David Soohoo is, first and foremost, a chef. Over the course of decades, he’s owned and run a variety of Sacramento restaurants, like Bamboo and Ming Palace. One lesson he’s learned: It takes more than skillful cooking to succeed. His work also requires a knack for adaptation. 

“Life is a challenge,” he said. “And the thing about being a chef is it has never been easy, so I welcome that challenge.” 

He learned that first from his dad, a Cantonese master chef who opened Sacramento’s original Tea Cup Cafe in the early 1950s. At the restaurant, they had gas stovetops that burned hot enough to make food in a wok, which traditionally requires flame. But at home, their stove was much less powerful. 

So, they got creative. Soohoo said his dad took their cracked, gas-powered water heater, drained it and sawed it in half. Then, he used its burner as a stovetop. 

“That burner actually was incredibly hot,” said Soohoo. “You put your wok in there and you can do everything a restaurant can do. That's the way we adapted, and it was unknown…outside of the Chinese community.”

Now, Soohoo said home cooks and chefs like himself are readying themselves for a fast-approaching future without gas. As part of its goal to reach carbon neutrality by 2045, California is working to cut emissions in all parts of life, including the kitchen. 

Matt Botill, chief of the Industrial Strategies Division at the California Air Resources Board, said the agency has set a state target for residential appliance sales to be all-electric by 2045. He said this transition helps the state along its journey to cut emissions and with that, improves both indoor and outdoor air quality.

“It's really important that we cut down on our natural gas use and that we don't expand the gas infrastructure so that we're not creating more natural gas demand in the state,” he said. 

On a more local scale, dozens of cities have adopted plans for electrification. Some, like Sacramento, have passed ordinances to ban the installation of gas in new buildings alongside local efforts to electrify existing homes. 

As these efforts gain traction, they’ve sparked nationwide debate over one appliance in particular: stoves. Many advocates of electrification point to research on the negative health impacts associated with their use and concerns that aging gas appliances will only create more problems in the future. Others say they’re not willing to let gas stovetops go, because other options just aren’t as efficient.

Katie Valenzuela is a city councilmember who worked on Sacramento’s electrification ordinance. She said the change is more than a technological one. For many, it’s cultural, and deeply personal. 

“There is a concern about how … you adapt those practices that were passed down from prior generations to this new technology,” she said. 

It’s a tricky issue, Soohoo said. He’s worried about a transition that could unintentionally leave cultural cooking styles like his own behind; after all, he’s not the first chef to share concerns about how electrification could impact the wok. But he’s also deeply invested in shaping the future.

“You adapt,” he said. “That’s the best you can do.” 

The culture of gas

Decades ago, electric stovetops were popular in California households, but that’s changed over the years. A 2020 survey found 70% use gas stoves in the state, a number that’s much higher than the nationwide average of 38%. 

This can be partially blamed on successful campaigns led by gas industry leaders to popularize them. But many chefs have also found that these stovetops are more reliable in achieving high heat – especially in a restaurant setting. 

“You know, for a full service restaurant, you do 200 covers a night,” said Billy Ngo, the owner of a few Sacramento restaurants including Kru, which mainly focuses on sushi. “You can't cook on an electric stove for 200 people in a four and half hour service.”

On top of Soohoo’s concerns, Ngo said he’s worried about what summertime blackouts could mean for an all-electric kitchen. He also said sales for cold dishes like sushi tend to decline in the winter, so his restaurant relies on selling hot food to bridge that financial gap.  

For home cooks, gas and electric stoves pose a different set of problems. In online forums and news pieces about electrification, you can find dozens of questions about the differences between cooking on electric and gas stoves. Soohoo said some of these questions boil down to differences in cultural styles of cooking, which require different kinds of heat. 

“For Western cooking, European cooking, because you're working with butter and you're working with sauces … you don't need that much heat,” he said. 

In other styles of cooking, like in many Asian and Latin American dishes, he said you’re dealing with vegetables and meats that have been cut into smaller pieces. It makes these dishes particularly “energy frugal,” he said, because they’re cooked quickly with the help of high heat. 

“Even the breads are flat,” he said. “This way you have more surface.” 

As the city of Sacramento chips away at local electrification efforts, Valenzuela said she’s become familiar with these conversations.

“There's a lot of pros to it, but it is different,” she said of electrification. “How do we make that accessible to people so that people can get there and understand it? You need to have that ongoing technical assistance available, and that has to be an investment.” 

She said she’s seen some electrification programs that allow people to opt out of replacing their gas stoves if they’re not interested. But she’s worried about what that means for them, especially as the state moves forward with its goal to phase out gas appliances. 

“Particularly in older neighborhoods where those lines are older, there will need to be a lot of improvements made to those lines to keep them safe in general,” she said. “Then what we're doing is we're putting the onus on that household to figure that out in the future, and that's not equitable either.”

Researchers looking at gas stoves have linked them to a vast array of health concerns like respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. One UCLA study found these stoves are a major cause of indoor air pollution and disproportionately impact people of color, who are already more likely to live in polluted areas. 

Yifang Zhu, a UCLA researcher and an author of the study, said it’s often a compounding issue for communities of color. 

“They are already disproportionately experiencing poor housing conditions, including old and unmaintained gas appliances,” she said. “Those devices tend to emit more pollution as compared to the newer ones.”  

If people are going to move away from these devices, Valenzuela said, it’s important to come at them with more than just the science. 

“We want to engage the communities first,” she said. “Not just because you need to understand those barriers and those concerns from the beginning [but] so you can design a program to meet their needs.”  

At home, and at restaurants 

All over California, cities are considering this transition on a local scale. Sacramento passed an ordinance that kicked into gear this year, requiring newly constructed residential and commercial buildings that are up to three-stories tall be all electric. 

But just like similar efforts in other municipalities, Sacramento’s ordinance allows for some exemptions. An exemption can be offered, for example, if a developer proves it’s infeasible for a project to be all-electric, whether due to high costs or the unavailability of certain technologies. 

Valenzuela said these exemptions can also apply to parts of a building where the developer intends to host a restaurant. As a whole, she said the ordinance is limited in its impacts. 

