Recipe: A local chef makes the best Baba Ghanoush, now you can too

• May 2, 2023

Zov. It’s a three-letter word that makes my stomach rumble with hunger. In Armenian, it means “whirlwind in the ocean. ” But to me, Zov translates as a culinary magician who knows exactly how to balance flavors in dishes.

The chef-owner of several Orange County restaurants, Zov Karamardian offers a delicious fire-roasted eggplant dip on her menus. Known as Baba Ghanoush, her version relies on grilled eggplant and roasted garlic to give it a tempting depth of flavor.

Zov’s Baba Ghanoush (Fire-Roasted Eggplant Dip)

Yield: About 8 to 10 appetizer servings

INGREDIENTS

1 whole unpeeled head of garlic

7 tablespoons olive oil, divided use

2 globe eggplants (about 2 pounds total)

1/4 cup fresh lemon juice

1/4 cup tahini, see cook’s notes

2 tablespoons plain yogurt

1 1/2 teaspoons salt

1 teaspoon ground cumin

1/2 teaspoon dried red chili flakes

1/2 teaspoon ground black pepper

Optional garnishes: chopped Italian parsley and diced tomato

For serving: toasted pita wedges, or lavash, or sturdy crackers

Cook’s notes: Tahini is a Middle Eastern condiment made from toasted ground hulled sesame seeds. It is served by itself or as an ingredient in hummus, baba ghanoush, and halva. Most supermarkets stock it, as do natural food markets.

PROCEDURE

1. Preheat oven to 350 degrees. To roast garlic, peel the outer layer of skin from head of garlic and leave remaining skins intact. Cut off the pointed top portion, leaving the bulb intact but exposing individual cloves of garlic. Place the head of garlic, cut side up, in a small baking dish and drizzle with 2 tablespoons of oil. Bake, covered with foil, 25 to 30 minutes or until cloves are soft when pressed. Cool completely. When ready to use, use your fingers to squeeze the garlic cloves from the parchment-like covering.

2. Meanwhile, start the barbecue for medium-high heat. Using a fork, pierce the eggplants on both sides several times. Grill the eggplants until the skins are charred and the centers are soft, turning them occasionally, about 30 minutes total. Place eggplants in a strainer to drain and cool for 10 minutes or until cool enough to handle. Cut eggplants in half lengthwise. Scraping as close to skins as possible, spoon the soft pulp into the strainer set over a bowl. Discard skins and any juices that accumulate in the bowl.

3. In food processor, combine eggplant pulp, 4 tablespoons oil, juice, tahini, yogurt, salt, cumin, red pepper flakes, and black pepper. Squeeze garlic from skins into the eggplant mixture. Pulse on and off until a very coarse puree forms. Cover and refrigerate until cold.

4. Just before serving, drizzle the remaining 1 tablespoon oil over dip. Sprinkle with parsley and diced tomato. Serve with toasted pita wedges, or lavash, or sturdy crackers.

Source: “Zov: Recipes and Memories from the Heart” by Zov Karamardian

Cooking question? Contact Cathy Thomas at [email protected]

Related Articles

​ Orange County Register 

Game Day: Advantage Lakers in Game 1?

• May 2, 2023

Editor’s note: This is the Tuesday, May 2, 2023, edition of the “Game Day with Kevin Modesti” newsletter. To receive the newsletter in your inbox, sign up here.

Good morning. How big is Game 1 tonight for the Lakers and Golden State Warriors? That’s more than a rhetorical question. We’ll try to answer it after a glance at other news.

The Dodgers beat the Phillies, and J.P. Hoornstra writes that their season-high 15 hits, 13 runs and four-game winning streak are signs of recovery from a rough April.
Jeff Fletcher writes about what the Angels could do about their bullpen, which has an MLB-worst seven blown saves.
Andrew Knoll assesses the Kings’ pluses and minuses going into the offseason after another first-round playoff defeat.
And Kentucky Derby favorite Forte drew a post position near the outside while Santa Anita-based Practical Move, Skinner and Reincarnate will start Saturday’s race from near the middle of the 20-horse gate.

The Lakers and Warriors open their best-of-seven Western Conference semifinal series tonight in San Francisco. It’s the first playoff meeting since 1991 between the teams that have won 10 NBA titles in the 2000s. It’s the fifth postseason meeting between LeBron James and Stephen Curry.

Southern California News Group reporter Elliott Teaford and columnist Jim Alexander both pick the Lakers to win the series, both seeing a Game 7 victory for L.A. on the road.

“And before you scoff at Lakers in seven, remember who picked the Lakers in six over Memphis,” Alexander writes.

A potential Game 7 is 12 days away. For now, the pivotal game is Game 1.

Bay Area News Group columnist Dieter Kurtenbach picks the Warriors to win the series in six, wrapping it up in Los Angeles.

But Kurtenbach sees Game 1 as an opportunity for the Lakers.

