latimes--2020-10-17--Sheriff's Department defied court orders to name deputies with histories of misconduct. It was a cos

Sheriff's Department defied court orders to name deputies with histories of misconduct. It was a costly decision

On three occasions , a judge ordered the Los Angeles County Sheriff ’ s Department to produce a roster of deputies with histories of misconduct .
Court deadlines came and went .
Tens of thousands of dollars in sanctions against the county piled up .
But the list was never disclosed .
Janet Williams had requested the so-called Brady list in a 2017 civil rights lawsuit after a deputy shot and killed her son , Dennis “ Todd ” Rogers , 41 .
She hoped the list would show the department failed to provide proper training and supervision to deputies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she never got that far .
After the Sheriff ’ s Department repeatedly failed to provide the list to Williams , U.S. District Court Judge André Birotte Jr. granted a default judgment in her favor of more than $ 2 million .
“ Defendants have committed serious , inexcusable discovery abuses and have violated repeated court orders , thereby engaging in culpable conduct that led to their default , ” Birotte , who formerly served as the U.S. Attorney for the Los Angeles region , wrote in his Sept. 25 ruling .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Department faces mounting criticism for resisting disclosure of information about deputies with histories of misconduct and retreating from other reforms — claims it has strongly refuted .
It has been sued by organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Los Angeles Times over a new transparency law that allows the public to see records of confirmed cases of lying and sexual assault by officers , as well as shootings and major uses of force .
( L.A. County Sheriff Alex Villanueva has attributed delays in compliance to limited staffing and lack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ more transparent than ever before.
” ) During Villanueva ’ s tenure , the county ’ s Office of Inspector General has reported that officials have inactivated internal personnel investigations at a high rate , with many cancellations not meeting the department ’ s standards for closing an investigation .
A Superior Court judge recently found that Villanueva had unlawfully rehired a deputy who had been fired by his predecessor , Sheriff Jim McDonnell , after domestic violence allegations .
( Villanueva has said the deputy was denied due process . )
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ law enforcement agencies across the nation , including the Sheriff ’ s Department , have faced massive protests against their use of force following controversial killings of people of color .
Williams maintained that the deputies involved in her son ’ s shooting outside a Ladera Heights gym lacked proper training .
The Sheriff ’ s Department and the county claimed in court filings that their outside attorney on the case , Douglas Day , intentionally deceived them and hid Williams ’ request for the Brady list despite weekly calls and frequent meetings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a January 2018 email he sent to the Sheriff ’ s Department and the county that attached the request indicated that “ they knew , or at the very least should have known , ” Birotte said in court records .
Day did not respond to a request for comment .
The Sheriff ’ s Department and the county ultimately never released the list to Williams , offering only to reveal it privately to a judge .
They argued the deputies involved in Rogers ’ shooting were not on the list and that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before the California Supreme Court focused on whether the list can be given to prosecutors .
“ They still haven ’ t produced the Brady list , ” said Peter Morris , an attorney who represented Williams .
“ That tells me that they want to keep the Brady list secret at all costs.
” L.A. County spokesperson Lennie LaGuire said that the county has no comment on the litigation .
In a statement Saturday , the department said : “ We are not happy with the outcome , which was a complete @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this case and the decisions made regarding this case occurred during the prior sheriff ’ s administration .
We were unaware of the developments in this case and will be discussing this in depth with County Counsel.
” While the lawsuit was filed under then-Sheriff Jim McDonnell , a magistrate judge hearing the case recommended a default judgment in William ’ s favor in July , 2019 .
Villanueva assumed office in December , 2018 .
Birotte this year also approved a $ 1.3-million settlement against the county in a separate lawsuit brought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a member of the sheriff Civilian Oversight Commission , said the judgment illustrates how “ time and time again ” the Sheriff ’ s Department has blocked transparency about deputies alleged to have committed misconduct and those with a history of bad behavior .
“ They would rather pay $ 2 million than turn over a list , which I think the people have a right to have , especially people who are litigating over the practices and policies of the Sheriff ’ s Department as it relates to excessive force , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another commissioner , said that “ hiding information about deputy misconduct has become more important to them than complying with the law.
” “ When a federal judge grants a $ 2 million default judgment against the LASD for refusing to comply with court orders to produce the Brady list , it ’ s a red flag of serious transparency problems within the Department , ” he said in a statement .
Legal experts said the judgment may lead to more lawsuits that demand the Sheriff ’ s Department produce names of deputies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Simona Grossi , a professor at Loyola Law School who teaches federal civil procedure , said a different outcome would have allowed the county and Sheriff ’ s Department to continue exploiting the system .
“ The information was there , it was just not being provided , ” she said .
The Brady list , named for a 1963 Supreme Court decision that requires prosecutors to alert defendants to favorable evidence , was compiled in 2014 under interim Sheriff John Scott to track officers whose histories of misconduct might damage their credibility @ @ @ @ @ @ @ developed during a time of scandal at the Sheriff ’ s Department , in which an FBI probe of inmate abuse uncovered years of excessive force and cover-ups .
When McDonnell tried to hand the names of about 300 “ Brady ” deputies to prosecutors , the L.A. County deputies ’ union sued .
In August 2019 , California ’ s Supreme Court ruled that the department and other law enforcement agencies can alert the district attorney ’ s office that a deputy who might testify in a criminal case has a history @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Brady list a “ fake list , ” saying it reflects corrupt investigations aimed to retaliate against deputies .
But after the Supreme Court ’ s decision , he said that instead of maintaining a list , the department would “ work out an effective , efficient , transparent and open process ” to provide information to prosecutors on a case-by-case basis .
Commander Scott Johnson of the department ’ s Professional Standards Division said it provides the district attorney ’ s office with names and information about any deputy with records responsive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that those records are available on its website .
Johnson said the department does not alert prosecutors to deputies who do not fall under the transparency law but have histories of misconduct that might also lead the district attorney ’ s office to question their credibility in court .
The Civilian Oversight Commission has pushed for more disclosure .
In October 2019 , it passed a resolution calling for the department to provide a complete list of all potentially compromised deputies to prosecutors .
In the Brady case decided by the state Supreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the department could not disclose a Brady list if those on the list were not people who might testify in a criminal case .
But Brian Williams , the executive director of the commission , said he still stands behind the panel ’ s call for increased transparency .
“ The question is , ultimately , does the department know about Brady information concerning specific deputies and is the department turning that information over ?
” he said .
Kennedy also said the fact that the department doesn ’ t alert prosecutors to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transparency law is problematic .
“ I think it ’ s the latest example of a failure to take seriously and fully honor the requirements of Brady disclosure , ” he said .
Williams ’ 2017 lawsuit alleged that deputies used unjustified force toward Rogers , who managed bipolar disorder with medication .
A father of three , Rogers graduated from the University of Houston with a degree in accounting and finance and moved to Los Angeles in 2015 to pursue a career in acting , his mother said .
In March 2017 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hour Fitness in Ladera Heights where Rogers was a member because he was reportedly “ acting erratic.
” Later that night , four deputies responded to another call about Rogers at that location .
A mental evaluation team was requested but none was available , according to a report by the district attorney ’ s office .
Officials said that Rogers was tasered twice and that he pulled out an electric razor with an extension cord , swinging it while advancing toward a deputy .
The deputy fatally shot Rogers , who sustained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s office declined to file charges against the deputy , stating in a 2018 report “ there is insufficient evidence to prove that his split-second decision to use deadly force in this situation was unreasonable.
” “ He got scared , ” Williams said of her son .
“ He just got scared , and the police just took advantage of the situation.
” The Sheriff ’ s Department and the county initially objected to a request Williams made in January 2018 for all documents related to the Brady list .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ counsel failed to cooperate in the discovery dispute , magistrate Judge Charles Eick wrote in a court filing .
Eick recommended a default judgment after determining that they had violated “ without legitimate excuse ” three court orders to produce the list .
He had previously ordered them to pay more than $ 34,000 in fines to Williams and $ 500 daily sanctions to the court until they disclosed the list .
In opposing the magistrate judge ’ s recommendation , the Sheriff ’ s Department and the county wrote that they were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the judge ’ s orders to produce the list , which they claimed their attorney had kept from them .
The court ultimately allowed Williams ’ attorneys to investigate whether the Sheriff ’ s Department and the county knew or should have known about the order to produce the list and ordered the defendants to produce relevant communications .
A month after the court-ordered deadline for evidence , attorneys for the Sheriff ’ s Department and the county provided a Jan. 29 , 2018 , email from Day to a Sheriff ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assigned to the case .
The email , which attached the Brady list request , CC ’ ed a county counsel .
In addition to the email , the court considered a deposition , in which Day said he ’ d spoken to a different department investigator about producing the list .
Robert Bonner , a member of the Civilian Oversight Commission and a former federal judge , said in a statement that while Birotte ’ s ruling in Williams ’ case may be legally correct , the decision to order the disclosure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He expressed concern that plaintiffs in future federal civil rights lawsuits will routinely request the list as leverage to force the county to settle cases or have a court issue a default judgment .
“ Unfortunately , requiring this will likely deter the creation of a Brady list by the LASD , a list which I believe should be made available to the district attorney ’ s office so that it can discharge its obligations , ” he said .
Upon hearing of the default judgment , Williams said she felt “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just hate that my son had to suffer that type of ending for his life , ” she said .
“ I pray that God don ’ t let me become bitter or want to see something bad to happen to them [ the deputies ] … I can try to heal from here .
”

