House Narrowly Passes Biden’s Social Safety Net and Climate Bill

By Emily Cochrane and Jonathan Weisman, The New York Times

WASHINGTON — The House on Friday narrowly passed the centerpiece of President Joe Biden’s domestic agenda, approving $2 trillion in spending over the next decade to battle climate change, expand health care and reweave the nation’s social safety net, over the unanimous opposition of Republicans.

The bill’s passage, 220-213, came after weeks of cajoling, arm-twisting and legislative legerdemain by Democrats. It was capped off by an exhausting, circuitous and record-breaking speech of more than eight hours by the House Republican leader, Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California, that pushed a planned Thursday vote past midnight, then delayed it to Friday morning — but did nothing to dent Democratic unity.

Groggy lawmakers reassembled at 8 a.m., three hours after McCarthy finally abandoned the floor, to begin the final series of votes to send one of the most consequential pieces of legislation in half a century to the Senate.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi opened the final push with what she called “a courtesy to” her colleagues: “I will be brief.” She then put the House’s actions in lofty terms.

“Under this dome, for centuries, members of Congress have stood exactly where we stand to pass legislation of extraordinary consequence in our nation’s history and for our nation’s future,” she said, adding, the act “will be the pillar of health and financial security in America.”

The bill still has a long and difficult road ahead. Democratic leaders must coax it through the 50-50 Senate and navigate a tortuous budget process that is almost certain to reshape the measure and force it back to the House — if it passes at all.

But even pared back from the $3.5 trillion plan that Biden originally sought, the legislation could prove as transformative as any since the Great Society and War on Poverty in the 1960s, especially for young families and older Americans. The Congressional Budget Office published an official cost estimate Thursday afternoon that found the package would increase the federal budget deficit by $160 billion over 10 years.

The assessment indicated that the package overall would cost slightly more than Biden’s latest proposal — $2.1 trillion rather than $1.85 trillion.

It offers universal prekindergarten, generous subsidies for child care that extend well into the middle class, expanded financial aid for college, hundreds of billions of dollars in housing support, home and community care for older Americans, a new hearing benefit for Medicare and price controls for prescription drugs.

More than half a trillion dollars would go toward shifting the U.S. economy away from fossil fuels to renewable energy and electric cars, the largest investment ever to slow the warming of the planet. The package would largely be paid for with tax increases on high earners and corporations, estimated to bring in nearly $1.5 trillion over 10 years.

Savings in government spending on prescription drugs were projected to bring in another $260 billion, although a scaled-back measure to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices for some medications was estimated to save only $79 billion, far less than the Democrats’ original $456 billion proposal would have.

“This bill will be transformational, and it will be measured in the deeper sense of hope that Americans will have when they see their economy working for them instead of holding them back,” Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., the House majority leader, said Thursday during what was supposed to the closing debate.

The fact that the bill could slightly add to the federal deficit did not dissuade House Democrats from proceeding to vote for it, in part because the analysis boiled down to a dispute over a single line item: how much the IRS would collect by cracking down on people and companies that dodge large tax bills.

The budget office predicted that beefing up the IRS with an additional $80 billion of funding would bring in just $127 billion over 10 years on net. That is far less than the $400 billion the White House estimates it would bring in over a decade, both through enforcement actions and by essentially scaring tax cheats into paying what they owe.

The legislation is moving through Congress under special rules known as reconciliation that shield it from a filibuster, allowing Democrats to push it through over unified Republican opposition in the Senate.

It is a key piece of Biden’s domestic policy agenda, paired with a $1 trillion infrastructure package the president signed into law this week. Its path to Friday’s vote was arduous, from midsummer to deep autumn, with negotiations pitting liberal lawmakers against centrists and House Democrats against senators.

Democrats in the Senate and House had hoped to reach agreement on a final bill before either chamber voted, but that plan was ditched weeks ago amid persistent infighting.

And from the beginning, Republicans — who made it clear they could never support a package of the scope and ambition Biden had proposed — were cut out of the reconciliation talks. While some Republicans voted for the infrastructure measure, they unanimously opposed the expansive social safety net package, arguing that it would constitute a “socialist” encroachment of the federal government into every aspect of American life, and would exacerbate rising costs across the country.

McCarthy, the minority leader, took advantage of the House’s so-called “magic minute” — a custom that allows leaders to speak without time constraints when they are granted their minute of floor time.

He held the floor well into Friday morning, railing for more than eight hours against the bill and the Biden administration, breaking the record for the longest consecutive House speech set by Pelosi in 2018 before he concluded at 5:10 a.m. Some Democrats pointedly walked out before he began to speak, and at times interrupted his speech against the bill with boos, heckles and jeers.

“Every page of all this new Washington spending shows just how irresponsible and out of touch the Democrats are to the challenges that America faces today,” McCarthy said during his diatribe, which appeared designed more to rally his Republican base behind a message for the midterm elections in a debate that had been scheduled to last just 20 minutes.

But just hours later, Democrats filed into the chamber, joking about the lack of sleep. And if Democrats feared the political consequences, it was not evident from the final tally, which reflected support among those from the most competitive districts.

