Latest news with #AishaWahab
Gizmodo
5 days ago
- Business
- Gizmodo
Should Lyft and Uber Charge More if Your Battery Is Low? California May Soon Ban That
It's late at night, and you badly need a ride. Your cellphone's battery is dangerously low. Should a ridehailing company such as Uber or Lyft be able to charge you more because its artificial intelligence programming thinks you're desperate since it knows your phone is about to die? Not if Hayward Democratic Sen. Aisha Wahab has her way. Her Senate Bill 259 would prevent retailers from using artificial intelligence to jack up prices using the information stored on customers' phones. That could include the phone's battery life, whether it's an older model, what apps are installed, what time of day it is, where its user is located and where they live. 'Our devices are being weaponized against us in order for large corporations to increase profits, and it has to stop,' Wahab told the Assembly Judiciary Committee last month. Wahab's bill to limit surveillance pricing that's coasting through the Legislature is the latest example of California lawmakers trying to reign in the explosion of AI technology this year. Their 29 other legislative proposals this year include a ban on using algorithmic systems to set rent prices and a measure to protect people from automated discrimination by AI models that make critical decisions about a person's employment, education, housing, health care, finance, criminal sentencing and access to government services. Wahab's measure has been an easier sell than some of the other AI proposals that have already failed thanks, in part, to it being billed as part of Democrats' post-election pledges to cut costs for Californians. It also has the backing of the state's influential labor unions, which tend to get their way in the Legislature. Its labor supporters include the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and the California Labor Federation. In total, those labor groups have donated at least $8.5 million to lawmakers in the last 10 years, according to CalMatters Digital Democracy database. The unions argue that using algorithms and AI to generate higher prices for customers is inherently discriminatory and should be illegal. Ivan Fernandez, a lobbyist with the California Labor Federation, called the practice of surveillance pricing a 'high-tech assault on working people' during a hearing before the Assembly privacy committee in June. He argued that people are already struggling to afford the high cost of living in California, and companies should not be able to 'use our data to squeeze every cent they can.' 'Using data such as a person's geolocation or their phone battery to determine how much to upcharge them for a good or service further exacerbates this issue of affordability for our affiliate members and for workers,' Fernandez said. On the other side are business and tech groups that also have donated heavily to legislators but tend to get their way less often than labor does. Opponents include the California Chamber of Commerce and the Silicon Valley lobbying organizations TechNet and Chamber of Progress. The 17 groups opposed to the measure have given at least $11.7 million to legislators since 2015, according to Digital Democracy. The opposition argues that the bill is unnecessary under California's existing data privacy laws, would stifle innovation, cut into tech company profits and lead to higher prices. 'The bill would unfairly cause companies to overhaul their pricing models and strategies at significant cost, to the detriment of both the businesses themselves and their consumers,' wrote Ronak Daylami, a policy analyst with CalChamber, in an opposition letter to the Assembly Judiciary Committee. That committee voted 10-4 to send the bill to the Assembly floor. CalChamber spokesperson John Myers declined to comment further. So far, the bill has faced little resistance from lawmakers. Only Republicans have voted against it as it easily passed the California Senate and as it made its way through the Assembly. 'This overregulation is impeding how we do business and how people want to do business,' said Assemblywoman Diane Dixon, a Republican who represents the Huntington Beach area, during an Assembly judiciary committee hearing. 'I just believe that the market resolves these issues.' A few Democrats, such as assemblymembers Chris Ward of San Diego and Lori Wilson of Suisun City, asked about enforcement and also some exceptions for 'legitimate uses' of geolocation data, but Wahab has mostly received kudos. 'It's modern-day redlining,' Assemblymember Liz Ortega, a Democrat who represents the Hayward area, told the Assembly privacy committee, referring to racist lending practices that relegated Black and other non-white families into less safe and less desirable neighborhoods prior to the Fair Housing Act of 1968. Proponents of SB 259 argue that without additional guardrails, companies could use consumers' data to engage in similarly racist price discrimination. 