A car drives past an AmazonFresh Pickup location on June 16, 2017 in Seattle, Washington. ; Credit: David Ryder / Stringer

When Amazon announced its acquisition of Whole Foods back in June, the expectation was that the deal would cause major disruptions to the grocery industry.

The $14-billion purchase is expected to close Monday. In anticipation of the deal’s finalization, Amazon announced yesterday that it plans to lower prices on a number of items at Whole Foods, as well as offers Amazon Prime members a discount.

The news quickly translated to a stock-price hit for a number of grocers, including Costco and Kroger, erasing some $12 billion in market value from these companies.

Guests:

Phil Lempert, a supermarket and consumer behavior expert with the Santa Monica-based market retail firm SupermarketGuru.com; he tweets @PhilLempert

Burt P. Flickinger, III, managing director of Strategic Resource Group, a consumer industry consulting firm in New York; he tweets @Burt_Flickinger

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

This undated photo shows the death chamber at the Georgia Diagnostic Prison in Jackson, GA. ; Credit: Georgia Department of Corrections/Getty Images

On Thursday, the California Supreme Court upheld many of the provisions of voter-backed Prop 66, the measure meant to speed up executions in California.

This decision will have the biggest impact on the death row inmates that have run out of appeals.

However, the mandate for death penalty appeals to be decided within 5 years of sentencing was rejected as unconstitutional, raising questions about the law’s efficacy in hastening death sentences.

There are currently about 400 pending death penalty appeals in California, a state where there hasn’t been an execution in over ten years, due to court challenges.

Which provisions of Prop 66 were upheld and which were struck down? What does this mean for the death penalty in California going forward? And how does nixing of the five-year mandate affect the efficacy of the new law?

Guest:

Maura Dolan, San Francisco-based legal affairs writer for the Los Angeles Times; she’s been following this story; she tweets @mauradolan

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

; Credit: Photo by Larry Darling via Flickr Creative Commons

Movie theater subscription service MoviePass recently dropped its monthly fee to $9.95 – meaning customers can see one film a day at any theater in the U.S. that accepts debit cards for less than the price of one ticket at most theaters in Los Angeles.

It's basically applying the Netflix subscription model to movies still in theaters, and customers are jumping at the chance to see films on the big screen for an affordable price. Two days after MoviePass announced its new price model, it surpassed 150,000 subscribers, causing its website to crash.

After signing up for MoviePass, customers are sent a MasterCard debit card that automatically loads with the full price of a ticket when they use it to see a film. Of course, the subscription comes with some limitations. Customers can’t use MoviePass for 3D or IMAX films, and premium theaters like ArcLight and Landmark aren't included.

Some theaters that do take MoviePass are not happy with the increase in subscribers. AMC has threatened legal action against the service, and even stopped allowing MoviePass users to buy e-tickets in Boston and Denver – but because MoviePass is still paying theaters the full price per ticket, it’s not clear what they can do to prevent it, short of declining all MasterCard debit cards.

A week after the price drop, there are still many questions about how the service works. Why did MoviePass lower its subscription fee? Why are theaters upset if they’re still getting paid the full price per ticket? And is this model sustainable, or will MoviePass lose too much money to stay afloat?

Guest:

Brent Lang, senior film and media editor at Variety who has been following the story; he tweets @BrentALang

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Police stand by as thousands of protesters prepare to march in Boston against a planned 'Free Speech Rally' just one week after the violent 'Unite the Right' rally in Virginia; Credit: Spencer Platt / Staff

In the wake of Charlottesville, two controversial rallies were to be held in the Bay Area this weekend.

As reported by CNN, a “Freedom Rally” will be held at San Francisco’s Chrissy Field, organized by Patriot Prayer, the Oregon-based conservative group. In Berkeley, a “No to Marxism in America” event, planned for Sunday, at the city’s Martin Luther King Jr. Civic Center Park was just reported to be cancelled. According to the Deputy City Manager, the permit for the rally was incomplete and late.

Both groups organizing these events claim they are not white nationalists, but many left-leaning critics disagree. With the violence that broke out in Charlottesville, law enforcement and city officials are taking precautions to keep protesters and counter-protesters safe. Strategies for this include limited public transportation, blocked off areas and a list of prohibited items at the event sites. Residents have also been encouraged to stay away from the protest sites.