The only Democrat who opposed the bill, Rep. Jared Golden of Maine, did so after raising concerns this month about the inclusion of a provision that would generously increase the federal tax deduction for state and local taxes paid, from $10,000 a year to $80,000.

The action — after months of time-consuming maneuvering over the bill — was fueled in part by an eagerness among lawmakers to wrap up their work and leave Washington for their weeklong Thanksgiving recess. It came about eight months after Biden unveiled the first part of his domestic policy agenda, and after several near-death experiences for the package that have exposed deep divisions within his party.

The vote showed remarkable Democratic unity, given the struggle to get to it. A group of moderate and conservative holdouts, wary about the size of the bill, had held out for an official estimate before they would commit to supporting it.

But after the release Thursday of section-by-section assessments from the Congressional Budget Office, the official fiscal scorekeeper, most were swayed. White House officials met privately with the group Thursday evening to walk them through the administration’s analysis and the budget tables, according to a person familiar with the discussion.

“While I continue to have reservations about the overall size of the legislation — and concerns about certain policy provisions that are extraneous or unwise — I believe there are too many badly needed investments in this bill not to advance it in the legislative process,” Rep. Stephanie Murphy, D-Fla., a key centrist, said in a statement announcing her vote.

For Democrats, the bill is perhaps the last significant opportunity to push through their domestic policy ambitions: an array of environmental provisions, federal support for education and child care, and the fulfillment of a longtime campaign promise to tackle the soaring cost of prescription drugs.

“Now, it’s going to be just telling our story — that’s the challenge,” said Rep. Richard E. Neal, D-Mass., the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, as staff carried fresh cups of coffee into his ceremonial office. “We’ve got make sure that people understand which party came through, and we really did.”

The legislation is all but guaranteed to change in the Senate, where two Democratic centrists, Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, have yet to explicitly endorse it. In an evenly divided Senate, a single defection could sink its passage, and Democrats will have to maneuver the bill through their own internal divisions and a rapid-fire series of politically difficult amendments that could upend the bill.

Democrats must also ensure that the entire plan adheres to the strict rules that govern the reconciliation process and force the removal of any provision that does not have a direct fiscal effect. Those rules have already forced the party to abandon a plan to provide a path to citizenship in the bill for immigrants in the country illegally.

The Senate parliamentarian, the arbiter of those rules, has yet to issue guidance for their latest proposal to provide temporary protection from deportation for millions of migrants who are long-term residents of the United States.

Other elements of the plan may also shift because of objections from individual senators. Manchin, in particular, has raised a variety of concerns, including to four weeks of federal paid family and medical leave and a push to include a fee on emissions of methane, a powerful pollutant.

And Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who is chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, and Michael Bennet, D-Colo., have rejected a House provision to generously increase the federal tax deduction for state and local taxes paid, which would primarily benefit wealthy homeowners who itemize their deductions. Instead, they and other senators are discussing an income limit to curtail who could take advantage of the increased deduction.

The provision would raise a cap imposed by Republicans in their 2017 tax law, which Democrats from high-tax states like New York, California and New Jersey, have denounced as punitive for their constituents. While some Democrats have publicly complained about its inclusion, several lawmakers in the New York and New Jersey delegations had established it as a requirement for their votes.

Democratic leaders have suggested that the Senate would move to pass the legislation before the end of the year, despite a number of other pressing fiscal deadlines piling up in December.

This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

Ag Commissioner Releases Annual Crop Report

SANTA CRUZ COUNTYThe 2020 Crop Report for the County of Santa Cruz has been released, detailing the region’s agricultural commodities during one of the most challenging years on record.

The Crop Report is presented each year by Agricultural Commissioner Juan Hidalgo through the Department of Weights and Measures, in accordance with the provisions of Section 2279 of the California Food and Agricultural Code. It represents estimated acreage, yield and gross values of products grown in Santa Cruz County. 

The total gross production value of Santa Cruz County agricultural commodities for 2020 was $636,032,000, representing an increase of 1.7% from 2019. Gross production yield and value is influenced by factors such as weather, labor and the marketplace. 

A number of issues influenced local agriculture in 2020, from Covid-19 to unusually hot temperatures and devastating wildfires. 

“At the start of the pandemic, we really didn’t know where things would go,” Hidalgo said. “We weren’t sure what to expect.”

Berries once again came out on top, with strawberries remaining the number one crop in Santa Cruz County despite a slow kickoff at the start of the pandemic. Strawberries’ estimated value was about $193,911,000, with raspberries trailing at $139,934,000. Berries saw an overall increase of 6.4% compared to 2019, representing 60% of total gross production.

“We were really surprised and happy to see that the losses in our industry were minimized, to a certain extent,” Hidalgo said. “Berries increased and veggies did OK, too. To be able to see an increase in any way during a pandemic is a very good thing.”

Returns from vegetable crops were only slightly less than in 2019, with an overall value of $89,462,000 compared to $94,636,000. Lettuce crops led the rest at $25,357,000.

Vegetable production was stabilized in part by consumers buying more directly to cook at home, Hidalgo said, instead of going out to eat at restaurants.