“It's a very narrow interpretation,” she said. “It will mean that most new residential buildings will likely not have gas, but I think in all practicality it means that most mixed development buildings, like what we're seeing in downtown, in Midtown, will probably have gas anyways.” 

Outside of new construction, there are also efforts to electrify already-existing homes, but they’re still operating on a smaller scale. Despite the frenzy of concerns that have accompanied these efforts, Valenzuela said there’s a lot more work to be done before major changes can happen. 

A lot of that, Valenzuela said, will come down to how cities work with their residents and how they “show people what this could look like so that it’s successful,” which could mean anything from group cooking classes to regular meetings. 

In the past few years, Soohoo has played a bigger role in the transition himself. He took part in shaping Sacramento’s electric buildings ordinance as a restaurant industry representative. He’s also led classes teaching residents how to cook effectively with electric woks over the years and is considering bringing them back because of all the questions he’s seen arise in conversations about electrification. 

Long before these issues became popular, he said he had to figure this out on his own. He remembers buying an electric wok back in the eighties, when he first noticed the pan gaining mainstream popularity among Western consumers in the United States. 

But there was a problem: The wok still didn’t get hot enough. He’s kept the electric wok that he bought decades ago at home. It’s a good example of the problems he’s faced in the quest to find a way to do electric wok cooking well. 

“Since they don't really ask Chinese chefs, they make this thing shut down at 400 degrees, 425 maybe,” he said. “And what happens is just when I need the energy, it turns off on me.” 

So, Soohoo took after his dad. He tampered with the electric wok, allowing it to heat up to a higher temperature than it had been manufactured to reach. He told students in his cooking classes about his adaptations, too. 

“What I always do is I take this thermostat and I short it out, simple as that,” he said. “I open it up and I short it so it never shuts off, so it generates enough [heat] for home.”

Soohoo said he still has a lot of questions and doubts that a majority of restaurants can successfully make the transition anytime soon. But he sees the move away from gas cooking at home as a little more straightforward. 

For now, at least, he said it’s important to learn from the ways in which communities like his own have adapted — and with that, take those lessons into California’s energy future. 

When the Culver City Unified School District announced in August it would require all eligible students to be vaccinated against COVID-19, the announcement was met with overwhelming support from the surrounding Los Angeles County community.

But as other schools across California have announced similar mandates in recent weeks, questions have emerged about whether individual districts can legally require public schoolchildren to receive COVID-19 shots, spurring opposition.

The Los Angeles Unified School District saw protesters when its board voted to mandate COVID-19 shots for students over 12 years of age on Sept. 9. The vote led to claims online that the district did not have the legal authority to require vaccinations. Last week, a crowd of parents holding signs with slogans like “My child, my choice” gathered outside a high school in Glendale, even though the school currently has no COVID-19 vaccination mandate in place for pupils.

Experts say previous legal rulings indicate that schools can generally mandate vaccinations for students and employees. But in California, where the state Legislature has already passed laws on student vaccination mandates, it’s unclear how much latitude districts might have to require schoolchildren to get the shot.

Legal scholars expect that the courts will have to work out the details. In the meantime, here’s what we know.

Constitutional Challenges

Leslie Jacobs, a professor of constitutional law at McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento and director of the Capital Center for Law & Policy, said legal scholars “always” expect to see constitutional challenges to vaccine mandates.

But in the case of school vaccination mandates, she said those challenges “should not be strong” and are unlikely to succeed in court given past rulings.

“Religious liberty shouldn't be a winner constitutionally and bodily integrity — ‘I can't have a shot in my body’ — should also not be a winner constitutionally,” Jacobs said.

Government entities like schools and the U.S. Army have historically been able to require vaccinations based on legal precedent set by Jacobson v. Massachusetts in 1905.

At the time, Massachusetts law empowered local health boards to enforce mandatory, free vaccinations for adults if it was deemed crucial to the health and safety of the surrounding community. Adults who refused to get vaccinated faced a $5 fine.

During a smallpox outbreak in 1902, the city of Cambridge mandated the vaccination of all of its residents. One resident, Henning Jacobson, refused, sparking a case that eventually went before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The court upheld the vaccination requirement. That decision firmly established the power of states and other government entities to enforce compulsory vaccinations in the interest of public health, according to legal scholars.

"A community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members," Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote in the majority opinion in the case.

California’s Current Vaccination Laws

Vaccinations for California schoolchildren are currently regulated by Senate Bill 277, which passed in June 2015. The legislation was prompted by an outbreak of measles at Disneyland in 2014 that ultimately infected more than 150 people from eight different states, Mexico and Canada.

For decades, California has mandated vaccinations against measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria, hepatitis B, influenza type B, polio, whooping cough, tetanus and chickenpox. But passage of the law removed personal belief exemptions, giving California one of the toughest vaccination mandates in the nation. Without a medical exemption, the only way parents could opt out of vaccinating their children was to home-school them or enroll them in an independent study program without classroom instruction. 

The legislation also included several options for adding vaccinations to the mandated list. The state Legislature could pass a new statute or amend the law at any time, opting to add a new vaccination with or without a personal belief exemption.

Alternatively, a clause in the law allowed the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) to mandate new vaccines, taking into consideration advice from health experts. But if a vaccination is added to the schedule in this way, the legislation stipulates that personal belief exemptions must be offered to parents and students.

The law raises several legal concerns for school districts currently mandating COVID-19 vaccinations for students. Dorit Reiss, a professor of law at UC Hastings in San Francisco and a member of the Vaccine Working Group on Ethics and Policy, said the law can be interpreted as a minimum standard that schools must follow and noted that one clause in the legislation gives districts “broad authority” to act in ways that do not conflict with the law.

However, Reiss said legal challenges could stem from the fact that state law does not lay out any sort of formal process for individual districts to add vaccination requirements.

“The argument is that because the state has extensively regulated this area, the state has occupied it, and districts cannot deviate from state law at will,” Reiss said. “The broad school immunization law covers it, and there is no room for local action.”

Ultimately, it’s unclear where courts will land on the issue. Jacobs said schools mandating COVID-19 vaccinations are “pushing the envelope” legally.

Will More California Schools Mandate COVID-19 Vaccinations?