So what else is San Francisco doing to prepare for this weekend? What kind of counter-protest groups are likely to attend? How have the famously liberal cities of San Francisco and Berkeley dealt with protests before? And what’s the latest on the cancelled rally in Berkeley?

Guests: 

Kurtis Alexander, staff writer for the San Francisco Chronicle; he’s been following the story; he tweets @kurtisalexander

Paige St. John, reporter for the Los Angeles Times; she’s been following the story and will be in Berkeley this weekend; she tweets @paigestjohn

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

A Whole Foods Market sign is seen in Washington, DC, June 16, 2017, following the announcement that Amazon would purchase the supermarket chain for $13.7 billion. ; Credit: SAUL LOEB / Staff

When John Mackey founded the health food store, SaferWay in the 1970s, only a small group of hippie supermarket shoppers used terms like “free range,” “organic” and “gluten free.”

But nearly 15 years later, customers worldwide would become devoted shoppers at Mackey’s next supermarket venture, Whole Foods. As the nation’s largest natural foods market, Whole Foods has staunchly rooted itself in movements, from the environment, animal welfare, human rights to the most sustainably wild-caught fish in the world.

Whole Foods is perhaps the paragon of what is called “social entrepreneurism”, a movement created by social activists who want to do good, as well as do well financially. In the new book, “From Head Shops to Whole Foods,” author Joshua Davis looks at the history of social entrepreneurism, with specific Los Angeles examples like the supermarket like Erewhon Natural Foods and the now-defunct Aquarian Book Shop, the legendary black book shop. He also looks at how the mandate of these social entrepreneurism were diluted, coopted and sometimes altogether abandoned.

Guest:

Joshua Davis, an assistant professor of history at the University of Baltimore; author of the new book, “From Head Shops to Whole Foods: The Rise and Fall of Activist Entrepreneurs” (Columbia University Press, 2017)

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

In this handout provided by the Army National Guard, Texas National Guardsmen rescue a resident by boat during flooding caused by Hurricane HarveyAugust 27, 2017 in Houston, Texas; Credit: Handout/Army National Guard

The usually bustling metropolis of Houston, Texas and its 2.3 million residents has screeched to a halt in the wake of Hurricane (now Tropical Storm) Harvey, which dumped rain and brought flooding that National Weather Service forecasters called “beyond anything experienced.”

Fearing that ordering an evacuation could lead to people being stranded on roadways and interstates in the middle of the storm, Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner did not issue a city-wide evacuation order. Shelters throughout the city are filling up, with some at up to four times holding capacity, and emergency services processed tens of thousands of calls Saturday and Sunday nights. The entire Texas National Guard has been activated to assist with search and rescue. So far, six people have died as a result of the storm, which is expected to continue dumping rain on Houston and surrounding areas well into the week and could bring rainfall totals close to 50 inches in some places. On AirTalk, we'll speak with a reporter who has been reporting on the storm from a North Houston neighborhood since it moved in on Friday night.

We’re also following the president’s response to Hurricane Harvey as he plans to make a visit to the Houston area when he can do so “without causing disruption.” Among his many tweets through the weekend were pledges of support from the federal government and words of encouragement to residents, first responders and public officials in Houston.

The president made news last Friday on a couple of fronts, signing a memo that prevents transgender people from enlisting in the military and pardoning Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who formerly led the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office in Arizona, on charges of contempt of court. Finally, we’ll look at what happens if, as expected, the president ends the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA.

Guests:

Rebecca Elliott, city hall reporter for The Houston Chronicle; she has been reporting since Friday from the Greenspoint area of Houston, a neighborhood north of downtown and south of Bush Airport; she tweets @rfelliott

Caroline Heldman, associate professor of politics at Occidental College and author of the forthcoming book, “Protest Politics in the Marketplace: Consumer Activism in the Corporate Age” (Cornell University Press, 2017); she tweets @carolineheldman

Pete Peterson, dean of the School of Public Policy and senior fellow at The Davenport Institute at Pepperdine University; he tweets @Pete4CA

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Children hold banners and placards while listening to speakers at a rally outside the 9th Circuit federal court in Pasadena, California on July 16, 2015, where Immigrant rights organizations, labor, and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients from Arizona and Los Angeles gathered. ; Credit: FREDERIC J. BROWN / Staff

A group of conservative state attorneys general said they would sue Trump in federal court unless he started unraveling DACA by September 5 – so it looks like the president will make a decision regarding people who were brought to the U.S. illegally within the fortnight.