“There was a definite transition from most leafy veggies grown for restaurants shifting to retail,” he said. “We were glad to see a lot of support from the community; they supported local agriculture. Plus, federal and state funding made a big difference.”

Areas that did not fare well were cut flowers and greens. Hidalgo says this is mostly due to events such as graduations, weddings and memorial services being canceled. Apple production was severely impacted by the late summer/early autumn 2020 heat waves, with close to 50% losses. Wine grapes suffered due to smoke taint and some burning from various wildfires, including the CZU Lightning Complex in the Santa Cruz Mountains.

According to Hidalgo, it is estimated by Cal Fire that about 80,000 acres of timber also burned—including large swaths of Christmas tree farms—equalling to about $345 million losses to the industry.

“It is a loss that will be felt for decades to come,” Hidalgo explained, “since only [a certain] amount of timber can be harvested every year.”

In a press release sent out with the report, the commissioner emphasized that the figures presented in the report do not include costs such as labor, land preparation, irrigation, pest management, transportation, cooling, marketing, equipment, regulatory costs or individual operation losses. 

They also do not reflect the total contribution of agriculture to the county—farm employment and other services add “significant value and benefits to the local economy.”

“It’s so important to recognize our ag workers and growers in the area,” Hidalgo said. “They really saved our communities. They stepped up. They were essential workers from the beginning; without them our community would have been in a much worse situation. We honor their tremendous efforts and sacrifice in these scary and challenging times.”

Judge Temporarily Halts Pajaro Levee Cleanup

[This story has been updated from an earlier version. — Editor]

PAJARO—A federal judge has granted a temporary restraining order filed by an attorney representing dozens of people living in the Pajaro River levee against a planned cleanup organized by Monterey County officials.

Anthony Prince, general counsel for the California Homeless Union/Statewide Organizing Council, on Wednesday morning filed the injunction in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. 

The motion claims the planned cleanup of the levee at the border of Monterey and Santa Cruz counties poses a “heightened risk of great bodily harm to hundreds of unhoused men and women,” and that officials have not provided alternative shelter to the people who they are asking to leave the riverbed.

Prince, who represented the people living in Santa Cruz’s San Lorenzo Park in a federal lawsuit against the city of Santa Cruz that was dissolved earlier this year, in an email on Wednesday said the case has been assigned to Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen. 

He said Thursday morning that a hearing was scheduled for Monday, and that all work at the levee must halt until then. 

Monterey County Sheriff’s Chief Deputy John Thornburg said that all work stopped Thursday after they were told the temporary restraining order was granted.

Monike Tone, a plaintiff in the injunction and the president of the Pajaro/Watsonville Homeless Union, said that the people staying at the levee received notice on Nov. 10 that they had to vacate the area before 8am Wednesday, when the cleanup of the levee organized by the Monterey County Water Resources Agency would begin.

Tone patrolled the area on a bike on Wednesday morning as about eight Monterey County Sheriff’s patrol cars accompanied a handful of vehicles from a landscaping company contracted for the three-day job.

There were about a half-dozen people that were protesting the cleanups at various locations along the levee.

Four people were arrested Wednesday, including three who were dressed in black from head to toe. They were taken into custody for obstructing and delaying a peace officer after they stood in the way of patrol cars trying to access the levee. They were transported to Monterey County Jail where they would likely be booked and released, Thornburg said.

They were not among the people who were staying in the levee, Thornburg said.

As workers moved through the levee removing the encampments on the riverbed, people from Cal State Monterey Bay’s Center for Community Health Engagement (CSUMB CHE) raced from camp to camp to provide the people in the levee with storage containers for their belongings.

They also offered them a voucher for a stay at a Monterey County hotel to help them transition into a possible permanent housing option, says Josh Stratton, a representative from Monterey County 2nd District Supervisor John Phillips’ office. 

Stratton, who was helping hand out the storage containers Wednesday, said that CSUMB CHE employees had conducted outreach to the people in the levee leading up to the cleanup. 

“We didn’t want to show up today and say ‘you have to leave,’” Stratton said. “People have been given notice. Whether they feel like they’ve been given adequate notice is a subjective opinion, but we have given notice [and] we provided assistance.”

But Tone said that the assistance provided by the county would ultimately not help people staying in the levee find long-term housing. The hotel vouchers the county gives out, she says, only house people for about two weeks, and many of the service providers included in an informational packet handed to people in the levee are at capacity.

Because of this, Tone argued, the county cannot evict the people staying in the levee under Martin vs. Boise, a case in which the U.S. Ninth District Court of Appeals ruled in 2018 that outdoor camping in public spaces cannot be criminalized unless the individuals are given an alternative shelter option.

“This isn’t a cleanup,” she said. “It’s a clean-out.”

But Thornburg on Wednesday said the county was in compliance with that court case thanks to agreements with at least two hotels that provide shelter for people experiencing homelessness.

“It might not be a house down on Main Street but it’s a place to go. [We also provide] all the assistance and put people in contact with all the people that can help those that want [help],” Thornburg said. “That’s probably one of the keys, is they have to want the help as well. We are doing the best we can. Unfortunately, sometimes when we come down here it looks like we’re the bad guy here.”