'It was not OK then, and it's not OK today,' Ortega said. Notwithstanding her concerns about equitable pricing, Ortega's support for the union-sponsored proposal isn't surprising. She is the former statewide political director for one of AFSCME's local unions. Since 2023, she voted with AFSCME and its affiliate unions' positions on legislation 100% of the time in 127 opportunities, according to Digital Democracy. She's also received $77,800 in campaign donations from AFSCME and its affiliates. As she pitched her proposal, Wahab has frequently referred to herself as 'a former tech worker in Silicon Valley' and leaned on her experience working with tech companies as a business IT consultant. Yet she is also strongly aligned with labor and unions, voting their way more than 90% of the time. Since 2021 she has received nearly $50,000 in campaign contributions from the California Labor Federation and AFSCME, according to the Digital Democracy database. Wahab painted the companies in her former industry as profit-hungry villains that unscrupulously use Californians' personal data to pad their bottom lines. Wahab pointed to a ProPublica report that exposed the test prep company Princeton Review charging higher prices for online SAT tutoring to customers in zip codes that had a high percentage of Asian residents, even in neighborhoods with low median incomes. 'You are being discriminated against based on your perceived socioeconomic status,' Wahab told CalMatters. She also cited reporting from SFGate that alleged hotel booking platforms would upcharge users whose devices showed they were browsing from the Bay Area, sometimes up to $500 a night more than users in other parts of the country. And she highlighted a report from the advocacy group Consumer Watchdog that alleged ridehailing apps such as Uber and Lyft charged higher prices to riders whose phone batteries were low – a claim that the companies deny. 'Suggestions that our systems manipulate pricing unfairly or discriminate are simply false and not supported by evidence,' wrote Zahid Arab, a spokesperson for Uber, in an emailed statement. Shadawn Reddick-Smith, a representative for Lyft, said in an emailed statement that the company 'does not base fares on battery percentage.' At least one expert on tech says the critiques from business groups that the bill would stifle innovation and lead to profit losses are inaccurate, specious and 'wildly overblown.' 'Industries have built a business model around systematically violating our privacy in ways that we do not want, and generally do not consent to,' said David Evan Harris, a former research manager at Meta and a lecturer at the UC Berkeley Haas School of Business. 'People shouldn't have to be misled into consenting to things.' Robert Boykin, a representative for the trade group TechNet, noted that California's privacy law already gives consumers 'meaningful rights,' such as the ability to opt out of the sale of precise geolocation and protection from discrimination should they choose to do so. He said the law also allows companies to offer customers 'benefits like loyalty programs and pricing discounts, as long as they're tied to the value of the data and meet strict standards.' Wahab's measure is likely to be heard by the full Assembly when lawmakers reconvene from their summer recess in mid-August. It could end up on Gov. Gavin Newsom's desk soon after. The governor has a friendlier relationship with tech companies than the Legislature does. Last year, Newsom vetoed a handful of bills that sought to regulate AI. They included bans on self-driving trucks and weaponized robots as well as a comprehensive measure compelling testing of AI models. In July, Newsom convened a panel of California tech executives to identify inefficiencies in state government operations, a nod to Trump's deployment of Tesla CEO Elon Musk to remake the federal bureaucracy. He reportedly even sent 'burner' phones to nearly 100 tech executives so they could contact him confidentially. Tara Gallegos, a Newsom spokesperson, told CalMatters the governor's office does not comment on pending legislation. This article was originally published on The Markup and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.
Time of India
7 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
Low battery, higher prices? California targets AI-driven pricing; bill to ban use of phone data for secret hikes
Senator Aisha Wahab (Image credits: X @SenAishaWahab) A California lawmaker is leading a bold push to ban companies from using personal data collected from phones, laptops, and other devices to secretly hike prices- an AI-driven tactic increasingly under fire from consumer advocates and lawmakers alike. Senator Aisha Wahab, a Democrat from Fremont, has introduced legislation that would prohibit businesses from using AI to adjust prices based on information stored on customers' phones, laptops, or other hardware. The bill, which cleared the state senate in May, is now being considered in the Assembly. It is one of 30 AI-related measures introduced by the Legislature this year. Wahab cited findings from Consumer Watchdog showing that ride-hailing apps charged more to riders with low phone batteries. Another investigation by ProPublica found the test prep company Princeton Review offered more expensive SAT tutoring to users in ZIP codes with high Asian populations. 'Our devices are being weaponised against us in order for large corporations to increase profits, and it has to stop,' Wahab said during an Assembly committee hearing in July. Ride-hailing companies like Uber and Lyft have denied unfair pricing practices. Business groups, including the California chamber of commerce, and some Republican legislators are pushing back on the bill. 'This overregulation is impeding how we do business and how people want to do business,' said Assemblymember Diane Dixon, a Republican from Newport Beach. 'I just believe that the market resolves these issues.'
