Junipero Sierra Statue: 50 Years Was Enough

What he's pointing at is a mystery (Macor/S.F. Chronicle)

Father Junipero Serra is a major figure in California history. From 1769 to 1782 the Franciscan priest founded nine missions, some of which became major metropolitan areas [e.g., Mission San Diego de Alcalá, Mission San Gabriel Arcángel (Los Angeles), Mission San Francisco de Asís, aka Mission Dolores].

Schools, roads, and monuments have been dedicated to Junipero Serra, but none stranger than the 26-ft-tall statue that was erected in 1975. Caltrans quietly removed it in August.

Caltrans officials disputed claims made by the San Francisco Archdiocese that accused the transportation agency of neglecting to inform the church of its decision to destroy a polarizing statue of Junipero Serra at an Interstate 280 rest stop near Hillsborough.

The colossal freeway icon — a 26-foot tall monument to the Roman Catholic saint who is remembered by many Indigenous communities as an enslaving colonizer — was a landmark for the last 50 years before the transit agency removed it in August.

Caltrans officials said the statue, created by artist Louis DuBois in 1975, did not meet current criteria for its Transportation Art program, which installs graphic or sculptural artwork that expresses “unique attributes of a community’s history, resources or character.” The agency reviews applications for proposed artworks by cities, counties, incorporated towns, tribal governments or non-federally recognized tribes.

Caltrans officials did not respond to direct questions about what criteria the statue failed to meet. Officials told the Mercury News that the statue was “frequently targeted” with vandalism and graffiti.

The I-280 rest stop became known for its views of the reservoir. It was also rumored to be a place for gay hookups in the 1980's.

I won't be mourning the statue's removal; it's big and not beautiful, and Caltrans had good reason to take it down quite apart from the prevalence of anti-settler ideology in academia and progressive government. A 50-year run was probably long enough.

Cutting Back Now That They Have to Pay for It

(Image from Newsweek)

States controlled by progressives are cutting back medical care to undocumented immigrants: [bold added]

California Gov. Gavin Newsom has proposed freezing enrollment of undocumented adults into the state’s Medicaid program for the poor and disabled. Instead of receiving essentially free coverage, those already enrolled would be required to pay $100 monthly premiums starting in 2027. Newsom floated his proposal after the state program, Medi-Cal, went $6.2 billion over budget this year.

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker recently signed off on a state budget that cut funding for health coverage of undocumented adults ages 42-64. Benefits will end for that group at the end of June. The program was initially expected to cost $112 million annually, but quickly ballooned to a projected $800 million a year that was “unsustainable,” a spokesman for Pritzker said.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, the former Democratic vice presidential nominee, agreed to end a health insurance program for undocumented adults in a deal with state Republicans to pass a new budget this month.

And in Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser has proposed phasing out coverage for undocumented people over the age of 21.

After ambitiously expanding health programs to undocumented adults during the pandemic, some states are grappling with far higher-than-expected costs and dwindling budget reserves that had been buoyed by federal dollars related to Covid-19....

Medicaid programs are funded by a mix of state and federal dollars. But states are barred by law from using federal funds to cover undocumented immigrants, placing the entire burden for covering them on states. And unlike the federal government, which often relies on deficit spending, states have to balance their budgets, leaving less wiggle room in tight economic times...

California expects its general fund spending on undocumented healthcare to be $10.8 billion in its next fiscal year, up nearly 50% from the governor’s original budget. About 1.7 million undocumented immigrants are covered under the program.

Some public opinion polls show shrinking support among Californians for covering undocumented immigrants amid the state’s budget crunch. A recent poll by the Public Policy Institute of California found that 58% of adults oppose providing the coverage, whereas majorities had supported the idea in surveys from 2015 to 2023.

When citizens are having difficulty paying for their own health care, there's no voting constituency that supports funding for non-citizens. With Congress under control of Republicans whose states do not pay for undocumented-immigrants' health care, progressive states can no longer look to Washington for help.

Elections have consequences.

Greenpeace: the Sword Cuts both Ways

Greenpeace ships in 1976 (Wilson/SFGate)

As I entered the working world in the 1970's, the first non-religious, non-educational charity I donated to was Greenpeace. I agreed with its save-the-whales campaign and didn't see any compelling reason that whale-hunting benefited humanity, especially if it meant the extinction of a species.

A few years later I found that my donations had been redirected to Greenpeace's efforts to shut down nuclear power plants. I called, first to complain that their advertising was dishonest, then to ask that my donations be allocated solely to save-the-whales.

Instead of listening to my request, the Greenpeace person spoke about the dangers of nuclear power and why Greenpeace was right to prioritize stopping nuclear. I immediately ceased donations to Greenpeace. I had learned a valuable lesson about the fungibility of money and the trustworthiness of organizations, even those that are titularly non-profit.

Since then Greenpeace has expanded to embrace other leftist causes, most of which I do not support. Advocacy is one thing, but they've finally been spanked for crossing the line to property damage and blocking business operations. [bold added]

The environmental lobby Greenpeace is finally getting its just deserts after a North Dakota jury on Wednesday ordered it to pay $667 million in damages for its thuggish campaign last decade to block the Dakota Access Pipeline.

