Saturday, July 25, 2026
Home Blog Page 16

A plan to cut a California tax is going to voters. Why LA’s ‘mansion tax’ is at the center of it

Los manifestantes portan carteles en apoyo a la financiación hospitalaria y a la imposición de impuestos sobre ventas de propiedades de lujo, destacando tensiones en torno al “impuesto a las mansiones” de Los Ángeles y propuesta estatal. Protesters hold signs supporting hospital funding and taxing wealthy property sales, highlighting tensions over Los Angeles’ mansion tax and statewide reform proposal.

A measure to roll back two kinds of taxes is slated to go before voters in November. The measure would affect cities and taxpayers across the state, but Los Angeles and its controversial “mansion tax” is the prime target

by Ben Christopher

CalMatters

California’s secretary of state announced Tuesday that a tax-chopping proposition — one backers have spent years trying to put before voters — is now officially eligible for the November ballot. Come fall, anti-tax advocates and real estate developers may have reason to rejoice; city governments, public sector unions and the city of Los Angeles could have reason to worry.

The qualification announcement for a real estate-oriented constitutional amendment also gives California’s Democratic lawmakers reason to start frantically negotiating toward a deal to keep the measure off the ballot entirely, even though the measure’s backers publicly say they aren’t interested.

Branded the “Local Taxpayer Protection Act” by its sponsor, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the newly eligible measure would both sharply cap municipal transfer taxes — fees slapped on real estate sales — and make it harder for voter-sponsored campaigns to raise taxes in local elections.

The measure would hit cities like Berkeley, San Mateo and Alameda — which rely on transfer taxes for a significant share of their funding — especially hard. According to an analysis by the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, it would cost local governments “a couple of billion dollars” per year, with taxpayers collectively saving just as much.

Why this is also a fight about Los Angeles

But the focus of the debate, and arguably the primary target of the proposition, is Los Angeles and its controversial “mansion tax,” known as Measure ULA.

Since becoming law in 2023, the voter-backed policy has levied a 4% tax on real estate sales over $5 million and 5.5% on those above $10 million — thresholds that have since inched up to match inflation. The tax has raised more than $1 billion in three years. Last week, the city announced a $360 million award for future affordable housing projects.

But real estate interests, some elected officials in Los Angeles and a growing number of academics say the tax has triggered a sharp slowdown in new construction, including of affordable housing, across the city, compared to neighboring cities. The levy falls not just on mansions, but apartments, condos, multi-use and commercial developments, too.

The resulting ire among developers, investors and business groups over the Los Angeles tax fueled the statewide proposition campaign, said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, a conservative group best known for its landmark property tax limiting measure Proposition 13. “I think ULA was not just the straw that broke the camel’s back, but the redwood tree that broke the camel’s back,” he said.

The statewide proposition would trim transfer taxes to just one-twentieth of 1% of a real estate sale’s value. Measure ULA’s top rate is 100 times higher. It would also require some voter-initiated tax measures to clear a two-thirds threshold rather than a simple majority. In Los Angeles, measure ULA passed with 58%.

If the tax-chopping proposition passes, Measure ULA is first on the block.

But that’s a big “if.” More than 57% of likely voters, including a majority of Republicans, opposed the initiative when shown its title as it would appear on the ballot, according to a recent poll by the Public Policy Institute of California.

On your mark, get set … haggle!

There’s also a chance the measure won’t even make it onto the ballot.

Under California election law, sponsors can still yank a measure back after gathering enough valid signatures before the official qualification deadline of June 25. In prior election cycles, that window has become a bonanza of backroom dealing in Sacramento as Democratic lawmakers scramble to muscle unwanted measures off the upcoming ballot and deal-hungry interest groups line up to extract concessions.

A notable example: In 2018, the soda industry funded a ballot measure that would have made it harder for local governments across the state to raise taxes. They pulled it at the last minute, but only after lawmakers begrudgingly agreed to pass a 13-year ban on new soda taxes.

At the end of last year’s legislative session, a group of Southern California Democrats, working alongside Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and former state Assembly Speaker Bob Hertzberg, launched a last-minute effort to exempt new apartment developments from the L.A. tax, while adding some new flexibility on how the money could be spent. The bill had a broader purpose too: It would have only taken effect if the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association removed its measure.

In the face of pushback from both business groups on one side and arch defenders of Measure ULA on the other, the effort fizzled. But now that the Howard Jarvis measure is officially headed for the ballot, Sacramento legislators may feel newly inspired to deal. Even if the electoral odds are ultimately stacked against the proposition, Democratic lawmakers and left-leaning campaign funders would be happy to avoid a costly defensive campaign.

Let’s make a deal?

In the meantime, changes may be coming out of Los Angeles itself.

Earlier this year, Councilmember Nithya Raman, who is hoping to unseat Bass as mayor, introduced a measure that would have put a series of Measure ULA changes on the June ballot. By exempting new development, it reflected many of the changes proposed in last year’s unsuccessful state bill. But a majority of the council punted.