A photo of Dennis “Todd” Rogers is held next to attorney Peter Morris as he speaks during a 2017 press conference in downtown L.A.
On three occasions, a judge ordered the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department to produce a roster of deputies with histories of misconduct.
Court deadlines came and went. Tens of thousands of dollars in sanctions against the county piled up.
But the list was never disclosed.
Janet Williams had requested the so-called Brady list in a 2017 civil rights lawsuit after a deputy shot and killed her son, Dennis “Todd” Rogers, 41. She hoped the list would show the department failed to provide proper training and supervision to deputies, leading to excessive force.
Advertisement
But she never got that far. After the Sheriff’s Department repeatedly failed to provide the list to Williams, U.S. District Court Judge André Birotte Jr. granted a default judgment in her favor of more than $2 million.
“Defendants have committed serious, inexcusable discovery abuses and have violated repeated court orders, thereby engaging in culpable conduct that led to their default,” Birotte, who formerly served as the U.S. Attorney for the Los Angeles region, wrote in his Sept. 25 ruling.
The decision comes as the Sheriff’s Department faces mounting criticism for resisting disclosure of information about deputies with histories of misconduct and retreating from other reforms — claims it has strongly refuted.
It has been sued by organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Los Angeles Times over a new transparency law that allows the public to see records of confirmed cases of lying and sexual assault by officers, as well as shootings and major uses of force. (L.A. County Sheriff Alex Villanueva has attributed delays in compliance to limited staffing and lack of funding, saying the department is “more transparent than ever before.”)
During Villanueva’s tenure, the county’s Office of Inspector General has reported that officials have inactivated internal personnel investigations at a high rate, with many cancellations not meeting the department’s standards for closing an investigation. A Superior Court judge recently found that Villanueva had unlawfully rehired a deputy who had been fired by his predecessor, Sheriff Jim McDonnell, after domestic violence allegations. (Villanueva has said the deputy was denied due process.)
Birotte’s ruling also comes as law enforcement agencies across the nation, including the Sheriff’s Department, have faced massive protests against their use of force following controversial killings of people of color. Williams maintained that the deputies involved in her son’s shooting outside a Ladera Heights gym lacked proper training.
The Sheriff’s Department and the county claimed in court filings that their outside attorney on the case, Douglas Day, intentionally deceived them and hid Williams’ request for the Brady list despite weekly calls and frequent meetings.
But a deposition by Day and a January 2018 email he sent to the Sheriff’s Department and the county that attached the request indicated that “they knew, or at the very least should have known,” Birotte said in court records. Day did not respond to a request for comment.
The Sheriff’s Department and the county ultimately never released the list to Williams, offering only to reveal it privately to a judge. They argued the deputies involved in Rogers’ shooting were not on the list and that sharing it could jeopardize a then-pending case before the California Supreme Court focused on whether the list can be given to prosecutors.
“They still haven’t produced the Brady list,” said Peter Morris, an attorney who represented Williams. “That tells me that they want to keep the Brady list secret at all costs.”
L.A. County spokesperson Lennie LaGuire said that the county has no comment on the litigation.
Advertisement
In a statement Saturday, the department said: “We are not happy with the outcome, which was a complete surprise to us. The facts of this case and the decisions made regarding this case occurred during the prior sheriff’s administration. We were unaware of the developments in this case and will be discussing this in depth with County Counsel.”
While the lawsuit was filed under then-Sheriff Jim McDonnell, a magistrate judge hearing the case recommended a default judgment in William’s favor in July, 2019. Villanueva assumed office in December, 2018.
Birotte this year also approved a $1.3-million settlement against the county in a separate lawsuit brought by Rogers’ children.
Priscilla Ocen, a member of the sheriff Civilian Oversight Commission, said the judgment illustrates how “time and time again” the Sheriff’s Department has blocked transparency about deputies alleged to have committed misconduct and those with a history of bad behavior.
“They would rather pay $2 million than turn over a list, which I think the people have a right to have, especially people who are litigating over the practices and policies of the Sheriff’s Department as it relates to excessive force,” she said.
Sean Kennedy, another commissioner, said that “hiding information about deputy misconduct has become more important to them than complying with the law.”
“When a federal judge grants a $2 million default judgment against the LASD for refusing to comply with court orders to produce the Brady list, it’s a red flag of serious transparency problems within the Department,” he said in a statement.
Legal experts said the judgment may lead to more lawsuits that demand the Sheriff’s Department produce names of deputies whose credibility could be in question. Simona Grossi, a professor at Loyola Law School who teaches federal civil procedure, said a different outcome would have allowed the county and Sheriff’s Department to continue exploiting the system.
“The information was there, it was just not being provided,” she said.
The Brady list, named for a 1963 Supreme Court decision that requires prosecutors to alert defendants to favorable evidence, was compiled in 2014 under interim Sheriff John Scott to track officers whose histories of misconduct might damage their credibility as witnesses in court.
It was developed during a time of scandal at the Sheriff’s Department, in which an FBI probe of inmate abuse uncovered years of excessive force and cover-ups.
When McDonnell tried to hand the names of about 300 “Brady” deputies to prosecutors, the L.A. County deputies’ union sued. In August 2019, California’s Supreme Court ruled that the department and other law enforcement agencies can alert the district attorney’s office that a deputy who might testify in a criminal case has a history of misconduct.
Villanueva has called the Brady list a “fake list,” saying it reflects corrupt investigations aimed to retaliate against deputies. But after the Supreme Court’s decision, he said that instead of maintaining a list, the department would “work out an effective, efficient, transparent and open process” to provide information to prosecutors on a case-by-case basis.
Commander Scott Johnson of the department’s Professional Standards Division said it provides the district attorney’s office with names and information about any deputy with records responsive to the new transparency law, and that those records are available on its website.
Johnson said the department does not alert prosecutors to deputies who do not fall under the transparency law but have histories of misconduct that might also lead the district attorney’s office to question their credibility in court.
The Civilian Oversight Commission has pushed for more disclosure. In October 2019, it passed a resolution calling for the department to provide a complete list of all potentially compromised deputies to prosecutors.
In the Brady case decided by the state Supreme Court, a superior court had said the department could not disclose a Brady list if those on the list were not people who might testify in a criminal case. But Brian Williams, the executive director of the commission, said he still stands behind the panel’s call for increased transparency.
“The question is, ultimately, does the department know about Brady information concerning specific deputies and is the department turning that information over?” he said.
Kennedy also said the fact that the department doesn’t alert prosecutors to deputies who do not fall under the transparency law is problematic.
“I think it’s the latest example of a failure to take seriously and fully honor the requirements of Brady disclosure,” he said.
Williams’ 2017 lawsuit alleged that deputies used unjustified force toward Rogers, who managed bipolar disorder with medication.
A father of three, Rogers graduated from the University of Houston with a degree in accounting and finance and moved to Los Angeles in 2015 to pursue a career in acting, his mother said.
In March 2017, deputies were called to a 24 Hour Fitness in Ladera Heights where Rogers was a member because he was reportedly “acting erratic.”
Later that night, four deputies responded to another call about Rogers at that location. A mental evaluation team was requested but none was available, according to a report by the district attorney’s office. Officials said that Rogers was tasered twice and that he pulled out an electric razor with an extension cord, swinging it while advancing toward a deputy. The deputy fatally shot Rogers, who sustained four gunshot wounds.
The district attorney’s office declined to file charges against the deputy, stating in a 2018 report “there is insufficient evidence to prove that his split-second decision to use deadly force in this situation was unreasonable.”
“He got scared,” Williams said of her son. “He just got scared, and the police just took advantage of the situation.”
The Sheriff’s Department and the county initially objected to a request Williams made in January 2018 for all documents related to the Brady list. And in the days that followed, its counsel failed to cooperate in the discovery dispute, magistrate Judge Charles Eick wrote in a court filing.
Eick recommended a default judgment after determining that they had violated “without legitimate excuse” three court orders to produce the list. He had previously ordered them to pay more than $34,000 in fines to Williams and $500 daily sanctions to the court until they disclosed the list.
In opposing the magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Sheriff’s Department and the county wrote that they were “shocked and embarrassed” to learn of the judge’s orders to produce the list, which they claimed their attorney had kept from them.
The court ultimately allowed Williams’ attorneys to investigate whether the Sheriff’s Department and the county knew or should have known about the order to produce the list and ordered the defendants to produce relevant communications.
A month after the court-ordered deadline for evidence, attorneys for the Sheriff’s Department and the county provided a Jan. 29, 2018, email from Day to a Sheriff’s Department investigator who’d been assigned to the case. The email, which attached the Brady list request, CC’ed a county counsel.
In addition to the email, the court considered a deposition, in which Day said he’d spoken to a different department investigator about producing the list.
Robert Bonner, a member of the Civilian Oversight Commission and a former federal judge, said in a statement that while Birotte’s ruling in Williams’ case may be legally correct, the decision to order the disclosure of the list could have negative repercussions. He expressed concern that plaintiffs in future federal civil rights lawsuits will routinely request the list as leverage to force the county to settle cases or have a court issue a default judgment.
“Unfortunately, requiring this will likely deter the creation of a Brady list by the LASD, a list which I believe should be made available to the district attorney’s office so that it can discharge its obligations,” he said.
Upon hearing of the default judgment, Williams said she felt “just faith in God.”
“I just hate that my son had to suffer that type of ending for his life,” she said. “I pray that God don’t let me become bitter or want to see something bad to happen to them [the deputies] … I can try to heal from here.”


latimes--2020-10-19--Who wins and who loses with California property tax measure Proposition 19

