Speaker 1: Speaking up in all casts. For those that done the redcast,
Speaker 1: it's The John Phillip Show, and we continue at two
Speaker 1: o five in the afternoon on The John Phillip Show,
Speaker 1: Mister Randy Weggs in Culver City.
Speaker 2: John, We're broadcasting live on the radio on seven ninety
Speaker 2: KABC in Southern California and eight ten KSFO in the
Speaker 2: Bay Area, and we're also broadcasting live on video worldwide.
Speaker 2: We've got listeners in like South Africa and Australia, New
Speaker 2: Zealand and Arizona right there at Johnny Don't Like dot Com.
Speaker 2: That's Johnny with a Y. If you want to watch
Speaker 2: us do this show live every single day from noon
Speaker 2: to three. Johnny Don't Like dot Com takes you right
Speaker 2: to the YouTube channel. You can hit the like button
Speaker 2: and help push us to more new people. You can
Speaker 2: comment in the chatroom is what we're doing. You can
Speaker 2: hit subscribe, hit the bell, and of course check out
Speaker 2: all of our on demand content. When we sign off
Speaker 2: for three, there's tons of free entertainment for you at
Speaker 2: Johnny Don't Like dot Com.
Speaker 1: Eight hundred two two two five two two two is
Speaker 1: the telephone number one eight hundred two two two five
Speaker 1: two two two. It is our pleasure to welcome our
Speaker 1: next guest to the program. She is a fellow at
Speaker 1: the Manhattan Institute, a contributing editor to City Journal, and
Speaker 1: author of many best selling books, most recently when Race
Speaker 1: Trump's Merit available online at Amazon dot com. Heather MacDonald welcome.
Speaker 3: Thank you John so much.
Speaker 4: Well, thanks so much for stopping by.
Speaker 1: So we have a big mayoral election going on in
Speaker 1: Los Angeles where we have I guess, two different brands
Speaker 1: of the same flavor of ice cream. Where we have
Speaker 1: Karen Bass, the incumbent mayor, who wants another four years,
Speaker 1: and then we have a DSA member of the City Council,
Speaker 1: Nitia Rahman, who was chair of the homeless committee, who
Speaker 1: now wants a promotion and she wants to be mayor
Speaker 1: of Los Angeles. What was interesting to me is we
Speaker 1: just had new homeless numbers that came out that showed
Speaker 1: that the number of people living on the streets in
Speaker 1: Los Angeles went up despite the fact that we are
Speaker 1: spending a record amount of money on homeless services. What
Speaker 1: we are doing is not working. I should add it
Speaker 1: wasn't just Los Angeles. We saw the same thing happen
Speaker 1: in Long Beach. While other parts of the country are
Speaker 1: experiencing a decline in people living on the streets, big
Speaker 1: cities here in California are going in the opposite direction.
Speaker 1: What was interesting to me was the reaction to these numbers,
Speaker 1: because no one, whether it be Bass or Ramen or
Speaker 1: anyone on the council that I can think of, looked
Speaker 1: at these numbers and said, for Heaven's sake, what we're
Speaker 1: doing is not working. Maybe it's time to try something new.
Speaker 1: What they did was they looked for ways to assign
Speaker 1: blame to other people. They blame the federal government for
Speaker 1: cuts in funds, they blame the state government for cuts
Speaker 1: in funds, and they said, what we need is more
Speaker 1: money to spend on the programs that we're spending on
Speaker 1: money now. This is a housing problem first, and we
Speaker 1: need to double down, triple down, and quadruple down on
Speaker 1: what we're doing right now. And I thought to myself, Okay,
Speaker 1: well that's hopeless your thoughts.
Speaker 3: It sure does look hopeless, John. I mean, we have
Speaker 3: the best opportunity in years to end this charade, this farce,
Speaker 3: this absolutely dangerous public condition. In the primary, and voters
Speaker 3: in LA show that they're simply not willing to speak
Speaker 3: the truth to blame. Put the blame where it belongs
Speaker 3: for the homeless, the vagrancy problem, which is squarely on
Speaker 3: public officials. This is not some naturally occurring phenomenon or
Speaker 3: the result of bad economy lack of funding that the
Speaker 3: poor government officials are simply trying desperately to solve with
Speaker 3: more money. It is the result of public officials decision
Speaker 3: to allow street vagrancy, to not keep the streets clean
Speaker 3: for the people who are paying taxes, who are contributing
Speaker 3: to the city, and instead, government officials place all of
Speaker 3: their attention, all of their funding on the most dysfunctional, dangerous,
Speaker 3: anti social members of society. It is a complete application
Speaker 3: of government responsibility. But the narrative is that vagrancy, street vagrancy,
Speaker 3: street drug addiction, street mental illness is a result of inequality, racism, poverty,
Speaker 3: the usual housing lack, which is the biggest fiction that
Speaker 3: was ever generated by any kind of poverty industrial complex,
Speaker 3: and it was wildly successful. And so the solution is
Speaker 3: to throw more good money after bad. We just haven't
Speaker 3: been spending money enough, and that's a lie. But it
Speaker 3: seems like voters are simply not fed up enough with
Speaker 3: seeing Los Angeles change its character in such tragic, radical
Speaker 3: ways from what we who grew up in Los Angeles
Speaker 3: took for granted decades ago.