The council instead delegated the question to a select committee chaired by Councilmember Ysabel Jurado, tasking it with recommending changes to the tax. Some of those changes would require voter approval and could go before voters in November, on the same ballot as the Howard Jarvis proposition.

The committee will also consider a set of tweaks to the law proposed by city staff that would clarify that nonprofit affordable developers are exempt from the tax, while making it easier for developers to pair ULA funds with other sources of funding. City staff say those changes could happen without going back to voters.

Tenant rights groups, some affordable housing developers and trade unions support those changes, but are urging the committee to otherwise leave the tax alone. A coalition of developers, “Yes in My Backyard” advocates and unionized carpenters has popped up to urge the city to consider a broad “fix” — before state lawmakers or anti-tax advocates do that work for them.

“We think it’s really important to show that we can drive reform locally,” said Sarah Dusseault, a former city homelessness official who is now co-leading the “Mend It, Don’t End It” campaign. Making those changes locally “will go a long way to prevent more drastic measures.”

Measure ULA’s defenders counter that nothing the city or the state does will be enough to convince the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association to pull its measure.

“We’ve tried to negotiate with the funders of the measure and, both publicly and privately, they’ve been consistent that they have no intention to pull the measure,” said Joe Donlin, director of the United to House L.A. coalition. “They don’t want to change taxes, they want to eliminate them.”

Coupal, from Howard Jarvis, agreed that the proposition is not a bargaining chip. “The folks on our side cannot envision any kind of deal that would give us the kind of solace that we would need,” he said.

But campaigns are expensive. Though the proposition campaign has been led by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, much of the funding has come from the California Business Roundtable, a coalition of major businesses in California, along with a smattering of commercial real estate companies, developers and landlord groups in Los Angeles. For now, the business roundtable says this dispute should be settled by voters. In the coming months, would any of them be willing to cut a deal with desperate Democrats in exchange for dropping their support?

Some legislators in both Sacramento and Los Angeles are eager to find out.

 

spot_img

The moral weight of a life unseen

Brando Gill

by the El Reportero staff

A brief but revealing exchange circulating online shows member of Congress Brandon Gill, asking an abortion-rights advocate a direct question: what is her “favorite method” of abortion. The moment is not explosive, but it is telling. Each time the question is asked, it is met with a pivot—back to broader language about rights, access, and healthcare.

The exchange stands out because it departs from the usual script. For decades, abortion has been framed primarily in legal and political terms: privacy, autonomy, and constitutional rights. These are important considerations. Yet they can also create distance from a more difficult question: what, in practical terms, is taking place?

By asking about specific methods, the lawmaker shifts the focus from abstraction to reality. In early pregnancies, suction aspiration—often called vacuum aspiration—is commonly used, involving the dilation of the cervix and the use of medical suction to remove the contents of the uterus. In later stages, procedures such as dilation and curettage (D&C) or dilation and evacuation (D&E) require further dilation and the use of surgical instruments in addition to suction.

These are standard clinical terms, but they are rarely part of public conversation. When they are introduced, as in this exchange, the discussion becomes noticeably uncomfortable. The advocate, Jessica L Water, does not engage the question directly, choosing instead to return to general principles. Whether intentional or not, the effect is to move the conversation away from the specifics and back into safer rhetorical ground.

But the specifics matter.

As a pregnancy advances, the developing child exhibits recognizable human features, a heartbeat, and the capacity for movement. At that stage, the ethical dimension becomes more pronounced, not less. Society, through medicine, invests extraordinary effort to preserve life in premature infants at increasingly earlier stages. At the same time, it permits the termination of pregnancies in which similar developmental milestones exist. This tension is difficult to reconcile and deserves more than a passing acknowledgment.

None of this negates the reality that women often face complex and difficult circumstances. Economic hardship, health concerns, lack of support, and personal crises all shape decisions about pregnancy. These pressures are real and deserve compassion and practical solutions. Any serious discussion must take them into account.

Yet compassion does not eliminate moral responsibility. If anything, it deepens it.

A society that values human dignity must be willing to examine not only the conditions surrounding a decision, but also the nature of the act itself. When language becomes too abstract—when terms like “procedure” or “termination” replace clearer descriptions—the moral weight can fade from view. Clarity, even when uncomfortable, is necessary for honest debate.

The exchange between the lawmaker and the advocate does not resolve the issue. It does, however, expose a gap between how the subject is discussed publicly and what it entails in reality. That gap may explain why conversations about abortion often feel incomplete, circling familiar arguments without fully confronting the underlying question.

A more constructive path forward may lie beyond rhetoric alone. Expanding access to healthcare, strengthening family support systems, and reducing the conditions that lead to unintended pregnancies are practical steps that can reduce the frequency of these difficult decisions. These approaches do not settle the ethical debate, but they address its roots.