Politico
28-05-2025
- Business
- Politico
Renter-protection bills are too damn risky
TENANT TROUBLE: Renter-protection bills have been running into a wall of resistance in Sacramento, even as legislative leaders insist affordability concerns are top of mind for them. And State Sen. Aisha Wahab — one of the few lawmakers aggressively pushing tenant-related legislation — is facing a barrage of negative ads from the California Apartment Association as she whips votes on the Senate floor. The Apartment Association, a deep-pocketed trade group that represents landlords and developers, is targeting Wahab's proposals to limit rental fees and give tenants more time to pay overdue rent before they can be evicted, arguing those measures would destabilize the rental market and drive up costs. Tenant legislation has never been an easy lift in California, but the issue seems to be especially challenging now, as Democrats increasingly favor easing the construction of new homes as a solution to the state's notorious housing affordability crisis. It's been six years since former Assemblymember David Chiu pushed a bill capping rent increases statewide — which also included significant new eviction restrictions for landlords — through the Capitol. 'Housing and homelessness is the No. 1 issue for the majority of Californians,' said Wahab, a Hayward Democrat. 'This Legislature cannot ignore the issues that renters are facing, and these are bills to address and alleviate some of the pain points.' In the years since California lawmakers approved an annual 10 percent limit on rent increases through 2029, the Apartment Association has successfully used Covid pandemic rent relief programs to beat back new tenant legislation, including a proposal to lower and extend the cap. The group has made mom-and-pop landlords central to its lobbying efforts and emphasized that its members have already taken financial hits. It's also highlighted failed statewide ballot measures that would have made it easier for local governments to enact rent control, saying it's clear voters are opposed to the issue. 'Fundamentally, voters and housing leaders understand that the key to solving our housing crisis is creating more housing at every level — not putting more regulatory burdens and restrictions on people providing housing,' said Nathan Click, an Apartment Association spokesperson, in a statement. Lawmakers are often loathe to go up against the powerful trade group because of its willingness to play in elections, but Wahab has not shied away from the conflict. In addition to her tenant legislation, she has tried to block bills meant to fast-track housing construction — a stance the Apartment Association is also targeting in its ad campaign. She's been critical of the benefits such proposals provide developers and argues they should include more stringent density and affordability requirements. Wahab doesn't buy the popular philosophy that more housing will eventually add up to lower rents and home prices. Tenants, she argues, are so hamstrung by high rental costs they can't even dream of purchasing a home. 'Has it translated to lower-cost rents? No,' she said. 'Has it translated to lower-cost home ownership opportunities? No. So what it has translated to is the developer benefits by putting the cost savings of all the streamlining efforts into their own pocket.' Legislative Renters' Caucus chair Matt Haney, a San Francisco Democrat, is trying to straddle the line between pro-development and tenant-rights advocates, saying he supports rent control but also wants to make it easier for developers to build housing. 'I don't accept that it's an either/or,' he said. 'Over the long term, we absolutely have to build a lot more housing, and the housing shortage is directly connected to the high rents that Californians pay, there's no doubt about that.' Still, he added, it may be years before the additional housing stabilizes and lowers rents. 'Californians can't wait that long,' he said. Haney is now negotiating with the Apartment Association on his own bill dealing with rental fees, which he and Wahab contend are being used to get around the rent cap. Wahab believes she has the votes she needs to advance her bills to the Assembly ahead of next Friday's deadline. But this year's most ambitious tenant legislation didn't make it very far. A proposal from Los Angeles Democrat Isaac Bryan that would have frozen rents in Los Angeles County after the wildfires couldn't get off the Assembly floor. San Jose Democrat Ash Kalra tabled legislation that would have lowered the state's annual limit on rent hikes to 5 percent after facing blowback from fellow Democrats. 