Connect with us

Business

Fontana's Black mayor is cracking down on Latino street vendors. Both sides allege racism

Published

on

Fontana's Black mayor is cracking down on Latino street vendors. Both sides allege racism

At meeting after meeting, activists, social justice groups and residents took their turn at the lectern in the Fontana City Council chambers in the fall to sound off against Mayor Acquanetta Warren. Their denunciations of the city’s first Black mayor were relentless, and their anger resonated beyond the council chambers.

For months, Warren had been the driving force behind a crackdown on street food vendors selling goods without proper permits. Under a series of regulations approved by the City Council, unlicensed sellers could be arrested on misdemeanor charges. Their food and equipment were now fair game to impound and trash.

“It’s time to take a stand,” Warren told the packed chamber at one October meeting, standing firm against the onslaught. “We’ve tried everything we can to help people get legal. … Now it’s time to grab a couple of hammers.”

In a city where Latinos make up the majority of residents, some view the criminalization of street vending as a direct attack.

“It’s fascist, classist, racist, xenophobic and a grave injustice,” Fontana resident Evan Webb, a staunch ally of local activist groups, told the council at another October meeting. “Because of your votes, people will be traveling to poverty, debt, trauma and deportation.”

Advertisement

In the months since, activists have continued to ramp up their campaign against Warren, a Republican who has been open in her concerns about illegal immigration. Their verbal attacks, some laced with profanity and racial overtones, ripple across social media. And even as critics accuse city leaders of an ethnically motivated crackdown on working-class Latinos, Warren’s defenders say the backlash itself is racist in nature — a move to undermine a clear-eyed leader because she is a Black woman.

“I have followed this anti-Black behavior brought on by this immigration group since it surfaced back in October,” Hardy Brown, a longtime activist in San Bernardino’s Black community, said during a December City Council meeting. “They have called us everything but a child of God and using racial stereotype language I choose not to repeat.”

Fontana city leaders say their crackdown on street vending is about protecting health and local businesses. Activists call it an attack on Latino culture.

(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

Advertisement

The cat-and-mouse game between unlicensed street vendors and city code enforcement is not new for Southern California. It’s been an ongoing point of tension in relatively white suburban communities for years, particularly in Orange County’s posh beach cities. But what’s unfolding in Fontana represents a new front in the battle as the debate spreads into unfamiliar terrain: the Inland Empire, where large numbers of Latino families are relocating to escape unaffordable housing in Los Angeles and Orange counties.

In Fontana, the talking points in the standoff are in many ways the same as what’s played out elsewhere: City officials say unlicensed vendors represent a health risk to consumers, unfair competition to bricks-and-mortar restaurants and lost civic revenue from unpaid taxes and fees. Those defending street vendors say their trade offers an economic lifeline to hardworking people and, for many Latinos, calls up a nostalgic mainstay of Mexican culture.

But the discourse in Fontana has also veered into barbed and more personal territory, highlighting the growing pains of a Latino-majority community led by Warren, a controversial figure determined to establish Fontana as an up-and-coming suburb.

Alfonso Gonzales Toribio, an associate professor of ethnic studies at UC Riverside, notes another distinction: Along with Warren, many of those taking on street vendors in Fontana are Latinos and other people of color using nonracial terms to say why it’s a problem.

“There is this class dynamic that they’re trying to sell the Inland Empire as sort of the middle-class suburban alternative to living in Orange County,” Gonzales Toribio said. “And in doing that, they’re trying to create the image of these pristine uniform suburban spaces that don’t have room for street vending.”

Advertisement
A crowd forms at a taco stand at night.

Fontana officials say they pursued ordinances criminalizing street vending only after the city had exhausted efforts to bring unlicensed vendors into compliance.

(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

Fontana indeed has transformed since its founding. Unofficially dubbed “Fontucky,” the area was once home to agriculture and rolling hills and later to the Kaiser Steel mill, the largest steel plant on the West Coast during World War II.

