The California High-Speed Rail Authority's board voted 7–2 to strip CEO Ian Choudri of his authority to independently approve and manage contracts worth less than $25 million after an investigation uncovered questionable taxpayer-funded expenses by four consulting firms. An audit found that $593,000 in travel expenses lacked proper justification or violated state rules, including premium airline tickets and rideshare trips to places like a cigar lounge and an escape room. Consultants also billed taxpayers for rides to and from Choudri's home, sometimes late at night. The authority paid the four consulting firms roughly $2 million in travel costs; the inspector general reviewed about $1.15 million of that total and found $680,500 had no prior approval.
A California mayor insisted that handing out monthly cash payments is an effective tool to combat the state's soaring cost of living, even as local leaders face steep hurdles in securing permanent taxpayer funding to keep guaranteed income programs alive.
"I believe that guaranteed income programs like our Rise Up Alameda (RUA) pilot program are a valuable and effective tool to address the affordability crisis, based on the documented experiences of program participants," Alameda Mayor Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft told Fox News Digital.
"The average age of the 150 program participants was 49 years, with 26% being 62 years or older, and most participants were either employed or retired."
Ashcraft’s comments follow the completion of Rise Up Alameda, the city's first-ever guaranteed income pilot project. City staff presented the program's final 24-month evaluation report to the Alameda City Council on Oct. 6.
According to city documents, the pilot aimed to "reduce economic instability for program participants, help to change local narratives and perceptions surrounding poverty and the provision of public benefits and help to support and inform the national discussion regarding public benefits and anti-poverty policies."
The Alameda City Council previously allocated $4.6 million in federal pandemic relief funds from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) to finance the initiative, which provided 150 low-income households with $1,000 per month in no-strings-attached cash over two years. However, city notices confirm that because ARPA was a one-time federal allocation, the pilot has officially concluded, and the city has no plans or budget allocated for a permanent continuation.
"As mayor, I believe our responsibility is to advance practical, compassionate and evidence-informed policies that help residents meet their basic needs, preserve their dignity and build a more stable future for themselves and their families," Ashcraft told Fox News Digital when asked whether she planned to implement a permanent program.
Ashcraft highlighted several personal accounts of local residents who received monthly payments through the pilot.
Among them was Andrea, a certified nursing assistant who used the funds to stay afloat following the death of her mother. The financial boost helped cover medical bills, rent, gas and Bay Area bridge tolls while allowing her to care for her father and ailing brother.
Another participant, Dolores, a retiree in her 70s living in affordable senior housing after a 41-year career at AT&T, used the extra $1,000 a month to pay off credit card debt and build an emergency savings account.
Other recipients included Haroon, a rideshare and transit driver; Julia, a woman with a disability who was able to buy new mattresses, groceries and a set of car tires after an eviction forced her to move in with her sister; and Tyronne, a Navy veteran and former truck driver at the decommissioned Alameda Naval Air Station who relied on the extra money to cover medical bills and stabilize his housing.
While Ashcraft praised these personal outcomes, she acknowledged that direct cash payments are not a full remedy for California's economic pressures.
"These stories demonstrate the value of direct, unrestricted cash in helping residents navigate financial hardship, maintain stability and improve their overall well-being," Ashcraft said.
"While guaranteed income is not a stand-alone solution to the affordability crisis, programs like Rise Up Alameda can provide meaningful support as we pursue longer-term solutions to the high cost of housing, health care, transportation and other basic needs."
Alameda's program underscores a funding challenge local governments face across the nation regarding how to sustain guaranteed income pilot programs now that temporary federal pandemic relief funding is ending.
Many local guaranteed income pilots were underwritten by temporary pandemic-era ARPA allocations. With federal deadlines requiring municipalities to spend remaining relief funds, mayors and advocacy groups are searching for ways to convert short-term experiments into permanent, taxpayer-funded government programs.