Pipeline company Energy Transfer LP provided compelling evidence during a three-week trial that Greenpeace defamed the company and abetted vandals. Its organizers trained protesters and even brought lockboxes they used to chain themselves to construction equipment. Protesters lobbed human feces and burning logs at security officers and vandalized construction equipment.

Greenpeace sought to get the pipeline’s financiers to pull out of the project by erroneously claiming the company’s “personnel deliberately desecrated documented burial grounds and other culturally important sites,” among other falsehoods. Energy Transfer said this malicious campaign delayed the pipeline’s construction and increased its costs by hundreds of millions of dollars.

Greenpeace’s defense? Not our fault since it didn’t expressly order the vandalism even if it did train protesters. But even Greenpeace USA’s then executive director boasted it had played a “massive role” in the protests. The jury agreed.

The judicial system is often used by leftists to halt activities that have been approved by the legislative and executive branches. The verdict against Greenpeace shows that the sword can cut both ways.

CA Water: Following the Rule Curve

February storms have dispelled concerns over a dry January: [bold added]

So much rain fell in the first week of February that California’s largest reservoir, Shasta Lake, near Redding, rose 22 feet. Shasta Lake is 34 miles long. The watershed at the state’s second-largest, Lake Oroville, in Butte County, has received 24 inches of rain in the past two weeks — five times the historical average — sending the reservoir level up 23 feet from Feb. 1 to Feb. 7.

And now a new atmospheric river storm is forecast to soak the Bay Area and the rest of the state Thursday and Friday...

The rain has been so plentiful that operators of the largest reservoirs have been increasing water releases in recent days to make space for the latest storm.

The outlet valves at Shasta Dam on Tuesday,
Feb. 11 (Merc/U.S. Bureau of Reclamation)

At Shasta Lake, federal dam operators have let out 60,000 cubic feet per second since Saturday through the outlet valves at the massive Shasta Dam. That’s 450,000 gallons a second, the equivalent of 40 Olympic swimming pools every minute.

It’s a delicate balancing act, experts say. If reservoirs fill to the top too quickly in big storms, large amounts of water are released down their spillways, causing flooding to homes and communities downstream. In extreme cases, water can overtop dams, causing a risk of failure.

Operators at most large dams in California rely on a manual called a “rule curve” that is set by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Evaluating decades of rainfall patterns, it recommends the highest level that each reservoir should be kept at every day, an amount that gradually increases later in the spring as winter storms dissipate.

“You are playing the odds,” [UC-Davis professor Jeff] Mount said. “What you are trying to do is balance the risk of not ending up with enough water in the spring against the risk of having too much in the winter, where you’ll get flooding.”

California is extremely lucky; says Professor Mount, "It’s unusual to get three wet years in a row.”

The men and women who operate our water infrastructure are doing an excellent job managing a complex system that is subject to both physical and manmade (make sure the fish get their share!) constraints.

Although funding was approved by the voters in 2014, it's a pity that, eleven years later, the Progressives who run the State haven't built any water storage to take advantage of the rain (the estimated completion date of the Sites reservoir is 2032).

Slip Sliding Away

Palos Verdes Peninsula in LA (Fallon/AFP/SFGate)

Rancho Palos Verdes is a coastal city in Los Angeles, west of Long Beach. The city has a population of 42,000 and is known

for its breathtaking ocean views, luxurious homes, and serene environment, [and] has been named the richest retirement town in the country, boasting a median household income of $166,747.

I became familiar with RPV when I helped an aviation executive put together business plans for a startup (we couldn't persuade enough investors to make a go of it). He loved living there not only for the aforementioned attributes but also because its schools made it an excellent place to raise his kids. Now the community is suffering from a slow-moving natural disaster: [bold added]

According to data captured by NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory using airborne radar, a portion of the Palos Verdes Peninsula is slipping towards the Pacific Ocean as much as 4 inches per week.

California has experienced its share of natural disasters in recent years. However, its wealthiest residents have generally avoided feeling the consequences....until the Pacific Palisades fire showed that even they are vulnerable.

Repairing Pacific Palisades, and perhaps Rancho Palos Verdes, will require funds that only the Federal Government can provide, yet the Progressives that run California have passed legislation to "Trump-proof" California. Why poke the bear? The moneyed backers of the current regime can only wonder if it is really interested in protecting their interests.

Democrats: Time to Put Up

At the end of yesterday's column by Peggy Noonan ("Trump and the Collapse of the Old Order") she advised Democrats how they can regain power:

Admit what your party’s gotten wrong the past 15 years. Don’t be defensive, be humble.

Most of all, make something work. You run nearly every great city in the nation. Make one work—clean it up, control crime, smash corruption, educate the kids.

You want everyone in the country to know who you are? Save a city.

Gavin Newsom hasn't fixed California
or any of its cities.

The vast majority of Americans are pragmatists, not ideologues. If methods work, people will want to bring them to their own cities and will vote for politicians who will do so.

In California Progressives have been in control for the entire 21st century, yet crime. homelessness, and taxes keep going up, while students' test scores keep going down. California politicians build multibillion-dollar trains to nowhere, cut greenhouse gas emissions by decommissioning working power plants, and enforce speech codes while cities burn and drug deaths escalate.