One of the most complicated measures on California ’ s ballot this November is Proposition 19 , which gives new property tax breaks to older homeowners , increases property taxes for those inheriting their parents ’ properties and tacks on some tax relief for those affected by wildfires .
The measure is the product of more than two years of work by the California Assn .
of Realtors to give a larger tax incentive to homeowners 55 and older to move into new homes .
The Realtors also were behind Proposition 5 , a failed 2018 initiative that would have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 19 adds many other elements — notably a tax increase for the heirs of some homeowners — in an effort to make it more fiscally sound and palatable to voters .
Here ’ s a breakdown of how Proposition 19 works , including who benefits from the measure and who doesn ’ t .
The biggest winners under Proposition 19 would be homeowners 55 and older who would pay lower property taxes when moving to a new , more expensive residence .
Proposition 19 builds off the property tax system inaugurated more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 13 , which limits property taxes to 1 % of a home ’ s taxable value , based on the year the house was purchased .
The 1978 ballot measure also restricts how much that taxable value can go up every year , even if a home ’ s market value increases much more .
Homeowners receive more benefits the longer they remain in their homes because their tax bills stay restricted even as their home ’ s market value goes up .
So residents could face a surge in tax payments if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this is the issue that Proposition 19 seeks to address .
Currently , homeowners who are 55 or older have a one-time opportunity to retain their existing tax benefits if they move to a home of equal or lesser value within the same county .
They can do the same when moving between Los Angeles and nine other counties .
Proposition 19 would further ease the tax burden by allowing the same group of senior homeowners to blend the taxable value of their old house with the purchase price of a new , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tax payment they ’ d otherwise face .
Disabled homeowners would receive the benefit as well .
The rules under Proposition 19 would extend to every county in the state , and homeowners could take advantage of the break as many as three times when they decide to move .
For example , a qualifying homeowner who owns a home with a taxable value of $ 200,000 that is worth $ 600,000 on the market would pay roughly $ 2,200 in property taxes now .
If the homeowner moves to a $ 700,000 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 3,300 a year in property taxes under Proposition 19 .
Without the initiative , the same homeowner would pay $ 7,700 annually at the new home .
Jeanne Radsick , president of the Realtors group , said it ’ s vital for homeowners who may be empty nesters or who are looking to move for health reasons to have more options .
“ If they can maintain a stable tax basis , they can live a similar life , ” Radsick said .
“ There ’ s not enough senior housing to accommodate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Proposition 19 are those who already benefit the most under the state ’ s existing property tax rules .
Homeowners 55 and older in California are much more likely to be white and wealthy than younger renters , according to an analysis of Proposition 19 by the California Budget and Policy Center , a nonprofit that advocates for working low-income Californians .
“ By expanding tax breaks for this economically advantaged group , Prop .
19 would make California ’ s tax system less progressive and more inequitable , ” the analysis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ industry stands to benefit from the increase in home sales that is expected as a result of the measure .
State and national Realtor groups are funding the Proposition 19 campaign , contributing more than $ 37 million so far to secure its passage .
Radsick said that protecting Realtors ’ interests was not a driving force behind the push for Proposition 19 .
“ It is not about making money for the Realtors , for crying out loud , ” she said .
“ It ’ s about tax fairness for people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to lose the most under Proposition 19 would be children who inherit their parents ’ home and intend to keep it as a second home or rent it out .
Their property taxes would go up a lot .
About 650,000 California homeowners over the last decade received a tax break that allows them to maintain their parents ’ low property tax payments when they inherit their homes , according to the state ’ s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst ’ s Office .
As detailed in a 2018 Times investigation , a large number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are probably used as investment properties .
The provision has since been dubbed “ the Lebowski loophole ” after The Times found that “ The Big Lebowski ” actor Jeff Bridges and his siblings had advertised a beachfront home in Malibu inherited from their parents for nearly $ 16,000 a month in rent despite an annual property tax bill that ’ s a fraction of that amount .
Proposition 19 would eliminate this property tax break for investment homes and commercial properties , meaning that heirs who inherit their parents ’ properties would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ With some limitations , children who move into homes inherited from their parents would be able to retain the tax break .
Curtailing the inheritance property tax break would generate more than enough revenue to make up for the loss in tax dollars from the new tax relief offered to older homeowners in Proposition 19 , the legislative analyst found .
Radsick said it ’ s reasonable to cap heirs ’ tax benefits , especially when children are using their parents ’ homes as vacation or investment properties .
Opposition to this portion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jarvis Taxpayers Assn.
, the anti-tax organization founded by the driving force behind Proposition 13 .
The group supports further tax breaks for older homeowners but does not believe they should be funded by raising property taxes on heirs .
“ It ’ s a billion-dollar tax increase on California families , ” said Susan Shelley , the group ’ s spokeswoman .
What about wildfire victims and wildfire funding ?
Many of the advertisements for Proposition 19 say the measure will benefit wildfire victims and create new funding to fight wildfires .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ victims are not the primary beneficiaries of Proposition 19 , and the money may not materialize as backers have touted .
For those who ’ ve lost their homes in wildfires or other natural disasters , the measure would give them the same benefits as people 55 and older .
But disaster-affected homeowners comprise well under 1 % of those eligible for tax relief under Proposition 19 , according to the California Budget and Policy Center analysis .
Proposition 19 requires the state to put increased tax revenues that may be generated from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most of that cash is allocated only when the state does not have to put additional tax dollars into public schools to meet existing constitutional guarantees for education funding .
Though the COVID-19 pandemic has created significant uncertainty for the state budget , the legislative analyst believes that the vast majority of the wildfire funding will not start flowing until 2025 at the earliest .

One of the most complicated measures on California’s ballot this November is Proposition 19, which gives new property tax breaks to older homeowners, increases property taxes for those inheriting their parents’ properties and tacks on some tax relief for those affected by wildfires.
The measure is the product of more than two years of work by the California Assn. of Realtors to give a larger tax incentive to homeowners 55 and older to move into new homes. The Realtors also were behind Proposition 5, a failed 2018 initiative that would have done the same thing. But Proposition 19 adds many other elements — notably a tax increase for the heirs of some homeowners — in an effort to make it more fiscally sound and palatable to voters.
Here’s a breakdown of how Proposition 19 works, including who benefits from the measure and who doesn’t.
Advertisement
The winners
The biggest winners under Proposition 19 would be homeowners 55 and older who would pay lower property taxes when moving to a new, more expensive residence.
Proposition 19 builds off the property tax system inaugurated more than four decades ago when Californians passed Proposition 13, which limits property taxes to 1% of a home’s taxable value, based on the year the house was purchased. The 1978 ballot measure also restricts how much that taxable value can go up every year, even if a home’s market value increases much more.
Homeowners receive more benefits the longer they remain in their homes because their tax bills stay restricted even as their home’s market value goes up. So residents could face a surge in tax payments if they move to a new home — this is the issue that Proposition 19 seeks to address.
Currently, homeowners who are 55 or older have a one-time opportunity to retain their existing tax benefits if they move to a home of equal or lesser value within the same county. They can do the same when moving between Los Angeles and nine other counties.
Proposition 19 would further ease the tax burden by allowing the same group of senior homeowners to blend the taxable value of their old house with the purchase price of a new, more expensive home, reducing the property tax payment they’d otherwise face. Disabled homeowners would receive the benefit as well. The rules under Proposition 19 would extend to every county in the state, and homeowners could take advantage of the break as many as three times when they decide to move.
For example, a qualifying homeowner who owns a home with a taxable value of $200,000 that is worth $600,000 on the market would pay roughly $2,200 in property taxes now. If the homeowner moves to a $700,000 house, the homeowner would pay $3,300 a year in property taxes under Proposition 19. Without the initiative, the same homeowner would pay $7,700 annually at the new home.
Advertisement
Jeanne Radsick, president of the Realtors group, said it’s vital for homeowners who may be empty nesters or who are looking to move for health reasons to have more options.
“If they can maintain a stable tax basis, they can live a similar life,” Radsick said. “There’s not enough senior housing to accommodate them otherwise.”
Still, the beneficiaries of Proposition 19 are those who already benefit the most under the state’s existing property tax rules. Homeowners 55 and older in California are much more likely to be white and wealthy than younger renters, according to an analysis of Proposition 19 by the California Budget and Policy Center, a nonprofit that advocates for working low-income Californians.
“By expanding tax breaks for this economically advantaged group, Prop. 19 would make California’s tax system less progressive and more inequitable,” the analysis said.
Also, the real estate industry stands to benefit from the increase in home sales that is expected as a result of the measure. State and national Realtor groups are funding the Proposition 19 campaign, contributing more than $37 million so far to secure its passage.
Radsick said that protecting Realtors’ interests was not a driving force behind the push for Proposition 19.
“It is not about making money for the Realtors, for crying out loud,” she said. “It’s about tax fairness for people who need help.”
The losers
Those who stand to lose the most under Proposition 19 would be children who inherit their parents’ home and intend to keep it as a second home or rent it out. Their property taxes would go up a lot.
About 650,000 California homeowners over the last decade received a tax break that allows them to maintain their parents’ low property tax payments when they inherit their homes, according to the state’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office. As detailed in a 2018 Times investigation, a large number of those inherited homes along the coast are probably used as investment properties.
The provision has since been dubbed “the Lebowski loophole” after The Times found that “The Big Lebowski” actor Jeff Bridges and his siblings had advertised a beachfront home in Malibu inherited from their parents for nearly $16,000 a month in rent despite an annual property tax bill that’s a fraction of that amount.
Proposition 19 would eliminate this property tax break for investment homes and commercial properties, meaning that heirs who inherit their parents’ properties would pay taxes based on market value. With some limitations, children who move into homes inherited from their parents would be able to retain the tax break.
Curtailing the inheritance property tax break would generate more than enough revenue to make up for the loss in tax dollars from the new tax relief offered to older homeowners in Proposition 19, the legislative analyst found.
Radsick said it’s reasonable to cap heirs’ tax benefits, especially when children are using their parents’ homes as vacation or investment properties.
Opposition to this portion of Proposition 19 comes from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn., the anti-tax organization founded by the driving force behind Proposition 13. The group supports further tax breaks for older homeowners but does not believe they should be funded by raising property taxes on heirs.
“It’s a billion-dollar tax increase on California families,” said Susan Shelley, the group’s spokeswoman.
What about wildfire victims and wildfire funding?
Many of the advertisements for Proposition 19 say the measure will benefit wildfire victims and create new funding to fight wildfires.
That’s true, but wildfire victims are not the primary beneficiaries of Proposition 19, and the money may not materialize as backers have touted.
For those who’ve lost their homes in wildfires or other natural disasters, the measure would give them the same benefits as people 55 and older. But disaster-affected homeowners comprise well under 1% of those eligible for tax relief under Proposition 19, according to the California Budget and Policy Center analysis.
Proposition 19 requires the state to put increased tax revenues that may be generated from the measure into wildfire response. But most of that cash is allocated only when the state does not have to put additional tax dollars into public schools to meet existing constitutional guarantees for education funding. Though the COVID-19 pandemic has created significant uncertainty for the state budget, the legislative analyst believes that the vast majority of the wildfire funding will not start flowing until 2025 at the earliest.