“James will have his moments, if not entire games. He’s too great to write off,” he writes. “I also wouldn’t be surprised if he came out and claimed Game 1 — it’s the most rested he’ll be for the series.”

The Lakers, 4½-point underdogs this morning, have one big advantage in Game 1.

After winning their first-round series over the Memphis Grizzlies in six games, the Lakers and LeBron, 38, and Anthony Davis, a fragile 30, have had three full days off, while by taking seven to finish off the Sacramento Kings, the Warriors and Curry, 35, Klay Thompson, 33, and Draymond Green, 33, left themselves only one full day to rest and reset.

That might not be decisive. As Warriors coach Steve Kerr pointed out, his team won the afternoon Game 7 against Sacramento two days after losing the night Game 6.

“I think you saw what our older guys are capable of (Sunday) coming off of 36 hours rest,” Kerr said.

But over the past two seasons, including their 2022 NBA title run, the Warriors have generally not been at their best on one day of rest, going by data at StatFox.com. Their overall winning percentage after one day off (.568, 63-48) is no better than their record in back-to-back games, and their winning percentage against the point spread after one day off (.468, 52-59) is their worst in any “rest” category.

The Warriors might have rested stars in some short-turnaround games, of course, whereas they’ll hold nothing back tonight.

Game 1s usually are long forgotten by the time series like this are decided. If the Lakers win the series and advance to the NBA’s final four, they will have officially exceeded pre-season and even late-season expectations. It will be even more vindication for GM Rob Pelinka, whom columnist Mirjam Swanson writes about in today’s papers.

But the quickest route to a Lakers win in the series includes a Lakers win in the opener.

How big is Game 1? Huge.

TODAY

Lakers and Warriors play Game 1 of their Western Conference semifinal series at San Francisco (7 p.m., TNT).
Angels (starting Patrick Sandoval, 3.16 ERA) open a three-game series at St. Louis (Steven Matz, 0-3) (4:45 p.m., BSW).
Dodgers have Julio Urias trying to end his three-game losing streak vs. the Phillies and Matt Strahm (7:10 p.m., SNLA).
LAFC faces Philadelphia in the home leg of their CONCACAF Champions League semifinal after drawing 1-1 on the road (7 p.m., FS1, TUDN). Preview.

BETWEEN THE LINES

After the Lakers beat Memphis on the road in game 1, they went from +108 underdogs to -300 favorites to win the opening-round series. The same could happen if the Lakers beat Golden State in game 1 tonight after being +134 underdogs this morning to win the series. Bets on the Lakers to win the series should be made while the odds are attractive.

280 CHARACTERS

“I’ve been fortunate enough to cover top guys in both sports. Never talked to LeBron as part of a group of fewer than 40 reporters postgame. I’ve had random locker-room one-on-ones with Sid Crosby and Connor McDavid after a match.” – Kings writer Andrew Knoll ((at)AndrewKnollNHL) tweeting about the difference in attention paid to pro basketball and hockey.

1,000 WORDS

Feeling at home: Michael Busch, the Dodgers’ rookie second baseman, singles to center for his first hit at Dodger Stadium in the fourth inning of a 13-4 victory over the Phillies last night. Photo is by Ashley Landis for AP.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Thanks for reading. Send suggestions, comments and questions by email at [email protected] and via Twitter @KevinModesti.

Editor’s note: Thanks for reading the “Game Day with Kevin Modesti” newsletter. To receive the newsletter in your inbox, sign up here.

Related Articles

​ Orange County Register 

Criminal justice reforms should not be scapegoated for any and every crime in California

• May 2, 2023

Editor’s note: This commentary was originally published in print on April 23 as part of a pro-con debate page. To read the counterpoint, click here.

Over the last decade, with widespread voter support, California has implemented sweeping criminal justice reforms which have significantly reduced the state’s reliance on its bloated and poorly run prison system for holding criminals accountable.

In 2010, California’s carceral system held over 162,000 people in state prisons, camps, in-state contract facilities and out-of-state prisons. That year, more than 6,400 people were sent to state prison whose controlling offense was simple drug possession. This was indeed the tough-on-crime era.

However, beginning in 2011, big changes came to criminal justice policy in California.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled California’s prison system was dangerously overcrowded. Not only were people dying in California’s prisons due to inadequate healthcare, but the overcrowding made effective rehabilitation incredibly difficult. Reflective of this, 54.3% of people released from prisons from 2011-12 and before were convicted for a new crime within three years (compared to 44.6% for those released in 2017-18).

In anticipation of the Supreme Court’s ruling, California enacted Assembly Bill 109 to shift responsibility for non-violent, non-serious and non-sex offenders to the local level.

Research published in The Annals of the American Academy of Political & Social Science in 2016 determined that AB 109 had no significant impact on overall crime, but may contribute to slight increases in property crimes.

“We’ve seen no appreciable uptick in assaults, rapes or murders that can be connected to the prisoners who were released under realignment,” said Charis Kubrin, professor of criminology, law at society at UC Irvine at the time.

