California
California’s Rainy Day Fund and Other Budget Reserves Overview
key takeaway
California’s state budget reserves, including the “rainy day fund” and other reserve accounts, serve as a financial safety net for services like education, health care, and child care during economic downturns. The rules for depositing and withdrawing funds are complex, and policymakers should consider reforms, such as excluding reserve deposits from the Gann Limit spending cap, to strengthen the state budget’s resilience during a recession.
Introduction
California has several state budget reserves. These reserves help to maintain essential public services — like education, health care, and child care — when revenues fall short, such as during recessions. Reserves aren’t for everyday spending, but rather a financial safety net for the state.
This report describes California’s state budget reserves, explains how funds can be accessed and used, and discusses proposals to reshape these reserves that have been floated in recent years. For more information about California’s reserve accounts, see the Budget Center’s companion resources, including this video — California’s State Budget Reserves Explained — and this fact sheet — 5 Key Questions About California’s State Budget Reserves.
state budget Reserves in a nutshell
- The Budget Stabilization Account (BSA), or “rainy day fund,” holds revenues to support any program funded through the state budget.
- The Public School System Stabilization Account (PSSSA), or schools reserve, periodically holds revenues to support K-12 schools and community colleges.
- The Safety Net Reserve periodically holds revenues intended to support the CalWORKs and Medi-Cal programs.
- The Special Fund for Economic Uncertainties (SFEU) holds revenues to cover unexpected state budget costs during a fiscal year.
- The Projected Surplus Temporary Holding Account can be used to temporarily set aside some anticipated surplus revenues and avoid spending funds that may not materialize.
Budget Stabilization Account (BSA): California’s Largest Reserve
The BSA is California’s largest state budget reserve. Deposits into and withdrawals from this “rainy day fund” are based on complex rules that were added to the state Constitution by Proposition 2 of 2014. Key rules include the following:
An annual deposit is required. Prop. 2 requires that 1.5% of General Fund revenues be set aside every year. Until 2029-30 half of these revenues must be deposited into the BSA and the other half must be used to pay down certain state debts. Beginning in 2030-31, the entire amount must be deposited into the BSA, although state leaders will have the option of redirecting up to one-half of each year’s deposit to pay down debts.
In some years, the state must set aside additional General Fund revenues. This occurs in years when estimated General Fund revenues that come from personal income taxes on capital gains exceed 8% of total General Fund proceeds of taxes. The share of these “excess” capital gains revenues that is not owed to K-12 schools and community colleges under the state’s Prop. 98 funding guarantee must be used for BSA deposits and debt repayments, following the same requirements as the mandatory 1.5% deposit. Since Prop. 2 was enacted, capital gains tax revenues have exceeded the 8% threshold in most years, but could fall below the threshold in years when there are downturns in the stock market.
State leaders may also make discretionary deposits. In addition to the mandatory annual deposits required by Prop. 2, policymakers have the option of saving additional, discretionary revenue in the BSA.
The required annual deposit may be reduced or suspended in the event of a “budget emergency. If the governor declares a budget emergency, the state may reduce or suspend the required BSA deposit with a majority vote of each house of the Legislature. Prop. 2 defines a budget emergency as a situation where:
- Conditions of disaster or extreme peril are present; or
- The state has insufficient resources to maintain General Fund expenditures at the highest level of spending in the three most recent fiscal years, adjusted for state population growth and the change in the cost of living.
BSA funds may be withdrawn in the event of a budget emergency, but the entire balance cannot be removed at once. If the governor declares a budget emergency and the Legislature agrees with a majority vote of each house, funds may be taken out of the BSA. However, the entire balance cannot be removed immediately. Only the amount needed to address the budget emergency may be withdrawn, subject to the additional limitation that a withdrawal may not exceed 50% of the BSA balance in the first year of a budget emergency. In the second consecutive year of a budget emergency, all of the funds remaining in the BSA may be withdrawn.
Funds that are taken out of the BSA may go toward any purpose determined by the Legislature. For example, these dollars could be used for health care services, subsidized child care for working families, cash assistance for people with low incomes, K-12 schools, and any number of other public services and systems.
Funds in the BSA cannot exceed 10% of General Fund tax revenues. Prop. 2 caps the balance of the BSA. Once the balance — excluding any discretionary deposits — reaches 10% of General Fund tax revenues, any revenue that would otherwise have been required to go into the reserve must be instead spent on infrastructure, which includes housing. Prior to 2026, the BSA balance reached the cap twice — in 2022-23 and 2023-24 — but then dropped below the cap as state leaders withdrew funds in some years to address budget shortfalls.