Speaker 1: This attitude that it's a housing problem and not a
Speaker 1: drug problem and a mental illness problem. Do you think
Speaker 1: there's so wed to that because so many of their
Speaker 1: contributors are developers who profit from housing that is subsidized
Speaker 1: by the government, or do you think they honestly buy
Speaker 1: into it, because if they buy into that, then it's
Speaker 1: clearly not their permissive attitude about drugs that's causing this.
Speaker 1: It's clearly not their permissive attitude about retail theft that's
Speaker 1: contributing to this. It's clearly not their attitude about shutting
Speaker 1: down the prisons that's contributing to this. It's just a
Speaker 1: housing issue, and we need to build more well.
Speaker 3: I think it's both a financial self interest, because yes,
Speaker 3: there are huge lobbies interests that are have enormous profits
Speaker 3: on the line with this phony narrative about it's the
Speaker 3: lack of affordable housing. I think it's also an ideological
Speaker 3: interest where I think for the advocates and for many
Speaker 3: of these left wing politicians, having vagrants on the streets
Speaker 3: is visual proof that America is a heartless society. Capitalism
Speaker 3: doesn't work, that the free market in housing doesn't work,
Speaker 3: that we need government housing, that we need more transfer
Speaker 3: of wealth from the hard working to the non working.
Speaker 3: And so, you know, I think there's an investment politically
Speaker 3: in the status quo. But you know, let me just
Speaker 3: reinforce what you're saying, John, anytime there's a brief whiff
Speaker 3: of honesty in the mainstream media, occasionally you get Soto
Speaker 3: Voce reporting on the shelter resistance phenomenon, which I have
Speaker 3: witnessed numerous times. I've done reporting on the ground in
Speaker 3: skid row, in the tenderloin in San Francisco, you know,
Speaker 3: you name it, in Santa Anna Civic Center, and I've
Speaker 3: witnessed the vagrants be offered housing and services by these
Speaker 3: feckless outreach workers who, again, they have a stake in
Speaker 3: keeping the status quo as bad as possible. You can
Speaker 3: offer the vagrants all the housing you want, and they're
Speaker 3: going to turn it down because they would rather be
Speaker 3: on the streets where they have easy access to drugs,
Speaker 3: easy access to food. You know, I remember there's been
Speaker 3: programs that delivered pizza to people's cardboard boxes in North
Speaker 3: Face tents on skid Row, and I've talked to people
Speaker 3: that have told me skid Row is known across the
Speaker 3: country as a party scene. People come from as far
Speaker 3: away as Iowa to just be able to hang out,
Speaker 3: do drugs, sex, traffic, and get away with in some cases,
Speaker 3: literally bloody murder.
Speaker 1: Popular culture glorifies the use of drugs, whether it is marijuana,
Speaker 1: whether it is some of the harder drugs. You go
Speaker 1: in any comedy club in America, and the quickest way
Speaker 1: to get a laugh is to do jokes about weed,
Speaker 1: to do jokes about marijuana, to do jokes about being high,
Speaker 1: whatever the case may be. And if you were someone
Speaker 1: that doesn't embrace that, if you're someone who doesn't think
Speaker 1: that that's cute, if you're someone who doesn't think that
Speaker 1: that's good for society, you kind of you're like the
Speaker 1: dad and bye by Bertie. You know, you're looked at
Speaker 1: as one of these stodgy people who just can't get
Speaker 1: with the times.
Speaker 4: You're from a different era.
Speaker 1: And I think that there are so many politicians who
Speaker 1: can intellectually connect the dots that a permissive attitude about
Speaker 1: drugs has been bad for homelessness and bad for the culture.
Speaker 1: But they are so afraid at the blowback and of
Speaker 1: looking like a relic from a previous generation that they
Speaker 1: will not publicly acknowledge that. But the permissive attitude about
Speaker 1: drugs to me was original sin when it comes to homelessness,
Speaker 1: because that's when the domino started falling.
Speaker 3: Absolutely they the vagrant population has two overwhelming characteristics, mental
Speaker 3: illness and chemical addiction. The sort of medical industry refers
Speaker 3: to this population as the MICA population mentally ill chemical abusers,
Speaker 3: and you can see them on the streets of San Francisco,
Speaker 3: these scarecrow white atticts that were absolutely destroyed in the
Speaker 3: sixties and now here they are living off the public dime, stealing,
Speaker 3: destroying any hope for urban renewal. I don't know quite though,
Speaker 3: why you think, John, that people politicians know the truth
Speaker 3: and yet are simply too cowardly to act upon it.
Speaker 3: I'm not sure. I think they may still believe that
Speaker 3: this is somehow a right and was a release from
Speaker 3: bourgeois norms. But all this did begin in the nineteen
Speaker 3: sixties with the elevation of youth culture and the abdication
Speaker 3: of adult responsibility. That said used to say, if you
Speaker 3: want to succeed in life, you need to embrace certain
Speaker 3: bourgeois norms above all abstinence or at least temperance, self
Speaker 3: you know, deferred gratification, self discipline, working hard. And the sixties,
Speaker 3: with the flower power and the tune in and drop out,
Speaker 3: we were such a wealthy generation, more wealthy than any
Speaker 3: time in human history, that parents were able to subsidize
Speaker 3: their teenagers to go to Woodstock to you know, dance
Speaker 3: as flower children. And somehow a good portion of those
Speaker 3: kids were able to somehow get on their two feet.
Speaker 3: The very poor that also had no more moral support
Speaker 3: in the culture at large to be you know, abstinent, temperate,
Speaker 3: uh and and and self disciplining. They're the ones that
Speaker 3: had a very hard time keeping up and surviving in
Speaker 3: this new celebration of Bacchanali and Dionysian self destructive behavior.
Speaker 3: And and a lot of these people are on the streets.
Speaker 3: I mean, frankly, let's be honest, the vagrant population has
Speaker 3: a strong racial divide.
Speaker 5: Uh.
Speaker 3: You've got the white hate Ashbury vagrants that are you know,
Speaker 3: overwhelmingly stealing from Starbucks, and Whole Foods in in uh
Speaker 3: in San Francisco. And then you've got the even more
Speaker 3: dystopian situation of skid row in Los Angeles, which is
Speaker 3: almost exclusively black, different drug of choice, uh uh, and
Speaker 3: and that has even more more cause than the white,
Speaker 3: washed up hippie addics.
Speaker 1: If a county sheriff or a police chief were to
Speaker 1: come to you for advice and say, Heather, it is
Speaker 1: illegal to have drug paraphernalia. That is something that is
Speaker 1: a violation of the law, and if we find it
Speaker 1: on you, in theory, you're breaking the law and we
Speaker 1: can take you in for.
Speaker 4: Something like that.
Speaker 1: We have county public health departments that are passing out
Speaker 1: drug paraphernalia on a daily basis as part of their
Speaker 1: harm reduction idiotic idea that they all buy into, and
Speaker 1: they are taking items that are illegal, and they are
Speaker 1: giving them to people who they know are struggling with addiction,
Speaker 1: and they're giving.
Speaker 4: Them the tools that they need to kill themselves with.
Speaker 1: What should I do about these county public health departments
Speaker 1: that are technically doing something illegal in my jurisdiction.
Speaker 3: That is a great question, and I just want to
Speaker 3: put in as an aside that harm reduction is almost
Speaker 3: as brilliant as Madison Avenue rebranding as homelessness uh because
Speaker 3: of course it's not reducing harm, it is perpetuating harm.
Speaker 3: The only, the only possible hope for people and and
Speaker 3: and Louisiana has has insticated this, but these have been
Speaker 3: around for a long time is homeless courts uh and
Speaker 3: and Louisiana is using a block grant from the Trump
Speaker 3: administration that is finally moving federal funding away from the
Speaker 3: housing first charade and and and travesty towards no your city,
Speaker 3: Your city obligation if you want federal funding is to
Speaker 3: enforce laws against public camping, against public drug use, uh
Speaker 3: and and get people off the streets, that is number
Speaker 3: one priority, off the streets into treatment, ideally as far
Speaker 3: away from urban centers as possible. But the homeless court
Speaker 3: idea is that you say, okay, you've you've violated the
Speaker 3: law by camping in public or or drug use. You
Speaker 3: have you have a criminal conviction hanging over you. But
Speaker 3: if you enroll in treatment for a year, we're going
Speaker 3: to give you treatment. We're going to give you services,
Speaker 3: we're going to give you job training, we're going to
Speaker 3: give you housing access. If you stay in our program
Speaker 3: for a year, we will wipe off your criminal record
Speaker 3: and you can go about your ways with with with
Speaker 3: you know, no no uh, serious consequences. That's the way
Speaker 3: to get people clean. Giving them more paraphernalia. Literally, it
Speaker 3: literally guarantees that they're never going to get clean and
Speaker 3: that they will stay on the streets and the cycle
Speaker 3: will just continue, to the enormous benefit of these anti
Speaker 3: order nonprofits and the for profit providers that are taking
Speaker 3: luxury housing, creating eighty thousand dollars a million dollar units
Speaker 3: with taxpayer funding to allow addicts to have a crash
Speaker 3: pad every so often.