A major organization advocating for guaranteed income is the Economic Security Project (ESP). Founded in 2016 by a network of entrepreneurs, activists and researchers, ESP has helped support more than 100 guaranteed income pilots nationwide. California leads the country with more than 60 pilot launches.
ESP has urged governments to consider taxpayer-funded measures to establish permanent minimum-income guarantees.
When asked by Fox News Digital whether local pilots are transitioning into permanent public policies, ESP indicated that multiple municipalities are actively working on legislative proposals.
"We can say, however, that there’s an active and growing movement for cash in hundreds of communities across the country," Shafeka Hashash, director of cash initiatives at the Economic Security Project, told Fox News Digital.
"We regularly take calls from some of the 1,500 members of the Guaranteed Income Community of Practice — researchers, nonprofits, local government officials and community leaders all interested in bringing cash to their neighborhoods," Hashash added.
"We just can’t announce any pilots or policies before the localities do."
One pilot program has become permanent in Cook County, Illinois. To sustain the initiative without federal aid, the Cook County Board of Commissioners approved $7.5 million for guaranteed income in the county budget, signaling a shift toward long-term local funding.
Republican state officials and conservative policy groups have sought to block guaranteed income programs. Critics argue unconditional handouts discourage work, increase dependence on government assistance and misuse taxpayer funds.
"The affordability crisis is hitting Americans across backgrounds, geographies and party lines, and it's imperative that state and federal leaders adopt a solutions-focused approach," Mayors for Guaranteed Income founder Michael Tubbs told Fox News Digital.
"Banning policies that have proven effective at the local level is not only undemocratic, it is incredibly counterproductive to solving the key problem facing American families," he added.
"We should be unlocking innovation at the local level to boost economic security, stabilize households and restore faith in the American dream."
The billionaire told Meta’s board that he planned to list his Silicon Valley home for sale. The company remade its stock structure to help him pay the tax if voters pass it.
Mark Zuckerberg, the chief executive of Meta, at his home in Lake Tahoe, Calif. He has another California home in Palo Alto, close to Meta’s headquarters.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg considered moving out of California because of a proposed billionaire tax.
Zuckerberg would get $20 billion in "immediate liquidity" if the billionaire tax passes.
Meta made the offer to Zuckerberg to help keep him in California after he considered leaving.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg considered moving out of California because of its proposed billionaire tax, Meta disclosed in a new SEC filing on Wednesday.
Next month, Californians will vote on Proposition 40, a one-time tax on the assets of the state's billionaires.
The filing said that Zuckerberg told a special committee formed by Meta that he was considering moving.
In response, the committee concluded that it was "critically important" for Zuckerberg to keep running Meta close to its Silicon Valley headquarters — particularly to its AI division, Meta Superintelligence Labs.
The filing said the committee got Zuckerberg to agree to remain in California or any other jurisdiction where Meta has its corporate headquarters for eight years, barring unforeseen circumstances.
As part of its efforts to ensure he can remain in charge as it raises more cash for its AI initiatives, the company is granting the Meta CEO a new stock class.
The shares would give Zuckerberg $20 billion in "immediate liquidity" to cover the tax by selling stock without losing control of Meta, if the tax passes. The new shares wouldn't add to Zuckerberg's net worth or increase his percentage ownership of Meta.
"The goal is to keep Mr. Zuckerberg continuing to lead the Company from California," the filing says.
Meta declined to comment. A person familiar with the matter said that the new class of shares, which totals $150 billion, is also intended to raise capital, compensate employees, and keep Meta's stock price on the right track.
Meta's filing showcases how tech billionaires are responding to the tax proposal. Some, including Google cofounder Sergey Brin and former CEO Eric Schmidt, poured hundreds of millions of dollars into attack ads against the proposal.
While Zuckerberg has taken a lower-key approach, it's clear he's been taking the proposed tax seriously.
The Meta CEO, who is worth about $240 billion according to Forbes, has multiple residences in California, including in Palo Alto and Lake Tahoe.
