On Wednesday, Netflix announced that the 16-time Nathan’s champion will participate in a one-on-one hot dog eating battle with rival Takeru Kobayashi.

The event – promoted as “CHESTNUT VS. KOBAYASHI: UNFINISHED BEEF” – will air live on the streaming platform on Labor Day, Sept. 2.

“Through all of my years in competitive eating, Kobayashi stands out as my fiercest rival,”  Chestnut said in a statement. “Competing against him pushed me to be so much better. I know that fans have waited a long time for another chapter of our rivalry, and I can’t wait for our massive showdown live on Netflix! It’s time to give the people what they want!”

Chestnut was barred from participating in this year’s July 4 competition after he agreed to endorse the plant-based food company Impossible Foods, a decision that made national headlines. 

“We are devastated to learn that Joey Chestnut has chosen to represent a rival brand that sells plant-based hot dogs rather than competing in the 2024 Nathan’s Famous Fourth of July Hot Dog Eating Contest,” the organizing body of the July 4 event, Major League Eating, said in a statement posted Tuesday on X/Twitter.

Chestnut responded on the same social-media platform, saying he does not have an obligation to Major League Eating or Nathan’s. 

“I do not have a contract with MLE or Nathan’s and they are looking to change the rules from past years as it relates to other partners I can work with. This is apparently the basis on which I’m being banned,” he said in a tweet.

Impossible Foods said in a statement to the Bay Area News Group on Tuesday, “We love Joey and support him in any contest he chooses. It’s OK to experiment with a new dog. Meat eaters shouldn’t have to be exclusive to just one wiener.”

It is unclear if Chestnut and Kobayashi will eat plant-based or traditional hot dogs. It also is not known whether the Labor Day showdown was already agreed upon before Chestnut was banned from the July 4 stage.

A spokesperson for Impossible Foods did not immediately respond on Wednesday to a request for clarification.

Chestnut, a San Jose State graduate, is listed at the No. 1 competitor in the Major League Eating rankings. 

Kobayashi dominated the Nathan’s Famous Hot Dog Eating Contest in the early 2000s, winning the title six straight times from 2001-2006. In his first championship win in 2001, he ate a then-record of 50 hot dogs — shattering the then-record held by fellow Japanese competitor Kazutoyo Arai, who ate 25 ⅛.

A rivalry simmering for 15 years.

CHESTNUT VS. KOBAYASHI: UNFINISHED BEEF — the ultimate hot dog eating competition — will air LIVE on Netflix, Monday, September 2. pic.twitter.com/MeVQP1lQuS

— Netflix (@netflix) June 12, 2024

Kobayashi edged Chestnut in the Japanese star’s final two Nathan’s victories, but his run as the king of the hot dog eating contest was halted in 2007 when Chestnut devoured 66 wieners and buns in 10 minutes, sparking a historic run as champion.

Chestnut won 16 of 17 Nathan’s competitions starting with his triumph in 2007 and broke his own record of most hot dogs eaten when he gobbled 76 in 2021. 

Kobayashi was never the same after losing to Chestnut, and was similarly barred from the Nathan’s competition due to a contract dispute in 2010. 

The Japanese competitor is looking to finally beat his American rival after losing to Chestnut three straight times from 2007-2009.

“Retiring for me will only happen after I take him down one last time,” Kobayashi said in a statement. “This rivalry has been brewing for a long time. Competing against Joey live on Netflix means fans all over the world can watch me knock him out.”

September’s hot dog eating competition is the latest example of Netflix’s push to live stream.

Last month, the Los Gatos-based company aired in real time “The Roast of Tom Brady” and is the streaming partner for the rescheduled boxing match between Mike Tyson and Jake Paul, which is set to take place in November. 

Netflix has also struck a deal with the NFL to broadcast two NFL games on Christmas – the Kansas City Chiefs vs. Pittsburgh Steelers and Baltimore Ravens vs. Houston Texans.

“I always considered myself an activist,” said neighbor Brett Garrett, who scaled the tree Tuesday morning. “And I like trees in general, but I didn’t consider myself to be a tree activist until the last week.”

