UCLA women edge upset-minded Iowa

• February 23, 2025

IOWA CITY, Iowa — Elina Aarnisalo made two free throws with 3.8 seconds remaining to give No. 3 UCLA a 67-65 comeback win over Iowa on Sunday.

Lauren Betts had 22 points and 12 rebounds for the Bruins (26-1, 14-1 Big Ten), who trailed by 12 points twice in the third quarter before rallying.

Iowa tied it at 65 when Lucy Olsen made three free throws with 6 seconds left. Aarnisalo was fouled when she was tripped by Olsen after she had fallen to the court trying to defend.

Iowa had a final shot to tie or win, but Addison O’Grady’s 3-pointer fell short.

Kiki Rice added 12 points for UCLA.

Olsen led Iowa (18-9, 8-8) with 17 points. Hannah Stuelke had 11 points, and O’Grady and Taylor McCabe each had 10.

The Bruins survived early foul trouble to Betts — she picked up her second with 4:26 left in the second quarter and sat out the rest of the half. They shot just 5 of 25 on 3-pointers, but the last make came from Rice, whose 3 with 2:19 left gave UCLA a 62-60 lead. The Bruins wouldn’t trail again.

The Hawkeyes were hoping to knock off another top-5 team at home — they defeated No. 4 USC 76-69 on Feb. 2 — and had their chances late, but couldn’t convert. Olsen led Iowa in scoring, but shot just 5 of 21.

UCLA went on a 16-4 run over the final 5½ minutes of the third quarter to tie it at 50. The run was started by a 3 from Angela Dugalic, only the second 3 of the game for the Bruins at that point.

UCLA came in leading the nation with a plus-14.2 rebound margin. The Bruins outrebounded Iowa 43-34 for the game, 25-11 in the second half.

UCLA is at Wisconsin on Wednesday.

​ Orange County Register 

2 persons of interest, including a former El Toro Marine, named in Lake Forest murder cold case

• February 23, 2025

A year after cold case investigators identified the skeletal remains of a woman killed in what is now the city of Lake Forest, the Orange County Sheriff’s Department has announced two new persons of interest. One of them? The victim’s ex-husband.

Maritza Glean Grimmett was 20 years old when she went missing in 1979. She was in the middle of divorce and custody proceedings when she left Tennessee to stay with her sister in Georgia before she received a call from her ex-husband, a U.S. Marine named Howard Grimmett.

Sheriff’s investigators said Maritza told her sister she was headed to California after Howard, who was stationed in Orange County, convinced her to come and work on their marriage — only to never be seen again.

Her remains were uncovered in 1983 after a group of children found a human skull in a culvert near Canada and Old Trabuco roads in Lake Forest. The bones were found a few miles away from the former El Toro Marine Corps Air Station where Howard had been stationed. An excavation uncovered roughly 70% of the scattered skeletal remains, enough for a physical description and forensic rendering of Maritza, who remained unidentified for over 40 years.

Evidence found at the excavation site led investigators to believe she was killed but a specific cause of death could not be determined.

The trail continued to run cold until investigators turned to Facebook in 2023 after collaborating with a distant genetic relative who suggested they share the woman’s forensic rendering with a group focused on identifying women who went missing from the 1970s and 1980s. A month later, investigators were contacted by a woman who believed their Jane Doe was her missing mother.

It broke the case, investigators said, and Maritza was positively identified in March 2024.

For Orange County Sheriff’s Homicide Investigator Bob Taft, it was the first time a cold-case victim was identified over social media.

“Although the victim is a part of it, you do it for the family members. Her daughter grew up thinking that her mother abandoned her. Her sisters and her parents, her loved ones, never knew what happened. Those individuals deserve answers and anything I can do to try and rectify that, by providing some semblance to these families of what happened to their loved ones is the reason why we do this,” Taft said.

Maritza was originally from Panama and met Howard when he was stationed there as a Marine, investigators learned. The two got married in the summer of 1978 and had a baby girl before Howard was transferred to Tennessee later that year while Maritza and their daughter moved to Columbus, Ohio to stay with his family.

While separated from his new family in Tennessee, Howard met his current wife, a fellow marine named Isabel “Terry” Cruz-Grimmett.

One thing led to another and Howard filed for divorce from Maritza in July of 1979. She was already living in Millington, Tenn. when she learned about his relationship with Terry – the name Isabel used – and went to stay with her sister in Georgia. The two had a divorce hearing scheduled in November and had previously agreed that Maritza would receive full custody of her daughter while Howard paid child support, Taft said.