He also has a sprawling property portfolio outside the state, including a doomsday bunker in Hawaii, a waterfront mansion in Miami, and a castle in Ireland.
Have a tip? Contact this reporter securely on Signal at charlesrollet.12 or +1-628-282-2811. Use a personal email address and a non-work device; here's our guide to sharing information securely.
Governor Gavin Newsom and Bill Essayli, a Trump-appointed federal prosecutor in California, sparred on social media this week about whether the state is doing enough to prevent noncitizens from voting.
Essayli, the first assistant U.S. attorney for California's Central District, surfaced a court document filed Tuesday in which a Los Angeles County election official said the registrar's office "is not equipped or authorized to verify voter citizenship because it does not independently house citizenship-related information beyond the voter attestation."
The official, Monica Flores, made the declaration as part of a Justice Department lawsuit seeking to force California to verify the citizenship of more than 20,000 people the federal government believes are likely noncitizens who were sent mail ballots ahead of this year's midterm elections.
Essayli called Flores' statement a "massive concession" that shows election officials take voters' word on whether they are a citizen.
"American citizens’ votes are being diluted in California," Essayli wrote.
In response, Newsom's press office account on X said California adheres to a 1993 federal law that requires people registering to vote through the DMV to swear under penalty of perjury that they are eligible, including that they are U.S. citizens. Similar attestation requirements apply to federal mail-in voter registration forms.
"May want to brush up on your election law before tweeting," Newsom's office wrote in a jab at Essayli. "Perhaps Second Assistant is more apt from now on?"
The public spat highlighted the central dispute in the lawsuit against California: whether the state should take additional steps to verify the citizenship of voters when the federal government flags potential issues with the rolls.
According to the Justice Department's complaint, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) cross-checked California voter registration records with federal immigration data.
That investigative process, described by DOJ lawyers as "preliminary," yielded a list of more than 20,000 registered voters federal investigators identified as likely noncitizens. California voters were mailed ballots beginning Oct. 1.
In its initial complaint filed Oct. 15, the Justice Department asked a federal court to require California to set aside mail ballots associated with people on the list until their citizenship could be verified.
Flores, an official with the LA County Registrar's Office, argued that doing so is now virtually impossible because once a ballot's signature is verified, it is removed from its identifying envelope and processed alongside hundreds of thousands of others.
As of Tuesday, the county has processed 331,000 ballots, according to Flores' statement in court.
She also pointed out that the registrar's office is "not an investigative agency," adding that she was unaware of "any state or federal law granting it investigative authority."
Nonetheless, staff from the registrar's office reviewed a sample of 200 records from the Justice Department list that had LA County addresses.
"The October list is unreliable: 112 of the 200 records correspond to registrations that are canceled or inactive," according to Flores' statement. "Of the voters where birthplace was meaningfully reported, 38.9% indicate that they were born in the United States, which is strong evidence of citizenship; and 71.2% of the records have no voting history."
In a statement to Fox News, Essayli said these reported numbers "are meaningless because, by their own admission, they have no way to verify anyone's citizenship status or their birthplace."
There are indications that the Justice Department list does contain at least some individuals who could have broken the law.
On Monday, the Justice Department charged 28 individuals off that list, all lawful permanent residents, with making false statements on naturalization applications and fraudulently registering to vote. Most of them cast unlawful ballots in elections, officials said.
A “massive concession” claim emerged Tuesday in the federal dispute over California’s voter rolls after Los Angeles County officials told a court they cannot independently verify voters’ citizenship beyond what voters state on their registration forms.
Democrats are calling for an investigation into SpaceX CEO Elon Musk following a Wall Street Journal report alleging he ordered the Starlink slowdown in Ukraine. “Either the President was lying or Musk was lying, but the decision to slow down satellite speed and access has life or death consequences for Ukraine,” Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.)…
Democrats are calling for an investigation into SpaceX CEO Elon Musk following a Wall Street Journal report alleging he ordered the Starlink slowdown in Ukraine. “Either the President was lying or Musk was lying, but the decision to slow down satellite speed and access has life or death consequences for Ukraine,” Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.)…
SEIU Local 1000, representing nurses and teachers, pushing for higher wages, telework and affordable healthcare
Thousands of California state workers began a sweeping one-day strike on Wednesday, with workers set to rally outside government buildings in several cities, as tensions boiled over lapsed contract negotiations with Governor Gavin Newsom’s administration.