Peggy Noonan is correct; people recoil in horror at the prospect of spreading California governance to the rest of the country. California has the benefit of its weather and trillion-dollar employers (Apple, Google, Facebook, Nvidia), yet it still can't make a single major city a desirable place to live. It's time to stop spinning narratives, Democrats, show us what you can do.

Trump Effect is Alive in California, Too

There is no one definition of the Trump effect, but everyone pretty much knows what it means: the changes that people and organizations unilaterally make in anticipation--and now the reality--of Donald Trump becoming President in 2025.

Despite being the leading state of the new Trump resistance, even California is abandoning battles that it can't win. [bold added]

(Pnoto by Eric Gay/AP)

The California Air Resources Board announced last week that it’s continuing to improve the state’s air quality and reduce harmful pollutants with other programs but has withdrawn four requests it had submitted to the EPA, including one to phase out sales of new diesel-powered semitrailers and buses by 2036 in California.

...The board was anticipating pushback from the Trump administration for federal approval for stricter emissions regulations around semitrailers and locomotives. It also withdrew a rule that would have prevented locomotive engines older than 23 years from operating starting in 2030 while promoting zero-emissions technology to transport freight.

Because California is by far the most populous and wealthiest (measured by GDP) State in the Union, it can "export" its Progressive values by forcing businesses to comply with its requirements. For example, by forcing California diesel-truck operators to convert to all-electric, these operators are very likely to use these EV's in other states, because it's too expensive to maintain and operate two different kinds of equipment.

A Biden EPA would have agreed with the export of green values beyond California's borders, and a Trump EPA would not. California backed off without, as the saying goes, any shots being fired. There's a new sheriff in town.

The Scales Fell From Her Eyes

Ignoring decades of contrary experience, your humble blogger speculated last week that the LA fires "may well be the proverbial straw that breaks the back of Progressive dominance in government." Notable commentators across the political spectrum are coming around to that view.

(WSJ graphic)

Inside-the-beltway Republican and Trump-hater Peggy Noonan ("I don’t like the SOB, I think him a bad man") remembers when her family lost everything in a New Jersey fire in 1969:

you never get over a fire. It’s serious, it’s sobering. Losing what you have changes you, the precariousness and impermanence of things enters you in a new way.

And it will change California.

If your first thoughts during a catastrophe are political then maybe something in you has gotten too tight and reflexive, but if your thoughts don’t come to include the political then maybe something in you has gotten too unreflective and rote. All disasters have political reverberations. I suspect for California this will in a general way involve a new shift, a reorientation toward reality.

Government, on whatever level, exists first to keep citizens and their property safe. That’s the bottom line: keeping people and what they have in one piece. Safe from fire and from crime, safe within a criminal-justice system that works and protects people. People need an electrical grid that works, a clean water system, sufficient police. It is hard to do these primary and essential things, hard to see to them every day and improve them wherever possible. It takes concentration and focus.

In California as elsewhere ideology has allowed—and encouraged—unrealism about the essential responsibilities of government. It encourages a dispersal of forces and attention. But even though ideology and philosophy are a part of the California story, I want to focus on the practical. California’s political and governing classes have for decades been preoccupied not enough by the primary responsibilities of government and too much by unquantifiable secondary and tertiary issues—world climate change, notions of equity.

If even Peggy Noonan says that its governing classes have been suffused with "unrealism," then you know California is ripe for change.

The Fire This Time

Palisades neighborhood (Swope/AP/WSJ)

Measured on the basis of lives lost (85) and acreage burned (153,000) the 2018 Camp Fire that devastated Paradise, CA is still the most destructive wildfire in California history. However, the ruination of Pacific Palisades, home to the rich and famous, is far more likely to change the future of California.

Pacific Palisades is known for its scenery, with views of the ocean and the Santa Monica Mountains. It is a quiet, secluded atmosphere. The neighborhood sits between state parks and the ocean, offering residents easy access to hiking and the beach.

While it is populated with high-end homes and gated communities, there is also a small, walkable downtown with boutiques and cafes. Celebrities who have bought homes in the area include Reese Witherspoon, Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garnerand Steven Spielberg...

The typical home value in Pacific Palisades is $3.4 million. Sixteen homes on the market are priced at $10 million or more in Pacific Palisades, according to Zillow. In neighboring Brentwood, 18 properties meet that threshold.

When the rich and famous encounter the California government's multi-year delays in granting rebuilding permits, that may well be the proverbial straw that breaks the back of Progressive dominance in government. Add to that the difficulties in finding homeowners' insurance and the incompetence in water management and wildfire prevention, the conflagration that engulfed Pacific Palisades may well start a metaphorical fire in the halls of Sacramento.

The Chickens are Going Elsewhere to Roost

Intuit HQ in Mountain View (Mercury photo)

Despite economic strength in the rest of the country Bay Area tech layoffs continue. IBM, Cisco, and Advantest announced that a combined 1,000 jobs will be "permanently" eliminated by the end of November.

Added to the 384 positions extinguished at Intuit's Mountain View HQ in July, over 45,000 jobs have been lost in the Bay Area since 2022.

None of the aforementioned companies are in trouble. In fact, all their stocks are trading near the high for the year.

Udemy looks like it was a nice place to work (Chron)

San Francisco-based Udemy is more explicit about the reasons it is cutting Bay Area jobs: [bold added]

Udemy, the world’s largest online learning marketplace, announced plans to lay off 280 employees, representing approximately 20% of its global workforce. The company said it intends to rehire about half of these positions in locations with lower operational costs.

The restructuring is expected to incur costs ranging from $16 million to $19 million, mainly in severance payments, and will span from the third fiscal quarter of 2024 to the first quarter of 2025. Udemy aims to complete the restructuring by March 31.

Udemy is a relatively small company with 1,443 employees at the end of 2023. Earlier this week we posted about how California's inhospitable business environment (taxes, regulatory inefficiencies, anti-business Progressive attitudes) caused Elon Musk to move his multi-billion dollar enterprises to Texas.

California's heavy hand applies to small businesses as well.

Twitter Be Gone

After moving Tesla and SpaceX to Texas, Elon Musk has completed his divorce from California by moving X (Twitter) headquarters to Austin:

The light goes out on Market Street

Twitter, now known as X, is expected to close its San Francisco headquarters this month, leaving behind the Mid-Market neighborhood it has called home since 2012. The company is reportedly moving its headquarters to Austin, Texas, but plans to relocate its San Francisco employees to San José and Palo Alto, where it has already listed job openings.

The departure is another blow to a city that has been buffeted by high-profile business departures and that once held up Twitter as a key part of its revival. Downtown San Francisco’s vacancy rates have ballooned as tech companies slashed their real estate expenses and halted office expansion plans as the pandemic has relented.

Confronted with a falloff in foot traffic, major retailers such as Nordstrom and Anthropologie also shut their stores amid heightened concerns about crime, theft, vandalism, drug use and homelessness.

X is the second-largest tenant in the Mid-Market neighborhood, leasing 457,793 square feet, according to CoStar, which tracks real estate trends. Vacancy rates in Mid-Market are at their highest in decades at 62%, according to CBRE.

California is so invested in its Progressive politics that it rather let megabillion employers like Tesla depart than change its ways.

(In an infamous exchange, California Progressive Congresswoman Lorena Gonzalez tweeted “F—k Elon Musk” in 2020 when Musk threatened to move Tesla because of California's COVID lockdown rules.) He responded "exactly" and Tesla departed for Texas.

IMHO, the biggest loss to California is privately held SpaceX, which is the leading American space exploration company. Its current valuation is estimated to be $210 billion, and $1 trillion is well within reach after it goes public.

On the other hand Twitter's valuation has fallen from $44 billion to an estimated $19 billion. (He can't admit this to the bankers and investors, but IMHO Elon Musk's primary objective wasn't to make money from the purchase but to make Twitter a free-speech platform.)

Although the Musk family of companies retains substantial operations in California, the loss of their headquarters is a blow to the tax base. Not only do headquarters support a host of ancillary businesses (hotels, printers, law firms, banks, etc. etc.) repatriated international income and intangible income such as royalties and licenses are attributable to the state of the company's residence.

Progressives rather lose the tax base upon which their carbon-free equality-of-result dreams depend than admit they are wrong. Unfortunately, when the majority of the people of California realize that, it will be too late.

SF Public Art: the Latest Chapter in the Culture War

Piss Christ

Lefties used to laugh at the bluenoses who wanted to put fig leaves on nude statues.

They mocked the negative reaction by many Christians to Andres Serrano's Piss Christ (1987), a crucifix submerged in a jar of the artist's urine. A work of art should provoke feelings in the observer, they said, your personal morality limits you.

Four decades later Progressives turned a blind eye to the toppling of historical public works that reflected "power, privilege, white supremacy, patriarchy and colonialism." The destruction accelerated during the George Floyd riots of 2020.

The city had its share of monuments destroyed in 2020 when bronze statues of Junipero Serra, Ulysses S. Grant and Francis Scott Key were all knocked off their pedestals by protesters in Golden Gate Park. The city removed the statue of Christopher Columbus at Coit Tower to avoid a similar fate. All four statues are now secured in storage.

2018: SF removed an "Early Days" statue depicting
a white missionary towering over a supine Indian.

Now San Francisco will spend $3 million from a Mellon grant to determine which works are acceptable and which are offensive.

San Francisco is about to embark on evaluating its nearly 100 statues and monuments to figure out which ones no longer represent the city’s values and should be removed from view, relocated or re-interpreted with explanatory plaques.

The debate over the city’s monuments began in 2018 with the removal of the “Early Days” sculpture from the Pioneer Monument in the Civic Center because it represented a Native American seated before a Spanish Catholic missionary. The effort gathered steam amid the racial-justice movement in 2020 that followed the murder of George Floyd. That year, crowds toppled statues throughout the country that glorified Confederate Civil War leaders, which critics said paid homage to the country’s racist past.

The survey of San Francisco’s civic art collection — funded by a $3 million Mellon Foundation grant — will be conducted by an outside firm and should be completed by January.