In the end, abortion remains one of the most complex and enduring moral questions of our time because it involves two deeply held values: the protection of human life and the autonomy of the individual. Ignoring either side risks oversimplifying a profoundly human dilemma.

The question raised in that brief exchange may not have been answered. But its persistence serves a purpose. It invites a more honest conversation—one that does not turn away from the reality involved, and one that recognizes, with seriousness, what is at stake.

 

spot_img

Veteran Bay Area musician Carlos Ramirez steps forward as a lead voice in salsa

Carlos Ramírez

by the El Reportero staff

After years behind the rhythm section, Puerto Rican musician Carlos Ramiíez is stepping into a new spotlight — this time as a lead voice in salsa.

A longtime bassist and performer in the San Francisco Bay Area, Ramirez has spent decades playing alongside some of the region’s most respected Latin bands, building a reputation as a solid and experienced musician within the local scene. Now, he is channeling that background into a solo career that reflects both his roots and his evolution as an artist.

With multiple recordings released under Latinbaum Records, Ramirez is developing a catalog that draws heavily from the classic salsa sound of the 1970s. His music embraces the traditions of the genre — rich arrangements, rhythmic drive and lyrical storytelling — while presenting them through his own voice as a sonero, a singer skilled in improvisation and expression.

Titles such as “Encrucijada,” “Me Faltabas Tú,” and “Soy Como Papá” highlight themes of love, life experience and personal reflection, elements that have long defined salsa music. Another recurring phrase associated with his work — “como en los viejos tiempos” — signals a deliberate effort to revive the essence of classic salsa for today’s audiences.

For Ramírez, the transition from bassist to frontman represents more than a change in role; it reflects years of musical development. The bass, a central instrument in salsa, has given him a deep understanding of timing, structure and groove — all of which now inform his approach as a vocalist.

His journey also speaks to the strength of the Bay Area’s Latin music tradition. Musicians like Ramirez, who have spent years performing in local bands, form the backbone of a scene that continues to thrive through both preservation and reinvention.

Though detailed documentation of his early career remains limited, his long-standing presence in the region and his growing discography point to an artist entering a new phase with confidence and purpose.

As he continues to release music and establish himself as a solo performer, Carlos Ramiíez represents a familiar story in Latin music — that of a seasoned musician stepping forward to finally tell his own story, in his own voice.

Listen to one of his songs here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VarcKzAGzjM

spot_img

Request for Proposals

The Peralta Community College District (PCCD) is seeking proposals from qualified vendors to provide ERP Automation and Functional Alignment Services, District Wide (RFP No. 25-26/09). Proposals are to be delivered electronically (via Planet Bids), until 3:00 P.M. on May 22, 2026.

The District is seeking professional services partnership to support key initiatives within its PeopleSoft ecosystem. The District is consolidating its four-college model into three colleges, with Laney College and Merritt College merging to form Oakland City College (OCC). Berkeley City College and College of Alameda will continue as independent institutions under the District. This consolidation requires comprehensive PeopleSoft reconfiguration across all three pillars – Human Capital Management (HCM), Campus Solutions (CS), and Finance & Supply Chain (FSCM). The selected vendor must demonstrate the experience and capacity to execute all configuration changes in a phased, non-production-first approach, with full validation and business owner sign-off before any production cutover.

All critical configuration items must be completed and validated in non-production environments before go-live approval is granted. Finance, HR, Student Services, and IT teams must coordinate throughout all phases. The vendor will be expected to follow effective-date discipline across all PeopleSoft modules – no retroactive deletion of historical records is permitted.

There will be a Mandatory pre-proposal Zoom meeting on April 28, 2026 at 11:00 a.m.

Meeting Link: https://peralta-edu.zoom.us/j/87681570436
Meeting ID: 876 8157 0436
Copies of the proposal documents may be obtained at PlanetBids via:

https://vendors.planetbids.com/portal/71895/portal-home

Advertisement Dates: 4/17/26 and 4/24/26

Governing Codes:
GC 53068
EC 81641

spot_img

ICE scales back tactics, tells officers not to enter homes without warrants

Agentes de ICE afuera de una vivienda mientras nueva guía limita entradas sin orden judicial.— ICE agents outside a home as new guidance limits warrantless entries.-- Photo: File / stock image

by the El Reportero staff

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has recently instructed officers to scale back certain enforcement practices, including entering private homes without a judicial warrant.

The guidance marks a shift from earlier internal directives that had expanded agents’ authority during immigration operations. In recent months, controversy grew after reports indicated ICE officers could enter homes using administrative warrants—documents signed by immigration officials, not judges—which critics argued did not meet constitutional standards.

Under the new direction, officers are being told to avoid entering residences without a warrant issued by a judge, reinforcing long-standing Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. Legal experts have consistently maintained that, absent consent or emergency circumstances, law enforcement must obtain a judicial warrant before entering a home.

The updated guidance also reportedly discourages arrests in sensitive locations such as courthouses, where immigrant advocates have argued enforcement actions can deter people from attending hearings or cooperating with the justice system.