Stratton says that the cleanups are essential to maintaining the levee to prevent possible flooding—a chronic issue that has for decades plagued Pajaro and Watsonville and devastated those communities. He also said that, on top of polluting the waterway and creating wildfire hazards, people staying there have dug “significant” holes into the levee that could ultimately compromise it.

“The last thing we want to do is have [the levee] fail,” Stratton said. “We have to do this. This is a life and safety public health issue … hopefully, people will realize that this isn’t the proper place to set up camp and to dig holes.”

Pajaro Valley High Teachers to File Staff Shortage Complaint

WATSONVILLE—A group of teachers from Pajaro Valley High School is planning to file a complaint with their school, citing an ongoing teacher shortage they say causes a threat to student health and safety and makes their jobs untenable.

The teachers filing the Williams complaints say the shortage—they say there are nine unfilled positions while the district claims the number is seven—has left many students without a permanent teacher. Several students whose classes don’t have a teacher simply go to the cafeteria or the library, where they are monitored by a staff member.

Teachers who spoke publicly during Wednesday’s Pajaro Valley Unified School District meeting said that many students are frequently seen wandering aimlessly during class time.

The district has a shortage of 20 teachers, with the majority heaped on Pajaro Valley and Watsonville high schools at eight each, says Pajaro Valley Federation of Teachers President Nelly Vaquera-Boggs. 

“These are students in the final years of public education and do not have a teacher of record,” she said.

Williams complaints stem from a 2000 class-action lawsuit, in which Eliezer Williams on behalf of 100 students in San Francisco County sued the State of California and the state’s Department of Education. The suit alleged that the agencies did not provide adequate instructional materials, qualified teachers and safe facilities.

The resultant Williams settlement legislation mandates that school districts must annually submit to inspections of their facilities and availability of textbooks and instructional materials that align to current standards, as well as a number of teacher misassignments and vacant teacher positions.

In the district’s annual Williams report on Wednesday, an investigation of PVHS by four committee members from the Santa Cruz County Office of Education (COE) shows that the school was short seven teachers. That information, the report shows, has been sent to the COE. A representative from that office did not respond to a request for comment by press time.

Vaquera-Boggs says that the district is trying to recruit teachers, but added that such efforts are stymied by what she and other teachers say is low pay compared to surrounding districts of similar size.

“So the district has not had any luck filling the vacancies we have,” she said. 

PVFT and PVUSD are in contract negotiations for the current 2021-22 school year. They will discuss subsequent years in future negotiations.

Vaquera-Boggs expressed concern that PVUSD has “sunshined” teachers’ health and welfare benefits for the ongoing negotiations, meaning that district officials plan to bring that item to the bargaining table.

“We’re working with the district on trying to be proactive, and for us, we believe that part of that is ensuring that our salary and our total comp package is a viable and attractive package for potential applicants,” she said. “It’s very disheartening that the district would not fully want to negotiate salaries, that they want to focus on attacking our health benefits.”

PVHS social studies and history teacher Sandino Gomez says that the school’s most dire issue is staffing, which he says stems from inadequate pay.

“If we’re not investing in the teachers that are teaching our students how can we expect our students to succeed,” he said.

Gomez acknowledges that the district offers a good medical benefit plan, but said that should not be used as a bargaining chip in negotiations.

“That shouldn’t be used as a justification to not have adequate salaries, because health care benefits do not pay the bills, they don’t put food on the table and they don’t pay the rent,” he said. 

Once the district has received the complaints, it must address the concerns, says PVUSD Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources Alison Niizawa.

This can mean either an immediate solution, or evidence that one is being sought, she says. 

For the staffing shortage, for example, the district can show that it is actively trying to recruit teachers. For book shortages, the district can show that it has ordered the books, Niizawa said.

“We look at what’s feasible for the district to do and we offer a response,” she said. “(The teacher shortage) is challenging nationwide. It’s definitely not for lack of trying.

“We have to show we are doing our due diligence to correct things that are brought to our attention.”

Watsonville Appoints New City Attorney

WATSONVILLE—The city of Watsonville will see a major shift in leadership in 2022. 

The election of a new city councilmember is ongoing, and four more seats will be open next year. Current City Manager Matt Huffaker will soon be moving to the city of Santa Cruz, and County Clerk Beatriz Vazquez Flores will retire in January.

After longtime City Attorney Alan Smith announced his retirement in April 2021, an extensive search was set in motion to find a new legal counsel for the city. Watsonville Mayor Jimmy Dutra was part of the selection committee for the position. He said that after reading proposals and holding interviews, they narrowed it down to their top two candidates before selecting Samantha Zutler of Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP.

Zutler is currently the City Attorney for Capitola and Healdsburg. She has been working in municipal law for her entire 16-year career.

“I have wanted to work with cities and governments before I really knew what that meant,” Zutler said. “I’ve always believed in the power of local governments. They are vital to democracy, in building and sustaining communities. And I’ve been lucky enough to do just that.”

