中山肛门为什么会流血中山有时便血是咋回事,中山痔疮快速止疼小妙招,中山大便有点出血,中山肛旁脓肿保守治疗,中山肛肠医院哪里比较好,中山肠息肉是怎么回事,中山内痔最专业的医院

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California will limit rent increases for some people over the next decade after Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law Tuesday aimed at combating a housing crisis in the nation's most populous state.Newsom signed the bill at an event in Oakland, an area where a recent report documented a 43% increase in homelessness over two years. Sudden rent increases are a contributing cause of the state's homeless problem, which has drawn national attention and the ire of Republican President Donald Trump."He wasn't wrong to highlight a vulnerability," Newsom said of Trump's criticisms to an audience of housing advocates in Oakland. "He's exploiting it. You're trying to solve it. That's the difference between you and the president of the United States."The law limits rent increases to 5% each year plus inflation until Jan. 1, 2030. It bans landlords from evicting people for no reason, meaning they could not kick people out so they can raise the rent for a new tenant. And while the law doesn't take effect until Jan. 1, it would apply to rent increases on or after March 15, 2019, to prevent landlords from raising rents just before the caps go into place.RELATED: San Diego's top neighborhoods to get more rental space for the moneyCalifornia and Oregon are now the only places that cap rent increases statewide. Oregon capped rents at 7% plus inflation earlier this year.California's rent cap is noteworthy because of its scale. The state has 17 million renters, and more than half of them spend at least 30% of their income on rent, according to a legislative analysis of the proposal.But California's new law has so many exceptions that it is estimated it will apply to 8 million of those 17 million renters, according to the office of Democratic Assemblyman David Chiu, who authored the bill Newsom signed.It would not apply to housing built within the last 15 years, a provision advocates hope will encourage developers to build more in a state that desperately needs it. It does not apply to single family homes, except those owned by corporations or real estate investment trusts. It does not cover duplexes where the owner lives in one of the units.RELATED: Making It In San Diego: How housing got so expensiveAnd it does not cover the 2 million people in California who already have rent control, which is a more restrictive set of limitations for landlords. Most of the state's largest cities, including Los Angeles, Oakland, and San Francisco, have some form of rent control. But a state law passed in 1995 bans any new rent control policies since that year.Last year, voters rejected a statewide ballot initiative that would have expanded rent control statewide. For most places in California, landlords can raise rent at any time and or any reason if they give notice in advance.That's what happened to Sasha Graham in 2014. She said her rent went up 150%. She found the money to pay it on time and in full, but her landlord evicted her anyway without giving a reason. She was homeless for the next three years, staying with friends, then friends of friends and then strangers."Sometimes I lived with no lights, sometimes I lived with no water, depending on who I was living with (because) they were also struggling," she said. "Sometimes I just had to use my money to go to a hotel room so I could finish my homework."Graham, who is now board president for the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, now lives in family housing at the University of California, Berkeley, where she is scheduled to graduate in May. She said the law, had it been in place, would have helped her.But Russell Lowery, executive director of the California Rental Housing Association, says the law adds an expensive eviction process that did not previously exist. He said that will encourage landlords to increase rents when they otherwise wouldn't."It adds unnecessary expenses to all rental home providers and makes it more difficult to sever a relationship with a problem tenant," he said. 4034

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California utilities again are facing severe financial pressures from the possibility that their equipment sparked catastrophic wildfires, including two that are now burning at either end of the state.The pressure comes even though Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation in September giving utilities some relief beginning next year.The law made it easier for utilities to pass along costs from fire-related damages to consumers and also avoid possible bankruptcy from a series of major fires that occurred during the 2017 fire season that produced more than billion in losses.But there was a gap in the law: No damages specific to 2018 were included, so utilities face a higher bar to bill customers to cover those costs. And this year already supplanted 2017 as the most destructive in California's recorded history.Authorities have not determined a cause for either of two major blazes burning now, but Pacific Gas & Electric Co. and Southern California Edison have reported irregularities with their equipment near the time and place where both ignited.A woman who owns land near the site where a deadly wildfire started in Northern California said Monday that Pacific Gas & Electric Co. sought access to her property just before the blaze started because the utility's power lines were causing sparks.PG&E shares have lost more than a third of their value since the Camp Fire broke out northeast of San Francisco, destroying thousands of homes and killing dozens of people as it leveled the town of Paradise.Moody's Investors Service said Monday that the "shortcomings" in the legislation reflect negatively on PG&E's credit rating, which is barely investment grade."Moody's negative outlook incorporates the view that additional financial stress for PG&E is likely," Moody's spokesman Joe Mielenhausen said in an email. "Going forward, we will look for signs of additional legislative and regulatory support for the utility as it works through various legal processes."Last week PG&E told state regulators that it detected a problem on an electrical transmission line near the site of the blaze minutes before the fire broke out. The utility later said it observed damage to a transmission tower on the line, and a PG&E spokeswoman said the company will cooperate with any investigations.Betsy Ann Cowley, a property owner near the site said PG&E sought access to the area before the fire started, telling her power lines were sparking.Southern California Edison told regulators there was an outage on an electrical circuit near the site where the Woolsey Fire started in Ventura County. It quickly spread into Malibu and destroyed hundreds of homes.SoCal Edison said the report was submitted out of an abundance of caution and there was no indication from fire officials that its equipment may have been involved. The report said the fire was reported around 2:24 p.m. Thursday, two minutes after the outage.Shares of parent company Edison International have tumbled more than 20 percent since the fire started.California is one of just two states that hold electric companies entirely liable for damage caused by their equipment, even if they followed all safety precautions. The new law makes it easier for them to pass some of those costs along to consumers.Utilities lobbied aggressively to eliminate that strict liability standard but lawmakers dropped the idea amid pressure from insurers, trial lawyers and fire victims.Instead, legislators passed a law making it easier for utilities to manage the costs without going bankrupt. They created two mechanisms for investor-owned utilities to shift the costs of wildfire lawsuits onto their customers— one process that begins in 2019, and another for the 2017 fires.For reasons that remain unclear, the law left the rules unchanged for 2018."The priority was on addressing 2017 victims and putting in place some fire-safety measures," said Paul Payne, a spokesman for Sen. Bill Dodd, a Napa Democrat and the bill's author. "The focus was on making 2017 victims whole."It's too soon to say whether the Legislature will take up another fight over the 2018 fires, Payne said.SoCal Edison officials say the Legislature needs to do more to shield utilities from wildfire-related liability."SCE believes the state can do more, including enacting fire-smart building codes, particularly in high fire risk areas, and ensuring the proper allocation of risk for the often-tragic consequences of wildfires," spokeswoman Justina Garcia wrote in an email.A PG&E spokesman, Paul Doherty, did not respond to questions about the legislation, saying "our entire company is focused on supporting first responders."Sen. Jerry Hill, a Redwood City Democrat and longtime critic of PG&E, called the report of troubles on PG&E's lines in the area extremely worrisome."At some point we have to say enough is enough and we have to ask: Should this company be allowed to do business in California?" Hill said. "These fires take a spark, and at least in the last few years fires have been caused by negligent behavior by PG&E. We need to see how we can hold them responsible, or look at alternative way of doing business."Hill said he was exploring legislative options to keep a closer check on PG&E, including the possibility of breaking up the utility."They are a monopoly and they act as a monopoly," Hill said. "That is a problem when the motive is profit, and that just may not be the right motive for providing utility services." 5560

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California will ban the sale and manufacture of new fur products starting in 2023.Legislation signed Saturday by Gov. Gavin Newsom makes California the first state to enact such a ban.It doesn't apply to used fur products or fur used for religious or tribal purposes. And it excludes the sale of leather, cowhides, deer, sheep and goat skin and anything preserved through taxidermy.There's a fine of up to ,000 for multiple violations.Democratic Assemblywoman Laura Friedman, the bill's author, says there are "sustainable and humane" substitutes for fur.Opponents of the legislation have said it could create a black market and be a slippery slope to bans on other products. 711

Richard Pinedo, a California computer whiz caught by the special counsel's office selling fake online identities to Russians, will be sentenced by a federal judge in Washington on Wednesday, making him the third defendant to learn his sentence in Robert Mueller's probe.Pinedo is one of the more unusual and relatively unknown defendants caught in Mueller court actions so far.In memos sent to a federal judge before his sentencing, Pinedo's defense team and prosecutors capture just how far-reaching the high-profile special counsel investigation into the 2016 election has been.Pinedo ran a website that sold dummy bank accounts to eBay users having trouble with the online transaction service PayPal. His service allowed people online to breeze through PayPal's financial verification steps.He pleaded guilty to one count of identity fraud during a confidential court hearing in D.C. federal court on February 12. His case was made public four days later, when the Justice Department announced its indictment of 13 Russians and three companies for running an online election propaganda effort.Since his guilty plea was unsealed, Pinedo says he's faced online harassment and safety risks because of the national attention.Pinedo asked Judge Dabney Friedrich of the U.S. District Court in D.C. to spare him from serving time in prison. Prosecutors haven't asked the judge for any particular sentence — though they did stop short of asking for his imprisonment in a recent court filing.Prosecutors told the judge that Pinedo gave them "significant assistance" and that his admissions and testimony "saved the government significant time and resources in the investigation."The prosecutors describe Pinedo's crime as "identity fraud on a large scale, committed remotely through the ease of the internet, with real-life damage inflicted on scores of innocent victims," according to their memo to the judge. Since they wrote to the judge in late September, Friedrich has asked for clarification on the number of victims.Court staff calculated a recommended sentence of 12 to 18 months in prison for Pinedo, but given the prosecutors' leniency in their argument before his sentencing, it's unlikely he'd serve that much time, if any.Previously, two other defendants in the Mueller investigation, the Dutch lawyer Alex Van Der Zwaan and former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos, received 30-day and 14-day prison sentences, respectively. Both had lied to investigators.Several other defendants who've pleaded guilty to charges from Mueller, including former national security adviser Michael Flynn, former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his deputy Rick Gates, have not yet been sentenced. 2711

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) -- A man accused of being the rapist and killer who terrorized California residents in the 1970s and 1980s has agreed to plead guilty to dozens of crimes in return for being spared the death penalty.A law enforcement source and a victim's relative said Monday that Joseph DeAngelo, suspected of being the Golden State Killer, is expected to plead guilty on June 29.The former police officer is then expected to be sentenced in August to life without the possibility of parole after the surviving victims and relatives of those killed confront him in court.Sacramento County public defenders did not respond to comment requests. 659