A federal judge said she needs more evidence that San Francisco is complying with her injunction preventing moving unhoused people.

OAKLAND, Calif. (CN) — San Francisco homeless residents lost their bid to ensure that city officials comply with a federal judge’s block on encampment sweeps, but the judge on Thursday also demanded more transparency from the city.

U.S. Chief Magistrate Judge Donna Ryu denied without prejudice a request by plaintiffs living unsheltered in San Francisco that she appoint a special master to help enforce the injunction Ryu ordered. But she ordered the city to file a declaration on staff training within two weeks, and to meet with Magistrate Judge Lisa Cisneros to discuss improving how police officers communicate with unhoused people. The plaintiffs must file a supplemental brief within one month.

Ryu ruled this past December that San Francisco officials cannot threaten enforcement of “sit/lie” or public sleeping laws against involuntarily homeless individuals, meaning people who do not have access to shelter or permanent housing.

The plaintiffs say the city regularly fines and removes them from public property, often seizing or destroying their property, violating their Fourth and Eighth Amendment rights. They also accused the city of sweeping encampments after the injunction was ordered, during the atmospheric river storms that drenched the state during this year’s winter.

San Francisco Mayor London Breed speaks at a rally outside the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (Screenshot via Courthouse News)

City officials appealed Ryu’s injunction to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and argued in court Wednesday that the ruling was too vague to know which parts of city ordinances could be enforced.

Mayor London Breed, backed by county supervisors and coalitions of wealthy donors, told a crowd assembled outside the appellate court that the city is prepared to take the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary. 

The crux of the case rests on precedent set in Martin v. Boise, barring cities without enough shelter beds from moving unhoused people — and the fact that San Francisco does not have enough shelter for all unhoused people, as Ryu determined in January. The plaintiffs point to a waitlist of at least 400 people, while the city has said it offers unhoused people shelter before conducting encampment sweeps. 

In federal court Thursday, Ryu expressed concern that some police officers who interact with unhoused residents may not be trained on the injunction and rules for when they can and cannot move people. 

The judge also chastised the plaintiffs for not clearly explaining how, by law, the city had violated her order.

“You’ve left me here to guess, or try to figure out what you’re arguing,” she said. “There’s a lot of assumptions that are being made in the plaintiffs’ side of the papers. These are all legal questions that need to be teased out.”

Attorney Kevin Wu, representing the plaintiffs, said they have reason to think the city is not following rules about keeping records, such as activating body cameras or recording property confiscations, which will complicate their discovery process. 

“They do give us concerns that we don’t have enough at our disposal to monitor the city’s actions in real time, and prevent any irreparable harm that may be befalling plaintiffs,” he said.

“You have to first show me that there’s a problem,” Ryu told Wu. “You didn’t do the work I need from you to be able to render a decision.”

Ryu told the city that the record shows there is ambiguity around people’s rights, and misunderstandings that cops could prevent. 

“Is San Francisco open to coming up with clearer communication about people’s rights,” she asked, “so that homeless individuals who encounter police have a better understanding of what’s going on?”

After saying the city does not believe the plaintiffs gave evidence of non-compliance, Wang agreed that officials are open to improving communication with the public.  

Ryu said she is also concerned about declarations submitted as proof that city officials destroyed people’s property without cause.

“Some of them felt like pretty clear violations,” Ryu said, noting one description from an unsheltered woman who said a worker took her jewelry, put it in their pocket and told her that it belonged to the city. She noted the city hadn’t submitted evidence of having trained all workers who interact with unhoused people on what they may and may not do. 

Miguel Gradilla, an attorney for San Francisco, said most workers engaging with unhoused people discuss their property rights every day, but was not sure how many public works staffers may be trained on the rules for handling people’s property. 

Before ending Thursday’s hearing the judge also recommended better communication on both sides.

“My sense from the filings is that communication is not great,” Ryu said. “But that’s your choice on how you want to litigate the case.”

The case is slated for a bench trial starting in April 2024.

Read the Top 8

Sign up for the Top 8, a roundup of the day’s top stories delivered directly to your inbox Monday through Friday.

The post San Francisco homeless residents ask choose to make sure metropolis follows order limiting displacing folks appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

The morning meeting with Al Tompkins is a daily Poynter briefing with story ideas to consider and a more contemporary context for journalists, written by Al Tompkins, Senior Faculty. Sign up here to have it delivered to your inbox every weekday morning.

