Three days after President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the federal organization known as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) began uploading “single day statistics” to the organization’s official social media accounts as a means of documenting numbers of arrests. On January 23, those stats included 538 arrests. By January 27, the number had more than doubled to 1,179. As recently as this week, some arrested immigrants have reportedly been sent to Guantanamo Bay ahead of their deportations.

To deliver on Trump’s promise of deporting all of the approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants currently living on American soil, ICE has assembled an outfit of collaborating federal agencies that includes the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), US Marshals, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and US Customs and Border Protection (CBP).

While immigration enforcement is currently conducting larger sweeps than were ever undertaken during Trump’s first term, it will still take approximately 30 years to arrest (let alone deport) the 11 million people Trump promises to expel from the Unites States, at current rates. Trump’s rate of immigration-related arrests so far broadly matches the daily deportations numbers produced by the Obama administration, from 2009–2015.  

Regardless of the feasibility of the White House’s stated goal, ICE’s recent actions have left many communities of undocumented immigrants paralyzed with fear. In California, which has declared itself a “sanctuary state,” ICE successfully conducted a raid in Kern County recently, and false reports of ICE presence in San Francisco and Southern California have spread like wildfire.

To add fuel to the flames of a national panic, there is some indication that federal immigration agents are willing to disregard legal procedures to meet their goals. Ras Baraka, the Mayor of Newark, New Jersey, accused federal agents of unlawfully conducting a raid at a seafood depot without a warrant. The manager of the raided facility said that he never asked agents to present a valid court order before allowing them entry. 

Like any form of arrest and prosecution, the deportation process must meet certain legal requirements. To the frustration of President Trump’s “border czar”, Tom Homan, ICE operations – which often rely on a lack of understanding of what immigration enforcement can and cannot legally do – are sometimes thwarted by community members with a strong knowledge of their own rights.

“They’ve very educated,” Homan told a CNN reporter in reference to those who exercise their rights to remain silent and refuse access to law enforcement that show up to raids without proper warrants. 

“They call it ‘know your rights,’” Homan continued. “I call it ‘how to escape arrest.’”

Here in Shasta County, and across California, there are several legal mechanisms in place that may complicate ICE’s process of locating, arresting, and deporting undocumented people. Here’s what you need to know.

California’s Legal Obligation to Protect Undocumented Residents 

As demonstrated by Trump’s first two weeks in office, the legal framework that underlies immigration enforcement is immensely complicated, especially in places like California where state law was enacted to defend undocumented residents against the authority of federal agencies. Within California’s 58 counties, debates on whether to cooperate with ICE have divided state from federal jurisdictions, and local politicians from each other even within the same counties.    

The California Values Act (SB 54), which was passed in 2017, prohibits local law enforcement–and other state entities such as schools, courts, hospitals–from sharing information with ICE that could lead to the arrest and deportation of an individual or family. 

Furthermore, California police officers are not allowed to inquire about immigration status, make an arrest on the basis of a deportation order, or extend an undocumented person’s time in jail for immigration agents to apprehend them, unless they’ve committed a crime that meets a certain threshold. 

That threshold includes those who have been convicted of a “serious or violent” crime such as assault, rape, felony drunk driving, or certain kinds of theft. Since Proposition 36 has recategorized some theft and drug possession charges as “aggravated felonies” under the State’s legal system, immigration attorneys believe there could be an increased correlation in deportations.   

In Shasta County, representatives of Anderson Police Department (APD) and Redding Police Department (RPD) have both told Shasta Scout they intend to comply with state law by only coordinating with ICE or other federal immigration agents when permitted to do so under the parameters of the California Values Act. The written policies at both RPD and APD are also consistent with the demands of SB 54. 

According to Redding Police Chief Brian Barner, the extent of the department’s coordination with ICE during raids in past years has been the receipt of email notifications from the federal law enforcement agency informing local police that an ICE operation was planned in the Redding area. 