Prop. 2 of 2014 also established the PSSSA, the state’s budget reserve for California’s K-12 schools and community colleges. Prop. 2 does not require an annual deposit into this reserve. Moreover, Prop. 2 restricts the circumstances under which transfers to the PSSSA can occur. For a PSSSA deposit to be required, all of the following conditions must be met:
- General Fund revenues that come from personal income taxes on capital gains are relatively strong;
- Growth in General Fund revenues leads to relatively strong growth in the state’s annual minimum funding guarantee for K-12 schools and community colleges; and
- The Legislature does not suspend the annual K-14 education minimum funding guarantee.
Even under these restricted circumstances, Prop. 2 limits the size of the deposit to the schools reserve when such a deposit is required.
Deposits to the PSSSA may be reduced or suspended in the event of a budget emergency under the same rules that govern reductions or suspensions of deposits to the BSA (see the prior section of this report). Similarly, funds may be withdrawn from the schools reserve if the governor declares a budget emergency and the Legislature agrees with a majority vote of each house.
In contrast to the rules governing the withdrawal of funds from the BSA, all of the PSSSA funds may be withdrawn in one year. Moreover, funds withdrawn from the PSSSA must be used to support K-12 schools and community colleges.
Safety Net Reserve: Funds to Protect the Medi-Cal and CalWORKs Programs
The Safety Net Reserve was created in 2018 to set aside funds to help cover the costs of two programs that often see increases in enrollment during recessions: Medi-Cal and California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs). Both of these programs serve Californians with low incomes — with Medi-Cal delivering health coverage, and CalWORKs providing modest cash assistance to families with children. During economic downturns, more people become unemployed and temporarily rely on these programs to cover their basic needs, increasing state costs.
The Safety Net Reserve is not a constitutional reserve, so there are no binding requirements governing deposits or withdrawals. This means that funds can be transferred into and withdrawn from the reserve at the discretion of the Legislature. In fact, state policymakers voluntarily deposited $900 million in the Safety Net Reserve before draining all of those funds in 2024 to help address a $55 billion state budget problem.
Moreover, while state law specifies that the funds are to be used only for Medi-Cal and CalWORKs costs during economic downturns, state policymakers could decide to modify this language and use the funds for other purposes. However, in establishing this reserve, policymakers clearly recognized the need to protect critical services for Californians with low incomes from budget cuts — cuts that would undermine Medi-Cal and CalWORKs at the very time that these programs are needed most.
Special Fund for Economic Uncertainties (SFEU): The Discretionary Reserve
The SFEU is the state’s discretionary General Fund budget reserve, meaning policymakers have a great deal of latitude in spending the funds in the reserve. The amount of money in the SFEU is equal to the difference between General Fund resources and General Fund spending in a given fiscal year.
The SFEU acts as a buffer against unanticipated revenue shortfalls or spending increases. Due to California’s constitutional balanced-budget requirement, which requires the state to enact a budget in which spending does not exceed available resources, the projected SFEU balance cannot be less than zero at the time the annual budget is adopted. However, if state revenues come in lower than projected and/or spending unexpectedly rises, the SFEU balance will decline, and may become negative as spending begins to exceed revenues.
The Legislature can appropriate funds from the SFEU at any time and for any purpose. Additionally, in the event of a disaster, the governor can allocate funds from the SFEU without the prior approval of the Legislature. Specifically, when the governor declares a state of emergency, the Department of Finance (DOF) can transfer funds from the SFEU into a subaccount called the Disaster Response-Emergency Operations Account (DREOA). These funds are allocated to state agencies for costs that are “immediate and necessary to deal with an ongoing or emerging crisis.”
Projected Surplus Temporary Holding Account: A Place to Set Aside Anticipated Surplus Revenues
State leaders created the Projected Surplus Temporary Holding Account in 2024. This account gives policymakers a place to temporarily set aside anticipated surplus revenues, “ensuring that funds are only spent once they are realized.”
State leaders have broad authority to determine whether or how to use this holding account. The only requirement is that revenues that go into the account cannot remain there for longer than one year. If state revenues materialize as projected, the revenues in the account may be spent for any purpose or transferred back to the General Fund for future use.