Many are anticipating that the Trump administration will stop issuing new work permits to DACA recipients. The ending of DACA would also put its participants in danger of deportation.

Trump has purportedly wavered on the DACA decision for months and today we explore the legal ramifications of his potential decision.

Would DACA survive a court challenge? Do the challenges to DAPA serve as a parallel? What is the avenue for challenging an executive order? And what legal recourse would DACA recipients have if Trump pulls the program?

Guests:

Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at Center for Immigration Studies; she tweets @JessicaV_CIS

Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center, an immigrant rights organization; she tweets @MarielenaNILC

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

A couples shows their wedding rings during their ceremony.
; Credit: File photo by JAY DIRECTO/AFP/Getty Images

In 2015, about one in ten marriages in the United States had both bride and groom under age 25, according to data from the National Center for Marriage and Family Research at Bowling Green State University.

Though a 3 percent decline from 2008, it means young couples still make up a decent portion of U.S. marriages. A number of studies have questioned the wisdom of getting married young, and anecdotally at least, young brides say they’ve often felt judged for their decisions.

Stephanie Coontz, the director of research and public education at University of Texas, Austin’s Council on Contemporary Families, says that while this outside concern is not completely unfounded, it’s unfair to use a couple’s age to pass judgment on a marriage’s capacity for success.

Stephanie: On average, people who marry later are less likely to divorce – but those averages disguise lots of variations and I think it’s a real shame when people start making these judgments. And I think that it’s partly because we women are under so much pressure. If you marry early, it might raise your chance of divorce, but if you marry later, you might not be able to have a baby. So we’re always feeling guilty and I think defensive about the choices we make. 

One caller, Iswaria in Pasadena, got married 10 years ago, when she and her husband were 25 and 26. She recalls how hard it was to stay home with her young kids while her friends posted about traveling or going out to bars on Facebook, which was just taking off in popularity.

Iswaria: We were really struggling just to make ends meet, and there was really no one in our peer group who was in the same position. Fast forward 10 years later, a lot of our friends now have young children and we’re kind of enjoying life with an eight-year-old and a nine-year-old. It did take us 10 years to buy a house and 10 years to kind of settle down in our careers, but we did it together and at the end of the day, that has made us as a family a lot stronger.

Jolene in Long Beach is celebrating her 11-year anniversary with her husband, who she married when she was 21 and he was 22. Right after they got married, they went into the Peace Corps together, which her husband said he wouldn’t have done without her. More than a decade later, Jolene says their marriage is still a strength in reaching their goals.

Jolene: We are both now in Ph.D. programs... and are raising kids while doing that and also having careers on the side. The support that we’ve found in the relationship I think is something that really allowed us to go as far as we have in pursuing these different paths.

Guests:

Wendy Manning, director of the Center for Family and Demographic Research and co-director of the National Center for Marriage and Family Research at Bowling Green State University in Ohio; she is also a sociology professor at Bowling Green

Stephanie Coontz, director of research and public education at the Council on Contemporary Families, a research non-profit at the University of Texas, Austin, that focuses on matters related to American families; she also teaches history and family studies at The Evergreen State College in Olympia, Wash.

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Antifa members and counter protesters gather at the rightwing No To Marxism rally on August 27, 2017 at Martin Luther King Jr. Park in Berkeley, California.; Credit: AMY OSBORNE / Contributor

Black-clad anarchists on Sunday stormed into what had been a largely peaceful Berkeley protest against hate and attacked at least five people, including the leader of a politically conservative group who canceled an event a day earlier in San Francisco amid fears of violence.

The group of more than 100 hooded protesters, with shields emblazoned with the words “no hate” and waving a flag identifying themselves as anarchists, busted through police lines, avoiding security checks by officers to take away possible weapons. Then the anarchists blended with a crowd of 2,000 largely peaceful protesters who turned up to demonstrate in a “Rally Against Hate” opposed to a much smaller gathering of right-wing protesters.

Berkeley police chief Andrew Greenwood defended how police handled the protest, saying they made a strategic decision to let the anarchists enter to avoid more violence. Greenwood said “the potential use of force became very problematic” given the thousands of peaceful protesters in the park. Once anarchists arrived, it was clear there would not be dueling protests between left and right so he ordered his officers out of the park and allowed the anarchists to march in. There was “no need for a confrontation over a grass patch,” Greenwood said.

