中山肛门里有小疙瘩中山成人便秘怎么治疗,中山那家医院治外痔好,中山痔疮做了手术,中山急性痔疮的治疗,中山那家看肛裂医院好,中山华都医院在什么地方怎么样,中山华都肛肠医院好不好怎么样

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s opposition to Pacific Gas & Electric’s restructuring plan just a week after it struck a .5 billion settlement with fire victims is forcing the nation’s largest utility to go back to the negotiating table and come up with a solution fairly quickly.The San Francisco-based company needs to pull a deal off to meet a June 30 deadline to emerge from bankruptcy protection and regain its financial footing.Missing the deadline would prevent PG&E from being able to draw from a special fund created by the Democratic governor and state lawmakers to help insulate California utilities from future fires that many people believe are bound to erupt as a changing climate continues to create hazardous conditions. Utilities are at risk because their aging electric transmission lines are expected to take years to upgrade.On Thursday, PG&E filed an amended reorganization plan with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court after reaching a settlement on Dec. 6 with thousands of people who lost homes, businesses and family members in a series of devastating fires.In his letter on Friday, Newsom said the plan does not comply with state law and does not achieve the goal of addressing what he considers its most important elements: providing safe and reliable power to PG&E customers.“In my judgment, the amended plan and the restructuring transactions do not result in a reorganized company positioned to provide safe, reliable, and affordable service,” he said.The governor said PG&E’s plan did not go far enough in improving safety, corporate governance and the company’s financial position. The company has until Tuesday to appease Newsom and get him to sign off on the plan.“We’ve welcomed feedback from all stakeholders throughout these proceedings and will continue to work diligently in the coming days to resolve any issues that may arise,” PG&E said in a statement.Without the added protection of the California wildfire fund, PG&E would likely find it more difficult to borrow money to pay for the necessary upgrades and perhaps even fund its ongoing operations if it remains mired in bankruptcy proceedings beyond June 30.If PG&E can’t get a revised deal with the fire victims approved, it also will face the specter of navigating through two other legal gauntlets early next year that would be used as an alternative way to estimate how much the company owes for the catastrophic wildfires in 2017 and 2018 that killed nearly 130 people and destroyed about 28,000 structures in its sprawling service territory.One, a California state trial to be held in January, will determine whether PG&E is liable for a 2017 fire in Sonoma County that the company hasn’t accepted full responsibility for. The trial would also award damages to the victims if PG&E is blamed. A subsequent proceeding, known as an estimation hearing, is scheduled in February before a federal judge to determine PG&E’s total bill for all the fires that could have been covered in the settlement that had been worked out with the victims.Attorneys for the fire victims so far have collectively lodged claims of about billion against PG&E, according to court documents. But that figure could rise even higher after the state trial and estimation hearing, and it if does would likely leave PG&E unable to meet its financial obligations — a development that could lead U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Dennis Montali to declare the company insolvent.If that were to happen, it would automatically void a separate billion settlement deal PG&E has reached with insurers who say they are owed billion for the fire insurance claims they expect to pay their policyholders in the wildfires blamed on the utility. The insurance settlement, though, is also being opposed by Newsom, and is still awaiting Montali’s approval.The governor “may have upset a rather delicate bankruptcy process,” said Jared Ellias, a bankruptcy expert at University of California, Hastings College of the Law.“We’re going to see how resilient the deal that comes out of this process is going to be and whether it can adjust to meet his approval,” he said. 4197