This holding account is a “pilot budgeting project” that expires at the end of 2030, although state leaders could approve an extension as well as potentially modify the rules.
What’s Next for California’s State Budget Reserves?
The rules that govern California’s budget reserves can be amended by voters or state policymakers. Changing the reserve rules established by Prop. 2 (2014) would require voters to approve a constitutional amendment. Other reserve rules can be changed by state policymakers without the need for voter approval.
In recent years, state policymakers and others have advanced proposals to revise California’s reserve policies, although none have moved beyond the conceptual stage. Common proposals for changing state reserve policies include the following:
Proposals to increase the share of state General Fund revenue deposited into the Budget Stabilization Account (BSA), or rainy day fund.
Proposals to allow the balance of the BSA to grow beyond 10% of annual state General Fund revenue.
Proposals to exclude reserve deposits from California’s spending cap, or “Gann Limit.”
Changes to the rainy day fund or the Gann Limit would require amending the state Constitution. This means that voters would have the last word on the most significant proposals to modify California’s state budget reserves.
California
As e-bike popularity surges in Northern California, safety concerns grow
An e-bike boom is sweeping across Northern California, with more young riders taking to the streets than ever before.
Inside California Ebikes in Fair Oaks, owner Erica Frith says business has taken off.
What started as a small operation out of a local gym in 2020 quickly grew into a storefront by 2022, and demand hasn’t slowed.
“We’re getting about 100 out the door a month,” Frith said.
But for her, it’s not just about sales, it’s about the experience.
“There’s only a few things in life that create a childlike smile and happiness, and bike riding is one of them,” she said.
With more bikes on the road, service demand is also climbing. Shop service manager Jesse Cristo says keeping up means relying on years of hands-on experience.
“You have an e-bike industry that’s fledgling, but it’s a five billion dollar a year industry,” Cristo said.
At a recent safety panel in El Dorado Hills, residents and leaders came together to address concerns about young riders on the road.
“The safety around this area has been really scary,” said resident Liz Kmiec. “I have witnessed multiple scenes where these kids do not recognize the danger they’ve put themselves in.”
For law enforcement, the focus is on education, especially for parents.
“Education is huge,” said CHP Officer Andrew Brown. “We’ve been getting out to schools, community events, and sharing information to make sure parents know what they’re buying their kids.”
As the e-bike boom continues to grow, leaders say the challenge will be making sure safety keeps up.
California
6 California men plead guilty to violence against CHP officers during Los Angeles immigration protests
Six men have pleaded guilty in federal court for acts of violence against California Highway Patrol officers. They were accused of throwing rocks, fireworks and other debris during an anti-immigration enforcement protest last year.
Prosecutors said that on the evening of June 8, 2025, a group of protestors downtown Los Angeles at the Main Street overpass of the 101 Freeway targeted law enforcement officers, essentially trapping them under the freeway overpass while throwing burning objects at them.
Three men pleaded guilty on Wednesday, while three others entered their guilty pleas earlier in the week.
Adam Charles Palermo, 40, of Rampart Village; Ismael Vega, 41, of Westlake; and Yachua Mauricio Flores, 23, of Lincoln Heights were part of a group of protestors who lit cardboard and vegetation on fire, as well as fireworks, and dropped them from the freeway overpass, targeting a CHP vehicle, according to prosecutors. The vehicle caught fire. Flores also poured a liquid on the flames, igniting them further.
Palermo pleaded guilty to one felony count of assaulting, resisting, and impeding persons assisting federal officers and employees with a deadly or dangerous weapon. He faces a statutory maximum of 20 years in federal prison.
Vega and Flores each pleaded guilty to one felony count of obstructing, impeding, and interfering with law enforcement during a civil disorder. Both face a statutory maximum sentence of five years in federal prison.
Balton Montion, 25, LA County resident at the time, Ronald Alexis Coreas, 23, of Westlake and Junior Roldan, 27, of Hollywood, threw rocks at law enforcement officers who attempted to clear the freeway overpass.
Coreas and Roldan each pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor count of simple assault on a person assisting a federal officer. Each faces a statutory maximum of one year in federal prison.
Montion pleaded guilty to one felony count of obstructing, impeding, and interfering with law enforcement during a civil disorder. He faces a statutory maximum sentence of five years in federal prison.
Palermo has been in federal custody since August 2025. The other defendants remain free on bond.