So far, just a handful of California school districts have mandated COVID-19 shots for students. 

Culver City and Los Angeles Unified are the two largest districts to do so in Southern California. Neither are currently offering personal belief exemptions.

Last week, the Oakland Unified School District and Piedmont Unified School District, both in Alameda County, became the first districts to mandate the vaccination in Northern California. While Piedmont Unified is only allowing medical exemptions, Oakland Unified will accept personal belief waivers.

Other school districts seem less eager to jump into new mandates. Officials with the San Francisco Unified School District and the San Diego Unified School District told CalMatters earlier this month that they did not plan to set a vaccination requirement.

When Culver City Unified announced its vaccination mandate, Superintendent Quoc Tran told EdSource that he believed the requirement was legally sound. He said school officials did not ask district lawyers to look at the policy.

A spokesperson for Los Angeles Unified declined to comment on the school’s legal authority for this article, and a spokesperson for Oakland Unified said they could not discuss legal specifics with PolitiFact California as the school believes “there is the possibility of litigation on this topic.”

If school districts get challenged in court, Jacobs, with the McGeorge School of Law, said a judge could issue an emergency order to halt vaccination requirements as the case moves through the legal system.

It’s also possible that districts soon won’t be making the vaccination rules in classrooms across the Golden State. During a media briefing last week, California Health and Human Services Secretary Dr. Mark Ghaly said officials are considering a statewide requirement, although no definitive decision has been made.

Gov. Gavin Newsom on Tuesday said school mandates are “still on the table.”

In the meantime, whether or not California school districts can independently require students to get vaccinated will likely be fought out in the courts. 

That process may be repeated across the country as districts in other places confront their own state laws on vaccinations in schools.

“State law controls,” Jacobs said. “It will be up to a court to look at these sources of state law to determine what's happening.”

Source List: 

Email interview with Dorit Reiss, a professor of law at UC Hastings and a member of the Vaccine Working Group on Ethics and Policy, Sept. 23, 2021

Zoom interview with Leslie Jacobs, a professor of constitutional law at McGeorge School of Law and director of the Capital Center for Law & Policy, Sept. 23, 2021

The Los Angeles Times, Culver City Unified to require student COVID-19 vaccinations, in what may be a first, Aug. 18, 2021

The Los Angeles Times, L.A. school officials order sweeping student vaccine mandate, a first by a major district, Sept. 9, 2021

ABC7, Parents protest vaccine mandates despite Glendale Unified not having requirement for students, Sept. 24, 2021

Cornell Law Library Legal Information Institute, Henning Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts

California Legislative Information, Senate Bill No. 277

National Conference of State Legislatures, States With Religious and Philosophical Exemptions From School Immunization Requirements, April 30, 2021

The Los Angeles Times, California Legislature passes mandatory vaccination bill, June 29, 2015

SF Gate, State Assembly approves vaccine bill, June 25, 2015

Centers for Disease Control, Measles Outbreak — California, December 2014 - February 2015, Feb. 20, 2015

Culver City Unified School District, Facebook post, Aug. 17, 2021

Los Angeles Unified School District, Los Angeles Unified to Require All Students 12 and Older to be Vaccinated Against COVID-19 by January 10, 2022, Sept. 9, 2021

Los Angeles Unified School District, Safe Steps to Safe Schools: Frequently Asked Questions

Piedmont Unified School District, PUSD Board Meeting Summary – September 22, 2021, Sept. 24, 2021

Oakland Unified School District, OUSD Board of Education Passes Vaccine Requirement for Students 12 Years Old and Up, Sept. 23, 2021

CalMatters, Other school districts in no rush to follow Los Angeles Unified vaccine mandate, Sept. 10, 2021

EdSource, Culver City Unified mandates Covid vaccine for students, possibly a first for California, Aug. 18, 2021

NBC Bay Area, California Considers COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate for Students 12 and Up, Sept. 23, 2021

Updated at 10:54 a.m. on September 24, 2021

Reports about vaccinated Americans catching COVID-19 are energizing vaccine skeptics and leading to more misinformation about efficacy and breakthrough cases.

CapRadio’s PolitiFact California Reporter Chris Nichols examined the facts about breakthrough infections in this week’s Can You Handle The Truth.

Nichols sat down and spoke with CapRadio’s afternoon anchor Randol White and broke everything down.

This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

Interview Highlights

On how rare breakthrough COVID-19 cases are feeding into misinformation

One example is a popular and misleading post on Instagram.

It wrongly claimed that the vaccines are “the first in history to not prevent people from catching or spreading a virus” and that they only last a few months.

PolitiFact found that is completely false. No vaccine is 100% effective. That’s the case for the flu vaccine and also the case for the COVID-19 vaccines.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says on its website some fully vaccinated people will get sick, some will even be hospitalized or die from COVID-19, and that vaccinated people with breakthrough infections can also spread the disease.

On current COVID-19 cases in unvaccinated people

Studies show vaccinated people are eight times less likely to be infected — and 25 times less likely to be hospitalized or die from COVID-19 than unvaccinated people, according to the CDC.

And those who are fully vaccinated and get one of these breakthrough cases are less likely to suffer a serious illness.

On the false claim that vaccine efficacy ‘only lasts for months’

It’s still not clear how long the protection provided by the vaccines will last. Health officials are still debating whether everyone will need a booster shot.

But the last part of the social media post is misleading because plenty of other vaccines require boosters.

People are asked to take the flu vaccine every year, and vaccines against Hepatitis B, whooping cough, chickenpox and measles all require multiple shots.

On the odds of a fully vaccinated person developing a breakthrough case

The New York Times found that the average vaccinated American’s odds of getting a breakthrough infection are roughly 1 in 5,000 a day, or 1 in 10,000 in highly vaccinated states.

They used data on daily average COVID-19 cases in different parts of the country to arrive at these odds.

A recent CDC report includes data showing the odds of a breakthrough might be even lower, at about 1 in 5,000 per week.

PolitiFact found all of these statistics have some limitations. For example, they don’t take into account the undercounting of breakthrough infections. But, they do show the vaccines are reducing infections and the overall risk of a breakthrough is low.

Correction: A previous version of this story misstated the risk of breakthrough infections. They are rare, but not exceedingly rare.