Read the full story here.

With files from the Associated Press

Guests:

Devin Katayama, reporter covering the East Bay for KQED News; he covered the Berkeley rally on Sunday; he tweets @RadioDevin

Maria Haberfeld, Professor of Police Science, in the Department of Law, Police Science and Criminal Justice Administration at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

A charging plug connects an electric vehicle (EV) to a charging station on August 17, 2017.; Credit: Dan Kitwood/Getty Images

Assembly Bill 1184 says yes, hunkering down on the $449 million already spent on consumer rebates to increase zero-emission vehicle sales over the last seven years.

If approved by the full state Legislature by September 15, the bill will land on the desk of Governor Jerry Brown.

The idea behind the bill, sponsored by Assemblyman Phil Ting (D-San Francisco) is to subsidize electric vehicles so that they’re comparable in price to similarly sized natural gas-powered vehicles. This will help California meet its 2030 greenhouse gas emission reduction goals, which includes the California Air Resources Board’s target number of 4 million electric vehicles on the road by 2030. According to supporters, these subsidies will drive down the market price of electric cars, eventually making them affordable for all.

But opposition argues that these subsidies would only benefit the wealthy and wouldn’t significantly drive down overall costs. Another major point of contention is where the $3 billion will come from. Right now, it will be primarily drawn from California’s cap-and-trade auction revenue, and some lawmakers argue these state funds could be used more effectively for other projects.

The bill also raises larger questions about whether California should be subsidizing electric cars at all. Is the environmental impact significant enough to merit the cost of subsidies? Could those funds find better use? And will subsidies actually encourage people to buy electric vehicles, or do other factors, such as size and charging station range, play an outsized role?

Guests:

Steve Chadima, senior vice president for External Affairs at Advanced Energy Economy, a business group that co-sponsored AB 1184; he tweets @stevechadima

Adrian Moore, vice president of Policy at the Reason Foundation; he previously served on the California Public Infrastructure Advisory Commission (2010-2012); he tweets @reasonpolicy

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

A sold sign is posted in front of a home for sale on July 30, 2013 in San Francisco, California.; Credit: Getty Images

As the state of California works to mitigate a crippling housing crisis, a package of bills is working its way through the legislature that aims to move forward on several solutions to the problem. As part of KPCC’s coverage of the housing crisis, we’ll be debating the three bills that are seminal to this housing package.

Today, we look at Senate Bill 2, also known as the Building Homes and Jobs Act. It would impose a fee ranging from $75 to $225 “to be paid at the time of the recording of every real estate instrument, paper, or notice required or permitted by law to be recorded.” That money would be deposited into a new fund the bill would create within the State Treasury, and a board comprised of members of both the public and private sectors would ultimately decide how those funds are spent. They are however, required to spend 20 percent of the money in the fund on affordable owner-occupied workforce housing and 10 percent for housing purposes related to agricultural workers and their families.

Supporters say the bill will create a steady, constantly-present stream of money coming in to support affordable housing construction. Opponents worry the bill will discourage recording in order to avoid the fee and that the language in the bill isn’t specific enough and leaves too much room for interpretation. The bill will need a ⅔ majority to pass the Assembly and there is concern that some Democrats will be wary of voting in favor of the bill after having supported two other tax hikes this year – an increase on vehicle registration fees and the gas tax increase.

We reached out to the bill’s sponsor, Senator Toni Atkins, as well as the bill’s co-sponsors California Housing and the California Housing Consortium but no one was able to accommodate our request.

Guests:

Ben Adler, capitol bureau chief for Capital Public Radio in Sacramento, who’s been following the negotiations over the housing bills; he tweets @adlerben

Jason Rhine, legislative representative for the League of California Cities, which supports SB 2

Mike Belote, contract lobbyist representing a variety of real estate interests, including the California Mortgage Association and California Escrow Association, which oppose SB 2

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

The downtown skyline is seen in Los Angeles, California as seen on May 17, 2016.; Credit: FREDERIC J. BROWN/AFP/Getty Images

There’s been a longstanding battle between commercial and nonprofit developers in Los Angeles. A package of housing bills has brought up numerous debates on how to tackle the crisis.