The policy shift comes amid ongoing legal challenges and public scrutiny of ICE practices nationwide. Civil rights organizations and legal advocacy groups have filed lawsuits arguing that earlier enforcement tactics violated constitutional protections by allowing agents to bypass judicial oversight.

Courts have also weighed in on the limits of immigration enforcement. In several cases, judges have questioned or restricted the use of warrantless arrests or home entries, emphasizing that administrative warrants do not carry the same authority as those issued by a court.

Advocates say the new guidance is a step toward restoring legal safeguards, though they caution that enforcement practices can vary in the field. Immigration attorneys continue to advise residents that they have the right to refuse entry to officers who do not present a valid judicial warrant.

ICE has not publicly detailed all aspects of the revised policy, but the reported changes suggest an effort to align enforcement actions more closely with constitutional requirements while addressing mounting legal and political pressure.

The developments are likely to have particular impact in immigrant communities, including in California, where local leaders and organizations have long pushed for stricter limits on federal enforcement practices inside homes and public institutions.

With reports from national media and legal sources.

spot_img

Cities scramble to comply with or fight major state housing law

Evelyn Aguilar toma el metro hacia North Hollywood desde Union Station, en el centro de Los Ángeles, el 16 de julio de 2024. Aguilar utiliza el metro con regularidad por el condado de Los Ángeles y afirma haber notado un aumento en el número de agentes de seguridad de Metro Transit en los últimos meses. Evelyn Aguilar takes the subway to North Hollywood from Union Station, in downtown Los Angeles, on July 16, 2024. Aguilar rides the subway regularly throughout Los Angeles County and says she has noticed an increase in the number of Metro Transit security officers in recent months. Photograph by Zaydee Sanchez for CalMatters.

The final version of Senate Bill 79 offered local governments plenty of wiggle room over the where, when and how of the law. Cities across California are starting to wiggle

by Ben Christopher

For California’s local governments hoping to have some say over where and how large apartment buildings get packed near major transit stops, it’s crunch time.

Last fall, state lawmakers made it legal for developers to build mid-rises — some as tall as nine stories — in major metro neighborhoods near train, subway and certain dedicated bus stops.

But the final version of Senate Bill 79, which goes into effect on July 1, offered local governments plenty of wiggle room over the where, when and how of the new law.

With the summer deadline rapidly approaching, cities across the state are starting to wiggle.

Like a statewide game of Choose Your Own Adventure, local elected officials for the San Francisco Bay Area to Los Angeles to San Diego are exploring ways to either lean into the spirit of the law, come up with their own plan tailored to the city’s whims and needs, or slow the local roll out for as long as possible while considering their options. Those that do nothing will be forced to accept the transit-oriented rezoning prescribed by state legislators.

Los Angeles opted for a strategy of maximum delay last month when the city council voted to overhaul a portion of its zoning map in order to buy itself a few more years of planning time.

The move took advantage of a set of escape clauses written into the state law: Transit-adjacent areas that already allow at least half of the housing required under SB 79 can hold off on changing the rules until a year after the next state-mandated planning period.

For Los Angeles and much of Southern California that’s 2030.

Likewise, many lower income neighborhoods, those at risk of wildfire and sea-level rise or sites listed on a historic preservation registry also qualify for that temporary delay.

L.A.’s city council mashed every pause button it could.

Along with temporarily exempting zoning changes in poorer neighborhoods, known fire zones and historic districts, the council preemptively voted to allow modest multiplex buildings as tall as three or four stories in dozens of higher-income neighborhoods currently restricted to single family homes. That will bring those areas up above the cut-off needed for the four-year reprieve, according to the city’s planning staff.

By swallowing a little more allowable density in the short term, the city was able to ward off a whole lot more — for now. Backers of the measure said that will give the city more time to come up with a better alternative that still complies with the law.

The vote “adds meaningful housing capacity now and gives us time to decide where the rest of density should go within our own communities,” Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky said before the vote.

When 2030 arrives, the city will either have to come up with its own plan that meets the overall density requirements of the state law — but with some allowable flexibility over where all the potential growth goes — or belatedly accept SB 79 whole cloth.

The L.A. vote came as a disappointment to many pro-development advocates, who have called upon city officials to speedily accept the state-imposed densification immediately, or barring that, to take more aggressive steps in the meantime.

“We’re pretty concerned that this is not actually going to produce housing,” said Scott Epstein, policy and research director with Abundant Housing Los Angeles, a “Yes In My Backyard” oriented advocacy group.

He noted that smaller apartment buildings are less likely to be financially feasible in areas where land costs are exceptionally high. The city’s ordinance achieves its increase in allowable density by permitting modest apartment buildings in relatively affluent neighborhoods.

But even some of the state law’s fiercest defenders see a silver lining in the city’s delay tactic.

