济南痛风是尿酸高引起山东缓解痛风的好方法,济南长期尿酸高如何治疗,济南哪里看痛风的,山东痛风治疗的专科医院哪家好,山东尿酸尿酸高治疗方法,济南尿酸值500是痛风吗,济南痛风人能吃葱吗

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

Rev. Dr. Monica Cummings doesn’t have to look far from her Kenosha, Wisconsin church to see the damage left by protests that turned violent after the police shooting of Jacob Blake.“Our church shares a property line with the car dealership that was destroyed by fire," Cummings said.Flames spared the Bradford Community Church, but in Kenosha, it's easy to see what wasn't.Bradford's lead pastor, Erik Carlson, sees why.“The anger that produced these demonstrations doesn’t come from a vacuum. It comes from problems in our society dating back in cases hundreds of years that we have not addressed," Carlson said.Carlson is a Unitarian Universalist minister. His sermons are often are about bringing diverse ideas together."We’re not as much united by a specific idea of God, as much as we are netted around a commitment to positive social change and to the idea that we are charged with bringing love into this world," Carlson explained.It’s a faith fit for a city wounded by issues of race and equality.“The church can play a role in terms of having a partnership with the police department, in terms of bringing the community and police together," Cummings said. “It’s a challenge, how to interact with someone who represents a group of people who have historically oppressed you, who have historically traumatized you. How do you engage in an interaction with an individual without being defensive?”Cummings says she also understands the trauma police officers endure, too."Police have trauma, as well. There is no way they could do their job day in and day out without their mental health suffering," she said.Society has many views on how to police, protest, and pray. In this Kenosha church, diversity in race and viewpoints are welcome in finding a path beyond the heartbreak."We don’t like destruction of property, but we understand and appreciate the pain that it comes from," Carlson said. "We rather lose our building and 100 buildings than lose another life to police violence.” 1999

Robots are the latest in technology working to reduce the risk of COVID-19 at airports.A robot, called the "Breezy One," just started working at the Albuquerque International Sunport. It operates autonomously and can decontaminate a 100,000 square foot space in about 90 minutes.“We're working closely with chemical manufacturers who have created very effective and very safe chemicals that have been rigorously tested,” said Kimberly Corbitt from Build with Robots.“It's providing even a protective layer throughout the day, which is pretty exciting when you think about the robot leaving behind a protective layer that really helps people stay safe in these environments,” said Melonee Wise with Fetch Robotics.The robot's creators say the disinfectant it uses is registered by the Environmental Protection Agency, and has been tested and approved by multiple government agencies.The City of Albuquerque’s Director of Aviation, Nyika Allen, hopes the robots eases some concerns about flying.“Here with robots, we actually have the whole facility mapped out and we can see what it’s done, what it hasn't done, how long it took the robot and so we're actually able to guarantee the customer and the passenger that these spaces that they're touching in the airport are getting disinfected on a nightly basis,” said Allen.Allen says the custodians have been part of the process of bringing on the robot, and that it's not replacing any of them. Instead, it's making their job safer and letting them focus on other tasks.The robot's creators are in talks now to place them inside a large factory in the U.S. that's currently disinfecting there by hand.The Pittsburgh International Airport is another airport that recently started using a robot to clean. It's also autonomous but utilizes UV lights retrofitted on the airport's existing floor scrubbers.And in Grand Rapids, an autonomous robot that sprays FDA approved disinfectant is joining the airport there.Something else we're seeing more of now with the mask requirements for air travelers are vending machines for personal protective equipment in the airport. The machines were recently added in the Denver and Las Vegas airports.The future of travel is also expected to be more touchless. So, expect to see more solutions going forward where you don't have to physically exchange anything at the airport. 2366