The bills include proposed charges on real-estate transactions to fund affordable housing, a $3-billion bond to fund affordable housing and cutting red tape to make way for new housing projects. More than half of L.A. residents pay over 30 percent of their income on housing, and the city has a goal to build more than 100,000 units for the homeless in the next 10 years. And while no one will argue that there’s a housing crisis in SoCal, approaches on how to solve the problem have created mounting tensions.

So what are the perspectives between for-profit and nonprofit developers in the future of housing in Los Angeles? Larry speaks to advocates from both sides today to see where they disagree and relate on the city’s housing crisis.

Guests:

Alan Greenlee, executive director of Southern California Association of Non-Profit Housing, an organization that facilitates development of affordable homes across Southern California

Mott Smith, principal with Civic Enterprise Development, a mid-sized developing firm based in L.A., and adjunct professor in the USC Price School of Public Policy

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Mushroom growing kits lay on display in a store on July 18. 2005 in London, England. The sale of fresh mushrooms has been prohibited as of today due to the reclassification of the drug to Class A.; Credit: Daniel Berehulak/Getty Images

It was a big step for drug policy reformers in California when voters approved a ballot measure to legalize recreational adult use of marijuana.

A similar measure on the 2012 ballot had come up short. Now, a mayoral candidate from Northern California is looking to take it one step further and has submitted a ballot measure that would eliminate criminal penalties for adults 21 and older for possessing, selling, cultivating or transporting psilocybins, known on the street as “magic mushrooms.”

Marina mayoral candidate Kevin Saunders says that hallucinogenic mushrooms helped him quit using heroin and feels like legalizing them is a logical next step after recreational marijuana. The trouble is the stigma that still shrouds the drug. Psilocybins are classified as a Schedule I drug at the federal level. These are drugs that the government says have a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use. It’s the same category where you’ll find marijuana, LSD, and heroin. Some privately-funded studies have shown potential medical benefits in certain cases like treating anxiety in adults with late-stage cancer, but psylocibin’s Schedule I status prevents funding from being allocated to study it at the federal level.

Have you used mushrooms before? Given your experience, would you support the legalization of recreational use of psilocybins? How much research has been done about the potential for psilocybins to have medical benefits?

Guest:

Dr. Charles Grob, professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at UCLA and director of the division of child and adolescent psychiatry at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

A woman walks into the State of California Earl Warren building January 22, 2007 in San Francisco, California. ; Credit: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

The California Supreme Court has handed down a ruling that could make it slightly easier for citizens to use ballot initiatives to raise new local taxes.

The court on Monday ruled that ballot initiatives sponsored by citizens are not subject to the same constraints as tax increases proposed by city and county elected officials. The court interpreted sections of the state Constitution impacted by Proposition 218. Approved in 1996, the proposition spelled out how local governments may levy new taxes and fees.

Writing for the majority, Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuellar says that the law, as it stands, does not bind voters to the constraints placed on local governments by Proposition 218, which intends to make it more difficult to create new taxes.

With AP files.

Guests:

Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, a taxpayers’ rights group

Roger Jon Diamond, attorney based in Santa Monica; he argued the California Supreme Court appeals case, California Cannabis Coalition vs. City of Upland, which could make it easier for citizens to use ballot initiatives to raise taxes

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

A 76-foot statue of explorer Christopher Columbus stands in Columbus circle on August 23, 2017 in New York City. ; Credit: Spencer Platt/Getty Images

Los Angeles City Council will vote Wednesday on whether to switch out Columbus Day to Indigenous Peoples Day.

As reported by City News Service, the move was proposed by Councilman Mitch O’Farrell in November of 2015. O’Farrell said that “recognizing the contributions, history, and sacrifices made by the original inhabitants of the Los Angeles area is long overdue.” He also highlighted the historical struggles of Native Americans including “enslavement and brutality” as reasons for the name change. Councilman Joe Buscaino, who is Italian-American, opposed O’Farrell’s motion calling it divisive. Buscaino said in October that he would support creating an Indigenous Peoples Day, but not at the expense of another culture. But observing a second holiday would cost the city $2 million in overtime.

What do you think of changing Columbus Day to Indigenous Peoples Day?