SEIU Local 1000, a union that represents roughly 100,000 public employees, including nurses and teachers, has been pushing for higher wages, flexible telework and affordable healthcare.
Editor's note: This op-ed is part of a series by Eli Steele exploring White guilt in America and the West. Steele is the director of the newly released documentary essay, "White Guilt." See the film at WhiteGuiltFilm.com.
I am a native Californian, and I will never get over the absurdity of seeing California and slavery in the same sentence. I believe I saw it for the first time during the height of the Black Lives Matter unrest. I remembered how I learned in my San Jose elementary school that California entered the Union in 1850 as a free state. Yet here we are again, this time with AB 2599, the Truth in Disclosure Act.
On September 30, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the act into law. "This is a bill that requires large companies that operated before 1965 to search their records for ties to slavery going back to 1849, and then we make it public," Newsom said. "These are insurance policies on enslaved people. Human beings used as collateral, quite literally as collateral for loans."
I first learned about these atrocities as a child, and they made me understand how total the dehumanization of slavery was. This history should be learned, but there is something profoundly different about turning history into a legal obligation, sworn under penalty of perjury. This comes at a time when most California students, including Black students, are underperforming in reading and math. So why does Sacramento want to excavate corporate records from 1849 rather than fix the classrooms today?
I believe the point of this investigation is not to discover more history, since we have historians for that, but to unearth confessions that can be commodified as grievances. To see why, you have to understand that White guilt is transactional.
When I mention White guilt, many people tell me they feel none. Of course, they don't. You cannot feel guilt for what you have not done. But, that is not White guilt. "White guilt doesn't have anything to do with actual feelings of guilt," my father, Shelby Steele, author, columnist and Hoover Institution senior fellow, says in our new documentary, "White Guilt." White guilt is the collective guilt that says all Whites must carry the sins of the slave masters and segregationists forever.
Activists on the Left have leveraged this accusation for power since the 1960s, and it has produced a terror in many Whites, the terror of being tied to this racist past. Those Whites, especially liberal Whites, want innocence most of all, the ability to say, "I am not like those racist Whites."
Black leaders understood early on, as my father did in the 1960s, that Whites would do anything out of their deep, existential desire for innocence. That is what gives White guilt its transactional nature.
My father has said that White guilt is "quite literally the same thing as Black power." From Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton to Black Lives Matter, these leaders knew their power was in selling Black victimization. Whites bought innocence with everything from endless programs of dependency to lowered education standards. Both sides of this White guilt — Black power symbiosis get what they want, and that is the trap.
In order to keep the lucrative White guilt grift alive, Black leaders have to keep Blacks locked into permanent victimhood, and Whites have to remain condemned as eternally guilty. As America continues to make racial progress, this symbiosis has moved further left, and further into the past, in search of more grievances.
It was California’s reparations task force that demanded AB 2599. This new law applies to any company doing business in California that takes in more than $100 million a year worldwide and existed in some form by the end of 1964.
Once the legislature funds it, any such company will be legally bound to go through its records, and the records of its parent companies, subsidiaries and predecessors, back to 1849. It must report any findings that the company sold or leased slaves, used them as collateral for loans or insured them. The first filings are due as early as January 15, 2029, and the records will be kept online indefinitely. Every filing will be a confession made under oath, and every confession becomes one more grievance on the public record, available to the activists for as long as the database exists.
Newsom bought his own racial innocence by signing into law the demand that more Black victimization be found. Imagine if Newsom had refused to sign. He would have been blasted as the governor who protected the companies that exploited slaves.