'We have a very effective lobbying core that speaks on behalf of the small percentage of Californians that are landlords, versus renters that can't afford that same degree of ferocious lobbying on a daily basis in Sacramento,' Kalra said. IT'S WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON. This is California Playbook PM, a POLITICO newsletter that serves as an afternoon temperature check on California politics and a look at what our policy reporters are watching. Got tips or suggestions? Shoot an email to lholden@ WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW TODAY TRANS SPORTS FALLOUT: A day after President Donald Trump threatened to withhold funding from California over a law that allows transgender students to participate in women's sports and called out a transgender athlete, the Justice Department announced it has opened an investigation into the issue. Justice officials said in a statement today that the probe would look into whether California's rules violate Title IX, a federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in schools. The investigation marks the latest clash between the Trump administration and deep blue California over transgender athletes — a hot-button topic Gov. Gavin Newsom waded in earlier this year when he broke with Democrats, calling it 'an issue of fairness.' The DOJ said it sent letters of legal notice to California Attorney General Rob Bonta and State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond as well as the district where the transgender athlete attends school and the state's governing body for high school sports. 'Title IX exists to protect women and girls in education. It is perverse to allow males to compete against girls, invade their private spaces, and take their trophies,' Harmeet K. Dhillon, assistant attorney general for Civil Rights, said in a statement. 'This Division will aggressively defend women's hard-fought rights to equal educational opportunities.' The state's law, which passed in 2013, allows transgender students to participate in school programs and sports teams and use facilities consistent with their gender identities. — Eric He IN OTHER NEWS DELAY OF LAUNCH: Readers eager to get their hands on Newsom's memoir will have to wait just a little bit longer. The governor's book, titled 'Young Man in a Hurry,' has been delayed from May 13 to Feb. 24, spokesperson Lindsey Cobia confirmed to Playbook. 'In January, the governor postponed the release of his book so he could focus on the Los Angeles wildfires and LA's recovery,' Cobia said in a statement. EVEN WHEN I LOSE, I'M WINNING: Michael Tubbs may be trailing Fiona Ma's fundraising numbers in the lieutenant governor's race, but he does now boast financial support from a legend: John Legend. The 'All of Me' singer — whose legal name is John Roger Stephens — gave $5,000 to Tubbs, campaign finance filings show. Legend and Tubbs were linked up through shared Hollywood connections, and Legend was aware of Tubbs' work as mayor of Stockton where he piloted a universal basic income program, according to a spokesperson for Tubbs' campaign. — Blake Jones WHAT WE'RE READING TODAY — The San Francisco school board today dropped plans for alternative grading after the proposal received widespread blowback, including from political figures. (San Francisco Chronicle) — The U.S. Postal Service is still trying to reach about 330 people who lost their homes in the LA fires and are owed tax refunds because their properties dropped in value. (Los Angeles Times) — San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie's Instagram is a hit. (San Francisco Chronicle) AROUND THE STATE — San Diego Community Power will open two battery and solar storage projects to meet their renewable energy goals. (San Diego Union-Tribune) — Anaheim Hills homeowners voted against continuing to fund water pumps installed in the neighborhood after a 1993 landslide. (Orange County Register) — Oakland moved dozens of community-installed speed bumps in Highland Terrace, causing neighbors to complain once again about reckless driving. (San Francisco Chronicle) — compiled by Nicole Norman
Yahoo
29-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Back to Basics
Happy Tuesday, and welcome to another edition of Rent Free. This week's newsletter takes a look at a few major housing developments in state legislatures. Stories include: How a California transit-oriented development bill survived a crucial committee hearing, while a missing middle bill wasn't so lucky Montana lawmakers continue to perform more miracles on zoning reform. Washington legislators pass statewide rent control. As the newsletter covered last week, two significant California housing bills, Senate Bill 79 and Senate Bill 677—which would respectively upzone land near transit and liberalize regulations on duplexes and starter homes—faced a make-or-break hearing before the Senate Housing Committee. One made it, the other broke. The committee rejected S.B. 677 and approved S.B. 79. The latter bill now heads to the state Senate's Local Government Committee. The immediate practical implication is that any serious reforms to the state's signature missing middle housing regulations are a dead letter this year, while debates about whether or not to enable more transit-oriented development will continue. The housing committee hearing itself included some tense, if exceedingly inside-baseball, drama. S.B. 79 passed over the objection of Senate Housing Committee Chair Aisha Wahab (D–Hayward), who has repeatedly expressed skepticism about the ability of market-rate (i.e. unsubsidized) housing to ease California's housing shortage. "Rolling the chair," as that is colloquially called, is considered an unusual and confrontational move. When testifying in favor of S.B. 79, Sen. Scott Wiener (D–San Francisco), the author of that bill and S.B. 677, also spent a considerable amount of time criticizing the unusually negative committee report on S.B. 79. This was a not-so-veiled swipe at Wahab, whose committee consultants prepared a report that included