The madrone, thought to have been planted about 10 years ago, looms over a patio at the neighboring Walnut Commons, a cohousing building. It had been slated for removal Tuesday by one of the office building’s tenants — the nonprofit Ecology Action — to make way for an electric bike storage shed.

According to Heather Henricks with Ecology Action, the placement of the shed was in the works for the past year, and the tree’s welfare was considered, but its existence was seen by the nonprofit’s leadership as a possible nuisance to the neighbors.

“We gave considerable thought to the site and whether to remove the tree,” Henricks told the Sentinel. “Until the past week, we were under the impression from Walnut Commons residents that they would welcome the tree’s removal due to complaints about its droppings on their patios and the possibility of thieves using it to climb over the divider between our properties.”

But about a week ago, while on the patio, some Walnut Commons residents overheard the office building’s property manager talking about the tree’s removal. The news spread quickly to other residents, including Garrett, who has lived in the building since it was built nearly 10 years ago, on the block kitty-corner from Santa Cruz City Hall.

“The word spread like wildfire through the building and everyone felt really alarmed about possibly losing this tree,” said Garrett. “It’s right next to our patio and it feels like part of our environment even though it is on their property.”

The neighbors put together a petition opposing the madrone’s removal and nearly every resident of the building signed it —  23 signatures. Garrett said he and his neighbors thought the tree’s removal was being facilitated by Cruzio Internet, another of the building’s tenants, and were surprised to discover that it was Ecology Action. After creating the petition, the residents reached out to the nonprofit.

“In the face of today’s mounting climate crisis, we need passionate environmentalists more than ever,” said Henricks. “We were deeply touched to learn that our neighbors felt a strong connection to the strawberry madrone tree and were moved to request we adjust the plan.”

As of Monday afternoon, the removal was still slated to go ahead.  Garrett, who said his activism is usually centered around environmental issues such as clean energy and transportation, decided that he had to take extreme action. Around 7 a.m. Tuesday, he climbed the tree — inspired in part by Julia Butterfly Hill, who in the late 1990s lived for more than two years in an old-growth redwood tree in Humboldt County to prevent it from being cut down.

“I don’t know how many weeks she spent up in that tree,” said Garrett. “I was prepared to spend a few hours.”

Garrett said that climbing the tree was an empowering experience and as he perched there Tuesday morning he felt peaceful. After about two hours, Ecology Action Chief Operating Officer Chuck Tremper gave him some good news.

“He drove into the parking lot and noticed me in the tree and came over and said that you might want to know the tree is not coming down,” said Garrett. “I was very relieved.”

Garrett mentioned that being an activist doesn’t always mean that one’s actions result in an intended outcome and that he was excited that the neighbors’ efforts saved the tree.

“The usual experience as an activist is that you work on things and bang on walls and nothing ever changes,” said Garrett. “This felt really gratifying to work on this for just a few days with a good cohort of other people and actually save the tree. It shows me that activism is really worthwhile and you can really make a difference.”

After Garrett safely descended the madrone and returned home Tuesday, Tremper sent a message to Walnut Commons residents.

“All of us at Ecology Action have been touched by how many people in our neighborhood have come to love and value the tree — and be moved to protect it. And we want to protect it,” wrote Tremper. “After some late-night brainstorming and penciling, we have found a way to do just that. Although we’ll need to further reduce our parking and make some other adjustments that will add to our team’s workload, we are proposing to move our bike storage building further away from the south lot line so the tree can remain.”

But the “Guardians of the Galaxy” star has joined West in becoming a unique kind of cultural villain. They are both celebrities who used their considerable wealth to buy Los Angeles-area homes that were deemed architectural treasures. Both men then destroyed these singular residences out of an desire to impose their particular aesthetic visions on their properties and surrounding neighborhoods and, in West’s case, to make a statement in the larger world of design.

In April, Pratt and his wife, self-help author Katherine Schwarzenegger, became targets of widespread outrage among architecture fans, preservationists and even the national media when it was learned that they “surreptitiously” razed a classic mid-century modern home in Brentwood by famed Southern California architect Craig Elmwood. The couple had essentially purchased the 74-year-old Zimmerman house as a tear-down, to make way for a 15,000-square-foot structure that Dwell magazine scathingly said would be built in the “increasingly ubiquitous, though contentious” farmhouse style.

