In this episode of the California Underground Podcast, host Phil discusses several pressing issues in California politics, including the controversial AB 495 bill aimed at child safety, Gavin Newsom's redistricting efforts, and Sacramento's spending on tiny homes for the homeless. The conversation highlights the implications of these policies on parental rights, the political landscape, and the ongoing homelessness crisis in the state.
Chapters
00:00 AB 495: A Child Trafficker's Dream
15:14 Gavin Newsom's Redistricting Gamble
25:10 Redistricting Controversies in California
28:47 Gavin Newsom's Political Maneuvering
34:12 Sacramento's Tiny Homes Initiative
45:30 The Housing First Model and Its Challenges
49:52 The Homeless Industrial Complex in California
Are you a Californian who feels isolated and alone in your political views in a deep blue state? Feel like you can’t talk about insane taxes, an overbearing government, and radical social experiments without getting a side eye? Then join us on the California Underground Podcast, the most trusted podcast on all things California politics.
Original air date 8.14.25
*The California Underground Podcast is dedicated to discussing California politics from a place of sanity and rationality.*
Check out our full site for more information about the show at www.californiaunderground.live
Join our Discord server https://discord.gg/Tzp8d5xw
Check out our sponsor for this episode, StopBox, by going to www.stopbox.com/californiaunderground to get 10% off your order
Follow California Underground on Social Media
Instagram: www.instagram.com/californiaunderground
X: https://twitter.com/CAUndergound
Tik Tok: https://www.tiktok.com/@californiaunderground?_t=8o6HWHcJ1CM&_r=1
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCj8SabIcF4AKqEVFsLmo1jA
Read about our Privacy Policy: https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/privacy-policy/
00:00:00
AB495 is a child traffickers dream and a parent's worst
00:00:03
nightmare. Newsom's gamble on redistricting
00:00:06
might end up in big failure, and Sacramento spends big on tiny
00:00:11
homes. All that coming up on tonight's
00:00:14
episode of the California Underground podcast, starting
00:00:16
right now. What's going on, everybody?
00:00:34
Thanks for tuning in to another episode of the California
00:00:36
Underground podcast. I am our host, Phil, the most
00:00:39
trusted podcast for all things California politics.
00:00:42
We got big stories happening this podcast, some stuff that
00:00:46
was happening literally today that I had to keep updating the
00:00:49
show notes for. So that's how much stuff was
00:00:51
going on. We're going to get into that and
00:00:53
we have several other stories including AB 495, which has been
00:00:57
making its way through Sacramento.
00:00:58
And I know a lot of parents have been reaching out to me about AB
00:01:02
495 and we want to talk about that as well as tiny homes in
00:01:06
Sacramento for the homeless and of course the redistricting
00:01:08
battle that's going on. But first, before we get
00:01:11
started, if you haven't already, make sure you hit that subscribe
00:01:15
button, like button, share button.
00:01:16
All that stuff helps us with the algorithm and helps us get found
00:01:20
and help support the show. So let's get started with our
00:01:25
first story. AB495 is a child traffickers
00:01:31
dream and a parent's worst nightmare.
00:01:33
A bill that would literally make it easy for non relatives to
00:01:39
legally end up kidnapping your child.
00:01:43
Now this is a bill that has been making its way through
00:01:45
Sacramento. We're going to break it down.
00:01:49
There is Celeste Rodriguez is the assemblywoman who introduced
00:01:53
this bill. I want to get into a clip right
00:01:56
now of her rationale as to why she thinks this bill is
00:02:00
necessary. At the very least, 1
00:02:03
kids in our state have at least one undocumented parent, and
00:02:07
over 100 children in our schools are undocumented
00:02:10
themselves. Just last month, a mother of
00:02:12
three was detained by ICE at her own immigration court hearing.
00:02:15
Instead of receiving an update on her case, she was handcuffed
00:02:18
and deported to Mexico. Her oldest daughter was left to
00:02:21
care for her two younger siblings.
00:02:24
In that case, a relative stepped in.
00:02:25
But too many families are not that fortunate.
00:02:28
Often, when a parent is taken without warning, children are
00:02:31
left completely alone, vulnerable and unprotected.
00:02:34
That's why we must act swiftly and empower mixed status and
00:02:36
undocumented households to prepare for the unthinkable.
00:02:40
That, unfortunately, has become all too real for many in our
00:02:42
communities. 8495 takes a comprehensive approach to
00:02:46
encourage family safety plans, strengthens legal tools to
00:02:49
prepare in case of family separation, and establishes
00:02:52
protections of immigration information at childcare
00:02:55
facilities because we know the possible separation weighs
00:02:59
heavily on many families in California.
00:03:01
This bill updates the Caregiver Authorization Affidavit to
00:03:04
ensure it is more widely accepted for school enrollment
00:03:06
and medical care and allows it for it to be used by non
00:03:09
relative extended family members such as close family, friends or
00:03:12
godparents. We find that so often children
00:03:15
of immigrants are left to enter the welfare system.
00:03:18
The Family Preparedness Plan Act creates a new joint guardianship
00:03:21
process, allowing parents facing any long term separations to
00:03:24
designate a joint guardian while preserving their parental rights
00:03:27
upon their return to help ensure that no child experiences trauma
00:03:31
in experiences trauma and a placement for care and safety.
00:03:36
AB495 requires the Attorney General's Office to publish
00:03:39
model policies and guidelines limiting cooperation with
00:03:42
immigration enforcement at childcare facilities by April
00:03:45
1st, 2026 and having them adopt policies shortly thereafter.
00:03:50
It requires local education agencies to adopt the latest
00:03:53
Attorney General's model policies published in February
00:03:56
of this year and encourages up to date emergency contact
00:03:59
records by distributing the A G's report at local education
00:04:03
agencies. This information will educate
00:04:04
families who will benefit from family safety plans.
00:04:07
Speaking in support alongside me today are question Kristen Power
00:04:11
with the Alliance for Children's Rights in Alexandra Estrella
00:04:14
with Shirla. You could tell she was even
00:04:18
nervous reading that. So that's Celeste Rodriguez.
00:04:19
She was the one who authored and introduced this bill into the
00:04:23
Sacramento Legislature. And I'm sure you picked up on
00:04:26
what they're couching this behind, which is obviously
00:04:30
illegal immigration and ICE raids.
00:04:32
So they're couching this in this, well, we're protecting
00:04:35
against ICE raids and illegal immigration.
00:04:37
These are two hot button issues in California.
00:04:40
So emotionally, a lot of people hear this and the guy that just
00:04:43
wafts over them and they go, oh, OK, sure.
00:04:45
That's that's what this bill is about.
00:04:47
But smart people who know what's going on have looked into this
00:04:51
bill a little bit more and figured out, wait a second,
00:04:54
there's something odd going on here.
00:04:56
Now, I, you know, I practice as an attorney.
00:04:59
There are ways to set this up so that if there's something that
00:05:02
does happen, there are ways to set up like a legal guardian so
00:05:06
that it's a little bit more, I guess you could say stringent, a
00:05:09
little bit more verified, a little bit more trustworthy that
00:05:12
you can do this. So in case something like this
00:05:15
happens, you don't have to rely on this.
00:05:18
And attorney Nicole Pearson, she has actually testified in front
00:05:23
of in Sacramento. Nicole went to Sacramento and
00:05:26
testified. She's an attorney who fights for
00:05:28
civil rights. She's a fighter on Instagram and
00:05:31
all that. So I want to show a clip of what
00:05:34
she said about this. Nicole Pearson.