The project, called “Shaping Legacy,” was discussed at an Arts Commission meeting last week when senior project manager Angela Carrier explained that looking at San Francisco’s monuments and memorials as a whole shows “a concentration that talks about power, privilege, white supremacy, patriarchy, and colonialism.”

“These monuments no longer represent the values that we say the city stands for,” she added.

IMHO, this is a self-defeating move by Progressives. Keeping the "bad" monuments up would be a constant reminder of San Francisco's white supremacist past and prove that this claim has validity.

Another observation, updated now that Progressives control big cities, media, and the elite colleges: art, like free speech, can still provoke, as long as it doesn't go against the Progressive narrative.

We'll end this post with a quote include in the article from Stanford History professor James T. Campbell:

"To me, the real danger of these kind of exercises is not so much historical erasure as self-congratulation, with all of us pointing accusatory fingers at our benighted forbears and patting ourselves on the back for our own superior moral wisdom,” he said. “It’s worth asking what San Franciscans a hundred years from now might say when they audit us."

The Banks Aren't X-ing X

(WSJ photo)

When Elon Musk bought Twitter in October, 2022, for $44 billion, most financial observers opined that he substantially overpaid for the stock.

Twitter had been a giant in social media. It was unrivaled as the nation's water cooler, where everyone went for the latest news and opinions on the events of the day. Although it attracted millions of eyeballs every day, Twitter couldn't figure out how to monetize the traffic. Neither selling ads or subscriptions generated revenue to justify a $44 billion valuation.

Twitter also came under fire during the Trump Presidency as it began censoring "misinformation" that turned out to be accurate, yet allowed through information that was later shown to be untrue. The bias all went in one direction, against conservatives and for liberals.

Elon Musk believed that he could make Twitter profitable, but I doubt that his primary motivation was investment, i.e., that it would be a slam-dunk turnaround winner. IMHO, his motivation was equally to create one of the few free-speech platforms that would be widely read. Elon Musk also has a provocative streak, and the purchase of an entity that the Progressives thought they controlled was guaranteed to infuriate them. As I wrote last year

Elon Musk's current net worth has been estimated at $241 billion. His purchase of Twitter was, IMHO, for both investment and personal enjoyment, and he seems to be deriving immense pleasure from seizing control of the Progressives' playground and reminding them daily that he has it. Losing 11% of his net worth on something that interests him is not the best outcome, but he can afford it.

Nearly two years after Twitter (rechristened "X") was taken private, the Wall Street Journal reported on X's financial status:

The $13 billion that Elon Musk borrowed to buy Twitter has turned into the worst merger-finance deal for banks since the 2008-09 financial crisis...

The banks that agreed to underwrite a deal that even Musk said was overvalued did so largely because the allure of banking the world’s richest person was too attractive to pass up, according to people involved in the deal. Musk and other investors ponied up around $30 billion to buy the company, giving the banks some cushion in case things were to go wrong.

The banks—which also include Barclays, Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, BNP Paribas, Mizuho and Société Générale—have been able to collect hefty interest payments from the X loans. They are generally for seven to eight years and carry rates several percentage points above the benchmark for investment-grade companies. And the banks could still ultimately be made whole if X is able to cover its interest obligations and repay the principal when the loans mature...

But nearly two years after Musk’s acquisition, X’s business is still struggling to climb out of the deep hole it fell into under his ownership—the company last year said its value had fallen by more than half, to around $19 billion.

While data indicate that use of the app rose amid the explosion of political news in recent weeks, there isn’t evidence that that is translating to a meaningful recovery in the advertising revenue that long sustained the revenues of the company, which pre-Musk struggled to maintain profits. Musk has gone from telling advertisers who fled the platform to “go f— yourself” to suing them and a trade group this month, claiming they illegally conspired to boycott X. The group has said it plans to rebut the claims in court.

Servicing the loans isn’t helping X’s financial health. Even before rates stopped rising, Musk said its annual interest payments total around $1.5 billion.

Banks typically have a number of legal ways to force X to make good on principal and interest. However, IMHO, they're being patient because they have their eyes on a bigger prize--upcoming financing and/or public offerings involving SpaceX, Tesla, and other Musk-controlled entities.

The deal presents a Catch-22 for the banks. On one hand, they are eager to be well-positioned to work with Musk and his six companies that range from electric-vehicle maker Tesla to Neuralink and xAI. Many view a possible initial public offering of Musk’s rocket company SpaceX or his Starlink satellite business as a fee-generating event that they don’t want to miss out on.

Elon doesn't forget those who stuck by him and who crossed him.

California Gas Prices: the Answer Always is More Regulation

The Phillips 66 refinery in Rodeo (Merc)

We've posted before about why California gasoline prices are higher than the rest of the country (gas taxes, "boutique" gas formula, banning new Internal Combustion Engine cars after 2035, etc.).

As refineries close down, the ones that remain have been accused of price gouging--any person capable of critical thought might ask herself why refiners are abandoning such a profitable business--but critical thinking about Progressive governance has been sorely lacking for decades.