no recommendations for how to amend or improve S.B. 79, and instead just urged a simple "no" vote. Wiener compared the report to a line from Marge Simpson's aunt (he meant mother), who says in one episode, "It hurts to talk, so I'll just say one thing: you never do anything right." Wahab, during her own remarks at the housing committee hearing, spared no criticism of S.B. 79, which she said was unacceptable so long as it didn't include affordable housing mandates. "Bypassing affordable units perpetuates socioeconomic segregation, which is de facto racial segregation," she said at the hearing. While California's supply-side housing reformers can be happy that S.B. 79 did survive a hostile committee hearing, the nature of the debate is nevertheless a depressing reminder of just how little progress has been made conceptually on this issue. In the state with one of the worst housing crises in the country, lawmakers are still having this very rudimentary discussion about whether enabling more housing production generally will lower housing costs. This should be a no-brainer. Economic theory and real-world results from other, less regulated states make it abundantly clear that when more new housing is built, even when it's expensive "luxury" housing, average prices fall. The people who can't afford the newest, most expensive housing still benefit from falling rents on older, existing units. The alternative idea that new housing has to be built as money-losing, below-market-rate housing in order for it to improve affordability is not just false, but gallingly so. It's easy to see the absurdity of that position when it applies to any other good. Imagine a lawmaker arguing in the middle of a famine that new land can't be opened up for farming unless farmers are required to sell their crops at a loss. That California legislators, let alone the chair of the state Senate's Housing Committee, still don't grok that very obviously true idea is equal parts alarming and sad. On one of the most important issues facing California, legislators are still fighting over the basics. The good news is that lawmakers in other states have in fact grokked the basics on housing. In Montana, lawmakers have built on last session's housing reforms (the so-called "Montana Miracle") with the passage of a slew of bills that pare back local parking minimums and height limits, while capping impact fees charged on new housing developments. The parking reform bill, House Bill 492 authored by Rep. Katie Zolnikov (R–Billings), prevents city zoning codes from requiring parking for child care facilities, assisted living facilities, affordable housing, and residential units under 1,200 square feet. A second bill, S.B. 243 authored by Sen. Ellie Boldman (D–Missoula), would prevent local governments from setting height limits of fewer than sixty feet in downtown areas, industrial areas, and commercial clusters. Those two bills pair well with a law enacted in 2023 that allows mixed-use and multifamily residential buildings in commercial zones. While that bill ended explicit zoning bans on building apartments in downtown commercial areas, minimum parking requirements and height limits still made residential development practically infeasible. With S.B. 243, a developer would have every right to convert a centrally located commercial lot into a six-story apartment building. Provided the units are all under 1,200 square feet, H.B. 492 would free them from any obligation to add parking—which is often a development killer on smaller lots. "It's going to be a big deal. There are a lot of cities in Montana that maintain some pretty severe height limits. We should be building up," says Kendall Cotton, the president of the Frontier Institute, a Montana-based think tank. Another notable bill, S.B. 133, eliminates local governments' ability to charge impact fees for landscaping and caps increases on impact fees to the producer price index's increase in commodity prices. Montana's zoning reforms are notable both for their sweep and their simplicity. Contra the typical California zoning reform, Montana's bills are all a few pages long, and refreshingly free from endless carve-outs and caveats about labor standards and affordability mandates. That leaves less room for local governments to exploit loopholes and makes the bills more intelligible and usable for developers. State-level zoning preemptions are a pretty recent phenomenon in the Montana Legislature. When Danny Tenenbaum, a former Democratic legislator from Missoula, introduced a fourplex bill in the 2021 session, it didn't make it out of committee. But that defeat was followed by Gov. Greg Gianforte assembling a bipartisan task force in 2022 to look at ways to increase housing supply in the state. A number of recommendations from that task force, including preemption of local restrictions on duplexes and accessory dwelling units, managed to pass with the governor's backing in 2023. Now that lawmakers are more used to the idea of state-level preemption, it's easier to build support for subsequent bills, says Tenenbaum. "Once we passed a few bills and got people used to voting yes to putting some sideboards on what regulations local governments can impose, that made it a lot easier to bring other bills that set further limits on what red tape cities can use to slow down and block housing development," he