Warren joined the City Council in 2002, and her successful mayoral bid in 2010 was lauded as a historic turning point in a city with a cruel history of segregation. As mayor, she has courted warehouse development, bringing in scores of facilities and hundreds of jobs. Critics of the approach dub her “Warehouse Warren” and question the environmental fallout of a local economy reliant on mass distribution centers and truck traffic.

From the start, Latino activists also took issue with her stance on illegal immigration.

Advertisement

Street vendors are quick to pull out their cellphones and call up a clip where Warren says, “If you get here illegally, you need to learn how to speak English. You need to understand the culture in America.” The doctored clip is presented as if Warren said this amid street vending discussions. In fact, the clip is from a 2010 council meeting where a San Bernardino public official called Warren racist after a newspaper story quoted her expressing support for a controversial Arizona law, passed that same year, that gave police broad powers to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally. Portions of the measure were subsequently voided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Warren, a council member at the time, rebutted the accusations of racism and said she advocated for stronger border protections because people entering the country illegally were taking low-skilled jobs from impoverished Black communities.

A woman sets up a roadside sign for a food stand.

Digna Orozco sets up a roadside sign for her Fontana food stand.

(Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times)

Still, street vendors tend to think the mayor’s crusade against their vocation is rooted in animosity toward Latinos and immigrant culture.

Advertisement

“She doesn’t know us,” said Digna Orozco, who sells pambazos and tacos de canasta on a dirt patch near semi-trailer truck lots in Fontana.

Orozco said she turned to street vending after suffering a heart attack triggered by stressful work as a seamstress at high-end wedding boutiques. She didn’t think her heart could handle a return to boutique work, but she had bills to pay, so she turned to vending at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“She doesn’t know that it’s out of necessity.” Orozco said. “I wanted to tell her, ‘I’m an American citizen from Fontana and my children grew up here.’”

Fontana city officials have repeatedly said the vending ordinances are not meant to target a demographic group. Warren declined The Times’ request for an in-person interview, but offered a statement blaming the tensions on social activists who have twisted the dispute into a “racial or social equity issue to promote their political agenda.”

“The businesses most impacted by their intentional disregard for our ordinance are mostly Latino-owned small businesses,” Warren said in the emailed statement. “They are the ones requesting city action, and they are the ones negatively impacted by this outrageous behavior. This group has attempted to make this a racial issue, and they are the ones who have resorted to personal attacks and threats of violence. The city will continue to enforce the law and stand up for local residents and businesses, regardless of the tactics employed by this group.”

Advertisement

The Times reached out to several Mexican food establishments, whose owners declined to speak on the record. Some cited fear of retaliation from pro-vendor activists, while others worried they might alienate fellow restaurateurs if they expressed support for street vendors. In general, they said they agreed with the need to curb unlicensed vendors; some suggested setting a radius clause where the same goods couldn’t be sold in front of a bricks-and-mortar establishment. Yes, street vendors are common in Mexico, one owner said, but in the U.S., fellow Latinos should shake off old habits and strive to eat better and cleaner.

Amanda Morales, a self-identifying Latina and special projects coordinator for the Fontana Chamber of Commerce, said the street vendor ordinances are not racist in nature but instead an effort to lift and support Latino-owned businesses.

“We have heard story after story of our restaurant owners on the verge of shutting down and laying off their employees that live in the city because they are unable to compete with the price points of street vendors,” Morales said.

A woman cooks pambazo at her food stand.

Digna Orozco, right, prepares pambazo at her food stand.

(Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times)

Advertisement

Council members contend they pursued the new ordinances only after the city had exhausted its efforts to work with unlicensed street vendors to bring them into compliance.

Code enforcement officers have distributed fliers explaining the licensing rules in English and Spanish. The city created a program in June to offer financial assistance of up to $2,000 to help cover expenses involved with obtaining permits from the city and county. Three months later, the city shut down the program because no applications were submitted.