Speaker 1: Let's shift gears here for a second and talk about
Speaker 1: the street takeovers, because we cover these on a regular
Speaker 1: basis here. They happen in southern California. They happen in
Speaker 1: northern California. Vallejo is a community that has experienced a
Speaker 1: lot of these. When people hear street takeovers, they think
Speaker 1: about the movie Fast and Furious, They think about donuts,
Speaker 1: They think about teenagers having a good time. What they
Speaker 1: don't know is that frequently pedestrians get hit.
Speaker 4: Frequently, after the street.
Speaker 1: Takeover is completed, they go loot an auto zone, or
Speaker 1: they go loot a liquor store or some strip mall
Speaker 1: gets obliterated by the crowd that's there. They overwhelm the cops,
Speaker 1: So the cops frequently don't even show up until the
Speaker 1: street takeover is over, because there's no point. If you
Speaker 1: have two black and white show up and you have
Speaker 1: five hundred people there, there's not much the cops can do.
Speaker 1: The cops just write a report after it's over, and
Speaker 1: many times zero arrests are made. There are some cities
Speaker 1: in the Central Valley, however, that are getting very aggressive
Speaker 1: at impounding cars that are found at the scene of
Speaker 1: these takeovers, and oh boy, is that working. What do
Speaker 1: you make of what they're doing right now in the
Speaker 1: Central Valley compared to Los Angeles in the Bay Area,
Speaker 1: it should.
Speaker 3: Be zero tolerance. This is simply I'm not even going
Speaker 3: to give them any credit and say, oh, well, people
Speaker 3: think this is just fun teams doing donuts. It was
Speaker 3: never fun. It was never okay. You cannot colonize public
Speaker 3: streets unless, of course, your Black Lives Matter activists or
Speaker 3: your vagrant encampment, or you're engaged in this extraordinarily reckless
Speaker 3: behavior that that you know what if you're an emergency
Speaker 3: service worker, you're an ambulance or a fire truck having
Speaker 3: to get through an intersection and there they are careening
Speaker 3: around in circles. It's it's absolutely unacceptable, and yes, the
Speaker 3: solution has to be declaring an emergency, emergency curfew and
Speaker 3: emergency impoundment. This is going on in Florida as well.
Speaker 3: There's a very tough sheriff, Mike Chitwood at Valusia County
Speaker 3: that has sent out the same message there there has
Speaker 3: to be zero tolerance for this. But you know, we
Speaker 3: saw as soon as the sixth Avenue Bridge in La
Speaker 3: opened up, everybody was glorying and it's it's it's uh,
Speaker 3: you know, wonderful bridge and different communities of Los Angeles.
Speaker 3: Not only was it immediately graffiti written, but it also
Speaker 3: became the site of more these takeovers. So there is
Speaker 3: nothing fun about, or should be nothing that the public
Speaker 3: regards as fun and acceptable about this assault on public order,
Speaker 3: on the thoroughfares, the ability of law abiding people to
Speaker 3: use cities for what they are for, which is getting around,
Speaker 3: being able to get to work safely without fear, being
Speaker 3: able to take your children to school safely, and without fear,
Speaker 3: without having to witness people shooting up drugs, masturbating in public,
Speaker 3: defecating and urinating in public. We have simply given up
Speaker 3: the ghost in Los Angeles on maintaining a civilized society.
Speaker 1: Heather MacDonald, author of the book When Race Trump's Merit,
Speaker 1: available online at Amazon dot com or wherever you buy
Speaker 1: your books. Heather, thanks so much for stopping by. Great
Speaker 1: to see you on video.
Speaker 3: Great talking with you, John.
Speaker 4: Thank you all right.
Speaker 1: If you'd like to watch us live, participate in the
Speaker 1: chat and click that like button, Randy, you can do
Speaker 1: that at Johnny don't like dot Com?
Speaker 2: That's Johnny. Don't like dot Com Johnny with a why.
Speaker 2: That takes you right to our YouTube channel. Hit subscribe,
Speaker 2: hit the like button, hit the bell, play around in
Speaker 2: the chat room. We're here until three o'clock, and then
Speaker 2: when we sign off the air, make sure you check
Speaker 2: out our Accountability podcast with a brand new episode premiering
Speaker 2: tomorrow at three. But before we get to that, make
Speaker 2: sure you'll watch that episode with Steve Hilton, because we
Speaker 2: want to get that one into the stratosphere.
Speaker 1: If you'd like to email the show, you can do
Speaker 1: so at Johnny Don't Like Show at Gmail dot com.
Speaker 1: That's Johnny Don't Like Show at Gmail dot com and Randy,
Speaker 1: how we doing on the likes over at Johnny Don't
Speaker 1: Like dot Com.
Speaker 2: We are already over three hundred and four today's show.
Speaker 2: Thank y'all so much for helping us get there. We're
Speaker 2: at three hundred and ten and we still got twenty
Speaker 2: five minutes to go. Yesterday at the end of the show,
Speaker 2: we hit three hundred and thirty six, so let's see
Speaker 2: if we can break that record. Hit that like button.
Speaker 2: If you're not watching us, you're only listening right now.
Speaker 2: When you get a chance to do so, check out
Speaker 2: the website Johnny Don't Like dot Com. Stop buy for
Speaker 2: a little bit and hit that thumbs up.
Speaker 1: And if you're looking for additional content after we sign
Speaker 1: off at three, definitely check out the Accountability podcast that's
Speaker 1: also at Johnny Don't Like dot Com because we had
Speaker 1: a great interview with Steve Hilton that's up right now
Speaker 1: and it's doing really well.
Speaker 2: It's up at over seven thousand views. And the more
Speaker 2: views and likes and comments against the more people push
Speaker 2: that out there on YouTube, the more people might find
Speaker 2: the message and learn a little more about Steve Hilton.
Speaker 2: One way that you can help is give it a
Speaker 2: watch after the show and leave a message in the comments,
Speaker 2: maybe something like Javier Besera is a chicken, because Javierbsera
Speaker 2: is a chicken and refuses to agree to any debates.
Speaker 1: Eight hundred two two two five two two two is
Speaker 1: the telephone number one eight hundred two to two two two.
Speaker 1: In their infinite wisdom, the geniuses in Sacramento think it
Speaker 1: might be a good idea to completely overhaul the way
Speaker 1: we deal with security guards right before the Olympics come
Speaker 1: to town.
Speaker 2: We're talking about doing the same thing to security guards
Speaker 2: that we did to fast food workers. A blanket minimum
Speaker 2: wage and a blanket training standard and all kinds of
Speaker 2: other things that might make it very difficult to hire
Speaker 2: security guards for certain businesses. What does all this mean,
Speaker 2: Let's find out. Here's a report from k A three
Speaker 2: and Ashley Zavalla, a.
Speaker 6: Live look over the state capitol right now, where California
Speaker 6: lawmakers face another key deadline this Thursday to move forward
Speaker 6: with new proposed laws. One of the proposals close to
Speaker 6: the finish line is one that attempts to set new
Speaker 6: training requirements for private security guards and increase their minimum
Speaker 6: wage three plas.
Speaker 2: This is what we do now, and they've realized that
Speaker 2: just trying to blanket increase the minimum wage outside of
Speaker 2: what we have that goes up every year with inflation,
Speaker 2: but like trying to do twenty five thirty, what have you,
Speaker 2: there isn't an appetite for that. So what we do
Speaker 2: is we get the unions to get the legislature to
Speaker 2: pass these very specific minimum wages.
Speaker 7: We see this at the state level.
Speaker 2: We've also seen this at the city level, where the
Speaker 2: City of Los Angeles, although they're trying to walk it back,
Speaker 2: now authorized a thirty dollars hour an hour minimum wage
Speaker 2: by twenty twenty eight to four tourism workers. So if
Speaker 2: you work at the hotel at a Hilton, you make
Speaker 2: thirty dollars an hour. If you work at the restaurant
Speaker 2: right next to the Hilton, you make minimum wage, because
Speaker 2: that makes sense.
Speaker 1: You know, when you're dealing with security guards, I would
Speaker 1: imagine that depending on the venue, the job description can
Speaker 1: be very different. If you're a security guard at a bar,
Speaker 1: or you're a security guard at a nightclub or at
Speaker 1: a strip club, my guess is you might have to
Speaker 1: get involved in a wrestling match every now and then. However,
Speaker 1: if you're the security guard at a museum, or you're
Speaker 1: the security guard at I don't know, a baseball stadium,
Speaker 1: my guess is what you're doing is crowd control. You're
Speaker 1: just trying to get people to stay on the main thoroughfares,
Speaker 1: go this way, go that way, whatever.
Speaker 4: You don't need to know how to use a weapon.
Speaker 2: Well, how many of those people when you go to
Speaker 2: a big venue like a concert or a stadium, that
Speaker 2: are in like those yellow shirts. How many of those
Speaker 2: jobs are classified as security? So how many people would
Speaker 2: this actually affect? It might be a whole lot.
Speaker 4: Yeah, no kidding.
Speaker 2: And of course we have to include in the category
Speaker 2: because it's what I made the picture for this. Mall
Speaker 2: cops on segues they count to I don't know why,
Speaker 2: but the AI Google Gemini made me much fatter than
Speaker 2: I usually am.
Speaker 7: When I said make me.
Speaker 2: Look like a mall cop, I let it slide, but
Speaker 2: I was like, oh wow, that's what I used to
Speaker 2: look like.
Speaker 8: Prizabollo explains the warning from private security and how the
Speaker 8: bill's supporters are responding.
Speaker 9: We're talking about Senate Bill twelve. Oh, three, which is
Speaker 9: being pushed by SCIU California.
Speaker 2: That's true, where the SEIUS just got their hands into everything, same.