The long-term supply outlook has become so dire that last week the Progressive government floated trial balloons about California seizing control of the refineries. Realizing that running refineries (and bearing responsibility for the inevitable debacles) was a step too far, Governor Newsom proposed a bill that he thinks will stabilize fuel prices. [bold added]

California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Thursday announced a first-in-the-nation plan to require petroleum refiners to maintain minimum fuel reserves to avoid supply shortages he says create higher prices at the gas pump.

The proposal would authorize the California Energy Commission to require state refiners to maintain a minimum supply, which would help prevent gas price spikes and save Californians hundreds of millions of dollars every year. Newsom said profit spikes for oil companies are overwhelmingly caused by refiners not backfilling supplies when they go down for maintenance.

The industry is likely to have to build storage facilities in order to hold the gasoline reserves. Also, the gasoline reserves themselves have a cost. As students learn in Finance 101, all assets on the balance sheet are financed through debt or equity (for analytical purposes debt is assumed). Adding storage and gas-reserve assets will increase interest expense which the companies will try to recover through higher prices.

Higher prices are what Governor Newsom was trying to avoid, but if the regulator doesn't allow the expense to be passed through to the customer, the exodus of refiners will accelerate. In the one-Party state, the answer to unforeseen consequences of regulation is always more regulation that will make the problems worse.

The Greater Intolerance

Bob Casey and Josh Shapiro (WSJ photo)

Two successful, popular, Pennsylvania governors have been sidelined by the Democratic Party because of their religion:

Bob Casey Sr. was one of the most prominent Catholic Democrats of his time. He was also a proven vote-getter in a key state. In 1990 he won his second term as Pennsylvania’s governor by a margin of more than 2 to 1 and carried every county in the state but one.

Yet in 1992 his party didn’t permit him to deliver a speech at its national convention. The problem: Casey wanted to express his pro-life views. The snub came to symbolize the left’s turn away from Catholics, who had once been dependable supporters. While today’s party still includes prominent communicants—including Joe Biden and Sen. Bob Casey Jr.—they have found it necessary to abandon their support for unborn life.

Perhaps Gov. Josh Shapiro’s fate is a sign of a similar turning point. When Kamala Harris on Tuesday announced Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as her running mate, some worried she’d passed over Mr. Shapiro because he’s Jewish and Zionist, much as Casey was slighted for being Catholic and pro-life.

Mr. Shapiro is remarkably popular in Pennsylvania, an even more crucial state now than in 1992. His public acts—from spearheading a grand-jury report on sex abuse in the Catholic Church as state attorney general to making a conciliatory statement after the attempted assassination of Donald Trump—have revealed sure political instincts.

Yet many on the left were scandalized that he was on Ms. Harris’s shortlist. They viewed his support for Israel as disqualifying. Activists have labeled the governor—who attends Beth Sholom Congregation in Elkins Park, Pa., and has sent his children to Jewish day school—“Genocide Josh” owing to his criticism of anti-Israel protest mobs and the boycott, divest and sanctions movement. Critics have also pointed to a 1993 college newspaper article that described Palestinians as “too battle-minded” to coexist with Israel.

Mr. Shapiro, who has disavowed that column, holds views that were mainstream within the Democratic Party until very recently. He supports the Jewish state’s right to defend itself but has denounced Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as “one of the worst leaders of all time” and accused him of making Israel “less safe.” That isn’t exactly hard-edged Zionism, but some nonetheless perceived Mr. Shapiro as too extreme.

Christianity has been a whipping boy--not without justification--through most of American history. From the Salem witch trials to Hawthorne's Scarlet Letter, from the Scopes monkey trial to the current pro-Life movement, Christianity has been vilified as a white, patriarchal religion. (The key role of Christians in the abolitionist movement is ignored or played down.)

Now the greater intolerance is coming from the left, which has excluded pro-Life Catholics and supporters of Israel from positions of power. Instead Progressives welcome pro-Palestinians who call for the eradication of Israel and its people "from the river to the sea."

I hope the latter is not what the Democratic Party believes and hope VP Harris denounces this point of view; if she doesn't and becomes the next President, then God help the Catholic and Jewish peoples.

Chevron's Departure: the Self-Ruination of California

Closing Chevron's Richmond refinery will have substantial
negative impact on California's gasoline supply chain.

Last week's announcement by Chevron that it is moving its headquarters from San Ramon (35 miles east of the Peninsula) to Texas comes as no surprise.

IMHO, old-timers in ownership and management had Chevron hanging on in California because of sentimentality over its 145-year history in the State; however, repeated public excoriation of the oil and gas industry and laws that made it increasingly costly to operate took its toll.

When California announced that it wanted Chevron to close down operations 10-25 years in the future--but not yet--there was no reason for it to adhere to California's timetable. [bold added]

Chevron, which dates its origins to the California Star Oil Works, which struck oil in the Santa Susana Mountains of Southern California in 1876, characterized the move from San Ramon to Houston as merely an ordinary managerial consolidation.

However, given its prominence, Newsom’s recurrent vilification of the industry and his vow to end sales of gasoline-powered cars as a way of becoming carbon-neutral by 2045, the move’s political aspects could not be ignored.

Initially, Newsom posted on social media a video denouncing oil industry “price gouging,” including a melty-face emoji characterizing the industry’s reaction to California’s efforts to dampen gas prices.