Instead, Deputy City Manager Phillip Burum said, illicit vendors have memorized when officers begin their patrols. They pack up their food when officers drive by — and wait until the officers are gone to start selling again.

In October, the City Council approved spending $600,000 to bring in a third-party vendor to help with the crackdown. Pleasanton, Calif.-based 4Leaf Inc. will provide code enforcement services, such as giving warnings to first-time unlicensed vendors, impounding equipment and food from repeat offenders and, if necessary, calling in police for support. Under the six-month contract, six security workers will patrol the city during eight-hour shifts six days a week.

“We’re not objecting to people making money, but you need to do it the right way,” Warren told audience members at the October meeting where the expenditure was approved. “Our public looks upon our council and our region to keep them safe, and if you looked at the conditions they cooked [in], you wouldn’t be eating at these places. There’s no bathrooms. How [are] you going to sit there for eight hours with no bathroom? Where are you going to wash your hands?”

Advertisement

Warren’s admonitions have done nothing to quiet the pro-vendor forces. And as tensions have heightened, Fontana has added more police officers to stand watch during council meetings.

In October, Edin Alex Enamorado, whose strident activism has made him a social media sensation, organized a protest in front of the mayor’s house that police declared an unlawful assembly. Enamorado and a cohort of activists have since been jailed and await trial on allegations they used violent tactics to harass and intimidate perceived enemies of street vendors and certain other causes in multiple cities. The defendants deny the accusations, presenting themselves as crusaders using their 1st Amendment rights to stand up for the oppressed.

Coalition groups such as the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice have galvanized vendors to share testimony at council meetings about what drew them to the occupation. Several explained in Spanish that the vending ordinances were upending a food service many residents appreciate and see as part of their heritage. Frustration has mounted as city-provided interpreters sometimes struggle to accurately convey what Spanish speakers say within the time frame allotted for public comment.

“When you talk about public health and safety of the community, you say that street vendors are a danger, that street vendors are a nuisance,” Joaquin Castillejos told the mayor at an October meeting. “You know what to me is a danger and a nuisance? It’s PM2.5 contamination from trucks going into our lungs every single day in the streets, and you wanna put warehouses next to a school—”

Before he could finish, his allotted time elapsed.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Business

L.A. wildfire victims uncertain about returning to their burned neighborhoods

Published

on

L.A. wildfire victims uncertain about returning to their burned neighborhoods

A new survey of victims of the Palisades and Eaton fires shows most would like to return to their old neighborhoods, but they’re worried that government officials can’t make it happen soon enough.

The vast majority of burned-out homeowners surveyed said they intend to rebuild the homes destroyed in the devastating January fires — yet half say they are unwilling to wait more than three years to return.

Urgency on all fronts is paramount to a successful revival of the lost neighborhoods, Los Angeles real estate developer Clare De Briere said.

She helped oversee the survey conducted by Project Recovery, a group of public and private real estate experts who compiled a report in March on what steps can be taken to speed revival as displaced residents weigh their options to return to Pacific Palisades, Altadena, Malibu and other affected neighborhoods.

Advertisement

The report was compiled by professors in the real estate graduate schools at USC and UCLA, along with the Los Angeles chapter of the Urban Land Institute, a real estate nonprofit education and research institute.

For the follow-up survey, Project Recovery tracked down nearly 350 homeowners who experienced total loss or significant damage to their properties to determine their preferences for the future. Most would like to return, but are skeptical about their chances to get back in the near future and will only wait so long before settling in elsewhere.

“For every year it takes to at least start the rebuilding, 20% of the population will find another another place to go,” De Briere said. “If that statistic is right, then after five years, you’re going to have a whole new community there, so it won’t be the same.

“You won’t have the same people remembering the same parades and the same soccer teams, or the librarian who used to have story hour in the local library. All that sort of cultural memory gets, gets wiped out,” she said.

The Project Recovery report outlines a plan to get homes rebuilt within three years after the land is cleared for redevelopment, but it requires close, constant cooperation between builders and public officials overseeing construction approval and restoration of infrastructure such as water and power.