The following year, Californians approved Proposition 36 to reform “three strikes” so that the “third strike” had to be a serious or violent crime. Nearly 70% of voters approved the measure. Thanks to the measure, thousands of people convicted for non-violent and non-serious crimes were resentenced and released from prison. In 2014, the Three Strikes Project at Stanford University reported recidivism rates of just 1.3% for those released under Prop. 36 compared to 30% for all prisoners in the same time period.

In 2014, nearly 60% of Californians approved Proposition 47 to reduce drug possession and low-level theft crimes from felonies to misdemeanors.

Prop. 47 has received the greatest scrutiny from critics. But the core premises are ones most Californians clearly agree with. One, people should not be hit with a felony record, which brings with it a litany of collateral consequences, for simple drug possession or low-level theft crimes. And two, society would be better off with greater investments in drug treatment, mental health treatment and crime prevention.

Since its passage, Prop. 47 has saved more than $600 million in reduced incarceration costs, with those savings required under the measure to be reinvested in crime prevention and rehabilitation programs. Programs funded by Prop. 47 savings include successful efforts in Los Angeles, Orange County, Riverside County and San Bernardino County to reduce recidivism for formerly incarcerated individuals, particularly those with mental health or substance abuse issues. Such efforts must be scaled up across the state.

There have been two significant studies on Prop. 47’s impact on crime, both published in 2018. One, by the aforementioned Professor Kubrin, determined Prop. 47 had no impact on crime. The other, from the Public Policy Institute of California, found that Prop. 47 had no impact on violent crime but may have contributed to an increase in larceny thefts.

In 2016, 64% of Californians approved Proposition 57 to increase good behavior and early parole opportunities for prisoners. Gov. Jerry Brown championed the initiative on the grounds that it could encourage prisoners to participate in rehabilitative programming behind bars.

Last month, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation issued a report on recidivism. Perhaps unsurprisingly, those who received educational merit and rehabilitative achievement credits have significantly lower post-release conviction rates (28.9% and 22.5%) compared to those released without any Prop. 57 credits (45.4%).

Related Articles

What this suggests is that California must do more to ensure that prisoners are provided meaningful rehabilitation programs before they are released.

Taken together, I think the evidence shows that the biggest criminal justice reforms have overall been successful in their objectives.

But what about crime?

It’s always complicated. From 2011 to 2019, homicides, robberies, car thefts and burglaries all fell. Homicide, aggravated assault and car theft spiked during the COVID years of 2020 and 2021, while robbery, larceny and burglary continued to fall. Is that because of criminal justice reforms? It’s probably more complicated than that.

Fundamentally, claims of causation between reforms and upticks in crime remain poorly substantiated.

Sal Rodriguez can be reached at [email protected]

​ Orange County Register 

Criminal justice reforms have unleashed ‘mass victimization’ in California

• May 2, 2023

Editor’s note: This commentary was originally published in print on April 23 as part of a pro-con debate page. To read the counterpoint, click here.

Have California’s criminal justice reforms gone too far?

Yes.

Last year I was commissioned by the Pacific Research Institute to conduct a study on crime in California. That study is titled “Paradise Lost — Crime in the Golden State 2011-2021,” which was published February 2022.

The results of the report show a decline in public safety in California. From the passage of Assembly Bill 109 in 2011 to voter passage of Propositions 47 and 57 to the last vote of the last session of the California Legislature in 2021, more Californians are dead, have been sexually assaulted, are the victims of injury, and have had more property stolen than if all of the legislative and public policy of the last ten years had not occurred.

In 2011, Californians were as safe as we had ever been. For example, the number of homicides that year was 1,794. One would have to go back to 1971 to find a lower number. Rapes, aggravated assaults, robberies, and total property crimes were also amongst the lowest in recorded statistics.

What got us there? Three Strikes. In 1993 California’s homicide number reached a record high of 4,096 and Californians had enough. Three Strikes went on the ballot and despite dire predictions by the then Department of Corrections of exploding prison populations, the opposite happened. From a pre-Three Strikes population increase of 190% the year before passage the rate of incarceration after passage slowed to just 30%. The reason why? Deterrence. So effective was Three Strikes at lowering the violent crime rate that from 1994-2011 28,169 lives were saved than would have otherwise been lost had homicides stayed at their 1993 level and not increased, which they certainly would have. Three Strikes had another benefit. The rate of Black incarceration dropped 34% after its passage.

In 2021, the last full year of published crime statistics in California, there were over 1 million reported crimes. About 18% or 183,546 were violent and the 82% or 857,599 were property crimes. That’s up 6.7% for violent crime and 3% for property crime over 2020, which was in turn up over 2019.

In fact, for the ten-year period of the study a number of troubling crime trends in serious crimes emerged. Homicides had risen 31.6%, aggravated assaults rose 34.6%, rapes rose 88.7% and overdose deaths when viewed back to 2000 when earlier drug reforms like Pro.p 36 began had risen from 1,226 in 2000 to nearly 10,000 in 2021, an increase of 715%.