Zutler is the first woman to be appointed as Watsonville’s city attorney, which Dutra called “huge.”

“We strive to be representative of our communities,” he said. “I’m a big proponent of making sure women are in positions of leadership in our community.”

The position

A city attorney is one of three positions employed by the City Council, along with the city manager and city clerk. They act as a general counsel, addressing any legal issue that might come to the city.

“I interface with the City Council and try to understand what their objectives are,” Zutler explains. “I do my best to make sure the city is compliant to any new changes to the law. Which is a full-time job in itself—the California state legislature is a busy one.”

Zutler said her experience working in Capitola prompted her to apply for another position in Santa Cruz County. 

“I love this area,” she said. “It’s so interesting. In my experience, cities in Santa Cruz County generally work pretty well together. I’ve gotten to know a lot about the other cities through my work in Capitola. I like to apply to cities where I feel I can be effective and do some good. I also really like the [Watsonville City] Council and the staff. They seem to have a great reputation in the community. I watched a lot of meetings before I applied, and I thought I’d be a good fit.”

Burke, Williams & Sorensen is a large firm that serves multiple public agencies across the state. Dutra said that switching from an in-house attorney (Smith is a local resident who has been working for the city since 1995) to one from a larger firm will offer up new opportunities and resources to the city.

“Honestly, we’ve been spoiled for so long,” Dutra said. “Alan has been here for so many years, in his office inside of City Hall … But there were limitations. The small firm couldn’t always handle some of our larger lawsuits, so we had to contract out. Samantha’s firm is so big; basically, it’s like a one-stop shop. A lot of issues we couldn’t handle before will be able to be done through her firm.”

Added Zutler: “I know that the city has had a great relationship with their city attorney for years. So I have some big shoes to fill, which I acknowledge. But I think Watsonville can really benefit from going with a large firm. Cities the size of Watsonville have such a wide range of issues … I think our firm, our team can really bring something to the table.” 

A diverse team

The legal team Zutler has assembled for Watsonville is made up mostly of attorneys that she has worked with in the past. Some were hand-selected to address issues specific to Watsonville. 

“Since Watsonville has an airport … I brought in an attorney who is an expert in airport law,” Zutler said. “I brought him in specifically for this community.”

Zutler praised Burke, Williams & Sorensen’s history of diverse hiring practices. The new team for Watsonville is made up of mostly women—which was not necessarily intentional, Zutler said.

“Our firm is certainly interested in making sure we have attorneys that reflect the communities that hire us,” she said. “I can’t take much credit. They always make sure we have lots of women, a lot of people of color—a diverse collection of lawyers. I’ve been extremely fortunate to benefit from Burke’s awesome hiring.”

Zutler begins her appointment on Jan. 1 and said she is excited to start working in Watsonville. 

“I want to make sure we’re able to give [the City Council] the legal backup they need to reach their goals …. That’s how I see my job,” Zutler said. “My job is to support them. To help them achieve whatever policies and goals they set for themselves. I hope to bring responsive, smart and informed legal services to the city.”

Dutra said that the Council has already started to work with Zutler, gradually introducing her to the community and its issues so her team can be “up and running” when they’re on full time. This will help the city as its leadership shifts.

“We are so excited to have Samantha and her team come in with new ideas,” he said. “This is a great opportunity for our community to start fresh and embrace change.”

Santa Cruz County’s Indoor Mask Mandate Returns Monday

SANTA CRUZ—Santa Cruz County Health Officer Dr. Gail Newel on Friday issued a health order requiring all people to wear a face-covering when indoors in public spaces and when visiting or hosting people from outside of their households, regardless of vaccination status. 

The order goes into effect Monday.

“Unfortunately, a potential winter surge appears to be a significant threat to the health and safety of our community,” Newel said in a press release. “As we look forward to spending time with those we love during the holidays, it is important to protect vulnerable friends and family members by wearing a mask indoors.”

Everyone who has not been vaccinated should get their first dose as soon as possible, and anyone who was vaccinated more than six months ago should seek out a booster, Newel added.

The order comes after a 29% increase in the county’s case rates in the past 14 days. The county’s testing positivity rate has also risen, and its effective reproductive number has surpassed 1.00, meaning that every person contracting Covid-19 is spreading the coronavirus to more than one person.

“That’s an indicator that we’re heading into a surge,” Health Services Agency spokesperson Corinne Hyland said. “We want to make sure that we’re protecting people and our health care system.”

According to county data, at least 455 people are currently testing positive for Covid-19. Just a couple of weeks ago, Hyland said, the number of people who had the disease was in the low 200s. 

Hyland said the county believes the increased number of cases is related to gatherings around Halloween.

All businesses and governmental entities must require employees to wear masks and post signage that is clearly visible and easy to read at all entry points for indoor settings informing the public of the mask requirement. 

Those working in a closed room or office alone, or with members of their household, do not have to wear a mask, and masks are not required during indoor activities where they cannot be worn safely such as eating, drinking, swimming, showering in a fitness facility or obtaining medical or cosmetic services.

Masks, however, must be worn in private settings, including a person’s home, when people from outside of their household are present.