Right there is the very terror that White guilt deploys to kill any reasonable objections. And the corporations on the target list will confess to the sins of their predecessors and buy their innocence with statements of regret and funding for programs and initiatives. None of them will risk the stigmatization that comes with fighting a slavery disclosure law.
On the same day, Newsom vetoed a bill to exempt reparations payments from state income tax. Where there was no innocence to be gained, he refused to cost his state actual revenue.
On the other side of the bargain are the sellers, and their product is Black victimization. The author of the bill, Democratic Assemblymember Isaac Bryan, told CalMatters which companies he expects to file. "I'm thinking agriculture. I'm thinking banking, insurance. I'm thinking anything in the financial sector." Then he said about what comes next. "Once the public has this disclosure and we have a full accounting of the impact, then it's up to us to decide what that means and what we're going to do about it."
If that last line comes off as a threat, it is because it is. Bryan is telling these companies that once the grievance is documented, lawmakers will set the price of penance. And what this statement also reveals is that this is nothing more than a fishing expedition to find the crime to fuel the White guilt-Black power symbiosis.
That is why the left will never let the White guilt — Black power symbiosis die out. Kristin Nimmers, policy and campaign manager for the California Black Power Network, told Fox News Digital that "a single check is not going to holistically repair our communities." She wants "a harm-based approach, so whoever was harmed should be entitled to that repair."
The rest of us are chum in this transaction, Black children most of all. California released its new test scores on October 15. Only 33.7% of Black students met the state standard in English. In math, it was 21.5%. Our state is busy chasing the ghost of past crimes while ignoring the very crimes of miseducation taking place today.
But the White guilt-Black power symbiosis never had any interest in doing the hard work of developing young minds into individual talents. Instead, this symbiosis will wait for the companies to report back on the sins of their predecessors, and then its elites will hold up the evidence as yet more proof that California and America are systemically racist.
The past will be dragged into the present as if no progress had ever been made, the accusation refreshed and sharpened for another generation. And worst of all, the Black children who needed a state that believed in their future will instead be told that the sins in that database, from 1849, are what has been holding them back all along.
It is no surprise that a unanimous three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit just enjoined the blatantly unconstitutional attempt by the "No-Longer-So-Golden State" to impose restrictions on the ability of ICE and other federal agents to enforce federal immigration law. That panel was doing exactly what federal courts are supposed to do — uphold the U.S. Constitution.
On October 14 in U.S. v. California, the court tossed the so-called "No Vigilantes Act" (NVA) onto the ash heap. This law was part of the state’s continuing effort to obstruct federal immigration enforcement, which has included relentless public attacks by the governor and state officials on federal agents just trying to do their job of enforcing the law. That includes noxious claims like Newsom likening them to the thuggish "secret police" of an "authoritarian" state.
The NVA required any non-uniformed "federal law enforcement officer" operating in California to "visibly display identification" when carrying out federal law enforcement duties. A federal agent violating this requirement could be criminally prosecuted by the state.
As the Ninth Circuit pointed out, the Supremacy Clause in Article VI makes the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States … the Supreme Law of the Land." In other words, federal law not only overrides any state law to the contrary, but it requires what is called "intergovernmental immunity." Under "the intergovernmental immunity component of the Supremacy Clause … states may not directly regulate the Federal Government’s operations or property." The panel cites to a 1996 Ninth Circuit decision, Blackburn v. U.S., on this issue, but then points out that this basic legal principle — that states cannot interfere in federal functions — goes all the way back to one of the most seminal Supreme Court cases in our history, McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). "It is the very essence of Supremacy," said the Court in McCulloch, "to remove all obstacles to its action within its own sphere, and so to modify every power vested in subordinate governments, as to exempt its own operations from their own influence." That is why "States have no power … to retard, impede, burden, or in any manner control the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by Congress to carry into execution the powers vested in the General Government."