00:05:37
I'm a mother of three and a child of immigrants and an
00:05:40
attorney who spent her career helping immigrants and fighting
00:05:43
human trafficking. I am also desperate to help
00:05:46
children affected by ICE rates, but AB495 is not it.
00:05:50
We all know this because in 2021 the federal government faced a
00:05:54
swell of unaccompanied minors at the border and was desperate to
00:05:58
place them quickly. What did they do?
00:06:01
They reduced vetting procedures and as a result, the Department
00:06:04
of Homeland Security has lost track of over now 600
00:06:08
unaccompanied minors. Despite this, California wants
00:06:11
to do something similar but even worse with just one sheet of
00:06:15
paper from the Internet. California wants to let someone
00:06:18
that is not related to your child remove her from school,
00:06:21
enroll her in any other school in the state, authorize any
00:06:23
medical treatment of her including mental health services
00:06:26
and drugs without the parents notice and consent, knowledge or
00:06:29
consent. This is not fear mongering.
00:06:31
I'm not being hyperbolic. It's stated right here in the
00:06:33
caretaker's office affidavit that I printed for you, which I
00:06:36
pulled directly from the bill. Line 6 allows this transfer of
00:06:39
parental rights without even having to speak to the parent.
00:06:43
The author claims AB495 is about giving immigrant families the
00:06:47
agency to choose the safety plan that works that preserves family
00:06:50
unity. Where is the parental
00:06:52
designation? Their signature at the bottom
00:06:55
here is not required. She's Co opting a term non
00:06:59
relative family member from the foster care and dependency
00:07:01
probate systems but without any of the procedural guardrails.
00:07:04
No background checks, no interviews, no home visits, no
00:07:08
fingerprinting, parental involvement, or civil, criminal,
00:07:11
criminal or professional liability if the child is
00:07:14
harmed. Just 100% blanket protection for
00:07:18
any adult seeking to abuse any vulnerable child because this
00:07:22
does not limited to immigrant children.
00:07:24
This is this applies to every single child in the state.
00:07:27
Our children deserve to be protected through proper legal
00:07:30
channels that currently exist that have safeguards and not
00:07:33
just shortcuts that enable exploitation.
00:07:36
We appreciate the authors intentions, but these unintended
00:07:40
consequences are terrifying and they're unavoidable.
00:07:43
We have systems and agencies in place that track and ensure
00:07:46
children are safe and return to their parents while respecting
00:07:50
parental rights. We can and must support
00:07:52
immigrant families with solutions that don't gamble
00:07:55
children's lives. Please vote no on AB495I remain
00:07:59
committed and offer my services to this to the Senator, excuse
00:08:02
me, Assemblywoman, free of charge, to help find solutions
00:08:05
that work and actually achieve her goals.
00:08:07
Thank you. Thank you very much anyone.
00:08:10
So that was attorney Nicole Pearson going on about AB495 and
00:08:14
why there aren't the safeguards that need to be in this bill to
00:08:19
prevent what is essentially adults filling out this
00:08:23
affidavit, non relatives and then just going in and saying,
00:08:27
Nope, here I am. I I have legal guardianship over
00:08:31
these children. This right here is a copy of the
00:08:34
caregivers authorization affidavit that you can see.
00:08:38
It's not a lot. There's really just a couple of
00:08:41
things that you say. I declare under penalty of
00:08:43
perjury. Anybody can sign that.
00:08:44
I don't think they really worry about the declare under penalty
00:08:47
of perjury if your goal is to do, you know, child traffic or
00:08:51
kidnap or anything like that. So this is it.
00:08:54
This is really the legal protections that they're talking
00:08:56
about. And she brings up a great point,
00:08:58
which is if you want to make this for immigrant children, and
00:09:01
that's really the whole point of your bill, there probably is a
00:09:04
better way to do this and better write this up.
00:09:06
Which is why I think Nicole is saying to her, look, I'm going
00:09:09
to offer my services free just so that we can make sure
00:09:13
parental rights are actually protected in this instance.
00:09:18
But that's literally it. What's up on the screen?
00:09:20
That's the caregivers authorization affidavit.
00:09:22
You can see it's really not that much.
00:09:25
I'm sure you fill out actually more to get a driver's license.
00:09:28
I'm sure there's bigger forms you fill out to do a lot of
00:09:31
things in California, But when it comes to being a caregiver
00:09:33
and getting this authorization to be a caregiver of a child in
00:09:38
California, that's all you really need is this one form.
00:09:42
I want to now refer to our own website, A blog that was written
00:09:47
by her own Camille. She wrote a whole thing on this.
00:09:51
So you can go to our site, California Underground dot live.
00:09:53
We have a whole blog there where we do discuss and talk about a
00:09:56
lot of these issues. If you want to read it.
00:09:58
We do die and do like do deep dives into this.
00:10:01
So go check it out. California underground dot live.
00:10:03
She wrote a whole blog on it. I go suggest you go read it as a
00:10:07
mother herself. She wrote it from that
00:10:08
perspective. She said what's even scarier is
00:10:11
how AB 495 sideline parents right now, California law
00:10:14
requires A caregiver to notify schools or medical providers if
00:10:18
a child stops living with them and the affidavit becomes
00:10:22
invalid. This bill changes that, letting
00:10:24
the affidavit stay valid until someone actively revokes it.
00:10:28
That means if I'm temporarily unavailable, say stuck in a
00:10:31
hospital or dealing with a family emergency, someone else
00:10:34
could keep control over my child without my knowledge or consent.
00:10:39
She goes on and say. Critics, including attorneys and
00:10:42
parental right advocates, have called this bill a child
00:10:44
trafficker's dream. One lawyer pointed out that
00:10:46
mirrors federal policies that led to over 600
00:10:49
unaccompanied minors going unaccounted for in 2021.
00:10:52
That's not a small number, it's a crisis.
00:10:54
As of the 2020 census, the state of Wyoming had a population of
00:10:58
just under 600. Now think about that.
00:11:02
The entire state of Wyoming, that population would be
00:11:06
unaccompanied minors. Most importantly though, that
00:11:10
Camilla included in here, this is really the point that I want
00:11:13
to drive home here with AB495 is this still is making its way
00:11:17
through the legislature. You can have a voice in this.
00:11:21
And I know a lot of people get really kind of down about the
00:11:25
Super majority and all of that and think that California is
00:11:29
unchangeable and that the Democrats rule Sacramento.
00:11:31
There's nothing you can do. I completely disagree with that.
00:11:35
And I say nay, you can actually make a big difference.
00:11:40
There have been plenty of bills that have folded and been
00:11:43
revoked or withdrawn because of public backlash.
00:11:49
So I think it's important that people know about AB495 and they
00:11:53
can do this. These are things that Camille's
00:11:55
listed out. First off, you can go to
00:11:56
findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov. It's right here.
00:12:01
Put in your address. It'll give you who your state
00:12:03
senator is and who your assembly member is.
00:12:06
Go to your assembly member. You can even do as a state
00:12:08
senator as well. Write a short note about how you
00:12:11
believe AB495 is an attack on parental rights and how you
00:12:14
don't think it goes far enough to protect minor children.
00:12:16
Spreading the word, that's another thing, obviously what
00:12:18
we're doing. Spread the word.
00:12:20
You can let people know. You can send them a clip of this
00:12:22
show. There's a lot of other resources
00:12:25
you can do. You can even try and urge Gavin
00:12:28
Newsom to veto AB 495. Remember, he wants to run for
00:12:31
president, so maybe there's an angle that he doesn't want to
00:12:34
get some sort of controversial bill and just go read the bill
00:12:37
yourself. That's the most important thing
00:12:40
is learn about it. So go
00:12:41
findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov. You can go contact them.
