
California earthquake retrofit funding canceled by feds, affecting thousands of families
The federal government cancelled more than $30 million in grant funding for seismic retrofits slated to help thousands of California families who live in buildings that could collapse in a major earthquake.
The retrofit program was set to open applications soon to eligible building owners across 11 California cities including San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose. But the Federal Emergency Management Agency cancelled the grants last month.
'It's absolutely devastating,' said Stephanie Stephens, mitigation director at the California Residential Mitigation Program, which would have administered the grant. 'That's thousands of individuals that are going to be less safe when the next Big One comes.'
The grants were among the more than $3 billion in cancelled Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) grants, a program to fund natural disaster mitigation projects nationwide. FEMA slashed the funding on April 5, calling former President Joe Biden's BRIC program 'wasteful and ineffective' and 'more concerned with political agendas than helping Americans affected by natural disasters.'
About $870 million of the cancelled funding was slated for California initiatives, according to the state's Office of Emergency Services. The projects included the retrofits, a $50 million coastal resilience project at the Port of San Francisco, $50 million for flood adaptation in Oakland and Alameda and $2.5 million to build levees in Grayson and Walnut Creek.
'This decision will have severe consequences for local communities that were counting on funds to reduce the impact of natural disasters,' Rhodesia Ransom (D-Stockton) said at a state Assembly Emergency Management Committee meeting Monday. Ransom has introduced a joint resolution to urge FEMA to reinstate the funding, noting that the cancelled grants also jeopardized hundreds of millions of dollars in local, state and private sector matching funds.
The retrofit program, which is overseen by the California Earthquake Authority and the California Office of Emergency Services, would have used the BRIC grants to speed the implementation of retrofits that experts say are essential but that can be costly for landlords.
Between 750 and 1,500 multi-family buildings, containing five to ten housing units each, could have been retrofitted using the grant money, Stephens estimated.
It would have targeted a building type known to be especially vulnerable in a major earthquake: soft story buildings. That generally refers to wood-frame buildings constructed before 1990, where residential units are stacked above a 'soft' first story — often a parking garage, open storage unit or commercial space. A major earthquake can cause those weak first floors to collapse, toppling or trapping the residential units above them.
Soft story buildings made up close to half of the 16,000 housing units in San Francisco that were left uninhabitable immediately after the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Seismic retrofits can prevent collapse on that scale — but can be expensive.
Though CRMP has a separate grant program to support retrofits of soft story single-family homes, it does not include multi-family soft stories. Establishing a multi-family retrofit program seemed like 'a natural next step,' Stephens said. 'There was no statewide seismic retrofit funding source for multi-family buildings — we saw the need.'
Many California cities have passed ordinances mandating soft story retrofits for both single- and multi-family buildings, but the high cost of making the seismic upgrades can make compliance challenging, Stephens said. The BRIC grants were intended to help landlords make the potentially life-saving alterations more quickly.
The program would have been open to owners of five- to ten-unit buildings in eleven cities with mandatory ordinances: Beverly Hills, Burbank, Culver City, Los Angeles, Oakland, Pasadena, San Francisco, San Jose, Santa Monica, Torrance and West Hollywood. CRMP was planning to prioritize applications from buildings in low-income neighborhoods, Stephens said.
Participating landlords would have been eligible to be reimbursed up to $7,000 for design and engineering fees and then up to about $4,200 per unit, for a maximum of about $50,000 per building. That would have covered a significant chunk of owners' costs, because retrofitting a multi-family soft-story building can cost anywhere from $50,000 to $200,000, Stephens said.
CRMP had been reimbursed for about $7 million of the planned $40 million award and had finished the program development phase, Stephens said. With the rest of the funding pulled, the program can't move forward.
'There will be $33 million in funding that we will never get to see,' Stephens said.
Without the grant, eligible building owners will still be required to make the retrofits to comply with mandatory city ordinances, but they'll have to foot more of the bill. In some cities, including Oakland, landlords could pass on most of the cost of retrofits to tenants, because retrofits can be counted as capital improvements.