Speaker 9: Group that sponsored the bill that ended up brazing California's
Speaker 9: fast food minimum wage to twenty dollars an hour. The
Speaker 9: private security industry says the cost of security in California
Speaker 9: could become unaffordable if state leaders approve this. This latest
Speaker 9: proposal related to security guards would specifically first prohibit private
Speaker 9: patrol operators from providing de escalation training and instead put
Speaker 9: that responsibility into the hands of an organization that has
Speaker 9: yet to be determined.
Speaker 2: I'm sure it's an organization represented by the SEIU.
Speaker 1: Oh, I'm sure, and I'm sure they're politically connected, and
Speaker 1: I'm sure it's going to be very woke.
Speaker 2: This is how California politics works. It's honestly the main
Speaker 2: issue outside of just the how you're going to do it.
Speaker 2: But one of the big issues with the billionaires tax
Speaker 2: is that whether you're playing around with the legislature or
Speaker 2: you're getting something on the ballot, this incredibly powerful union
Speaker 2: can get legislation passed that specifically benefits them, and they
Speaker 2: do it all the time.
Speaker 9: The security guard agencies would be responsible for paying for
Speaker 9: this starting in twenty twenty eight. It would also require
Speaker 9: all security guards to annually complete a minimum of eight
Speaker 9: hours of this training.
Speaker 7: Do ambassadors kunt of security guards?
Speaker 1: You know that's going to be like the online sexual
Speaker 1: harassment training where you just have to watch the videos
Speaker 1: and take the quizzes.
Speaker 7: They're getting smarter at those.
Speaker 2: They know when you're not actively looking at the window,
Speaker 2: you got caught last time.
Speaker 9: It also attempts to resurrect the now defunct California Industrial
Speaker 9: Welfare Commission in twenty twenty seven. They would specifically be
Speaker 9: responsible for increasing the minimum wage of security guards.
Speaker 2: So we would have an unelected bureaucracy that would increase
Speaker 2: these wages for this very specific kind of job without
Speaker 2: any kind of vote.
Speaker 7: That sounds like the SEIU.
Speaker 1: Well, we have that with the Fast Food Council. I
Speaker 1: guess that's the model.
Speaker 2: Although apparently that council has disbanded because they haven't met
Speaker 2: in like two years.
Speaker 4: Too much Heartburn.
Speaker 9: Spoke with the leader of the California Association of Licensed
Speaker 9: Security Agencies, Guards and Associates, who said, this is a
Speaker 9: solution to a problem. The state does not have.
Speaker 7: To put it in a perspective.
Speaker 9: How many businesses could especially be impacted by this.
Speaker 10: Well, I believe over ninety percent of businesses or small
Speaker 10: businesses that have security. Grocery stores, of pharmacies, schools, hospitals, buildings, transportation,
Speaker 10: everywhere you turn those security now and it's going to
Speaker 10: have a big impact.
Speaker 2: Okay, Now you actually have to wonder how many security
Speaker 2: guard jobs are in the state of California, how many
Speaker 2: security guard jobs in California, because it sounds like a
Speaker 2: whole lot.
Speaker 1: I was just at the outlet mall in Cabazon, and
Speaker 1: at that mall, they have a lot of high end
Speaker 1: stores that sell things like women's purses, and each one
Speaker 1: of those stores that sells high end women's purses will
Speaker 1: only allow like five people in at a time, and
Speaker 1: then they keep a line outside and they have more
Speaker 1: security then. I don't know, the Queen's Crown Jewels. It's
Speaker 1: just security guard, security guard, security guard, everywhere you turn.
Speaker 4: How often do they get robbed?
Speaker 7: Well, there's two things going on there.
Speaker 2: One, if they do get robbed, it's a massive thing,
Speaker 2: like what happened at you know, many years ago in
Speaker 2: San Francisco with the Louis Vauton. But Also, having that
Speaker 2: massive line of people waiting outside to get in attracts
Speaker 2: more people to be like, well, what's going on with
Speaker 2: this line?
Speaker 1: It was all old Asian ladies who were having heat stroke.
Speaker 2: California, according to Gemini, applies employees over one hundred and
Speaker 2: eighty three thousand security guards. This would affect a lot
Speaker 2: of small businesses.
Speaker 10: I mean, currently we don't have enough law enforcement officers
Speaker 10: in California to do the job that they want to do.
Speaker 5: All.
Speaker 10: This bill is supposed to implement two weeks before the
Speaker 10: Olympics takes place in Los Angeles, which is going to
Speaker 10: be genested.
Speaker 6: I was going to ask you about that. In July
Speaker 6: first of twenty twenty eight is when this would take effect.
Speaker 2: Oh, of course it would, because we're going to need
Speaker 2: a whole lot of security guards for that.
Speaker 1: Boy, it's like they try to find out what would
Speaker 1: be the worst possible timing.
Speaker 6: What impact would it have specifically on the Olympics.
Speaker 10: Well, we'd have to train three hundred and sixty thousand
Speaker 10: guars in two weeks. I'm not sure who's going to
Speaker 10: do that or how they're going to be able to
Speaker 10: do that.
Speaker 9: Now we've been working on this story for a week.