Now, this week, West has became the subject of a lengthy piece in the New Yorker, which chronicles his destruction of a unique oceanfront home in Malibu, designed by the Japanese master architect Tadao Ando and built in 2013. The New Yorker piece chronicles how the the hip-hop star’s “beautiful, dark, twisted fantasy” turned the Ando home “into a ruin.”

West, a fashion designer and self-taught architectural enthusiast, purchased the 4,000-square-foot Ando home in the fall of 2021 for $57.3 million — with that exorbitant price largely paying for a residence that itself was considered a sculpture, or a work of art.

Like other Ando homes, this home is largely built of untreated concrete, which communicates “contemporary, if not avant-garde tastes” and a “controlled, sober beauty,” New Yorker writer Ian Parker explained. Incidentally, around the same time, Ando designed a much larger, 42-000-square-foot home, about four miles west along the coast, that was purchased in May 2023 by Beyoncé and Jay-Z for $190 million, the most ever paid for a house in California,

The box-like home West bought stretches out over a narrow slice of beach and is propped up by four pillars at about the high-tide mark, Parker said. The front door, off Malibu Road, leads into an entrance gallery, which, in turn, leads into an open living room area where the house “delivers its vast, binary view of sky and ocean, through floor-to-ceiling windows,” Parker said.

The previous owner, a money manager, used the house to display his collection of contemporary art. West had other ideas.

Shortly after he purchased the home, West had his then-employee, now romantic partner, Bianca Censori, draft laborers to come in and begin dismantling the interiors and design flourishes, which were already pretty minimalist. According to Parker, she asked a handyman to paint over custom wooden cabinetry and “gorgeous” black-and-white marble tile in a shade that would disguise the boundaries of these surfaces and the concrete walls.

Over time, the workers, at West’s direction, toppled one of the signature chimneys and shattered the “handsome” glass balustrades that lined two staircases that ran alongside each other on either side of a window, Parker reported. The handyman leading the work told Parker that West wanted to turn the staircases into ramps and eliminate the kitchen, bathrooms, air conditioning, windows, light fixtures or heating. He also wanted to cut off the water and power.

“He talked of clarity, simplicity, and a kind of self-reliance,” Parker wrote.  In a “cheerful” text sent to the handyman, in response to a report of the day’s demolition, West wrote, “Let’s gooooo . . . Simple fresh and cleeeeeean.”

But the story also addresses the lack of respect that some Americans have for great architecture, especially when it gets in the way of bigger, trendier structures.

“Architectural fame doesn’t guarantee respect,” Parker writes. “Americans have demolished houses by Frank Lloyd Wright and Marcel Breuer.”

The story then describes the destruction wrought by Pratt and his wife, the daughter of journalist Maria Shriver and former action star and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. The couple knocked down the residence, designed by “an admired mid-century architect,” and began building something five times as large.

But, referring to West’s Malibu home, Parker said “it’s hard think of another esteemed house that’s been left exposed to the elements, and to the public’s gaze, after being jackhammered halfway to ruins.”

About a year after West bought the Ando home, he made the antisemitic and pro-Nazi remarks that destroyed his business empire and lost him partnerships with Adidas and other companies. In December, news broke that he was putting the home up for sale.

But the story features photos that show the empty hulk that remains of the home. Parker said it’s now an empty house with no windows and a hole where a fireplace was once. The glass balustrades have been replaced with safety barriers that already have rusted. “It was a scene of violence,” Parker said. But he reported that West is still asking $39 million for it.

 

BY MIKHAIL ZINSHTEYN | CalMatters

Nathan Reyes lives with his family five minutes from Cal State Los Angeles, where he’s paying close to nothing to earn a bachelor’s degree that typically lands graduates a salary of $62,000 within five years of completing college.

He’s one of hundreds of thousands of California low-income students who attend colleges that, because they’re affordable enough, cost the equivalent of a few months of a typical salary that students earn within a few years of graduation.