A Public Information Officer with the Shasta County Sheriff’s Office, Timothy Mapes, did not specifically confirm whether that department intends to comply with SB 54, but the department’s policy manual mirrors that of APD and RPD, and is also consistent with the California Values Act. 

Statewide reporting indicates that at least 28 of California’s 58 Sheriffs have said they plan to comply with State law. That number does not include Shasta County Sheriff Michael Johnson who did not respond to CalMatters request for comment.

In contrast, the Sheriff of Riverside County has indicated that he would like to circumvent SB 54, despite steps by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors to advance certain protections for undocumented residents. 

Should local law enforcement choose to flout SB 54, California Attorney General Rob Bonta has been unambiguous on California’s response, saying a plan is already in place to address such misconduct. 

“We’re prepared to take action against any law enforcement agency that doesn’t follow (the law),” Bonta told journalists at a University of California, Berkeley, seminar in early January. 

“There was a time and place to talk about SB 54 to make yourself heard, to seek amendments,” Bonta said. “That was years ago… So now’s the time to follow it.” 

What Rights are You Entitled to? 

Citizens and noncitizens alike are guaranteed certain rights when interfacing with law enforcement, including federal immigration agents. Whether you encounter law enforcement at work, on public transit, or on the steps of your front door, your rights in California include two primary considerations.

The first is that in most cases, law enforcement agents must have a warrant authorized by a judge in order to lawfully enter a space. The second is that you have the right to remain silent and request to speak with a lawyer, in order to avoid having your words used against you in a court of law later.

---

Do you have a correction to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org.

A group of reporters from across the North State gathered at a Shasta Community College welding lab on December 15, to hear Governor Gavin Newsom announce a new state initiative that broadens employment and educational opportunities throughout California. Members of the “credentialed media” who were invited to attend were met by modest security as they entered the facility where Newsom’s production team was setting up.  

The Governor’s formal business attire contrasted starkly with the power tools that surrounded him, setting the stage for the reason behind his visit to Redding:  a “new framework” to incentivize job development in industrial and public service fields statewide.

Newsom plans to invest more than $100 million into what he is calling California’s “Master Plan for Career Education.” The initiative is designed to cultivate “career pathways” toward sustainable employment for more Californians by removing four-year degree requirements from some state government jobs. It also establishes a digital “career passport” database or Learning and Employment Record (LER) which Californians can use with employers to present a singular accessible record of both academic transcripts and “verified skills” earned outside the classroom, including volunteering or apprenticeships. 

Before Newsom spoke, several individuals from Shasta and the surrounding counties shared personal experiences about their experiences with education in California’s rural communities. Among them was a young firefighter cadet and recent graduate of Shasta College, who has become one of the only female graduates from the College’s Fire Fighter 1 & 2 Academy.

Newly-elected Assemblywoman Heather Hadwick also spoke, describing the difficulties she experienced becoming the first person in her family to attend a university as the child of a single mother growing up in an isolated community.

“I am from Modoc County,” Hadwick explained as she advocated for career education. “I live three hours from a Costco. It is very rural, and career pathways are what we have to show our youth what’s out there.”

Increasing accessibility to higher education and a living wage to those without a typical post-secondary educational trajectory is likely to have a significant impact on the North State’s workforce. According to the US Census, 76.7% of Shasta County residents do not have a bachelor’s degree, which is statistically speaking, a barrier to accruing personal wealth over one’s lifetime. If the Governor’s initiative is implemented as planned, an expanded field of employment opportunities will be within reach for the vast majority of the County.

As Governor Newsom broke down the mechanics of the plan, which is based in part on California’s original 1960’s-era Master Plan for Higher Education, he emphasized that the new bipartisan initiative will ensure local control in its implementation. In Shasta County, some specific local considerations are the area’s higher than average poverty rate, and sociocultural resistance to higher education, as documented in Shasta Scout’s prior reporting.

Newsom acknowledged his own unfamiliarity with life in rural communities, briefly joking with the gaggle of reporters that he “didn’t know anyone lived three hours from a Costco in the United States of America,” in reference to Assemblywoman Headwick’s earlier remarks. He then addressed the differences between rural and urban communities more seriously.

“I say this often, and I’ll say it again–localism is determinative”, Newsom said, adding that parts of the Master Plan’s strategy will be developed alongside locals to meet the North State’s specific needs. “This is not a patronizing plan.”

When asked whether the change of guard in Washington this January will effect the Master Plan, Newsom responded that he and President Elect Donald Trump had “gotten along very well during COVID–notoriously so,” but cautioned that the Trump Administration’s stated goal of “virtually closing” the federal Department of Education would “be a wrecking ball to education here in the North State.” 

The reaction to the Governor’s visit from the Shasta County’s highly conservative leadership has been mixed. While Hadwick, along with Shasta College’s President Frank Nigro and other North State representatives have reacted positively, Shasta County CEO David Rickert released a statement Monday articulating his “disappointment” in the Governor’s alleged failure to include any local elected officials during his visit. 

Board of Supervisors Kevin Crye also weighed in Newsom’s appearance, which he characterized as “secretive” in a Facebook Live on Monday evening. Noting that Supervisor-elect Matt Plummer was invited to attend Newsom’s event, Crye said he “respects” Plummer’s decision to attend, and suggested that he also would have made an appearance, if invited.

“Yeah, I probably would have went… but I would have definitely spoken my mind,” Crye said before also expressing skepticism about Newsom’s motivations behind the Master Plan.

“I don’t think Gavin Newsom has any desire whatsoever of helping our County whether it’s around water rights, whether it’s around fire… all this was, in my opinion, was an attempt to get some elected Republicans standing behind him.”

A representative from the Governor’s office told Shasta Scout in request for comment that “our office invited or informed local elected officials–across party lines” as per “standard protocol.”

---

Do you have a correction to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org.

MENDOCINO CO., 12/12/24 — State Route 162, also called Covelo Road, lies east of Highway 101, approximately halfway between Willits and Laytonville. After about 45 minutes of driving along windy roads and navigating tight turns, travelers emerge to overlook the green splendor of the Round Valley Reservation, home to the town of Covelo and the Round Valley Indian Tribes—a confederation of seven tribes forced to live together on Yuki tribal land in the 1850s. The path to this remote corner of Mendocino County is beautiful but arduous, with travelers losing internet access for most of the journey. The trip ends with a view of some of the most breathtaking mountains in Northern California, where colorful orange and red trees contrast with white snow on the highest peaks.

Despite the solitude that Round Valley provides, the region’s remoteness has greatly contributed to its lack of resources, particularly in terms of housing for tribal members. High construction costs and limited access to funding have led to a shortage of affordable housing for people on the reservation. According to the Round Valley Indian Housing Authority (RVIHA) directors, 91 Round Valley tribal members are on the waitlist for affordable housing units.

Last month, the housing authority announced it will be receiving $8.7 million in grant funding from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) through its Homekey Tribal Program. The funds will enable the housing authority to complete Phase 5 of the Tribal Winds project, a multi-family housing development that’s already partially completed. The housing authority will contribute $30,000 annually from its own funds to support the growing housing development.

According to the housing authority, the Tribal Winds project already has 43 housing units completed on the reservation, including a mix of two-bedroom, three-bedroom and four-bedroom homes. One housing unit has five bedrooms.

The next phase is to construct 18 permanent rental units on 9.6 acres of land on Hatchet Mountain Boulevard, a section of grassy fields next to a paved road located about five minutes from the housing authority’s main office on Concow Boulevard. The new phase will be for Round Valley tribal members who are currently homeless or at risk of homelessness. The homes will be single-family units, with priority given to tribal members on the authority’s housing waitlist. The housing authority’s directors stated they are still ironing out the details of the application process for members who wish to apply.

The new development will include 10 two-bedroom homes and eight three-bedroom homes, according to directors. Although the housing authority originally petitioned for units with attached garages, they realized there would not be enough funding for them. Construction should begin in 2025.

 Darlene Crabtree, the authority’s finance manager, emphasized that the next phase of development will support families that have had trouble getting into affordable housing.

“We just need to put families in them, we want them to have a home,” Crabtree said in an interview. “It’s rewarding to see people in homes, and originally I wasn’t sure we were going to get the grant.”

Crabtree said that LACO, a Native American-owned civil engineering firm based in Ukiah, serves as the housing authority’s grant writer and was instrumental in securing this most recent grant.

“There’s so many people out there in different situations asking for this money,” she said. “But LACO does a lot of our writing, our engineering and architecture. They helped us a lot with this process.”

According to an HCD employee who declined to be named, the application process for grants under the Homekey Program is much less competitive than other state housing programs.

The Homekey Program includes several non-competitive aspects, including that funding is given on a first-come, first-served basis rather than through a competitive scoring system. In competitive scoring programs, applicants are ranked based on the goals of the housing development, its impact on the community and other guidelines.

Nonetheless, the HCD staffer explained that because California tribes had been ineligible for HCD programs until 2021, many tribal governments were unprepared for the Homekey Program’s grant-writing process and lacked sufficient information to complete their applications in a timely manner, negatively affecting tribal authorities’ ability to receive grants for developing housing.

Thus, the nearly $9 million grant secured by LACO for Round Valley was a win that both surprised and exhilarated housing authority directors. Crabtree said a part of the application process involved seeking feedback from Round Valley’s homeless population to identify their greatest needs.

“One of the requirements for the grant application was to have a meeting and hand out a questionnaire on what individuals want, and they mainly talked about housing,” Crabtree said. “This is the biggest grant we’ve been able to get this year. The whole concept of kids and families getting their homes, it’s exciting.”

The post Round Valley Tribes receives $8.7 million grant to develop housing appeared first on The Mendocino Voice | Mendocino County, CA.

Amidst a nationwide shortage of pediatric specialists, families caring for children with special health care needs in rural areas are often forced to travel long distances for care.

Physicians and parents agree that on top of bringing more specialists to rural areas, increasing the flow of information between agencies and making travel reimbursements easier to attain would ease some of this burden on families.

---

How Rural Communities Can Fill Care Gaps for Children with Disabilities was first posted on December 6, 2024 at 8:00 am.
©2021 “California Health Report“. Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at claudia@calhealthreport.org

Shasta County Supervisors heard presentations from 20 different organizations during a November 12 six-hour marathon meeting on opioid fund use. In the end, the Board took no definitive action, deciding instead to continue discussing details of many of the proposals during an upcoming meeting, likely in December or January.

Supervisor Kevin Crye, who’s pushed for quick deployment of at least some of the nearly $39 million in opioid funds the County is scheduled to receive, seemed to soften his stance by the end of the meeting, acknowledging that developing a plan to deploy funds could take eighteen months. Yesterday, November 13, Crye emphasized to Shasta Scout that he feels youth programs require the most urgent action saying he wants to make decisions related to those in December or January.

The timeline matters. At least two seats on the Board will change early next year, with Matt Plummer assuming Supervisor Patrick Jones’ seat, and Allen Long taking Supervisor Tim Garman’s. Who will hold the fifth seat on the Board is still uncertain, as Shasta County awaits the results of the November 5 election. Supervisor Mary Rickert, who currently represents District 3, currently trails Corky Harmon by about 1,000 votes–but less than half of Shasta County’s ballots have been counted so far.

Supervisor Chris Kelstrom told his fellow Board members during the meeting that he felt it was important to wait to make funding decisions until the new Board members are seated in early 2025. He suggested meanwhile, that Shasta County’s Health and Human Services Agency could produce a comprehensive analysis of what the needs are, saying the process so far feels rushed.

Garman agreed, quoting a Bible verse on the importance of seeking wise counsel and emphasizing that the Board has not yet sought the advice of experts in the field of substance use disorders. Garman suggested forming an advisory commission to assess current needs and advise on how the funds should be used, something that Supervisor Rickert has also repeatedly suggested.

“I like the idea of having some sort of a committee or a council oversee this a little bit,” Garman continued,  “because there’s so much (that’s) needed.”

Representatives from the Good News Rescue Mission took a similar stance, stepping to the podium to present during the meeting then instead announcing a decision to withdraw the Mission’s application for funding.

Speaking to Shasta Scout after, Mission Director Jonathan Anderson explained the decision to rescind the funding request, saying he feels strongly that the process being used by the Board so far isn’t the best approach for the community.

“It’s an issue of principle for me,” Anderson said, “I think sometimes money can make people blind. What’s right for the community is having the right people at the table putting together the proper strategic plan.”

Supervisor-elect Plummer also spoke, advocating for strategic planning and cautioning the Board to carefully assess the gaps in current community response in order to deploy the money most successfully. 

During Board discussion, Deputy County CEO Erin Bertain expressed her hesitation about moving too quickly towards funding decisions. She pointed out to supervisors that they need to think about strategic concerns such as whether the budget details of each proposal they’re considering meet the allowed uses.

Cash flow is also an important consideration, Bertain noted. While the County will receive at least $38.9 million in opioid settlement funds to spend over the next fifteen years, only $10.5 million is currently in the bank–making it important for the County to appropriately forecast specific timelines for the projects they decide to support.

CEO David Rickert seemed to summarize many individuals concerns when he told the Board towards the end of the meeting that it’s clear that the opioid fund use decision is “a much bigger project than we realized.”

Jones seemed to agree, noting that the Board had shown interest in the majority of proposals submitted during the meeting.

“There are too many yeses here,” Jones said. “Clearly we’re going to run out of money.”

Organizations whose proposals will return for tentative future funding discussions by the Board include Shasta County Substance Use Coalition, Shasta College, River Recovery Services, Visions Of the Cross, Mayers Memorial Hospital, Renewed Life Medical Group, Results Media, Empire Recovery Center, and Hill Country Community Clinic.

Some organizations interested in providing prevention services for youth were also asked to return as a collaborative group. Those include Youth Options Shasta and Raising Shasta, but could also include other agencies. The Board will also continue to consider four County Departments including the Sheriff and Public Defender as well as Veteran Services and Probation.

Crye told Shasta Scout yesterday that while some organizations are returning for future discussions, whether the Board will fund any of them is still uncertain. He said he believes the majority of opioid funding decisions could wait until next year with the contributions of newly-seated supervisors and a “thoughtful strategic plan”.

In contrast, decisions about funding for youth substance use prevention, Crye said, should be made as soon as possible, either in December or January, to ensure they can be rolled our during the next school year. He emphasized that he “already knows for certain” how he’ll vote when it comes to youth prevention programs.

“If it meets certain metrics in my mind that I’ve set forth on outcomes,” Crye said, “I’ll support it.”

---

Do you have a correction to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org.

San Benito County’s population expanded by 5.6 percent over the four years ending in December 2023, while California as a whole lost 1.4 percent of its residents. That’s because the relatively inexpensive county’s proximity to Bay Area jobs has brought commuters to its two incorporated cities, Hollister and San Juan Bautista. 

Any weekday after 6 p.m., convoys of home-bound vehicles squeeze onto two-lane Hwy 25 heading east from the Hwy 101 offramp. The county population has increased by more than 5,000 since 2020, but new residents are not all spending that much money in the county itself.

“People are commuting so much they don’t want to go anywhere when they’re not commuting,” said Kristie Kern, owner of an arts-and-crafts coffee shop in downtown Hollister. She said she hopes to bring in more customers on weekends.

This growth and its lack of knock-on revenue are driving a contentious ballot measure that will go before voters countywide on Nov. 5.

Measure A, called the Empower Voters to Make Land Use Decisions Initiative, proposes to reverse pro-development land-use changes made along Hwy 101 over the past decade to their pre-2020 status, and would require a separate vote by the public for every conversion of agricultural, range or rural land use for commercial or housing development outside Hollister and San Juan Bautista. 

The initiative would also remove the commercial status of four “nodes”—essentially highway intersections along Hwy 101: at San Juan Road, Betabel Road, Hwy 129 and Livestock 101.

About 99 percent of the 1,391-square-mile county is unincorporated.

Preserving open space by halting commercial development

Measure A’s proponents believe public votes on each potential project will help preserve San Benito’s rustic character—a tourist selling point—while protecting wildlife in the open grassland and mountains. Opponents say it would halt development on heavily trafficked Hwy 101, and throttle any effort to develop much-needed commercial activity in the county.

The measure would effectively decide what happens to future projects such as San Benito County’s most obvious Hwy 101 enterprise, Betabel RV Park. The 25-year-old RV park already pays transient occupancy tax charged on 172 sites for RVs and trailers, plus a tax on some of the sales made in its general store, manager Rachel Labas said. The park gets ample traffic.

“It is kind of a deserted section of Hwy 101, but it doesn’t seem to deter people,” she said.

Next door to the RV park, property owners Rider and Victoria McDowell have tried over the past five years to build a produce market and restaurant, income from which would eventually help fund the Cancer-A-Gogo charity, created in honor of their teenage son who died from brain cancer.

The project faced environmental lawsuits in 2022 after the couple had spent $200,000 clearing land for the project. Today it remains dormant. Rider McDowell did not answer requests for comment.

The McDowell project would be stopped from going ahead if Measure A passed, unless the owners reapplied and went to county voters for approval.

Opponents say the prospect of going before voters would deter developers of even small-scale projects such as truck stops—the likes of which would create local jobs, contribute tax revenue to the county and allow for upgrades of parks, a jail, rural roads and the library.

“The average person is not that aware of financial or growth issues—the impact of an issue like this,” said Bob Tiffany, a spokesman for the opposition.

Other rural California counties have taken different routes to limiting commercial growth, particularly in the use of agriculture or open-space preserves that act as unbending guidelines for planners. 

Napa County, for example, approved an agricultural reserve in 1968, leaving 37,100 acres or 7.3 percent of the county in conservation agreements between landowners and a county trust.

Napa has witnessed acrimonious debates among some of its 500-plus wineries against other stakeholders over the past decades regarding growth and took all that time to find the right formula, said Sheli Smith, executive director of the Napa County Historical Society.

The reserve, however, has channeled growth into the city of Napa. Meanwhile, the region pulled together as a winery tourism hub through the joint work of county, city, Chamber of Commerce and visitor association officials, Smith said. 

Napa’s wine sector brings in tax money from hotel stays and some of that goes back into tourism—including the county’s museums and heritage sites. 

“You could put all your eggs in marketing what you got and maybe that will bring tourism to your doorstep,” she said. 

Previously, San Benito County voters faced three other ballot measures asking about commercial growth—a possible source of confusion among the electorate now.

Ballot Measure K in March 2020 proposed approving commercial nodes on the seven-mile stretch of Hwy 101 that runs through the county, but nearly 60 percent of voters opposed it. 

In November 2020, about the same percentage of voters rejected Measure N, which would have allowed a project called Strada Verde Innovation Park to conduct research, test vehicles, operate hotels and house other businesses on 2,777 acres.

Measure Q Redux?

And two years later, 56 percent of county voters turned down Measure Q, which—similar to Measure A—would have required voter approval for land-use changes leading to development.

An advocacy group once called Preserve Our Rural Communities, now known as Protect San Benito County, opposed Measures K and N and led the campaign in support of Measure Q.

County officials have tried to develop spots that past ballot measures were meant to protect, meaning the public should be put in charge now, Measure A proponent Andy Hsia-Coron said.

“When you go out and talk to people, they say ‘didn’t we vote on these already?’” he said.

He believes tourism to wineries and scenic spots should bring in the needed tax dollars but resents heavy traffic. Hwy 101, he believes, gets traffic that’s “backed up for miles” on weekends.

Hsia-Coron contends that tourism including ecotourism could add to the county tax base. “This is one of the most spectacular counties in California,” he said.

But tourism development moves at a crawl in San Benito County, Tiffany said, noting that Hollister has seen two new hotels open over as many years. Tourists would need more places to stay outside the city near scenic spots such as Pinnacles National Park. “That would be a very positive thing to have a hotel or a small resort,” he said.

Pro-Measure A fliers issued this year by Protect San Benito County complain of traffic jams, unsafe roads and a loss of farmland to housing—most of which is within the city limits. The group says it’s a 501c(3) nonprofit, which does not allow political activity. Hsia-Coron has declined to address the group’s legal status.

BenitoLink has checked three fliers this election year and found that they contained errors, lacked context or reiterated flawed arguments. A group called the Hollister Guardians distributed two of the fliers. 

Out-of-county support

Several Bay Area environmental groups back Measure A on environmental grounds, though none are based in San Benito County.

Jessica Wohlander, an environmental associate with Palo Alto-based group Green Foothills, said keeping Hwy 101 free of more development will let bobcats and mountain lions cross the freeway through tunnels or overpasses between mountain ranges on either side, increasing biodiversity. Green Foothills, along with the Alameda County-based Save Mount Diablo, have helped fund Measure A.

The group has also helped gather signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot.

Today oak-studded mountains rim San Benito County, stretching southeast through ranches and open space to the Fresno County line. Flatlands closer to the two incorporated cities support farms that grow tomatoes and flowers for nursery use.

Former county supervisor Anthony Botehlo, an opponent of Measure A, says income from stores, restaurants, hotels and other new businesses would contribute to the tens of millions of dollars needed for public services. 

San Benito ranks among four California counties where just 9% of property tax revenue went to the county government in 2022, according to the State Board of Equalization. The board logged about $142 million in property taxes for San Benito in 2022.

“It’s very uneven throughout the 58 counties,” Tiffany said. “It puts San Benito County at a real disadvantage to start with, and then on top of that, we have very few other revenue sources, like sales tax, that come in from the unincorporated areas of the county.” 

Among the county’s top priorities, Botelho said a new park would cost $1 million per acre, adding that it would cost $40 million to bring the library up to current standards; road repair normally costs $1 million per mile and 450 miles of road are due for upgrades. He also noted that San Benito County Jail needs $7 million more to avoid losing a $15 million grant.

“The measure kills revenue opportunities,” Botelho said. “And that’s it, in a nutshell.”

The post Measure A could stall commerical growth in rural San Benito County in perpetuity appeared first on BenitoLink.

Mental health care workers are in high demand across California, especially in the rural pockets of the state. In the Eastern Sierra, providers are working to expand their in-person services while fighting insurance companies to be included in their networks. But the challenges are immense, especially when it comes to psychiatric care. Here’s what some providers are doing to increase access.

---

In the Eastern Sierra, Therapists Are Expanding Access to Mental Health Care was first posted on November 4, 2024 at 4:03 pm.
©2021 “California Health Report“. Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at claudia@calhealthreport.org

Lea este artículo en español aquí.

Measure A, the initiative that would change the way land use decisions are made in San Benito County, is one of the crucial items on the Nov. 5 ballot. BenitoLink reviewed the funding statements that the “Yes” and “No” sides filed with the county’s Election Department. Since both campaigns can still collect more contributions, the figures may change.

Here are five facts about the funding of the Measure A campaigns.

1. The “No” campaign raised significantly more money.

As of Oct. 30, the No on A campaign, run by Neighbors to Preserve San Benito, has received close to $100,000 more than the Yes campaign, run by Campaign to Protect San Benito. In total, the No campaign reports receiving around $266,000, while the Yes campaign has received around $167,000.

Most of the “No” money comes from Realtors, as well as construction and housing companies, which could be deeply affected if Measure A passes. The initiative would, according to its text, amend the San Benito County General Plan “to require voter approval before redesignating agricultural, rural, or rangelands, and remove commercial regional designation from four Highway 101 nodes.” This, according to the measure’s opponents, will drastically hinder any future commercial development projects in the county.

“We have received funding from people who believe this measure is affecting the entire business community in San Benito County,” California Transportation commissioner and “No” campaign leader Bob Tiffany told BenitoLink.

No on A’s biggest donor is the California Association of Realtors Issues Mobilization, a political action committee that finances campaigns and lobbies on initiatives on behalf of the California Association of Realtors. The association has given the campaign more than 60% of the money it has raised ($163,000). No on A has also been supported by Bristol SB LLC—the company behind the proposed Strada Verde Innovation Park—and Graniterock, as well as Build Jobs, a Bay Area organization that supports pro-housing candidates and issues.

2.  Campaign to Protect San Benito has nearly doubled its funds since its previous initiative failed.

In 2022, San Benito County residents voted on Measure Q, an initiative that also aimed to change how land use decisions were made in the county. The Yes on Q campaign was able to raise around $85,000. This year, Measure A’s promoters have nearly doubled that funding.

The campaign was able to achieve this with donations from environmental associations and individuals outside of the county. Save Mount Diablo, a conservation organization based in Walnut Creek, donated $40,000 and gave the campaign more than $30,000 in mail and social media ads. 

Other big donors were Santa Cruz-based Patty Quillin, a film producer, philanthropist, and the wife of Netflix co-founder Reed Hastings, with $49,000; Charles Knowles, co-founder of the San Francisco-based Wildlife Conservation Network, with $49,000; and Shepard Harris, a retired San Francisco-based financial advisor, with $10,000.

3. Most of the money on both sides comes from outside the county. 

The vast majority of the funding both for and against Measure A comes from outside San Benito County. In both campaigns, more than 90% of the contributions were made by organizations and individuals who don’t live in the county.

The “Yes” campaign was mainly backed by environmental organizations and philanthropists.

Tiffany told BenitoLink that, although most of his group’s contributions come from outside the county, it was “requested” by locals. 

4. The “No” campaign misfiled its contributions and is on track to exceed its 2022 funding.

As reported this week by BenitoLink, the “No” campaign misfiled a significant portion of its contributions. The campaign and the county told BenitoLink it was an “honest mistake.” Tiffany also said Dave Bauer, one of the campaign’s treasurers, went back to the county’s Elections Department and filed the reports correctly.

The “No” campaign also received more money than it did during the Measure Q battle in 2022. By the end of October 2022, the campaign had reported $202,000; as of Oct. 30, 2024, they have reported $266,000. By the end of the 2022 election season, No on Q had received around $537,000.

“We have raised a bit more support from unions, Realtors, and people concerned about the measure’s impacts,” said Tiffany.

5. The “Yes” campaign received fewer contributions from locals.

As of Oct. 30, Yes on A had received contributions of less than $1,500, from 26 people who reported living in San Benito County. They add up to around $9,600. The “No” campaign has five local contributors who donated around $14,000.

“Yes” has also received more funding from people who donated less than $100. In total, “Yes” has received around $1,800, while “No” has received $495.

We need your help. Support local, nonprofit news! BenitoLink is a nonprofit news website that reports on San Benito County. Our team is committed to this community and providing essential, accurate information to our fellow residents. Producing local news is expensive, and community support keeps the news flowing. Please consider supporting BenitoLink, San Benito County’s public service nonprofit news.

The post 5 facts about Measure A campaign funding appeared first on BenitoLink.