SAN DIEGO, Calif. (KGTV) - It started when Amber Gilles posted a photo of San Diego Starbucks barista Lenin Gutierrez with the caption “Meet lenen from Starbucks who refused to serve me cause I’m not wearing a mask. Next time I will wait for cops and bring a medical exemption.”A stranger in Orange County, Matt Cowan, said he wanted to donate a few dollars to the barista in tip money, so he started a GoFundMe. As the photo on Facebook filled with hundreds of thousands of interactions and comments from people supporting the barista, the tip money eventually hit more than 0,000 to be donated to the barista. Lenin said he plans to use that money to further his education and also follow his dreams of dancing.Related: 0,000 donated to Starbucks barista who asked woman to wear maskGilles said she now wants half of that money.“It was discrimination and everybody is okay with it and enabling and rewarding that behavior,” said Gilles.She went on to describe the symptoms that prevent her from wearing a mask, saying “One of them I get shortness of breath, dizziness and it messes with the heartbeat. And I do have asthma as well, and I do get mask-acne. So there’s several things going on and not only that but it doesn’t even work.”She provided ABC 10News with two documents to prove her medical exemption. One is a pelvic exam from 2015 with results that say “probable exophytic fibroid arising from the anterior wall of the uterus measuring 2.9 cm size.” and “simple 2.5 cm left ovarian cyst.” A second piece of paper is a handwritten note with letterhead from a San Diego chiropractor who she asked not be named. The hand written note reads “Amber has underlying breath conditions that prevent her from wearing a mask or any type of facial covering whatsoever. Please contact me if have any questions.”When that chiropractor who wrote the note was called, he said he could not discuss her situation. When Gilles was asked why a chiropractor gave her a breathing-related medical exemption, she responded “because they are dedicated to providing non-invasive personalized care and treatment. They are real doctors.”When asked if she has an apology or message to the public, Gilles said “No absolutely not. I feel like I need the apology. I’ve been discriminated against, I’m the one who’s sick.”Gilles said she's spoken to a few lawyers about taking her case for getting half of the money but said they're all expensive so she started her own GoFundMe to try to raise money.WATCH: Lenin gets 0,000 2520

SAN DIEGO (KGTV)- Monday morning Escondido Police provided extra police patrols at a local mosque that was targeted on Sunday.Police say the Dar-ul-Arqam Mosque on 6th Avenue was set on fire by an arsonist that has yet to be identified.Worshipers inside the mosque noticed the flames around 3 a.m. on Sunday and were able to put them out before the fire could spread.Lt. Chris Lick with the Escondido Police Department said once police and arson investigators arrived, they determined that the fire was set intentionally. They also found a note left by the suspect.“Graffiti left behind by the suspect made reference to the shooting incident in New Zealand,” said Lt. Lick.The San Diego Police Department has also stepped up patrols at mosques across the city in response the incident in Escondido.San Diego's Anti-Defamation League issued a statement in support of the mosque and worshippers.“This attack appears to be meant to send a signal to the Muslim community” said ADL Regional Director Tammy Gillies. “Sadly, this type of behavior is consistent with the growth in hate crimes, rise in attacks on Muslims, and the surge in anti-Muslim bigotry that we have seen in our country and around the world.”A crowdfunding campaign was launched to help raise money to provide repairs and proper security at the mosque in Escondido.The campaign has received support from people across the country. If you would like to donate click here. 1442

SAN DIEGO (KTGV) - The City of San Diego could be looking at spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to figure out what to do next with a vacant city-owned building in the downtown area.A letter obtained by 10News shows the city is looking into proposals for additional services regarding the building at 101 Ash St.The Aug. 14 letter to the deputy director of architectural engineering and parks division outlined a proposal with costs for services estimated at 2,000."I think this is a ridiculous waste of money," said Council President Pro Tem Barbara Bry. "What I proposed on Aug. 6 at the council meeting is still what I think the city should be doing, and that is to get into a room and negotiate with all the parties that have a financial interest."The downtown building at 101 Ash St. has been sitting vacant for most of the last four years, and as it continues to sit empty, taxpayers are footing the ,000 per day bill. As 10News previously reported, in 2016 the city approved a lease-to-own agreement for the building, valued at million.The idea was to move upward of 1,100 city employees into the facility. But officials quickly discovered a series of problems requiring major renovations to the site's 19 floors. In December 2019, the city finally began moving workers into the building, only to vacate them a month later when the county found traces of asbestos.This month, City Council leaders voted 5-4 — with Council Members Vivian Moreno, Monica Montgomery, Barbara Bry, and Georgette Gómez voting in opposition — to request monthly updates on the building's status and costs for several options presented by Mayor Kevin Faulconer's office.According to the latest proposal letter, "The City has requested Kitchell to identify potential cost and schedule savings through further studies and investigations. Kitchell has added Jackson and Blanc Power Systems Testing to our team to perform diagnostic testing of the HVAC and Electrical systems to establish a baseline of operation. Upon completion of the diagnostic testing, Kitchell will develop four options for improving 101 Ash Street."The letter outlined several options that would eventually be presented to the city if leaders went with the proposal, including bare requirements to reoccupy the building, fire/life/safety recommendations, and potentially demolishing and replacing the existing building.The mayor's options for this building have included putting millions of dollars more into the building for the needed repairs, buying out the lease, pursuing a new landlord, trying to renegotiate its lease, or walking away entirely, the last of which could risk litigation and credit damage.When asked about the proposal letter obtained by ABC 10News, the mayor's office responded that the city's Communication Department provided information.A spokesperson for the city told ABC 10News, "Many documents, including this letter, may not be final. It appears you have documents that are not final and should not be treated as such."In an emailed response to questions, the spokesperson said, "The letter sent to Elif Cetin was a proposal, and anything within it should be considered draft and negotiable, including the fees, scope of work, etc. That is a proposed figure from the consultant and is still subject to negotiation."When asked about what type of consultations the city looking for and if Is there’s an approved dollar amount the city is looking to spend a city spokesperson also noted, "The City is pursuing all legal and financial options to protect taxpayers, recoup costs, hold accountable the contractors who worsened the building's condition, and implement new levels of accountability. The City is building and working with a multidisciplinary team of outside legal and real estate experts to achieve these goals. These plans were presented to the City Council at a public hearing on August 6, and the Council voted to continue to receive updates, which staff will provide." 3985

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — California regulators on Friday said marijuana deliveries can be made anywhere in the state, even in locales that ban cannabis.Law enforcement groups and the California League of Cities opposed the move, arguing that pot deliveries to places that ban cannabis erodes local government control and will increase crime in those areas.The matter has been one of the most debated issues as state regulators hammer out permanent rules for how marijuana is grown, tested, packaged and delivered.The delivery issue was included in regulations drafted by the Bureau of Cannabis Control, which issues most retail permits. The rules will become law in 30 days unless California's Office of Administrative Law objects. The dispute could end up in court.Recreational marijuana became legal in the state after voters passed Proposition 64 two years ago.The bureau has maintained that Proposition 64 allows for statewide deliveries. It added explicit language authorizing the practice after several law enforcement officials in anti-pot locales insisted they could arrest licensed deliver drivers in cities and counties that ban marijuana.The California Police Chiefs Association, League of California Cities and United Food and Commercial Workers Western States Council opposed statewide deliveries and launched an online petition campaign against the rule."Regulated marijuana dispensaries have tough security, checks for identity and legal age and strictly licensed workers," council executive director James Araby said in a statement. "If marijuana can be delivered anywhere with virtually no regulation, California will lose these safeguards."League of Cities spokeswoman Adrienne Sprenger said the agency was waiting to see if the Office of Administrative Law approves the proposal before deciding its next step.Supporters of statewide deliveries argued that sick and frail people in those areas who depend on marijuana to relieve pain or anxiety cannot make a lengthy drive for a purchase, so they are being shut out of the legal market.The proposal also included a ban on permit holders partnering with unlicensed operators, which industry supporters said will stifle growth.The bureau in its comments explaining the added rule said it's concerned about such partnerships doing business in the black market.California Cannabis Industry Association spokesman Josh Drayton said most California cities and counties have exerted local control and don't allow marijuana, making it impossible for a business such as a beverage maker or nutritional supplement manufacturer to partner with a legal marijuana operator.He said the bureau's stand against unlicensed operators went too far and will hurt the nascent industry by unintentionally preventing such things as non-licensed celebrities endorsing products and other deals not directly involving marijuana."The industry has slowed down enough already without this added hurdle," Drayton said.The California Department of Food and Agriculture, which regulates farmers, also released its draft regulations which would continue to allow farmers to receive an unlimited number of permits to grow pot. 3163