Guest:

Stephen Aron, history professor and department chair at UCLA whose research focuses on the American West and frontiers in North America

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

A large "rent" banner is posted on the side of an apartment building in San Francisco, California. ; Credit: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

On Monday, Governor Jerry Brown and legislative leaders reached a deal on a housing package which includes Senate Bill 3 from Senator Jim Beall (D-San Jose).

What is Senate Bill 3? 

• SB 3 puts a $4 billion bond for affordable housing on the 2018 statewide ballot.
• Originally, SB 3 called for $3 billion for construction of housing for low-income residents. An amendment added an additional $1 billion toward the Cal-Vet home loan program which would have run out of funds in 2018. The program subsidizes home ownership for veterans. 
• SB 3 also allows funding to be used for parks and environmental clean-up to make land hospitable for development.

Housing advocates have supported the bond as a step in the right direction, but opposition says throwing money at the housing crisis is inefficient if we don’t make structural changes to the development process.

We discussed the bill with a supporter and opponent. 

Pro Senate Bill 3

Peter Manzo, president and CEO of United Ways of California:

1. "This bill would provide...gap financing for affordable housing construction. We need to keep in mind, though it may authorize $3 billion in funding, that leverages roughly $12 billion in private and federal funding. And that may bring on about 180,000 units over the next few years...Right now we only have about 664,000 affordable units so this would add roughly about a third more. This is for the whole state...[and] roughly half the funds would go to Southern California." 
2. "All the funding is going to support existing housing programs that have a track record, that have existing geographic fairness requirements built into them...we're not reinventing the wheel here, we're just providing additional funds." 
3. "One in three families in California struggle to meet the cost of basic needs... the're spending 50 to 80 percent of their income on housing and that means they're not buying things... And also for the units we're not building, that means we don't have construction jobs, we don't have all the affiliated benefits that come with that. " 

Anti Senate Bill 3

David Wolfe, legislative director of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association: 

1. "You can't keep throwing money at this problem and expect a different result."
2. "[Sb 3] is going to cost $200 million a year worth of interest every year for 30 years to pay off... [a housing bond is not] the best way to [build more affordable housing]... especially when there's been no regulatory reform to actually lower the cost of providing homes." 
3. "What do taxpayers get in exchange for taking on more debt? ... We're not incentivizing the growth and development of new housing in exchange for a bond. If that were there, we'd probably remove our opposition.

The deadline for the bill to pass is September 15, but it could be voted on as early as Friday.

To listen to the full interview, click the blue playhead above. 

For our debate on SB 2, click here. For more on KPCC's coverage of the affordable housing crisis, click here.

Guests:

Peter Manzo, president and CEO of United Ways of California

David Wolfe, legislative director of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Passengers board Metrolink subway trains during rush hour on June 3, 2008 in Los Angeles, California.; Credit: David McNew/Getty Images

A recent New York Times piece by Conor Dougherty follows the commute of a middle-class woman who wakes up at 2:15am in her affordable Stockton home to take two trains and a bus to her job in San Francisco.

This example of a so-called “super commuter” is a familiar story to many in Los Angeles. With housing prices rising, Angelenos have to increasingly make trade-offs between finding an affordable living situation, often on the edges of L.A., and increased commute times to their jobs.

According to conventionalwisdom, the happiness gained from a shorter commute is worth having a smaller place. But for many in L.A., financial reality necessitates both a long commute and a small home, just to make ends meet.

We want to hear about how you handle these trade-offs. What roles do commute time and housing cost play in your decisions regarding where you live? How many hours a day do you spend in your car? What financial and emotional concessions have you made in order to afford housing in L.A.?

Call us at 866-893-5722.

Guest:

Conor Dougherty, San-Francisco based economics reporter at The New York Times who focuses on the West coast economy; his recent article for the New York Times is “A 2:15 Alarm, 2 Trains and a Bus Get Her to Work by 7 a.m.”

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

Local residents wade through flooded streets after Hurricane Harvey caused heavy flooding in Crosby, Texas on August 30, 2017. ; Credit: MARK RALSTON/AFP/Getty Images

The rain has finally stopped in Houston, but Tropical Storm Harvey’s slowly moving through southeast Texas and Louisiana.

But more than a quarter of greater Houston is underwater. More suburbs are threatened by at-capacity reservoirs. AirTalk checks in on the situation.

