latimes--2020-10-26--Two Bay Area counties halt COVID-19 test program run by Google offshoot

Amid fanfare in March , California officials celebrated the launch of a multimillion-dollar contract with Verily — Google ’ s health-focused sister company — that they said would vastly expand coronavirus testing among the state ’ s impoverished and underserved communities .
But seven months later , San Francisco and Alameda counties — two of the state ’ s most populous — have severed ties with the company ’ s testing sites amid concerns about patients ’ data privacy and complaints that funding intended to boost testing in low-income Black and Latino neighborhoods instead was benefiting higher-income residents in other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ among at least 28 counties , including Los Angeles , where California has paid Verily to boost testing capacity through contracts collectively worth $ 55 million , according to a spokesperson for the California Governor ’ s Office of Emergency Services .
About half have received coronavirus tests through six mobile units that travel among rural areas .
Gov .
Gavin Newsom has heralded the investment as a game-changer in addressing persistent inequities in access to testing across the state that tend to fall along lines of ethnicity and income .
The goal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ six new Verily testing sites , was to “ make sure we ’ re truly testing California broadly defined , not just parts of California and those that somehow have the privilege of getting ahead of the line.
” Yet the roadblocks for getting underrepresented populations to use the program soon became apparent to Alameda County officials .
In a June letter to California Secretary of Health Mark Ghaly , Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf and other members of the county ’ s COVID-19 Racial Disparities Task Force raised numerous concerns about the Verily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ signing up for a test through Verily had to do so online , using an existing or newly created Gmail account ; the sign-ups were offered only in English or Spanish ; and participants were asked to provide sensitive personal information , including their home address and whether they were managing chronic health conditions such as diabetes , obesity or congestive heart failure , which could expose their data to third-party use .
“ It is critical in this crisis that we continue to build trust between government and healthcare providers and vulnerable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrote .
Verily had two sites in Alameda County , and one was shuttered by May .
The second , located at an Oakland church , closed in August and is set to reopen using a different testing vendor .
Alameda County testing director Dr. Jocelyn Freeman Garrick said that while the Verily sites helped the county reach testing goals in terms of raw numbers , they were phased out because of long wait times of a week or more for results , and because the tests were not reaching the residents in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the tests used at its California sites .
It contracts with major corporations such as Quest Diagnostics and Thermo Fisher Scientific to provide the test kits and perform the lab work .
What Verily provides is a digital platform where people are screened for symptoms , schedule testing appointments at participating sites and check back for test results .
Dr. Noha Aboelata is CEO of Roots Community Health Center , an East Oakland clinic that serves mostly African Americans and is one of the original Verily sites in Oakland .
Her experience with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of two lines .
In May , Aboelata worked with Verily to establish a walk-up site at her clinic , rather than the drive-thru model the company typically uses .
There would be two lines : one for people who scheduled their appointments through Verily ’ s online portal ; and a second for people who had not preregistered with Verily .
Roots would staff both lines , and Verily would supply test kits and personal protective equipment including masks , which were “ like gold ” at the time , Aboelata said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
People were suspicious of the requirement that they sign up with a Gmail account and the request for personal information , such as health status and risk factors .
“ You don ’ t necessarily want to share that with Google , ” Aboelata said .
Then there was the language in the privacy policy that allows for sharing data with third parties .
“ That always is going to raise suspicion and concern in our community , ” she said .
The people who ended up in the Verily-registered line @ @ @ @ @ @ @ white and to come from wealthier ZIP Codes outside East Oakland .
And because Verily never changed the website language describing Roots as a drive-thru site , many were angry at having to walk up .
“ We had people coming from all over the Bay Area who were frustrated that they had to park in Oakland , where they had probably never been and didn ’ t seem to want to be , ” she said .
“ They were creating quite a scene , and some were saying , ‘ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” She had to ask a few people to leave .
“ One of them was saying , ‘ This is so Oakland , and I hope you all get the virus.
’ It was pretty awful.
” The Roots line for clients who did not register through Verily , on the other hand , was made up mostly of people of color from the community who long had come to the clinic for medical care , she said .
When Aboelata looked at the data , the disparities were obvious : 12.9 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ line were positive for the coronavirus , while just 1.5 % of people tested in the Verily-registered line were positive .
For Aboelata , it was clear that the two lines were testing two entirely different populations .
After just six days of testing , Aboelata asked Verily to leave .
“ From where we sit , this is an old story , ” she said .
“ Corporations that are not really invested in the community come helicoptering in , bearing gifts , but what they ’ re taking away is much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Aboelata believes , are the data Verily requests from everyone who signs up for a test .
In San Francisco , Verily mobile testing clinics have also been sidelined .
County officials declined to provide an explanation .
However , multiple people with knowledge of the testing efforts said the Verily registration process proved chaotic for homeless people and others in the Tenderloin district , one of the city ’ s poorest neighborhoods .
Kenneth Kim , clinical director of Glide , an outreach center that helped run the Tenderloin site , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testing had Gmail accounts , as Verily required , but could not remember their passwords .
When staffers at the testing site tried to help them retrieve their passwords , they found that Google ’ s two-factor authentication process required users to have the same phone number as when they signed up , which few of the homeless participants did .
Dr. Jonathan Fuchs , who leads San Francisco County ’ s testing strategy at the Department of Public Health , confirmed that the partnership with Verily was “ currently on hold.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In response to questions , Verily spokesperson Kathleen Parkes said the program requires users to register with Gmail accounts because Google ’ s authentication procedures safeguard sensitive data and protect “ against unknown individuals sending or receiving information with serious consequences for health or well-being.
” Conversations with San Francisco and Alameda remain “ active , ” Parkes said .
The company did not respond to specific questions about the testing disparities cited by community leaders .
Verily ’ s role in coronavirus testing has been shadowed by controversy since President Trump told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in March that “ Google ” was developing a screening website and testing tool .
“ Google has 1,700 engineers working on this right now , ” he said .
“ They ’ ve made tremendous progress.
” At the time , tests were in short supply and Trump was under pressure to increase capacity as infections ballooned in California , New York and other states .
But Google was not building such a website .
Instead , Verily , another Alphabet Inc. subsidiary focused on life sciences , was in the early @ @ @ @ @ @ @ triage people in need of testing , Google clarified in a tweet .
It planned to unveil a pilot program in two Bay Area counties .
Days later , Newsom announced a California partnership with Verily that so far has paid the company $ 55 million to establish both mobile and brick-and-mortar testing sites .
In addition , Verily has partnered with Rite Aid to manage testing at approximately 300 sites in multiple states under a $ 122.6 million federal contract between the pharmacy chain and the U.S. Department of Health and Human @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are in place through Nov. 30 ; the HHS contract is set to expire in January .
Participants in the Verily initiative sign an authorization form that says their information can be shared with multiple third parties involved in the testing program , including unnamed contractors and state and federal health authorities .
“ While the form tells you that Verily may share data with ‘ entities that assist with the testing program , ’ it doesn ’ t say who those entities are .
If one of those unnamed and unknown entities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you have no way to know and no way to hold them accountable , ” said Lee Tien , senior staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation , a nonprofit that advocates for digital privacy .
The policy states Verily will not use the data collected for its own research or meld it with other Google products without the user ’ s permission .
But it notes participants may be invited to share their data for such research , and the testing portal prominently features links inviting participants to sign up for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as of Oct. 8 , the Verily sites had processed an average of 1,583 patient samples per day over the prior seven days , according to the California Department of Public Health .
Verily , the state health department and Alameda County all declined requests to provide race and ethnicity data by testing site .
Dr. Kim Rhoads , a UCSF professor and former colorectal surgeon who leads a COVID testing project for Black communities , said Aboelata ’ s experience with Verily is emblematic of widespread racial disparities in the testing and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t keep talking about the consequences being unintended , ” Rhoads said .
“ We are six months into this pandemic and anyone who is surprised by the repetitive findings of inequity in testing , the spread of virus and COVID-19 mortality just isn ’ t paying attention.
” In an interview , Ghaly , California ’ s health secretary , said he believed the state ’ s partnerships with Verily and other companies continue to be a national model for addressing problems with testing disparities , including setting up venues for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in counties in northern parts of the state , sometimes the only regular testing available was through mobile testing set up under the program , he said .
“ I think there ’ s lots of success and lots of lessons learned and we continue to apply them , ” Ghaly said .
“ Until the entire effort is completed , I always look at where we are as part success and part opportunity to keep learning.
” In a September response to the Oakland COVID-19 disparities task force , Ghaly outlined @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would take in response to the concerns , including having Verily update its platform to include additional languages and work with testing vendors on alternative methods for data collection to address privacy concerns .
“ Some of the things we learned specifically in our experience in Alameda and other parts of the Bay Area is language matters , ” Ghaly told KHN .
After working with the homeless for 25 years , Dr. Margot Kushel , director of the UCSF Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative , said she wasn ’ t surprised to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Verily .
“ It turns out that in public health , the highest-tech solution is usually not the right one , ” she said .
To bring COVID cases down , she explained , requires a “ laser focus ” on the highest-risk communities .
And people in those communities often don ’ t want to turn over the protected information Verily asks for , whether because of fears about their immigration status or a history of mistrust of the medical establishment and policing .
“ You can imagine a million and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it , ” Kushel said .
“ The very structure of this is set up to fail .
And by failing the communities who need it most , we fail everybody.
” KHN ( Kaiser Health News ) is a nonprofit news service covering health issues .
It is an editorially independent program of KFF ( Kaiser Family Foundation ) that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente .

Amid fanfare in March, California officials celebrated the launch of a multimillion-dollar contract with Verily — Google’s health-focused sister company — that they said would vastly expand coronavirus testing among the state’s impoverished and underserved communities.
But seven months later, San Francisco and Alameda counties — two of the state’s most populous — have severed ties with the company’s testing sites amid concerns about patients’ data privacy and complaints that funding intended to boost testing in low-income Black and Latino neighborhoods instead was benefiting higher-income residents in other communities.
San Francisco and Alameda are among at least 28 counties, including Los Angeles, where California has paid Verily to boost testing capacity through contracts collectively worth $55 million, according to a spokesperson for the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services. About half have received coronavirus tests through six mobile units that travel among rural areas.
Advertisement
Gov. Gavin Newsom has heralded the investment as a game-changer in addressing persistent inequities in access to testing across the state that tend to fall along lines of ethnicity and income. The goal, he said in April, touting six new Verily testing sites, was to “make sure we’re truly testing California broadly defined, not just parts of California and those that somehow have the privilege of getting ahead of the line.”
Yet the roadblocks for getting underrepresented populations to use the program soon became apparent to Alameda County officials. In a June letter to California Secretary of Health Mark Ghaly, Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf and other members of the county’s COVID-19 Racial Disparities Task Force raised numerous concerns about the Verily protocols.
Among their complaints: People signing up for a test through Verily had to do so online, using an existing or newly created Gmail account; the sign-ups were offered only in English or Spanish; and participants were asked to provide sensitive personal information, including their home address and whether they were managing chronic health conditions such as diabetes, obesity or congestive heart failure, which could expose their data to third-party use.
“It is critical in this crisis that we continue to build trust between government and healthcare providers and vulnerable communities,” the task force members wrote.
Verily had two sites in Alameda County, and one was shuttered by May. The second, located at an Oakland church, closed in August and is set to reopen using a different testing vendor. Alameda County testing director Dr. Jocelyn Freeman Garrick said that while the Verily sites helped the county reach testing goals in terms of raw numbers, they were phased out because of long wait times of a week or more for results, and because the tests were not reaching the residents in greatest need.
Verily does not manufacture the tests used at its California sites. It contracts with major corporations such as Quest Diagnostics and Thermo Fisher Scientific to provide the test kits and perform the lab work. What Verily provides is a digital platform where people are screened for symptoms, schedule testing appointments at participating sites and check back for test results.
Advertisement
Dr. Noha Aboelata is CEO of Roots Community Health Center, an East Oakland clinic that serves mostly African Americans and is one of the original Verily sites in Oakland. Her experience with Verily is best described as a tale of two lines.
In May, Aboelata worked with Verily to establish a walk-up site at her clinic, rather than the drive-thru model the company typically uses. There would be two lines: one for people who scheduled their appointments through Verily’s online portal; and a second for people who had not preregistered with Verily. Roots would staff both lines, and Verily would supply test kits and personal protective equipment including masks, which were “like gold” at the time, Aboelata said.
Problems emerged almost immediately, she said. People were suspicious of the requirement that they sign up with a Gmail account and the request for personal information, such as health status and risk factors. “You don’t necessarily want to share that with Google,” Aboelata said.
Then there was the language in the privacy policy that allows for sharing data with third parties. “That always is going to raise suspicion and concern in our community,” she said.
The people who ended up in the Verily-registered line, she said, tended to be white and to come from wealthier ZIP Codes outside East Oakland. And because Verily never changed the website language describing Roots as a drive-thru site, many were angry at having to walk up.
“We had people coming from all over the Bay Area who were frustrated that they had to park in Oakland, where they had probably never been and didn’t seem to want to be,” she said. “They were creating quite a scene, and some were saying, ‘I want to talk to the manager.’” She had to ask a few people to leave. “One of them was saying, ‘This is so Oakland, and I hope you all get the virus.’ It was pretty awful.”
The Roots line for clients who did not register through Verily, on the other hand, was made up mostly of people of color from the community who long had come to the clinic for medical care, she said.
When Aboelata looked at the data, the disparities were obvious: 12.9% of people tested in the non-Verily line were positive for the coronavirus, while just 1.5% of people tested in the Verily-registered line were positive. For Aboelata, it was clear that the two lines were testing two entirely different populations.
After just six days of testing, Aboelata asked Verily to leave.
“From where we sit, this is an old story,” she said. “Corporations that are not really invested in the community come helicoptering in, bearing gifts, but what they’re taking away is much more valuable.” That thing of value, Aboelata believes, are the data Verily requests from everyone who signs up for a test.
In San Francisco, Verily mobile testing clinics have also been sidelined. County officials declined to provide an explanation. However, multiple people with knowledge of the testing efforts said the Verily registration process proved chaotic for homeless people and others in the Tenderloin district, one of the city’s poorest neighborhoods.
Daniel Hom, 77, on Monday in San Mateo arrives for testing at a private screening by Verily at the county event center. (Daniel Hom/Daniel Hom)
Kenneth Kim, clinical director of Glide, an outreach center that helped run the Tenderloin site, said many homeless residents coming in for testing had Gmail accounts, as Verily required, but could not remember their passwords. When staffers at the testing site tried to help them retrieve their passwords, they found that Google’s two-factor authentication process required users to have the same phone number as when they signed up, which few of the homeless participants did.
Dr. Jonathan Fuchs, who leads San Francisco County’s testing strategy at the Department of Public Health, confirmed that the partnership with Verily was “currently on hold.” He declined to provide further details.
In response to questions, Verily spokesperson Kathleen Parkes said the program requires users to register with Gmail accounts because Google’s authentication procedures safeguard sensitive data and protect “against unknown individuals sending or receiving information with serious consequences for health or well-being.” Conversations with San Francisco and Alameda remain “active,” Parkes said. The company did not respond to specific questions about the testing disparities cited by community leaders.
Verily’s role in coronavirus testing has been shadowed by controversy since President Trump told reporters at a Rose Garden news conference in March that “Google” was developing a screening website and testing tool. “Google has 1,700 engineers working on this right now,” he said. “They’ve made tremendous progress.”
At the time, tests were in short supply and Trump was under pressure to increase capacity as infections ballooned in California, New York and other states. But Google was not building such a website. Instead, Verily, another Alphabet Inc. subsidiary focused on life sciences, was in the early stages of developing a website to help triage people in need of testing, Google clarified in a tweet. It planned to unveil a pilot program in two Bay Area counties.
Days later, Newsom announced a California partnership with Verily that so far has paid the company $55 million to establish both mobile and brick-and-mortar testing sites. In addition, Verily has partnered with Rite Aid to manage testing at approximately 300 sites in multiple states under a $122.6 million federal contract between the pharmacy chain and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. California’s Verily contracts are in place through Nov. 30; the HHS contract is set to expire in January.
Participants in the Verily initiative sign an authorization form that says their information can be shared with multiple third parties involved in the testing program, including unnamed contractors and state and federal health authorities.
“While the form tells you that Verily may share data with ‘entities that assist with the testing program,’ it doesn’t say who those entities are. If one of those unnamed and unknown entities violates your privacy by misusing your data, you have no way to know and no way to hold them accountable,” said Lee Tien, senior staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit that advocates for digital privacy.
The policy states Verily will not use the data collected for its own research or meld it with other Google products without the user’s permission. But it notes participants may be invited to share their data for such research, and the testing portal prominently features links inviting participants to sign up for other Verily research.
In California, as of Oct. 8, the Verily sites had processed an average of 1,583 patient samples per day over the prior seven days, according to the California Department of Public Health. Verily, the state health department and Alameda County all declined requests to provide race and ethnicity data by testing site.
Dr. Kim Rhoads, a UCSF professor and former colorectal surgeon who leads a COVID testing project for Black communities, said Aboelata’s experience with Verily is emblematic of widespread racial disparities in the testing and treatment of COVID-19. “We can’t keep talking about the consequences being unintended,” Rhoads said. “We are six months into this pandemic and anyone who is surprised by the repetitive findings of inequity in testing, the spread of virus and COVID-19 mortality just isn’t paying attention.”
In an interview, Ghaly, California’s health secretary, said he believed the state’s partnerships with Verily and other companies continue to be a national model for addressing problems with testing disparities, including setting up venues for minority and rural populations. For example, in counties in northern parts of the state, sometimes the only regular testing available was through mobile testing set up under the program, he said.
“I think there’s lots of success and lots of lessons learned and we continue to apply them,” Ghaly said. “Until the entire effort is completed, I always look at where we are as part success and part opportunity to keep learning.”
In a September response to the Oakland COVID-19 disparities task force, Ghaly outlined several actions the state had taken or would take in response to the concerns, including having Verily update its platform to include additional languages and work with testing vendors on alternative methods for data collection to address privacy concerns.
“Some of the things we learned specifically in our experience in Alameda and other parts of the Bay Area is language matters,” Ghaly told KHN.
Tracking the coronavirus in California The latest maps and charts on the spread of COVID-19 in California.
After working with the homeless for 25 years, Dr. Margot Kushel, director of the UCSF Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative, said she wasn’t surprised to learn some community leaders ran into problems with Verily.
“It turns out that in public health, the highest-tech solution is usually not the right one,” she said. To bring COVID cases down, she explained, requires a “laser focus” on the highest-risk communities. And people in those communities often don’t want to turn over the protected information Verily asks for, whether because of fears about their immigration status or a history of mistrust of the medical establishment and policing.
“You can imagine a million and a half reasons why people would distrust it,” Kushel said. “The very structure of this is set up to fail. And by failing the communities who need it most, we fail everybody.”
California correspondent Angela Hart contributed to this report.
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation) that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.


latimes--2020-10-25--L.A. County hits 7,000 deaths, more than 300,000 COVID-19 cases

Los Angeles County public health officials confirmed Monday the county has recorded 7,000 COVID-19 deaths and more than 300,000 cases .
On Monday , there 861 new coronavirus cases and eight deaths , which followed Sunday ’ s report of 830 new cases and four related fatalities .
The lower number of deaths reflects weekend reporting delays , officials said ; case numbers are also usually lower on the weekends because not all laboratories submit reports .
The official numbers for the county infections is 300,614 .
Statewide , California surpassed 900,000 confirmed cases of the virus Saturday , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hospitalizations have ticked upward slightly in L.A. , with the most recent three-day average reported by the county representing an increase of 8 % , according to data from the Department of Public health .
There were 785 confirmed coronavirus patients in county hospitals as of Friday , an increase of about 100 compared with earlier in the month but still far below the more than 2,200 patients reported at the peak of the crisis in mid-July .
The proportion of tests coming back positive also has increased from earlier in the month @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 3 % to 3.4 % .
Experts say an increase in the positivity rate can indicate increased community transmission .
In July , about 8 % of tests were coming back positive .
When it comes to reopening business sectors , Los Angeles remains in the most restrictive purple tier of the state ’ s four-phase reopening plan , meaning that risk of transmission of the virus remains widespread and many businesses must remain closed for indoor services .
Although its positivity rate qualifies L.A. to move into a less restrictive reopening tier @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tests in its most disadvantaged neighborhoods at 5.9 % — the county ’ s adjusted rate of cases per 100,000 residents remains too high at 7.6 .
In order for the county to move into the less restrictive red tier , it must report an adjusted daily average of no more than 7 cases per 100,000 residents .
The number of daily confirmed coronavirus infections in L.A. County swelled significantly last week , reaching 3,600 Thursday and topping 2,000 Friday and Saturday , but officials said the increase was the result of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ results because of technical glitches .

Jon, who gave only his first name, wears a full mask goes through his ballot at an in-person early voting center at the Azusa Women’s Club on Saturday. In L.A. County, there have now been nearly 300,000 cases of the coronavirus and nearly 7,000 deaths.
Los Angeles County public health officials confirmed Monday the county has recorded 7,000 COVID-19 deaths and more than 300,000 cases.
On Monday, there 861 new coronavirus cases and eight deaths, which followed Sunday’s report of 830 new cases and four related fatalities.
The lower number of deaths reflects weekend reporting delays, officials said; case numbers are also usually lower on the weekends because not all laboratories submit reports.
Advertisement
The official numbers for the county infections is 300,614. Statewide, California surpassed 900,000 confirmed cases of the virus Saturday, and more than 17,300 people have died.
Hospitalizations have ticked upward slightly in L.A., with the most recent three-day average reported by the county representing an increase of 8%, according to data from the Department of Public health. There were 785 confirmed coronavirus patients in county hospitals as of Friday, an increase of about 100 compared with earlier in the month but still far below the more than 2,200 patients reported at the peak of the crisis in mid-July.
The proportion of tests coming back positive also has increased from earlier in the month, with the seven-day average up from 3% to 3.4%. Experts say an increase in the positivity rate can indicate increased community transmission. In July, about 8% of tests were coming back positive.
When it comes to reopening business sectors, Los Angeles remains in the most restrictive purple tier of the state’s four-phase reopening plan, meaning that risk of transmission of the virus remains widespread and many businesses must remain closed for indoor services.
Although its positivity rate qualifies L.A. to move into a less restrictive reopening tier — as does the rate of positive tests in its most disadvantaged neighborhoods at 5.9% — the county’s adjusted rate of cases per 100,000 residents remains too high at 7.6. In order for the county to move into the less restrictive red tier, it must report an adjusted daily average of no more than 7 cases per 100,000 residents.
The number of daily confirmed coronavirus infections in L.A. County swelled significantly last week, reaching 3,600 Thursday and topping 2,000 Friday and Saturday, but officials said the increase was the result of a sizable backlog in the reporting of test results because of technical glitches.
Advertisement
Staff writer Andrew J. Campa contributed to this report.


latimes--2020-10-27--A week before election, affirmative action measure Prop. 16 has Latinos divided, uncertain

If you ’ re a low-income Latino or Black student hoping to enter a competitive college , Carlos Cruz has some advice .
Your best option is to continue your studies with free instructional videos on YouTube or online classes in computer coding , carpentry or plumbing , says the Republican candidate for California Assembly District 28 , in Silicon Valley .
Cruz , a real estate agent , also thinks that on Nov. 3 Latinos and other voters of color should reject Proposition 16 , which would restore affirmative action in California by allowing ethnicity to be considered as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the awarding of public contracts .
“ Passing Proposition 16 would only mask a very big problem that we have in poor-quality public schools , ” said Cruz , who is running against Democratic incumbent Evan Low .
“ Giving students an opportunity to enter the university just because of their ethnicity or race is trying to push them into a system they don ’ t know and won ’ t be able to endure , ” he continued .
“ So they ’ ll only end up in debt , frustrated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the opposite side of the Proposition 16 debate — emphatically — is Yazmin Lope , owner of Certified Interpreting Services in West Hollywood , who says she has been negatively affected by the lack of a state affirmative action policy .
She supports the new ballot measure that would effectively overturn 24-year-old Proposition 209 , which largely forbids state and local governments from granting preferential treatment to individuals or groups on the basis of race , sex , color , ethnicity or national origin .
“ As a woman and Mexican , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has to go through to get bigger contracts , because we don ’ t have the resources , ” said Lope , who started her business five years ago and has two employees .
“ We are not asking for a free ticket but a fair ticket , ” she continued .
“ If Proposition 16 passes , we still must do our job to show that we have talent .
The same goes for students .
They will not get free grades , but they will have a chance to show they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day , Proposition 16 has California voters — including some Latinos , the state ’ s largest ethnic group — divided and possibly confused about its intentions , according to some polls and studies .
A poll released in September by the Latino Community Foundation showed that 50 % of Latino registered voters were in favor of “ public colleges and universities taking race into account when considering their admissions ” ; 48 % were opposed .
Among the survey ’ s “ key takeaways ” was that “ Proposition 16 is popular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ language on the ballot may cause some Latinos to vote against it.
” In another poll , by the Public Policy Institute of California , 31 % of California voters said they would vote for Proposition 16 , while 47 % of respondents said they would not .
The other 22 % remained undecided .
Among Asian Americans , according to a survey from APIAVote , AAPI Data , and Asian Americans Advancing Justice , 36 % said they supported the proposal , while 22 % opposed it , and 42 % were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Arana , the Latino Community Foundation ’ s political director , believes voters have a difficult time understanding exactly what affirmative action is about .
“ There are many minorities who do not know what the goal of Proposition 16 is , they do not know the history of affirmative action , and there are those who are used to the current problems and do not want to change current policies , ” he said , although those policies are in many cases “ obsolete , ” denying minorities a chance at success @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaigns had much more time and money to advance their messages .
This measure was only added to the electoral ballot in the summer.
” California ’ s social and political landscape has changed dramatically in the nearly quarter-century since Proposition 209 , the so-called California Civil Rights Initiative , passed .
The conservative measure was one of several endorsed by former Republican Gov .
Pete Wilson , and came two years after Wilson helped push through Proposition 187 , which prohibited the state ’ s undocumented immigrants from using non-emergency healthcare , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Back then , more California voters leaned conservative , but the state ’ s demographics were rapidly evolving in favor of Latinos and other non-white groups , said Luis F. Nuño , a sociology professor at Cal State Los Angeles .
“ The vote in favor of Proposition 209 was the last attempt by conservative whites to keep California as a conservative white state , ” Nuño said .
Today , California is one of only 10 states that have banned affirmative action .
Although Latinos make up 54 % of students in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % of students in University of California system .
Together , Black and Latino students make up 60 % of seniors in the state but only 29 % of college students in the UC system .
Maria S. Salinas , president and CEO of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce , which serves more than 235,000 businesses , said passing Proposition 16 also would provide a much-needed boost to minority-owned businesses .
“ I can see daily the lack of opportunities that small businesses have to advance or win public contracts , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not because they are not competent , it is because they do not have the opportunity to compete with other larger businesses.
” Since the pandemic began , a record number of minority-owned businesses nationwide have closed .
There was a 41 % decrease in the number of Black business owners from February to April , and a 32 % drop in Latino business owners .
Asian businesses reported closings at 26 % , and non-Latino white businesses declined by 17 % , according to an analysis by Robert Fairlie , an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jason Xu , vice president of the Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation , a leading opponent of Proposition 16 , says affirmative action discriminates against qualified Asian Americans .
“ Merit is what must count to have access to high-level education , job offers or public contracts , ” Xu said .
Xu argues that if the goal is “ equality , ” then Asians can ask to be more represented in Hollywood movies or professional sports teams , “ even if those are not their talents.
” Asians make up 35 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fears that if the proposition passes , Asian students who deserve to be admitted based on merit will not make the cut .
“ The proposition wants to give preference to Blacks and Latinos when California is made up of many diverse minorities , ” Huang said .
“ If you want to end systematic racism , you should not focus on two colors but on all.
” The movement for more inclusion and race equality comes amid growing criticism of the soaring costs of higher education and mass protests this year against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , co-executive director of Chinese for Affirmative Action , a community-based social justice organization in San Francisco pushing for Proposition 16 , says organizations like his are educating voters through advertisements targeted to Asian , Black and Latino communities .
“ For now , we are doing the job of informing and telling them that we all need an opportunity , ” Pan said , “ including the poor , the minorities , whether we are Chinese , Black or Latino .
”