A new report today compares California’s colleges by analyzing how long it would take low- and moderate-income students to recoup the money they spent to earn a college credential. It shows that many community colleges, Cal States and University of California campuses — all public campuses — have better returns on investment than most nonprofit private colleges and for-profit institutions.

Reyes’ only expenses are car upkeep, gas, a few books and helping his family with some housing costs. The third-year student didn’t need to take out loans.

RELATED: FAFSA relief? Dept. of Education launches $50 million program to boost lagging federal student aid applications

“I feel very lucky,” Reyes, a communications major, said. “In high school, I was always stressing about, ‘Oh, man, I’m gonna have a whole bunch of debt racked up after college’. And now that I’m in my third year, I don’t have to worry about any of that.”

Reyes, who’s 20 years old, receives state grants to cover all his tuition and federal aid for other academic and living expenses. He also works for a state volunteer program that pays students a stipend.

Report calculates time it takes to recoup cost of degree

The report was commissioned by College Futures Foundation, a nonprofit that promotes college completion. The report merges several concepts into one number:

• The net price of a college degree after all financial aid is calculated
• The typical earnings 10 years after a student first enrolls in a school
• How much higher those wages are compared to what young adults earn with just a high school diploma.

It defines low- and moderate-income households as those earning below $75,000 annually.

The data, all from the federal government, show that the time it takes to recoup the net costs of earning a degree at Cal State San Bernardino is less than three months. That’s because low-income students there incur about $5,000 in out-of-pocket expenses if they finish in four years. Within a few years they earn about $53,000 a year — double what young adults with only a high school diploma make.

At Cal State Los Angeles, the time to recoup the net costs of earning a bachelor’s is also less than three months of a typical post-college annual salary.

“​​This is really a first-of-its kind look,” said the report’s author, Michael Itzkowitz, who headed the federal government’s first consumer tool for comparing college costs under the Obama administration. The approach is a mathematical way of demonstrating which colleges confer economic value to students beyond what a high school diploma would.

A CalMatters analysis of Iztkowitz’s data found that the average time needed for a student to recoup their net costs is about two years at public institutions and a little over three years at nonprofit private colleges in California.

Some of those private campuses are as affordable as a Cal State, UC or community college after factoring in financial aid. Stanford University costs low-income students nothing. However, only 4% of students who apply are admitted, while all but three Cal States admit more than 70% of the students who apply. Most undergraduates in California attend a public institution.

Pitzer, Pomona and the University of Southern California and several other highly selective nonprofit private colleges cost students less than a year’s worth of the typical salary they’ll earn within a few years of completing their degree.

Return on investment varies by college

While some for-profit colleges have strong returns on investment, most do not.

And that doesn’t even account for the 22 for-profit institutions that show no return on investment, meaning students from those schools earned no more than what a young adult with just a high school diploma makes. In the report, 24 campuses in total, or 8% of all California colleges, showed no return on investment, including two small nonprofit private colleges.

“There are for-profit institutions that can offer an affordable education and good employment outcomes and they’re recognized within the data,” Itzkowitz said. “But what we also see is that there are a disproportionate amount that show more worrisome outcomes for students in comparison to other sectors.”

Most California for-profit colleges, however, predominantly issue certificates, which are shorter-term credentials that don’t regularly lead to the economic gains associated with bachelor’s degrees.

At 79% of California institutions in the report, low and moderate-income students typically recoup their costs in five years or less. For nearly a third of campuses, it was less than a year.

For many students, the ultimate costs of a degree will be higher than the data published today. That’s because they need more than two years to earn an associate degree or beyond four years to earn a bachelor’s, assuming they graduate at all. The longer they chase a degree, the less time they spend in the workforce earning the higher salaries that come with a college credential. Also, the federal net price data has limits: It only calculates what full-time freshmen pay. Students attending part time will experience different annual costs.

But the basic trend remains the same: State and federal financial aid at public campuses plus typical salaries that far exceed the wages for those with a high school diploma make college worth the investment.

Itzkowitz plans to produce a follow-up report that measures the return on investment by major. His organization, the HEA Group, produced an analysis of typical wages by major last year. Some majors lead to higher wages than others, which can skew school-wide results.