'We learned during our outreach efforts that many building owners were struggling to afford these costly retrofits, and were requesting extensions or did not meet their ordinance's deadline to complete their retrofits due to lack of funding,' Stephens said in a statement.
The vast majority of San Francisco's nearly 5,000 soft-story buildings — about 94% — have been retrofitted in compliance with the city's mandatory ordinance, according to Laurel Mathews, a senior earthquake resilience analyst for the city. The ordinance went into effect in 2013 and its deadline was in 2021.
Oakland passed its own mandatory soft story retrofit ordinance in 2019. At least 24,000 residential units, or about 11% of the city's rental stock, are located in soft-story buildings, according to the city.
A similar ordinance in San Jose will go into effect next year, after the city council approved a one-year delay in March. San Jose has about 3,500 soft-story buildings containing about 25,000 housing units, including 15,000 rent stabilized units, according to its legislation.
CRMP's two other retrofit programs, which fund upgrades for soft story single-family homes and for homes with raised foundations or crawl spaces, seem safe for now, Stephens said. Those programs are also supported by FEMA grants, but the funds come through the agency's Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and have not been terminated, Stephens said.
Stephens said CRMP is being 'proactive' and working with CalOES to look for other ways to support multi-family soft story retrofits. But so far, she said, they have yet to pin down an alternative funding source for the important upgrades.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Jan. 6 attack gets in the way of Republican talking points on ICE protests
Reflecting on the recent protests in Los Angeles, Republican Sen. Markwayne Mullin told CNN that he considered it 'absolutely insane' to see protesters 'carrying a foreign flag.' When 'State of the Union' host Dana Bash reminded the Oklahoma senator that carrying a flag 'is not illegal,' Mullin quickly interjected, 'A foreign flag while you're attacking law enforcement, it's pretty bad.' Of course, during the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, Americans also saw foreign flags and rioters attacking law enforcement, and much of the Republican Party now treats those violent criminals as victims and heroes. A day before Mullin's on-air comments, U.S. Customs and Border Protection used its social media platform to issue a statement that read, 'Let this be clear: Anyone who assaults or impedes a federal law enforcement officer or agent in the performance of their duties will be arrested and swiftly prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Attack a cop, and life long consequences will follow!' That certainly seemed like an uncontroversial sentiment, except, again, Jan. 6 rioters assaulted and impeded law enforcement officers in the performance of their duties. And while they were arrested and prosecuted, and it appeared that many of them might face serious consequences, Trump returned to the White House and started handing out pardons — including to those who were convicted of violent assaults. And then there was FBI Director Kash Patel, who published a related online item of his own over the weekend: 'Hit a cop, you're going to jail ... doesn't matter where you came from, how you got here, or what movement speaks to you.' Not only did the president who appointed Patel come to the opposite conclusion when handing out Jan. 6 pardons, but the comment also brought to mind this Mother Jones report published after Patel's Senate confirmation hearing earlier this year. [Patel] hailed January 6 rioters convicted of violence against police officers as 'political prisoners.' ... Several Democrats pressed Patel on his work with the J6 Prison Choir, a group of January 6 rioters who recorded a version of the national anthem mashed up with Trump reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. The song became a mainstay at Trump's campaign rallies. Patel told Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) that he promoted the song to raise money for the families of January 6 attackers. To be sure, 'Hit a cop, you're going to jail' seemed like an undebatable point. The trouble is, in the Trump administration, it's a maxim that comes with some important fine print: 'Hit a cop, you're going to jail, unless the president likes the reason you hit a cop, in which case you're getting a pardon.' This article was originally published on
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
FTC Pivots From Competition to Children