Yazmin Lope supports Prop. 16 and says fellow business owners of color are “not asking for a free ticket but a fair ticket.”
If you’re a low-income Latino or Black student hoping to enter a competitive college, Carlos Cruz has some advice.
Your best option is to continue your studies with free instructional videos on YouTube or online classes in computer coding, carpentry or plumbing, says the Republican candidate for California Assembly District 28, in Silicon Valley.
Cruz, a real estate agent, also thinks that on Nov. 3 Latinos and other voters of color should reject Proposition 16, which would restore affirmative action in California by allowing ethnicity to be considered as a factor in public employment, education and the awarding of public contracts.
“Passing Proposition 16 would only mask a very big problem that we have in poor-quality public schools,” said Cruz, who is running against Democratic incumbent Evan Low.
“Giving students an opportunity to enter the university just because of their ethnicity or race is trying to push them into a system they don’t know and won’t be able to endure,” he continued. “So they’ll only end up in debt, frustrated and without a graduation certificate.”
Advertisement
On the opposite side of the Proposition 16 debate — emphatically — is Yazmin Lope, owner of Certified Interpreting Services in West Hollywood, who says she has been negatively affected by the lack of a state affirmative action policy.
She supports the new ballot measure that would effectively overturn 24-year-old Proposition 209, which largely forbids state and local governments from granting preferential treatment to individuals or groups on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin.
“As a woman and Mexican, I have seen firsthand what a small business has to go through to get bigger contracts, because we don’t have the resources,” said Lope, who started her business five years ago and has two employees.
“We are not asking for a free ticket but a fair ticket,” she continued. “If Proposition 16 passes, we still must do our job to show that we have talent. The same goes for students. They will not get free grades, but they will have a chance to show they can graduate.”
One week before election day, Proposition 16 has California voters — including some Latinos, the state’s largest ethnic group — divided and possibly confused about its intentions, according to some polls and studies.
A poll released in September by the Latino Community Foundation showed that 50% of Latino registered voters were in favor of “public colleges and universities taking race into account when considering their admissions”; 48% were opposed. Among the survey’s “key takeaways” was that “Proposition 16 is popular among the Latino community, but confusing language on the ballot may cause some Latinos to vote against it.”
Advertisement
In another poll, by the Public Policy Institute of California, 31% of California voters said they would vote for Proposition 16, while 47% of respondents said they would not. The other 22% remained undecided.
Among Asian Americans, according to a survey from APIAVote, AAPI Data, and Asian Americans Advancing Justice, 36% said they supported the proposal, while 22% opposed it, and 42% were undecided or did not know.
Christian Arana, the Latino Community Foundation’s political director, believes voters have a difficult time understanding exactly what affirmative action is about.
“There are many minorities who do not know what the goal of Proposition 16 is, they do not know the history of affirmative action, and there are those who are used to the current problems and do not want to change current policies,” he said, although those policies are in many cases “obsolete,” denying minorities a chance at success.
“The problem is that other campaigns had much more time and money to advance their messages. This measure was only added to the electoral ballot in the summer.”
California’s social and political landscape has changed dramatically in the nearly quarter-century since Proposition 209, the so-called California Civil Rights Initiative, passed. The conservative measure was one of several endorsed by former Republican Gov. Pete Wilson, and came two years after Wilson helped push through Proposition 187, which prohibited the state’s undocumented immigrants from using non-emergency healthcare, public education, and other services.
Back then, more California voters leaned conservative, but the state’s demographics were rapidly evolving in favor of Latinos and other non-white groups, said Luis F. Nuño, a sociology professor at Cal State Los Angeles.
“The vote in favor of Proposition 209 was the last attempt by conservative whites to keep California as a conservative white state,” Nuño said.
Today, California is one of only 10 states that have banned affirmative action.
Although Latinos make up 54% of students in public schools, they represent only 22% of students in University of California system. Together, Black and Latino students make up 60% of seniors in the state but only 29% of college students in the UC system.
Maria S. Salinas, president and CEO of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, which serves more than 235,000 businesses, said passing Proposition 16 also would provide a much-needed boost to minority-owned businesses.
“I can see daily the lack of opportunities that small businesses have to advance or win public contracts,” Salinas said, “and it is not because they are not competent, it is because they do not have the opportunity to compete with other larger businesses.”
Since the pandemic began, a record number of minority-owned businesses nationwide have closed. There was a 41% decrease in the number of Black business owners from February to April, and a 32% drop in Latino business owners. Asian businesses reported closings at 26%, and non-Latino white businesses declined by 17%, according to an analysis by Robert Fairlie, an economics professor at UC Santa Cruz.
Jason Xu, vice president of the Silicon Valley Chinese Association Foundation, a leading opponent of Proposition 16, says affirmative action discriminates against qualified Asian Americans.
“Merit is what must count to have access to high-level education, job offers or public contracts,” Xu said.
Xu argues that if the goal is “equality,” then Asians can ask to be more represented in Hollywood movies or professional sports teams, “even if those are not their talents.”
Bethany Huang, a UC Irvine freshman studying political science and music, also opposes Proposition 16.
Asians make up 35% of UC admissions, but the 18-year-old fears that if the proposition passes, Asian students who deserve to be admitted based on merit will not make the cut.
“The proposition wants to give preference to Blacks and Latinos when California is made up of many diverse minorities,” Huang said. “If you want to end systematic racism, you should not focus on two colors but on all.”
The movement for more inclusion and race equality comes amid growing criticism of the soaring costs of higher education and mass protests this year against police violence and discrimination.
Vincent Pan, co-executive director of Chinese for Affirmative Action, a community-based social justice organization in San Francisco pushing for Proposition 16, says organizations like his are educating voters through advertisements targeted to Asian, Black and Latino communities.
“For now, we are doing the job of informing and telling them that we all need an opportunity,” Pan said, “including the poor, the minorities, whether we are Chinese, Black or Latino.”


latimes--2020-10-27--Proposition 15 promises cash for schools and local governments. How much isn't clear

There is little doubt that the passage of Proposition 15 , which would levy new property taxes on high-value business property owners , would provide additional funds for K-12 schools and local governments across California .
The question for voters as election day approaches is how much money would be collected , especially during what could be a lingering pandemic-fueled recession , and whether a largely overlooked tax cut in the ballot measure might mean some communities across the state end up losing money .
Recent polls show voters remain sharply divided over the proposal , which would downsize the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by creating a new set of rules for taxing commercial and industrial properties .
But supporters still outnumber opponents — 49 % to 42 % in a poll released Monday by UC Berkeley ’ s Institute of Governmental Studies — even though the number of undecided voters has declined as opposition has risen .
“ Support for Prop .
15 continues to maintain a strong lead going into election day , and it reflects all polling to date showing that Californians support closing corporate tax loopholes to bring more investments into our local @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Stack , a spokesman for the Yes on 15 campaign .
Any “ loophole ” that might exist is one that was put into law by voters .
Proposition 13 , which was approved by a wide margin in 1978 , limits property taxes to 1 % of the location ’ s assessed value and only small increases in that value until it ’ s sold .
Supporters of Proposition 15 argue that voters four decades ago only meant to give homeowners , not large businesses , that kind of long-term tax break @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the years have concluded that some of California ’ s most successful corporations pay taxes on properties with land values dating back to the 1970s or earlier .
How much cash could Proposition 15 produce ?
Although there ’ s been ample discussion of which businesses would feel the effects of higher taxes and the potential impact to the California economy , less emphasis has been placed on how the resulting tax revenues will be distributed .
Last fall , the independent Legislative Analyst ’ s Office estimated that Proposition 15 would generate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a year once it is fully implemented , which won ’ t be until 2025 .
The new commercial tax revenues would generally be spent in three ways : to cover costs of implementing Proposition 15 , to K-12 schools and to local governments .
The first call on the money will be for reimbursements of start-up expenses .
On the local level , Proposition 15 would require county tax assessors to devise a separate system for reviewing tens of thousands of business property values .
An analysis commissioned by the California Assessors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , concludes the new system would cost at least $ 380 million a year during the first five to 10 years of implementation .
The proposal also promises reimbursement for lost income tax revenue to the state .
Because some property tax payments can be deducted from state taxes , the increase will result in an undetermined reduction in California general fund revenues .
Once those costs are covered , the Legislative Analyst ’ s Office projection assumes available new tax revenues ranging from $ 6.5 billion to $ 11.5 billion a year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he thinks current economic conditions won ’ t produce revenues to that extent .
“ I ’ ll believe it when I see it , ” he said .
“ The timing ’ s awful.
” Money for schools doled out using state rules The ballot measure , an amendment to the California Constitution , earmarks about 40 % of the new commercial property tax revenues for K-12 schools and community colleges .
The money would be in addition to existing education funds , supplementing a system that many supporters believe has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ property taxes four decades ago .
But Proposition 15 would create a unique , separate system for doling out the education dollars .
Counties would transfer the new commercial property tax revenue to the California treasurer for deposit into a new state-managed fund .
It would be an unusual arrangement , as all other property tax dollars spent on schools remain in the counties from which they are collected .
After sending 11 % of the revenues to community colleges , state officials would hand out the remaining money to K-12 schools under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Brown and the Legislature in 2013 , which sought to boost the success of students from low-income families , foster youth and children whose primary language isn ’ t English .
The plan also removed a number of spending mandates issued to schools by the state over the years , known as “ categoricals.
” Although researchers concluded the effort championed by Brown did not meet all of its early expectations , it remains central to the state ’ s education goals .
Estimates by the California Teachers Assn.
, which supports the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ School District , the state ’ s largest system , could receive some $ 359 million a year in new funds under Proposition 15 .
The 10 largest districts would receive a total of more than $ 726 million , according to the group ’ s estimate .
But those projections were made before the pandemic , which means the underlying economic assumptions may no longer be valid .
Even then , the opposition campaign funded by California ’ s largest businesses argues school districts are likely to use the money to offset @ @ @ @ @ @ @ employee pension obligations .
“ I think there ’ s a general distrust , ” said Michael Bustamante , a spokesman for the No on 15 campaign .
“ Folks have grown weary of all these promises that are going to fix education.
” Not all local communities will be treated the same Proposition 15 revenues for schools would be distributed through a new method , but the rest of the boost in commercial property taxes — close to 60 % — would be divided among local governments under a formula first put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been the subject of frequent debate in Sacramento ever since .
In some ways , the percentages of property tax revenues given to a county , its various cities and special districts are still based on how the money was distributed before Proposition 13 passed in 1978 .
That template remains unchanged if voters approve Proposition 15 .
As a result , the money won ’ t be distributed equally on a per capita basis .
Data provided by the campaign in support of the ballot measure show government services in Riverside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less than those in Santa Clara or Alameda counties , even though Riverside has a larger population .
Ventura County , with an estimated population slightly smaller than that of San Francisco , could receive $ 272 million a year less from Proposition 15 .
That data covers only 28 counties in California .
Proposition 15 supporters don ’ t have any estimates for the tax benefits in 30 other counties , largely those spread out across the most rural regions in the state .
And critics said they worry that local services @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less — not more — tax revenue under the proposal .
“ There are going to be counties within our group that are going to lose out , ” said Paul Smith , senior vice president for government affairs of the Rural County Representatives of California .
“ It ’ s not going to be a winner for everyone.
” Smith ’ s organization chose to oppose Proposition 15 primarily because it includes a little-discussed tax cut for businesses , resulting in a loss of local tax revenue that may not be noticed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The ballot measure would eliminate the tangible personal property tax on equipment and fixtures for small businesses and provide an annual $ 500,000 equipment exemption for all other businesses .
The tax break would begin in 2024 and could not be rescinded by the Legislature .
Large communities , home to the high-value business properties that would see their assessed values rise under Proposition 15 , would almost surely receive more in new revenue than they lose under the new tax incentive .
But in rural communities , there are few or none @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would pay higher taxes .
Stack , the Yes on 15 campaign spokesman , said the supporters ’ analysis sees an overall boost for both the state ’ s large and far-flung communities .
“ Small businesses in every single county will benefit from the tax relief included in Prop .
15 , ” he said .
“ For a few of the least populated and most remote counties in California , schools will overwhelmingly benefit while some local governments would break even.
” Smith said he ’ s not so sure about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law enforcement and fire protection are provided by counties and special districts that rely heavily on the business equipment provisions under current property tax rules .
“ The tax break may help the business in Ventura or the restaurant in East L.A. , ” he said .
“ But this is the disconnect between rural California and the rest of the state .
”

Proposition 15 promises a needed infusion of new cash for K-12 schools and community colleges. The question for voters is how much money would be collected, especially during what could be a lingering pandemic-fueled recession.
There is little doubt that the passage of Proposition 15, which would levy new property taxes on high-value business property owners, would provide additional funds for K-12 schools and local governments across California.
The question for voters as election day approaches is how much money would be collected, especially during what could be a lingering pandemic-fueled recession, and whether a largely overlooked tax cut in the ballot measure might mean some communities across the state end up losing money.
Recent polls show voters remain sharply divided over the proposal, which would downsize the low-tax provisions of the landmark Proposition 13 by creating a new set of rules for taxing commercial and industrial properties. But supporters still outnumber opponents — 49% to 42% in a poll released Monday by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies — even though the number of undecided voters has declined as opposition has risen.
Advertisement
“Support for Prop. 15 continues to maintain a strong lead going into election day, and it reflects all polling to date showing that Californians support closing corporate tax loopholes to bring more investments into our local communities and schools,” said Alex Stack, a spokesman for the Yes on 15 campaign.
Any “loophole” that might exist is one that was put into law by voters. Proposition 13, which was approved by a wide margin in 1978, limits property taxes to 1% of the location’s assessed value and only small increases in that value until it’s sold. Supporters of Proposition 15 argue that voters four decades ago only meant to give homeowners, not large businesses, that kind of long-term tax break. And a series of studies through the years have concluded that some of California’s most successful corporations pay taxes on properties with land values dating back to the 1970s or earlier.
How much cash could Proposition 15 produce?
Although there’s been ample discussion of which businesses would feel the effects of higher taxes and the potential impact to the California economy, less emphasis has been placed on how the resulting tax revenues will be distributed.
Last fall, the independent Legislative Analyst’s Office estimated that Proposition 15 would generate $8 billion to $12.5 billion a year once it is fully implemented, which won’t be until 2025. The new commercial tax revenues would generally be spent in three ways: to cover costs of implementing Proposition 15, to K-12 schools and to local governments.
The first call on the money will be for reimbursements of start-up expenses. On the local level, Proposition 15 would require county tax assessors to devise a separate system for reviewing tens of thousands of business property values. An analysis commissioned by the California Assessors Assn., which opposes the ballot measure, concludes the new system would cost at least $380 million a year during the first five to 10 years of implementation.
The proposal also promises reimbursement for lost income tax revenue to the state. Because some property tax payments can be deducted from state taxes, the increase will result in an undetermined reduction in California general fund revenues.
Once those costs are covered, the Legislative Analyst’s Office projection assumes available new tax revenues ranging from $6.5 billion to $11.5 billion a year.
Tulare County Supervisor Kuyler Crocker said he thinks current economic conditions won’t produce revenues to that extent.
Advertisement
“I’ll believe it when I see it,” he said. “The timing’s awful.”
Money for schools doled out using state rules
The ballot measure, an amendment to the California Constitution, earmarks about 40% of the new commercial property tax revenues for K-12 schools and community colleges. The money would be in addition to existing education funds, supplementing a system that many supporters believe has been short on cash since Proposition 13 slashed property taxes four decades ago.
But Proposition 15 would create a unique, separate system for doling out the education dollars. Counties would transfer the new commercial property tax revenue to the California treasurer for deposit into a new state-managed fund. It would be an unusual arrangement, as all other property tax dollars spent on schools remain in the counties from which they are collected.
After sending 11% of the revenues to community colleges, state officials would hand out the remaining money to K-12 schools under a formula created by then-Gov. Jerry Brown and the Legislature in 2013, which sought to boost the success of students from low-income families, foster youth and children whose primary language isn’t English. The plan also removed a number of spending mandates issued to schools by the state over the years, known as “categoricals.” Although researchers concluded the effort championed by Brown did not meet all of its early expectations, it remains central to the state’s education goals.
Estimates by the California Teachers Assn., which supports the ballot measure, show Los Angeles Unified School District, the state’s largest system, could receive some $359 million a year in new funds under Proposition 15. The 10 largest districts would receive a total of more than $726 million, according to the group’s estimate. But those projections were made before the pandemic, which means the underlying economic assumptions may no longer be valid.
Even then, the opposition campaign funded by California’s largest businesses argues school districts are likely to use the money to offset a number of existing expenses, including employee pension obligations.
“I think there’s a general distrust,” said Michael Bustamante, a spokesman for the No on 15 campaign. “Folks have grown weary of all these promises that are going to fix education.”
Not all local communities will be treated the same
Proposition 15 revenues for schools would be distributed through a new method, but the rest of the boost in commercial property taxes — close to 60% — would be divided among local governments under a formula first put in place in 1979.
Those rules have been the subject of frequent debate in Sacramento ever since. In some ways, the percentages of property tax revenues given to a county, its various cities and special districts are still based on how the money was distributed before Proposition 13 passed in 1978. That template remains unchanged if voters approve Proposition 15.
As a result, the money won’t be distributed equally on a per capita basis. Data provided by the campaign in support of the ballot measure show government services in Riverside County, for example, will receive less than those in Santa Clara or Alameda counties, even though Riverside has a larger population. Ventura County, with an estimated population slightly smaller than that of San Francisco, could receive $272 million a year less from Proposition 15.
That data covers only 28 counties in California. Proposition 15 supporters don’t have any estimates for the tax benefits in 30 other counties, largely those spread out across the most rural regions in the state. And critics said they worry that local services in some of those communities will see less — not more — tax revenue under the proposal.
A business tax cut in Prop. 15 could cost rural regions
“There are going to be counties within our group that are going to lose out,” said Paul Smith, senior vice president for government affairs of the Rural County Representatives of California. “It’s not going to be a winner for everyone.”
Smith’s organization chose to oppose Proposition 15 primarily because it includes a little-discussed tax cut for businesses, resulting in a loss of local tax revenue that may not be noticed in California’s urban centers.
The ballot measure would eliminate the tangible personal property tax on equipment and fixtures for small businesses and provide an annual $500,000 equipment exemption for all other businesses. The tax break would begin in 2024 and could not be rescinded by the Legislature.
Large communities, home to the high-value business properties that would see their assessed values rise under Proposition 15, would almost surely receive more in new revenue than they lose under the new tax incentive. But in rural communities, there are few or none of the commercial and industrial properties that would pay higher taxes.
Stack, the Yes on 15 campaign spokesman, said the supporters’ analysis sees an overall boost for both the state’s large and far-flung communities.
“Small businesses in every single county will benefit from the tax relief included in Prop. 15,” he said. “For a few of the least populated and most remote counties in California, schools will overwhelmingly benefit while some local governments would break even.”
Smith said he’s not so sure about that, noting that services such as law enforcement and fire protection are provided by counties and special districts that rely heavily on the business equipment provisions under current property tax rules.
“The tax break may help the business in Ventura or the restaurant in East L.A.,” he said. “But this is the disconnect between rural California and the rest of the state.”


latimes--2020-10-27--Uber, Lyft, DoorDash workers on Prop. 22: 'I don't want to end up on the wrong side'

In a sprawling lot by Los Angeles International Airport , drivers for ride-hailing companies Uber and Lyft wait for new passengers .
Ask them about Proposition 22 — the measure on the California ballot that will determine their worker classification as either independent contractors or employees — and you get a surge of fierce opinions .
Many support the measure .
“ I ’ m for Prop .
22 because I am already a full-time employee and [ driving ] is my second job .
I also have six kids and need to pick them up from school and take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ driver said .
“ I need a flexible schedule.
” Another driver used an expletive to describe Proposition 22 , adding that Uber and Lyft “ want to keep enslaving drivers .
They still control how much you make even if they call you independent.
” Campaigns on both sides of the ballot initiative have put drivers at the center of their messaging .
Opponents ’ approximately $ 16-million campaign , backed by labor groups , argues that workers deserve more pay and benefits .
On the other side , gig-economy companies including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which together have poured roughly $ 200 million into promoting Proposition 22 , tout surveys that indicate driver support for the measure .
In addition to their public-facing campaign , gig companies have been energetically pressing their own drivers to vote yes and — regardless of the drivers ’ feelings on the matter — to push the same message to customers .
Many drivers see passing the measure as a way to keep their current levels of income and autonomy .
But others chafe at the flood of pro-Proposition 22 messaging and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ play .
This month , Uber emailed riders and Uber Eats users in California , encouraging them to ask drivers how they felt about Proposition 22 .
DoorDash dispatched millions of paper bags emblazoned with pro-22 messaging to hundreds of restaurants statewide so workers would deliver meals in them .
Instacart drivers assigned to deliver groceries from a store in Berkeley received notifications asking them to pick up and include Yes on 22 stickers in customers ’ grocery bags .
“ Unbelievable , ” an Instacart shopper and labor activist who opposes the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now requiring Shoppers to do the uncompensated work of distributing Prop 22 propaganda to customers —against our own self-interests.
” A group of Uber drivers in California sued Uber on Thursday for up to $ 260 million in damages , alleging that the company violated workers ’ rights with a “ constant barrage ” of pro-Proposition 22 messages , engaging in illegal political coercion by pushing threats in the app about the consequences if the ballot measure fails .
Uber has asked drivers to submit video messages and statements that conform to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to surveys regarding their voting preferences , according to the complaint .
The company ’ s “ solicitations have the purpose and effect of causing drivers to fear retaliation by Uber if they do not support Uber ’ s political preference , ” the lawsuit reads .
Some drivers were pestered with in-app pop-ups reading “ Prop .
22 is progress , ” according to a They would have to click “ Yes on Prop 22 or “ OK ” to move forward with accepting a trip .
The complaint was “ filed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the facts .
It can ’ t distract from the truth : that the vast majority of drivers support Prop 22 , and have for months , because they know it will improve their lives and protect the way they prefer to work , ” Uber spokesman Davis White said in a statement .
White said it was “ absolutely false ” that the pop-up notification was shown to drivers for every trip .
The pop-up was shown only “ occasionally ” when drivers went offline , he said , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Get the Facts ” instead of “ Yes on Prop 22.
” Instacart declined to comment about the stickers , but it mentioned a statistic frequently cited by the Yes campaign and gig companies .
“ Many shoppers and app-based drivers support this measure because they value the flexibility these platforms offer and want to stay independent by a 4:1 margin , ” Instacart spokesperson Natalia Montalvo said in a statement .
This margin is based on a survey conducted by the blog the Rideshare Guy at the end of September , company @ @ @ @ @ @ @ collected responses from a self-selected group of the blog ’ s readers rather than from a random sampling of drivers the way a controlled academic study would have .
A series of other polls commissioned by gig companies had similar findings , but Michael Reich , a labor economist at UC Berkeley who has studied Prop .
22 , said those polls presented questions disingenuously , saturated with the idea that if the drivers gain employee status , they will lose flexibility — even though the law wouldn ’ t require that .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ they choose to do so .
One reason Proposition 22 is divisive : The stakes are high .
If the measure passes , it would cement the drivers ’ status as independent contractors , eroding a slate of protections granted by state labor law that requires gig companies to treat their workers as employees .
If the measure fails , DoorDash and Instacart might try to save money by cutting back on the number of workers they use or hours per worker they allow , and Uber and Lyft have threatened to leave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of income .
( Experts say the ride-hailing companies probably won ’ t abandon California because the state is a huge market for them , but that isn ’ t a guarantee . )
“ This income allows me to pay my bills , my rent , my car , my car insurance that covers me for rideshare , my medical insurance and part of my stepson ’ s private university tuition , ” said Marck Reyes , a Los Angeles-based shopper and driver for Instacart .
“ Plus I can take off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hours to get them.
” Several Lyft and Uber drivers agreed , saying they didn ’ t want to risk losing what they have .
“ I ’ ve always been my own boss , ” said James King , who drives for Lyft and Uber .
“ Why would I want things to change ?
” Flexibility is a key issue for drivers .
Six of the eight drivers The Times interviewed at the lot near LAX on Thursday said they were wholeheartedly voting in support of the measure to maintain their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pablo Gomez , a Lyft driver who lives in La Habra , said he believes that with Uber and Lyft , contractor status really is key to maintaining flexibility .
Even though companies can choose to give that same flexibility to employees , Gomez said , “ that ’ s not how the real world works.
” He describes himself as a “ reluctant yes ” on Proposition 22 .
Still , he sees the contradiction .
Gomez said the Lyft app doesn ’ t give him much visibility into or control over @ @ @ @ @ @ @ car he rents from Lyft can ’ t be used to offer rides via other platforms .
“ I am 100 % only able to drive with Lyft , so I guess technically how do you make the argument that I ’ m an independent contractor ?
” he said .
“ I ’ m not , by the true sense of the law.
” Los Angeles-based Instacart shopper Karyn Johnson-Dorsey too said she does not believe the ballot measure offers workers a real choice between being an independent contractor and an employee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ true flexibility .
But more than that , Johnson-Dorsey wants the protections that come with being an employee .
“ I have twisted my ankle on a delivery , earlier this year and have been in two auto accidents ( both someone hit me ) and each time I was reminded of my [ contractor ] status , ” she said .
On Thursday , Travis , a driver from San Diego , said he got a call from DoorDash checking to see whether he was going to vote yes on Proposition 22 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ I think I ’ m going to , ’ because I wasn ’ t going to tell them no , ” said Travis , who asked to be identified only by his first name for fear of retaliation .
DoorDash confirmed it was making calls to workers to remind them to vote .
Travis makes his living juggling work for apps including Instacart , Postmates , Grubhub and DoorDash , and he wants to maintain that flexibility .
But a recent experience changed his mind .
Beginning in September , he said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of citations for “ contract violations ” for picking up or dropping off food 10 to 15 minutes later than the company ’ s algorithm determined he should .
If a gig company is willing to squeeze him just weeks before an election where an existential question about their business model is on the ballot , he said , what ’ s to stop the companies from squeezing workers even harder if the measure passes ?
DoorDash spokesperson Taylor Bennett declined to provide specifics on how contract violations work ; but according to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a valid basis for deactivation from the platform .
Travis said he is thankful the apps exist , and they ’ ve enabled him to earn money while he ’ s between jobs .
But as it is , he estimates that 80 % of his income comes from tips , not from deliveries themselves .
“ I feel like we ’ re moving into this society where we ’ re having this lower class of worker , and I ’ m hesitant to vote for something that codifies this underclass , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve even thought about not voting on this proposition at all , because I don ’ t want to end up on the wrong side of it .
”

DoorDash has shipped millions of bags branded with pro-Proposition 22 messaging to hundreds of California restaurants for workers to deliver — filled with food — to customers.
In a sprawling lot by Los Angeles International Airport, drivers for ride-hailing companies Uber and Lyft wait for new passengers. Ask them about Proposition 22 — the measure on the California ballot that will determine their worker classification as either independent contractors or employees — and you get a surge of fierce opinions.
Many support the measure. “I’m for Prop. 22 because I am already a full-time employee and [driving] is my second job. I also have six kids and need to pick them up from school and take them to doctors appointments,” one driver said. “I need a flexible schedule.”
Advertisement
Another driver used an expletive to describe Proposition 22, adding that Uber and Lyft “want to keep enslaving drivers. They still control how much you make even if they call you independent.”
Campaigns on both sides of the ballot initiative have put drivers at the center of their messaging.
Opponents’ approximately $16-million campaign, backed by labor groups, argues that workers deserve more pay and benefits.
On the other side, gig-economy companies including Uber, Lyft, DoorDash and Instacart, which together have poured roughly $200 million into promoting Proposition 22, tout surveys that indicate driver support for the measure.
In addition to their public-facing campaign, gig companies have been energetically pressing their own drivers to vote yes and — regardless of the drivers’ feelings on the matter — to push the same message to customers.
Many drivers see passing the measure as a way to keep their current levels of income and autonomy. But others chafe at the flood of pro-Proposition 22 messaging and the role they’re expected to play.
This month, Uber emailed riders and Uber Eats users in California, encouraging them to ask drivers how they felt about Proposition 22. DoorDash dispatched millions of paper bags emblazoned with pro-22 messaging to hundreds of restaurants statewide so workers would deliver meals in them. Instacart drivers assigned to deliver groceries from a store in Berkeley received notifications asking them to pick up and include Yes on 22 stickers in customers’ grocery bags.
“Unbelievable,” tweeted Vanessa Bain, an Instacart shopper and labor activist who opposes the ballot measure. “@Instacart is now requiring Shoppers to do the uncompensated work of distributing Prop 22 propaganda to customers —against our own self-interests.”
A group of Uber drivers in California sued Uber on Thursday for as much as $260 million in damages, alleging that the company violated workers’ rights with a “constant barrage” of pro-Proposition 22 messages, engaging in illegal political coercion by pushing threats in the app about the consequences if the ballot measure fails.
Advertisement
Uber has asked drivers to submit video messages and statements that conform to the company’s political position and respond to surveys regarding their voting preferences, according to the complaint. The company’s “solicitations have the purpose and effect of causing drivers to fear retaliation by Uber if they do not support Uber’s political preference,” the lawsuit reads.
Some drivers were pestered with in-app pop-ups reading “Prop. 22 is progress,” according to a screenshot posted to Twitter. They would have to click “Yes on Prop. 22 or “OK” to move forward with accepting a trip.
Uber called the lawsuit “absurd.”
The complaint was “filed solely for press attention and without regard for the facts. It can’t distract from the truth: that the vast majority of drivers support Prop. 22, and have for months, because they know it will improve their lives and protect the way they prefer to work,” Uber spokesman Davis White said in a statement.
White said it was “absolutely false” that the pop-up notification was shown to drivers for every trip. The pop-up was shown only “occasionally” when drivers went offline, he said, and the language was later changed to read “Get the Facts” instead of “Yes on Prop. 22.”
Instacart declined to comment about the stickers, but it mentioned a statistic frequently cited by the Yes campaign and gig companies.
“Many shoppers and app-based drivers support this measure because they value the flexibility these platforms offer and want to stay independent by a 4:1 margin,” Instacart spokeswoman Natalia Montalvo said in a statement.
This margin is based on a survey conducted by the blog the Rideshare Guy at the end of September, company representatives said. But as some critics have noted, that survey collected responses from a self-selected group of the blog’s readers rather than from a random sampling of drivers — the way a controlled academic study would have.
A series of other polls commissioned by gig companies had similar findings, but Michael Reich, a labor economist at UC Berkeley who has studied Proposition 22, said those polls presented questions disingenuously, saturated with the idea that if the drivers gain employee status, they will lose flexibility — even though the law wouldn’t require that. Companies can give flexibility to employees if they choose to do so.
One reason Proposition 22 is divisive: The stakes are high. If the measure passes, it would cement the drivers’ status as independent contractors, eroding a slate of protections granted by state labor law that requires gig companies to treat their workers as employees.
If the measure fails, DoorDash and Instacart might try to save money by cutting back on the number of workers they use or hours per worker they allow, and Uber and Lyft have threatened to leave California. Many drivers fear the loss of income. (Experts say the ride-hailing companies probably won’t abandon California because the state is a huge market for them, but that isn’t a guarantee.)
“This income allows me to pay my bills, my rent, my car, my car insurance that covers me for ride-share, my medical insurance and part of my stepson’s private university tuition,” said Marck Reyes, a Los Angeles-based shopper and driver for Instacart. “Plus I can take off the days you want without putting together hours to get them.”
Several Lyft and Uber drivers agreed, saying they didn’t want to risk losing what they have.
“I’ve always been my own boss,” said James King, who drives for Lyft and Uber. “Why would I want things to change?”
Flexibility is a key issue for drivers. Six of the eight drivers The Times interviewed at the lot near LAX on Thursday said they were wholeheartedly voting in support of the measure to maintain their current level of freedom in their schedules.
Pablo Gomez, a Lyft driver who lives in La Habra, said he believes that with Uber and Lyft, contractor status really is key to maintaining flexibility. Even though companies can choose to give that same flexibility to employees, Gomez said, “that’s not how the real world works.”
He describes himself as a “reluctant yes” on Proposition 22.
Still, he sees the contradiction. Gomez said the Lyft app doesn’t give him much visibility into or control over the jobs he accepts, and the car he rents from Lyft can’t be used to offer rides via other platforms.
“I am 100% only able to drive with Lyft, so I guess technically how do you make the argument that I’m an independent contractor?” he said. “I’m not, by the true sense of the law.”
Los Angeles-based Instacart shopper Karyn Johnson-Dorsey too said she does not believe the ballot measure offers workers a real choice between being an independent contractor and an employee because they’re not currently afforded true flexibility. But more than that, Johnson-Dorsey wants the protections that come with being an employee.
“I have twisted my ankle on a delivery, caught the virus earlier this year and have been in two auto accidents (both times, someone hit me) and each time I was reminded of my [contractor] status,” she said.
On Thursday, Travis, a driver from San Diego, said he got a call from DoorDash checking to see whether he was going to vote yes on Proposition 22.
“Of course I said, ‘I think I’m going to,’ because I wasn’t going to tell them no,” said Travis, who asked to be identified only by his first name for fear of retaliation.
DoorDash confirmed it was making calls to workers to remind them to vote.
Travis makes his living juggling work for apps including Instacart, Postmates, Grubhub and DoorDash, and he wants to maintain that flexibility. But a recent experience changed his mind. Beginning in September, he said, DoorDash slapped him with a series of citations for “contract violations” for picking up or dropping off food 10 to 15 minutes later than the company’s algorithm determined he should.
If a gig company is willing to squeeze him just weeks before an election where an existential question about their business model is on the ballot, he said, what’s to stop the companies from squeezing workers even harder if the measure passes?
DoorDash spokesman Taylor Bennett declined to provide specifics on how contract violations work; but according to company policy, violating terms of the contract could serve as a valid basis for deactivation from the platform.
Travis said he is thankful the apps exist, and they’ve enabled him to earn money while he’s between jobs. But as it is, he estimates that 80% of his income comes from tips, not from deliveries themselves.
“I feel like we’re moving into this society where we’re having this lower class of worker, and I’m hesitant to vote for something that codifies this underclass,” he said. “I’ve even thought about not voting on this proposition at all, because I don’t want to end up on the wrong side of it.”


latimes--2020-10-27--Immigration fact check:  "Who built the cages?"

After months of seemingly ignoring the issue of immigration , President Trump and Joe Biden faced tough questions in last week ’ s debate about their past policies .
One moment that stood out was an extended discussion of the Trump administration ’ s fraught “ zero-tolerance ” policy that resulted in the separation of an estimated 4,000 children from their parents at the Southern U.S. border .
Prior to the debate , news reports surfaced that the federal government still couldn ’ t find the parents of 545 children separated during a pilot program that predates the “ zero-tolerance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effect in May 2018 .
During the sharp exchange , which was prompted by a question about the missing children posed by moderator Kristen Welker , Trump and Biden fired allegations at each other about which administration started the family separation process , who “ built the cages , ” and others .
The back-and-forth left many viewers confused .
Here are the facts .
When asked about the 545 parents separated from their children , Trump said the “ children are brought here by coyotes [ human smugglers ] and lots of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are brought here and they used to use them to get into our country.
” Is he correct ?
No .
Federal court filings show that their adoptive or biological parents brought the children in question to the United States .
Children who are brought over without their parents , by smugglers , are often classified as “ unaccompanied minors ” and are not included in the group the moderator asked about .
“ They did it .
We changed the policy and they build the cages .
We did not build the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the cages ?
The Obama administration did build the cages Trump alluded to .
The facility Trump mentioned was built with chain-link fencing by the Obama administration in 2014 in a warehouse in Nogales , Ariz .
The makeshift shelter was built in response to an exodus of unaccompanied immigrant children from Central America .
But those children did not arrive with their parents ; they were unaccompanied .
The shelter was not being used as part of a child separation policy , and U.S. border agents did not separate those children from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officials did separate children from their parents on occasion , but it was not as widespread or systematic as it became under the Trump administration , particularly during its “ zero-tolerance policy , ” which was meant to deter migrants from seeking refuge in the U.S. What was the “ zero-tolerance ” policy ?
The policy directed U.S. prosecutors to criminally charge everyone who crossed the border without inspection .
Parents were then separated from their children when they were taken into custody .
Many of these parents were deported to their countries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Guatemala and Honduras .
Trump scrapped the policy in June 2018 after a massive public outcry .
But separations still occurred under other policies ( see below ) .
Who is looking for the 545 parents separated from their children ?
Trump said the U.S. government is “ working on it ” and “ trying very hard ” to find the parents .
Is that true ?
No .
Although a federal court compelled the federal government to provide contact information for the parents , U.S. officials are not doing the searching @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a steering committee of nongovernment organizations , including the American Civil Liberties Union and Justice In Motion , because the U.S. government refused to conduct a search .
The Trump administration also kept poor records , which further exacerbated the situation , according to a Department of Homeland Security ’ s inspector general report .
Where are the children of the more than 500 parents who are being sought ?
Biden said the “ kids are alone ” with “ nowhere to go.
” Trump said they are in clean facilities and well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right ?
Neither .
The children are no longer in U.S. detention centers .
Instead , they are with extended family members in the U.S. or with foster families .
Did family separations at the Southern border stop after Trump did away with the “ zero-tolerance ” policy ?
No , between 1,100 and 1,200 children were separated after the policy was scrapped in 2018 .
Federal officials still separated children from their parents for different reasons , such as doubt about the familial relationship between a child and their parent or if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ criminal record — including minor violations and arrests — in the U.S. or their country of origin .
Immigration rights activists and lawyers argued in court that the separations were unlawful and accused the administration of exploiting loopholes to continue to separate families in a 2019 lawsuit .
In court filings , the ACLU said the administration used allegations of criminality or even mere suspicion to justify family separations .

Women and children sit in a holding cell at a Border Patrol processing center after being detained by agents near the U.S.-Mexico border near McAllen, Texas.
After months of seemingly ignoring the issue of immigration, President Trump and Joe Biden faced tough questions in last week’s debate about their past policies.
One moment that stood out was an extended discussion of the Trump administration’s fraught “zero-tolerance” policy that resulted in the separation of an estimated 4,000 children from their parents at the southern U.S. border.
Prior to the debate, news reports surfaced that the federal government still couldn’t find the parents of 545 children separated during a pilot program that predates the “zero-tolerance” policy the Trump administration put into effect in May 2018.
Advertisement
During the sharp exchange, which was prompted by a question about the missing children posed by moderator Kristen Welker, Trump and Biden fired allegations at each other about which administration started the family separation process, who “built the cages,” and others.
The back-and-forth left many viewers confused. Here are the facts.
When asked about the 545 parents separated from their children, Trump said the “children are brought here by coyotes [human smugglers] and lots of bad people, cartels — and they are brought here and they used to use them to get into our country.” Is he correct?
No. Federal court filings show that their adoptive or biological parents brought the children in question to the United States. Children who are brought over without their parents, by smugglers, are often classified as “unaccompanied minors” and are not included in the group the moderator asked about.
“They did it. We changed the policy and they built the cages. We did not build the cages.” Did the Obama administration build the cages?
The Obama administration did build the cages Trump alluded to. The facility Trump mentioned was built with chain-link fencing by the Obama administration in 2014 in a warehouse in Nogales, Ariz. The makeshift shelter was built in response to an exodus of unaccompanied immigrant children from Central America. But those children did not arrive with their parents; they were unaccompanied. The shelter was not being used as part of a child separation policy, and U.S. border agents did not separate those children from their parents.
Did the Obama administration separate families at the southern U.S. border?
Yes, U.S. border officials did separate children from their parents on occasion, but it was not as widespread or systematic as it became under the Trump administration, particularly during its “zero-tolerance policy,” which was meant to deter migrants from seeking refuge in the U.S.
Advertisement
What was the “zero-tolerance” policy?
The policy directed U.S. prosecutors to criminally charge everyone who crossed the border without inspection. Parents were then separated from their children when they were taken into custody. Many of these parents were deported to their countries of origin — mostly to El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras. Trump scrapped the policy in June 2018 after a massive public outcry. But separations still occurred under other policies (see below).
Who is looking for the 545 parents separated from their children? Trump said the U.S. government is “working on it” and “trying very hard” to find the parents. Is that true?
No. Although a federal court compelled the administration to provide contact information for the parents, U.S. officials are not doing the searching. Instead, the court appointed a steering committee of nongovernment organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union and Justice In Motion, because the U.S. government refused to conduct a search. The Trump administration kept poor records, which exacerbated the situation, according to a Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general report.
Where are the children of the more than 500 parents who are being sought? Biden said the “kids are alone” with “nowhere to go.” Trump said they are in clean facilities and well taken care of. Who’s right?
Neither. The children are no longer in U.S. detention centers; they are with extended family members in the U.S. or with foster families.
Did family separations at the southern border stop after Trump did away with the “zero-tolerance” policy?
No, between 1,100 and 1,200 children were separated after the policy was scrapped in 2018. Federal officials still separated children from their parents for different reasons, such as doubt about the familial relationship between a child and their parent or if the accompanying adult had any sort of criminal record — including minor violations and arrests — in the U.S. or their country of origin.
Immigration rights activists and lawyers argued in court in a 2019 lawsuit that the separations were unlawful and accused the administration of exploiting loopholes to continue to separate families. In court filings, the ACLU said the administration used allegations of criminality or even mere suspicion to justify family separations.