United States District Judge John F. Walter scheduled sentencing hearings in the coming months for these defendants
Another defendant, Jesus Gonzalez Hernandez, Jr., 22, of Las Vegas, is scheduled to plead guilty on May 4 to one misdemeanor count of simple assault on a person assisting a federal officer.
California
California Will Soon Have More Than 300 Data Centers. Where Will They Get Their Water? – Inside Climate News
IMPERIAL, Calif.—The new data center proposed for a quiet city about 115 miles east of San Diego came across people’s radars in different ways.
For patrons of the deli on West Aten Road, it was the white “Not In My Backyard” signs jutting out of lawns.
For local irrigation district workers, it was something called an “electric service application.”
For Margie Padilla, it was a rant on Facebook.
The 43-year-old mom came across a post online while she had a few minutes to scan social media last spring after a day spent tending her garden and taking care of her two boys.
“Somebody was complaining about this center,” Padilla said. “I was like, ‘Whoa, what’s going on here?’”
What’s going on is the second-largest new data center being considered statewide, which would be less than half a mile from Padilla’s stucco home in the center of Imperial Valley. If finished by 2028, as the developer expects, the at least 950,000-square-foot, two-story data center could be the largest operating statewide, taking up 17 football fields’ worth of land.
The roughly $10 billion, 330-megawatt data center would require 750,000 gallons of water a day to operate, said developer Sebastian Rucci, who insists electricity and water costs won’t rise due to the data center.
“We have studies on the air. We have studies on the water. The electricity could be handled,” Rucci said. “We did our homework.”

Imperial officials haven’t quelled local concerns, only noting that the project is facing litigation and that the center’s long-term impacts on utilities haven’t been determined.
On top of the financial burden of maintaining her family’s health, gas and grocery expenses strain Padilla’s budget and she’s worried a new data center will only increase water and power costs. Padilla, who first heard of the data center a year ago, has only grown more concerned and she’s not alone.
Some residents would see it from their backyards.
“I can only imagine the rates going up once that data center is up and running,” she said, shading her eyes from the beaming sun.
This is one of two dozen data centers expected to open in California in the next few years.
Growing Concern and Regulatory Gaps
A majority of respondents to a nationwide poll by the US Water Alliance share Padilla’s worries, with 54 percent extremely or very concerned about the effect data centers will have on water quality, water supply and costs in their area.
In its first question about data centers since the poll began in 2016, two-thirds of voters said it was important for their state to have a plan for the effects of data centers on water in the coming years.
“I suspect that as data centers continue to be part of the broad conversation, then these numbers will probably continue to go up as people are more concerned about the impacts they have on the things that affect them and their communities, like supply, quality and cost,” said Scott Berry, the senior advisor on policy and external affairs at the US Water Alliance, from Water Week in Washington D.C. this month.
More than 90 percent of data centers in the U.S. get most of the water they need for cooling from municipal systems, estimated Shaolei Ren, an associate professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of California, Riverside.
During the hottest summer days, a large 100-megawatt facility can use about 1 million gallons of water for evaporative cooling. That amount is the same as about 10,000 people’s daily water use at home, Ren said.
But those centers require “zero water for many days of the year when it’s cool outside,” he said.
Some data centers are exploring alternatives like treated wastewater or graywater for cooling instead of drinkable water, providing residents and officials with options that could reduce strain on local water supplies.
California doesn’t require AI data centers to report water usage, and the state’s Water Resources Control Board does not maintain a specific list of water rights held by data centers. Although residents are working to require more transparency about water use from data centers, recent efforts to require the facilities’ owners to report how much water they use to the state have faltered.
On top of the data center boom in California, the hundreds of water districts, a deepening Southwestern megadrought and the diminishing of the Colorado River increasingly complicate water issues.
“Water is not purely an environmental issue. In many places, it is fundamentally an infrastructure challenge.”
— Shaolei Ren, University of California, Riverside
Also, while data centers can take as little as two to three years to build, developing new water sources can take as long as 20 years, said Ren.
Plans for the steep increase in water demand from California data centers inevitably focus on infrastructure, experts said.
“Water is not purely an environmental issue,” Ren noted. “In many places, it is fundamentally an infrastructure challenge.”
Across the country, water infrastructure upgrades are estimated to cost between $10 billion to $58 billion, Ren’s research team found. How many more facilities are built and where will be a big factor in future infrastructure costs.
The amount of electricity a data center uses, to some degree, determines how much heat it produces, and consequently how much cooling it requires and, in turn, how much water it needs.