But his office quickly took down the video and issued a statement saying Chevron’s announcement “is the logical culmination of a long process that has repeatedly been foreshadowed by Chevron.”

...California has seen a steady exodus of corporations, as the Bay Area Council noted, thus reinforcing its image of hostility to business.

Just days earlier, Elon Musk, who had already moved his Tesla corporate headquarters to Texas, announced that X and SpaceX would follow.

Chevron’s announcement also comes amid a flurry of layoffs and corporate retrenchments in the Bay Area’s high-tech industry, which have contributed to the state’s having the nation’s highest unemployment rate.

Moreover, we may not have heard the last of Chevron’s moves. The company had been warning California officials that it might close its two refineries in the state, which are major producers of the state’s unique gasoline blend.

Voters in Richmond, the site of one Chevron refinery, will decide in November whether to impose a special tax on the refinery, $1 per barrel, and the company has accused Richmond’s leaders of “playing chicken” with their largest taxpayer and employer.

Progressive politicians who accuse refineries of price gouging should ask themselves why those greedy capitalists are shutting down the refineries and foregoing such a profitable business. Such self-reflection is foreign to the one-party state. In fact, one risible solution promises to dig the hole deeper.

Enter Mr. Newsom’s energy commission, which is charged with investigating the causes of California’s high gas prices. A commission staff report this week failed to find wrongdoing but nonetheless floats state control of the refining industry.

One idea is to “purchase and own refineries in the State to manage the supply and price of gasoline.” At least the commission concedes there are “significant legal issues” to address and “there are complex industrial processes that the State has no experience in managing.” That’s for sure.

Sacramento can’t currently provide basic public services such as reliable power. How would it run an industry it wants to shut down? The report wonders too: “As demand for fossil fuel declines, will the presence of State-owned refineries inhibit an orderly phase out of refinery capacity?”

If Democrats in Sacramento want to reduce refinery production, nationalizing the industry a la Venezuela would work. But as the report muses: “What would drive how the State managed the refinery? Profit? Maximize production? Minimize production?” This is hilarious.

Sure, manage an oil refinery when the government cannot even manage the services such as education, public transportation, and police protection that it is supposed to provide. If we weren't laughing, we'd be crying.

Friendly Takeover

With some of the largest, most successful companies (Tesla, Oracle, HP, and now Chevron) in the Bay Area moving to Texas because of onerous taxes and regulations, it's hard to name a company that is certain to be here a century from now.

Even trillion-dollar "megacap" corporations like Apple, Nvidia, Google, and Facebook can have their fortunes worsen suddenly, and California, seeing taxpaying individuals and companies fleeing its hostile business climate, will devise ways to squeeze the remaining golden geese. Those companies better have their "go bags" ready.

There is one private entity, however, that not only will stay here but has expanded its footprint throughout the 20th century and will do so in the 21st.

Koret Field at Notre Dame de Namur University (Chron photo)

Headline: Plans for Stanford’s new Bay Area campus move forward. [bold added]

Stanford University’s plan to purchase a historic Catholic university property on the Peninsula and turn it into a satellite campus for up to 2,500 students, faculty and staff is taking shape, according to newly released documents.

Belmont officials this month released a draft environmental impact report, the first public document detailing Stanford’s option to purchase the nearly 46-acre site of Notre Dame de Namur University in the city. In the works since 2021, the deal — if it goes through — would continue Stanford’s push into San Mateo County after local concerns about growth forced the university’s withdrawal of a huge expansion plan for its main Palo Alto campus in 2019.

Stanford already operates Stanford Redwood City, a 35-acre health care facility and administrative satellite 5 miles north across the Santa Clara County line. The proposed new acquisition, to be called Stanford Belmont, is 13 miles from the Stanford campus and a 20-minute drive up Highway 101.

The Leland Stanford Junior University, which had a $36.5 billion endowment in 2023, has the deep pockets and structure (e.g., no quarterly earnings reports to shareholders) to endure the lead times necessary for Bay Area real estate projects.

The University also has a growing long-term demand for its education and health services that will populate its projects as soon as they are completed.

The installation of Economics Professor and Business School dean Jonathan Levin as its President, the arrest of demonstrators who took over and damaged its property, and the reinstatement of standardized admissions tests indicate that Stanford is setting aside the excesses of Progressivism, DEI (diversity,equity, and inclusion), and wokeness, which is more reason to expect it to survive into the next century and beyond.

California Not-so-Forever

Aerial rendering from California Forever (SFGate)

California Forever's plans to build a utopian city in Solano County have suffered a setback. The group pulled its November ballot measure: [bold added]

that measure, if passed, would have removed some zoning restrictions that prevent this type of development in the area.

California Forever will instead "submit an application for a General Plan & Zoning Amendment and proceed with the normal County process which includes preparation of a full Environmental Impact Report and the negotiation and execution of Development Agreement,” Solano County Board of Supervisors Chair Mitch Mashburn said in a statement Monday.