California tried to argue that the NVA was constitutional because it did not "substantially burden" federal law enforcement. But the Ninth Circuit shot that down, too, saying any attempt by a state law to directly regulate "the conduct of the United States … is void irrespective of whether the regulated activities are essential to federal functions or operations, and irrespective of the degree to which the state law interferes with such functions or operations."
What made this law even worse was its threat to criminally prosecute federal agents. This is especially ironic because California attempted to do with the NVA what the Supreme Court specifically told the state it couldn’t do 136 years ago in another seminal case, In re Neagle (1890), also cited by the Ninth Circuit panel. That decision reads like a Hollywood movie but also demonstrates just how bizarre state officials have acted in California for a long time, not just in today’s heated political arena.
In re Neagle involved the state of California trying to prosecute a U.S. Marshal for murder. Marshal David Neagle was acting as a bodyguard for Supreme Court Justice Stephen Field, a job the U.S. Marshal’s Service still carries out today. He shot and killed the former chief justice of California’s state supreme court, David Terry, at a railway station in the San Joaquin Valley, after Terry tried to assassinate Field. Terry was known for his violent temper and apparently had a grudge against Field for a court decision involving the prior divorce of Terry’s current wife.
The Ninth Circuit quoted the Supreme Court’s opinion in Neagle that even the "most unquestionable and most universally applicable of state laws, such as those concerning murder, will not be allowed to control the conduct a marshal of the United States acting under and in pursuance of the laws of the United States." California couldn’t prosecute a U.S. Marshal then for doing his job, and it cannot criminally prosecute federal agents now who are "acting under and in pursuance of the [immigration] laws of the United States." End of story, end of case, end of unconstitutional state law.
By the way, a second law enacted by California’s constitutionally ignorant legislators, the "No Secret Police Act," was already enjoined by a lower court for the same reason. That law made it a criminal offense for federal agents to wear "a facial covering that conceals or obscures their facial identity." You know, the same agents who have been villainized, doxxed, followed home, harassed, run down by cars, and shot at by thugs who masquerade as protesters.
As the Ninth Circuit correctly recognized, the lawlessness occurring in California is not limited to thugs. Perhaps some remedial courses on the Constitution for Governor Newsom and the California legislature may be in order.
The statement revealed in court papers raises questions about the reliability of the list of 20,000 people in California
The justice department’s list of suspected non-citizens in California includes a “high percentage” of people born in the United States, Los Angeles election officials said on Tuesday.
The statement, made in court papers, raises further questions about the reliability of a list of 20,000 people the justice department provided to election officials in Los Angeles last week. The department sent the county and California secretary of state the list last week and gave them a 48-hour deadline to segregate ballots cast from anyone on the list unless they could verify their citizenship. California election officials refused and the Department of Justice sued them on Thursday.
A proposed "wealth tax" on California's billionaires could backfire and cost the state tens of billions of dollars in the long run.
If the proposed tax drives wealthier residents out of the state, California could end up losing between $1 billion and $3.5 billion annually in income taxes, according to a working paper published this week. A pair of researchers at Stanford University warn that the state could end up losing an estimated $39 billion because of the consequences of the wealth tax.
"These findings suggest that the Billionaire Tax Act will not fulfill the primary functions for which it was designed," write researchers Benjamin Jaros and Joshua Rauh.
Voters in California will decide next month whether to impose the one-time, 5 percent tax when they vote on Proposition 40. The ballot measure is dividing Democrats—Gov. Gavin Newsom opposes it, while progressive Rep. Ro Khanna (D–Calif.) claims it is the "most important ballot initiative in America and a fight for the soul of our party."
And it's already spurring some billionaires to flee the state—including venture capitalist Peter Thiel and Google co-founder Larry Page. Including those two, the seven billionaires who have publicly said they are leaving the state represent more than $539 billion of the nearly $1.9 trillion aggregate net worth of California's billionaires, the researchers note.