False information about COVID-19 vaccines continues to spread on social media, and comes as cases are on the rise across the United States.

CapRadio’s PolitiFact California reporter Chris Nichols and contributor Steven Rascon fact-checked several claims in this week’s Can You Handle The Truth segment. 

They spoke with CapRadio anchor Randol White.

This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

Interview Highlights

On a false Instagram post that makes a questionable claim about vaccines and miscarriages

Chris Nichols: This post cherry-picks and manipulates some data from a scientific study to make a false and alarming claim. It says there’s a high miscarriage rate, more than 80%, for women who got an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine early in their pregnancies. 

The Instagram post arrives at this flawed conclusion based on a small sample of completed pregnancies known by researchers. But in reality, the majority of study participants are either still pregnant, or have not yet had follow-ups with the study’s authors.

Researchers said early results have not found an increased risk of miscarriage tied to the COVID-19 vaccination. They also acknowledge that there’s limited data on this topic and that it requires further research.

On a false claim about infants and childhood vaccines

Nichols:These social media posts claim that common childhood vaccines cause sudden infant death syndrome, or SIDS. PolitiFact found this is also a false, baseless claim. 

SIDS refers to the sudden and unexplained death of an apparently healthy baby, also called crib death. But scientific studies have consistently shown that there is no causal relationship between vaccines and SIDS. Those studies also show that receiving recommended immunizations can lower an infant’s risk of SIDS. 

The CDC recommends that during their first six months, infants get vaccinated against a range of diseases, from tetanus to whooping cough to polio and several others. Studies looking at each of these vaccines have found no associations between them and SIDS. 

On a misleading claim on social media that said San Francisco was allowing children to get the COVID vaccine without their parent’s approval 

Steven Rascon: Just as the FDA was about to approve the Pfizer vaccine for emergency use for minors, San Francisco issued a health order saying if you are a minor you can consent to the vaccine only if you are emancipated as according to the state or considered self-sufficient.

Most of this information was in the health order, and it recognizes that emancipated minors are not the norm but should have a choice to receive the vaccine. Much of the misinformation came from Twitter and Facebook users sharing a portion of the health order which clearly says “San Francisco allowing minors to consent to receive the COVID vaccine.”

San Francisco’s Department of Public Health confirmed this was only the case for emancipated minors, and healthcare providers giving out the shot would still have to try to get a parent’s consent before giving out the shot.

Because San Francisco allows some minors to consent to the vaccine on their own, PolitiFact California rated this claim as Mostly False.

Some emails that Dr. Anthony Fauci sent during the early stages of the coronavirus pandemic have been released, leading to a new round of misleading posts on social media.

PolitiFact California Reporter Chris Nichols joins CapRadio Anchor Randol White on this week’s Can You Handle The Truth segment.

This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

Interview Highlights

On how these emails came to light 

Fauci, who is the longtime director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, wrote these emails in the winter and spring of last year.

But they were not released through some unsanctioned or underhanded way. Instead, the federal government provided these emails to The Washington Post and BuzzFeed News after they filed Freedom of Information Act requests.

That act gives the public the right to request access to records from any federal agency. The news outlets then published many of these emails in their news reports.

On the false claim’s misrepresentation of Fauci’s early mask recommendations

These claims make the false argument — one that we’ve heard a lot over the past year — that masks are ineffective in preventing COVID-19.

They essentially say that Fauci lied to the public about masks, and they take him out of context. They do this by citing one of his emails from early February last year, where he recommends mask-wearing only for people infected with the virus.

That was the consensus at the time, and mask-wearing was not common until later on. The guidance from Fauci and other experts changed in April last year, as more evidence about the virus and its transmission emerged.

That’s when mask-wearing was widely recommended. It came after clearer findings that showed the virus could be transmitted by people who showed no symptoms.

PolitiFact rated the claim about Fauci lying about masks as False.

On the other false claim that Fauci "lied" about rheumatoid arthritis and lupus medication, hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19.

Hydroxychloroquine is also the medication former President Donald Trump famously touted. The emails show that Fauci did express interest in the drug early on, but he also said that more data was needed to prove whether it was effective.

So, his comments in the email are in line with what he's said in public and with the general scientific agreement on the drug.

Vice President and former California Senator Kamala Harris recently claimed one-third of all small businesses have closed during the pandemic.

CapRadio’s PolitiFact California reporter Chris Nichols fact-checked that and other statements in this week’s Can You Handle The Truth segment.

This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

Interview Highlights

On when Harris made this claim and if it’s correct

She made it during a TV interview that aired this week on MSNBC, and she was talking about the toll the pandemic has taken on small businesses.

“This is one of my areas of focus I care so deeply about, which is … let’s just be clear about where we are. Half of America’s workforce works for a small business or owns a small business,” Harris said. “Sadly, during the course of the pandemic, one-third of our small businesses have closed.”

It really is a stark figure, and we found a couple of sources that do support her statement. A spokesperson for Harris pointed to a Harvard University project called The Economic Tracker.

That’s an online platform that provides data about real-time economic trends, and it uses things like financial transaction activity to determine whether a business has closed.

As of this week, the Tracker shows there are 37% fewer small businesses open nationwide compared with a couple of months before the pandemic. That share was slightly higher in California at 39%.

On how this statement was fact-checked, and if there were any contradictions

The Small Business Roundtable, which advocates for small businesses, published a survey in May of last year that also supports this claim. At that time, 31% of small businesses reported that they were not operating. Those fairing the worst at the time were hotels, restaurants, cafes and similar businesses.

The Federal Reserve Board published a study in April that offers a slightly different but more hopeful perspective. It found there certainly were a lot of business closures over the past year, but fewer than expected ended up as permanent business closures.

On a widely-shared and inaccurate social media post about Harris and President Joe Biden

This was a Facebook post that claimed Biden and Harris “did not say one word about American troops, veterans or fallen military on Memorial Day.”

That post is simply incorrect. The post points to tweets that Biden and Harris sent out a couple days before the Holiday that do not mention the military. However, over the weekend, both made statements honoring military members and their families.

Biden and Harris participated in a wreath-laying ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery.

Biden spoke at a Memorial Day ceremony in Delaware.