The news was celebrated by many in Solano County, where skepticism about the project ran deep. The group’s secretive purchases of huge tracts of land first brought about national security fears, even from local politicians, who had no idea who was behind the project. When the plan to build a futuristic city was announced, California Forever faced widespread pushback, ranging from concerns about billionaire backers like Reid Hoffman and Laurene Powell Jobs to questions about the impacts on traffic, water usage and proximity to Travis Air Force Base.

Almost every Californian involved in a construction project groans under the entanglement of red tape, and the billionaire investor group is no exception.

Reid Hoffman and Laurene Powell Jobs are ardent supporters of the Democratic Party--most recently they have pledged support to Kamala Harris' Presidential run--implying that they want to spread California's Progressive principles to the rest of the country.

However, when it comes to their business, they can't stand living under those strictures either.

Reflection and Gratitude

Austin Rios

Letter from Marc Andrus, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of California, and his successor, Austin Rios:

Dear beloved friends in Christ,

While it is unclear exactly what happened at the campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, we are relieved that former President Trump is reported to be safe. However, we are deeply saddened to learn that a member of the audience was killed. As more information emerges, we decry all violence that threatens human life, and certainly the lives of those who put themselves forward in our democratic, political processes. These processes must be safe, and the people who run for election, and those who surround them with their support, must be able to do so without fear. Please join me in praying for the soul of the life that was lost, former President Trump, and our country.

Join us in praying:
Eternal God, in whose perfect kingdom no sword is drawn but the sword of righteousness, no strength known but the strength of love: So mightily spread abroad your Spirit, that all peoples may be gathered under the banner of the Prince of Peace, as children of one Father; to whom be dominion and glory, now and for ever. Amen.

As I've been observing for 12 years, the political leanings of Episcopal priests and bishops are overwhelmingly aligned with the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party.

However, never once have I heard any member of the clergy advocate violence to further political goals. On this day of reflection and gratitude, let us continue to pray for peace and see the humanity in each other.

Its Demise is not in Question

In an expected development, the Governor and Legislature closed the upcoming year's California budget deficit by agreeing to a $297.9 billion spending plan.

(Image from the Economist)

In parallel news the slavery reparations bill ("Fund for Reparations and Reparative Justice"), estimated to cost $800 billion, was approved by the Judiciary Committee and moves to the State Assembly for consideration.

When I have an instinctive negative reaction to policies--in this case to pay big penalties for actions that neither I nor my ancestors had anything to do with--I like to turn to guidance from spiritual leaders to gauge whether I'm off base. This article (What the Bible Says About Reparations for Slavery) is helpful: [bold added]

Any examination of the question must begin with the notion of time and its relation to evil acts. The Bible, in Exodus 34:7 and elsewhere, tells us that God will “visit the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.”

These passages acknowledge that bad acts frequently have consequences that ripple beyond the temporal space of the perpetrator and can create a sphere of responsibility that far exceeds the individual actor. Importantly, the text also indicates that the ripples dissipate after three or four generations. The adverse consequences of nefarious acts don’t continue indefinitely—and, similarly, the desire for vengeance and the right to compensation for such acts can’t endure forever.

Why only three or four generations? This limitation is tied to the duration of emotional memory, including the transmitted personal sense of suffering and injustice. Most people have a vivid awareness of and emotional ties to parents and grandparents—perhaps even to a great-grandparent. Yet no such bonds can plausibly exist beyond that. The Bible is thus establishing a statute of limitations that is tied to the strength of personal memory and, therefore, to a limitation on the personalized rectification of historic wrongs.

Our legal system echoes this biblical teaching. Civil and criminal statutes of limitation generally bring to an end the pursuit of perpetrators for acts that are too distant in time to warrant subjection to judicial processes. Implicitly they also recognize that witnesses, tangible evidence, and raw emotions engendered by wrongful acts have disappeared—no matter how heinous the offenses.

While American slavery remains a powerful and tragic historical event, there are no individuals alive today who have direct personal links to it or even to those who suffered directly as a consequence of it. For all its evil and injustice, slavery is no longer a personal reality in the U.S. It is still a wrong to be righted, but in a collective manner, through national efforts—civil-rights legislation, improvements in education, public services, quality-of-life enhancements for the descendants of slaves, and the like. To its credit, our nation has vigorously pursued such efforts for decades.

The notion that direct compensation should be paid to sixth-, seventh- or eighth-generation descendants of slavery’s victims by similarly distant descendants of those who may have been complicit with slavery is simply unjust. The original actors, perpetrators and victims, are too far removed in time to merit punishment or retribution.

It is appropriate to punish a perpetrator or exact restitution from an individual who may have benefited directly from the acts of the perpetrator. Yet more than 1½ centuries’ distance makes such punishment for slavery incompatible with justice. Similarly, individuals separated by many generations from a vile act suffered by distant ancestors can’t have a justiciable claim for suffering they didn’t endure directly or indirectly.

The above interpretation of Biblical justice doesn't relieve me of my moral responsibility to help the poor and downtrodden. However, it's quite different to use the State's taxing authority to take from Peter to pay Paul --by force, if necessary--when both Peter and Paul and no one they know have any first-hand experience with the injustices perpetrated.

However, there is no point in getting too worked up about reparations. There is zero probability that California can come up with $800 billion, so it's just the timing and manner of reparations' demise that's in question.