天津武清区龙济男科门诊好吗-【武清龙济医院 】,武清龙济医院 ,天津市武清区龙济医院泌尿外科医院好吗,天津武清龙济医院男科姻缘,东站与天津市龙济男科近吗,天津武清区龙济医院男科是不是专业的,天津武清区龙济医院看男科吗,天津市龙济医院的男科

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California lawmakers are trying again to tamp down rising housing costs by expanding rent control and stopping rental price gouging, warning a failure to act this year could result in another costly ballot measure in 2020."Our Legislature has failed to act to address the plight of struggling tenants," Democratic Assemblyman David Chiu said. "That has to change in 2019."California lacks enough homes to shelter its nearly 40 million people, a situation that drives up the costs of homes and rental units. The federal government considers someone "rent burdened" if they spend more than a third of their income on rent. More than half of California renters meet that threshold.At the center of the debate is a 1995 law that bans rent control on apartments constructed after that year and on single-family homes and condominiums.RELATED: Making It in San Diego: Rent increases sharply in San Diego, new report showsDemocratic Assemblyman Richard Bloom wants to change the law to allow rent control on apartments built more than 10 years ago as well as single family homes, with an exception for small landlords. He said those ideas are a starting point.His proposal comes after he tried unsuccessfully to repeal the law last year, prompting tenants to take the question to the ballot. Advocates on both sides spent a combined 0 million, with the bulk coming from real estate agents in opposition.Opponents argued rent control would stifle the building of more homes. Voters ultimately rejected the ballot measure and upheld the law."It failed, but it did not end the crisis," Bloom said.RELATED: Making It in San Diego: Prevalence of fake home rental scamsAssembly Democrats argue that renters need protections now, because it will take years for the state's housing supply to increase significantly."We have got to build homes and protect tenants," Assemblywoman Buffy Wicks said.Bloom said he hopes to begin conversations with groups representing real estate agents and apartment owners to avoid another ballot fight.Sid Lakireddy, president of the California Rental Housing Association, said rent control policies do not create more affordable housing. He said his group, which represents rental housing owners, is open to discussing "real solutions.""The California Rental Housing Association supports smart and effective policies that will actually make a difference by rapidly increasing our affordable housing supply," he said in a statement.The California Apartment Association and California Realtors Association did not immediately respond to emails seeking comment.A Chiu bill would ban rent gouging, relying on consumer protection laws targeting price gouging following natural disasters or other emergencies.It would set a threshold, likely somewhere between 6 and 10 percent, above the consumer price index and say rent increases can't top that percentage. Chiu argued the cap would be high enough that landlords could still take in profits.Oregon recently passed a similar law.Two other bills would create a rental registry to help the state gather data on rent increases and prevent landlords from evicting people if they can't prove a cause.Several renters joined the lawmakers to talk about their own experiences with rent spikes.Stasha Powell of Redwood City brought a letter from her landlord saying her rent would be increased from ,040 a month to ,500 a month in several increments.Newsom said he wants lawmakers to bring him a package of bills to address skyrocketing rents."We need new rules to stabilize neighborhoods and prevent evictions, without putting small landlords out of business," he said during his February State of the State. "Get me a good package on rent stability this year and I will sign it." 3776
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — For decades, California and the federal government have had a co-parenting agreement when it comes to the state's diverse population of endangered species and the scarce water that keeps them alive.Now, it appears the sides could be headed for a divorce.State lawmakers sent to the governor early Saturday morning a bill aimed at stopping the Trump administration from weakening oversight of longstanding federal environmental laws in California. The lawmakers want to make it easier for state regulators to issue emergency regulations when that happens."The feds are taking away significant pieces of water protection law, of air protection law, and California has to step into the void," Democratic Assemblyman Mark Stone said.Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom has 30 days to decide whether to veto the bill, sign it into law or allow it to become law without his signature.The bill survived a furious lobbying effort on the Legislature's final day, withstanding opposition from the state's water contractors and Democratic U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein."We can't really have a California system and a federal system," said Jeffrey Kightlinger, general manager of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which delivers water to nearly 19 million people. "We're all in the same country here, so we need to find a way to make this work."California has a history of blunting Republican efforts at the federal level to roll back environmental protections. In 2003, shortly after the George W. Bush administration lowered federal Clean Air Act standards, the Legislature passed a law banning California air quality management districts from revising rules and regulations to match.More recently, after the Trump administration announced plans to roll back auto mileage and emission standards, Newsom used the state's regulatory authority to broker a deal with four major automakers to toughen the standards anyway.State lawmakers tried this last year, but a similar proposal failed to pass the state Assembly. But advocates say several recent announcements by the Trump administration — including plans to weaken application of the federal Endangered Species Act — have strengthened support for the bill.The bill would potentially play out most prominently in the management of the state's water, which mostly comes from snowmelt and rain that rushes through a complex system of aqueducts to provide drinking water for nearly 40 million people and irrigation to the state's billion agricultural industry.The bill would make it easier for state regulators to add animals protected under California's Endangered Species Act — animals that have historically been protected under federal law. It would then apply the state's Endangered Species Act to the Central Valley Project, a federally operated system of aqueducts and reservoirs that control flooding and supply irrigation to farmers.But it's not clear if a state law would apply to a federal project, "which could generate years of litigation and uncertainty over which environmental standards apply," according to a letter by Feinstein and four members of the state's Democratic congressional delegation.Plus, Kightlinger warns the proposal would disrupt complex negotiations among state and federal entities and water agencies over the Water Quality Control Plan. If all sides can sign these voluntary agreements, it would avert costly litigation that would delay environmental protections for fish and other species impacted by the water projects."We're pretty close. We believe we can get to completion by December. If (this bill) passes, half of the water districts pull out and go to litigation instead," Kightlinger said. "That's something that would be terrible for our ecosystem and what we're trying to achieve here."Senate President Pro Tempore Toni Atkins, the bill's author, insisted early Saturday the bill would not impact those voluntary agreements."We really and truly did work in good faith to try to address those concerns," she said. 4049

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 (AP) — California on Thursday temporarily banned insurance companies from dropping customers in areas affected by more than a dozen recent blazes, invoking a new law for the first time as homeowners in the wildfire-plagued state struggle to find coverage while carriers seek to shed risk.The order from Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara will last for one year, and it only covers people who live inside or next to the perimeter of 16 different wildfires that burned across the state in October. The Department of Insurance estimates the moratorium will affect 800,000 policies covering millions of people in portions of Los Angeles and Riverside counties in Southern California and Sonoma County in the northern part of the state.The move comes as regulators are aggressively trying to assist homeowners in wildfire-prone areas who say they are being pushed out of the commercial insurance market as climate change makes fires larger and more frequent.RELATED: Cal Fire: Acres burned across the state is much lower in 2019 than 2018Seven of the 10 most destructive wildfires in California history have happened in the last five years — including 2018′s Camp Fire, which destroyed roughly 19,000 buildings and killed 85 people in and around the Northern California town of Paradise. That blaze alone generated more than billion in insurance claims, according to the Department of Insurance.Since 2015, state officials say insurance companies have declined to renew nearly 350,000 policies in areas at high risk for wildfires. That data does not include information on how many people were able to find coverage elsewhere or at what price.One of those homeowners is Sean Coffey, who said he and his wife have struggled to maintain fire insurance on their home in Oakland.“The pattern repeated itself almost every year since we bought our house. We would have (coverage) for 10 months. In the fall, we would get a notice we are being dropped,” he said.RELATED: Study: Alien grasses are making more frequent US wildfiresCoffey now buys fire insurance from the California Fair Access to Insurance Requirements Plan, an insurance pool mandated by state law that is required to sell policies to people who can’t buy them through no fault of their own. He must purchase a second policy to cover risks other than fire.FAIR Plan policies in wildfire-prone areas have grown an average of 8% each year since 2016, according to the Department of Insurance. Last month, Lara ordered the FAIR Plan to begin selling comprehensive policies next year that cover more than just fire damage. FAIR Plan Association President Anneliese Jivan called that order “a misguided approach,” saying it will make all of the plans more expensive.Lara has the authority to order the moratorium under a bill he authored while in the state Senate last year that was signed into law by former Gov. Jerry Brown. The law took effect in January, and this is the first time regulators have used it.In addition to ordering the moratorium, Lara called on insurance companies to voluntarily stop dropping customers solely because of wildfire risk.RELATED: Bigger, longer blackouts could lie ahead in California“I believe everyone in the state deserves this same breathing room,” Lara said.A spokeswoman for the American Property Casualty Insurance Association did not immediately respond to a request for comment.While state officials rush to assist homeowners, a new report from California Auditor Elaine Howle said the state did not do enough to protect non-English speaking, elderly and other vulnerable residents during three of the state’s most devastating fires in recent years.The audit covered Butte County, site of 2018′s Camp fire, plus the 2017 Thomas Fire that burned more than 281,000 acres in Ventura County and 2017 fires in Sonoma County that killed 24 people. The audit found none of the three counties had assessed its residents to determine who might need extra help and whether resources were available to help such people, such as transportation, during a natural disaster.The audit also scolds the state oversight agency, the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, for failing to assist counties in developing such plans and reviewing any plans in place.Howle says it was impossible to determine whether lives could have been saved “if the counties had planned differently or more fully implemented the best practices”her office recommends in the report.” But she noted that “inadequate plans and insufficient planning are proven contributors to failure.” 4561
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Lawmakers can avoid the long lines plaguing California's Department of Motor Vehicles offices by visiting an office near the Capitol not open to the public, a decades-old practice under fresh fire as wait times surge.The office provides services for current and retired lawmakers, their staff and some other state employees, The Sacramento Bee reported Thursday. DMV spokesman Artemio Armenta said its primary purpose is to handle constituent requests that arrive on lawmakers' desks and that the two-member staff handles 10,000 requests per year.But one lawmaker said it shouldn't provide extra perks for the Capitol community as regular Californians are forced to wait up to hours in line for services at their local office.RELATED: Shorter lines? Larger DMV planned for Hillcrest"I have gotten my registration and all that stuff the old-fashioned way like everybody else in my district," Republican Assemblyman Jim Patterson told the Bee. "When you are living a public life the way most private people live, you'll understand when taxes hurt and bureaucracies hurt."Patterson's colleagues rejected his request to audit the DMV on Wednesday, and lawmakers have recently approved more money for the agency to deal with its exploding wait times.DMV officials said the long lines are due to complications complying with new federally mandated security upgrades for ID cards. In late 2020, airport security checkpoints will require so-called "Real ID" compliant cards, and Californians are now beginning to get the updated cards.RELATED: California lawmakers ask DMV officials about long linesLawmakers have approved tens of millions of dollars to hire more staff and implement the roll-out of Real ID. The DMV recently announced it would open more than a dozen offices on Saturdays.Whether lawmakers and Capitol staff should get access to a private DMV has been disputed before. Some people who work in and around the Capitol downplayed the office's existence in response to the Bee article, saying it's been known about for years. A 2006 Capitol Weekly article highlighted the debate over the office, referencing a small-government activist who criticized it for years.The office has been open for decades, moving locations around the Capitol. At one point it was open to the public. Now, the office is unmarked at the end of a hallway in the Legislative Office Building, located across the street from the Capitol.RELATED: State report: California DMV worker slept thousands of hours on the jobWhen a reporter stopped by on Friday, the door was locked and a woman who answered directed all questions to the public affairs office.Armenta, the DMV spokesman, said the door is locked because the office handles cash transactions and holds people's personally identifiable information. About 90 percent of the office's work relates to requests from constituents who call their lawmakers over complicated problems the local DMV branch may not be able to solve, he said."Often times it's a conduit for constituent work," Armenta said. "It provides the Legislature a way to be closely in contact with state government on helping customers with situations that they're having."Spokespeople for Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon and Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins did not respond to questions about whether it's appropriate for lawmakers to get services at the office. 3398
来源:资阳报