“Even last year during those early and dark days of the pandemic, Jill and I didn’t want to let Memorial Day pass, like every other day, and there was no event here, [so] we came to lay a wreath at the plaza,” Biden said. “It was the first time we did any sort of events since the lockdown had begun in March because we were determined to honor the fallen.”

In the end, PolitiFact rated the claim on Facebook as False.

Republican recall election candidate John Cox claimed this week Gov. Gavin Newsom has “just let tens of thousands of inmates out of jail.”

CapRadio’s PolitiFact California reporter Chris Nichols spoke with anchor Randol White about that and other claims in this week’s Can You Handle The Truth segment.

This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

Interview highlights

On who John Cox is and his claim

Cox is a San Diego County businessman. He ran and lost to Newsom back in the 2018 governor’s race.

He made this statement about inmates during a kick-off event for his campaign in the recall election. More memorable than anything he said is the live 1,000-pound Kodiak bear that Cox brought to the event.

But even so, here is the statement that caught our attention:

“[Newsom] just let 76,000 inmates out of jail with almost no warning,” Cox said. “Many of those are going to commit other crimes. I mean, what are we going to do then? I want my daughter to feel safe. I want everybody to feel safe.”

On if Cox’s claim is correct

No, he really did not [get this right]. In fact, we found that Cox distorted things.

Here’s what actually happened. Late last week, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation expanded a good behavior program for inmates — and Cox was right, that there wasn’t much public notice on this.

But no one was let out of prison. The change makes 76,000 inmates eligible for somewhat shorter sentences. They can reduce their time by one-third. Before this change, they could reduce it, but by a smaller amount.

But they’ll need to demonstrate good behavior and in some cases complete a rehabilitation program.

On when incarcerated people might be released through the change and how PolitiFact California rated this claim

A state prison spokesperson told us it could be months or years before anyone is released through this change.

PolitiFact California rated this claim False.

On how much the recall election could cost

Here's what Newsom said at a press conference Tuesday

“Now is not the time to waste hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars on a recall effort that is nothing more than a partisan power grab,” Newsom said.

And it looks like he did get those numbers right. I spoke with Donna Johnston about this. She is the Sutter County registrar. She’s also president of the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials.

Her group has been crunching the numbers on the potential cost of the recall election. Right now, if counties have to follow social distancing rules required in last fall’s election, Johnston’s group says the recall could cost $400 million.

“Yes, it is a correct figure,” Johnston said. “Especially if we’re falling under the same protocols and mandates as November.”

It’s not clear what rules will be in place this fall, but Johnston says elections are expensive. Everything from labor and training to printing all the ballots, paying for all the postage really adds up.

So, the governor’s statement is a prediction, but he’s on the right track.

San Francisco’s early response to the coronavirus was considered a model for fighting the pandemic. But a California state lawmaker claimed this week the city experienced a drug overdose crisis that dwarfed its COVID-19 death count last year. 

CapRadio’s PolitiFact California reporter Chris Nichols spoke with anchor Mike Hagerty about that claim in this week’s Can You Handle The Truth segment. 

Interview Highlights

On the facts of the claim

Republican state Assemblyman Kevin Kiley of Rocklin made that claim on Twitter, and it was shared more than 2,000 times. For some context, Kiley has really made a name for himself by pushing back against former San Francisco mayor and current Gov. Gavin Newsom, especially on pandemic restrictions. 

In this case, the numbers show Kiley is correct. 

There has been a big increase in ‘drug overdose deaths’ in San Francisco. There were nearly 700 last year, much higher than in years past. That’s according to a recent medical examiner’s report.

On factors that led to the increase

Public health officials say it was fueled by the spread across the city of the powerful opioid fentanyl. They say it was made worse by the pandemic which isolated people and cut them off from drug treatment. 

Margot Kushel is a professor of medicine at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital.

“These deaths are preventable," Kushel said. "These deaths were on the uptick before the COVID pandemic. But much about the pandemic really impaired our ability to address it. There’s no question we are losing way too many people to this preventable cause of death.” 

On how those 700 deaths compares with San Francisco’s deaths from COVID-19 last year

It is more than twice the city’s COVID-19 deaths from last year, which totaled 257, according to data from city’s Department of Public Health.

It’s important to note that San Francisco was praised for its early response and had one of the lowest ‘COVID-19 death rates’ of any major city in the country. 

But in the end, Kiley’s statement is still correct. There were more than twice as many overdose fatalities in San Francisco than deaths due to the virus. 

We rated his claim True. 

On a widely-shared Facebook post that claimed Congresswoman Maxine Waters could be “sentenced” for jury tampering

Our PolitiFact California contributor Sasha Hupka fact-checked that claim. This was connected to the Derek Chavin trial, he’s the police officer who was found guilty last week in the death of George Floyd. 

Days before that verdict, Waters told protesters in Minnesota that if Chauvin wasn’t convicted they should “get more confrontational.” 

Chauvin’s defense attorney brought them up at the trial and asked for a mistrial saying her words would influence the jury. 

The judge in the case rejected that, saying the jury had been instructed not to watch the news. The judge, however, did say her words might be grounds for an appeal in the case. 

Still, legal experts told us there is no evidence Waters tried to unduly influence the jury and that there’s no case to charge or sentence her for those actions. 

We found the social media post misleading. We rated it Mostly False. 

Republican lawmakers are claiming a large percentage of migrants at crowded southern border facilities are testing positive for COVID-19.

CapRadio’s PolitiFact California reporter Chris Nichols spoke with afternoon anchor Mike Hagerty about that and other claims in this week’s Can You Handle The Truth segment.

This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

Interview Highlights

On what is happening at the southern border

In recent months, there’s been a really big wave of migration. Border patrol agents have recorded more than half a million encounters with migrants since October. That’s nearly three times as many in the same period a year earlier.

So, conditions are very crowded at border detention centers, and some Republican members of Congress are claiming that crowding is leading to the rapid spread of COVID-19.

Republican Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma recently visited a border detention center in Donna, Texas and posted a video on Twitter with some claims:

“We have a large percentage of folks here that are COVID positive,” Lankford said. “But they’re not tested here for several days. So, they’re literally spreading it all around. And they’re released into HHS custody and into the rest of the country.”