When November came around, Maritza was a no-show and Howard received full custody of their daughter, Dawn. Neither Howard nor Maritza’s side of the family said they knew what happened to her mother. According to Taft, Dawn was raised to believe her half-siblings were her cousins and didn’t learn Howard was her biological father until she was at least 11 years old.

The fact that Maritza didn’t show up to the divorce hearing led Taft to believe she had already been dead before the divorce hearing. With most of her family in Panama, he said there was no reason for her to not show up.

Howard and Terry were interviewed by law enforcement for the first time in Sep. 2024 and denied any involvement in Maritza’s disappearance.

According to Taft, Howard had changed the story he told family members over the years, from how she left the baby in a barracks at the Marine base in Tennessee and disappeared to how she did come to California but the two didn’t get along so he dropped her off at an unknown hotel in Santa Ana.

When Taft spoke to him, Howard gave him a “completely new account” of what happened to Maritza; that she voluntarily turned over their daughter to him in person in Tennessee and he never saw her again, the sheriff’s investigator said. He said Howard’s statement conflicts with the account shared by Maritza’s sister, who said Howard called and asked her to come to California.

Taft added that the fact that Maritza’s remains were discovered a few miles from where Howard was stationed makes both him and his wife, who now live in Ohio, persons of interest in the case.

Neither Howard Grimmett nor Isabel “Terry” Cruz-Grimmett could be reached for comment.

Investigators are seeking any details that could help establish how and when Maritza arrived in California. Former military service members stationed at the El Toro Marine Corps Air Station between late 1979 and April 1983 who believe they may have seen Maritza or knew Howard and Terry are encouraged to reach out.

Anyone with information is asked to email the cold case homicide team at coldcase@ocsheriff.gov. Anonymous tips may be submitted to OC Crime Stoppers at 855-TIP-OCCS (855-847-6227) or at occrimestoppers.org.

​ Orange County Register 

After landslide victory, will Sacramento fund Prop. 36 enforcement? First signs say no.

• February 23, 2025

In November 2024, California’s ten-year long experiment with Proposition 47 ended as voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 36. 

Its passage came as a result of voter despair over tens of thousands of drug overdose deaths, rampant and increasing crime, increasing homelessness, and a profound decline in the quality of life in many communities. These problems grew worse despite years of assurances that the state’s efforts to address them were adequate, only needing more time and funding to generate positive results.

The question being raised in Sacramento today is if the governor and the Legislature fund Prop. 36 enforcement. Based on the initial reaction at the State Capitol, this appears unlikely. 

Some background: Prop. 36 mandates that repeat offenders for narcotics sales are no longer diversion eligible. Convictions now carry county jail or even state prison sentences depending on the severity. It increases sentences for repeat theft offenders to up to three years in county jail and establishes “treatment mandated felony” drug crimes obligating chronic offenders to accept treatment or face incarceration.

The independent Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) estimated that Prop. 36 could potentially increase inmate populations by a “few thousand”, with implementation costs estimated in the “several tens of millions of dollars to low hundreds of millions annually.” While not insubstantial, this doesn’t make much of a dent in the $322.2 billion proposed 2025-26 state budget.

Looking back, Prop. 47’s much ballyhooed savings through de-carceration and de-criminalization has never really materialized. The LAO estimated that 2025 budget “savings” for Prop. 47 funded education, treatment, and anti-crime measures at $95 million if every dollar was spent on education and prevention, but it’s not. These funds are also earmarked for treatment. The National Center for Drug Abuse Statistics states the average cost for drug rehabilitation is $13,475. Prop. 47 never made a dent in these problems and voters knew it.  

Drug addiction, homelessness, and criminality are linked even if California’s progressive leadership won’t admit it. Illicit drug use perpetuates homelessness, drives crime, and exacerbates mental illness. It should be no surprise that voters passed Proposition 1 in March 2024, a bond-funded program to treat the mentally ill and drug addicted. Soon after, Governor Newsom committed $3.3 billion in block grants for psychiatric treatment and drug rehabilitation.  

Though many dismiss the idea that the threat of incarceration has a positive effect on drug use and rehabilitation, research indicates that it does. 