What was wrong in 2011? Prisons were overcrowded, racial overrepresentations persisted and rehabilitation programs opportunities were limited. But rather than increase capacity and improve rehabilitation programming under AB 109 tens of thousands of prison inmates who were unfit for release were released or transferred to county jails.

Under Prop. 47 we effectively decriminalized thefts of under $950 in value as well as possession of “personal use” amounts of dangerous drugs. Comparisons to other states with similar theft thresholds don’t hold up when you consider California’s overreliance on non-custodial punishment. Probation doesn’t matter to thieves and addicts. With Prop. 57 we further reduced the prison population by making all classifications of inmates except those serving life without the possibility of parole or who were under the sentence of death eligible for release.

Related Articles

New rules for evaluating prisoners for release require that a prisoner convicted of multiple counts be evaluated as if they had only one count and the use of a firearm or membership in a street gang cannot be included. Did they complete a program? No matter — as long as they indicate a willingness to participate in a rehabilitation program they are given early release credits. None of the Prop. 57 inmates are required to appear before the parole board. Their release is automatic based on formula established by Prop. 57 and court interpretations of the intent of the statue.

Reducing crime, incarceration, and racial overrepresentations cannot be done without changing incentives. Reformers know this but they have gone about it in the wrong order and they have forgotten the lesson of deterrence.

When I added it all up our current program of decarceration and decriminalization to prevent so called mass incarceration has given us a new reality for 2023 — that of mass victimization.

Steve Smith is a senior fellow at the Pacific Research Institute. He is the author of “Paradise Lost: Crime in the Golden State 2011-2021.”

​ Orange County Register 

The state legislature shouldn’t politicize or micromanage public pension investments

• May 2, 2023

California lawmakers are considering two bills that would force the state’s pension systems to liquidate the parts of their investments that may be related to fossil fuels and divest from banks that work with gun manufacturers. Regardless of which side of the political aisle the calls for politically driven pension system divestment come from, these would be bad policies for taxpayers, workers, and retirees.

The California Public Employees Retirement System, CalPERS, the nation’s largest pension system, and the California State Teacher Retirement System, CalSTRS, have over $700 billion in assets. Politicizing and legislating their investment strategies is a bad idea. In its opposition to one of the proposed laws, CalPERS correctly noted that the state constitution and the Public Employees Retirement Law say pension plans should act “solely in the interest of, and for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to, participants and their beneficiaries, minimizing employer contributions, and defraying reasonable expenses of administering the system.”

Supporting the goals of activists is not on that list.

“We also believe that divestment would create a ripple effect on our ability to produce the investment returns needed to fulfill our members’ retirement promises,” CalPERS said in a statement against Senate Bill 252. “Every missing dollar of investment returns must be offset by employer and employee contributions.”

California’s public pension systems have enough financial challenges to deal with without the state legislature making investment and divestment decisions. CalPERS posted a negative investment return of -7.5% in 2022, bringing the plan’s funded ratio down to around 72%—meaning it has about 72% of the money needed to pay for retirement benefits already promised to workers and retirees. Similarly, the California State Teacher Retirement System (CalSTRS) reported investment losses of -1.3% in 2022, bringing its funding ratio down to 73%.

With investment returns failing to meet the plans’ expectations and rising benefit costs, CalPERS has seen a sharp increase in expected contribution amounts. In 2019, the expected contribution amount needed from governments—i.e., taxpayers—to adequately fund the pension system that year was $6.3 billion. In 2023, CalPERS’ annual required contribution rose to approximately $7.6 billion. The rising cost of public pensions means less government funding for education, infrastructure, and other programs today or the accrual of more public pension debt being pushed onto future generations.

CalPERS has been down this road before, with the state’s attempt at divestment after Russia invaded Ukraine. The CalPERS board opposed a bill that would have forced it to liquidate its $195 million holding (originally valued at $765 million) in companies with business operations in Russia. CalPERS rightly argued sanctions would make finding a buyer in the private market difficult. Forced liquidation of assets assumes it is easy to find a buyer to buy at the current market value, and unless that asset is traded on the open markets, that is not a guarantee.

Related Articles

It’s also unclear to what extent CalPERS and CalSTRS would have to divest if the current divestment proposals were implemented. For example, if lawmakers required pension systems to divest from all companies that heavily rely on fossil fuels, that could be interpreted to include countless companies and industries. Forcing apolitical pension funds into political divestment activities is messy, partly because of all the secondary and tertiary connections that are nearly impossible to navigate.

The funding of public pension systems concerns all of California’s taxpayers since they are ultimately on the hook to pay for pension debt. CalPERS has made some reforms in recent years. In 2019, for example, CalPERS fired most of its external fund managers to move them in-house and save more than $100 million in annual investment fees. This aligns with CalPERS’ fiduciary duty and is the type of thing it should spend its time scrutinizing, not sacrificing the security and affordability of its pension benefits by getting involved in politics at the state legislature’s request.