“On the one hand, it’s disappointing because we’re delaying the full potential of the law,” said Aaron Eckhouse, local policy programs director for California YIMBY, one of the sponsors of SB 79. But in Los Angeles, he noted, city officials have long been fiercely resistant to proposed zoning changes in neighborhoods dominated by single-family homes.

Now Los Angeles council members are effectively saying, “‘okay, we will do this on our terms rather than on the state’s terms,’” said Eckhouse. “But it is still happening, because the state forced the issue.”

How can cities go their own way?

The Los Angeles approach mirrors one being pursued by officials in San Francisco. There officials are considering a policy of exempting industrial areas and many of the city’s low-resource neighborhoods, while preemptively pushing up the allowable density on certain low-rise locations to get them over the 50% threshold and qualify for a delay until 2032.

But unlike Los Angeles, San Francisco doesn’t plan to spend years coming up with a bespoke local alternative. Instead, the city is proposing to roll out its own version before July 1. That task was made a bit easier given that local officials just wrapped up a citywide densification effort last year as part of Mayor Daniel Lurie’s “Family Zoning Plan.”

The current proposal is set to be heard by a Board of Supervisors subcommittee later this month.

For cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco that decide to come up with their own local plans, they will still need to get the approval of state housing regulators. Officials from California’s Housing Department have yet to publicly weigh in on any individual city’s plans. But their boss has. In a handful of social media posts, Gov. Gavin Newsom has lambasted Los Angeles and San Diego for their proposed efforts to shield certain portions of their city from the requirements of the law. Newsom did not suggest that either city was violating the law itself.

Some cities may simply decide not to bother. Sacramento, for example, will soon consider an ordinance that would make modest tweaks to the way it accepts development applications subject to the state law, but otherwise leaves the state-set zoning rules intact.

Other municipalities, with smaller budgets and fewer professional planners on staff, may not have much choice but to accept the requirements of the state law, said Jason Rhine, a lobbyist with the League of California Cities, which opposed the bill when it was working its way through the Legislature.

Rhine said that some cities are still scrambling to understand the basics of the statute, such as how it applies to future transit infrastructure or how the law defines distance from a transit stop.

“If you’re a planner trying to come up with an alternative plan authorized by (the law), you don’t have the information needed to even get started,” said Rhine. He said he is urging state lawmakers to consider extending the July 1 deadline. No one has taken him up on the idea yet.

‘A matter of urgency’

In Oakland, the decision over whether to delay or accept the state upzoning has played out at the neighborhood level.

Last month, the city’s planning staff proposed an ordinance to take the full suite of possible delays in order to buy time and develop an alternative plan. This, city staff stressed, was not about opposition to the goals of state law, but about a preference among local planners to reconsider the city’s plan comprehensively and at all once, rather than in fits and starts.

“It’s no dispute over outcome,” Oakland Planning Director William Gilchrist told the council. “I think it really comes down to a question of when and how.”

Even so, three city council members objected, arguing, in effect, that they would like the state’s override in their districts now, thank you very much.

Zac Unger, who represents some of the city’s more affluent neighborhoods in North Oakland, argued that parcels that have already achieved the 50% density threshold should not be exempt in his district, especially because the bulk of them are located along busy commercial corridors.

Change is coming, one way or another, he argued at council. “I am arguing for, in a sense, coming to grips with that reality right now rather than spending a year providing people with the false idea that we can somehow exempt ourselves from state law.”

Two other members — Charlene Wang and Ken Houston — who represent some of the low-resource neighborhoods entitled to delay, also wanted to adopt the law in their districts now. “In an urban area like Oakland we should be far exceeding the density minimums in (state law),” said Wang.

In a follow-up interview, Unger noted that the debate in Oakland may be more symbolic than it is in other cities. By happenstance, city planners have been working for years toward an overhaul of the city’s zoning map, which they aim to wrap up next year. In other words, Oakland is likely to have an alternative plan that complies with the state law’s requirements by 2027 anyway.

“If we implement SB 79 on July 1 of this year instead of July 1 of next year, there won’t be buildings blowing up from the street,” he said. “It’s just a matter of urgency — and a statement of values.”

Aside from those cities that are racing to embrace the state law and those seeking delay or their own versions, there is another possible category: Those that resist the law entirely.

After California lawmakers passed a law in 2021 allowing homeowners to split up their properties into as many as four separate units, density-averse cities pushed back. Some took the state to court, others explored adopting municipal charters, one flirted with the idea of becoming a mountain lion refuge. None of the measures ultimately succeeded.

If SB 79 is met with a similar array of resistance, we aren’t likely to see that until after the July 1 deadline, said Eckhouse with California YIMBY.

“The reason to do something now is either to lean into it or to use the provisions of the law for flexibility and deferrals,” he said. “But if they just want to stand in the door and say ‘no,’ we might not find out about that until the zoning standards go into effect.”

spot_img

When food becomes an investment strategy, who decides what we eat?