A Federal Trade Commission (FTC) summit last week on protecting children online previewed an odd pivot. Apparently, the agency wants to be a sort of family values advocacy group. "This government-sponsored event was not a good-faith conversation about child safety—it was a strategy session for censorship," said the Free Speech Coalition (FSC), a trade group for the adult industry. What stands out most to me about last Wednesday's event—called "The Attention Economy: How Big Tech Firms Exploit Children and Hurt Families"—is the glimpse it provided into how the FTC's anti-tech strategy is evolving and the way Republicans seem intent on turning a bipartisan project like online child protection into a purely conservative one. Attacking tech platforms has become a core part of the FTC's mission over the past decade. During Donald Trump's first term as president, these attacks tended to invoke free speech concerns. Whether the weapon of choice was antitrust law or changes to Section 230, the justification back then usually had something to do with the ways tech platforms were moderating content and the idea that this moderation was politically biased against conservatives. Under President Joe Biden, the FTC continued to wield antitrust law against tech companies, but now the justification was that the companies were just too big. Democrats invoked "fairness" and the idea that they were restoring competition by knocking these big businesses down a peg. The way the FTC attacks tech companies has become a window into the larger preoccupations and priorities of different political cohorts. And these days, it's going all in on being a conservative morality machine—in the name of protecting the children, of course. Replace references to social media platforms and app stores with cable TV and video games—or rock music and comic books—and this workshop would have been right at home in any of the last few decades of last century. Even the old right-wing culture war stalwart Morality in Media was there, though the group now calls itself the National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE). In fact, most of the panelists came from conservative groups. In addition to the representative from NCOSE, there were folks from the Heritage Foundation, the American Principles Project, the Family Policy Alliance, the Ethics & Public Policy Center, the Family First Technology Institute for the Institute for Family Studies, and Hillsdale College. The speakers also included several Republican politicians and some Republican FTC commissioners. The event barely pretended to be anything other than a right-wing values summit, with panelists laying out their vision for how the FTC and Congress can work together to put conservative values into law. "For years, protecting kids online has been touted as one of the only issues Republicans and Democrats could agree on," notes Lauren Feiner at The Verge. But the FTC's recent event "previewed how that conversation may take a different tone under President Donald Trump's second term—one where anti-porn rules, conservative family values, and a push for parents' rights take center stage." "We have a God-given right and duty to question whether" social and technological change must be looked at with resignation and indifference, said FTC Chair Andrew N. Ferguson in his prepared keynote remarks. Ferguson said that the FTC's job is to protect vulnerable consumers and that this includes children. Protecting kids online will inevitably involve everyone giving up more personal information, he suggested: "We must go beyond the current legal regime, which conditions unfettered access to online services on nothing more than an unverified, self-reported birthdate." Going beyond self-reported age assurances means app stores, social media companies, adult websites, and all sorts of other web platforms checking government-issued IDs, using biometric data, or otherwise engaging in privacy-invading actions. That obviously will affect not just minors but almost everyone who uses the internet, requiring adults as well as kids to give up more personal information. It's a funny agenda item for an agency ostensibly concerned with consumer privacy. Panelists at the FTC conference seemed especially concerned with checking IDs for consumers of online pornography. "The topics of age verification and pornography came up many times over the course of the event," reports the FSC. "Throughout the event, FTC leadership and their allies made plain their intentions to spread unconstitutional age-verification policies nationwide and attack the adult industry's very right to exist." But panelists expressed support for a wide range of federal legislation aimed at age-gating and censoring the internet, including: The , which would require online platforms to "prevent and mitigate" all sorts of online "harms" to minors, from eating disorders to depression to risky spending. The Shielding Children's Retinas from Egregious Exposure on the Net Act (SCREEN) Act (H.R. 1623 and S. 737), which would create a federal age-verification mandate for platforms that host content deemed "harmful to minors" (a category that includes all porn platforms but could also ensnare a good deal beyond that). The App Store Accountability Act, which would require app stores to verify user ages and restrict downloads for minors who didn't have parental consent. "While framed as a child protection measure, the bill would force app stores to collect sensitive personal data like government IDs or biometric scans from potentially hundreds of millions of users, posing serious risks to privacy, threatening free expression, and replicating the same constitutional flaws that have plagued previous online age-verification laws," write Marc Scribner and Nicole Shekhovtsova, two policy analysts at Reason Foundation (the nonprofit that publishes this website). The CASE IT Act (HR 573), a bill last introduced in 2023 that would take away Section 230 protections for porn websites that don't verify ages. "There are ways to encode certain values into technological design," Michael Toscano of the Institute for Family Studies said on one panel."We have a