Rather than risking higher costs and more debt by requiring them to make politically driven divestment and investment decisions, CalPERS and CalSTRS must be allowed to focus on their mission of fulfilling the retirement benefits promised to workers.

Swaroop Bhagavatula is a quantitative analyst at Reason Foundation’s Pension Integrity Project.

​ Orange County Register 

Biden’s campaign touts issues that matter to Southern Californians

• May 2, 2023

He doesn’t surf and he’s not a Kardashian (even by marriage), but that doesn’t mean Pennsylvania-born, Delaware-bred Joe Biden isn’t secretly running for a job that doesn’t exist — President of Southern California.

Global warming. Immigration. Weed. Biden has spent much of the past two years wading into issues that voters in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties care about more than most.

“Care,” in this case, shouldn’t be misread as “loves the way Biden is handling that.”

While it’s true that in 2020 voters in the four-county region preferred Biden over then-President Donald Trump by a resounding 28.4 percentage points (about 4.8 million votes for Biden versus 2.6 million for Trump), it’s no lock that will happen again in 2024. Presidents seeking a second term sometimes find their biggest detractors are former supporters who feel burned by unmet expectations or broken promises.

With that in mind, here’s a look at five issues Biden’s campaign is either crowing about – or conspicuously not crowing about – that could be deal-breakers for Southern California voters:

Global warming

What Biden did: Last summer, after weeks of behind-the-scenes haggling, the Biden administration announced it had enough votes in the Senate to pass the Inflation Reduction Act.

While the bill takes steps to trim health spending and reduce the deficit, it also aims $369 billion toward reducing America’s contributions to global warming. That makes it, by far, the biggest federal law ever passed in the climate arena. Independent climate experts – who don’t necessarily love everything about the bill – confirm it could cut U.S. greenhouse emissions to about 40% below their all-time high over the rest of this decade.

Why it’s a SoCal thing: Californians, particularly Southern Californians, view climate change as a big deal.

A 2022 poll from the Public Policy Institute of California found that about 7 in 10 adults statewide believe climate change is already starting to hurt us. That view was held by 81% of Democrats, 73% of independents and 45% of Republicans.

The Southern California numbers are even more stark. The poll found that 82% of all voters in San Bernardino and Riverside counties believe global warming is either already hitting us or will within their lifetimes, a figure that jumps to 86% for all voters in Los Angeles and Orange counties. In the four local counties, no more than 18% of adults polled say they will be unaffected by global warning in their lifetimes.

Other numbers suggest locals are much more likely than other Americans to view climate change as an active, current problem.

A survey released in April by Pew Research found that while a majority of Americans express high to moderate concern about global warming, more than 1 in 3 (34%) describe it as an “important but lower” priority, ranking it just No. 17 out of 21 major challenges affecting the country.

At least one local voter who cares about the environment is mostly pleased with Biden’s track record.

“That $369 billion gets a lot of attention, and it should because it’s a really big investment,” said Mike Young, the Los Angeles-based political director for the lobbying group California Environmental Voters. “But the environment has been a consideration in all kinds of things this administration has done.”

Young suggests issues as diverse as Biden’s push for U.S.-based computer chip manufacturing to the backgrounds of cabinet officials are also environmental issues.

“He’s not perfect,” Young said. “The Willow project (a Biden-approved plan to drill for oil in a pristine part of Alaska) is a pretty big exception.

“But from what I’ve seen, Biden does have a sincere commitment to this work.”

President Joe Biden greets people after speaking on efforts to reduce gun violence on Tuesday, March 14, 2023, in Monterey Park where a mass shooting on the Lunar New Year left 11 dead. (Photo by Sarah Reingewirtz, Los Angeles Daily News/SCNG)

Guns

What Biden did: In March, Biden came to Monterey Park to sign an executive order that, among other things, expanded gun sale background checks, tightened the rules for arms dealers and promised to set up federal help for communities affected by mass shootings.

That was about nine months after Biden signed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act which expands background checks and extends them to cover gun buyers younger than 21, adds funding for crisis intervention programs, beefs up laws against straw man gun purchases and makes it harder for violent romantic partners to buy guns. The Safer Communities Act was the first gun-specific legislation passed by Congress and signed into law in about 30 years.

It’s also unclear if any of it – the new law, the executive orders, Biden’s speeches in favor of gun control – will make a dent.

In 2021, 48,830 people died in the U.S. from gun-related suicides, homicides or accidents, according to the Centers for Disease Control. That was an all-time high for gun deaths, though the overall rate of such deaths is actually lower than in previous decades. Also, Pew Research reports that guns now account for a higher share of homicides (81%) and suicides (55%) than ever.