Bolsa de insectos comestibles, superalimentos nutritivos, snack inusual y peculiar. Bag of edible insects, nutritious superfoods, an unusual and peculiar snack.

by Marivn Ramírez

A recent report highlighted by the World Economic Forum is drawing attention for more than environmental concerns. It presents insect-based protein and other alternatives not just as sustainable food sources, but as “investible opportunities” within what it calls a “new nature economy.”

That framing alone should give people pause.

No one is forcing anyone to replace a steak with a handful of insects. But that is not how change happens. Change happens gradually—through messaging, repetition, and influence. It begins with reports, panels, and expert recommendations. It continues with media coverage, investment, and marketing campaigns that present something new as not only acceptable, but necessary.

Over time, what once seemed unthinkable starts to feel reasonable.

This is not speculation—it is how public perception is shaped, often without people even noticing the shift taking place.

In recent commentary, some analysts have argued that influential institutions and major investors are helping steer the conversation around food, promoting alternatives such as insect protein and synthetic meat as part of the future. While such claims vary in tone and certainty, they reflect a growing unease among the public about who is shaping these conversations—and for whose benefit.

That unease is not coming out of nowhere.

Walk into almost any supermarket in America and you will find aisles dominated by ultra-processed foods—products high in sugar, additives, and artificial ingredients. These are the foods most aggressively marketed and often the most affordable. At the same time, fresh, whole foods frequently come at a higher cost, placing them out of reach for many families.

If public health were truly the priority, wouldn’t the system address those contradictions first?

Instead, the conversation increasingly shifts toward what people should eat next.

At the same time, many Americans feel disconnected from the decisions that shape their daily lives, including what ends up on their tables. They see headlines about global strategies and sustainability targets, but little discussion about local farmers, small producers, and the cost of feeding a family week to week. That gap between high-level conversations and everyday reality is where skepticism grows.

And once that skepticism takes hold, even well-intentioned ideas can be met with resistance instead of trust.

People want solutions that make sense in their lives, not just in reports or boardrooms far away, where decisions often feel distant and disconnected from everyday struggles.

Food, however, is not just fuel. It is culture, tradition, and identity. For generations, communities around the world have built their lives around agriculture—raising livestock, cultivating crops, and passing down culinary traditions that define who they are.

To suggest that this foundation should be replaced or significantly altered is not a small proposal. It is a profound shift, and one that deserves open debate—not quiet normalization.

Consumers have every right to question where these ideas come from and how they are being presented. When global forums discuss the future of food in terms of efficiency and investment, it is natural to ask whether the conversation is being driven by the needs of people—or by the priorities of markets.

That does not mean rejecting innovation outright. It means asking for balance, transparency, and respect for individual choice.

The issue is not whether insects can be eaten. In some parts of the world, they have been part of traditional diets for centuries. The issue is whether modern societies should be guided—subtly or otherwise—toward embracing them as a replacement for long-established food traditions.

That is not a decision to be made by marketing campaigns or investment strategies.

It is a decision that belongs to people.

And people have every right to question it—and, if they choose, to reject it.

 

 

spot_img

Raíz Magazine invites you to the Flower and Song Festival

Vive Oaxaca Guelaguetza es un festival cultural que no puedes perderte. Vive Oaxaca Guelaguetza is a cultural festival you can’t miss (Courtesy https://scsenderos.org/vive-oaxaca-guelaguetza/)

By Magdy Zara

Raíz Magazine has organized the 2026 San José Flower and Song Festival, where you can enjoy a weekend with your family filled with fun outdoor activities. This bilingual event will focus on culture, poetry, and community art.

There will be three days of activities, including a free art workshop, an art exhibit, a youth poetry event, an open mic, a book fair, and much more.

During the festival, you will have the opportunity to share the work you have created in workshops, present it in open mic sessions, and even promote your books.

The Festival will take place starting this Friday, April 24, at different locations and times.

The opening ceremony will be held on Friday, April 24, at the Raíz Magazine offices, located at 3275 Stevens Creek Blvd Ste 301. Saturday, the 25th, at Escuela Popular, 149 N. White Rd; Sunday, the 26th, at the Dr. Roberto Cruz Alum Rock Branch Library, 3090 Alum Rock Ave.

Annual Job Fair Connects Students with Career Opportunities

El Camino College and the South Bay Workforce Investment Board will host the 26th Annual Job Fair, a free event open to the public where students and community members can explore career options, connect with potential employers, and take the next step in their professional development.

More than 100 employers from various industries will be present, offering opportunities in areas such as healthcare, medical administration, manufacturing, transportation, retail, customer service, food, office, government, childcare, construction, landscaping, education, social services, automotive, security, and professional services, among others.

During the fair, recruiters will be available to discuss openings and, in some cases, may offer on-the-spot interviews. Attendees are encouraged to bring their resumes and dress in professional casual attire to make the most of this opportunity.

The event is presented by El Camino College Career Services in collaboration with the South Bay Workforce Investment Board.

It will take place on Tuesday, April 28, 2026, from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., in the El Camino College Student Services Plaza.