A voter-approved measure in 2000, also called Prop. 36, proved it by offering treatment as an alternative to incarceration. A subsequent UCLA study on its effectiveness concluded that treatment backstopped by court monitoring “indicates that at treatment discharge, Prop 36 offenders had reduced drug use, engaged in less criminal activity, were less likely to be homeless, and experienced reduced levels of family conflict compared to their levels on these measures at admission.” 

This progress was all undone by Prop. 47, which reduced most drug crimes to misdemeanors rather than felonies. Once addicts understood that failure in treatment no longer meant jail time, many stopped trying. 

In addition, Medi-Cal has been offering qualified low-income addicts two 90-day residential drug treatment programs per year with a possible 30-day extension since 2015. However, without the threat of incarceration, most addicts are not motivated to participate.

The sad reality is that illicit drugs work. Addicts report the feeling of being high on opiates in particular as the most pleasurable experience of their lives. Yet, being addicted to heroin, or any drug, can place users on an ever-declining addiction sine curve. The horizontal axis contains a line called normal and the sine curve peak is the high. As the high wears off, users descend below normal. 

Over time, the highs become less high and the lows, lower. Eventually becoming high isn’t as high as addicts struggle with their own brain chemistry to just get back to normal. Meanwhile the low is so painful that drug addicts will do anything to avoid it. And anything means anything. They will prostitute themselves, abandon their children, quit their jobs, steal, live on the streets, and defecate anywhere in order to live a surreal Matrix-like existence perpetuated by the blue pill of opiates and fentanyl. This must end.

Americans are understandably protective of their civil rights, but those rights are meaningless if they’re dead.  

California has misspent tens of billions on failed homelessness programs, so-called street treatment, and harm reduction. It’s time to repurpose some of the existing Prop. 47, Prop. 1 and Medi-Cal funds to fulfill the voters’ overwhelming Prop. 36 mandate.

Steve Smith is a senior fellow in urban studies at the Pacific Research Institute.

​ Orange County Register 

More regulation of addiction treatment and sober living proposed for 2025

• February 23, 2025

My hard cold heart has been ripped, yet again, by another mother whose hope for her son’s recovery in California turned into the agony of planning his funeral. He overdosed while in treatment. There were doves, and promises, and the consuming conviction to make things better, as there are all too often.

A slew of new bills in Sacramento aims to nudge that conviction along.

Local officials are mounting a charm offensive to convince legislators of the need for closer regulation of the world of addiction recovery. And, after a state audit of the Department of Health Care Services (which licenses and regulates treatment centers) found “serious problems,” Assemblymember Diane Dixon, R-Newport Beach, seeks a new audit of yet another agency that licenses programs that treat addiction: the Department of Social Services.

That department licenses, among other things, “social rehabilitation facilities.” Addiction treatment providers have started opening such homes to escape toothier new requirements enacted to reign in addiction programs licensed by Health Care Services. Billions of Proposition 1 mental health dollars could be available to these programs.

Are these the best places to treat people with life-threatening conditions?

The “serious problems” uncovered in the audit included the practice of clustering so-called treatment “campuses” in residential neighborhoods. This arguably results in the “re-institutionalization” of patients that community-based mental health care was supposed to end.

The audit also found that it took Health Care Services more than a year to investigate many complaints, and that the department didn’t always follow up on facilities that were in violation.

“The state’s own auditor has confirmed what cities have been saying for years: There is a lack of transparency, accountability, and information available to our communities when concerns over recovery housing facilities arise,” said League of California Cities Executive Director and CEO Carolyn Coleman in a prepared statement.

Many of the new bills in Sacramento aim to remedy the flaws exposed in the audit. The League of California Cities has thrown its weight behind three of them: Senate Bill 329, Assembly Bill 424 and Assembly Bill 492, which we’ll tell you about in a minute.

“Are people getting well?” asked Dixon. “We genuinely want people to get well….It really is heartbreaking, if you get a chance to talk to people who were in these facilities.”

Wendy Bucknum, mayor pro tem of Mission Viejo and co-chair of the California Sober Living and Recovery Task Force, is hopeful. “We’re on the verge of breaking through the dam,” she said.

Legislative Rx

Let’s start with the three League-sponsored bills.

There’s SB 329, by Sen. Catherine Blakespear, D-Encinitas, and co-authored by Sen. Tom Umberg, D-Santa Ana. That it takes the state more than a year to investigate some complaints about addiction treatment facilities is simply unacceptable, she said. This bill would require more timely investigations: Health Care Services would have to assign complaints to staff within 10 days of receipt, and complete investigations within 60 days. “If an alcohol or drug treatment facility is not following state regulations and jeopardizing the health or safety of its residents or neighbors, the state should act promptly,” Blakespear said in a statement.