Data isn’t as solid on the number of guns in circulation, but some estimates suggest the United States, with a population of about 334 million, has more than 400 million firearms. Many people, including Biden, have argued that the number of guns is one reason why so many people die of gun wounds.

Why it’s a SoCal thing: Note where Biden signed his executive order on guns.

In January, an aging gunman killed 11 people and wounded nine others at a Monterey Park dance venue. It was one of two mass shootings in California that week that left 19 people dead in a span of about 72 hours.

Those shootings were part of a national wave of similar incidents, and they shocked a state which has one of the nation’s lowest gun-death rates. In California, about 8.8 people out of every 100,000 die of a gun wound, less than the national average of 13.7 and well under the three highest gun-death-rate states of Mississippi (27.6), Wyoming (26.4) and Louisiana (25.5).

California also has some of the strictest gun rules in the country, including a 24-hour waiting period to buy a gun, universal background checks, child-access-prevention rules and no stand-your-ground law. A study by Rand Corp found that gun deaths in California would rise by 448 people a year if the state switched to the permissive gun rules found in states with the highest death rates.

It’s unclear if it’s cause or effect, but California voters – including those living in the four-county Southern California region – strongly favor controlling gun ownership over protecting the right to own a gun.

A survey issued this month by the Public Policy Institute of California found that 66% of likely voters in the state favor controlling gun ownership over protecting gun rights. That includes 61% of the likely voters in Riverside and San Bernardino counties, 64% in Orange County and 72% in Los Angeles County.

Though the question isn’t asked in the same way on national surveys, polling data suggests voters in at least some parts of Southern California are slightly more likely than other Americans to favor gun control. A 2022 poll from Monmouth University found that while 30% of Americans view the right to own a gun as “absolute,” 69% either want to restrict the Second Amendment or do away with it entirely.

One voter who favors gun control said she’s not thrilled with what Biden has done on the issue, to date, but believes he’ll keep trying. A Republican candidate, she argues, would not “do anything” to curb gun violence.

“Most of what (Biden) has done on guns has been talk,” said Michelle O’Neil, a retired teacher in Tustin who described the current “gun situation” in America as “crazy.”

“If I get mad when a politician says ‘thoughts and prayers’ but doesn’t do anything (to help shooting victims), I can get mad when a politician says he’d like to ban assault weapons but doesn’t do it.”

Electric Vehicles

What Biden did: A big part of the effort to reduce global warming is the administration’s push for carbon-free driving, something Biden wants to accomplish by using the government to goose sales of electric cars and trucks.

To date, the Biden administration has delivered new federal subsidies ($7,500) for buyers of American-made EVs, started to transition the federal government’s fleet of vehicles to non-carbon-producing cars and trucks (13,000 zero-emission federal vehicles purchased in the last fiscal year) and launched a push to build 500,000 EV charging stations around the country.

This month, Biden also proposed new climate regulations for passenger cars that essentially could push a goal of two-thirds of car sales being EVs by 2032.

Earlier this month, the administration issued a press release detailing some of its EV efforts. In that, the White House noted that there are now about 3 million electric vehicles on the road and roughly 135,000 public charging stations. Those numbers will need to grow tenfold to meet the national goal of 50% EV use by 2030.

Why it’s a SoCal issue: Electric cars and trucks get a lot of ink as a national phenomenon, but the center of the EV market is in Southern California.

The earliest mass-market EVs – the Nissan Leaf and Tesla’s line of vehicles, which have been sold since the early 2010s – initially were available only in a limited number of U.S. cities, but always in Southern California. That’s one reason why there are more EVs on local roads than around the country.

And “local” isn’t a euphemism. Two years ago, about 4 in 10 EVs in all of California were registered in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside or San Bernardino counties, and roughly 8 in 10 EVs sold nationally were registered in California.

That might be shifting, a little, as EVs catch on around the country, but the numbers still reflect the SoCal-centricity of the EV world. This month, the California Energy Commission issued a report saying there are now more than 1.5 million EVs in use in California, and EV sales in the state in 2020 and 2021 topped a combined 700,000 vehicles. The commission also said EVs accounted for 21% of all new car sales in California in the past year versus the 5.6% share EVs hold nationally.

“I’m happy that we’re shifting toward electric vehicles,” said Edward Lyon, a lawyer from Anaheim who said he bought a Tesla three years ago, before Biden was elected and after previous federal EV rebates had expired.

“But that won’t be why I do or don’t vote for Biden in two years,” Lyon said. “I’ll probably wait on that.”

Immigration

What Biden did: Not as much as many supporters hoped.

Biden campaigned on a promise to undo Trump-era immigration policies that he argued were cruel and contrary to America’s historical role as the world’s top destination for migrants. And, early in his term, Biden pitched several plans to change long-standing immigration laws, boost enforcement operations at the border and provide a “pathway” to help 11 million undocumented immigrants become U.S. citizens.