tells Reason. Having passed the Legislature, Montana's housing reforms go to the governor for a signature. Once transmitted to his desk, Gianforte will have 10 days to sign them. Tenenbaum wrote a comprehensive rundown of all the bills that have passed the Montana Legislature this session for the Sightline Institute. Read Reason's interview with Gianforte about housing reform here. The slow, steady rehabilitation of rent control continued this past week, with the Washington Legislature giving final approval to a bill that caps annual rent increases to the lesser of 7 percent plus inflation or 10 percent. As Oregon Public Broadcasting reports, the bill faced opposition from both the legislature's Republican minority and some moderate Democrats who expressed credible fears that capping rents would reduce home construction. Those moderates briefly succeeded in raising the rent increase cap to 10 percent plus inflation. But this was then cut back down to 7 percent. The bill passed on the last day of the state's legislative session. Washington follows the example of its southern neighbor, Oregon, which in 2019 passed the country's first state-level rent control law. California followed suit later that year. Washington's bill includes a number of moderating provisions, including an exemption for buildings that were built in the last 12 years and two-, three-, and four-unit buildings when the owner lives on site. The bill also allows vacancy decontrol, meaning landlords can raise rents an unlimited amount on vacant units. This makes Washington's bill relatively more modest than some legacy local rent control policies as exist in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New York, where rent increases are typically capped at one or two percent a year. That's not to say that it's costless. Economic theory and academic research are clear that to the degree that rent control suppresses rents, it will also suppress housing construction and/or housing quality. Today's moderate rent control policy can also become tomorrow's strict rent control policy. In 2019, New York drastically tightened longstanding rent stabilization policies covering New York City. The policy has certainly helped to suppress rents. New data from the New York Apartment Association, an advocacy group for property owners, show continually falling rental incomes, falling maintenance spending, and a sharp increase in financially distressed properties following the 2019 reforms. California is currently considering a bill to slash its own state-wide rent cap from 5 percent plus inflation to 2 percent plus inflation, and expand controls to many single-family homes and condominiums. Like dozens of states around the country, Washington had sworn off rent control. There were no state-level controls, and state law prohibited localities from adopting their own policy—always a sore spot for Seattle socialists. Washington's rent control bill leaves the prohibition on local rent control laws in place. Provided Gov. Bob Ferguson signs it, it'll join the movement to rehabilitate a once radioactive policy. Over at Commentary, Seth Mandel covers a contentious zoning fight in Linden, New Jersey, where the town's Orthodox Jewish community is objecting to new rules limiting the size of homes on smaller lots. The town's Jewish residents argue that limiting the size of homes is a ban on the kinds of large family-sized homes that Orthodox Jews with large families require. Mandel's article details additional zoning restrictions seemingly aimed at the Jewish community, including Linden continually expanding minimum lot sizes for houses of worship until none could be built in the town. That latter restriction would seem to be an easy target for a lawsuit under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), a federal law that protects religious land uses from local and state land use regulations. Other Orthodox communities in New Jersey, with the aid of the U.S. Justice Department, have filed successful RLUIPA lawsuits against their towns' zoning restrictions. What stands out in the Linden case is that the zoning restrictions being deployed to allegedly exclude the Jewish community are hardly unique. Towns and cities across the country maintain egregious minimum lot size requirements, excessive regulations on small lot development, and more. Historically, zoning laws were used to exclude certain types of people. Today, their aim is a more general exclusion of people and businesses. That's a little less noxious than outright racial or religious discrimination. It's hardly inclusive. Read Reason's voluminous past coverage of zoning laws tripping up religious land uses. The U.S. Supreme Court mulls taking up a challenge to Los Angeles' COVID-era eviction restrictions. Over at City Journal, the Cicero Institute's Devon Kurtz argues that the Trump administration was right to shutter the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness. New York's mayoral candidates are warming to freezing rents at rent-stabilized buildings, reports Politico. Bay Area homeowners sue the city of Belvedere, saying the city has fined them $250,000 over permitting violations they claim were in fact the city bureaucracy's fault, reports the San Francisco Chronicle. Ned Resnikoff in The Nation on how YIMBYs are the real class warriors The post Back to Basics appeared first on