The Environmental Protection Agency plans to limit some of the so-called “forever chemicals” in US drinking water.

The chemicals that will be restricted, commonly referred to as PFAS, are named PFOA, PFOS, GenX, PFBS, PFNA and PFHxS. First used in the 1940s, they are all around us, in our clothing, packaging and food, and they are ubiquitous in tap water.

Because they are so widespread, PFAS can enter the environment from multiple sources. Because they break down very slowly, over time concentrations of PFAS can accumulate in people, animals and the environment, and enter the water sources you depend on.

The Association of State Drinking Water Administrators warns that while the new guidelines are a “step in the right direction,” you may have to pay higher water bills to remove the chemicals. Water authorities would also have to notify the public if they found PFAS levels higher than permitted. The federal government is providing $9 billion through the bipartisan Infrastructure Act to help cover costs, particularly in disadvantaged areas of the country.

The EPA says:

We now know that some PFAS can cause serious health problems if you are exposed to them – even in small amounts – over a long period of time. Drinking water is one of several ways people can be exposed to PFAS, and reducing PFAS in drinking water helps reduce the health risks of PFAS. Exposure to PFAS, which the EPA proposes to regulate, can increase the risks of a number of health effects, including:

• Effects on fertility such as increased high blood pressure in pregnant women
• Developmental effects or delays in children, including low birth weight, bone variations, or behavioral changes
• Increased risk of some cancers, including kidney and testicular cancer
• Reduced ability of the body’s immune system to fight infection, including reduced vaccine effectiveness
• Affecting the body’s natural hormones, including thyroid hormones
• Elevated cholesterol level
• liver damage

In announcing the proposed rules, the EPA said, “Over time, if fully implemented, the rule will reduce tens of thousands of PFAS-related illnesses or deaths.”

The National Resources Defense Council says:

Many of these problems, including kidney cancer and thyroid disease, surfaced in the C8 studies, which monitored the health of approximately 69,000 people in West Virginia who were exposed to certain PFAS in their drinking water. The major adverse effects of some PFAS were known to chemical industry scientists decades ago, but have not been reported to the US Environmental Protection Agency or the public.

For example, the EPA fined manufacturer DuPont millions of dollars because the company had “a number of failures to provide the EPA with information regarding a significant risk of harm to human health or the environment” from the PFAS perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA or C8) Report to. Now, numerous independent studies show that PFAS can be toxic to adults, and especially children, whose developing bodies are more vulnerable. Some PFAS are even known to build up in a child before birth. Alarmingly, PFAS were found in the breast milk, cord blood, or blood of 98 percent of participants in a national health and nutrition survey conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

However, note in the C8 report how many conditions were suspected to be linked to the “forever chemicals” but the evidence did not.

Other sources say the link to human cancer is less clear, but there is an established link in lab rats. Poison.org (which originates from the non-profit National Capital Poison Center and is not a government agency) notes:

Due to their persistence in the environment, PFAS chemicals are found in drinking water, dust, air and food. PFAS are also found in the bloodstream of almost every adult living in the United States. Widespread human exposure to PFAS has raised questions about the potential health effects of these chemicals. In studies in rats, PFAS exposure has been associated with cancer. However, the meaning of this is unclear. Rat bodies are not the same as human bodies, and the pathways involved in the growth of cancer cells in rats often differ from those in humans. In addition, the body’s processing of PFAS compounds is different in humans than in some other animals. Because of this, it can be difficult to establish a strong association between PFAS exposure and cancer.

EPA rules specify “maximum contaminant levels” for the chemicals. Ten states (New Jersey, California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, and Vermont) did not wait for the federal government and set their own borders.

The Environmental Working Group says more than 200 million Americans may now have these chemicals in their drinking water. A few years ago, the Environmental Working Group released drinking water data from dozens of cities across the country that showed levels of “forever chemicals” far in excess of what would be allowed under this new regulation:

(working group environment)

The EWG has been tracking this issue for almost two decades with little progress up to this week:

The limits, known as Maximum Contaminant Levels or MCLs, are the highest levels of contamination permitted in drinking water. The announced MCLs are 4 parts per trillion or ppt for PFOA and 4 ppt for PFOS. For the other four PFAS, the agency proposes the use of a “hazard index,” which is a tool used to address cumulative risks from mixtures of chemicals.