00:12:45
You can blow up their phone lines.
00:12:47
That seems to be the most thing. The biggest thing that I see
00:12:50
that actually makes a big difference is if you call up
00:12:53
your assembly member and leave a message, if you blow up their
00:12:56
phone line and their phones ringing off the hook in
00:12:59
opposition to a bill, they actually listen.
00:13:02
So there is there is usefulness to public pressure when it comes
00:13:07
to the legislature in California.
00:13:09
They actually do back down South.
00:13:10
Public pressure does work in California.
00:13:12
So it's so very important that you do try and spread the word,
00:13:17
take action and all of that. But in the end, if Celeste
00:13:22
Rodriguez is saying that this was to protect children of
00:13:26
illegal immigrants and ICE raids and all of that, she could have
00:13:30
narrowly tailored the bill like Nicole Pearson pointed out, she
00:13:33
could have now tailed it so that it does work for that specific
00:13:37
purpose. I don't know if everyone would
00:13:39
agree with it, but it is too broad right now.
00:13:42
Also, it's not like this is the first bill that we have seen in
00:13:47
California that is trying to slowly strip parental rights.
00:13:52
It seems every year for some reason, the California
00:13:56
legislature introduces a new bill that slowly erodes more
00:14:02
parental rights. It's more about the state having
00:14:05
ability to have authority and agency over your children.
00:14:09
It always seems to be we want a little bit more agency over your
00:14:13
children. The state wants a little bit
00:14:15
more control over your children, whether they want to choose to
00:14:19
get some sort of surgery or whether they want to do XY and
00:14:22
Z, or whether we want to make it so that teachers can withhold
00:14:27
information and not tell you what's going on and what they're
00:14:30
being taught in schools. Like these little bills start to
00:14:33
add up and you go, wait. There seems to be this weird
00:14:35
pattern going on in California where they're trying to slowly
00:14:39
erode parental rights. So as much as Celeste Rodriguez
00:14:43
tries to stand up there nervously and breathless,
00:14:46
breathlessly trying to say like this is about illegal
00:14:48
immigration and ICE raids, when you see the pattern going on in
00:14:53
Sacramento, that's when you kind of raise a suspicion.
00:14:56
You raise an eyebrow and go, is this really about illegal
00:15:00
immigration and ICE raise or something else going on here?
00:15:03
Let me know in the comments what you think about AB495 and
00:15:05
whether it's really about illegal immigration and ICE
00:15:07
raids or it's about something different.
00:15:10
All right, so what's up, everybody?
00:15:16
Thanks for tuning in live tonight on Thursday.
00:15:18
I know I was not feeling well the other night on Tuesday, so I
00:15:22
apologize for doing this on Thursday, but thank you for
00:15:27
everyone for tuning in and checking us out and and tuning
00:15:31
in. We do have a big story.
00:15:32
I want to get into this redistricting story in a second.
00:15:36
If anybody has any comments or questions that they want to
00:15:39
bring up, please do so in the comments.
00:15:41
I'll get to them in a little bit.
00:15:43
This story is pretty large, so I want to get through it, but you
00:15:50
can put your comments and questions in the chat and I'll
00:15:52
get there. So something said just wrote my
00:15:56
assemblyman. Awesome way to go, man Love
00:15:59
that. So let's let's get into our next
00:16:02
story of the night. Newsom, on a power trip of his
00:16:10
own making, might be headed for a redistricting fail.
00:16:15
Is this the gamble that will lead him to the White House or
00:16:18
will it knock him out of presidential contention?
00:16:22
Let's get into that story right now.
00:16:25
Gavin Newsom this week is really kind of doubled down on this
00:16:29
whole redistricting issue. And I know we've covered this
00:16:32
several times before, but the story keeps evolving.
00:16:35
So I feel like we have to keep talking about this story.
00:16:39
At the beginning of this week, Gavin Newsom wrote a letter to
00:16:43
President Trump where he said I am ready to ask you to call on
00:16:47
the governor of Texas and other red states who are acting in a
00:16:51
request to draw new congressional maps through an
00:16:54
unprecedented mid decade high partisan gerrymander, upcoming
00:16:59
midterm elections to stop these efforts.
00:17:01
You are playing with fire, risking the destabilization of
00:17:08
our democracy while knowing that California can neutralize any
00:17:12
gains you hope to make. The attempt to rig congressional
00:17:15
maps to hold on to power before a single vote is cast in the
00:17:18
2026 election is another affront to American democracy.
00:17:22
Loves that word democracy. This is not what the founders
00:17:25
envision. Oh, is it?
00:17:27
That's not what the founders envision.
00:17:28
OK, we'll get into that and we'll talk about what went on
00:17:32
today in Los Angeles. This is not what the founders
00:17:35
envision in California. Cannot stand idly by as this
00:17:38
power grab unfolds. I do not take this light or do
00:17:42
not do this lightly. And I believe legislative
00:17:46
district maps should be drawn by independent citizen LED efforts.
00:17:50
OK, If you believe they should be drawn by independent citizen
00:17:53
LED efforts, then why are you campaigning to let the
00:17:55
legislature redraw the lines as we have done in California for
00:18:00
the last two decades? If you will not stand down, I
00:18:03
will be forced to lead an effort to redraw the maps in California
00:18:07
to offset the rigging of maps in red states.
00:18:10
But if the states call off the redistricting efforts, we will
00:18:14
happily do the same and American democracy will be all the better
00:18:18
for it. So that's his letter.
00:18:22
This was at the beginning of the week that he sent this out.
00:18:27
Now, there was a new poll that came out literally today that
00:18:34
might scare Gavin Newsom a little bit.
00:18:38
And if I were in the Gavin Newsom camp, I'd be a little
00:18:40
worried about this poll that came out today and whether or
00:18:43
not this is a gamble that he wants to take right now.
00:18:47
So this is from Politico. It says poll California voters
00:18:51
back independent congressional maps, complicating Gavin
00:18:54
Newsom's redistricting push by nearly a 2 to 1 margin.
00:18:59
Voters prefer keeping an independent line drawing panel
00:19:02
to determine the state's House seats.
00:19:04
The latest Politico Citroen Center possibility lapse survey
00:19:09
found just 36% of respondents back returning congressional
00:19:13
redistricting authority to state lawmakers.
00:19:16
Quote, It's not surprising in the sense that California has
00:19:19
voted twice for this independent review Commission not all that
00:19:22
long ago, said Jack Citron, a veteran political science
00:19:27
professor at UC Berkeley and a partner on the poll.
00:19:30
And there's a lot of mistrust and cynicism about politicians
00:19:33
and the Legislature that's reflected here as well.
00:19:36
End Quote. Newsom, who kicks off the
00:19:38
campaign in earnest on Thursday, which is today, has cast himself
00:19:43
as both reluctant and eager to engage in an escalating
00:19:48
redistricting war. Independent voters who were the
00:19:51
most enthusiastic backers of the panel was 72% in favor of the
00:19:56
Commission keeping its line drawing authority supporting my
00:19:58
Republicans and Democrats was roughly equal 66%, sixty, 1%
00:20:02
respectively, marking a rare spot bipartisan agreement in the
00:20:06
hyper polarized political moment.
00:20:08
So independent voters, which make up about 25% of voters here
00:20:15
in California. By 72% are all like Nope, don't
00:20:20
do this. We we like the independent
00:20:23
Commission. We like them doing it, not the
00:20:25
legislature. That's what we voted for.