Assemblymember Laurie Davies, R-Laguna Niguel, gives us AB 424, which also aims to address the crazy lag on complaints. It would require Health Care Services to better communicate with people who lodge complaints, acknowledging their receipt within 30 days and then informing those folks when the investigation is done — and tell them if any violations were discovered.

Facilities open and close with some regularity, but local governments are often in the dark about precisely where they are and who owns them. AB 492, by Assemblymember Avelino Valencia, D-Anaheim, with coauthor Umberg, would require the state to notify the city or county that a license has been issued in its boundaries. It would have to include the name and mailing address of the person holding the license, as well as the facility’s location.

Several other bills also are aimed at raising the bar.

Right now, licensed residential (i.e., live-in) programs must embrace the American Society of Addiction Medicine treatment criteria (or something very similar) as a minimum standard of care (which was a huge upgrade from the almost nothing they were required to do before). But outpatient programs — where most treatment happens and where, in an extremely bizarre move, the state decided don’t need licensing — could still pretty much do whatever they liked. AB 425, by Davies, would change that, requiring outpatient treatment to adopt ASAM-esque standards of care as well. “Patients should be getting evidence-based treatment, rather than who-knows-what in some of these places,” Davies said.

Another Davies bill, AB 423, aims to keep rehab dropouts off the streets. It would require facilities to create discharge and continuing care plans for each patient, ensuring they can get back home after they finish treatment or are kicked out. Facilities would also have to schedule a follow-up meeting with a mental health professional for the patient no more than 7 days after discharge.

And on the “battling re-institutionalization” front, Dixon’s AB 3 would require physical distance between recovery or treatment homes. Such businesses wouldn’t be considered “residential use of property” if they’re within 300 feet of another such facility; the facilities share the same owner, director, programs or amenities; and the total number of residents in both facilities is greater than six.

“I hope, when I present my bill, it will make people understand they’ve been reinstutitionalized,” Dixon said. “Forty, 50 years ago, (in the institutions), they got medical care. They’re not getting medical care now.”

More legislation is in the works, including a bill that would require disclosing to health insurers that these addiction programs do not provide medical care; one that would use state mental health bond money to boost oversight of facilities; and AB 448 by Assemblymember Darshana Patel, D-San Diego, which would require that the parent or guardian of an underage kid in a California treatment program is physically in the state for the duration of the youth’s treatment.

Charm offensive

The California Sober Living and Recovery Task Force, started several years ago by the city of Mission Viejo, has grown to include other SoCal cities grappling with these issues. The task force wants to build more momentum behind change, and it is partnering with the League of California Cities and the Association of California Cities-Orange County on a “call to action” to elected officials, asking them to support bipartisan legislative reform.

The task force “was born out of your strong leadership and desire to create a coalition of cities and counties impacted by the lack of oversight in business-operated residential drug and alcohol rehabilitation homes,” one letter says. “The purpose of this task force is to speak as one voice with a united message. We are incredibly grateful for all your ongoing efforts to increase awareness of the rampant issues in this unregulated lucrative industry, as are the patients and their families who have experienced tragedies at the hands of operators who act irresponsibly.”

Cities have the law on their side now, the letters point out.

Trailblazer Costa Mesa, which enacted rules for sober living homes a decade ago and has been defending them in court ever since, had a major win in December. The city’s laws do not discriminate against recovering addicts, but may actually benefit them, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said in a precedent-setting decision.

That case isn’t over, but that victory could have far-reaching implications in Southern California and throughout the nation, as communities struggle with proliferating sober homes that have turned some neighborhoods into veritable treatment campuses and put recovering residents at risk.

“Rather than focusing on enforcement and neighborhood impacts, we are asking that our state representatives consider supporting bills that protect individuals seeking care, increase standards for safety and fraud, and prioritize treatment beds for California residents,” the task force letter says. “These changes have the potential to transform a broken system that victimizes this vulnerable population, which also benefits our communities.”

The request is signed by Mission Viejo’s Bucknum; Lauren Kleiman, mayor pro tem of Newport Beach; and Stephanie Klopfenstein, mayor of Garden Grove.