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California prosecutors announced Wednesday they will seek the death penalty if they convict the man suspected of being the notorious "Golden State Killer" who eluded capture for decades.The move comes less than a month after Gov. Gavin Newsom announced a moratorium on executing any of the 737 inmates on the nation's largest death row. Newsom's reprieve lasts only so long as he is governor and does not prevent prosecutors from seeking nor judges and juries from imposing death sentences.Prosecutors from four counties briefly announced their decision one after another during a short court hearing for Joseph DeAngelo, jailed as the suspected "Golden State Killer." He was arrested a year ago based on DNA evidence linking him to at least 13 murders and more than 50 rapes across California in the 1970s and '80s.He stood expressionless in an orange jail uniform, staring forward from a courtroom cage, as prosecutors from Sacramento, Santa Barbara, Orange and Ventura spoke. Although prosecutors from six counties were in court for the four-minute hearing, charges in those four counties include the special circumstances that could merit execution under California law.His attorney, public defender Diane Howard, did not comment. DeAngelo, 73, has yet to enter a plea and his trial is likely years away.Prosecutors wouldn't comment after the hearing, but Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer said several prosecutors and family members of murder victims planned a Thursday news conference to denounce Newsom's moratorium. An announcement from Spitzer's office said victims' families "will share their stories of losing their loved ones and how the governor's moratorium has devastated their pursuit of justice.""These are horrific crimes," Newsom said in a statement. "Our sympathies are with the victims and families who have suffered at the hands of the Golden State Killer. The district attorneys can pursue this action as is their right under the law."California has not executed anyone since 2006, but Newsom said he acted last month because 25 inmates have exhausted their appeals and court challenges to the state's new lethal injection process are potentially nearing their end. He endorsed a repeal of capital punishment but said he could not in good conscious allow executions to resume in the meantime knowing that some innocent inmates could die.He also said he is exploring ways to commute death sentences, which would permanently end the chance of executions, though he cannot act without permission from the state Supreme Court in many cases.Voters narrowly supported capital punishment in 2012 and 2016, when they voted to speed up executions by shortening appeals.Criminal Justice Legal Foundation legal director Kent Scheidegger said prosecutors' decision made sense despite Newsom's moratorium."It's a perfect example of a killer for whom anything less would not be justice," said Scheidegger, who is fighting in court to resume executions. "I think it's entirely appropriate for DAs to continue seeking the death penalty in appropriate cases, because the actual execution will be well down the road and the governor's reprieve won't be in effect by then. Something else will have happened." 3257

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California sued Tuesday to block the Trump administration from cancelling nearly billion for the state's high-speed rail project, escalating the state's feud with the federal government.The Federal Railroad Administration announced last week it would not give California the money awarded by Congress nearly a decade ago, arguing that the state has not made enough progress on the project.The state must complete construction on a segment of track in the Central Valley agricultural heartland by 2022 to keep the money, and the administration has argued the state cannot meet that deadline. That line of track would be the first built on what the state hopes will eventually become a 520-mile (837-kilometer) line between San Francisco and Los Angeles.But Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom says the move is retribution for California's criticism of President Donald Trump's immigration policies."The decision was precipitated by President Trump's overt hostility to California, its challenge to his border wall initiatives, and what he called the "green disaster" high-speed rail project," the state said in the lawsuit.California was not expected to tap the 9 million the Trump administration has revoked until 2021. If the lawsuit is not resolved before then, the election could put Democrats in the White House and Congress who may be friendlier to the project.The lawsuit faulted the Trump administration for halting cooperation with the state on granting environmental clearances for the project. It said terminating the funding would "wreak significant economic damage on the Central Valley and the state."Newsom told reporters the administration is "after us in every way, shape or form." But he expressed confidence the state will win in court."Principles and values tend to win out over short-term tweets," Newsom said.The lawsuit highlighted a series of tweets Trump sent about the project, including one that said California's rail project would be far more expensive than Trump's proposed border wall.That tweet came a day after California led 15 states in suing over Trump's plans to fund the border wall, and hours before the administration first threatened to revoke the rail funding.The Federal Railroad Administration did not immediately respond to an email message seeking comment about California's lawsuit.California has worked for more than a decade on the project to bring high-speed rail service between Los Angeles and San Francisco, but the project has been plagued by delays and cost overruns. It's now projected to cost around billion and be finished by 2033.The state has already spent .5 billion in federal funding, and the Trump administration is exploring whether it can try to get that money back.The lawsuit also asks the court to block the administration from awarding the money to any other project.The lawsuit was filed in the Northern District of California.The dispute over the funding was partly driven by Newsom's remarks in February that the project faced challenges and needed to shift focus. Rail officials had been planning to connect the line under construction in the Central Valley to Silicon Valley, but Newsom has proposed extending the line further north and south into the valley before heading west.The California High-Speed Rail Authority presented a plan in early May that showed it would cost .3 billion to get trains up and running between Bakersfield and Merced by 2028.The board overseeing the project voted Tuesday to further study whether it makes sense financially and otherwise to run early train service on that line. Tom Richards, the vice chairman, noted the board has not yet formally approved the new approach."The board has not been asked for, nor has the board given, any interim service direction to (the project's) management," he said. 3851