济南痛风症状图片(山东哪里治痛风病比较好) (今日更新中)

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 will ban smoking on state parks and beaches starting next year under legislation signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom.The law also bans disposing cigar and cigarette waste at parks and beaches. Violations of the law will be punishable by a fine of up to . Newsom, a Democrat, announced Friday he had signed the bill into law.It covers smoking traditional cigarettes as well as using electric smoking devices. Smoking will still be allowed in parking lots at beaches and parks. Film and television productions can still allow people to smoke on state property with the proper permits.Democratic state Sen. Steve Glazer has been pushing such a ban for years, with lawmakers approving it several times. But former Gov. Jerry Brown, a fellow Democrat, repeatedly vetoed it."We have many rules telling us what we can and can't do and these are wide open spaces," he wrote last year.Glazer has argued such a rule will protect public health and curtail pollution.California already prohibits smoking at child care centers, within 25 feet (7.6 meters) of farmers' markets, in government buildings and on public transportation. Cities and counties can also adopt their own smoking laws.California has roughly 280 state parks and 340 miles (547 kilometers) of coastline.A legislative analysis predicts it will cost the state parks system nearly million to put up more than 5,000 signs alerting people to the ban and complying with various state regulations.The law is supported by many medical and environmental groups as well the cities of Huntington Beach and Santa Monica. Many Republicans in the Legislature voted against the measure. 1670

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — The billionaire behind a measure to split California in three said he's giving up on the effort to reimagine the nation's most populous state after the state Supreme Court knocked it off the November ballot."The political environment for radical change is right now," venture capitalist Tim Draper wrote in a letter to the court dated Aug. 2 and made public by his opponents Thursday. "The removal of Proposition 9 from the November ballot has effectively put an end to this movement."The court struck Draper's measure in July in response to a lawsuit but didn't rule on the merits of the case, allowing Draper the opportunity to fight to put it on future ballots. He's not moving forward with the case.RELATED: State Supreme Court blocks proposal to split California into 3 states from November ballotDraper spent more than .7 million to qualify his initiative for the ballot, which requires gathering hundreds of thousands of signatures.It's not his first effort to break up California — his plan to split the state into six didn't qualify for past ballots. He's argued California has become ungovernable due to its size and diversity, politically and geographically.The latest plan would have divided California into three pieces. One would comprise the Bay Area, Silicon Valley, Sacramento and the rest of Northern California; the second would be a strip of land from Los Angeles to Monterey; and the third would include San Diego, the Central Valley and Orange County.RELATED: Proposal to split California into three states makes November ballotThe Planning and Conservation League sued to keep Draper's initiative off the ballot, arguing that such a massive change to the state's governance couldn't be done through a ballot initiative."At the end of the day, this was a billionaire's massive and illegal use of the initiative process, and the court was correct in stopping this folly," Carlyle Hall, an attorney who worked on the suit with the environmental group.Draper, meanwhile, said he had "no idea" if his initiative would have passed or if Congress would have given the necessary approval for the split but that the ballot measure would have spurred debate over government failings.RELATED: Calexit: New plan to split California aims to create 'autonomous Native American nation'"I wanted to let the voters debate, discuss and think about a different way forward — essentially a reboot. And, I wanted the political class to hear and witness the frustration of California's voters with decades of inaction and decay," he wrote. "I believed there was significant benefit to our democracy in that." 2650

Retiring Michigan Congressman Paul Mitchell says he is leaving the Republican Party over efforts to overturn the 2020 Presidential Election.Mitchell revealed he would become an Independent in an interview with CNN. The Congressman who represents Michigan's thumb told the network he wrote to GOP leaders and notified them of his decision.He also requested that the Clerk of the House change his party affiliation. Grand Rapids area Congressman Justin Amash took similar actions in 2019, before becoming a Libertarian earlier this year. Amash did not run for reelection this year.Mitchell announced he would not run for reelection in July of 2019. Republican Lisa McClain won the general election and will take over the 10th District once the new Congress is sworn in next month.This story was first reported by WXYZ in Detroit, Michigan. 845

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — A federal appeals court ruled Friday the Trump administration acted in an "arbitrary and capricious" manner when it sought to end an Obama-era program that shields young immigrants from deportation.A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2 to 1 that the Trump administration violated federal law when it tried to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program without adequately explaining why. The ruling overturns a lower court ruling a judge in Maryland made last year, which Trump had previously praised via Twitter.Friday's ruling will not have any immediate effect as other federal courts have already ordered that DACA be kept in place.The 4th Circuit ruling said the Department of Homeland Security did not "adequately account" for how ending DACA program would affect the hundreds of thousands of young people who "structured their lives" around the program."We recognize the struggle is not over and there are more battles to fight in the Supreme Court on this road to justice, but our families are emboldened by knowing that they are on the right side of history," said Gustavo Torres, executive director of Casa de Maryland, the lead plaintiff in the case.Trump and his Justice Department have argued that the Obama administration acted unlawfully when it implemented DACA. The Justice Department declined to comment.Preserving DACA is a top Democratic priority, but discussions between Trump and Democrats on the issue have gone nowhere.Trump's latest immigration plan, unveiled Thursday, does not address what to do about the hundreds of thousands of young immigrants brought to the U.S. as children. White House press secretary Sarah Sanders told reporters that "every single time that we have put forward or anyone else has put forward any type of immigration plan that has included DACA it's failed."DACA's fate could be decided by the Supreme Court, which is weighing the Trump administration's appeals of other federal court rulings.The justices have set no date to take action.If the high court decides it wants to hear the appeals, arguments would not take place before the fall. That means a decision is not expected until 2020, which could come in the thick of next year's presidential contest.___Associated Press writer Mark Sherman in Washington contributed to this report. 2362

来源：资阳报