Is there any cogent argument one can make against better regulation of addiction treatment and sober homes? Many programs in California are in tract homes or apartment complexes, overseen by recovering addicts without long histories of sobriety themselves. And overdoses are tragically common: There was Frankie Taylor. And Dean Rea. And Benjamin Barragan. And Emmanuel Mitchell. And so many more.

“This is about our kids,” said a tearful Susan Rea, whose son Dean survived an overdose at a celebrity sober home in Palm Springs, was booted out with no care plan, and later died behind a gas station.

“This is about our community, and this is about making a difference,” she said. “None of this should be happening. This has got to stop.”

The feds are doing way more than the state on this front. Last week, Juan Carlos Gutierrez, 34, a.k.a. “Johnny G,” of Montebello, was sentenced to 20 years in federal prison for distributing fentanyl that killed a client in a Long Beach drug treatment facility.

Dylan lyrics spring to mind. “….(H)ow many times must a man look up before he can see the sky? …. how many ears must one man have before he can hear people cry?… how many deaths will it take till he knows that too many people have died?”

The answer, my friends, may be as close as Sacramento.

​ Orange County Register 

After wildfires and mudslides, a scam text tests my nerves

• February 23, 2025

“ALERT!!” the text message read.

Considering my recent past, the word was enough to make me think I should grab my “go bag” and prepare to evacuate again.

Only this alert was to warn me that a malicious virus had infected my phone. If I didn’t act immediately, it claimed, the phone would send out photos of me to a pornography website. To avoid this, all I had to do was click on the link below. We all know how that would’ve turned out. Sorry, hackers, you’ll have to do better than that to get the attention of my already rattled nerves.

A bird chirped outside my window as I was reading the message. I am not sure if it was singing or laughing with me. I burst into a rendition of “When the red, red, robin comes bob, bob, bobbin’ along, along.”

I don’t think the bird was a robin, but that was the first song that came into my head.

The birds were back. Well, at least one was breaking the eerie silence that followed the fires.

Even wildlife was too stunned to make a sound.

I am not a great fan of coyotes, but I felt a sense of relief when I heard a pack of them howling into the night, an irritating cry of normalcy.

Even the piles of carefully crafted dirt, indicating that the gophers had returned to my front yard, struck me as a positive sign. It wasn’t all that long ago that I had scattered sound pipes on the lawn to deter them. The sound the pipes emitted was thought to be unpleasant to their furry little ears. But my gophers took a liking to the sound, and settled happily into their underground condos that now provided continuous concerts.

Welcome home, gophers. I should have known that even a catastrophic firestorm and a few mudslides would not keep you away.

Altadena folks are a strong lot.

Email Patriciabunin@sbcglobal.net. Follow her at patriciabunin.com

​ Orange County Register 

Prefab builder offers free homes to wildfire victims after $15 million donation

• February 23, 2025

A nonprofit created by businessman Rick Caruso is partnering with a startup to offer potentially dozens of prefabricated, fire- resistant homes at no cost to low-income residents devastated by the wildfires in Altadena and the Pacific Palisades.

The initiative, the first for Caruso’s newly formed Steadfast LA, is backed by a $15 million pledge from Airbnb co-founder Joe Gebbia, whose company Samara will build, install and handle the permitting for the factory-built homes. Gebbia will donate the initial $5 million toward the effort and match up to $10 million in additional donations, according to an announcement.

“This initiative is about keeping communities intact,” said Caruso, chairman of Steadfast LA, in a statement. “Many of the people struggling the most right now are those who have lived in these neighborhoods for decades. They built their homes many years ago, they’re underinsured or lack insurance, and now they have lost everything. We’re giving these victims a realistic way to stay on their properties and quickly return to their lives at a time when the deck is stacked against them.”

Samara’s models range from a 420-square-foot studio to a 950-square-foot, two-bedroom home. The largest unit runs about $261,000, with the price tag roughly doubling once installation, permitting and other setup costs are added in, according to Mike McNamara, Samara’s CEO.

The prefabs feature metal roofs and fire-resistant exterior walls, dual-pane glass windows and an HVAC system capable of filtering out particles as small as 0.5 microns, such as smoke, according to Samara’s website.

50 to 100 homes envisioned

Steadfast and Samara expect to build about 50 homes for residents, but are hopeful that with enough donations — and cost waivers from Los Angeles city and the county — that figure could grow to 100 on the high end. Samara will not take any profits from the project.