Guest:

Sue Lincoln, news director at NPR member station WRKF in Baton Rouge, Louisiana

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

A view of of the heavily damaged spillway at Lake Oroville on April 11, 2017 in Oroville, California. ; Credit: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

As the nation focuses on the disaster in southeast Texas, Californians are forced to consider our own water infrastructure.

Levees are vulnerable for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and throughout the Central Valley. Breaches could flood big swaths of farmland, not to mention housing developments constructed within the floodplain in recent decades. There was also the near-catastrophe from the damaged Oroville Dam spillway this past February. Nearly 200-thousand residents downstream of the dam had to be evacuated. And, just 20-years-ago, nine Californians were killed and more than a hundred-thousand evacuated after a weeklong series of El Niño storms.

Following the devastation from Harvey in Texas and an all-but-certain deluge coming to California, an arm of the state Department of Water Resources has released a flood protection plan for the Central Valley. It covers a stretch of land spanning 500 miles from Bakersfield to Mt. Shasta and recommends the state invest $20 million in new projects and infrastructure improvements.

Given the billions of dollars necessary to beef up the state’s flood control, where does California stand? What vulnerabilities currently exist in the state’s flood management infrastructure? And how would the state get the money for the fixes? How would major flooding in the Central Valley affect Southern California?

Guests:

John Cain, Conservation Director for California Floodplain Management for American Rivers, a national non-profit conservation organization; his work focuses on issues including flood risk reduction in the Central Valley and the Bay-Delta ecosystem

Mike Mierzwa, chief of the Flood Planning Office in the California Department of Water Resources; he is the lead flood planner for California 

Debra Bishop, a restoration ecologist and a Principal with H.T. Harvey & Associates, an ecological consultant firm. She was one of the main authors on the conservation strategy of the plan

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.

A large "rent" banner is posted on the side of an apartment building in San Francisco, California. ; Credit: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

On Monday, Governor Jerry Brown and legislative leaders reached a deal on a housing package which includes Senate Bill 3 from Senator Jim Beall (D-San Jose).

What is Senate Bill 3? 

• SB 3 puts a $4 billion bond for affordable housing on the 2018 statewide ballot.
• Originally, SB 3 called for $3 billion for construction of housing for low-income residents. An amendment added an additional $1 billion toward the Cal-Vet home loan program which would have run out of funds in 2018. The program subsidizes home ownership for veterans. 
• SB 3 also allows funding to be used for parks and environmental clean-up to make land hospitable for development.

Housing advocates have supported the bond as a step in the right direction, but opposition says throwing money at the housing crisis is inefficient if we don’t make structural changes to the development process.

We discussed the bill with a supporter and opponent. 

Pro Senate Bill 3

Peter Manzo, president and CEO of United Ways of California:

1. "This bill would provide ... gap financing for affordable housing construction. We need to keep in mind, though it may authorize $3 billion in funding, that leverages roughly $12 billion in private and federal funding. And that may bring on about 180,000 units over the next few years ... Right now we only have about 664,000 affordable units so this would add roughly about a third more. This is for the whole state ... [and] roughly half the funds would go to Southern California." 
2. "All the funding is going to support existing housing programs that have a track record, that have existing geographic fairness requirements built into them ... we're not reinventing the wheel here, we're just providing additional funds." 
3. "One in three families in California struggle to meet the cost of basic needs ... they're spending 50 to 80 percent of their income on housing and that means they're not buying things ... And also for the units we're not building, that means we don't have construction jobs, we don't have all the affiliated benefits that come with that. " 

Anti Senate Bill 3

David Wolfe, legislative director of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association: 

1. "You can't keep throwing money at this problem and expect a different result."
2. "[SB 3] is going to cost $200 million a year worth of interest every year for 30 years to pay off ... [a housing bond is not] the best way to [build more affordable housing] ... especially when there's been no regulatory reform to actually lower the cost of providing homes." 
3. "What do taxpayers get in exchange for taking on more debt? ... We're not incentivizing the growth and development of new housing in exchange for a bond. If that were there, we'd probably remove our opposition."

The deadline for the bill to pass is September 15, but it could be voted on as early as Friday.

To listen to the full interview, click the blue playhead above. 

For our debate on SB 2, click here. For more on KPCC's coverage of the affordable housing crisis, click here.

Guests:

Peter Manzo, president and CEO of United Ways of California

David Wolfe, legislative director of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

This content is from Southern California Public Radio. View the original story at SCPR.org.