00:20:27
We wanted to be an independent citizen LED Commission, not the
00:20:30
legislature, which is full of Democrats redrawing these
00:20:33
district lines because God forbid if we had a super
00:20:35
majority draw these district lines, we'll never see a
00:20:39
Republican congressional member ever again.
00:20:41
And even amongst Republicans and Democrats, 66% and 61% both
00:20:47
actually back. So the majority of Democrats and
00:20:50
Republicans back the independent Commission.
00:20:53
So even amongst his own party, the majority of voters are
00:20:57
saying no, no, no, we like the independent Commission.
00:20:59
We don't want it to go back to the legislature.
00:21:02
So already out of the gate, we talked about previously, 52% of
00:21:07
people would support this ballot measure.
00:21:10
And this was before the ballot was even drafted.
00:21:13
This was before a map would get out.
00:21:15
And we're going to get into the map.
00:21:16
It got leaked today. We're going to get into that for
00:21:19
in a second. That was only 52%.
00:21:23
Now, it was very vague as to what the language would be and
00:21:25
all that. Not really roaring support.
00:21:28
I would say 52%. But this poll shows 64% of
00:21:32
Californians are against the 2 to 1 margin, 72% of independents
00:21:36
are against it. And then you have Democrats and
00:21:39
Republicans who are also against this.
00:21:42
So it's not looking very popular right out the gate.
00:21:46
And then this all came out on the same day that there was this
00:21:50
huge press conference. And I put press conference in
00:21:54
huge air quotes because Gavin Newsom said this was going to be
00:21:58
a press conference to talk about redistricting.
00:22:02
But it was anything but. It was anything but any sort of
00:22:06
press conference. It looked to me like a
00:22:09
presidential rally. Look at this right here and tell
00:22:13
me, does this look like a press conference to you?
00:22:16
You have political campaign signs, your people standing
00:22:20
behind him. You have a little podium with a
00:22:24
campaign slogan on it. This is a press conference.
00:22:28
This is a press conference put on by the press office of Gavin
00:22:32
Newsom. How does this get put on?
00:22:36
You guessed it, our taxpayer dollars are supporting this
00:22:41
quote UN quote press conference. That's what this is.
00:22:45
This was supposed to be a press conference of the governor
00:22:48
announcing what he is going to do.
00:22:50
And instead, it looks a hell of a lot like a presidential rally.
00:22:56
And we all know he's getting ready for a presidential rally.
00:22:59
This is his new thing that they're doing right now is
00:23:03
they're imitating Donald Trump. So they're doing the whole all
00:23:07
caps thing and they're trying to talk like Trump.
00:23:09
That's the press office. It says Donald is finished.
00:23:12
He's no longer hot. First, the hands so tiny.
00:23:15
And now me, Gavin C Newsome have taken away his step.
00:23:21
His step. I'm not sure what that means.
00:23:23
Many are saying he can't even do the big stares on Air Force One
00:23:27
anymore. Uses the little baby stares now.
00:23:30
Sad. Tomorrow he's got his meeting
00:23:33
with Putin in Russia. Nobody cares.
00:23:37
I I would disagree. I think a lot of people care
00:23:40
what's going on with Trump and Putin up there in Alaska.
00:23:44
I think that's I think a lot of people are looking at that
00:23:47
because it has geopolitical consequences.
00:23:50
All the television cameras are on me.
00:23:52
America's favorite governor, not favorite governor.
00:23:56
Even low ratings. Laura Ingraham edits the tapes.
00:23:59
Can't stop talking about my beautiful maps.
00:24:02
You're welcome for liberation Day America.
00:24:04
Donnie J missed the deadline. Whoops.
00:24:08
And now I run the show. Thank you for your attention to
00:24:11
this matter. GCN.
00:24:13
So this is his press conference, as if Donald Trump or Gavin
00:24:17
Newsom is talking like Donald Trump.
00:24:20
I don't know who had this idea that why don't you have Gavin
00:24:23
Newsom talk like Donald Trump? He's turning into Donald Trump.
00:24:28
I guess they think Newsom is going to be the left's version
00:24:31
of Donald Trump. So this is what he's doing.
00:24:35
It's kind of a weird cringy thing.
00:24:37
I don't really get most of what he's talking about in this tweet
00:24:39
anyway. Nobody cares about Russia and
00:24:42
all that. They released the maps.
00:24:45
There was a leaked map that got out.
00:24:48
So Gavin Newsom was supposed to release the map this today or
00:24:53
recently or tomorrow, but they were planning on not.
00:24:56
They were. They were just behind on
00:24:57
everything, so they weren't going to do it.
00:24:59
And a leaked map got out to Politico somehow and it, we got
00:25:05
a peek as to what the map is going to look like when it
00:25:11
actually gets put out there for people to vote on.
00:25:14
And here's what it said. And these are the most
00:25:16
important. I, I highlighted some of the big
00:25:18
districts. This is how I know this isn't
00:25:21
really going to be a fair redistricting.
00:25:25
This isn't going to be obviously this is completely ideological.
00:25:29
They're obviously going after Republican seats.
00:25:30
They want to eliminate as many Republican seats as they
00:25:33
possibly can. Again, their whole argument is,
00:25:36
well, they're disenfranchising voters in Texas, so ergo we're
00:25:41
going to have to disenfranchise voters in California.
00:25:44
I don't understand how that really works.
00:25:47
So a Congressional District 3 spalling district along
00:25:50
California's eastern border, represented by Kevin Kiley,
00:25:52
would go from safe Republican to safe Democratic.
00:25:56
Congressional District 27, a northern Los Angeles County seat
00:26:00
held by Democratic Rep George Whitesides, moves from lean
00:26:04
Democrat to safe Democrat. California District 45, which
00:26:11
used to be Michelle Steele, which was in Orange County, and
00:26:14
it was a Republican district, which was then taken over by
00:26:18
Democratic Representative Derek Tran.
00:26:20
He won last year, goes from lean Democratic to safe Democratic.
00:26:25
So what was a kind of swing or flip district now is safe
00:26:30
Democratic. And Congressional District 48,
00:26:32
which spans Riverside, San Diego counties, which is held by
00:26:35
Darrell Eisler, who's been in Congress for a long time,
00:26:37
changes from safe Republican to lean Democratic.
00:26:41
And that's all you really need to know is some of these
00:26:45
districts that were safe Republican are now all of a
00:26:48
sudden going to go strong Democrat.
00:26:53
This is what they're proposing is that they're going to change
00:26:56
a lot of these strong Democrat kind of district strongholds are
00:27:01
now going to switch into strong Democrat.
00:27:04
It's almost like they have this plan and they see this as an
00:27:07
absolute power grab where they can change a lot of these
00:27:11
districts that have been giving them problems in Congress to now
00:27:16
all of a sudden strong Democrats.
00:27:20
And this to them is not disenfranchising the voters.
00:27:25
That's crazy to me that this is not disenfranchising voters.
00:27:28
In their mind, they don't think taking the voice away of
00:27:31
thousands of people in those districts who have duly elected
00:27:36
these representatives like Kevin Kiley and Darrell Issa to
00:27:38
represent them. Now all of a sudden they they're
00:27:42
not going to get a vote they're not going to get because it's
00:27:44
going to lean Democrat or Kevin Kiley's seat is now going to be
00:27:48
from safe Republican to safe Democrat.
00:27:51
This is absolutely disenfranchising those people in
00:27:55
those districts. And I find it absolutely
00:27:57
hilarious that their whole argument at this press
00:28:00
conference, again, a press conference that looked like a
00:28:03
presidential rally that was paid for with our tax dollars, is
00:28:08
somehow saving democracy by killing democracy.