Advertisement

In the recent survey, the top concern of displaced homeowners “was about the lack of leadership, both on the city and the county side to get it done,” she said.

That response came as a surprise to De Briere, who expected affordability to be the chief concern, since many homeowners are indeed worried that they won’t have enough money to rebuild the way they want.

But it typically takes up to 18 months to get a building permit in Los Angeles, a process that needs to be reduced to one to two months, Project Recovery said.

That would require using an expedited process being explored by Los Angeles officials that would allow licensed architects, engineers and design professionals to “self-certify” building plans and specifications as compliant with objective building code requirements. Artificial intelligence could crosscheck their assertions far faster than human staff would be able to do it.

Other major concerns among homeowners surveyed was that rebuilding would take too long and that their communities may never be the same.

Advertisement

Homeowners also worry about being in a fire zone or a landslide zone, she said.

The report authors hope that the rebuilding process will bring better knowledge about managing the ways homes interact with the potentially combustible environment around them.

“If we don’t do it differently, we’re going to have the same thing happen in Beverly Hills, and Bel Air, in Silver Lake, Los Feliz and Echo Park,” De Briere said. “This is what happens when we’re living this close to nature and we’re not managing it right.”

Other findings of the survey included:

  • Two-thirds of those affected by the Palisades fire say they are uncertain they will have sufficient resources to fully cover rebuilding expenses and additional living costs that are not covered by insurance. In the Eaton fire area, 82% either do not have or are uncertain they will have sufficient resources.
  • In the Palisades area, 70% of homeowners may not return if it takes more than three years to rebuild. In the Eaton fire area, 63% may not return after three years.
  • A “look-alike” rebuild within 110% of their prior home size is planned by 77% of people who want to return to the Palisades fire area, while 84% plan a similar rebuild in the Eaton fire area.
  • On average, homeowners in both areas expect about 70% of their rebuilding costs to be covered by insurance. On the low end of anticipated insurance support, 13% from the Palisades fire area and 19% from the Eaton fire area expect that between zero and 50% of their rebuilding costs will be covered by insurance.
  • Owners estimate it will cost about $800 per square foot to rebuild in the Palisades fire area and $570 per square foot in the Eaton fire area.
  • Cost is the top concern for owners in the Palisades fire area with a net worth of less than $5 million, and quality is the No. 1 concern for those with a net worth of less than $1 million in the Eaton fire area.
  • More than 60% of homeowners in both areas are willing to forgo customization of their new homes if financial compromises are necessary.
Continue Reading

Business

Delaying Medicare enrollment. What to know

Published

on

Delaying Medicare enrollment. What to know

Dear Liz: When my husband was approaching 65, he was employed and covered by a high-deductible healthcare plan with a health savings account by his employer. Neither his employer nor our local Social Security office had concrete advice on how to proceed about enrolling in Medicare, but after tremendous research, he eventually delayed enrollment. Now I am approaching 65. My husband is still working, and I am still covered by his health insurance, although both are in his name. Do I enroll in Medicare at the appropriate time or do I delay enrollment like he did?

Answer: Delaying Medicare enrollment can result in penalties that can increase your premiums for life. If you or a spouse is still working for an employer with 20 or more employees, however, generally you can opt to keep the employer-provided health insurance and delay applying for Medicare without being penalized. If you lose the coverage or employment ends, you’ll have eight months to sign up before being penalized.

Delaying your Medicare enrollment also allows your husband to continue making contributions on your behalf to his health savings account. In 2025, the HSA contribution limit is $4,300 for self-only coverage and $8,550 for family coverage, plus a $1,000 catch-up contribution for account holders 55 and older. Once you enroll in Medicare, HSA contributions are no longer allowed.

Medicare itself suggests reaching out to the employer’s benefits department to confirm you are appropriately covered and can delay your application. Let’s hope that by now your employer’s human resources department has gotten up to speed on this important topic.

