济南龟头变白是正常的吗(济南早泄用能治好吗) (今日更新中)

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California Gov. Gavin Newsom and state legislative leaders have reached an agreement on a bill to temporarily protect people from evictions. Newsom announced the agreement on Friday. The bill would ban evictions for tenants who have not been able to pay their rent because of the coronavirus between the months of March and August. Tenants would have to sign a document saying they have a financial hardship because of the virus. The protections would continue beyond August if tenants can pay at least 25% of their cumulatively owed rent between Sept. 1 and Jan. 31. Evictions could resume on Feb. 1. 635

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (KGTV) -- Authorities gathered Wednesday to announce that a suspect in the decades-long Golden State killer case was arrested.Joseph James DeAngelo, 72, was arrested in connection with a series of killings, rapes and burglaries. DeAngelo is suspected of killing a least 12 people, raping at least 45 women and committing more than 120 burglaries in the decade between 1976 and 1986.Most of the crimes took place near Sacramento and in the east Bay Area, authorities said Wednesday.RELATED: Suspect identified, arrested in East Area Rapist/Golden State Killer caseClick through the timeline below to see a list of major events in the case: 670

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 (KGTV) -- Wednesday, State Treasurer John Chiang and the brother of one of the Las Vegas shooting victims called on board members of an educator-only pension fund to stop investing in the sellers of military-style assault weapons, ammunition and other devices banned in California.Jason Irvine, the brother of slain San Diego attorney Jennifer Irvine (pictured below), said he found out his sister had been shot the morning after the shooting when his sister’s friends called him.RELATED: San Diego attorney among victims of Las Vegas concert shootingIrvine recalled the moment on Wednesday saying, “I was told that Jennifer was dancing and having the time of her life one moment, and then shot dead through the head in the next.”CalSTRS is the largest educator-only pension fund in the world, according to their website. As of September, the fund managed a portfolio worth more than 5 billion.RELATED: Names of everyone killed in Las Vegas mass shooting“Why would CalSTRS invest the money of school teachers in companies that sell weapons that injure and kill school teachers,” Irvine said of CalSTRS.“No brother should have to bury his sister or receive her ashes in a box because she was shot by a military-style weapon,” said Irvine.A number of gun law advocates also spoke out at the event.  1338

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California voters on Tuesday rejected a ballot measure that would have capped dialysis clinics' profits in an effort to improve patient care.Proposition 8 would have limited profits for dialysis clinics that provide vital treatment for people whose kidneys don't work properly.The measure was the most expensive initiative on the 2018 ballot in California, generating more than 0 million in campaign contributions. A health care workers union, Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, funded the million supporting campaign. Dialysis companies contributed more than 1 million to kill the initiative.The union argued Proposition 8 would stop the dialysis companies from cutting corners to make money and force them to invest more of their revenue into patient care. Supporters say the profit-hungry companies don't adequately clean clinics and overwork staff.Dialysis providers say the measure was actually a tactic to pressure the dialysis companies to let workers unionize and would have forced clinics to close. They say most California clinics provide high quality care.Dialysis companies' effort to kill the measure was the most expensive campaign on one side of a ballot initiative in the U.S. since at least 2002. Most of that money came from the two largest dialysis companies operating in California: Denver-based DaVita Inc. and Germany-based Fresenius Medical Care.The measure would have barred dialysis clinics from charging patients more than 115 percent of what providers spend on patient care and quality improvement. If clinics exceeded that limit, they would have to provide rebates or pay penalties.Although the measure didn't spell out exactly which expenses counted toward the limit, dialysis companies argued critical management expenses would be classified as profits and bankrupt clinics.RELATED CONTENT 1898

来源：资阳报