Speaker 9: SCIU California in that timeframe would not make anyone available
Speaker 9: for an interview with me on this bill.
Speaker 7: What the hell is that about?
Speaker 1: Because they don't have the answers to any of these questions.
Speaker 1: They don't know what they're going to how they're going
Speaker 1: to make this happen.
Speaker 2: The public unions in this state and the SEIU represents
Speaker 2: public workers and private workers, but they have so much
Speaker 2: influence in this state. We should not have a system
Speaker 2: where they can lobby for things that specifically just benefit them,
Speaker 2: because we've seen what the result.
Speaker 7: Is with that.
Speaker 9: CiU California's David Whatta gave us this statement in part.
Speaker 9: He said, every day security officers face split second decisions
Speaker 9: that can change lives, yet current law requires only eight
Speaker 9: hours of initial training before sending them into high stakes situations. This,
Speaker 9: paired with low wages that lead to higher turnover, has
Speaker 9: undermined officers readiness for the grave responsibility of protecting the public.
Speaker 9: He went on to say SB twelve O three and.
Speaker 7: Then imagine whatever.
Speaker 2: Let's say they make the minimum wage twenty five dollars
Speaker 2: an hour, and right now hospital workers are getting twenty
Speaker 2: five dollars an hour like, wait a second, they're getting
Speaker 2: twenty five dollars an hour just to be the security guard.
Speaker 7: What the hell, where's my thirty dollars an hour?
Speaker 2: And then you have all these different industries screaming at
Speaker 2: the legislature, where's my raise?
Speaker 1: And by the way, this is also in an industry.
Speaker 1: This is an industry that is based on graft. Because
Speaker 1: if you're a security guard and you're sitting in the
Speaker 1: front of a bar and you decide who gets in
Speaker 1: and who doesn't, guess what a guy with a fifty
Speaker 1: dollars bill doesn't have to wait in line, and guess
Speaker 1: what a guy with one hundred dollars bill is going
Speaker 1: to get you to look the other way if you're
Speaker 1: with someone whose id doesn't look totally legit. If all
Speaker 1: of a sudden, you're going to make these people operate
Speaker 1: by the book and you're going to institute all of
Speaker 1: these rules, you're going to kill their ability to make money.
Speaker 9: Urgently modernizes state law by establishing standards for training, wages,
Speaker 9: and working conditions, including de escalation training that could save lives.
Speaker 9: He continued, Private security is a thirty four billion dollar industry,
Speaker 9: and here in California, the workforce faces a staggering ninety
Speaker 9: one percent annual turnover rate.
Speaker 2: Is that because of high wages or is that security
Speaker 2: guards that get caught stealing.
Speaker 9: End quote. Now, the bill is part of the suspense
Speaker 9: hearing that's happening in the Assembly Appropriations Committee this upcoming Thursday.
Speaker 9: That's when bills basically pass or die without discussion. Wlilemakers
Speaker 9: have until the end of this month to pass new
Speaker 9: laws for the year back to you.
Speaker 7: So there you go.
Speaker 2: Another industry might be getting their own carve out minimum wage,
Speaker 2: and this one, of course backed by the SEIU.
Speaker 1: If you want to watch us live, go to Johnny
Speaker 1: dootl like dot com and click that like button. When
Speaker 1: you're there, it's the big thumbs up. It really helps
Speaker 1: push the show far and wide.
Speaker 2: And we just got to more likes than yesterday's show.
Speaker 2: Yesterday had three hundred and thirty six. Today we have
Speaker 2: three hundred and thirty seven.
Speaker 4: Yeah, all right.
Speaker 1: Every politician in the state of California runs on the
Speaker 1: subject of affordability. They claim that it's too expensive to
Speaker 1: live here and they're going to do everything they can
Speaker 1: to make it less expensive. Yet, Randy, it seems that
Speaker 1: all they seem to do is spend their time making
Speaker 1: things more expensive in California. For California homeowners, the.
Speaker 2: San Francisco bard Is Supervisors a few years ago passed
Speaker 2: a new mandate to the fire code that condos in
Speaker 2: buildings that were built before I think the seventies that
Speaker 2: were at least twelve stories tall, had to have sprinkler
Speaker 2: systems in all the units. And that mandate might cost
Speaker 2: condo owners hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Speaker 7: Great For more, here's NBC in the Bay.
Speaker 11: I'm Audrey Cistia and I'm Roj Mathi.
Speaker 8: A sprinkler mandate coming to San Francisco is going to
Speaker 8: be costly for a lot of people. According to a
Speaker 8: new analysis from the city, upgrades for some homes could
Speaker 8: range from fifteen thousand bucks to nearly a quarter of
Speaker 8: a million.
Speaker 1: Holy cow, imagine two hundred and fifty thousand dollars just
Speaker 1: to be compliant with some government regulations.