The order will remain in place indefinitely, Newel said.


For information on Covid-19 vaccine and a list of vaccine providers including local pop-up clinics, visit santacruzhealth.org/coronavirusvaccine.

Does Pine Flats Road Really Need Trees Removed?

Anthony Hong is quite the tree-lover, although he isn’t exactly a card-carrying environmental activist. But when he could feel the thud of trunks slamming into the ground from his home in Bonny Doon, as part of a PG&E tree-removal project, he started looking for ways to protest.

“All the trees communicate together,” he said on Nov. 11, looking over a day’s worth of chainsaw work and wood chipping by subcontractor Davey Tree at 2375 Pine Flat Rd. “The real solution is to bury the lines, not cut the trees.”

PG&E says it’s identified 23 trees—22 Douglas firs and one madrone—near transmission lines along the property, that need to be cut down for safety reasons.

While arborists surveyed the property earlier this year, the removal work didn’t begin until about two weeks ago. It’s scheduled to continue until the end of the year.

Hong, 42, admits he got worked up and went on the property to speak with the tree-removal crew. He confronted one of the homeowners when she came out to see what the fuss was about.

“She said, ‘This is my property.’ … ‘I’m a tree-lover, too,’” he recalled. “I lost my cool. I had zero cool.”

Hong “joked” he might have to up the ante by interfering with Davey’s work.

Hong’s frustration with falling activity in his neighborhood comes as PG&E is under increased scrutiny by California’s public utility regulator for dozens of planned and unplanned blackouts in the area, many related to tree limbs falling on power lines.

The company may also be at fault for causing the Dixie Fire earlier this year.

Homeowner Mark Mitchell, 48, didn’t want to comment on the interaction between his wife and Hong, but he said he understands his sentiment.

“It was emotional to see the damage from the fire,” Mitchell said. “It’s emotional to see the trees being removed.”

The couple was forced to evacuate for 13 months after the CZU Lightning Complex fires, which partially damaged their home.

Over the last decade, just a couple trees have been removed by PG&E, despite how close many are to the power lines, he said.

But while many of the trunks marked with an “X” on his property appear to be part of healthy trees, he emphasizes he’s not an expert, and they did give the removal work the OK.

“We would love to see PG&E underground the lines,” he said. “That would be safer and provide us with more reliable power.”

PG&E recently announced a 10-year plan to bury 10,000 miles of distribution lines in high fire threat areas, in an effort to reduce wildfire risk and prevent the need for pre-emptive “Public Safety Power Shutoff” (PSPS) outages for customers.

However, PG&E confirmed it has no plans to underground the wires at the address.

Forest Revere, 33, a renter in the neighborhood, says he’s generally supportive of the work underway.

“They need to do their job on protecting the lines,” he said. “I think it’s preventative.”

Mari Rose Taruc, coordinator of the Reclaim Our Power Utility Justice Campaign, says the troubled electricity company is more focused on investors than customers.

“It’s clear that PG&E’s primary goal is protecting their millionaire shareholders’ profits from liability, not keeping our communities, or our forests, safe,” said Taruc. “What would it look like if the people in the Santa Cruz community—not corporate lawyers and CEOs—decided which trees to trim, where to place microgrids, and how to keep power flowing to our homes?”

PG&E spokesperson Mayra Tostado said the trees at 2375 Pine Flat Rd. were identified via routine inspections as being weak or structurally damaged.

“Because of the proximity of these trees to our energized transmission lines, these hazards need to be cut down in order to mitigate risk of the trees falling into the lines should they fail,” she said. “These mitigation measures protect our communities that we have the privilege to serve, from unplanned outages, wildfires, electrocutions and other hazards and injuries.”

In fact, several trees being removed have wonky trunks that fork, or bark that turns in on itself, leading to a precarious situation, she said.

“For other trees, they are incompatible with the continued safe and compliant operation of the transmission lines based upon their proximity to lines and are currently encroaching within the safe operation of the facilities and, therefore, need to be cut down,” she said.

But the 94-year-old neighbor across the street, John Wheeler, believes this is just part of the “game” PG&E is playing, because—to his eye—the trees across the street are still healthy.

“PG&E will not put the wires underground,” he said. “All they have to do is put a conduit on the other side of the road and put the wires in it and they’d have no more trouble.”

He said he likes the idea of bringing in a new power company to handle things.

“God let those trees grow so nice,” he said, while out for a walk with one of his huskies. “The shame of it is cutting down the beautiful trees because of the wires.”

Days after sending a message to Supervisor Ryan Coonerty, Hong traipsed down to the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors meeting Nov. 16 to speak during public comment period.

His fiery demeanor had been replaced with a gloomy one.

He described how tormented he’s been listening to the woodchipper from his home.

“It’s not smart,” he said. “It’s asinine.”

Hong urged the supervisors to take action.

“When a tree falls, you can’t take it back,” he said. “It’s extremely distressing.”