With other departures likely happening more quietly, the new study estimates that the tax will generate about $30 billion, a far cry from the $100 billion that the tax's supporters expect. The "behavioral response" from billionaires in California "has eroded most of the projected tax base," write Jaros and Rauh.
That's still a pretty big pot of revenue. In the long run, however, the state is likely to lose out.
After running 100,000 simulations using different assumptions, the two researchers report that "85 percent of plausible outcomes produce a negative" result in state revenue.
Capital is always mobile, despite the best efforts of politicians. And if you were a billionaire living in California, why would you stick around?
Polls show voters are narrowly divided over Proposition 40. A Politicopoll published earlier this month showed 46 percent of voters plan to vote for the measure, while 43 percent oppose it. Voters were similarly divided when asked if they expected it to pass or not.
Happy Tuesday, and welcome to another edition of Rent Free. This week, we're going to jump right into it with a philosophical question: What is an accessory dwelling unit anyway?
It's a question that officials in Somerville, Massachusetts, are realizing they didn't know the answer to after learning that a state law allowing ADUs in single-family neighborhoods could also require them to approve three-story backyard mini-apartments.
As the Boston Globereported on Sunday, Somerville's "deep ethos in favor of new housing" is being tested by the extent of the state law. Elected officials are describing the potential for three-story ADUs as a "joke," and the area's state lawmakers, including one who voted for the state law, are demanding reforms to stop them.
The law in question was a statewide accessory dwelling unit (ADU) legalization tucked inside a major housing package of mostly new spending programs that passed in 2024.
The bill required municipalities to allow ADUs of either 900 square feet or half the size of the primary dwelling (whichever is smaller) anywhere single-family homes are allowed. A subsequent rule issued by state regulators also forbade localities from imposing height and bulk limits on ADUs that are stricter than the limits imposed on primary dwellings.
That latter rule is what's causing Somerville's freakout.
Because the town allows triple-decker apartments (a three-story triplex common in New England) in all its single-family zones, the state rule means that it must also allow ADUs to be three stories tall.
The Globe story notes that the mini-triple-deckers could still only be 900 square feet, meaning each floor of a mini-triple-decker would have to be pretty small. Thus far, no one has proposed building an ADU tower in Somerville.
Even so, the town is worried that someone will eventually propose one of these "out-of-scale" units that it'll have to approve. Its officials are now agitating for changes to the state law to prevent this.
On the one hand, one can perhaps understand why Somerville officials feel blindsided.
The text of the 2024 ADU law allows localities to set "reasonable" height and bulk limits on accessory units. It was state regulators who decided after the law's passage that requiring ADUs to be shorter than the primary unit was "unreasonable."
On the other hand, allowing a second home on a lot to be as tall as the first house sounds "reasonable" enough. Can one complain about out-of-scale development when the new unit is the same height as an existing home and a little bit smaller?
Somerville is not the first city where people's own colloquial definition of an accessory unit as "a tiny home that doesn't bother anyone" has clashed with official regulatory definitions that allow ADUs to be a fair bit bigger.
San Diego's ADU Bonus program once allowed a technically unlimited number of ADUs to be built on single-family parcels near transit stops. (Height and bulk regulations imposed practical limits on how many units could fit on a site.)
That enabled developers to build what were, in effect, ADU apartment complexes on large single-family lots throughout the city. This year, the city imposed new restrictions to stop these "monster" ADU developments, including a per-lot accessory unit cap.
The latest dust-up in Somerville, like the San Diego controversy before it, provides several lessons about the realities of housing reform.
The first is that the definition of "accessory dwelling unit" is completely arbitrary.
In Massachusetts, an ADU is a 900-square-foot home that can be one story or three stories, depending on the town and zoning district it's being built in.
In Montana, it's a 1,000-square-foot unit. In California, state law can require localities to allow ADUs as large as 1,200 square feet. Under certain conditions, these ADUs can even be sold separately from the main house.
At a certain point, an accessory dwelling unit is just a dwelling unit. A house is a house.
