%) the governor’s budget forecast. Unless state tax revenues pick up significantly, the bigger number will make it more difficult to balance the state budget just through dipping into reserves and targeted spending cuts.

But exactly how the state can dig its way out — at least in the Assembly — remains to be seen. Speaker Robert Rivas told reporters today that the budget has been at the forefront of conversations among Assembly Democrats and that he is very concerned with the growing deficit.

He praised the governor’s commitment to preserving classroom funding, and said he didn’t see a way to avoid dipping into the state’s reserves, as the governor’s January budget plan proposed — though the speaker urged a prudent approach to using rainy day savings in case the budget picture worsens in future years.

“We are very concerned about short-term fixes for long-term problems,” said Rivas, who took over as speaker last summer, just days after the Legislature and Newsom reached a deal on the 2023-24 budget that covered a $30 billion deficit after two years of record surpluses.

“Clearly, we need to prioritize oversight and curb spending and our investments,” Rivas added.

In the coming weeks, Rivas’ plan calls for an oversight budget subcommittee he formed in December to review the state’s spending on housing, he said.

But, as legislative leaders and the governor have noted, the budget deficit won’t be addressed just through oversight and cuts. It’ll also mean tougher paths for bills lawmakers introduce this year — including the return of the single-payer healthcare effort by Democratic Assemblymember Ash Kalra.

“It’s a good idea, but it’s a tough, tough sell, especially in the budget climate that we are experiencing now,” he said.

And while the governor has shot down any attempt to raise taxes or create new ones to increase state revenues, Rivas did not take a position.

“We look at all of the strategies when it comes to ensuring that we have a balanced budget — there are many of those tools that are available,” he said. “Which ones are appropriate, I’m not going to comment on that yet. That’s what we’re trying to figure out now.”

But Rivas may have to make some decisions soon: A spokesperson for Newsom’s Department of Finance issued a statement later today calling on the Legislature to take early action on $8 billion in savings to address the looming deficit. Newsom will propose an updated budget in May before negotiations with legislative leaders and a final spending blueprint in June.

Today’s updated deficit projection also prompted concern and criticism of Democrats from the Republican caucus. Sen. Roger Niello, vice-chairperson of the Senate budget committee, echoed the sentiment on oversight, in a statement; “It’s time for a course correction and a renewed commitment to responsible budgeting that puts the needs of our residents first.”

###

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