Celebrate Book Day with the Children at Home

As part of the Book Day and Children’s Day celebrations, share a special day of creativity and learning with your family and friends.

The San Francisco Public Library, in conjunction with other organizations, hosts an annual festival to provide a day of creativity and learning in the heart of the Mission District.

This year’s event will feature live music, dance, and storytelling, as well as fun crafts and activities for all ages. There will also be surprises and gifts from our partners.

This Sunday, April 26, was the chosen day for this celebration, which will take place starting at 11 a.m. at Parque Niños Unidos, located at 3090 23rd St, San Francisco. Admission is free.

spot_img

US and Mexico set May 25 date for first official USMCA negotiating round

Sheinbaum chaired a meeting at the National Palace attended by Greer, U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Ron Johnson, Mexican Economy Minister Marcelo Ebrard, Finance Minister Édgar Amador Zamora and other officials. (Presidencia)--Estados Unidos y México fijan el 25 de mayo como fecha para la primera ronda oficial de negociación del T-MEC

by Mexico News Daily

After meeting with U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer in Mexico City on Monday, President Claudia Sheinbaum declared that talks with the United States related to the review of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) are advancing “positively.”

Sheinbaum chaired a meeting at the National Palace attended by Greer, U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Ron Johnson, Mexican Economy Minister Marcelo Ebrard, Finance Minister Édgar Amador Zamora and other officials.

“I received at the National Palace the delegation from the United States, headed by Ambassador Jamieson Greer, Trade Representative, for the conversations with Mexico regarding the review of the USMCA. We continue to advance positively,” the president wrote on social media.

Later on Monday, Ebrard and Greer — the top USMCA negotiators for Mexico and the U.S. — issued a joint statement that outlined the objectives for bilateral trade talks this week.

“Ambassador Greer and Secretary Ebrard directed their teams to advance important technical discussions this week on economic security and complementary trade actions, strengthened rules of origin for key industrial goods, collaboration on critical minerals, and to resolve outstanding bilateral trade irritants,” the statement said.

The English-language statement issued by the Office of the United States Trade Representative said that Greer, who has returned to the United States, and Ebrard “also agreed to hold a first official bilateral negotiating round for the USMCA Review the week of May 25, 2026, in Mexico City.”

Mexican and U.S. officials met in Washington, D.C., last month, to commence USMCA review trade talks. No Canadian representatives participated in those discussions.

In their statement, Ebrard and Greer said that “the USMCA Joint Review” — involving all three countries — will take place on July 1. The three North American trade partners have to decide whether they want to renew their free trade pact for an additional 16 years — i.e., to 2042. Mexico is confident that the USMCA will be extended, even though U.S. President Donald Trump has made disparaging remarks about the pact. Even if Mexico, the U.S. and Canada don’t agree to extend the agreement during the upcoming review process, it would not be terminated until 2036.

There is a range of “trade irritants” between Mexico and the United States. Mexico’s primary complaint is that Trump has imposed tariffs on a range of Mexican goods, including steel, aluminum and vehicles. Among the United States’ concerns is Mexico’s energy sector framework, which favors state-owned firms over private and foreign companies.

Citing industry sources, Reuters reported on Tuesday that Greer “told Mexico’s auto and steel industries they should not ​expect the renegotiation of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement to remove President Donald Trump’s tariffs on their sectors”.

US more concerned about deficit with China than deficit with Mexico 

Another trade irritant for the United States is that it has a large deficit with Mexico — US $196.9 billion in 2025, a 14.8% annual increase. Trump has cited the deficit as one reason for his decision to impose tariffs on Mexican goods, and last year, he and Sheinbaum agreed to work to narrow the trade imbalance.

Nevertheless, Greer said on Monday that the U.S. is more concerned about its trade deficit with China than its trade deficit with Mexico, according to a report by the newspaper El Economista.

The U.S. trade representative made the remark during talks with Mexican officials at the headquarters of the Mexican Banking Association (ABM), El Economista reported, citing sources who were at the meeting.

China’s trade surplus with the United States was $202.1 billion in 2025, exceeding Mexico’s surplus with its northern neighbor by $5.2 billion. China thus had the largest trade surplus with the U.S. of any country in 2025, even though its surplus declined 31.6% last year.

The United States has good reason to be more concerned about the deficit with China than the deficit with Mexico. The U.S. and China are, of course, geopolitical rivals, but beyond that, there are other reasons why the Trump administration wants to reduce the reliance on imports from China. One key issue is that Chinese exports to the U.S. contain very little U.S. content. According to an analysis by the SAI consultancy firm that was cited by El Economista, at the end of the last decade, exports from China to the U.S. had just $4 of U.S.-made content for every $100 of goods sold, whereas Mexican exports to the U.S. had $40 of U.S.-made content for every $100 — ten times more.

At the ABM headquarters, Greer highlighted that Trump wants to “re-industrialize” the United States, according to El Economista, but recognized that Mexico is a key supply chain partner. Indeed, the two countries are said to be part of a “co-production system.”

Greer meets with business groups 

During his visit to Mexico City, Greer also participated in meetings with the Business Coordinating Council — a leading Mexican private sector group — and the American Chamber of Commerce of Mexico (AmCham), which represents U.S. companies in Mexico and seeks to facilitate economic integration between Mexico and the United States. Ebrard attended both meetings as well.

AmCham president Oscar del Cueto said that there is a “genuine interest” from both the Mexican and U.S. governments to “know the private sector’s positions” on issues related to the USMCA.

“From AmCham, we see the review of the USMCA as an opportunity to continue advancing in this [bilateral] integration while looking after the competitiveness of each of our economies,” he said.

“We don’t have to divide the cake, we can make a bigger cake together,” del Cueto said.

AmCham said in a statement that during the meeting with Greer and Ebrard, it “highlighted four common objectives” for both Mexico and the United States:

  • Re-industrialize the United States and Mexico in order to better compete with Asia.
  • “North Americanize” supply chains.
  • Build energy and critical minerals security.
  • Strengthen Mexico’s economy as part of a stronger North America.

“To achieve this, we proposed that Mexico receive preferential tariff treatment, that the duration of the USMCA be extended as soon as possible to provide certainty for investment, and that we work toward the vertical integration of our region to balance the trade deficit and strengthen our economic resilience,” AmCham said.

With reports from El Economista

spot_img

Housing stability without ownership: who really benefits?

Marvin Ramírez, editor

by Marvin Ramírez

San Francisco housing leaders and community organizations gathered Thursday, April 23, at the 16th Street BART Plaza to mark the groundbreaking of “Marvel in the Mission,” a major affordable housing development at 1979 Mission Street. Mission Housing Development Corporation, in partnership with Mission Economic Development Agency (MEDA) and community partners, hosted the event.

There is no question that housing is needed. In a city like San Francisco, where rents and home prices remain out of reach for many, every new unit matters. Projects like this are often the result of years of community advocacy, public funding, and collaboration between nonprofits, financial institutions, and government agencies.

But as these developments continue to rise across the city, an important question remains largely unaddressed: why are so many of these units designed only for rent, and not for ownership?

Supportive housing serves an important purpose for residents who need long-term assistance. However, there is another group that often gets overlooked—working people earning $50,000, $60,000, or even $80,000 a year. These are individuals and families who hold steady jobs, run small businesses, and pay their rent month after month. Many of them already pay amounts comparable to what a mortgage would cost.

Yet, under the current system, they are locked into being renters.

Eligibility rules often cap how much a tenant can earn in order to qualify for “affordable” units. In some cases, that ceiling is around $50,000 a year. Earn more than that, and you no longer qualify. Stay within that range, and you may secure a unit—but you remain a tenant indefinitely, with no pathway to ownership, no equity, and nothing to pass on to the next generation.

This raises a deeper concern. Affordable housing, as it is currently structured, provides stability—but not mobility. It keeps people housed, but it does not necessarily help them build wealth or move forward economically. Over time, this can reinforce a cycle in which working families remain dependent on regulated housing without a realistic exit toward ownership or upward financial movement.

The question becomes even more pressing when considering that many of these tenants are already financially responsible. They pay rent on time, maintain steady employment, and contribute to the local economy. Yet the system offers them no mechanism to convert that reliability into ownership or long-term financial security.

Why not explore models where long-term tenants can transition into ownership? If residents are already paying consistent monthly rent, why couldn’t that same payment be applied toward a mortgage structure over time? Why not allow families the opportunity to build equity in the very communities they help sustain?

Some will argue that converting these developments into ownership carries risks. Homeownership brings additional costs—property taxes, maintenance, and, in many cases, high homeowner association fees. In some condominium models, those fees can reach hundreds of dollars a month, creating a new financial burden. And if a homeowner falls behind, they could risk losing the property altogether.

Those are valid concerns. But they should not end the conversation.

There are alternative models—such as limited-equity cooperatives or community land trusts—that attempt to balance affordability with ownership. These approaches can provide long-term stability while still giving residents a stake in their homes.

The current approach, however, leans heavily in one direction: creating permanent renters.

San Francisco has made significant investments in affordable housing, and those efforts deserve recognition. But if the goal is not only to house people, but to strengthen communities and reduce inequality, then ownership must be part of the discussion.

Housing should not only be about having a place to live. It should also be about having a future.

 

spot_img
1...151617...718Page 16 of 718

SELECTIONS

POPULAR TICKETS

POPULAR CATEGORY

ABOUT US

Welcome to our Marvin J. Ramirez website! We are an innovative newspaper located in the heart of San Francisco. With a relentless passion for telling powerful stories, we inform our community with truthful news, insightful analysis, and compelling reporting.

Contacto: lreportero@aol.com

FOLLOW US

© Copyright 2023. AMAYCOM.NET. All rights reserved.