responsibility as a political, social, and economic matter to ensure that technology is ordered towards human flourishing and the common good." But Americans have many different ideas about what constitutes human flourishing and the common good. And policies mandating that tech companies take the "common good" into account are inevitably going to reflect the version of the common good envisioned by those in power at the time. The idea of human flourishing and common good envisioned by those in favor at the FTC right now seems to recognize few rights and little agency for anyone under the age of 18. In his keynote, Ferguson envisioned a world where the government gives parents total control and surveillance over their children's online activities. "Parents should be able to see what messages their children are sending or receiving on a particular service," he said. "And most importantly, parents should be able to erase any trace left by their children on these platforms, at all levels of granularity, from individual messages to entire accounts." The idea of human flourishing and common good envisioned by those in favor at the FTC right now also leaves little room for adults' sexual freedom. "From bizarre, unscientific claims about porn addiction to denials that the First Amendment protects sexual content, many of the speakers used the spotlight to slander and malign the adult industry," noted the FSC. "The FTC also made it clear that they plan to test the limits of their authority, including by expanding their use of Section 5 of FTC Act (which prohibits 'unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce') to go after targets they disfavor." The idea of human flourishing and common good envisioned by those in favor at the FTC right now doesn't seem too keen on free markets either. FTC Commissioner Mark Meador went on an extended rant comparing tech companies to tobacco companies and calling individual choice a smokescreen for "ever-greater corporate power." The FTC's current anti-tech agenda is explicitly rooted in socially conservative moral values and explicitly hostile to free speech and free markets. It might have a different flavor than the Biden FTC agenda, but it won't be any better for business freedom or for individuals' civil liberties. During closing statements last week in the case against former leaders of the orgasmic meditation company OneTaste, the government showed the jury pictures of the alleged victims—including a picture of a woman named Madelyn Carl. One government attorney mentioned Carl more than two dozen times in her closing. But Carl had not testified as a government witness, and was in fact in the courtroom that day to support defendants Nicole Daedone and Rachel Cherwitz. "I do not see myself as a victim of OneTaste, or Nicole Daedone, or Rachel Cherwitz," said Carl in an emailed statement. "Both of those women have helped me in immeasurable ways, and I would be devastated if they got convicted." "My story is my story," she continued. "Obviously it did not fit the government's narrative, so they did not call me as a witness. I joined the OneTaste community by choice, and I remained in the community until I decided it was time for me to move on." The FBI did interview Carl about her time at OneTaste. Afterward, agents prepared a report about the interview that "mischaracterized things I said" and "reframed my story in a misleading way," according to Carl. She also said the FBI offered to pay for therapy if she went through an FBI victim specialist: In the summer of 2022 I reached out to one of the other witnesses for a reference to a therapist but then ultimately ended up declining because the offer that I got back was not something I was interested in. The offer was that the fbi would put me in touch with a victim specialist and pay for my therapy. She said they had offered to pay for her therapy retroactively and would do the same for me. I declined because I didn't want to use a victim specialist. Or process my issues with the fbi. Because I didn't feel like a victim. Carl isn't the only woman involved with OneTaste who feels the FBI tried to paint as a victim despite her objections. Reason talked with two other women—Alisha Price and Jennifer Slusher—who felt pressured by the FBI to say they were victims. You can read their stories here. • The "big beautiful break between Trump and Musk" signals Silicon Valley's wider disillusionment with the Trump administration, writes Yascha Mounk. • "A recent ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is raising the stakes for any business that operates a website collecting user data," reports The National Law Review: In Briskin v. Shopify, decided in April 2025, the court held that California courts can exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state company—Shopify—for allegedly collecting personal data from a California resident without proper disclosure or consent. This decision signals a significant shift in how courts view digital jurisdiction in the age of online commerce and widespread data collection. • How Hollywood studios are quietly using AI. The post FTC Pivots From Competition to Children appeared first on


USA Today
28 minutes ago
- USA Today
What is the Insurrection Act? Here's what Trump has said about invoking it amid LA protests