On the veracity of those claims

PolitiFact found there is no definitive answer available since there are different categories of migrants being tested at different times and by varying groups across the border.

But back in March, the head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency told lawmakers that the positivity rates for people coming across the border at the time was less than 6%. For some comparison, the average positivity rate in Texas was above 7% at that time.

On testing migrants for COVID-19 and who is doing it

Immigration authorities said they are working with state and local authorities and non-governmental groups to make sure that all migrants are tested “at some point during their immigration journey.”

Federal health officials say that the many unaccompanied minors who have arrived are tested every three days — those who test positive are isolated from the rest.

Customs and Border Protection personnel do initial checks for symptoms, and they consult with onsite medical staff. People who are presumed to be sick are sent to local health systems for testing, diagnosis and treatment, according to immigration officials.

Cities, counties and nonprofits handle the vast majority of the testing and any subsequent isolation.

On the work of nonprofit groups

One example of what nonprofits do is the Jewish Family Service of San Diego. They help asylum-seekers reunite with their families in California and around the country.

They told PolitiFact that many of these people who have had to remain in Mexico are being tested for COVID-19 in that country. Then they are tested again in the United States and remain in hotel rooms while awaiting results.

On the claim that Vice President Kamala Harris broke protocol after boarding Air Force Two and did not return salutes to members of the military honor guard

PolitiFact found that while presidents and vice presidents saluting the military personnel is a familiar sight, it’s not part of any official protocol or regulation.

Ronald Reagan was the first president to do this, but before then, even military veterans such as Dwight Eisenhower did not do this while president.

New California Sen. Alex Padilla recently claimed that Americans can obtain a rifle quicker and easier in a majority of states than they can cast a ballot.

CapRadio's PolitiFact California Reporter Chris Nichols spoke with afternoon anchor Mike Hagerty about that claim in this week's Can You Handle the Truth? segment.

This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

Interview Highlights

Some popular Facebook posts are blaming President Joe Biden for the nation’s spike in gas prices, tying it to decisions on canceling the Keystone XL pipeline and the oil and gas leasing moratorium at the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. But energy experts say the increase in gas prices is primarily due to supply and demand and is a sign the economy is slowly rebounding.

CapRadio’s PolitiFact California reporter Chris Nichols spoke with anchor Mike Hagerty about those claims in this week’s Can You Handle The Truth? segment.

This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

Interview Highlights

On how much gas prices has increased since Biden’s inauguration

They’ve gone up quite a bit. Nationwide, the average retail price hit $2.95 per gallon this week. That’s up nearly 50 cents from the time Biden took office in January, according to federal data.

In California this week, gas prices are much higher at $3.88 per gallon. You’ll remember one year ago, as the pandemic shut down much of the economy, gas prices plummeted to under $2 per gallon.

But ever since then, they’ve been going back up, and some of that rise took place under former President Donald Trump. It’s continued under Biden, though prices are rising more quickly now.

On Facebook posts blaming Biden for the rise in prices

Energy experts say the increase is largely due to supply and demand, rather than any presidential policies — people are driving more, there’s also more air travel now as the economy slowly rebounds.

Experts say the recent production cut by the OPEC oil cartel and Russia has contributed to the price increase.

On Biden’s decision to cancel the Keystone XL pipeline and the oil and gas leasing moratorium in Alaska

PolitiFact asked energy experts about that and found the decision doesn’t change today’s supply — the pipeline wasn’t operating yet. They also said any impact would take place well into the future.

For similar reasons, the gas and oil leasing moratorium decision has not affected prices. That’s because the current oil supplies are not affected. Experts said it is possible that Biden’s policies could eventually affect those costs. But again, Americans likely won’t see that impact at the pump until several years from now.

 

For years, California state lawmakers have pushed ideas that would allow developers to build small apartment buildings, duplexes and triplexes in neighborhoods zoned almost exclusively for single family homes.

These bills, meant to address the state’s severe housing shortage and create more inclusive communities, have gained some traction. But following strong opposition, they ultimately failed at the state Capitol.

Just blocks away, a local proposal is moving forward that would make the city of Sacramento one of the first in California and the nation to eliminate rules that allow only for single family homes in neighborhoods. This zoning change would permit “missing middle” housing, a term that describes duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes, in these traditionally residential neighborhoods consisting of almost all single family homes.

An existing triplex in the North Oak Park neighborhood.City of Sacramento 2040 Report

But there are questions and confusion about what eliminating single family zoning actually means. The misunderstanding is sometimes fueled by false and out-of-context claims about the plans, as we examined in a fact check last year when then President Donald Trump and Housing Secretary Ben Carson claimed California was trying to “abolish” single-family zoning, which we found was Half True but leaves a misleading impression.

Last week, the conservative website Breitbart falsely claimed the city of Berkeley “may end single family housing” and “the ability of families to live in a home where only their family resides.” Those are both distortions of the plans, which the city voted to move forward with this week but would not bring an end to the traditional housing type.

PolitiFact California spoke with Sacramento city planning officials to learn more about how their proposal would work, how fast the changes might take place and debunk some misconceptions about it.

What Is ‘Single Family Zoning’ And Why Is It Contentious?

Single family zoning is a neighborhood model that allows only one housing unit per parcel, though duplexes are often allowed on corner lots, and is often defined by low-traffic streets and quiet cul-de-sacs.

The city of Sacramento’s reform proposal is part of its long-range general plan and won’t receive a final vote until late this year. But it’s drawn praise from some of California’s leading voices on housing policy, including the San Francisco lawmaker who has pushed for similar changes at the Capitol.

“Sacramento did a great thing,” State Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, said at a press conference last week. “I just really want to commend Mayor Darrell Steinberg and every member of the Sacramento City Council. … That’s a great model for other cities to look to.”

San Francisco and San Jose are considering whether to move ahead with similar plans, while Wiener proposed legislation last week to make it easier for cities statewide to allow duplexes and small apartment buildings.

Sacramento would join Minneapolis and Portland as the only major metros to end single family only zoning.

Supporters of Sacramento’s plan say it will create much needed lower cost housing while also breaking down the legacy of exclusionary zoning in some of the city’s wealthiest and whitest neighborhoods where racially restrictive covenants were used in the first half of the 20th century to keep minority groups out.

The proposal has also stirred fear. Some who live in single family home areas say they’re worried higher-density homes, along with added traffic and parking issues, could change the character of their neighborhoods. Some also reject the notion that it will lead to more affordable housing, noting there is no mandate to require that.

“This is not doing anything for affordable housing,” said Maggie Coulter, president of the Elmhurst Neighborhood Association, which represents homeowners in one of the city’s older single-family areas. “To suggest that this is doing that is nonsense.”

What Does It Mean To Eliminate Single Family Zoning?

Housing experts and lawmakers describe Sacramento’s initiative and others like it as an effort to do away with single-family zoning. As we reported last year, non-housing experts find those descriptions confusing.

“It sometimes gets repeated as ‘abolish [or ban] single-family homes,’ which implies that someone will take a wrecking ball to existing homes. Not the same thing at all!" Jenny Schuetz, who studies housing policy at the Brookings Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank, told PolitiFact California last year in an email.

For these reasons, Sacramento’s city planners do not use the phrase eliminating single family zoning, said Matt Hertel, the city’s acting long range planning manager.

Instead, here’s how Hertel explains the proposal:

“We’re changing our zoning to go from allowing exclusively single family homes to a greater variety of housing types that do still include single family homes.”

An existing fourplex in the Land Park neighborhood.City of Sacramento 2040 Report

Would Single Family Home Construction Be Banned?

No, this is a misconception.

“We would not do that,” confirmed Greg Sandlund, acting planning director for the city of Sacramento. “We are not banning single family construction.”

Sandlund added that future subdivisions will still have single family homes, “but we would likely encourage a variety of housing types, not just only single family zones.”

Sacramento also wants to create more housing sizes “to create a variety of income levels or rent levels and sales prices to make that area more accessible and inclusive,” he said.

What Percentage Of The City Is Already Zoned Single Family? 

In Sacramento, 70% of residential neighborhoods are zoned for single-family only, though duplexes are allowed on corner lots, according to a Frequently Asked Questions document produced by the city. Altogether, 43% of the city’s land mass is designated as single family zoning, an area covering about 43 square miles.

But in the past, some of Sacramento’s older neighborhoods allowed more variety of housing types, including the “missing middle” options.

“We know there are over 2,300 duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes in our older neighborhoods,” Sandlund added.

Small multi-unit housing such as duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes are often called “missing middle” options because they’re more affordable than single family homes and less dense than large apartment buildings.

Over the past 50 years, most cities across America have built either single family homes or apartment buildings, and “not something in between,” explained Sandlund.

Property owners in Sacramento’s single family neighborhoods can also build up to two accessory dwelling units, also known as granny flats, up to 1,200 square feet each on their lots.

How Does This Plan Address Racial Equity?

City officials say the proposal would break down the legacy exclusionary zoning in Sacramento’s single family neighborhoods by ensuring people of all races and a greater share of socio-economic backgrounds can live in areas with good schools, parks, proximity to jobs and transit. 

These are “zip codes,” Sandlund said, “where it’s been shown that you live longer if you live there versus other areas.”  

“They’re also highly segregated, mostly white, more affluent because folks [people of color] were not allowed to buy into those communities and build equity,” he added.

Racially restrictive covenants, which were part of a racist system called redlining, were used in the first half of the 20th century as a way to keep African-Americans, Asian-Americans and other residents of color out of certain neighborhoods in Sacramento and in cities across America. 

They appeared in the Sacramento region as early as the 1920s in what is now the Land Park neighborhood and Elmhurst and quickly spread to other parts of the city, according to a housing report by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments. 

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled these racist covenants unconstitutional in 1948, but the Jim Crow-era language survives in the property records of many houses in Sacramento and across California, often without owners realizing it.

“Now those covenants are no longer in effect,” Sandlund said. “But also if you want to live in a nice area, your only option is to rent one of these homes or buy them. And those rents and those sales prices are really high right now and they just continue to grow.”

Would This Zoning Change Lead To Large Apartment Buildings?

The fear that giant apartment buildings will pop up in single family neighborhoods is misplaced and wrong, according to city planners.

“We want to check the size of development in these areas,” Sandlund said. “Because in doing so when you check the size but allow more density, you get smaller, more affordable units. And we want the size and the look of these fourplexes, triplexes, duplexes to reflect the scale of the neighborhood.”

An existing triplex in the Curtis Park neighborhood.City of Sacramento 2040 Report

What’s The Timeline For Sacramento’s Proposal?

The city council is expected to vote on the general plan in December 2021. After, the city will need to update its zoning code in 2022 and could start allowing duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes in single family neighborhoods later that year.

How Will The City Decide Height And Size Limits?

Sacramento’s zoning code and citywide design standards would set the rules for how tall and large the new housing options could be. Right now, the maximum height for homes in the city’s R1 single family zone is 35 feet. Additionally, homes must be set back at least 20 feet from the street and 15 feet from the back fence. They can only cover “only cover typically 40 percent, not to exceed 50 percent of the lot,” Hertel said. “So, you have to have open space on the lot.”

“I haven’t seen the [city] council express a desire for large buildings in these areas, actually the opposite. They are concerned about their constituents. They are concerned about the scale,” Sandlund said.

Should the city council approve the general plan this year, planners expect to update the zoning code in 2022 to define limits for the new housing options.

“We’re going to work diligently with the community and consultant team to really get those development standards correct for duplexes and triplexes and fourplexes,” Hertel said. “The [building] envelope as you see it today won’t change substantially. It will be the same type of envelope. But the number of doors on that envelope could change. It could go from one to two to three doors.”

Would This Actually Lead To More Affordable Housing?

Some opponents of the plan say it won’t create affordable housing given California’s exorbitant housing construction costs. But Sacramento city planners say the change will lead to “lower cost housing options,” emphasizing it’s not a traditional, government-subsidized affordable housing program.

Still, dividing up a large home into multiple units leads to “some naturally affordable housing” that’s less expensive than renting or buying the whole house, Hertel said.