Speaker 11: A lot of condo owners are complaining that this mandate
Speaker 11: is too expensive. The new analysis will be part of
Speaker 11: an Advisory council review of how this mandate may actually
Speaker 11: be carried out. Here's Nbcbay Area Serrio Kintana.
Speaker 12: At the Heights condominium building in this corm you got.
Speaker 2: To add bad times all the units. Wouldn't it be
Speaker 2: cheaper to tear down the whole building and start from scratch?
Speaker 4: Yeah, no kidding.
Speaker 12: These Pacific Heights neighborhood. Steven Stiller showed us the sprinkler
Speaker 12: systems at.
Speaker 7: All Ocivic Heights that is a ritzy part of town.
Speaker 12: Already exist in the building's too, external fire escapes and
Speaker 12: inside the building's halls.
Speaker 7: But these sprinkler.
Speaker 12: Systems are not enough to satisfy the city's sprinkler mandate.
Speaker 5: And that's why you can't have a blanket law that
Speaker 5: covers every building indiscriminately.
Speaker 7: This has to be tailored the height.
Speaker 2: I don't think I would ever be brave enough to
Speaker 2: wear leopard glasses.
Speaker 1: What I think of leopard glasses I think of Paul
Speaker 1: Schaeffer from the CBS Orchestra.
Speaker 12: Is one of one hundred and twenty six buildings in
Speaker 12: the city that falls under the requirements of a San
Speaker 12: Francisco Bord of Supervisors approved update to the city's fired
Speaker 12: Code in twenty twenty two. It mandates all buildings built
Speaker 12: before the nineteen seventies that are more than about twelve
Speaker 12: stories high must inspace.
Speaker 7: I did get all that right, see, I retain information.
Speaker 12: Well, sprinklers in every living unit that comes to about
Speaker 12: nine thousand residences. People who live in those buildings say
Speaker 12: many of them don't have enough space in the walls
Speaker 12: or have ceilings that are too low to install the
Speaker 12: pipes for these sprinkler systems.
Speaker 2: So when they made this regulation and made these changes
Speaker 2: to the fire code, they didn't actually find out if
Speaker 2: this was feasible in some of the buildings that they
Speaker 2: were trying to put this onto.
Speaker 4: This is like going to.
Speaker 1: The Great Pyramids in Egypt and going this isn't eighty
Speaker 1: eight compliant, and.
Speaker 12: They don't have space or enough power for the pumping
Speaker 12: machinery needed to support these systems. What's more, this is
Speaker 12: the latest expensive mandate the city has issued.
Speaker 5: The earthquake, what's it called the falling hazards. Yeah, and
Speaker 5: we spent several million dollars accommodating that. We went through
Speaker 5: the annunciator mandate, which was the replacement of the fire horns,
Speaker 5: again an enormous expense, and now the city is slapping
Speaker 5: another thing.
Speaker 2: This is just unaffordable, right, you know what these hoa
Speaker 2: people are right. The city's acting like an hoa.
Speaker 12: Now, the deadline forgetting all the permits to start any
Speaker 12: construction on the fire sprinkler mandates has been delayed for
Speaker 12: five years. In the meantime, a Technical Advisory Council made
Speaker 12: up of members of the Board of Supervisors, residents, the
Speaker 12: Fire Department, and builders will convene next month. That committee
Speaker 12: will decide how to implement this mandate. Asha Safais, a
Speaker 12: spokesperson for the San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council.
Speaker 13: We're going to approach each building on an individual basis
Speaker 13: and we're going to come up with a real path
Speaker 13: for public safety. There will be some buildings based on
Speaker 13: a hardship, based on the city's infrastructure, based on water
Speaker 13: that might get an exemption.
Speaker 7: Some of the biggest thing and what do we need
Speaker 7: the blanket mandate for?
Speaker 1: This is why what they do is so stupid, Because
Speaker 1: if you have a blanket mandate and then you have
Speaker 1: carve outs, what you create is you create a perfect
Speaker 1: storm for people to be paid off if you don't
Speaker 1: want to follow the city rule, because the city rule
Speaker 1: makes it so unaffordable that you can't stay living there
Speaker 1: or you can't comply even if you wanted to, then
Speaker 1: it becomes cheaper to bribe the inspector, and the inspector goes,
Speaker 1: oh okay, well yeah, we can go ahead and give
Speaker 1: you an exemption. You don't need to follow this rule here.
Speaker 12: Critics of this mandate have been raised by residents in
Speaker 12: Supervisor Steven Cheryl's district. He's on the technical committee that'll
Speaker 12: be convening next month in San Francisco, said Hukindana.
Speaker 7: And BC they are you News, So there you go.
Speaker 2: Lots of condo owners in Pacific Heights worried about this
Speaker 2: sprinkler mandate that could cost them between tens to hundreds
Speaker 2: of thousands of dollars per unit to comply.
Speaker 1: In a city that is already one of the most
Speaker 1: expensive cities in the country to live in. Instead of
Speaker 1: trying to make it more affordable, the city government is
Speaker 1: doing everything they can to push these people out.