latimes--2020-10-19--These 3 propositions could have a big impact on California's criminal justice system

This should be a no-brainer : The rape of an unconscious woman is a violent crime .
But under current California law , such an assault is categorized as nonviolent .
So is trafficking a child for sex .
Or firing a gun into a house if no one is hit .
It matters because under previous ballot propositions approved by voters , state prison inmates who have been convicted of felonies categorized as violent are not eligible for early release and parole .
Proposition 20 on the Nov. 3 ballot would tweak Propositions 47 and 57 , passed in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ correct what 20 ’ s law enforcement and prosecutor backers consider flaws .
Supporters claim that too many potentially violent criminals are being set free .
Opponents , including Gov .
Gavin Newsom and his predecessor , Jerry Brown , contend that Proposition 20 represents a step backward in forward-looking criminal justice reform .
“ Prop .
20 wants to basically eliminate all hope in the prison , ” says Brown , the architect and chief backer of Proposition 57 , which reduced sentences for many crimes .
The former governor has donated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leftover political stash to the No on 20 campaign .
“ Men who have given decades will have no chance to earn their way back to society , ” Brown asserts .
“ And that ’ s fundamental to any kind of criminal justice system — that while you impose punishment , you make room for redemption and rehabilitation in the prison.
” Sure .
But we should be able to reform sentencing while acknowledging that the rape of someone who ’ s unconscious or the trafficking of a child are violent crimes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” says Assemblyman Jim Cooper ( D-Elk Grove ) , a retired sheriff ’ s captain , referring to child trafficking .
“ You shouldn ’ t get out early.
” Proposition 20 would add 22 crimes — including felony domestic violence and assault with a deadly weapon — to the list of offenses making prisoners ineligible for early release through the parole program created by Brown ’ s Proposition 57 .
Proposition 47 lowered many property crimes from felonies to misdemeanors .
For example , it reduced the theft of property @ @ @ @ @ @ @ felony to a misdemeanor .
No prison time .
Probably a wrist-slap .
Grocery stores and other retailers reported an increase in thefts .
“ People are stealing and there are no consequences , ” said Richard Temple , a campaign strategist for Proposition 20 .
So , the ballot measure would create two new crimes : serial theft and organized retail theft .
They ’ d be punishable by up to three years in county jail — not state prison .
Anyone with two previous theft convictions who shoplifted or committed petty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 250 could be charged with serial theft .
Someone teaming with others who shoplifted or committed petty theft of property exceeding $ 250 twice within 180 days could be charged with organized retail theft .
Also , DNA collections would be expanded under Proposition 20 .
They ’ d be taken from those convicted of such misdemeanors as shoplifting , check forgery and domestic violence .
I ’ m a “ yes ” vote .
We should be able to provide more rehabilitation in prison and shorter sentences for truly nonviolent , repentant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for scum who rape unconscious women or traffic children .
And habitual thieves should be locked up for a while .
There are two other crime-related measures on the state ballot .
Proposition 25 would eliminate the old , unfair bail system that jails criminal defendants while they await trial if they ’ re too poor to pay for freedom .
Rich guys go home .
Poor people languish in cells .
Two years ago , the Legislature passed a bill to end money bail , and Brown signed it .
That should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ industry in California .
It issued about $ 6 billion in bail bonds that year , collecting $ 560 million in fees from jailed defendants .
The industry immediately filed a ballot measure to repeal the legislation .
The repealer is Proposition 25 .
Repealers can be confusing .
“ Yes ” is a vote to implement the legislation banning money bail .
“ No ” is a vote to repeal it .
It ’ s unconscionable to require payment as a condition of being freed from jail before a defendant even has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ old system , when someone is busted , a judge sets bail based on the crime ’ s severity and the accused ’ s perceived flight risk .
The amount varies from county to county .
If the defendant doesn ’ t have enough cash , he can contact a bail agent who will post the money .
But first the defendant typically must pay the agent 10 % of the bail amount .
It ’ s a nonrefundable fee .
And poor people don ’ t have it .
Five years ago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ estimated the median bail amount in California was $ 50,000 — five times higher than the rest of the country .
That meant $ 5,000 for the bail agent .
Forget it .
If Proposition 25 passes , judges will decide whether the defendant remains in jail or is freed based on flight risk and public danger .
A bank account won ’ t matter .
This is an easy “ yes ” vote .
Proposition 17 would return voting rights to citizen felons who have served their prison sentences but are still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can ’ t vote until they ’ re off parole .
Seventeen states allow parolees to vote .
It should be their right as Americans .
And it helps them integrate back into society .
This is another no-brainer — a “ yes .
”

The bail bond industry profits from California’s cash bail system, but the system often leaves cash-poor defendants sitting in jail while wealthier defendants go free. Voters could end cash bail with passage of Proposition 25.
This should be a no-brainer: The rape of an unconscious woman is a violent crime.
But under current California law, such an assault is categorized as nonviolent.
So is trafficking a child for sex. Or firing a gun into a house if no one is hit.
Advertisement
It matters because under previous ballot propositions approved by voters, state prison inmates who have been convicted of felonies categorized as violent are not eligible for early release and parole.
Proposition 20 on the Nov. 3 ballot would tweak Propositions 47 and 57, passed in 2014 and 2016, respectively, and correct what 20’s law enforcement and prosecutor backers consider flaws. Supporters claim that too many potentially violent criminals are being set free.
Opponents, including Gov. Gavin Newsom and his predecessor, Jerry Brown, contend that Proposition 20 represents a step backward in forward-looking criminal justice reform.
“Prop. 20 wants to basically eliminate all hope in the prison,” says Brown, the architect and chief backer of Proposition 57, which reduced sentences for many crimes. The former governor has donated $1 million of his $15-million leftover political stash to the No on 20 campaign.
“Men who have given decades will have no chance to earn their way back to society,” Brown asserts. “And that’s fundamental to any kind of criminal justice system — that while you impose punishment, you make room for redemption and rehabilitation in the prison.”
Advertisement
Sure. But we should be able to reform sentencing while acknowledging that the rape of someone who’s unconscious or the trafficking of a child are violent crimes.
California Prop. 20 sparks debate over effects of criminal justice reform in California A group of prosecutors and law enforcement leaders is pushing Proposition 20, arguing that it is needed to fix what they say are flaws in past criminal justice reforms. Former Gov. Jerry Brown, an opponent of the measure, has called it “very inhuman.”
“That shocks the public conscience,” says Assemblyman Jim Cooper (D-Elk Grove), a retired sheriff’s captain, referring to child trafficking. “You shouldn’t get out early.”
Proposition 20 would add 22 crimes — including felony domestic violence and assault with a deadly weapon — to the list of offenses making prisoners ineligible for early release through the parole program created by Brown’s Proposition 57.
Proposition 47 lowered many property crimes from felonies to misdemeanors. For example, it reduced the theft of property valued under $950 from a possible felony to a misdemeanor. No prison time. Probably a wrist-slap.
Grocery stores and other retailers reported an increase in thefts.
“People are stealing and there are no consequences,” said Richard Temple, a campaign strategist for Proposition 20.
So, the ballot measure would create two new crimes: serial theft and organized retail theft. They’d be punishable by up to three years in county jail — not state prison.
Anyone with two previous theft convictions who shoplifted or committed petty theft of goods worth more than $250 could be charged with serial theft. Someone teaming with others who shoplifted or committed petty theft of property exceeding $250 twice within 180 days could be charged with organized retail theft.
Also, DNA collections would be expanded under Proposition 20. They’d be taken from those convicted of such misdemeanors as shoplifting, check forgery and domestic violence.
I’m a “yes” vote. We should be able to provide more rehabilitation in prison and shorter sentences for truly nonviolent, repentant felons without opening the cell doors early for scum who rape unconscious women or traffic children. And habitual thieves should be locked up for a while.
There are two other crime-related measures on the state ballot.
Proposition 25 would eliminate the old, unfair bail system that jails criminal defendants while they await trial if they’re too poor to pay for freedom. Rich guys go home. Poor people languish in cells.
California California voters to decide whether to end cash bail system with Proposition 25 The referendum vote comes more than two years after a bitter legislative fight that pitted the multibillion-dollar bail industry, criminal defense attorneys and some civil liberties advocates against Democratic leaders.
Two years ago, the Legislature passed a bill to end money bail, and Brown signed it.
That should have finished off the lucrative bail bond industry in California. It issued about $6 billion in bail bonds that year, collecting $560 million in fees from jailed defendants. The industry immediately filed a ballot measure to repeal the legislation.
The repealer is Proposition 25. Repealers can be confusing. “Yes” is a vote to implement the legislation banning money bail. “No” is a vote to repeal it.
It’s unconscionable to require payment as a condition of being freed from jail before a defendant even has been convicted.
Under California’s old system, when someone is busted, a judge sets bail based on the crime’s severity and the accused’s perceived flight risk. The amount varies from county to county.
If the defendant doesn’t have enough cash, he can contact a bail agent who will post the money. But first the defendant typically must pay the agent 10% of the bail amount. It’s a nonrefundable fee. And poor people don’t have it.
Five years ago, the Public Policy Institute of California estimated the median bail amount in California was $50,000 — five times higher than the rest of the country. That meant $5,000 for the bail agent. Forget it.
If Proposition 25 passes, judges will decide whether the defendant remains in jail or is freed based on flight risk and public danger. A bank account won’t matter.
This is an easy “yes” vote.
Proposition 17 would return voting rights to citizen felons who have served their prison sentences but are still on state parole. Now, they can’t vote until they’re off parole.
Seventeen states allow parolees to vote. It should be their right as Americans. And it helps them integrate back into society.
This is another no-brainer — a “yes.”


latimes--2020-10-19--Sex-assault suspect who barricaded himself inside Paramount Pictures lot is arrested

A man who was being pursued in connection with a sexual assault case became “ uncooperative ” and barricaded himself @ @ @ @ @ Paramount Pictures lot Sunday night , police officials said .
The man was under surveillance @ @ @ @ @ who tried to arrest him in Los Angeles , said Fullerton Police Cpl .
Billy @ @ @ @ @ during the interaction , which started around 10 p.m. , the man entered a building @ @ @ @ @ police called on the Los Angeles Police Department for assistance .
Officer C. Nguyen of @ @ @ @ @ the man was reportedly carrying a knife .
The LAPD said early Monday that one @ @ @ @ @ in a shooting during the operation outside the studio ’ s Melrose Avenue gate .
@ @ @ @ @ to negotiate with the suspect to surrender .
Officers entered the building about 12:15 a.m. @ @ @ @ @ “ was bleeding from wounds he sustained during the incident , ” the LAPD said @ @ @ @ @ to a local hospital .
No officers were injured , police said .