What is the Insurrection Act? Here's what Trump has said about invoking it amid LA protests Show Caption Hide Caption California officials take on Trump over National Guard deployment California officials accuse President Donald Trump of inflaming protests by mounting a federal response. Protests continued to roil Los Angeles, California for three days straight over the weekend, as demonstrators clashed with law enforcement across the greater area over a series of federal immigration raids. The protests began Friday, June 6 after Homeland Security officials detained dozens of people across multiple locations in the city. By that evening, more than 100 people gathered at a downtown Los Angeles federal detention center where some immigrants had been held. The demonstrations gained steam throughout the weekend in response to a Saturday morning gathering of Border Patrol agents the Latino suburb of Paramount and as National Guard troops deployed by President Donald Trump arrived in downtown Los Angeles Sunday, June 8. Live updates: Gov. Newsom blames Trump for unruly protests Timeline: LA protests went from small to substantial over three days. Here's what unfolded The National Guard deployment, along with statements from Trump and other officials, has raised the specter of further executive actions while the administration takes a heavy hand in responding to the demonstrations and tensions escalate. Trump was asked about the potential of invoking the Insurrection Act, an unprecedented move in recent memory, which would allow troops to directly participate in civilian law enforcement. Here's what to know. What is the Insurrection Act? The Insurrection Act is an 1807 law that empowers a president to deploy the U.S. military to suppress events like civil disorder. 'The Insurrection Act allows the president to deploy the military inside the United States and use it against Americans, making it one of the executive branch's most potent emergency powers,' according to a 2022 report by the Brennan Center for Justice. It's also one of the oldest emergency powers available to the president, the center says, traced back to the Calling Forth Act of 1792. It's Congress's authority under the Constitution to 'provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions,' and is the primary exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, the center's experts say, under which federal military forces are generally barred from participating in civilian law enforcement activities. What has Trump said about invoking the Insurrection Act? In a social media post on Sunday, Trump called the demonstrators "violent, insurrectionist mobs" and said he was directing his cabinet officers "to take all such action necessary" to stop what he called riots. When asked on Sunday by reporters if he was considering invoking the Insurrection Act, he said, "It depends on whether or not there's an insurrection." Prompted as to whether he thinks there currently is an insurrection, he said, "No, no, but you have violent people and we're not going to let them get away with it." In Trump's presidential memorandum deploying "at least" 2,000 National Guard troops, he said the protests interfered with federal law enforcement and referred to the demonstrations as a 'form of rebellion' against the authority of the U.S. government. It is the first time in decades a president has moved to deploy troops in such a manner without a governor's consent or explicit invitation, Reuters reported, and the move has prompted California Gov. Gavin Newsom to say he plans to sue the administration over the deployment. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said on X Friday that active duty Marines at its West Coast base were on 'high alert' and would be mobilized if 'violence continues,' claiming the demonstrations were a national security risk. In his statement on X, Hegseth repeated the unfounded claim of an invasion by immigrants facilitated by criminal organizations, a once-fringe theory that now undergirds the administration's immigration crackdown. Senior White House aide Stephen Miller on Saturday condemned protests, posting on X: "This is a violent insurrection." More: Videos show Waymo cars on fire amid LA protests; service reportedly suspended Has the Insurrection Act been used before? In 230 years, the Act has been invoked in response to 30 crises, according to the Brennan Center for Justice report, but it has not always led to the actual deployment of troops. The Insurrection Act has been used by past presidents to deploy troops within the U.S. in response to crises like the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion and the rise of the Ku Klux Klan in the immediate aftermath of the American Civil War, the Brennan Center says in a report that lists out the history of the act's use. The law was last invoked by President George H.W. Bush in 1992, also in response to unrest and demonstrations in California. Unlike the current immigration raid protests, the governor of California at the time requested military aid to suppress unrest in Los Angeles following the Rodney King trial, after four white Los Angeles police officers were acquitted in their trial for beating the Black motorist. The unrest had already been mostly quelled by state-controlled National Guard troops before the federal troops arrived, the Brennan Center said. Contributing: Reuters. Kathryn Palmer is a national trending news reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach her at kapalmer@ and on X @KathrynPlmr.