The problem with states of emergency

There is a structural problem in allowing government officials to decide when they are going to give up their unlimited emergency powers.

Last October, Gov. Gavin Newsom announced that the COVID-19 state of emergency he declared on March 4, 2020, was at last ending — but not until February 28, 2023.

Local officials are exercising the same discretion to decide when they will allow a return to the normal limits on government power.

For example, the city of Los Angeles ended its state of emergency on February 1, but the county of Los Angeles did not. Janice Hahn, chair of the L.A. County Board of Supervisors, told FOX 11 news that she agreed “it's time for us to lift ours as well, there is no need to have a COVID emergency any more, and I plan to ask my colleagues at the next board meeting to agree to lift ours as well.”

She added, “Hopefully we'll end it at the end of March.”

Hopefully? Elected officials should not have complete discretion over when they will relinquish emergency powers.

The California Emergency Services Act states, “The Governor shall proclaim the termination of a state of emergency at the earliest possible date that conditions warrant. All of the powers granted the Governor by this chapter with respect to a state of emergency shall terminate when the state of emergency has been terminated by proclamation of the Governor or by concurrent resolution of the Legislature declaring it at an end.”

With no one declaring an end to the emergency, Californians were left vulnerable to potential abuses of power.

For example, the state of emergency has allowed the suspension of safeguards around the awarding of government contracts, and fraudulent spending in connection with COVID-19 programs has been flagged over and over again by investigators.

“A CapRadio investigation found an overlap of at least a half-dozen companies that made substantial contributions to Newsom and received no-bid contracts from the state, influential appointments, or other opportunities related to the state's pandemic response,” reported CapRadio in 2021.

These contracts ranged from $2 million to over $1 billion. Were these contracts appropriately granted? Were they the best use of taxpayer money? Were they ethical?

These are the sort of questions emergency powers sweep under the rug.

Even if one grants that there are practical benefits to allowing states of emergency to be declared, something is obviously wrong when an “emergency” can drag on for years without end. And even worse, without the system of checks-and-balances working to even bother to push back and establish whether conditions warrant an indefinite state of emergency.

It suspends the system of government we are supposed to have. If a problem festers for years, that calls for deliberate action according to debates and agreed upon legislative efforts, not indefinite states of emergency.

What may be needed is a state constitutional amendment to require an automatic end to declared emergencies at a set interval, such as 30 days, unless specifically reauthorized and documented as necessary under the same statutory requirements that justified it in the first place.

Years-long emergencies can't become a tool to help political allies or to implement policies and programs that lack the support to pass through the regular legislative process.

That's an abuse of power.

Trump's possession of classified documents

Re “In Trump probe, U.S. seeks to pierce attorney-client privilege” (Feb. 15):

Of course, the Democrats want to get Trump so bad they are willing to by-pass one of our legal system cornerstones, attorney-client privilege. If a client cannot talk to their attorney knowing such information cannot be used against them, the ability of any attorney to properly defend their client would be struck by a terrible, if not a devastating, setback. Their ability to defend their clients would be severely compromised. This is simply absurd. If it was anyone else but Trump, all the legal pundits would be screaming about someone trying to propose such a tactic. The Dems are obviously having issues trying to convict Trump, so they are trying an end run to bypass legal privilege. What other legal tactic will they try to go around next? If you cannot convict him within existing legal guidelines, then just give it up.

Government corruption

Excellent Sunday, Feb. 12, edition on government corruption. Ignorant and apathetic citizens and voters enable government corruption. Failing government public education doesn't teach children how to read nor how to understand civics, the study of rights and duties of citizenship. The high number of people dependent on government support and welfare will vote for anyone who will continue to subsidize them, and care little about officials' corruption or accountability as long as they get their taxpayer-funded checks.

Frederick Douglass

Hats off to your editorial on Feb. 14 to honor Frederick Douglass, our inimitable statesman. He was “A Man for All Seasons.” He was honored at home and abroad. A slave without a known birthday, achieved freedom, changed his name, never stopped learning, became an orator, writer, reformer, preacher and abolitionist. He achieved in many other notable pursuits as well. He should be the poster gentleman for all of our youth of today and his picture should be on the murals, posters, pictures, statues and busts upon our streets, parks, and buildings. He truly is our Black gentleman to be admired and emulated.

Housing mandates

The article on Feb. 12 explained that many cities were failing their housing “mandates,” especially for “lowcost” housing. Everyone with half a brain knows that residential property near the coast tends to be more expensive than inland property. Regardless of this, our genius politicians in Sacramento have mandated large amounts of “low-cost housing” in beach cities. For example, the Democrats in Sacramento are mandating that Manhattan Beach, a completely built out city, have over 400 “low-cost” housing units built in the near future. Realtors have told me that the cheapest residential lot in the city is selling for about $1,600,000. I would like Senator Ben Allen and Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi, whose Democratic Party is mandating these units, come and tour Manhattan Beach and explain exactly where and how these “low-cost” units are supposed to be built.

— Russ Lesser, Manhattan Beach

Water reduction along the Colorado River

In his article (Feb. 17) Mr. Elias talks about how Newsom is standing up to the six other states involved in the proposed rationing of water. While Newsom points out that the other states are not proposing their “fair share” of this reduction, what he and the government don't talk about is our misuse of water here by:

A. Not building the reservoirs that voters approved as far back as 2010.

B. Flushing millions of gallons of water out to sea to indirectly feed the delta smelt.

C. Using millions of gallons to help mine battery components for electric vehicles. He is already starving the central valley and forcing many farmers to reduce or eliminate producing the food the entire country needs.

If he would at least ignore the special interest groups and repair dams and build more reservoirs we could capture billions of gallons that are currently going to the ocean.