The data in today’s report show variation within public universities, too, even in the same city. UCLA’s net price-to-earnings ratio is about seven months and its students tend to earn more than those from Cal State LA after graduating. But the typical cost of a degree after four years for low-income students is roughly $31,000 — far higher than the $5,500 at Cal State LA, which is 20 miles away.

“I wanted to go to UCLA, but it was too expensive for me,” Reyes said. “I did get accepted.”

Like he did at Cal State LA, he would have probably qualified for the Cal Grant, which waives tuition at public universities. But the distance from home would have forced him to either live in a UCLA dorm or commute about two hours daily between home and the crosstown campus. Housing, not tuition, is usually the largest expense for students at public universities. Borrowing money was out of the question for him.

So was a long drive to UCLA. “If I ended up missing a class or something, I’d beat myself up over it,” he said.

For the record: College Futures is a funder of CalMatters. Our news judgments are made independently and not on the basis of donor support.

NEW YORK (AP) — The first seven jurors for Donald Trump’s hush money trial were seated Tuesday after lawyers grilled the jury pool about their social media posts, political views and personal lives to decide who can sit in fair judgment of the former president.

The panelists who were selected are an information technology worker, an English teacher, an oncology nurse, a sales professional, a software engineer and two lawyers.

Eleven more people still must be sworn in before opening statements begin as early as next week in the first criminal trial of a former commander in chief. It’s a moment of reckoning for Trump, who has tried to put off his prosecutions until after the November election and casts himself as the victim of a politically motivated justice system.

The trial puts Trump’s legal problems at the center of his closely contested race against President Joe Biden. It’s the first of Trump’s four criminal cases to reach trial, and it may be the only one to return a verdict before voters decide whether to elect the presumptive GOP presidential nominee.

The methodical process unfolding in the Manhattan courtroom highlights the challenge of finding people who can fairly judge the polarizing defendant in the city where he built his real estate empire before being elected president in 2016. Even so, jury selection moved quicker than expected Tuesday afternoon. It was set to resume Thursday.

On his way out of the courthouse, Trump stopped in the hallway to rail against the case to reporters, accusing Judge Juan Merchan of “rushing” the trial. He has denied any wrongdoing.

“We are going to continue our fight against this judge,” said Trump, who pushed unsuccessfully to have Merchan removed from the case.

During an appearance later Tuesday at a bodega in Harlem, Trump was asked what he thought of the jurors he had seen. He said it was “a little bit early to see,” adding, “We’ll see what happens.”

Over two days, dozens of potential jurors have been excused after saying they could not be impartial or because they had other commitments. Trump’s lawyers challenged a handful of people over social media posts, and one person was dismissed over a 2017 post about Trump that said “Lock him up!”

Several would-be jurors told the judge they believed they could decide the case fairly, no matter their feelings about Trump or his policies as president.

Trump looked on in the courtroom as potential jurors — whose names are known only to prosecutors, Trump and their legal teams — shared details of their lives and impressions of him. The judge admonished Trump at one point after he spoke loudly and gestured while the judge questioned one woman about a social media post.

“I don’t know what he was uttering, but it was audible and he was gesturing. And he was speaking in the direction of the juror,” Merchan said. “I won’t tolerate that. I will not tolerate any jurors being intimidated in this courtroom.”

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass took Trump’s notoriety head-on, telling the jury pool that attorneys were not looking for people who had been “living under a rock for the past eight years.” They just needed to keep an open mind.

“This case has nothing to do with your personal politics … it’s not a referendum on the Trump presidency or a popularity contest or who you’re going to vote for in November. We don’t care. This case is about whether this man broke the law,” he said.

Trump has pleaded not guilty to 34 felony counts of falsifying business records as part of an alleged effort to keep salacious — and, he says, bogus — stories about his sex life from emerging during his 2016 campaign.

With the trial expected to last for six weeks or more, several jury pool members brought up plans they have for Memorial Day and beyond.

One man was excused after saying he feared his ability to be impartial could be compromised by “unconscious bias” from growing up in Texas and working in finance with people who “intellectually tend to slant Republican.”