00:28:12
Like, let's take democracy Outback and shoot it in the head
00:28:16
because we want to get back at Trump.
00:28:20
That's all this is. And I'm not a fan of all these
00:28:23
states going back in mid decade and doing all this and switching
00:28:27
all these votes here and there and everywhere and switching
00:28:29
these districts. This is purely out of spite.
00:28:32
And no matter how much they're going to try and change this, no
00:28:38
matter how much they go and try and change this and change the
00:28:40
language and say it's about saving democracy and getting
00:28:45
back at Trump, it still doesn't make it any better.
00:28:49
And I think people are seeing that already with the poll that
00:28:53
we saw, which is 64% of Californians, 72% of
00:28:57
independents, 66% of Republicans, 61% of Democrats
00:29:01
all believe that this is not the right way to go and it should
00:29:07
stay within the independent Commission.
00:29:09
We already talked about how Arnold Schwarzenegger is going
00:29:11
to get in on this and that there's going to be a huge
00:29:13
campaign against this. This is all before 1 opposition
00:29:17
ad or any opposition has been done on any of this at all.
00:29:22
So I want to finish up just talking about this last point,
00:29:28
which is I think that the letter this week and this may be
00:29:34
overthinking this. I think the letter that Gavin
00:29:36
Newsom sent this week was a desperate plea by a man who
00:29:43
backed himself into a corner and doesn't know how to get out of
00:29:45
this. And if you know anything about
00:29:48
Gavin Newsom, you know that he talks a big game in that he
00:29:54
loves to talk about these incredible things that he's
00:29:56
gonna do. If you remember earlier this
00:29:58
year, we talked about how he walked out with this binder of
00:30:01
for jobs in the Central Valley and all these red districts that
00:30:04
flipped for Trump. Never heard the what happened
00:30:07
with those jobs. There is a pattern with Gavin
00:30:10
Newsom where he talks a big game and then all of a sudden doesn't
00:30:14
actually do what he say or says he's gonna do.
00:30:18
This, I think, is now where he's spinning out of control and he
00:30:23
has to act like this is always been his idea.
00:30:27
But I think the letter to the president, to me seems like this
00:30:34
might be, please let me out of here because I don't know what
00:30:37
could happen here and this could be bad for me politically.
00:30:41
I think he knows that. I think he knows that this could
00:30:45
end up being an epic fail for him, and his own voters could
00:30:51
end up rejecting it and telling him, Nope, we don't want to do
00:30:56
this, this was a horrible idea and we'll never let them live
00:31:00
down the idea that they wasted 250 or $300 million on a special
00:31:04
election just for his vanity project.
00:31:07
So I think he's backed himself into a corner where he wants to
00:31:12
get out of it, but he has no way to get out of it at this point.
00:31:16
He's in it now. He's in the thick of it now.
00:31:19
So he's got to go through with it.
00:31:21
So I think he was trying to send a message to President Trump
00:31:23
that he wants to get out of this.
00:31:25
I think he knows this might be ending up bad politically for
00:31:28
him. I think it probably will end up
00:31:31
bad politically for him. I think a lot of people, once
00:31:33
they really kind of dive into this, are going to oppose this.
00:31:37
But at the end of the day, he tried to gamble on using this as
00:31:40
a stunt for a future presidential run.
00:31:44
And I think it's getting out of his hand and it's getting a
00:31:47
little farther off track than he was ever expecting.
00:31:50
So let me know in the comments. What do you think?
00:31:52
Do you think he knows that this could end up badly for him?
00:31:56
Or do you think he knows that he's got to go through with this
00:31:59
now that he's talked a big game about it?
00:32:03
All right. Sorry about the audio, guys.
00:32:10
I thought I'd checked that. It was really kind of funny that
00:32:13
I had this all set up and I thought that I was going to get
00:32:19
the audio for you guys. Kind of sad.
00:32:22
Sad. Let's see, Prop 1 won't build
00:32:29
it. Prop 36 won't fund it.
00:32:31
Yeah, that's another thing I want to talk about is like
00:32:34
they're willing to spend $300 million on a special election
00:32:37
for redistricting, but they wouldn't spend 400 million for
00:32:40
Prop 36, which the people overwhelmingly voted for.
00:32:44
So I, yes, I'm gonna say GOP voters need to file a class
00:32:50
action for lack of representation.
00:32:53
Well, I think they could definitely, I think they'll be a
00:32:55
lawsuit. I think once this comes out,
00:32:57
they'll definitely be a lawsuit. So some of these some of these
00:33:05
districts are crazy that they want to like, kick Kevin Kylie
00:33:07
out, stuff like that. Well, Kevin Kylie's always been
00:33:10
a tough critic of Gavin Newsom, especially since COVID.
00:33:13
So he was the one who actually took Gavin Newsom to trial him
00:33:16
and James Gallagher to to fight that out.
00:33:21
I think everyone in California is just sick of Newsome's crappy
00:33:24
decisions. And it's just purely fatigue.
00:33:28
Yeah, I think people are tired of it.
00:33:32
And I think we discussed last week about a poll that said is
00:33:37
coming, talking about Kamala Harris, that they were basically
00:33:41
saying that the polls show that people in California actually
00:33:46
want people to take care of California problems, not just
00:33:52
run for the White House. Like that was something that
00:33:54
people in California really cared about, especially in like
00:33:56
places like San Francisco. They want politicians who are
00:33:59
going to take care of it. So, all right, let's get to our
00:34:02
last story of the night. That middle story took a long
00:34:05
time. All right, let's get into it.
00:34:07
Then. If there's any time for chatter
00:34:08
questions, we'll get into it. Sacramento spending big bucks on
00:34:15
tiny homes. Let's get into that story.
00:34:25
This is coming from the California Globe.
00:34:27
Sacramento spending another 12 million on tiny homes for
00:34:30
homeless on top of billions more.
00:34:32
The City of Sacramento Department of Community Response
00:34:34
received a 12.35 million Encampment Resolution Funds
00:34:39
grant from the California Department of Housing and
00:34:41
Community Development in October 20, 2410 months ago to purchase
00:34:46
and construct additional tiny homes for homeless vagrants.
00:34:50
That's 12 $1000 million dollars to spend on housing a
00:34:56
small number of Sacramento's mentally ill, homeless drug
00:34:58
addicts. So there's a couple of
00:35:01
nonprofits that are getting a lot of this funding the
00:35:05
gathering in and first steps Community and California Globe
00:35:09
did a great job breaking down all of this.
00:35:12
So this first one is let's see, this first one is from the
00:35:18
gathering in and it looks like they received 6 dollars,
00:35:23
$6.2 million in government grants, $250 in fundraising
00:35:28
and 1.9 almost $2 in other contributions, gifts and
00:35:32
grants. So they made a majority of their
00:35:35
funding from government grants only 250 in fundraising.
00:35:39
The total of the officer salaries is 690 thousand in
00:35:44
other benefits. There's a lot of other expenses
00:35:46
as well, 4.7 in salaries and wages and 399 in other
00:35:51
employee benefits. So doing pretty well the
00:35:54
gathering in there, spending a lot of money and a lot of
00:35:57
government grants. First Steps Community was only
00:35:59
creating 2016 as a Housing First model as a top priority, and I'm
00:36:03
going to talk about Housing First in a little bit, was first
00:36:06
pushed by the Obama administration.