Dear Liz: We read your recent column about capital gains and home sales. Our understanding is that if you sell and then buy a property of equal or greater value within the 180-day window, the basis for tax purposes is the purchase price, plus the $500,000 exemption, plus the improvements to the property, minus the depreciation, whatever that number comes to, and then the profit above that has to be reinvested or it is subject to capital gains. We talked to our CPA about this and he referred us to a site that specializes in 1031 exchanges.

Advertisement

Answer: You’ve mashed together two different sets of tax laws.

Only the sale of your primary residence will qualify for the home sale exemption, which for a married couple can exempt as much as $500,000 of home sale profits from taxation. You must have owned and lived in the home at least two of the previous five years.

Meanwhile, 1031 exchanges allow you to defer capital gains on investment property, such as commercial or rental real estate, as long as you purchase a similar property within 180 days (and follow a bunch of other rules). The replacement property doesn’t have to be more expensive, but if it’s less expensive or has a smaller mortgage than the property you sell, you could owe capital gains taxes on the difference.

It is possible to use both tax laws on the same property, but not simultaneously.

In the past, you could do a 1031 exchange and then convert the rental property into a primary residence to claim the home sale exemption after two years. Current tax law requires waiting at least five years after a 1031 exchange before a home sale exemption can be taken.

Advertisement

You can turn your primary residence into a rental and after two years do a 1031 exchange, but you would be deferring capital gains, while the home sale exemption allows you to avoid them on up to $500,000 of home sale profits.

Liz Weston, Certified Financial Planner, is a personal finance columnist. Questions may be sent to her at 3940 Laurel Canyon, No. 238, Studio City, CA 91604, or by using the “Contact” form at asklizweston.com.

Continue Reading

Business

LinkedIn cuts 281 workers in California as tech layoffs continue

Published

on

LinkedIn cuts 281 workers in California as tech layoffs continue

LinkedIn, the professional social network where people search for work, is shedding jobs.

The Microsoft-owned tech company has cut 281 workers in California, a notice filed this week to the California Employment Development Department shows.

Earlier this month, Microsoft said that it was terminating 3% of staff, or about 6,000 workers. The layoffs affected its California employees and LinkedIn workers.

LinkedIn is among major tech companies that have slashed their workforces this year. Meta, Google, Autodesk and other tech companies have also been cutting workers, citing various reasons, including restructuring, investments in artificial intelligence and low worker performance.

LinkedIn, headquartered in Sunnyvale and Mountain View, notified its employees about the layoffs on May 13. Workers posted about their pink slips on the social network, letting hiring managers and recruiters know that they were open to work.

Advertisement

The company didn’t respond to a request for comment. Its website says it has roughly 18,400 employees and offices in more than 30 cities globally.

LinkedIn’s California layoffs affected workers at its offices in San Francisco, Mountain View, Carpinteria and Sunnyvale. More than half of those cuts hit its workforce in Mountain View.

Software engineers were heavily impacted by LinkedIn’s California layoffs, according to data provided to the state. Talent account directors, senior product managers and other workers also lost their jobs.

The cuts come as tech companies are releasing more artificial intelligence-powered tools that can generate code. Executives have also said that would impact engineering jobs.

Microsoft Chief Executive Satya Nadella said in April that as much as 30% of the company’s code is written by AI. Nadella spoke during a conversation with Meta Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg at the social network’s AI developer conference.

Advertisement

As Microsoft competes to release more AI tools, the company has said that it’s trying to increase how fast it moves by reducing the number of managers and cutting down on redundancies.

It’s the latest cost-cutting round at LinkedIn. In 2023, the company laid off nearly 700 employees and said that it was trying to improve agility and accountability as part of a reorganization effort.

Microsoft purchased LinkedIn for $26 billion in 2016. In April, the company reported that its revenue in the third fiscal year quarter reached $4.3 billion in the third fiscal year quarter, up 7% over last year.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending