Latest news with #LegislativeAnalyst'sOffice
Yahoo
23-06-2025
- Yahoo
California Government Report Assesses a Decade of Changes in Retail Crime
California's retail theft rate has ticked up over the course of the past decade as changes to statewide laws, pandemic-era social standards and the retail environment have impacted crime trends. A new study from the Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) shows that between 2014 and 2023, reports of retail theft increased by about 11 percent. Prop. 47, passed in 2014, has been fingered for much of the upswing in retail-related crime over more than a decade, as it set the felony threshold for most types of retail theft at $950 or more, resulting in mere misdemeanor charges for many instances of shoplifting. More from Sourcing Journal Port of LA Ordered by Federal Judge to Clean Up Contaminated Wastewater Florida AG Announces 44 Arrests in Retail Crime Blitz Families of 'Kidnapped' L.A. Garment Workers Arrested in ICE Raids Plead for Justice The controversial law, which was overwhelmingly passed by voters as a ballot initiative, became a complicating factor for law enforcement agencies and prosecutors, leading to fewer arrests and convictions. Researchers also found that Prop. 47 led to an increase in other types of crime, including larceny (which can include retail theft). During the pandemic, non-residential burglaries increased, too. Some of these trends coincided with changes to the criminal justice system, from early releases from prison and reductions in probation term lengths during Covid. 'Taken together, these changes may have impacted retail theft rates by reducing (1) the likelihood people are apprehended for crime and (2) the number of people incarcerated at a given time who might otherwise commit crime,' the research showed. At the same time, temporary stay-at-home orders and the closure of businesses during the pandemic may have contributed to a decline in the rate of crimes between 2019 and 2020, before it rebounded in 2021. Retail-related crimes grew slightly in 2015, at a rate of 5 percent, before declining through 2021 at a total rate of 20 percent. Between 2021 and 2023, retail theft increased significantly, at a rate of 32 percent. Experts are still trying to understand the recent upswing, with the LAO positing that other factors, like changes to the retail environment, provide a possible clue. 'For example, expansion of self-checkout lines and store policies that direct staff not to physically confront shoplifters may have made some people feel that they have a higher chance of avoiding apprehension,' the study said. Technological changes have also made it easier for bad actors to conspire to commit crimes, a la flash mob or smash-and-grab. Social media has been broadly used to organize such retail theft schemes and share tactics, while online marketplaces are routinely used to fence stolen property—a phenomenon that's also been addressed through targeted legislation. There have been also changes in the broader social context, researchers wrote, including rates of homelessness and drug addiction in California—potential motivating factors for retail theft. Amid these evolving societal challenges and changes to the retail landscape, lawmakers and voters have enacted new laws, with 2024 being a landmark year for retail crime legislation in California. These laws change both the likelihood of apprehension for retail theft perpetrators, as well as the likelihood that they will face incarceration for their crimes. For example, Prop. 36, passed by 70 percent of California voters in November, effectively rolls back the most contentious sticking point of Prop. 47 by allowing the dollar value of thefts committed by the same defendant to be aggregated to achieve a felony conviction, even if the thefts are not similar and don't occur within a 90-day period. Under the law, those who have two are more convictions for theft-related crimes like burglary, shoplifting or carjacking can be charged with a felony, which can be punishable with three years of incarceration depending on a person's criminal history. According to LAO researchers, elevating certain misdemeanor crimes to felonies in this way could reduce opportunities to commit crimes, as more of the population likely to participate in retail theft activity would be incarcerated. Meanwhile, another historic package of 11 retail crime-related bills was signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom last fall, and took effect on Jan. 1. Under Chapter 168 of AB 2943, law enforcement's authority to arrest shoplifters expanded. 'This could help deter people from committing shoplifting if it causes them to perceive a higher likelihood of apprehension,' LAO analysts wrote. 'Additionally, any time they spend in jail following arrest reduces their opportunity to commit more crime.' Notably, Chapter 803 of AB 1065, passed in 2018, established organized retail theft as a specific crime involving working with other perpetrators to steal merchandise with the intent to sell it. The law also criminalized receiving or purchasing stolen goods knowingly, or organizing with others to do so. If the value of stolen retail goods exceeds $950 within a year, thieves can be charged with a felony. According to LAO, within the criminal justice system, available research points to two key mechanisms that impact retail crime rates—namely, the likelihood of apprehension for a crime and the number of people incarcerated who might otherwise commit crimes. One measure of the likelihood of being apprehended for crime is the share of reported crimes for which police make an arrest and are able to resolve the case, or send the detained person for prosecution, also known as a 'clearance rate.' California's clearance rate for property crimes declined from 14 percent in 2014 to about 8 percent in 2023, ticking up during the pandemic era. According to LAO, pandemic era early releases and shorter probationary periods, along with a rise in activities like smash-and-grabs, could have reduced clearance rates. Prop. 47 narrowed officers' ability to make arrests for shoplifting, since many were treated as misdemeanors even when there were repeat offenses. Per LAO, the California Legislature should be paying attention to a number of factors as it evaluates the success of new retail theft and retail crime laws moving forward. The office compiled several questions that lawmakers should ask as it conducts oversight of the recent changes made to address retail theft, including whether practitioners, stakeholders and the public are aware of the changes, whether the new tools are being implemented (and leveraged correctly), whether promising practices are being captured and shared, and whether the laws robust enough to account for technological change. Other areas that should be examined include whether reports of retail crime decrease, whether clearance rates improve, whether there are increased costs to the justice system and whether there are unintended consequences to the changes in the laws. 'Collecting answers to these questions will allow the Legislature to both monitor the implementation of the law changes and help it assess whether they are successful in reducing retail theft,' LAO wrote. On Tuesday, Governor Gavin Newsom's office offered up some evidence that lawmakers' efforts to derail retail crime are already making a dent. According to an analysis of Real Time Crime Index data by the Public Policy Institute of California, property crimes decreased by 8.5 percent in 2024, compared to the year prior. This decrease took place before laws like Prop. 36 took effect, but after the governor opted to allocate an unprecedented $267 million to 55 cities and counties to bolster retail crime-fighting operations and boost prosecutions for organized retail crime. That order took place in fall of 2023, and grant funds were dispersed over the course of the following months. Over the course of 2025—since the 2024 theft package and Prop. 36 were enacted—Newsom said the state's law enforcement agencies have recovered 113,245 stolen items worth nearly $6.5 million. During the month of May alone, arrests were up almost 130 percent, while stolen assets recovered grew by 65 percent, and the value of the items recovered was up nearly 49 percent from the month prior.
Los Angeles Times
09-06-2025
- Business
- Los Angeles Times
Newsom's power play on the Delta tunnel
SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom is up to his old tricks, trying to ram major policy change through the state Legislature on short notice. And again lawmakers are pushing back. Not only lawmakers, but the Legislature's nonpartisan, independent chief policy analyst. The Legislative Analyst's Office has recommended that legislators hold off voting on what the governor seeks because they're being pressed to act without enough time to properly study the complex matter. Newsom is asking the Legislature to 'fast-track' construction of his controversial and costly water tunnel project in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. The $20-billion, 45-mile, 39-feet-wide tunnel would enhance delivery of Northern California water to Southern California. Delta towns and farmers, environmental groups and the coastal salmon fishing industry are fighting the project and the governor's latest move to expedite construction. If there are any supporters at the state Capitol outside the governor's office for his fast-track proposal, they're not speaking up. 'Nobody's told me they're excited about it,' says state Sen. Jerry McNerney (D-Pleasanton), an East San Francisco Bay lawmaker who is co-chairman of the Legislative Delta Caucus. The 15-member bipartisan group of lawmakers who represent the delta region strongly oppose the tunnel — calling it a water grab — and are fighting Newsom's bill. The black mark on the governor's proposal is that he's trying to shove it through the Legislature as part of a new state budget being negotiated for the fiscal year starting July 1. But it has nothing to do with budget spending. The tunnel would not be paid for through the budget's general fund which is fed by taxes. It would be financed by water users through increased monthly rates, mainly for Southern Californians. Newsom is seeking to make his proposal one of several budget 'trailer' bills. That way, it can avoid normal public hearings by legislative policy committees. There'd be little scrutiny by lawmakers, interest groups or citizens. The measure would require only a simple majority vote in each house. 'We're battling it out,' says Assemblywoman Lori Wilson (D-Suisun City), the Delta Caucus' co-chair whose district covers the delta as it enters San Francisco Bay. 'This is not about the project itself. This is about how you want to do things in the state of California. This [fast-track] is comprehensive policy that the budget is not intended to include,' says Wilson. Legislative Analyst Gabriel Petek issued a report concluding: 'We recommend deferring action … without prejudice. The policy issues do not have budget implications. Deferring action would allow the Legislature more time and capacity for sufficient consideration of the potential benefits, implications and trade-offs.' The analyst added: 'In effect, approving this proposal would signal the Legislature's support for the [tunnel], something the Legislature might not be prepared to do — because it would remove many of the obstacles to move forward on the project. 'Moreover, even if the Legislature were inclined to support the project, some of the particular details of this proposal merit closer scrutiny.' Newsom tried a similar quickie tactic two years ago to fast-track the tunnel. And incensed legislators balked. 'He waited now again until the last moment,' Wilson says. 'And he's doubled down.' She asserts that the governor is seeking even more shortcuts for tunnel construction than he did last time. 'There are some people who support the project who don't support doing it this way,' she says. 'The Legislature doesn't like it when the governor injects major policy into a budget conversation. This level of policy change would usually go through several committees.' Not even the Legislature's two Democratic leaders are siding with the Democratic governor, it appears. They're keeping mum publicly. Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire (D-Healdsburg) has always opposed the tunnel project. So quietly has Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister), I'm told by legislative insiders. McGuire and Rivas apparently both are trying to avoid a distracting fight over the tunnel within their party caucuses at tense budget time. Newsom insists that the project is needed to increase the reliability of delta water deliveries as climate change alters Sierra snowpack runoff and the sea level rises, making the vast estuary more salty. He also claims it will safeguard against an earthquake toppling fragile levees, flooding the delta and halting water deliveries. But that seems bogus. There has never been a quake that seriously damaged a delta levee. And there's no major fault under the delta. The tunnel would siphon relatively fresh Sacramento River water at the north end of the delta and deliver it to facilities at the more brackish south end. From there, water is pumped into a State Water Project aqueduct and moved south, mostly to Southern California. 'A tunnel that big, that deep, is going to cause a lot of problems for agriculture and tourism,' says McNerney. 'One town will be totally destroyed — Hood. It's a small town, but people there have rights.' Newsom's legislation would make it simpler to obtain permits for the project. The state's own water rights would be permanent, not subject to renewal. The state would be authorized to issue unlimited revenue bonds for tunnel construction, repaid by water users. It also would be easier to buy out farmers and run the tunnel through their orchards and vineyards. And it would limit and expedite court challenges. 'For too long, attempts to modernize our critical water infrastructure have stalled in endless red tape, burdened with unnecessary delay. We're done with barriers,' Newson declared in unveiling his proposal in mid-May. But lawmakers shouldn't be done with solid, carefully reasoned legislating. On policy this significant involving a project so monumental, the Legislature should spend enough time to get it right — regardless of a lame-duck governor's desire to start shoveling dirt before his term expires in 18 months. The must-read: Candidates for California governor face off about affordability, high cost of living in first bipartisan clash The TK: State lawmakers considering policy changes after L.A. wildfires The L.A. Times Special: Homeland Security's 'sanctuary city' list is riddled with errors. The sloppiness is the point Until next week,George Skelton —Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.
Epoch Times
01-06-2025
- Politics
- Epoch Times
California State Analysts Recommend Delaying Governor's Proposal Expediting $20 Billion Water Project
California's Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO), an independent government agency, has recommended that policymakers wait to implement Gov. Gavin Newsom's recent proposal to expedite the state's Delta Conveyance Project. 'Deferring actions would allow the Legislature more time and capacity for sufficient consideration of the potential benefits, implications, and trade-offs,' the LAO said in a
Yahoo
20-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
California's $100bn railway to nowhere exposes the stunning costs of Democrat incompetence
The latest broadside in the seemingly unending war between President Trump and California Governor Newsom came with a presidential attack on the state's long-delayed, over-budget high-speed rail project. Trump, who seems determined to stop federal funding for the project, even suggested that its dire problems will pose a challenge for Newsom as he gets ready for a run for the 2028 Democratic nomination. If Newsom were prone to self-reflection, he'd admit that the line – intended to connect LA and San Francisco – is an embarrassment. The rail authority estimated in 2008, when voters approved $9 billion for the system, that it would cost $33 billion and start running by 2020. The projected cost has since ballooned to over $100 billion. Governing magazine, hardly a voice for less public spending, placed the blame largely on incompetence – 'uncoordinated planning' that ignored basic construction logistics and bent to the need to please political factions. Indeed, the route was in large part sold to people in the state's hard-pressed interior as an economic boon, which ignores the nature of the area, whose economy is largely based on agriculture, manufacturing and oil. Wider truck lines for congested freeways would make far more economic sense. Many projects go over budget, but, as the president has suggested, for once plausibly, the California high-speed train may be 'the worst managed project' he'd ever seen. Even progressives are aware of this failure. The first to jump off the train, so to speak, was Kevin Drum at Mother Jones a decade ago, who called the project 'ridiculous'. He assaulted the cost overruns and absurd ridership projections. More recently, the train was singled out for infamy by the authors of Abundance. This new progressive bible, which embraces all the memes of the Left, for example on urban density and climate, expresses horror at how the train has been delayed and has escalated in cost. Today, even Democrats like former California State Speaker Anthony Rendon admit that there is 'no confidence' in the project and have been far from anxious to pour more good money after bad. Unless there is an unanticipated flow of state funds, the Legislative Analyst's Office suggests that the project could grind to a halt within 15 months. There is now only enough money, and perhaps not even that, for a line from agriculture and oil-dominated Bakersfield to even more rustic Merced. Not exactly the glamorous LA-San Francisco route originally mooted, much less something to rival the lines connecting Tokyo to Osaka or Paris to Lyon. Despite being described by Hoover Institute economist Lee Ohanian as 'the greatest infrastructure failure in the history of the country', the California disaster does admittedly have a great deal of competition. A similar pattern can be seen in the slow pace of repairs to the collapsed Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore's Harbour. Boston's Big Dig (Central Artery/Tunnel Project) was plagued by cost overruns and delays, eventually coming in at nearly $25 billion, $10 billion more than previously reported. In fact, the entire transit industry, a favourite target for investment among progressives and greens, is stymied by what the Marron Institute at New York University found were 'among the highest transit-infrastructure costs in the world' – far higher than not only China, which can ascribe to less cumbersome processes, but the likes of Sweden, Italy, and Turkey as well. Phase one of New York's Second Avenue Subway, Marron notes, clocked in at 8 to 12 times more expensive than what the international analysis suggested should be the baseline cost, reflecting strict overtime rules, local union agreements that limit the available labour pools geographically, and an unwillingness to address staffing and labour agreements. But even in this world of lavish overruns, Newsom's California stands in a league of its own. Back in 2015, UC Berkeley scholar Karen Trapenberg Frick outlined how the cost of replacing the eastern section of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge rose from an estimated price of $250 million in 1995 to $6.5 billion by September 2013. This was in part due to political pressures from elected officials, according to a report prepared for a state Senate committee. But nothing quite matches the incompetence and overspending of Newsom's choo-choo. It has likely undermined support for building a national network of high-speed trains, something promoted in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal. Despite the green visions, high-speed trains seem a bit of a step back – the St Louis Post-Dispatch labelled them 'a bridge to the 19th century'. In a world where most people drive, and many commute from home, the idea of sinking tens of billions into high-speed projects seems a poor bet, as Britain has already found with the cancellation of large parts of the HS2 project. Even in China, where political opposition is verboten, the choo-choos have been plagued by corruption, rising costs and massive indebtedness. Under Biden, Newsom enjoyed large lumps of gravy for his train, but under Trump, he is now likely to have to choose between funding the money-mad rail network or doing such basic things as balancing his budget and facing California's gargantuan public employee pension costs, as well as paying for healthcare for the state's estimated 2.5 million undocumented immigrants. The overpriced choo-choo reflects the ultimate dilemma for Democrats like Newsom. In the 1930s and 1940, under Democrats, American ingenuity produced the infrastructure that underpinned the world's largest industrial economy – the Hoover Dam, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and countless bridges, roads, and other critical infrastructure. Today's presumed heirs of FDR still talk big about infrastructure, but are loath to offend public unions, green lobby groups and progressive non-profits. Most of the successful case studies on infrastructure come from red states like Florida, which built its new train lines at something approaching original costs and deadlines. If you want to advocate for more government, perhaps it's best to prove that you can do this efficiently. Newsom's high-speed rail line proves that, for now, the progressives are prisoners of their own massive incompetence. Joel Kotkin is presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University and senior research fellow at the Civitas Institute at the University of Texas Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Gavin Newsom Wants To Make the Country's Most Expensive Gas Even More Expensive
California Gov. Gavin Newsom released his revised state budget proposal for FY 2025–2026 on Wednesday. After having a roughly balanced budget in January, the state must now "close an estimated $12 billion shortfall to balance the budget" because of President Donald Trump's tariffs, which have "driven a downgrade in both the economic and revenue forecasts" and increased spending for the state's Medicaid program. Despite this shortfall, Newsom's budget calls for maintaining or extending expensive government programs, including the state's cap-and-trade program, which was set to expire in 2030. Launched in 2013 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) in the state, the program sets a GHG emissions cap for "covered entities," which includes electricity generators, oil refineries, and manufacturing facilities. Entities must comply with this annual cap either by voluntarily reducing their GHG emissions or by purchasing allowances (essentially permits to emit 1 ton of carbon dioxide equivalent) at quarterly auctions. Most of the money generated from these auctions goes to the California Climate Investments program, which has funded $12.8 billion worth of environmental and energy projects since 2014. The California Air Resources Board estimates that these projects have prevented over 1,000 premature air pollution-related deaths. At the same time, cap-and-trade has been prohibitively expensive for consumers. While some auction funds go toward utility bill rebates, the program has increased energy costs for Californians. The state's Legislative Analyst's Office estimates that it adds 23 cents per gallon to gas prices, which could increase to 74 cents per gallon if the state decides to pursue more aggressive GHG reductions. The state currently has the highest gas prices in the country. Wayne Winegarden, senior fellow at the Pacific Research Institute, tells Reason that the program is a "bad tradeoff." Compared to when California launched the cap-and-trade program, "total energy related CO2 emissions in California is down 6.2%. This is around the national average (5.4% decline). It is way behind states like West Virginia that saw a 14% decline." While some Climate Investment money has funded environmentally beneficial projects like wetland restorations, the program has mostly prioritized funding for politically preferential projects and social programs. State law mandates that 25 percent of auction revenues ($7.4 billion since 2014) go toward California's high-speed rail project, which, after nearly two decades has yet to transport a single passenger. In his budget proposal, Newsom calls for "at least $1 billion annually" to be provided for the project. Another 20 percent of program revenues ($2.2 billion since 2014) are mandated to fund the state's Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program. The program has over 13,000 affordable housing units under contract and has reduced GHG emissions in the state at a price of $4,100 per metric ton of carbon dioxide (CO2). The state's urban tree plantings, meanwhile, have reduced GHG emissions in California for a cost of $54 per metric ton of CO2. The program's ineffectiveness is further compounded by the underlying policy issues that stymie environmental progress in the Golden State. Despite throwing $1.5 billion toward wildfire prevention through the cap-and-trade and additional money in annual budgets, the state continues to experience damaging and expensive wildfire seasons because of stringent environmental regulations under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Getting a restoration project approved "often involves years of analysis, public comment, and litigation before projects can even begin," writes Shawn Regan, vice president of research at the Property and Environment Research Center, in City Journal. These delays increase fire risk and put more people in harm's way. "In 2020, for example, the Berry Creek area in California was devastated by the North Complex Fire while critical thinning projects were mired in CEQA reviews. The fire killed 16 people," explains Regan. State and private land managers in California have set a goal to conduct prescribed burns on 400,000 acres annually by this year, reports The New York Times. In 2023, the most recent year in which data are available, federal and state agencies and private property owners completed prescribed burns on close to 260,000 acres. As California has looked to reduce its energy sector emissions through renewable energy projects and mandates—which have forced Californians to pay some of the highest electricity rates in the country—the state has made it illegal to build clean and reliable nuclear power plants. The state's remaining nuclear power plant—Diablo Canyon—generates about 9 percent of California's electricity and is scheduled to shut down in 2030 unless state lawmakers step in. In a little over a decade, California's cap-and-trade program has increased energy costs for the state's residents while doing little to significantly reduce GHG emissions. With a $12 billion budget shortfall, it could be time for California lawmakers to reevaluate the program. "There are simply better ways to reduce emissions without imposing such a large cost on the state," says Winegarden. The post Gavin Newsom Wants To Make the Country's Most Expensive Gas Even More Expensive appeared first on