00:36:08
Rather than prioritizing mental health and drug treatment and
00:36:12
life skills. First Step Communities filing
00:36:15
under First Step Housing received $6.8 million in
00:36:18
government grants out of $7 total revenue for the
00:36:22
2023 IRS Form 990. So they received almost
00:36:27
$7 in government grants. So again, most of their revenue
00:36:32
came from government grants. Since 2016, First Step
00:36:36
Communities has accumulated $20 million in grants and
00:36:39
contributions. That is a ton of money.
00:36:43
And this is, again, this is just Sacramento, right?
00:36:46
This is just Sacramento. We're not talking about like
00:36:51
California as a whole, which has spent, you know, twenty, $30
00:36:54
billion of our taxpayer dollars. This is Sacramento alone, $20
00:36:59
million just for these nonprofits.
00:37:03
Notably, the First Step Committee organization, along
00:37:05
with other catalysts of this work such as Sacramento Steps
00:37:08
Forward and Sacramento Continuum of Care, are in agreement with
00:37:11
Hud's direction towards Housing First as the priority model.
00:37:15
The failed Housing First policy the state has spent billions on
00:37:18
is, well, a failure. Except for the contractors
00:37:20
refurbishing and building the housing for the homeless.
00:37:23
The 2023 IRS Form 990 for Sacramento Steps Forward shows
00:37:27
$37.5 million in contributions and grants, 532 in
00:37:33
investment income, and 5 million in salary and benefits.
00:37:36
That's a lot of money in salary and benefits.
00:37:38
Compensation for officers and directors is a nice total of
00:37:42
922 salaries and $48 in benefits.
00:37:48
Again, this is just Sacramento. And if you wonder, if you always
00:37:55
wonder why is homelessness in California so out of control?
00:38:00
Why are we not spending all the money on the right places?
00:38:03
Why is this such a cluster? I want to point you to Hafka
00:38:09
Kaka, Hafsa Kaka, That's her name, Hafsa Kaka.
00:38:14
She is the senior advisor to Gavin Newsom, and she is the
00:38:18
senior advisor on homelessness. And I want to This is an older
00:38:22
clip, but a press conference that is notable nonetheless.
00:38:25
If you want to know why homelessness in California is
00:38:28
such a disaster, I'm just going to let you watch this clip.
00:38:34
We have been moving at an unprecedented rate.
00:38:38
At a Sacramento homelessness update, Governor Newsom's
00:38:40
administration refusing to acknowledge the delay to 1200
00:38:44
tiny homes it promised to deliver statewide.
00:38:47
Newsom announced the original effort this past spring, saying
00:38:50
350 of them would be provided to Sacramento by this fall.
00:38:53
I get it. You want to see progress and you
00:38:56
want to see it now. But the tiny homes are not ready
00:38:58
and with still no contract signed or builder secured,
00:39:01
Newsom, senior advisor on homelessness, could not say when
00:39:04
they would be. I came from the locals, right?
00:39:06
So when it comes to projects like this, it's just not
00:39:09
overnight. You, you have a whole process
00:39:12
that you go through. And what we're doing is we're
00:39:13
aiming to streamline the process so that we could quickly and
00:39:16
expeditiously get projects going, but also make it safe and
00:39:20
right and quality. People deserve dignity in the
00:39:22
space that they're in. So that is that answer.
00:39:25
Thank you please. Open on that note then.
00:39:27
I mean, the governor didn't say the tiny homes were coming
00:39:30
overnight. Can we just, can we just, I want
00:39:35
to go back 10 seconds. I just want to go back 10
00:39:37
seconds real quick. And I just want to look.
00:39:40
I want you to look at her face when she comes out.
00:39:46
She gives this little spiel and I want you to look at her face.
00:39:50
The whole process that you go through and what we're doing is
00:39:53
we're aiming to streamline the process so that we could quickly
00:39:56
and expeditionally get projects going, but also make it safe and
00:40:00
right and quality. People deserve dignity in the
00:40:02
space that they're in. So that is the answer.
00:40:05
Thank you. She said thank you so fast, as
00:40:10
if like that's it, I'm good. That's I said my thing, OK,
00:40:13
good. Thank you, thank you.
00:40:15
Good. And then this is what happened.
00:40:17
The governor didn't say the my many homes were coming
00:40:20
overnight. Look at that face.
00:40:22
She's shooting darts through the reporter like I'm sorry you had
00:40:28
a follow up question. I thought I nailed that you that
00:40:31
answer wasn't good enough for you and her look of condensating
00:40:36
or condescending look at the reporter of like, how dare you
00:40:40
ask a question. Are you kidding me?
00:40:42
Like I gave an incredible answer.
00:40:44
You shouldn't have to ask me any questions about that.
00:40:47
The way your head bobbed and she gave this that's that's a look
00:40:51
that's a look of like you don't get to question me said they
00:40:54
were coming this fall or by this fall and now it's mid mid 2024
00:41:00
in October. I mean, yeah, I mean, what's,
00:41:03
what's the hold up, I guess then?
00:41:04
So I, I actually went ahead and explained the that already there
00:41:07
was actually progress being made.
00:41:09
There's no hold up. We've been continuing the
00:41:11
momentum at. I actually explained that
00:41:14
already, OK, Like if you were paying attention, I already
00:41:17
explained that, like if you were paying attention, you didn't
00:41:20
really answer the question. You gave political gobbledygook
00:41:23
and you expected everyone to, like, stand up and applaud and
00:41:26
go up. That's a great answer.
00:41:27
That that's exactly what we were looking for.
00:41:29
All these tiny homes in Sacramento, they I guess the
00:41:32
fact that it took so long and 10s of millions of dollars were
00:41:35
spent on them, and these nonprofits are making a ton of
00:41:38
money. Yeah, whatever.
00:41:39
I guess that's a good enough answer.
00:41:41
Mentioned that we went ahead and we passed legislation to make it
00:41:45
more flexible to streamline. That's not a hold up, that's
00:41:47
progress. We also went ahead and create a
00:41:49
procurement process which essentially makes locals easier
00:41:53
to help get this going. Again, that's not a hold up,
00:41:55
that's progress. And later this month, we
00:41:57
anticipate finalizing a contract for the state and making locals
00:42:01
of the purchase easier. So again, that's not hold up,
00:42:03
that's progress. Facing a barrage of questions at
00:42:05
the future site of a that's not hold up the fact that we're only
00:42:09
like, you know, 12 months behind and this was last year 12 months
00:42:12
behind on this project. And the state is given, as you
00:42:16
can see, lots of money to a lot of these nonprofits.
00:42:19
We're supposed to be building not little tiny homes and people
00:42:22
are going where what's going on here?
00:42:26
And she goes, we've streamlined. That's progress.
00:42:28
OK, well, progress would be seeing these tiny homes being
00:42:32
built, but we are looking at an empty lot that if you can see
00:42:35
behind her, it's an empty lot. So no progress until Health
00:42:40
Campus off of Stockton Blvd. Hafsukaka stepped away from the
00:42:44
microphone and let Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg defend
00:42:47
the new timeline. Once they're delivered, then
00:42:50
they'll go up soon. When they cover, that's very I'm
00:43:00
sorry. The way he says it is so funny
00:43:02
to me. He just can we I got to watch
00:43:04
that again. It's, it's, it's like such like,
00:43:08
I can't believe we actually have to show up to this thing.
00:43:12
Then they'll go up soon. Soon, the way he just rolls his
00:43:18
eyes like, I don't know, soon. Like, why are you asking so many
00:43:22
damn questions? Like we told you that we
00:43:25
streamlined it. We streamlined it and they're
00:43:27
going to get here and that's it. I don't know what else you want
00:43:32
from us. We streamlined it and they're
00:43:34
going to be here soon. I don't know soon.