So far, little of that has come to pass. And in February, when the administration proposed new rules that would bar migrants from other countries who traveled through Mexico before seeking asylum – rules that in theory “encourage migrants to avail themselves of lawful, safe, and orderly pathways into the United States” – the policy was panned by some potential Democratic voters as essentially a mirror of Trump’s old rules.

But if little about immigration has changed under Biden it’s not for lack of effort.

The Migration Policy Institute counted 403 immigration-related actions by the Biden administration in his first 24 months in office. Many of Biden’s actions were aimed at streamlining the processing of undocumented arrivals and ordering immigration prosecutors to focus on people who pose a threat – ideas that do differ from Trump’s policies.

What has changed under Biden is volume. As the pandemic has eased, immigration – legal and illegal – has boomed.

Last year, about 1 million people were accepted as new permanent residents in the United States, well above 2021 and just a tick under the numbers seen prior to the pandemic. At the same time, the number of people seeking to enter the country at the border led to an all-time record for “contacts” involving would-be migrants and border officers. Also, a record surge in asylum applications has worsened backlogs in immigration courts.

In all, the administration issued about 6.8 million temporary visas for students, tourists and short-term workers in 2022, more than twice the number issued in 2021.

Why it’s a SoCal issue: Even if the immigration wave fans out over most of the country for several decades – and the U.S. Census Bureau projects the share of foreign-born people in America will grow by about 50% over the next three decades – national demographics still might not match the current immigration levels of Southern California.

More than 1 in 4 Southern California residents were born in another country. And of the 10 U.S. cities with the highest percentage of foreign-born residents, four – Los Angeles, Santa Ana, Anaheim and Irvine – are in this region.

Even the cohort of people with roots straddling immigrant and native worlds – people raised in this country after being brought here as children – skews local. Nationally, there are about 590,000 people whose immigration status is protected by DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) and an estimated 1 in 5 of them live in Southern California.

One local voter who cares about immigration issues said she’s unhappy with Biden’s immigration work – “or lack of it” – but is likely to vote for him anyway in ’24.

“The fact that DACA kids still aren’t being helped (to become citizens) isn’t my favorite thing. It really feels like he could get that done. I mean, c’mon, it’s pretty American, right? Good kids who want to be American citizens?” said Deborah Cooper, an Irvine resident who grew up in Mexico.

“But I care about a lot of other issues, too.”

Cannabis Reform

What Biden did: Nothing to change the crazy quilt nature of cannabis laws in the United States.

Cannabis remains illegal under federal law – but not so in 38 states, three territories and the District of Columbia, where cannabis is now legal to use for medicine or recreation or both.

That dichotomy makes it hard for cannabis companies in weed-legal states like California to get everything from insurance to bank loans.

It also means cannabis users face different risks in different states.

In 2021, your odds of being arrested for cannabis possession were 222 times higher in Idaho than they were in California, according to FBI crime data. Overall, in 2021, nearly 171,000 Americans were arrested for possession of cannabis.

But Biden never claimed he would change that. Instead, when he ran for office in 2019, Biden suggested the federal government should humanize, not legalize, its stance on weed.

Toward that end, Biden signed an executive order in October that pardoned people who have criminal records only because they once were convicted in federal court for possession of cannabis. That blanket pardon could mean clean slates for several thousand people – a lot, to be sure, but just a sliver of the millions of Americans with state convictions related to cannabis possession.

In that same executive order, Biden directed federal health officials to rethink the notion that cannabis should be treated as a dangerous drug, on par with heroin. Such a change – if not rescinded by a future president – eventually could make it easier for federal legalization.

Why it’s a SoCal issue: If Biden is lukewarm about legal weed, his attitude might mirror those of a lot of voters in Southern California.

Though there are hundreds – possibly thousands – of cannabis stores and processing companies in Southern California (some licensed, some not), past elections and recent data suggest locals aren’t as into legal weed as the region’s reputation might suggest.

Last year, state tax officials reported that legal weed sales in California fell by about 8.2% to roughly $5.3 billion. And the last time voters in the four-county Southern California region weighed in on the idea of legal cannabis – the 2016 vote for Prop 64 – the local “yes” vote, 56.7%, was a shade under the statewide “yes” vote of 57%.

In late 2021, Gallup found 68% of Americans, overall, favored legalization.

“Of course, it should be legal,” said Ferris Shirazi, a biology major at UCLA who grew up in Irvine.

“But if weed is the thing (affecting) your choice for president, you’ve got some problems. There’s other stuff to worry about.”

Related Articles

​ Orange County Register 

Niles: Disney-Florida battle says something about leaders on both sides

• May 2, 2023

Before he was replaced, former Disney CEO Bob Chapek once expressed to me and a handful of other reporters his frustration that Disney had taken the brunt of fan criticism for not standing up to Florida’s legal attacks on the LGBTQ community. Media giant NBCUniversal also runs theme parks in the Sunshine State, but that company’s leadership was not facing the social media complaints and threats of employee walk-outs that Disney was at the time.