Pelosi Predicts Thursday Vote on Biden’s Ambitious Social Policy Bill

By Jonathan Weisman, The New York Times

WASHINGTON — House Democrats, increasingly confident that they have the support to pass their $1.85 trillion social policy and climate change bill, drove toward a vote on the package as early as Thursday evening, with Speaker Nancy Pelosi expressing optimism that the measure would ultimately reach President Joe Biden’s desk.

“It’s pretty exciting. This is historic; it is transformative,” Pelosi said Thursday morning, telling reporters the final pieces should fall together later in the day to allow for a vote on legislation known as the Build Back Better Act.

Democrats can afford to lose only a few votes given their slim margin of control. But the speaker was leaving nothing to chance.

Technical changes will have to be made to the bill before the vote to ensure that it can be considered under special rules known as reconciliation, which shield it from a filibuster, allowing Democrats to push it through over unified Republican opposition in the Senate. And some moderate Democrats are still waiting on a final cost estimate from the Congressional Budget Office, Congress’ official scorekeeper, which Pelosi said should arrive by 5 p.m.

So far, the committee-by-committee judgments from the budget office have not raised fiscal concerns. And House Democrats appear eager to pass the measure — the broadest intervention in the nation’s social safety net in 50 years and by far the largest ever effort to combat climate change — and go home for their weeklong Thanksgiving recess.

Pelosi talked up the areas of agreement that Democrats had reached in both the House and Senate: universal prekindergarten, generous assistance with child care costs, prescription drug price controls and home health care for older Americans.

But if the bill clears the House, it faces a difficult road in the Senate, where Republicans will have a clear shot to offer politically difficult amendments, any one of which could unravel the delicate Democratic coalition behind it. Two centrists, Sens. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., and Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., have not committed to supporting it, and a single defection would bring the measure down in the evenly divided chamber.

Some significant provisions remain in play, including a measure to grant work permits and legal protection to many immigrants in the country illegally; funding for four weeks of paid family and medical leave; and a generous increase in the federal tax deduction for state and local taxes paid, from $10,000 a year to $80,000.

Liberals like Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who chairs the Budget Committee, and some populist conservatives such as Rep. Jared Golden, D-Maine, have raised strong objections to that tax measure, which would amount to a major tax cut for wealthy homeowners who itemize their deductions. But Democrats from high-tax states like New Jersey and New York have demanded the provision as the price for their vote.

Pelosi, who pronounced herself a supporter of the tax provision, defended it Thursday, saying that it was “not about tax cuts for wealthy people,” but ensuring that state and local governments have the tax revenues they need to provide education, fire and rescue services.

She repeatedly said she had no fear that the bill would be brought down in the Senate or altered substantially.

“The Senate will act its will on it, but whatever it is, it will still be transformative and historic,” she said.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. and the majority leader, who will have to take up the mantle if and when the measure clears the House, promised Thursday to finish the task.

“Creating jobs, lowering costs, fighting inflation, keeping more money in people’s pockets — these are things Americans want and what Americans need, and it’s what Build Back Better does,” he said on the Senate floor. “We are going to keep working on this important legislation until we get it done.”

This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

Wildfire Cleanup Contractor Vanishes

Following a litany of resident testimony from wildfire victims on Tuesday, the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors became convinced a cleanup contractor that made a quarter-billion dollars in the wake of wildfire destruction left another disaster behind.

They voted unanimously to reach out to Gov. Gavin Newsom for help, after staff reported Anvil Builders Inc. would not fix millions of dollars in damage they caused to county and private roads, as well as septic and storm drainage systems.

“We have heard of people being trapped at their home sites,” said Public Works Director Matt Machado. “Right now, they’re in the middle of a battle.”

Of the properties managed by Anvil under a $225 million debris-removal contract following 2020 wildfires that ravaged Monterey, San Mateo, Santa Cruz, Santa Clara and Stanislaus counties, more than 50% are located in this jurisdiction, staff said.

The fire damage sustained locally was significant. The county had to replace 419 signs and 32 culverts.

The county has 45 miles of road in the burn scar on top of numerous other private roads.

Dave Reid, director of the Office of Response, Recovery & Resilience, said Anvil came up with the contract language saying they would leave roads in “equal to or better” condition.

He noted that residents of the Last Chance Road area had first raised problems with Anvil back in February.

“They were concerned about the grading that was being done to their roads,” Reid said, adding recent storms have quelled fire worries but raised landslide risk. “Rain is a double-edged sword.”

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), a branch of the California Environmental Protection Agency, contracted Anvil for the job.

The company accessed 664 properties across the county to remove debris.

Last Chance now has 7.8 miles of damaged road—which staff estimates will cost $2.7 million to fix. The original claim that was submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was denied.

Landowners say their claims are being denied because they’d signed right-of-entry paperwork that acknowledged damage could happen on their property.

The total bill for repairs across the county is expected to run above $7.1 million, including around $4.4 million for county-maintained road rehab.

Anvil has not been responsive to requests to repair the damage, staff reported.

“Thank you for that depressing report,” said Supervisor Bruce McPherson. “The county can’t bear the cost of repairing these roads.”

Last Chance resident Forest Martinez-McKinney said Anvil probably could’ve gotten away with just partially repaving a section of their access, but chose to not even do that.