00:43:40
When the administration says that it's going to do something
00:43:43
in October, should the public not believe it?
00:43:46
I think I, well, I'm sort of this way myself.
00:43:51
I think you establish, you lay out a vision, you push hard for
00:43:58
aggressive action, and then you get a lot farther than you would
00:44:02
have gotten and a lot sooner than if you didn't push hard.
00:44:08
I don't know what any of that meant.
00:44:12
He he, I think he, he lies politicians as a defense
00:44:18
mechanism when they don't know what to do.
00:44:21
They, they have to revert into like their political speech of
00:44:26
like this is, you know, I'm just going to say a lot of
00:44:30
gobbledygook of like, you know, you, you, you set a vision and
00:44:34
then you work hard and then you, you know, you work past that.
00:44:38
And then, you know, you reach your dreams and we reach our
00:44:41
goals and blah, blah, blah. He, he had nothing to say.
00:44:46
He literally had nothing to say about that.
00:44:47
Like he, he just, you could see the switch in his head of like,
00:44:50
I don't have an answer here. So I'm just going to switch into
00:44:55
my like political speak kind of defense mechanism.
00:45:02
So out of that whole like 3 minute clip, you didn't get an
00:45:05
answer on anything regarding these tiny homes in Sacramento
00:45:08
and Hafsikaka, just she's mad that you actually ask her
00:45:13
questions because she already told you she streamlined it.
00:45:16
And if you could look at that open field, they've streamlined
00:45:18
it. But I do want to talk about
00:45:20
Housing First, which has become the model that California is
00:45:24
following. Is this idea of give him housing
00:45:26
first, just get him off the streets, which is obviously very
00:45:31
expensive. It's very expensive to build in
00:45:33
California as we all know, just housing in general.
00:45:38
So it's said that California saw a modest 1.2 decrease in overall
00:45:44
homelessness from 2019 to 2020, and we'll talk about that in a
00:45:47
second. Obviously, COVID had a lot to do
00:45:52
with that. California's high housing costs
00:45:54
undermine Housing First effectiveness.
00:45:56
The state has the second highest home prices in the US, 468 per
00:46:02
square foot, making it expensive to build permanent supportive
00:46:04
housing. For example, Los Angeles County
00:46:07
projects have cost 275 to $700 per unit, $700 per
00:46:14
unit to build, just to build that in Los Angeles when homes
00:46:20
are selling for 700 to $800, at least here in San Diego
00:46:24
County, they're selling for 700 to 800.
00:46:27
They're building them for 700, which makes me think
00:46:31
someone's making a lot of money on building these units.
00:46:34
Must be these nonprofits who are getting millions of dollars with
00:46:38
an estimated $67.9 billion needed to build 100 and 12527
00:46:45
thousand units to end homelessness.
00:46:49
That's from cato.org. The policies prohibition on
00:46:53
requiring sobriety or treatment has drawn criticism.
00:46:57
So this is something else is if you're a nonprofit who wants to
00:47:00
build these tiny homes or you have a shelter or something like
00:47:03
that, and you say, look, we're going to require that you
00:47:07
actually be sober or want to come in as sober and get sober.
00:47:13
You can't. You can't deny you can't get
00:47:16
government grants. So you can't say no to people.
00:47:19
If you want government grants, the state has actually made it
00:47:22
illegal for you to require sobriety to get into these
00:47:27
shelters. Crazy.
00:47:31
You don't get government grants from the state.
00:47:33
These big lucrative contracts, these, you know, 10s of millions
00:47:36
of dollars that these nonprofits are making.
00:47:38
You can't get it if you require sobriety to go into these, these
00:47:43
shelters or these homes. Tell me how that does not seem
00:47:47
like absolute insanity. Now there is a bill making its
00:47:51
way right now through Congress or Congress through the
00:47:55
Assembly, and they're trying to change it up so that you can
00:48:00
actually receive some money. But they they haven't gone all
00:48:04
the way. And as we know with what's going
00:48:06
on with homelessness, if you say, oh, you have to be sober to
00:48:09
get into these houses, you're likely not going to get a lot of
00:48:11
people because people who are on the streets right now don't,
00:48:14
aren't necessarily always sober. By 2024, the homeless population
00:48:19
reached an all time high in California around 187,
00:48:24
reflecting a modest increase of about 3% from 2023's count of
00:48:28
approximately 185. The contrast with a smaller
00:48:33
national increase of .4% from 2020 to 2022.
00:48:40
So is it working? I don't think so.
00:48:44
There was a study done by the Point in Time Contact in
00:48:49
Sacramento to show that they had a 25 to 40% decrease in
00:48:54
Sacramento and homelessness. Over the past couple years,
00:48:59
there's been some criticism about that Loaves and Fishes,
00:49:02
which is a nonprofit. They provide, they're a
00:49:04
Christian based organization and they provide food and stuff like
00:49:06
that for people. They are calling BS on it
00:49:10
because they're saying, well, you say there's a 25 to 40%
00:49:14
decrease in homelessness in Sacramento alone.
00:49:18
We've seen about a 6% increase in a request for services.
00:49:22
So that doesn't really make sense.
00:49:24
How do you have 25% or 40% decrease in homelessness in
00:49:27
Sacramento? If we're seeing a larger request
00:49:32
in services, that means there's more people asking for our
00:49:35
services. So it would correlate if their
00:49:38
homelessness is going down the request for services.
00:49:40
So Loaves and Fishes has called them out.
00:49:43
But regardless, my main point that I want to make about this
00:49:47
and why I bring this up is this is just an example of a part of
00:49:53
the homeless industrial complex in California.
00:49:57
There is so much money to be made in California if you're a
00:50:01
homeless nonprofit. That's just the bottom line.
00:50:04
If you're a homeless nonprofit, there are millions and millions
00:50:07
of dollars to be made. You see it in Sacramento, you
00:50:10
see it in San Francisco, you see it in Los Angeles, you see it in
00:50:13
San Diego. All of these homeless nonprofits
00:50:15
are making money hand over fist with our tax dollars.
00:50:21
And yet, as of last year's count, we still have the most
00:50:26
homelessness in the nation, and we haven't tackled it or
00:50:30
decreased it at all, and it's gone up.
00:50:32
So is this just another example of how these homeless nonprofits
00:50:38
are never going to want to solve the problem?
00:50:41
I don't think they ever want to solve the problem.
00:50:42
Let me know in the comments. Do you think we're spending too
00:50:44
much money in these nonprofits need to be regulated a little
00:50:47
bit more on how much they're spending or how much they're
00:50:49
getting because it seems to be out of control.
00:50:51
Let me know in the comments about your thoughts about the
00:50:53
homeless industrial complex and whether you think we're giving
00:50:57
them way too much money for too little results.
00:51:02
All right, got a couple minutes. We want a couple minutes over.
00:51:09
Want to see if there's any question they answered.
00:51:13
We have progress and streamlined.
00:51:16
Yep. What in the Kamala Iris word
00:51:19
salad was that? Yeah, it was, it was bad.
00:51:21
I I had posted that video last year and it is it was one of
00:51:28
those videos that just like went viral.
00:51:29
It was just so funny. She she had such an attitude
00:51:33
that like, she had to be asked questions that like, oh, I
00:51:37
didn't expect people to actually ask me any of these questions.
00:51:44
Bum, bum, bum, bum, bum. So let's see any more questions?
00:51:48
Thank you everyone for hanging out with us again on Thursday
00:51:51
night. I know it's different night be
00:51:53
going back to Tuesday next week. We'll be joined by a very
00:51:59
special guest next week. Well, I shouldn't say special
00:52:02
guest, old friend of the show. Just a little tease for you
00:52:05
guys. Yeah, drug test for all active
00:52:08
politicians. Why not?
00:52:10
Let's see what they're up to as well.
00:52:13
Where did the 1st 24 billion for the homeless go?
00:52:15
Asking for a friend to nonprofits.
00:52:18
I think it all went to nonprofits who have made a ton
00:52:20
of money. And a lot of these directors and
00:52:23
CEOs of these nonprofits are making like, you know, 250 to
00:52:27
$500 a year, which hey, I guess if it's good work, if you
00:52:32
can get it, if you can be the CEO of a homeless nonprofit,
00:52:35
wouldn't it be great? State leaders need the homeless
00:52:39
crisis so funding can continue to nonprofits and then pick
00:52:43
kicked back to them. Yeah, there there's it's a
00:52:46
funnel. It's kind of like the unions.
00:52:49
The unions and the homeless nonprofits are probably 2 of the
00:52:51
biggest funnels of Democratic policies here in California.
00:52:56
It's basically they give to the unions, the unions get more
00:53:01
people involved, and then the unions end up turning around and
00:53:04
kicking money back to the Democrats and lobbying the
00:53:06
Democrats in Sacramento. And then they end up passing
00:53:10
programs that then enrich unions.
00:53:12
And then it goes back and around and around and around.
00:53:14
Same thing with homelessness, where it's they give government
00:53:16
grants out and they make a ton of money, and then the money
00:53:18
keeps getting funneled back in. So, yeah, this homeless problem
00:53:25
in Sacramento is not down. They're moving further into the
00:53:28
county, out of the city jurisdiction in which they're
00:53:30
not being counted the same as they were.
00:53:32
Yeah, it's a great point, Brett, that you brought up.
00:53:35
And that's something that Loaves and Fishes that Charity brought
00:53:39
up, is they were just moving a lot of the homeless out of the
00:53:43
city so that the numbers went down.
00:53:46
So it looked like the numbers went down and in reality,
00:53:52
because they weren't technically in the city point in time
00:53:55
contact, they didn't, they could show that as 2545% decrease.
00:54:00
Dude, a tiny home would cost 700 on the Central Coast.
00:54:05
Yeah, I, I think that's crazy that they're, they're charging
00:54:09
to build a unit for the homeless for $700.
00:54:15
Wasn't the point of the homeless like these little tiny homes was
00:54:17
that they could get these done relatively quickly?
00:54:19
Like, I don't know, maybe maybe I'm crazy, but I look at these
00:54:22
tiny homes and I think to myself, yeah, this this can't be
00:54:26
more than $100, right? There's a question.
00:54:32
Can a federal judge or some court intervene in the
00:54:34
redistricting effort, considering the voters already
00:54:37
voted on it in 2008? That's a good question because
00:54:42
this is a question that's probably going to come up in all
00:54:46
of this is can I think they're going to sue?
00:54:50
I think that it's going to be in state court because keep in mind
00:54:54
that the Constitution, and maybe this is a federal question
00:54:58
because this is a constitutional question.
00:55:01
The Constitution gives the power to the states to control their
00:55:07
elections, even federal elections.
00:55:09
So presidential and congressional and senator are
00:55:11
all controlled by the states. So we already voted on this in
00:55:19
2000 and we voted on the independent Commission, and
00:55:23
that's what the people want. That's what it looks like the
00:55:25
people want. 64% of Californians want the independent Commission.
00:55:29
So there's definitely going to be a lawsuit, especially trying
00:55:31
to get this done so quickly. There's going to be legal
00:55:35
arguments that fly. I don't know whether it'll be a
00:55:37
federal judge or will it be a state judge because it involves
00:55:40
the California Constitution and how we run our elections.
00:55:43
It's going to be very interesting.
00:55:45
Obviously I'm going to be following it because I nerd out
00:55:47
on that stuff. So.
00:55:52
So what's stopping Gavin Newsom from redistricting California if
00:55:56
the special election doesn't go his way, especially when he has
00:55:59
the power to help this cause for 2028?
00:56:02
Well, First off, the Constitution, the California
00:56:06
Constitution prevents him. So the basically the ballot as
00:56:10
is for the special election. The question is if the voters
00:56:16
give the power to temporarily give power back to the
00:56:21
legislature until 2030, when it would go back to the independent
00:56:25
Commission, then the independent Commission can then go and draw
00:56:29
the new congressional districts. The California Constitution
00:56:34
would prevent him. He'd be violating the California
00:56:36
Constitution. He'd be taken to court.
00:56:38
He'd be struck down because the California Constitution is the
00:56:40
supreme law of our state. Even the governor can't violate
00:56:44
it. So even if he tries to do it on
00:56:47
his own, the legislature would have to redraw it.
00:56:50
It it would be a mess. I heard someone say that it's
00:56:55
hypothetically this is a win for Gavin Newsom one way or the
00:56:57
other, because even if he loses, he can say, well, at least I put
00:57:03
it to the people. I, I put it to the people and I
00:57:05
was completely transparent as opposed to Donald Trump.
00:57:09
I have an absurd idea to fix housing.
00:57:11
Only citizens can buy short term rentals made illegal and no tax
00:57:16
incentives on any home other than your primary residence.
00:57:21
I don't think that's, that's that absurd there.
00:57:26
I think there, there was an idea of like, I don't know if you can
00:57:31
do it that you can restrict if you're not a citizen because
00:57:35
there's a lot of like, you know, obviously money from China and
00:57:39
other places that come in and buy a lot of these condos and
00:57:42
houses drive up the cost. I think a lot of the issue is a
00:57:46
lot of these private equity firms like BlackRock buy up a
00:57:48
lot of these houses for renting. I think that there should be, I
00:57:52
mean, you can, you can draft a law that I think I tweeted this
00:57:57
out once before, you can draft a law where these private equity
00:58:00
firms, you can't own more than, I don't know, 10 properties or
00:58:04
something like that. You have to disincentivize all
00:58:07
these private equity firms from investing in these homes and
00:58:11
letting, you know, the citizens and the people actually buy
00:58:15
these homes so that they would divest from California
00:58:19
properties as part of their portfolio.
00:58:21
So if you descentivize, I'm not a big fan of that.
00:58:24
Being the free market kind of libertarian that I am.
00:58:28
I I, I'm not a big fan of that because I don't want to control
00:58:32
the market, but something has to be done.
00:58:35
So all right, awesome. Got some good questions tonight.
00:58:40
Thank you everyone. We went a little over, but that
00:58:42
redistricting story was really a big story.
00:58:44
I apologize about the audio because those videos were just
00:58:47
so darn funny because I wanted you guys to hear it.
00:58:51
But you can go to the you can go to their their page and check
00:58:55
the those videos out. All right, Thanks everyone for
00:58:58
tuning in. Like I said, this was a one off
00:59:00
thing that will be back to Tuesday next week, same time at
00:59:05
8:00 PM on YouTube on all these places that we are usually on
00:59:09
and we'll keep up with all the stories and what's going on.
00:59:12
I'm sure it'll be more redistricting news by then.
00:59:14
But until then, if you can support the show by making sure
00:59:18
you like, share, subscribe or review all of that stuff in the
00:59:20
one way that you can support the show that is 100% free is you
00:59:27
can share this with someone who you think will get a lot of
00:59:30
information out of this or think it was very interesting, another
00:59:33
Californian who might be frustrated with the way things
00:59:35
are going. So with that, we'll see you on
00:59:38
the next one later.