Scene outside the Paramount Pictures lot in Hollywood, where a man who was being pursued in connection with a sexual assault case became “uncooperative” and barricaded himself.
A man who was being pursued in connection with a sexual assault case became “uncooperative” and barricaded himself inside a building on the Paramount Pictures lot Sunday night, police officials said.
The man was under surveillance by Fullerton police investigators, who tried to arrest him in Los Angeles, said Fullerton Police Cpl. Billy Phu. At some point during the interaction, which started around 10 p.m., the man entered a building inside Paramount Pictures.
Fullerton police called on the Los Angeles Police Department for assistance. Officer C. Nguyen of the LAPD Hollywood Division said the man was reportedly carrying a knife.
The LAPD said early Monday that one of its officers was involved in a shooting during the operation outside the studio’s Melrose Avenue gate.
Advertisement
The department said officers attempted to negotiate with the suspect to surrender. Officers entered the building about 12:15 a.m. and arrested the man, who “was bleeding from wounds he sustained during the incident,” the LAPD said. The man was taken to a local hospital.
No officers were injured, police said.
Times staff writer Henry Chu contributed to this report.


latimes--2020-10-18--Residents fight plan to fence coastal railroad tracks in San Diego County

The North County Transit District plans to install fences along miles of railroad track in three coastal cities by the end of 2020 , a move many residents , especially those in Del Mar , have fought for years .
In a report released this month , NCTD said the 6-foot-tall , chain-link fence will be placed in areas where people most frequently trespass on the track , resulting in death or injury , damage to the railroad system or delays in service .
Transit officials say they don ’ t need the cities ’ approvals to build the fence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ little-known federal agency — the Surface Transportation Board — to waive the need for oversight from Del Mar and the California Coastal Commission for the fence and other projects related to safety on the bluff-top tracks .
Many residents believe it ’ s their right to cross the railroad tracks , whether to get to the beach or simply to enjoy the view .
Some of the most expensive homes in San Diego County are in Del Mar alongside the railroad tracks that hug the edge of the coast .
“ I , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the beach via 11th Street in Del Mar , ” said resident Camilla Rang , one of about 130 people who wrote letters to the transit district opposing the fence .
“ I do not want my access to be impeded by fencing on the bluff in Del Mar .
As a resident of California , I have a constitutional right to access the beach.
” Rang and others said Del Mar residents were granted the right to cross the tracks by the Santa Fe Railroad deed in 1909 , though the city @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We will never accept it , ” Rang said in her letter .
“ We will fight to our last breath .
We will scream and we will fight and we will win .
The bluff and the beach is our backyard , has always been and will always be .
It ’ s the train that should move , not us , and you know it.
” The transit district and regional planning agency the San Diego Assn .
of Governments hope to eventually move the tracks away from the beach in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Such a relocation would cost more than $ 3 billion .
Obtaining funding , along with other preliminary work , is expected to take at least 10 years , and construction would take another 10 .
Meanwhile , coastal erosion and rising sea levels pose an increasing threat to the bluff-top tracks .
Every year , there ’ s less room for people to walk along the tracks , and new slides threaten the railroad bed .
NCTD and the association of governments are in the fourth phase of a six-part , multimillion-dollar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where they are .
Fencing also is planned for the tracks in Oceanside and Encinitas , where the idea has been less of an issue because the railway there is not as close to the beach .
But even though the tracks are a few blocks inland , people frequently cross illegally to get to the popular restaurants and bars along North Coast Highway in Encinitas ’ Leucadia community .
Normally , coastal construction such as bluff repairs and fence installation requires approval from the California Coastal Commission and the local jurisdictions involved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bypass those approvals , NCTD in August filed a “ petition for declaratory order ” with the federal Surface Transportation Board asking the agency to waive the state and local permits .
Del Mar ’ s City Council some time ago voted to oppose fencing “ that would mitigate tragic trespassing events and reduce ongoing delays to passenger and freight rail service , ” the petition said .
Additionally , it said , the transit district “ has numerous crucial , upcoming rail maintenance and upgrading projects that will be challenged under the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Del Mar and the San Diego chapter of the Surfrider Foundation have asked the federal agency to deny the transit district ’ s petition .
“ In essence , NCTD asked for a waiver to indefinitely bypass state review processes that exist to ensure the proper management of coastal zone resources and ensure public access to our beaches , ” states a response Surfrider posted to its website Oct. 8 .
Del Mar , in its official reply to the NCTD petition , said the requested declaratory order is “ inappropriate , unwise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ efforts throughout its 168-page petition to try and manufacture one , NCTD fails to present an actual , present controversy or uncertainty that could be resolved by the issuance of a declaratory order , ” stated the city ’ s response .
No date has been provided for a decision on the petition , according to NCTD spokeswoman Kimy Wall .
NCTD believes it has the right to construct the fence within the right-of-way , the strip of land the railroad uses for its tracks , with or without the declaratory order , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the transit district and San Diego Assn .
of Governments have completed repairs without obtaining approval in advance .
Last year , after a storm over the Thanksgiving weekend eroded the bluffs near the tracks , crews installed a retaining wall within a few days , then got permission months later from the Coastal Commission .
The petition to the Surface Transportation Board addresses broader issues in an effort to eliminate regulatory uncertainties about rail maintenance and upgrades , Wall said .
“ NCTD ’ s railroad right-of-way is not a safe place @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said in an emailed response to questions .
“ State law recognizes this by making it a violation to illegally cross the tracks.
” Fencing is one of a number of safety measures the district is installing to prepare for more frequent passenger and freight trains in years ahead , she said .
The corridor , which saw 62 trains daily this year before the COVID-19 crisis , is expected to have 101 trains daily in 2030 .
Cameras , lights , speakers and signs also will be added for safety .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cost between $ 2.4 million and $ 2.8 million .
The fence will be placed along the parallel right-of-way on both sides of the tracks for a 1.4-mile section of the corridor in Del Mar , south of the Coast Boulevard crossing .
In Encinitas , the fence will be placed between the four crossings in a 2.5-mile section between the Carlsbad border and the Encinitas train station .
A few short sections of that corridor already have fencing .
In Oceanside , the chain-link barrier will be added to about three-quarters of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not already have fencing south of the Oceanside Transit Center , with crossings at Loma Alta Marsh , Cassidy Street and Carlsbad Boulevard at the Buena Vista Lagoon .