Next at the podium, that community’s roads manager said Anvil promised 40 loads of aggregate that never materialized, causing him to have to abandon his work truck during the recent storms when it got stuck.

He says the company offered to pay $75,000 for repairs an engineer said would cost $2.7 million.

“I’m sorry about that,” McPherson replied.

Other residents said they were appalled at how Anvil would grade a road flat so rain wouldn’t be able to wash off it properly, or they would take a road angled one way and turn it into a road angled in the opposite direction.

A Whitehouse Canyon Improvement Association member said Anvil replaced a road that had about 6-8 inches of material with just two inches of base rock and got government officials to sign off on it.

Supervisor Ryan Coonerty said local residents who have experienced trauma shouldn’t have to fight a company that was richly rewarded in the fire’s aftermath.

“We expect them to do better,” he said. “The people of Last Chance have been in an impossible position.”

Still No Decision on Watsonville Interim City Manager Appointment

WATSONVILLE—After three closed session meetings the Watsonville City Council has not yet decided on who will lead the municipality in the interim after outgoing city manager Matt Huffaker leaves later this year.

But Watsonville Mayor Jimmy Dutra says that a decision could be near.

“I think we’re getting closer to a solution for the interim city manager position,” the city’s lead official said after a four-hour Wednesday morning meeting at the Civic Plaza.

For the second time, the City Council gave staff direction on how to proceed but made no final decision on the appointment.

It is unclear when the elected leaders will again discuss the item. Dutra said that another meeting could happen before the City Council’s final regularly scheduled meeting of the year on Dec. 14.

“It may happen sooner than that but I don’t know of the exact timing,” Dutra said as he, city staff and much of the City Council rushed out of the council chambers and back to work following the special mid-week meeting.

The gathering was the city’s third in three weeks concerning the appointment of the interim city manager.

It met on Nov. 3 in a special meeting with two City Council members absent and debated the item in closed session again at its regularly scheduled Nov. 9 meeting.

At the Nov. 3 meeting, the City Council directed staff to search for two companies that would spearhead the city’s efforts to find a new city manager. One company would be in charge of finding a permanent replacement for Huffaker, and the other for identifying a person to fill the position in the interim.

Huffaker, the city manager in Santa Cruz County’s southernmost city for three years, was appointed as Santa Cruz’s chief executive on Nov. 9 by the Santa Cruz City Council. He is slated to start his new position on Jan. 3, 2022.

His final day with Watsonville is Dec. 14.

The appointment of an interim city manager has drawn concerns from people who claim they are city of Watsonville employees that have flooded the Watsonville City Council’s email with pleas that it look outward for a replacement. Specifically, those people say that Assistant City Manager Tamara Vides is not qualified for the position.

Two city employees, Joaquin Vasquez and Andrea Padilla-Curtis, have come forward against Vides’ possible appointment on the record.

Both wrote to the City Council before the Nov. 9 meeting to say that the city should look elsewhere for an interim city manager.

Vides, at the Nov. 3 special meeting, received a show of support from interim police chief Tom Sims and fire chief Rudy Lopez and the directors of the parks, development and finance departments.

At Wednesday’s meeting, there was no public comment before the City Council began its closed session—public bodies conduct closed sessions to discuss private matters such as lawsuits, employees and the purchase or lease of real property.

[This story has been updated with the addition of two city employees’ letters to the city council. — Editor]

House Narrowly Passes Biden’s Social Safety Net and Climate Bill

Over the next decade, $2 trillion will be used to battle climate change, expand health care and reweave the nation’s social safety net

Ag Commissioner Releases Annual Crop Report

The 2020 Crop Report for the County of Santa Cruz details the region’s agricultural commodities during one of the most challenging years on record

Judge Temporarily Halts Pajaro Levee Cleanup

Anthony Prince, general counsel for the California Homeless Union/Statewide Organizing Council, filed an injunction with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Pajaro Valley High Teachers to File Staff Shortage Complaint

They say the ongoing teacher shortage is a threat to student health and safety and makes their jobs untenable

Watsonville Appoints New City Attorney

Samantha Zutler is the first woman to be chosen for the position in the city's history

Santa Cruz County’s Indoor Mask Mandate Returns Monday

Santa Cruz County Health Officer Dr. Gail Newel issued a health order requiring all people to wear a face-covering when indoors in public spaces

Does Pine Flats Road Really Need Trees Removed?

While arborists surveyed the property earlier this year, the removal work didn’t begin until about two weeks ago; it's scheduled to continue through 2021

Pelosi Predicts Thursday Vote on Biden’s Ambitious Social Policy Bill

House Dems increasingly confident that they have the support to pass their $1.85 trillion social policy and climate change bill

Wildfire Cleanup Contractor Vanishes

County reaches out to Governor after staff reported Anvil Builders Inc. would not fix millions of dollars in damage they caused to roads and septic systems

Still No Decision on Watsonville Interim City Manager Appointment

The city council has not decided on who will lead the municipality in the interim after outgoing city manager Matt Huffaker leaves later this year
17,623FansLike
8,845FollowersFollow