The Imperial County data center is one of 24 planned for completion across California by 2030, according to the latest information gathered by analysts at Cleanview, a market intelligence platform.
Based on the about 1.7 GW of electricity the proposed data centers would use, with at least two projects for which there aren’t energy consumption figures, water infrastructure upgrade costs just for the demands of the centers in the state could run from about $200 million to $800 million, Ren said.


“This number assumes that California data centers’ water use intensity is the same as the national average,” he explained.
There is no central permitting authority for data centers in California, and most are overseen by city and county governments, according to the California Public Utilities Commission. Data Center Map shows 286 of the facilities currently operating in California.
While California’s size and tech focus lead some to expect many more data centers here, the cost and availability of power and land, as well as the general tax and regulatory climate, have been hurdles to building them out, according to the Data Center Coalition, which represents big corporations like Amazon, Meta, Google and Microsoft.
Nonetheless, California trails only Virginia and Texas in the number of individual data center locations, but its centers have much lower total new electricity capacity, which may also indicate lower water demand.
A research team at the University of California, Riverside, recently found that data centers could collectively require 697 to 1,451 million gallons per day (MGD) of new water capacity nationally through 2030. New York City’s average daily supply is about 1,000 MGD.
Currently, data centers are estimated to use about 39 billion gallons of water nationally each year, Khara Boender, the senior manager for state policy at the Data Center Coalition, said, citing market research from Bluefield.
“I know when we start to talk about billions of gallons of water in a year, that sounds absolutely crazy,” Boender said. “Looking at how that falls into context with some of these other large water users, I think that that kind of contextualization could be surprising to folks.”
Alfalfa irrigation in California’s Imperial Valley alone uses more than 800 billion gallons a year, an April essay in Outside highlighted. The beverage industry uses 533 billion gallons of water a year and the semiconductor industry uses 59 billion gallons, Boender noted.
But spikes in water needs for data centers can lead to bottlenecks in small community water systems, Ren, at the University of California, Riverside, noted. “Only comparing the annual totals can obscure the real water challenge,” he said.
This story is funded by readers like you.
Our nonprofit newsroom provides award-winning climate coverage free of charge and advertising. We rely on donations from readers like you to keep going. Please donate now to support our work.
Donate Now
There is no single fix for the pressure data centers are placing on water supplies across the state, which will be different depending on the location and water systems where each facility is built, said Shivaji Deshmukh, the general manager of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California—the largest supplier of treated water in the U.S. The district serves 19 million people in six California counties.
“Every community—even within our service area—is different in terms of costs, what type of supply they have. Some regions have access to groundwater. Some have access to treated wastewater or recycled water somewhere along the coast,” Deshmukh said.
So industries, most of which require water for cooling, will look to satisfy that thirst from different sources, depending on their location.
“Imperial Irrigation District is one where I know they’re discussing … installation of data centers in their area,” Deshmukh said.
The Imperial Dilemma
The plot of dirt on West Aton Road betrays nothing of the colossal data center that could one day sit on the land. Owner Sebastian Rucci hopes to have the facility up and running by the summer of 2028, he said.
Rucci, who is also a lawyer, has purchased 235 acres for his data center so far. He says the data center will allow Google to train its Gemini artificial intelligence, although Google denies any involvement “in a data center project in Imperial County.”
Before he can begin building on the site, a judge will weigh in on the city of Imperial’s lawsuit against the project, which demands that it clear higher environmental hurdles, including the California Environmental Quality Act—which often draws ire from developers who claim it can needlessly stall proposals. The local water district also has to complete its review of the project.
Rucci is determined, though, citing a series of studies conducted by survey and consulting groups, and by the district itself, which manages water and provides power. He posted those reports online to show the data center made sense—in part because water and power could be effectively provided to the data center and the land was permitted for industrial use.
The debate between supporters and opponents of the facility has escalated, with the next court date set for the end of April.
With that date in mind, Padilla, the Imperial mother, set out to work in her garden on a balmy Thursday morning.
Donning a green, short-sleeved shirt and flip-flops, she checked on her squash, poked at her cherry tomatoes and dug in her spade to move periwinkle to a better spot for watering. And through it all, she wondered what the thirst of the proposed data center would do to her garden. And her monthly water bill.
Her payment for water, sewer and trash services currently ranges from $90 to $130 a month—more than double what she paid six years ago.