“I’m not sure that I can say beyond a reasonable doubt that I can be fair,” another person told the judge. “I can try. But I’m not 100% sure I can be fair.” She was also dismissed.

One person chosen to sit on the jury said he found Trump “fascinating,” adding that he “walks into a room and he sets people off one way or another.”

Another woman said she disagrees with Trump’s policies and sometimes finds herself frustrated by him. But she pledged to be fair and impartial, telling defense lawyer Todd Blanche that she would give her “level-headed best” if she were picked for the jury.

“I didn’t sleep last night thinking about could I do that,” she said.

Trump broke into a grin, nodding his head in an exaggerated manner, when one person said he had read two of the former president’s books, “The Art of the Deal” and “How to Get Rich.” The man, who said some of his wife’s family members are lobbyists for the Republican Party, said he didn’t think there was anything that would prevent him from looking at the case fairly.

“I feel that no one’s above the law,” he said.

The charges center on $130,000 in payments that Trump’s company made to his then-lawyer, Michael Cohen. He paid that sum on Trump’s behalf to keep porn actor Stormy Daniels from going public with her claims of a sexual encounter with Trump a decade earlier. Trump has denied the encounter ever happened.

Prosecutors say the payments to Cohen were falsely logged as legal fees. The prosecution has described the money as being part of a scheme to bury damaging stories Trump feared could help his opponent in the 2016 race, particularly as Trump’s reputation was suffering at the time from comments he made about women.

Trump has acknowledged reimbursing Cohen for the payment and that it was designed to stop Daniels from going public about the alleged encounter. But Trump has said it had nothing to do with the campaign. He hinted Tuesday at the defense his legal team will mount, telling reporters: “I was paying a lawyer and marked it down as a legal expense.”

“That’s exactly what it was. And you get indicted over that?” Trump said.

If convicted of falsifying business records, Trump faces up to four years in prison, though there’s no guarantee he will get time behind bars.

___

Richer reported from Washington. Associated Press reporters Ruth Brown, Philip Marcelo and Jill Colvin in New York contributed.

The collision happened about 12:10 a.m. Caltrain spokesperson Mahmoud Abunie said it was a test train that hit the rider.

Emergency personnel pronounced the person dead at the scene. Authorities did not identify the person pending the notification of relatives.

The night’s last southbound passenger train — No. 284, which left San Francisco at 12:05 a.m. — was temporarily held at Hillsdale after the collision. The last northbound train had already passed the site.

The San Mateo County Sheriff’s Transit Police Bureau is investigating the death. The agency patrols the Caltrain corridor.

According to Abunie, authorities have not determined what caused the collision or why the person was on the tracks. He was not authorized to be there and was trespassing, officials said.

But what this news narrative overlooks is an untold story, the story of how one of California’s primary initiatives — Homekey, which quickly transitions unsheltered people into supportive or permanent housing — has been a remarkable success.

In the Bay Area, currently funded Homekey developments are projected to house 45,000 formerly unsheltered residents, many of whom will live in their Homekey unit permanently or for a temporary period before transitioning to permanent housing. To date, Homekey has financed nearly 60 housing developments in the nine-county Bay Area, creating 4,150 housing units for formerly unsheltered individuals and families. 

In fact, without Homekey, tens of thousands more Californians would be living on our streets. Instead, an estimated 167,000 Californians will benefit from one of the 250 housing projects funded by Homekey statewide. Those 250 developments have created or will soon create a total of 15,319 units of housing, which will in many cases be a permanent home for our previously unhoused neighbors.

To be sure, there is no denying that homelessness continues to be a top issue facing our state. There are many reasons for that, including the fact that we Californians have failed for decades to build enough housing. It’s also worth noting that pandemic-era state and local tenant protections, which kept people housed, have now expired, leading to a recent wave of evictions and newly homeless residents.

Project Homekey began as a main feature of California’s COVID response to utilize vacant motels and other residential properties to get people off the streets, both temporarily and permanently, to reduce the risk of COVID transmission. The program’s success spurred additional state investments and put the focus squarely on acquiring permanent housing units for those in our communities who otherwise would have no roof over their heads. 

Project Homekey works by awarding grants to local governments, community agencies and nonprofits who then purchase properties, such as hotels and motels, and quickly turn them into housing units for unsheltered Californians. Homekey also includes the purchase of single-family homes, multifamily apartments, adult residential facilities, manufactured housing and converted commercial properties and other existing buildings to then provide ongoing housing.

Oakland-based nonprofit Bay Area Community Services (BACS) has completed several Homekey projects, purchasing 22 single-family homes and three former motels, creating 272 units of housing in Berkeley, Oakland and Hayward as part of its Project Reclamation initiative.

Nonprofits such as BACS understand the importance of combining behavioral health supports with crisis residential care in Homekey projects and creating communities where each resident gets their own bedroom, lock and key. BACS’s Project Reclamation initiative provides services to their residents who would otherwise be unable to live independently due to physical or mental health issues or have other barriers like a history of incarceration or homelessness. Each resident is paired with a care coordinator who helps with needs, such as job support, benefits assistance, mental health support and money management.

It’s true that to fully address our homelessness crisis, California must build many new housing units, especially affordable ones. But while we continue to witness heartbreaking examples of Californians struggling to survive on our streets, it’s also true that Project Homekey and California’s investments to combat homelessness have been true game-changers, helping tens of thousands of formerly unsheltered Californians.

Nancy Skinner represents the 9th Senate District, including the cities of Oakland, Berkeley and Richmond, and chairs the Senate Housing Committee. Jamie Almanza is CEO of Bay Area Community Services.

Lindell denied in an interview with The Associated Press that the eviction was another sign of his money woes. He said his financial picture is actually improving after a credit crunch last year disrupted cash flow at MyPillow after the company lost one of its major advertising platforms and was dropped by several national retailers.

“We’re fine,” he said.

Lindell faced a setback last month when a federal judge affirmed a $5 million arbitration award in favor of a software engineer who challenged data that Lindell said proves China interfered in the 2020 U.S. presidential election and tipped the outcome to Joe Biden. Lindell acknowledged in January that Fox News stopped running MyPillow commercials amid a billing dispute.

Lindell confirmed Wednesday that MyPillow owes around $217,000 to Delaware-based First Industrial LP for rent for the facility in Shakopee. He said MyPillow no longer needed the space and removed its remaining property from the warehouse last June before subleasing the space to another company through December.

The Star Tribune reported that a Scott County judge held a hearing Tuesday on the warehouse owner’s request to formally evict MyPillow, which did not contest the landlord’s request.

“MyPillow has more or less vacated but we’d like to do this by the book,” attorney Sara Filo, representing First Industrial, said during the hearing, the newspaper reported. “At this point there’s a representation that no further payment is going to be made under this lease, so we’d like to go ahead with finding a new tenant.”

Judge Caroline Lennon filed the eviction order Wednesday.

Lindell, who continues to propagate former President Donald Trump’s lies that the 2020 election was stolen from him, in part by rigged voting machine systems, still faces defamation lawsuits by two voting machine companies. Lawyers who were originally defending him in those cases quit over unpaid bills.

San Francisco 49ers quarterback Brock Purdy and his wife Jenna were courtside at Maples Pavilion Sunday to watch the No. 2 ranked Stanford women’s basketball team take on Iowa State – sporting Stanford opponent’s Cardinal red and gold colors.

Vibes are HIGH with QB1 in the house

pic.twitter.com/5vn3yhwlVb

— Cyclone Basketball (@CycloneWBB) March 25, 2024

The Purdys’ cheered on their alma mater, where they met as students. Newlyweds, the couple recently tied the knot in Des Moines on March 9.

Stanford defeated the Cyclones 87-81 in OT in thrilling fashion. But at one point the Iowa State band tried to rally the team chanting, “Pass it to Purdy! Pass it to Purdy,” pointing to the 49ers star.

Brock Purdy has arrived for tonight’s 9:00 p.m. tip against Stanford.

Cyclones trying to make a sweet sixteen for the 7th time.

( – @TommyBirch) pic.twitter.com/E0z8rrPQAW

— 𝙄𝙤𝙬𝙖 𝙎𝙩𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙉𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 (@IowaStateNation) March 25, 2024

Another celeb at the game who was clearing rooting for the Cardinal was Condoleezza Rice, former U.S. Secretary of State and former Stanford Provost.

LONDON  — King Charles III always wanted a slimmed-down monarchy. But not like this.

The Princess of Wales’ disclosure that she has cancer has prompted an outpouring of goodwill for Kate and for a royal family that’s now facing two serious health crises. Some of the social media frenzy that has swirled during the princess’ absence from public view should now seep away.

But with the king also being treated for an undisclosed form of cancer, and Prince William taking time off to help care for Kate and their children over the Easter school break, the ranks of working royals have been depleted, leaving the monarchy’s future suddenly fragile.

Prince Harry is in California, estranged from his brother. Prince Andrew is in disgrace over his friendship with the late financier Jeffrey Epstein and faced allegations of sexual abuse. So it falls to Queen Camilla and a few others to be the public face of a monarchy that now has increased public sympathy but reduced visibility.

“It’s a remarkable situation, and a significant moment for the monarchy and the institution so early in the king’s reign that two senior figures should be out of action,” said Joe Little, managing editor of Majesty magazine. “The pressure is on a much smaller team.”

Partly in response to gripes that taxpayers were funding a small army of royals, Charles resolved to run a tighter ship when he took the throne in 2022, with a core group of senior family members carrying out most of the work.

The nature of that work may not be apparent, especially to people outside the U.K., but it is plentiful. The monarch has no political power but plays a constitutional role that includes signing bills into law and meeting regularly with government ministers.

The king and his children are patrons of many charities, professional bodies and sporting organizations, as well as ceremonial colonels-in-chief of military regiments and dispensers of medals for valor and public achievements.

The most visible royal is now 76-year-old Camilla, who has kept working while her husband is treated for cancer. In recent days she has stood in for Charles on visits to the Isle of Man and Northern Ireland.

The king’s sister, 73-year-old Princess Anne, has attended award ceremonies, receptions and visits as patron of organizations including Save the Children. Prince Edward, at 60 the king’s youngest brother, has been in Uganda on royal duties that stretch across the 56-nation Commonwealth of Britain’s former colonies.

The engagements help fulfill the maxim of the late Queen Elizabeth II that the royal family must be “seen to be believed.”

“This is a historic monarchy that thrives on interacting with people,” royal historian Robert Hardman told Sky News. “It has to be visible.”

But striking a balance between visibility and privacy has always been tricky. During the late queen’s 70-year reign, the British media evolved from showing deference toward the royals to having a hunger for scoops that saw some tabloids resort to phone hacking and other illegal activity in search of stories.

Press behavior changed to an extent after the death of Princess Diana in a 1997 car crash while being pursued by photographers. That curbed the use of paparazzi photos, but the relationship between the monarchy and the media remains uneasy. It’s openly hostile in the case of Prince Harry, who is suing several newspaper publishers for invasion of privacy.

The palace initially stumbled in its attempt to sate the public desire for information about Kate while maintaining her privacy. A photo of Kate and her children George, Charlotte and Louis released on March 10 to coincide with Mother’s Day in the U.K. backfired when The Associated Press and other news agencies retracted the picture because it appeared to have been manipulated.

There was no suggestion the image was fake, but the slip-up set off even more conjecture.

Claudia Joseph, author of “Kate: The Making of a Princess,” said the Prince and Princess of Wales are social media-savvy, but that dealing with the online world is “a learning curve.”

Joseph said the royal family is still dealing with the “big shock” of Harry and Meghan’s departure. Their retreat from royal duties in 2020 — spurred, they said, by relentless press intrusion and a lack of support from the palace — “depleted the younger ranks.”

Despite that, she said public sympathy and the royals’ sense of duty would see the monarchy through its latest crisis.

“Families do get ill, and they do struggle, and sometimes people have to take a step back from work,” she said. “I’m sure in six months’ time when they have recovered, hopefully, people will forget that they weren’t around for a few months.”

In her video message, Kate said that her work “has always brought me a deep sense of joy, and I look forward to being back when I am able.”

“But for now, I must focus on making a full recovery,” she said.