The EWG says many of the states that haven’t waited for the federal government have set higher levels than the new federal rules:

New Jersey was the first to set a maximum pollutant limit for the compound PFNA of 13 ppt and has proposed standards of 13 ppt for PFOS and 14 ppt for PFOA.

(working group environment)

The EPA’s proposal is just that. It’s open to public comment before it becomes the norm. Once the proposal is posted to the Federal Register, the public has 60 days to comment. The EPA says it expects to finalize the rule by the end of this year.

The list includes:

• Most indigenous peoples in the United States do not have access to important government records within their own tribes. There are 574 federally recognized sovereign tribal governments in the United States. The Native American Journalists Association reports that fewer than five tribes have freedom of information laws granting their citizens the right to access government documents or consultations. How can a government be there for the people if the people don’t know what is happening to their government?
• The Missouri legislature is considering legislation that would significantly weaken the Missouri Sunshine Law.
• Two Washington state bills would make it harder for applicants to appeal denials and allow courts to penalize applicants.
• In Hawaii, legislators are considering legislation to keep household documents and other records private.
• Arizona state lawmakers passed new rules in January that protect their own records from disclosure under the state’s Open Records Act.
• The Wisconsin Supreme Court issued a decision in 2022 that weakened claimants’ right to recover fees from unruly agencies.
• In Iowa, state lawmakers are considering a measure that could cause significant delays in public record litigation in court.
• In Georgia, lawmakers have pushed legislation that would “require the redacting of names and property rights from state databases of law enforcement personnel, politicians and hundreds of thousands of other government officials,” the Georgia Recorder reported.
• Virginia state lawmakers last month rejected a proposal that would have required state agencies that use taxpayer-funded credit cards to disclose the names of government officials.
• New Mexico state lawmakers are considering legislation that would reduce the transparency of the government’s hiring process for executive positions.

Details on all of these can be found here.

Twice in the past few days I’ve heard people who should know better call the failed bank in California the “Silicone Valley Bank.” So let’s take a moment to remember the difference between “silicon” and “silicone”.

Silicon is a naturally occurring chemical element. You can find it as the 14th element on the periodic table. It is the second most abundant element in the earth’s crust (after oxygen).

PolymerSolutions says:

Pure silicon rarely occurs in nature. It is often combined with oxygen to form silicic acid or silicon dioxide. If you’re a beach bum, chances are you’ve felt silica between your toes — since it’s a key ingredient in sand. Its richness makes it a great building material for a variety of uses.

(PolimerSolutions.com)

But why do we have Silicon Valley or Silicon Valley Bank? Because silicon is widely used in electronics and computer technology because it conducts electricity. Live Science explains:

Silicon has many industrial uses: As a silicic acid, silicon is an important component of bricks, concrete and glass. In its silicate form, the element is used to make enamel, pottery, and ceramics.

Elemental silicon plays an important role in modern electronics as it is an ideal semiconductor for electricity. When heated to a molten state, silicon can be formed into semiconducting wafers that serve as the basis for integrated circuits (microchips).

In fact, Silicon Valley, the southern region of the San Francisco Bay Area, earned its name due to the region’s high concentration of computer and electronics companies that produce silicon-based semiconductors and chips.

Silicone is a synthetic substance that also contains silicone. Normally, silicone is a rubbery substance that has low toxicity and tolerates heat well. Live Science says, “In the medical field, silicone can be found in implants, catheters, contact lenses, dressings, and a multitude of other things. You can also find silicone in a range of personal care products, including shampoos, shaving cream and personal lubricants.”

Plumbers use silicone to make pipe joints watertight. Perhaps part of the confusion is that silicone is also widely used in electronics, but as insulation.

ZMEScience sums it up:

So the difference between the two should be obvious by now. They are both useful to the global economy, but one is a naturally occurring chemical element while the other is an artificial polymer.

Associate silicon with: chemistry, geology, computers, chips, semiconductors, Silicon Valley, cement, brick, glass.

Connect silicone to: insulation, molding, foam, coatings, cookware, fire protection.