“I’m also afraid they’re going to put [water] restrictions for us, for the residents,” said Padilla, who estimates her family of four uses about 300 gallons of water a day. “That’s going to be harsh on me, particularly, because of my garden. I grow my own food, my own vegetables.”
Margie Padilla tours her garden on April 16, where she holds a carrot that she thinks hasn’t grown well due to drier temperatures in the Imperial Valley. Credit: Steven Rodas/Inside Climate News
Worries over power and water price surges are misguided, Rucci said. He has been considering power and water needs for the 18 months he has worked on the project, he said, and outlined how it would bring various economic benefits to the region, including about 100 permanent jobs post-construction.
Still, Padilla is thinking about other things. She says her two sons were anemic when they were younger, requiring them to eat fresh produce to supplement the iron their bodies needed. Even after treating the condition, the Imperial mom keeps her sons’ diet filled with veggies and fruits. She needs her garden for that.
The Imperial Irrigation District declined to be interviewed for this story but, in a written statement, noted that it has yet to receive a formal request for water for the project.
The District, which provides water and power to all of Imperial County as well as parts of Riverside and San Diego counties, did not have specific estimates of how demand from the data center could impact its costs.
“Water was very concerning to us from the beginning,” Rucci said.
He’s spoken with city officials in Imperial and El Centro to arrange a water deal for the facility, he said, and proposed getting 6 million gallons per day of reclaimed water from both cities.
“Our plan was we would do all the municipal upgrades at our cost, and then we would take the excess water and run it clean to the Salton Sea,” he said.
Those conversations have not paid off, although Rucci said he remains hopeful municipal officials will help him get water for his facility.
“We first tried to do reclaimed water. I still prefer that but that seems to be taking months and I don’t know if that … will happen,” Rucci said. “Probably we’ll just get it from the (Imperial Irrigation District)” by purchasing it for industrial use.
How the center obtains its water may change as its plans are updated, he added.
Through it all, he remains confident the data center will be built in Imperial County and be good for the area.
Carolina Paez disagrees.
The 46-year-old mother’s backyard abuts the data center site. She says she’d be able to hit it with a rock from her property.
Both she and her son have asthma, and she’s worried about the construction dust, potential pollution and noise from the data center. And higher bills.
“I’m not just thinking about the expenses that are going to increase, but also about the things that are going to lose value—for instance, my house,” Paez said in Spanish.
“What am I going to do with this property? Who would even want to live here?”
About This Story
Perhaps you noticed: This story, like all the news we publish, is free to read. That’s because Inside Climate News is a 501c3 nonprofit organization. We do not charge a subscription fee, lock our news behind a paywall, or clutter our website with ads. We make our news on climate and the environment freely available to you and anyone who wants it.
That’s not all. We also share our news for free with scores of other media organizations around the country. Many of them can’t afford to do environmental journalism of their own. We’ve built bureaus from coast to coast to report local stories, collaborate with local newsrooms and co-publish articles so that this vital work is shared as widely as possible.
Two of us launched ICN in 2007. Six years later we earned a Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting, and now we run the oldest and largest dedicated climate newsroom in the nation. We tell the story in all its complexity. We hold polluters accountable. We expose environmental injustice. We debunk misinformation. We scrutinize solutions and inspire action.
Donations from readers like you fund every aspect of what we do. If you don’t already, will you support our ongoing work, our reporting on the biggest crisis facing our planet, and help us reach even more readers in more places?
Please take a moment to make a tax-deductible donation. Every one of them makes a difference.
Thank you,
-
Seattle, WA6 minutes agoSeahawks receiver makes surprise switch to cornerback
-
San Diego, CA12 minutes agoThe Saddest Restaurant Closures in San Diego, Spring 2026
-
Milwaukee, WI18 minutes ago
Milwaukee downtown food truck operators show up at City Hall to protest curfew
-
Atlanta, GA24 minutes agoMan injured in shooting after crowd gathered in NW Atlanta
-
Minneapolis, MN30 minutes agoFrey vetoes second effort to extend Mpls. pre-eviction period
-
Indianapolis, IN36 minutes agoIndy Mayor Joe Hogsett weighs a fourth term, amid scandals and project delays
-
Pittsburg, PA42 minutes agoSupporters ready to cheer on runners at Pittsburgh Marathon
-
Augusta, GA48 minutes agoDowntown Augusta shops adjust as development projects reshape city center