The North County Transit District plans to install fences along miles of railroad track in three coastal cities by the end of 2020, a move many residents, especially those in Del Mar, have fought for years.
In a report released this month, NCTD said the 6-foot-tall, chain-link fence will be placed in areas where people most frequently trespass on the track, resulting in death or injury, damage to the railroad system or delays in service.
Transit officials say they don’t need the cities’ approvals to build the fence, but they have applied to a little-known federal agency — the Surface Transportation Board — to waive the need for oversight from Del Mar and the California Coastal Commission for the fence and other projects related to safety on the bluff-top tracks.
Advertisement
Many residents believe it’s their right to cross the railroad tracks, whether to get to the beach or simply to enjoy the view. Some of the most expensive homes in San Diego County are in Del Mar alongside the railroad tracks that hug the edge of the coast.
“I, as many surfers and beachgoers, access the beach via 11th Street in Del Mar,” said resident Camilla Rang, one of about 130 people who wrote letters to the transit district opposing the fence. “I do not want my access to be impeded by fencing on the bluff in Del Mar. As a resident of California, I have a constitutional right to access the beach.”
Rang and others said Del Mar residents were granted the right to cross the tracks by the Santa Fe Railroad deed in 1909, though the city incorporated only 60 years ago.
“We will never accept it,” Rang said in her letter. “We will fight to our last breath. We will scream and we will fight and we will win. The bluff and the beach is our backyard, has always been and will always be. It’s the train that should move, not us, and you know it.”
The transit district and regional planning agency the San Diego Assn. of Governments hope to eventually move the tracks away from the beach in Del Mar to an inland route. Such a relocation would cost more than $3 billion. Obtaining funding, along with other preliminary work, is expected to take at least 10 years, and construction would take another 10.
Meanwhile, coastal erosion and rising sea levels pose an increasing threat to the bluff-top tracks. Every year, there’s less room for people to walk along the tracks, and new slides threaten the railroad bed. NCTD and the association of governments are in the fourth phase of a six-part, multimillion-dollar effort to stabilize the Del Mar tracks where they are.
Advertisement
Fencing also is planned for the tracks in Oceanside and Encinitas, where the idea has been less of an issue because the railway there is not as close to the beach. But even though the tracks are a few blocks inland, people frequently cross illegally to get to the popular restaurants and bars along North Coast Highway in Encinitas’ Leucadia community.
Normally, coastal construction such as bluff repairs and fence installation requires approval from the California Coastal Commission and the local jurisdictions involved. However, in an attempt to bypass those approvals, NCTD in August filed a “petition for declaratory order” with the federal Surface Transportation Board asking the agency to waive the state and local permits.
Del Mar’s City Council some time ago voted to oppose fencing “that would mitigate tragic trespassing events and reduce ongoing delays to passenger and freight rail service,” the petition said. Additionally, it said, the transit district “has numerous crucial, upcoming rail maintenance and upgrading projects that will be challenged under the Coastal Act or local coastal laws.”
Del Mar and the San Diego chapter of the Surfrider Foundation have asked the federal agency to deny the transit district’s petition.
“In essence, NCTD asked for a waiver to indefinitely bypass state review processes that exist to ensure the proper management of coastal zone resources and ensure public access to our beaches,” states a response Surfrider posted to its website Oct. 8.
Del Mar, in its official reply to the NCTD petition, said the requested declaratory order is “inappropriate, unwise and unnecessary.”
“Despite its best efforts throughout its 168-page petition to try and manufacture one, NCTD fails to present an actual, present controversy or uncertainty that could be resolved by the issuance of a declaratory order,” stated the city’s response.
No date has been provided for a decision on the petition, according to NCTD spokeswoman Kimy Wall.
NCTD believes it has the right to construct the fence within the right-of-way, the strip of land the railroad uses for its tracks, with or without the declaratory order, Wall said.
In emergency situations, the transit district and San Diego Assn. of Governments have completed repairs without obtaining approval in advance. Last year, after a storm over the Thanksgiving weekend eroded the bluffs near the tracks, crews installed a retaining wall within a few days, then got permission months later from the Coastal Commission.
The petition to the Surface Transportation Board addresses broader issues in an effort to eliminate regulatory uncertainties about rail maintenance and upgrades, Wall said.
“NCTD’s railroad right-of-way is not a safe place for the general public,” she said in an emailed response to questions. “State law recognizes this by making it a violation to illegally cross the tracks.”
Fencing is one of a number of safety measures the district is installing to prepare for more frequent passenger and freight trains in years ahead, she said. The corridor, which saw 62 trains daily this year before the COVID-19 crisis, is expected to have 101 trains daily in 2030.
Cameras, lights, speakers and signs also will be added for safety. In all, the project is expected to cost between $2.4 million and $2.8 million.
The fence will be placed along the parallel right-of-way on both sides of the tracks for a 1.4-mile section of the corridor in Del Mar, south of the Coast Boulevard crossing.
In Encinitas, the fence will be placed between the four crossings in a 2.5-mile section between the Carlsbad border and the Encinitas train station. A few short sections of that corridor already have fencing.
In Oceanside, the chain-link barrier will be added to about three-quarters of a mile of the corridor that does not already have fencing south of the Oceanside Transit Center, with crossings at Loma Alta Marsh, Cassidy Street and Carlsbad Boulevard at the Buena Vista Lagoon.
Diehl writes for the San Diego Union-Tribune.


latimes--2020-10-18--Woodland Hills mother found alive after going missing in Zion National Park

A Woodland Hills hiker who was reported missing for two weeks inside Zion National Park in Utah was found and reunited with her family Sunday .
A vigorous search for 38-year-old Holly Suzanne Courtier had been underway after she failed to show up for a scheduled shuttle departure from the park Oct. 6 .
Courtier , who had been dropped off for a hike earlier that day , was reported missing Oct. 8 , according to the National Park Service .
“ We are overjoyed that she was found safely today .
We would like to thank the rangers and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day and night and never gave up hope , ” her family said in a statement provided by the park service .
The statement said a “ credible tip ” from a park visitor , who said they had seen Courtier within the park , led to her rescue .
But officials did not provide information about Courtier ’ s condition or the location where she was found .
A park service spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a request for comment Sunday .
Courtier ’ s daughter , Kailey Chambers , chronicled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 148,000-acre park and sought tips through the website helpfindholly.com .
Last week , Chambers posted on Instagram : “ The rangers have informed me that unless they gather additional intel they will only be continuing their search for 1-2 more days .
It ’ s getting down to the final few days of survival without food.
” Chambers has said her mother is an experienced hiker who was familiar with Zion National Park and had done solo hikes in the past .
She told KCBS-TV Channel 2 last week that Courtier had been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a converted van after losing her job as a nanny during the pandemic .
Officials from numerous agencies , including the park service , Washington County Sheriff ’ s Office and Utah Division of Wildlife Resources , as well as volunteers , aided in the search for Courtier .
“ We are also so grateful to the countless volunteers who were generous with their time , resources and support .
This wouldn ’ t have been possible without the network of people who came together , ” Courtier ’ s family ’ s @ @ @

The Virgin River winds through the red rock canyon walls near the Temple of Sinawava inside Zion National Park in Utah.
A Woodland Hills hiker who was reported missing for two weeks inside Zion National Park in Utah was found and reunited with her family Sunday.
A vigorous search for 38-year-old Holly Suzanne Courtier had been underway after she failed to show up for a scheduled shuttle departure from the park Oct. 6. Courtier, who had been dropped off for a hike earlier that day, was reported missing Oct. 8, according to the National Park Service.
Holly Suzanne Courtier, an experienced hiker, who had been reported missing after she was dropped off at Zion National Park is pictured in this handout photo. Courtier was reported Courtiers was missing for two weeks inside Zion National Park in Utah was found and reunited with her family on Sunday. (National Park Service)
“We are overjoyed that she was found safely today. We would like to thank the rangers and search teams who relentlessly looked for her day and night and never gave up hope,” her family said in a statement provided by the park service.
The statement said a “credible tip” from a park visitor, who said they had seen Courtier within the park, led to her rescue. But officials did not provide information about Courtier’s condition or the location where she was found. A park service spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a request for comment Sunday.
Courtier’s daughter, Kailey Chambers, chronicled the search for her mother in the 148,000-acre park and sought tips through the website helpfindholly.com.
Advertisement
Last week, Chambers posted on Instagram: “The rangers have informed me that unless they gather additional intel they will only be continuing their search for 1-2 more days. It’s getting down to the final few days of survival without food.”
Chambers has said her mother is an experienced hiker who was familiar with Zion National Park and had done solo hikes in the past. She told KCBS-TV Channel 2 last week that Courtier had been visiting national parks across the country in a converted van after losing her job as a nanny during the pandemic.
Officials from numerous agencies, including the park service, Washington County Sheriff’s Office and Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, as well as volunteers, aided in the search for Courtier.
“We are also so grateful to the countless volunteers who were generous with their time, resources and support. This wouldn’t have been possible without the network of people who came together,” Courtier’s family’s statement said.


latimes--2020-10-18--Thousands of Trump supporters rally in Newport Beach as president arrives for fundraiser

Thousands of American-flag-waving Trump supporters rallied in Newport Beach on Sunday as the president arrived for a fundraiser to bolster his reelection bid on Nov. 3 .
Red MAGA hats were ubiquitous in the crowd , and masks were scant .
The sound of country music mingled with shouts of , “ Four more years !
” The rally along Pacific Coast Highway and Newport Boulevard was raucous and confrontational at times .
A man from Tustin in a Trump-themed cowboy hat taunted a female Los Angeles Times reporter for wearing a mask .
When the reporter thanked him for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ man followed her for several minutes , yelling , “ Fake news !
” while tailing her closely and inviting others in the crowd to harass her .
Shortly afterward , two counter-demonstrators holding a pride flag and a Biden sign were surrounded and heckled by dozens of Trump supporters who shouted , “ Biden ’ s a pedophile !
” Meanwhile , hundreds of Armenian Americans joined the demonstration , in a show of solidarity with Armenia in its battle with neighboring Azerbaijan over a small separatist region on the border of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Trump take action against Turkey , which has expressed support for Azerbaijan .
“ Armenia needs Trump !
” a protester , his shoulders draped in the orange , red and blue Armenian flag , yelled into a megaphone .
“ Save Christian Armenia !
” Many of the Armenian American demonstrators were also Trump supporters .
Melimeh Soukiasian , 36 , of Los Angeles said she wasn ’ t sure yet who she would cast a vote for in November but said she would support Trump if he spoke out against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. tax dollars , ” she said , “ are funding the weapons that are being used to target civilians and hospitals , sacred churches in Armenia.
” Teresa Wallace , 67 , drove all the way from Palm Springs on Sunday morning to welcome the president to Newport Beach .
She was dressed head-to-toe in Trump- and America-themed regalia .
“ He ’ s transparent and he ’ s handled the coronavirus as well as anybody else could ’ ve handled it , ” Wallace said .
“ I trust him .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lizanne Witte , a 63-year old from Laguna Beach , joined a small group of Biden supporters .
She carried a sign that said “ Science Makes America Great.
” A few Trump supporters chanted “ Four more years ” at the group , while others honked from their cars with American flags hanging out of the windows .
Some shouted obscenities at Witte , a 32-year resident of Orange County .
“ I ’ ve never seen this side of Orange County , ” the community organizer said .
“ Even in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ detained children , the reception had been respective differences in opinion .
This is just nasty.
” Matt Stoutenburg , a 50-year-old electrical contractor from Tustin , said it was a “ chance of a lifetime ” to see the president .
“ I would love to meet Trump and see Trump , ” he said .
“ Who in their right mind wouldn ’ t , actually ?
” He said he knew he ’ d be around like-minded people .
“ When the motorcade came it was that same kind of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re in a big stadium and they ’ re doing the wave , ” he said .
Claudine Abraham , a 53-year-old attorney , said the energy in the crowd was electric .
“ He loves this country and he wants everyone to do well , ” she said of the president .
Abraham came with her friend , Laura Alterman , a 54-year-old social worker , and their daughters .
While Abraham supports Trump , Alterman and her daughter are liberal .
Laura Alterman wore a white HRC hat .
“ We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s really right , and I ’ m really left , ” Alterman said .
She said she was there “ just to witness it all .
It ’ s a big deal , he ’ s in our town.
” “ This has been interesting .
I ’ ve never been this close to the president , ” said Laura ’ s 12 year old daughter Shira Alterman .
She said she and her friends call him “ a walking Cheeto puff.
” Sabrina Jane Ramos , 37 , of Brea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who shouted “ Latinas for Trump ” as they waited for the president ’ s motorcade along Newport Boulevard .
“ He rarely comes to California and I wanted the president to know that some of us support him , ” the graphic designer said .
Stephanie Lo , 47 , of Pomona , said she did not vote for Trump in 2016 , but that she is backing him this time around .
She wore a navy blue Trump hat as a show of her support .
“ I don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s efficient , ” she said .
Trump was in Orange County for a fundraiser at the home of Palmer Luckey , a 28-year-old tech mogul .
The Long Beach native , among , is working on a defense startup whose projects include using crossing illegally over the border .
Luckey ’ s Lido Isle mansion overlooks Newport Bay and sits at the tip of a manmade island that is home to about 800 residences and connected to Newport Beach by a two-lane bridge .