“The more help we can get, the more homes we can put in the ground,” McNamara said.

Los Angeles County is currently investigating the feasibility of waiving fees during the reconstruction phase.

At the end of January, the Board of Supervisors asked for a report back within 30 days on that possibility. The county also recently held a two-day workshop with members of the building industry to “explore new and innovative rebuilding solutions, including those championed by the Steadfast LA and Samara partnership,” according to a statement from the county’s Coordinated Joint Information Center.

‘Fresh ideas’ encouraged

“Los Angeles County Public Works and its partner in the County’s Rebuilding Task Force, LA County Planning, welcome fresh ideas and encourage creative approaches to rebuilding stronger and more resilient communities,” the statement reads. “Provided they are approved by the California Department of Housing and Community Development, prefabricated and manufactured homes can be used for both temporary and permanent housing.”

McNamara said he does not expect any roadblocks to permitting Samara’s prefab homes as they come “pre-California certified.” The majority of the necessary inspections, short of the final connections on-site, occur before the home is shipped, he said.

“We can have everything already pre-inspected and drop it onto the foundation and connect it,” McNamara said.

Samara builds each home in a factory in Mexico, ships it to the site and then lowers it onto the foundation using a crane. The rest of the installation takes as little as a “few weeks of minimal on-site work,” per Steadfast’s announcement.

6-month process

Samara will handle every part of the process, including the permitting, and estimates it will take about five to six months from receiving approval to build until the moment the keys are turned over to the homeowner. McNamara described it as not gifting a house, but rather a “home.”

“We think the whole concept of a public-private partnership to get people back into their homes is the right way to go after it,” McNamara said.

The Eaton fire in Altadena and the Palisades fire in the Santa Monica Mountains in January destroyed roughly 16,000 structures, including at least 10,000 homes. The reconstruction effort is expected to place a tremendous strain on labor and construction resources across the region.

As costs surge, insurance payouts may struggle to keep up. A significant number of those impacted by the wildfires “will not be able to cover the cost of rebuilding through insurance alone,” according to Steadfast.

Because Samara’s homes are built outside of the Los Angeles market, their construction won’t be impacted by such constraints. “We actually use a completely different supply chain,” McNamara said.

Though Samara is its primary partner, Steadfast has invited other modular home companies to participate in the program.

Steadfast is expected to announce the organization that will administer the initiative in the next few weeks. Interested homeowners can submit their information and learn more about the program on the nonprofit’s website. Eligibility will be based on “financial need and other objective criteria,” the organization said.

​ Orange County Register 

Are all-inclusive resorts worth the money?

• February 23, 2025

By Noreen Kompanik, TravelPulse

I admit that prior to the COVID pandemic, I was not a big fan of the all-inclusive resort. And to be honest, the idea of an all-inclusive can be a bit polarizing.

On our vacations with family and friends, traveling to a destination always meant exploring all that the destination had to offer. This included history, culture and, of course, the local cuisine. The idea of having all our meals at one resort wasn’t something we were really interested in, and it didn’t hold much appeal.

At the time, it seemed that only “certain types of travelers” benefited from an all-inclusive.

Then came COVID. When travel began to open up again, I stayed at my first all-inclusive resort in Mexico. If nothing else, safety played a huge factor in opening my eyes to the benefits of an all-inclusive, especially with my background in nursing.

The experience was positive and since that visit, I and my family and friends have chosen to book some of our vacations in an all-inclusive. But “some” is definitely the operative word here.

And it still brings up the question, are all-inclusives worth the cost? The answer is, “It depends.”

Working with a handful of travel agents who book both all-inclusive and non-inclusive travel, we discussed the pros and cons of the all-inclusive and the type of traveler most likely to book this type of vacation.

Here are the benefits of an all-inclusive:

• Great fit for families and groups
• An overall stress-free vacation in places designed to feel like paradise
• Opportunity to relax, unplug and truly enjoy a vacation experience
• A staff more fluent in English, making for easier communication
• Comprehensive packages that include meals, drinks, alcoholic beverages and activities
• Way to break into an unfamiliar destination in a safe, secure way
• Cost effective and the ability to stay more “on budget”
• Numerous on-site activities for those who love to stay busy ranging from fitness classes to tennis and beach volleyball
• May eliminate the need for your own personal transportation

Now, let’s look at the cons:

• Not a good fit for the non-alcohol drinker or one that’s only a casual imbiber
• The food may be pedestrian, catering more to the North American traveler with options to include pizza, burgers, hot dogs, spaghetti and meatballs. This isn’t a criticism of the menu options, but when you’re in Mexico or the Dominican Republic, do you really want the cuisine you can get anywhere in the U.S.?
• Restaurant choices may be limited. Some all-inclusives offer several different dining venues. Others may not. And non-resort dining in the local economy could be considerably less expensive.
• Inability to authentically experience local culture and cuisine.
• Not a good fit for the adventure traveler who may easily be bored after a few days at the resort
• Negative impact on the local community as some all-inclusives have come under fire for low wages, poor working conditions for local staff and not being environmentally conscious.
• Hidden charges that include higher prices for premium alcohol or other menu items to include lobster and certain cuts of high-quality meats not included in the program.

So, what should travelers look for in an all-inclusive?

It’s wise to work with a seasoned travel agent who has visited the resort or has in-depth knowledge of the destination. There’s nothing more disappointing than spending money on a vacation that doesn’t meet your expectations.

“Know before you go” and be sure to read the fine print of a package before you arrive (though ideally before you book).

Travelers should look for a variety of dining options which encompass a range of venues while still embracing the local food culture. Dining is one of the highlights of a vacation and should be satisfying and enjoyable.

Most all-inclusive resorts are in stunning locations known for their weather, culture and picturesque surroundings. While some travelers may want to just chill at their resort, it’s great to research off-property options that may include Mayan ruins, eco-tourism and other unique adventure opportunities should you decide to do some exploring.

Finding the right all-inclusive resort in the right destination with the perfect balance of food, culture and activities that meet your needs and budget makes all the difference on how you’ll view and value your vacation experience.

©2025 Northstar Travel Media, LLC. Visit at travelpulse.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

​ Orange County Register 

Newsom’s repeated attempts to gaslight the public are catching up with him

• February 23, 2025

To listen to Gavin Newsom tell it, California is “not only dominating but paving the way for the future of jobs and the American economy.” If only it were true.

He continues to brush off bad press – and even worse data – that tells a much different story about the state of California. But Newsom’s repeated attempts to gaslight the public are catching up with him.

Perhaps most egregious is Newsom’s claim that his ill-advised $20 fast food minimum wage law has been a “win-win-win” for the state. He claims it’s “not only lifting up working families but also strengthening our economy. Let’s fact check that.

For months, data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics has shown job losses in our state’s fast food sector. Multiple surveys also found that fast food establishments across the state slashed workers’ hours, drastically increased prices, and even shuttered completely. The most recent report from the Berkeley Research Group shows the state lost over 10,000 jobs from June 2023 to June 2024.

Newsom has tried to defend his bad law, calling these government statistics “fake numbers.” (It’s worth noting Newsom himself has cited this same data.) Despite his denials, the data shows that workers have suffered due to his law. No amount of PR spin will pull the wool over the eyes of employees who find themselves with less hours or out of work entirely. 

Unfortunately, this is far from the only time Newsom has denied the facts to better fit his own narrative. When a media storm kicked up surrounding President Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), Newsom jumped into the press noting that “California’s been a leader in [the government efficiency] space.” He couldn’t be further off. 

In his tenure, Newsom doubled the staff in the governor’s office, oversaw a 63 percent budget increase since 2019, and ballooned the current budget to over $100 billion more than it was before he took office.

It doesn’t stop there. After facing criticism over the state’s homelessness problem, Newsom claimed that California has “dramatically slowed and reduced the growth of homelessness” in the state. 

If Gavin spent less time running his mouth and more time fact checking, he’d see the reality: California’s homeless totaled over 186,000 in 2024. That’s a 5,000-plus increase since 2023 and a 30,000 increase since 2019, when he took office.

This is after the state spent $24 billion on efforts to combat homelessness, according to a state auditor, with some localities such as Los Angeles receiving a $875 million budget. According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) California is also the worst state in the country for homelessness.

But wait – here’s more! He’s also misled the public when it comes to the proposed high speed rail system, to misleading a constituent about being on the phone with President Biden during his response to the terrible Los Angeles fires, and various other issues. 

Until Newsom decides to wake up and face facts, Californians need the tools to hold him accountable. My organization recently launched a fact-checker that is calling out Newsom for his untruths, and we will continue to call out his misleading statements.    

Tom Manzo is president and founder of the California Business and Industrial Alliance

​ Orange County Register