The second lesson is that any ADU reform that is actually intended to produce new housing units is going to cause controversy.
State and local laws allowing ADUs have been one of the more common forms of housing reforms to pass.
Supply-boosters see them as a way to get a modest number of new units. Supply skeptics don't see much to object to about allowing someone to install a kitchenette and bathroom in their garage.
If the ADU regulations don't allow much more than the garage conversion, supply-boosters will be disappointed and push for expansions of the law. California passed dozens of ADU laws before they started enabling actual units to be built.
If an ADU law actually allows more homes, the ADUs will look like homes, and the supply skeptics will be mad.
No amount of branding or planning will resolve the inherent conflict of some people wanting more development while others oppose it in their neighborhoods.
Thus far, Massachusetts' ADU law has been modestly productive. The state's ADU survey reports that 2,048 ADU permits have been issued since the state law went into effect in January 2025. About half of those units are attached ADUs (think the garage with the kitchenette).
That's a little under 10 percent of Massachusetts total housing production during that time, per the Census Bureau's building permit survey.
At 50 units permitted, Somerville has actually approved the second most ADUs of any jurisdiction in the state. (Boston has only approved 49.)
But now that it's facing the prospect of allowing ADUs that look like actual homes, it's starting to get cold feet about the new law.
While Spain is tightening its tenant protections and rent controls in the face of housing protests, Portugal is trying to remove regulations on its rental housing industry. Either way, housing protesters are clashing with police.
The Urban Institute has a new white paper on whether data center development is coming at the expense of housing development.
A new report on home construction in Chicago finds that the practice of aldermanic privilege (where individual aldermen can veto projects in their district) is strangling development.
No dia em que se assinalou o centenário da publicação de Winnie-the-Pooh um urso-negro entrou numa biblioteca e "atacou" o lanche dos funcionários: manteiga de amendoim, bolachas, um pote de mel.
Josef Bopp diretor da biblioteca apelou aos visitantes, “lembramos a quem frequenta — e talvez ainda mais importante, aos nossos ursos — que os lanches não fazem parte da coleção em circulação.”
Videos show shark launching several feet from water as a group of friends pose for photos along Marina state beach
A great white shark put on a spectacular display for California beachgoers over the weekend, leaping from the water off Marina state beach and photobombing visitors.
Videos circulating online show a great white shark launching several feet out of the water in the background as a group of friends pose for photos along the beach.
Coyote euthanized after reportedly roaming Atwater Village comfortably for months and attacking one-year-old boy
One Los Angeles neighborhood has been at war over a wild coyote, and over the weekend it all came to a head.
For months, the animal had been roaming the trendy Atwater Village, showing up in broad daylight, sleeping in back yards and approaching residents. At least one person had reportedly fed the coyote and others affectionately nicknamed it Wiley. But some residents feared the creature had become dangerously too cozy.
Nearly $1 million worth of trading cards in more than 200 packages were stolen from a FedEx truck last week outside of Professional Sports Authenticators (PSA) in Santa Ana.
The thief had broken into the truck by breaking the lock. The cards were stolen while the FedEx driver was away from the vehicle.
Card collector and YouTuber SKY-B was a victim of the heist, saying he had 104 cards stolen, "many" of which are "irreplaceable."
"A hundred four cards which were either case hits, which are ultra rare, or they're 1-of-1s, meaning they're the only one in the world," the YouTuber said.
"We are aware of a theft involving a third-party shipping vehicle carrying PSA-graded items. We are working closely with law enforcement and the carrier as the investigation continues," Collectors said in a statement.
Collectors said it has "deactivated the certificates for the stolen items and notified marketplace partners so they can be on the lookout for rare and serialized items."
"Our customer service team has contacted affected customers directly and is arranging compensation based on fair market value," Collectors said.
"We understand the impact this has on collectors involved, many of whom see these cards as far more than a financial asset. Our team is focused on supporting them. We take this incident seriously, and we will continue working with law enforcement to hold those responsible accountable."
Login