Chapek eventually did take a public stand against the so-called “Don’t Say Gay” bill, kicking off a verbal battle between Disney and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis that now has become a legal fight in U.S. District Court. I get why Chapek was frustrated. It’s tough to live under a double standard.

More from Robert Niles

Is this the first in a new wave of theme park failures?
Why Disney’s real community of tomorrow is Anaheim
Here’s how Knott’s, Six Flags and SeaWorld can compete with Disney and Universal
Disney thwarts Florida’s bid to take over special district, but company needs oversight
Is Universal’s new early entry a good deal or a cash grab?

One of the more important tests for people in charge of anything is whether they see leadership as a burden or an opportunity. As the biggest theme park company in the world and the largest private employer in the state of Florida, Disney is a leader. That’s going to make the company and its management a target over a wide range of community issues.

Disney’s economic power in Florida provides it an opportunity to stand up to state politicians that few others enjoy — not even the leaders at NBCUniversal. In its federal lawsuit against DeSantis, Disney acknowledged that leadership opportunity, stating that it was filing in part because other businesses did not have the resources to oppose perceived government retaliation that Disney has.

The tests for leaders continue, of course. If one accepts leadership as an opportunity, what are those opportunities you will embrace? Will you use leadership to stand up and help others or simply to empower and enrich yourself? That decision reveals everything about the type of person a leader is.

Related Articles

Ultimately, Chapek did take that stand. And current Disney CEO Bob Iger has stuck with it. Meanwhile, Gov. Ron DeSantis used his power not to help the Floridians he represents, but to pick a fight with one of the biggest names in America, if not the world.

Plenty of critics have long had real concerns about the unique legal structure that governs the Walt Disney World Resort’s land. But replacing a board hand-picked by Disney with one hand-picked by DeSantis does nothing to address those issues. It’s just a selfish power grab, and Disney has every right to resist that. Disney’s track record in Florida should have earned the company the respect of the state’s leadership and not this thin-skinned retaliation.

I am sure that many people would love for this whole mess to just go away. With time, it will be resolved. But I hope that no one forgets what Disney v. DeSantis has revealed about the leaders involved.

​ Orange County Register 

Officials waiting for assurance of slope stability under Casa Romantica before re-starting rail service

• May 2, 2023

Passenger rail service continues to be halted through San Clemente, as officials assess the steep slope under Casa Romantica for stability.

On Monday, May 1, officials from the city, local geology consultants, the Orange County Transportation Authority, which owns the railroad right-of-way through the county, and Metrolink caught up on the newest details related to ground movement after a terrace at the back of the historic landmark started to slide recently, dropping 20 feet on Thursday.

Falling dirt and debris made its way close to the railroad tracks, prompting train service to be stopped at Oceanside to the south and Laguna Niguel, or at times San Juan Capistrano, to the north for both Metrolink and the Amtrak Pacific Surfliner.

The debris also surrounded a condominium building below the casa, with officials evacuating residents and red-tagging the property for safety.

A minor amount of movement was still detected over the weekend, San Clemente Mayor Chris Duncan said.

“Metrolink engineers are working with San Clemente city engineers and consulting geologists to determine the safety of the area above under Casa Romantica,” said Scott Johnson, a spokesperson from Metrolink.

He did not have a timeline for when passenger service might resume. “We need to have some level of assurance by geologists that the hillside is safe to start rail service,” he said.

Freight trains started running again over the weekend, Johnson said. They are required to go no faster than 10 mph when near the slope collapse and must also confirm with a track safety expert before moving through the area. Each night and into the early morning, there are between three and five freight trains that run along the tracks through San Clemente in a 12-hour period.

Residents who live in the area alerted city officials to the freight train traffic over the weekend and Kiel Koger, San Clemente’s director of public works, said Monday that city officials had voiced concern about the potential of vibrations coming from the freight trains affecting the still-creeping slope and nearby buildings.

Related links

San Clemente officials closely monitoring slope beneath historic Casa Romantica
4 apartment buildings in San Clemente are red tagged due to landslide
Federal officials get up-close look at coastal erosion threats to key rail line
Landslides raise concern, warning for coastal blufftop living
San Clemente landslide after rains triggers federal emergency declaration

“I’ll feel better when that slope stops moving,” Koger said. “We are sharing any information with the other agencies.”

Meanwhile, thousands of passengers who typically rely on Metrolink for their commutes are affected.

There are 14 Metrolink trains that use that route on weekdays and another 12 on weekends, along with 22 Pacific Surfliner trains (both north and south) that regularly operate through the San Clemente area, Johnson said.

Metrolink has approximately 4,700 daily weekday boardings along the Orange County and the Inland Empire-Orange County lines, both of which regularly operate through San Clemente.

Daily service through San Clemente only resumed two weeks ago after being halted for several months because of emergency repairs that had to be made after the tracks had shifted on a stretch further south because of a landslide and crashing waves.

Related Articles

​ Orange County Register