The change should produce “maybe not the affordability level for low and very low income communities,” he continued, “but adds to the overall housing stock something that can be rented at a lower price than a 2,000 square foot unit.”

Hertel said the city expects many of the initial housing options will come from existing homes that are retrofitted into duplexes, triplexes or fourplexes. Others would come from new construction on vacant lots. 

Coulter, of the Elmhurst Neighborhood Association, said it’s not realistic to think that property owners who spend money to retrofit their homes into duplexes or triplexes will do anything other than charge market rate for the units, making them unaffordable for most Sacramentans.

She said Sacramento is already addressing its affordable housing shortage by building dense new apartment buildings in Midtown and downtown. Residents who moved to places like Elmhurst should be able to preserve the calm and quiet that attracted them in the first place, she continued, rather than have it transformed by added density, noise and cars.

“People want to have a choice,” Coulter said. “Not everyone wants this.”

How Many New Homes Would This Create?

In the first few years, city planners estimate perhaps 100 new units would be built annually. They emphasized the plan is a long-term policy meant to return greater housing diversity to existing neighborhoods.

Officials say this is one small slice of the city’s overall strategy to address the tremendous need for more housing in Sacramento. The state requires the city to accommodate and plan for 45,580 new housing units by 2029, including 17,000 that are affordable to the lowest-income residents.

How Would Parking Be Affected? 

Sacramento’s single family R1 zoned neighborhoods require lots to include at least one off-street parking space per unit. Under the current parking standards, a duplex would require two off-street parking spaces, a triplex would need three spaces and a fourplex would require four, according to a city report on the plan.

How Does The Plan Address Climate Change?

Supporters say permitting more homes within existing neighborhoods will cut down on the need for sprawling new housing development. That, in turn, will reduce commutes and the vehicle emissions that make climate change worse.

“Having more housing opportunities near transit, near jobs, near schools,” Hertel said, will help “reduce our carbon footprint.”

How Can Sacramentans Get Involved?

Officials expect the city’s long-range planning document, the Draft 2040 General Plan and Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, will be available for public review in summer 2021. More information about it is at sac2040gpu.org. People can also sign-up for email updates at the end of this city FAQ document.

What are your questions about Sacramento’s plans to eliminate single family only zoning? Email PolitiFact California at politifactca@capradio.org. We’ll consider them in future updates to this news article. 

Source List

Matt Hertel, City of Sacramento’s acting long range planning manager, video interview, Feb. 18, 2021

Greg Sandlund, City of Sacramento’s acting planning director, video interview, Feb. 18, 2021

State Sen. Scott Wiener, news conference, Feb. 18, 2021.

City of Sacramento, Frequently Asked Questions document, accessed February 2021.

City of Sacramento, General Plan 2040 website, accessed February 2021.

Sacramento Area Council of Governments, Housing Policy Toolkit, June 2020

PolitiFact California, Trump Claims California Lawmaker Pushed To 'Abolish Single-Family Zoning.' Is He Right?, Aug. 17, 2020

Los Angeles Times, Sacramento may allow apartments in single-family home areas, Feb. 10, 2021

Sacramento Bee, Sacramento CA new housing proposal angers some neighborhoods, Jan. 10, 2021.

Sacramento Bee, Sacramento moves forward with controversial zoning change designed to address housing crisis, Jan. 19, 2021

Mercury News, Will San Jose move to densify single-family neighborhoods like Sacramento just did?, Jan. 25, 2021.

UC Berkeley Terner Center For Housing Innovation, Sacramento Leapfrogs State Capitol in Zoning Reform Race, Jan. 28, 2021

City of Sacramento, City Council Shows Strong Support For Allowing More Housing Types In Single-Family Neighborhoods, Jan. 25, 2021.

The campaign to recall Gov. Gavin Newsom this week shared the false claim that Facebook tried to “shut down” the recall effort.

PolitiFact California reporter Chris Nichols spoke with CapRadio anchor Mike Hagerty about it in this week’s Can You Handle The Truth segment.

This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

Interview highlights

On what the recall campaign said about Facebook’s actions

The recall campaign spread some false information through its Instagram account. It shared a blog post that said Facebook was trying to “shut down” the recall effort by not allowing it to place ads on its platform.

We found that’s just a really big distortion of what happened. In reality, Facebook announced last fall that it would stop accepting all political ads regardless of party affiliation. Its goal was to curb the spread of misinformation, so there is no evidence that the Newsom recall campaign was singled out.

“One of the new policies that we’re announcing is we’re going to block new political and issue ads in the last week of the campaign,” Zuckerberg said on CBS This Morning last September.

Facebook went on to extend that policy into December.

It then made an exception for the U.S. Senate runoffs in Georgia before resuming its ban on political ads in January.

On what political campaigns can do on Facebook if they can no longer buy ads

In the case of the recall campaign, they can do a lot of things. They have a strong presence on Facebook that includes a public group where more than 20,000 members share information about upcoming recall drives.

They have another 16,000 followers on Instagram, which is owned by Facebook.

We rated the claim that Facebook was targeting the Newsom recall campaign as False.

On the claim that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi bought Tesla stock soon before Biden signed the executive order for all federal vehicles to be electric

Our national partner PolitiFact looked at an image shared on Facebook that claims Pelosi bought more than $1 million in Tesla Stock. Tesla is the electric carmaker based in California.

This claim says Pelosi made the purchase the day before President Joe Biden signed an order for all federal vehicles to be electric — it strongly implies that she was trying to profit from inside information about new government policies.

PolitiFact found a few problems with this claim. Pelosi’s husband did buy stock options in Tesla for up to $1 million, but that was back in December, and not the day Biden signed his order.

Speaker Pelosi did disclose the purchase as required by law.

PolitiFact also found that Biden’s order just asks federal agencies to move towards zero-emission vehicles — it doesn’t actually require them to purchase electric vehicles.

PolitiFact also pointed out that Biden made it clear throughout his campaign for president that he wanted the federal fleet to move in this direction, so that goal is really no secret.

“We have to move towards a net-zero emissions,” Biden said during the final presidential debate. “The first place to do that by the year 2035 is in energy production. By 2050, totally.”

PolitiFact rated the claim that Pelosi used insider information to purchase stock as mostly false.