Laura Newberry, Stephanie Lai, Arit John

Thousands of American-flag-waving Trump supporters rallied in Newport Beach on Sunday as the president arrived for a fundraiser to bolster his reelection bid on Nov. 3.
Red MAGA hats were ubiquitous in the crowd, and masks were scant. The sound of country music mingled with shouts of, “Four more years!”
Trump supporters wave flags and signs while hoping to get a glimpse of the president’s motorcade when he heads to and from Lido Island for a fundraiser on October 18, 2020 in Newport Beach, California. (Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times)
Advertisement
The rally along Pacific Coast Highway and Newport Boulevard was raucous and confrontational at times.
A man from Tustin in a Trump-themed cowboy hat taunted a female Los Angeles Times reporter for wearing a mask.
When the reporter thanked him for the interview and walked away, the man followed her for several minutes, yelling, “Fake news!” while tailing her closely and inviting others in the crowd to harass her.
Joe Biden supporter Richard Williams, 70, of Irvine is grabbed and shoved by Trump supporters as tried to hold his Biden-Harris sign amid a sea of Trump supporters who gathered on Via Lido to get a glimpse of the president’s motorcade while going to and from a Newport Beach fundraiser. (Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)
Shortly afterward, two counter-demonstrators holding a pride flag and a Biden sign were surrounded and heckled by dozens of Trump supporters who shouted, “Biden’s a pedophile!”
Meanwhile, hundreds of Armenian Americans joined the demonstration, in a show of solidarity with Armenia in its battle with neighboring Azerbaijan over a small separatist region on the border of the former Soviet republics. They demanded that Trump take action against Turkey, which has expressed support for Azerbaijan.
Advertisement
“Armenia needs Trump!” a protester, his shoulders draped in the orange, red and blue Armenian flag, yelled into a megaphone. “Save Christian Armenia!” Many of the Armenian American demonstrators were also Trump supporters.
Melimeh Soukiasian, 36, of Los Angeles said she wasn’t sure yet who she would cast a vote for in November but said she would support Trump if he spoke out against Turkey’s actions.
“Our U.S. tax dollars,” she said, “are funding the weapons that are being used to target civilians and hospitals, sacred churches in Armenia.”
Teresa Wallace, 67, drove all the way from Palm Springs on Sunday morning to welcome the president to Newport Beach. She was dressed head-to-toe in Trump- and America-themed regalia.
“He’s transparent and he’s handled the coronavirus as well as anybody else could’ve handled it,” Wallace said. “I trust him. He’s a Christian man.”
Lizanne Witte, a 63-year old from Laguna Beach, joined a small group of Biden supporters. She carried a sign that said “Science Makes America Great.”
A few Trump supporters chanted “Four more years” at the group, while others honked from their cars with American flags hanging out of the windows. Some shouted obscenities at Witte, a 32-year resident of Orange County.
“I’ve never seen this side of Orange County,” the community organizer said. “Even in protests about women’s rights and detained children, the reception had been respective differences in opinion. This is just nasty.”
Matt Stoutenburg, a 50-year-old electrical contractor from Tustin, said it was a “chance of a lifetime” to see the president.
“I would love to meet Trump and see Trump,” he said. “Who in their right mind wouldn’t, actually?”
He said he knew he’d be around like-minded people. “When the motorcade came it was that same kind of energy that you feel when you’re in a big stadium and they’re doing the wave,” he said.
Claudine Abraham, a 53-year-old attorney, said the energy in the crowd was electric. “He loves this country and he wants everyone to do well,” she said of the president.
Abraham came with her friend, Laura Alterman, a 54-year-old social worker, and their daughters. While Abraham supports Trump, Alterman and her daughter are liberal. Laura Alterman wore a white HRC hat.
“We’re friends, even though she’s really right, and I’m really left,” Alterman said.
She said she was there “just to witness it all. It’s a big deal, he’s in our town.”
“This has been interesting. I’ve never been this close to the president,” said Laura’s 12 year old daughter Shira Alterman. She said she and her friends call him “a walking Cheeto puff.”
Sabrina Jane Ramos, 37, of Brea, posed with a group of women who shouted “Latinas for Trump” as they waited for the president’s motorcade along Newport Boulevard.
President Donald Trump greets supporters as he arrives on Air Force One at John Wayne Airport on Sunday. (Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times)
“He rarely comes to California and I wanted the president to know that some of us support him,” the graphic designer said.
Stephanie Lo, 47, of Pomona, said she did not vote for Trump in 2016, but that she is backing him this time around. She wore a navy blue Trump hat as a show of her support.
“I don’t like his personality, but he’s efficient,” she said.
Trump was in Orange County for a fundraiser at the home of Palmer Luckey, a 28-year-old tech mogul. The Long Beach native, among California’s top GOP donors , is working on a defense startup whose projects include using technology to detect immigrants crossing illegally over the border.
Luckey’s Lido Isle mansion overlooks Newport Bay and sits at the tip of a manmade island that is home to about 800 residences and connected to Newport Beach by a two-lane bridge.
Times staff writer Seema Mehta contributed to this report.


latimes--2020-10-19--California's greenhouse gas emissions rose slightly in 2018

California ’ s greenhouse gas emissions rose slightly in 2018 due largely to lower hydroelectric power use , according to a report released Monday by the state Air Resources Board .
The state emitted the equivalent of 425 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2018 , about 1 million more than in 2017 , the Air Resources Board inventory found .
Pollution overall remained well below the state ’ s 2020 climate target of 431 million metric tons , which the state hit four years early , in 2016 .
But the uneven progress underscores the challenge California faces @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of slashing planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions another 40 % by 2030 .
The uptick in 2018 was mostly due to a decrease in the use of hydroelectric power resulting from lower precipitation in the winter of 2017-18 , said Dave Clegern , an Air Resources Board spokesman .
“ That emissions category rose about 1 million metric tons , ” Clegern said .
“ That was partially compensated by increases in solar generation and other lower greenhouse gas intensity resources.
” Though the year-over-year change is going in the wrong direction , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” said Danny Cullenward , a lecturer at Stanford Law School .
“ Nearly all of the state ’ s climate gains arise in the electricity sector , where a growing share of wind and solar resources reduces emissions over time , and the variability of large hydropower resources causes headline numbers to fluctuate from year to year.
” “ California ’ s clean energy policies are working to clean up the electricity sector , ” he added .
“ But in other sectors — notably transportation , industry and residential and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on track to achieve California ’ s climate laws.
” Last year ’ s inventory by the state showed that emissions reductions slowed in 2017 , declining by 1.2 % , versus a decline of 2.8 % in 2016 .
To be on a pathway to its 2030 goal , California must reverse that trend and significantly pick up the pace of emissions reductions across many sectors .
In one notable improvement , the annual report showed that transportation emissions dropped by 1.5 million metric tons between 2017 and 2018 , the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and other vehicles remain California ’ s largest pollution source , accounting for about 40 % of its planet-warming emissions and rising stubbornly for years as driving miles increase .
Cullenward said he is not concerned about the state meeting its 2020 target to reduce its emissions below 1990s levels and that it “ will almost certainly be in compliance , ” given that global emissions slowed this year amid the COVID-19 pandemic .
“ What worries me is that the Air Resources Board does not have a credible plan for how to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ California ’ s 2030 climate target , ” he said .
“ Reducing emissions below that level requires more than progress in the electricity sector , but the major policy the state has identified to do the bulk of this work — the cap-and-trade program — isn ’ t working and needs significant reform.
” Peter Miller , who directs the Natural Resources Defense Council ’ s climate and clean energy program for the Western region , agreed that “ more needs to be done in making clean transportation investments , protecting communities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ programs that will lead to more jobs , healthier air and , ultimately , help protect our climate.
” The state ’ s main programs for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from transportation fuels , industrial emissions , vehicles and electricity generation already have “ considerably more stringent emissions reduction targets starting in 2021 ” in anticipation of the steeper cuts needed to meet the 2030 target , according to the Air Resources Board .
Clegern said the board ’ s members are also “ developing rules to further rein in short-lived climate pollutants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other agencies to improve sequestration capability on natural and working lands .
”

A refinery in the Wilmington neighborhood of Los Angeles is among the facilities regulated under California’s cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
California’s greenhouse gas emissions rose slightly in 2018 due largely to lower hydroelectric power use, according to a report released Monday by the state Air Resources Board.
The state emitted the equivalent of 425 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2018, about 1 million more than in 2017, the Air Resources Board inventory found.
Pollution overall remained well below the state’s 2020 climate target of 431 million metric tons, which the state hit four years early, in 2016. But the uneven progress underscores the challenge California faces as it pursues the more ambitious goal of slashing planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions another 40% by 2030.
Advertisement
The uptick in 2018 was mostly due to a decrease in the use of hydroelectric power resulting from lower precipitation in the winter of 2017-18, said Dave Clegern, an Air Resources Board spokesman.
“That emissions category rose about 1 million metric tons,” Clegern said. “That was partially compensated by increases in solar generation and other lower greenhouse gas intensity resources.”
Though the year-over-year change is going in the wrong direction, it is “more noise than anything fundamental,” said Danny Cullenward, a lecturer at Stanford Law School. “Nearly all of the state’s climate gains arise in the electricity sector, where a growing share of wind and solar resources reduces emissions over time, and the variability of large hydropower resources causes headline numbers to fluctuate from year to year.”
“California’s clean energy policies are working to clean up the electricity sector,” he added. “But in other sectors — notably transportation, industry and residential and commercial buildings — policy isn’t on track to achieve California’s climate laws.”
Last year’s inventory by the state showed that emissions reductions slowed in 2017, declining by 1.2%, versus a decline of 2.8% in 2016. To be on a pathway to its 2030 goal, California must reverse that trend and significantly pick up the pace of emissions reductions across many sectors.
In one notable improvement, the annual report showed that transportation emissions dropped by 1.5 million metric tons between 2017 and 2018, the first decrease since 2013. Cars, trucks and other vehicles remain California’s largest pollution source, accounting for about 40% of its planet-warming emissions and rising stubbornly for years as driving miles increase.
Advertisement
Cullenward said he is not concerned about the state meeting its 2020 target to reduce its emissions below 1990s levels and that it “will almost certainly be in compliance,” given that global emissions slowed this year amid the COVID-19 pandemic.
“What worries me is that the Air Resources Board does not have a credible plan for how to get the reductions needed to get to California’s 2030 climate target,” he said. “Reducing emissions below that level requires more than progress in the electricity sector, but the major policy the state has identified to do the bulk of this work — the cap-and-trade program — isn’t working and needs significant reform.”
Peter Miller, who directs the Natural Resources Defense Council’s climate and clean energy program for the Western region, agreed that “more needs to be done in making clean transportation investments, protecting communities from fossil fuel operations and engaging additional programs that will lead to more jobs, healthier air and, ultimately, help protect our climate.”
The state’s main programs for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from transportation fuels, industrial emissions, vehicles and electricity generation already have “considerably more stringent emissions reduction targets starting in 2021” in anticipation of the steeper cuts needed to meet the 2030 target, according to the Air Resources Board.
Clegern said the board’s members are also “developing rules to further rein in short-lived climate pollutants and are working with a number of other agencies to improve sequestration capability on natural and working lands.”


latimes--2020-10-19--Today is the deadline to register online to vote in California

The 2020 presidential election is 15 days away .
If you ’ re in California , today is your last chance to use the state ’ s online voter registration system .
But if you miss today ’ s deadline , you can still cast a ballot .
Last year , California enacted conditional voter registration .
Sometimes called “ same-day voter registration , ” conditional registration lets you register up until the day of the election at your county elections office or a community vote center .
Your ballot will be processed and counted after county election officials verify @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote in English , Spanish , Hindi , Chinese , Japanese , Khmer , Korean , Tagalog , Thai or Vietnamese at .
Registered voters can check their status to confirm their address and other details .
If you are 16 or 17 years old , you can use the site to pre-register , though you won ’ t be eligible to cast a ballot this November .
In order to register to vote online , you ’ ll need to have on hand your California driver ’ s license number or ID @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of your Social Security number and your date of birth .
As of 2019 , as many as 6 million Californians were eligible to vote but had not registered — including Snoop Dogg , who just last week on his YouTube channel .
Once you ’ ve registered , it ’ s time to figure out how you ’ ll vote .
The Times has videos in 14 languages about how voting works in L.A. County .
Our editorial board has published a list of endorsements , and our news team has explainers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ballot .
Here ’ s our complete guide to the 2020 election , including how to vote , where to vote , where the candidates stand on the issues and more .

Election day is finally here. And even if you’ve never registered to vote in California before, you haven’t missed your chance to cast your ballot.
Oct. 19, was the last day to use the state’s online voter registration system. But last year, California enacted conditional voter registration. Sometimes called “same-day voter registration,” conditional registration lets you register up until or on the day of the election at your county elections office or a community vote center. You can then cast a ballot, which will be processed and counted after county election officials verify your registration.
Advertisement
Today, you can go to any polling place and register and cast your provisional ballot there. To register, you’ll need to have on hand your California driver’s license number or ID card number, the last four digits of your Social Security number and your date of birth.
Currently registered voters can check their status to confirm their address and other details at RegisterToVote.ca.gov . If you are 16 or 17 years old, you can use the site to pre-register, though you won’t be eligible in November.
As of 2019, as many as 6 million Californians were eligible to vote but had not registered — including Snoop Dogg, who just last week posted a video of himself registering on his YouTube channel.
Once you’ve registered, it’s time to figure out how you’ll vote. The Times has videos in 14 languages about how voting works in L.A. County. Our editorial board has published a list of endorsements, and our news team has explainers about each of the propositions on the ballot.
Here’s our complete guide to the 2020 election, including how to vote, where to vote, where the candidates stand on the issues and more.


latimes--2020-10-19--Metro closing Little Tokyo/Arts District Station for nearly 2 years

Metro is closing its Little Tokyo/Arts District Station beginning Saturday to complete work on a 1.9-mile rail extension project that will tie three lines together in downtown Los Angeles .
Service at the station will end Friday night .
The next day , Metro will launch a 22-month construction phase of its Regional Connector transit project , which includes the demolition of the current Little Tokyo Station , according to Metropolitan Transportation Authority spokesman Rick Jager .
A new underground station will be built in its place at nearby 1st Street and Central Avenue , he said .
During construction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ L Line — formerly the Gold Line — which runs from Azusa to East Los Angeles and includes the Little Tokyo stop .
Transit riders seeking to travel between Union Station and the Pico/Aliso Station in Boyle Heights will be offered free shuttle bus service during the closure .
Riders can then get back on the train and continue their destination in either direction , Jager said .
Commutes are expected to be delayed .
“ It ’ s going to be an inconvenience ; we absolutely understand that , ” Jager said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people to plan ahead.
” Metro plans to complete the Regional Connector by the fall of 2022 .
Once it ’ s up and running , riders are expected to see a reduction in their commute times of about 20 minutes , Jager said .
That ’ s because the project is slated to eliminate transfers for travelers heading north-south and east-west by connecting the A ( Blue ) , E ( Expo ) , and L lines through downtown Los Angeles .
Currently riders coming from Long Beach on the A Line @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to travel to Pasadena or Azusa , need to get off at the 7th/Metro Station in downtown L.A. , go downstairs and take the B Line ( formerly the Red Line ) or the D Line ( formerly the Purple Line ) to Union Station .
From there , they need to go back upstairs and take the L Line to their final destination .
The Regional Connector will make it a seamless ride , Jager said .
Metro anticipates the line , which will have three stops in downtown Los Angeles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Amid the pandemic , the L Line ’ s ridership has dropped about 50 % , Metro officials said .
It currently carries a weekday average of about 23,000 riders , down from 47,000 , Jager said .
This is the “ final push ” of the Regional Connector project , according to a Metro news release .
The project has been under construction since late 2014 , and was originally anticipated to be completed this year , according to Streetsblog LA .

Passengers board a Metro train at the Little Tokyo Station. The station will be closed, beginning Saturday, for work on the Regional Connector project.
Metro is closing its Little Tokyo/Arts District Station beginning Saturday to complete work on a 1.9-mile rail extension project that will tie three lines together in downtown Los Angeles.
Service at the station will end Friday night. The next day, Metro will launch a 22-month construction phase of its Regional Connector transit project, which includes the demolition of the current Little Tokyo Station, according to Metropolitan Transportation Authority spokesman Rick Jager. A new underground station will be built in its place at nearby 1st Street and Central Avenue, he said.
During construction, service will be affected along the L Line — formerly the Gold Line — which runs from Azusa to East Los Angeles and includes the Little Tokyo stop.
Advertisement
Transit riders seeking to travel between Union Station and the Pico/Aliso Station in Boyle Heights will be offered free shuttle bus service during the closure. Riders can then get back on the train and continue their destination in either direction, Jager said.
Commutes are expected to be delayed.
“It’s going to be an inconvenience; we absolutely understand that,” Jager said, “and we’re asking people to plan ahead.”
Bus shuttles to replace L Line (Gold) service between Union Station and Pico/Aliso Station starting Oct. 24 for 22-month closure to complete Regional Connector. https://t.co/BsrZ9pU34h pic.twitter.com/tB6ZRYikck — LA Metro (@metrolosangeles) October 14, 2020
Metro plans to complete the Regional Connector by the fall of 2022. Once it’s up and running, riders are expected to see a reduction in their commute times of about 20 minutes, Jager said. That’s because the project is slated to eliminate transfers for travelers heading north-south and east-west by connecting the A (Blue), E (Expo), and L lines through downtown Los Angeles.
Currently riders coming from Long Beach on the A Line, formerly the Blue Line, who want to travel to Pasadena or Azusa, need to get off at the 7th/Metro Station in downtown L.A., go downstairs and take the B Line (formerly the Red Line) or the D Line (formerly the Purple Line) to Union Station. From there, they need to go back upstairs and take the L Line to their final destination.
Advertisement
The Regional Connector will make it a seamless ride, Jager said. Metro anticipates the line, which will have three stops in downtown Los Angeles, will eventually serve 88,000 riders daily.
Amid the pandemic, the L Line’s ridership has dropped about 50%, Metro officials said. It currently carries a weekday average of about 23,000 riders, down from 47,000, Jager said.
This is the “final push” of the Regional Connector project, according to a Metro news release. The project has been under construction since late 2014, and was originally anticipated to be completed this year, according to Streetsblog LA.