The post What are the ‘endlessly chemical substances’ that the EPA is limiting? appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

SACRAMENTO (AP) – A new California policy could send dozens of paralyzed, paraplegic, or otherwise permanently incapacitated inmates from nursing homes back to state prisons.

Prison officials say a change in federal regulations caused them to restrict medical parole to inmates who are so ill that they are connected to ventilators to breathe, meaning their movement is restricted so that it does not pose a public hazard . The state previously encompassed a much wider range of permanent disabilities that made it possible to care for inmates in nursing homes outside the prison walls.

CONTINUE READING: Man charged with 4 crimes in Danville, San Ramon

Steve Fama, an attorney for the nonprofit Prison Law Office, said the court-appointed federal agency that oversees health care in California prisons had told him the change could affect about 70 of the 210 inmates under the current medical probation system were released and started in 2014.

“It would be a terrible shame if these people were taken back to prison,” said Fama. “These patients have been shown not to need a prison facility because of their medical conditions.”

Political change comes as the state reduced its prison population due to the coronavirus pandemic, and more generally urge voters and lawmakers to free older and frail inmates who are less likely to commit new crimes.

California officials say they have no choice in a new approach to enforcing federal nursing home licensing requirements through the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. This is a division of the US Department of Health under the direction of former California Attorney General Xavier Becerra.

The federal agency’s position is that probation officers cannot impose conditions on inmates in community medical facilities, the state says. This includes a rule that inmates only leave with the permission of their probation officer – a restriction that state officials believe is necessary to maintain public safety.

In response, only those with ventilators will be placed in the community, correctional department spokeswoman Dana Simas said.

Federal officials disagree that the state’s only option is to lift medical parole and put incapacitated inmates back behind bars.

They say California could leave inmates in nursing homes with no travel restrictions or place them in facilities that are not regulated by the federal government – “assisted living or non-certified qualified facilities that a state may wish to license to serve.” Probation officers who have additional health needs. “

Simas replied that sending offenders to such uncertified facilities would “require the establishment of an entirely new program to monitor and audit the care provided in these facilities”. The health care of the offenders in the current facilities is checked by the federal administration and several external agencies.

CONTINUE READING: OPD: “Violent caravans” confront police on the streets of Oakland

The state’s ruling affects incapacitated inmates believed to still need some form of supervision, but does not affect court-approved, unconditional, compassionate dismissals. Detainees can seek compassionate release if they are diagnosed with an illness that is likely to cause death in 12 months or less and is a condition they did not have when they were sentenced.

Several other states had to deal with the same problem, although federal officials couldn’t immediately tell which, when, or how they complied.

Almost every state allows prisoners with serious illnesses to be released on parole, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. But the organization said in a 2018 review that such laws are rarely used.

Researchers at the Vera Institute of Justice, a national nonprofit research and advocacy group, said obstacles included limited eligibility criteria and the difficulty of applying for a release. Their 2017 report found that Alabama had released 39 people on medical grounds over eight years, while Texas approved 86 of more than 2,000 requests in 2016.

California dwarfed those releases by approving 210 medical releases and declining 110 requests since 2014, though that’s a tiny fraction of the nearly 100,000 inmates currently incarcerated in the most populous state.

California MP Phil Ting, who chairs the congregation’s powerful Budgets Committee, is putting forward a bill to expand the criteria and create a simpler process for placing incapacitated inmates in community health facilities.

“The ventilator restriction is arbitrary and not based on medical science,” he said. “Public safety will not be improved if this policy is unnecessarily narrow.”

Ting’s bill would include those who qualify for hospice care or have debilitating pain or a debilitating illness. Rather than leave the decision to the state parole board, which is largely made up of law enforcement officers, a new medical parole board made up of health care providers would be created in each prison. It would also keep patients in off-site facilities even if they no longer meet the criteria for medical parole.

Originally worn by former MP Rob Bonta, now the Attorney General, it cleared the gathering before it stalled in the Senate last summer. Ting plans to try again next year.

Those sentenced to death, life without parole, or the murder of police officers are not eligible under California law, and that would not change even after Ting’s suggestion.

MORE NEWS: ‘Intoxifation’: Despite higher prices, Floridians will continue to buy alcohol over the holidays

© Copyright 2021 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

The post California Prisons Now Limiting Medical Parole To Solely These In Ventilators – CBS San Francisco appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.