The guides walked off the job in San Jose for one day on Saturday, calling the action an unfair labor practice strike. They organized with Teamsters Local 856 in 2025, according to the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. NBC Bay Area reports that negotiations have continued for more than a year.

Contract talks and working conditions

Wages, health care and longevity benefits remain among the unresolved contract issues, workers say. They also cite the rising cost of living as a source of pressure, according to NBC Bay Area. Tour guide J. Jaramillo, who has worked at the mansion for more than five years, said workers sought union representation to strengthen their ability to press for better pay, working conditions and good-faith bargaining.

Guides are also seeking limits on the number of people in each tour group, citing safety for visitors and staff. Workers raised concerns about ventilation, crowded rooms and stairs along tour routes. The mansion covers 24,000 square feet and has 160 rooms and 47 stairways, according to NBC Bay Area.

Union plans to continue bargaining

Veronica Diaz, the Teamsters Local 856 Central Coast division director and lead negotiator, said the guides were united and intended to keep pursuing a strong first contract, NBC Bay Area reported.

What the strike designation means

The National Labor Relations Board describes unfair labor practice strikers as employees who stop work to protest an employer’s unfair labor practice. The board says they cannot be discharged or permanently replaced. It also says employers must bargain in good faith with workers’ representatives and sign any collective bargaining agreement reached.

Deng, a Parks and Recreation Commissioner, brought in $7,374 from 14 Palo Alto donors and $8,628 from eight out-of-town donors during that stretch, according to finance forms reported by the Palo Alto Daily Post. Across her full campaign, only 55 of her 157 donations have come from within city limits — a pattern that has defined her fundraising since the summer.

Her opponent, Planning and Transportation Commissioner Bryna Chang, also kept collecting money after she said she had stopped, though in far smaller amounts: $1,977 from nine donors, eight of them Palo Alto residents. The ninth was a business and housing network based in Los Gatos. Chang ended her own fundraising shortly before Deng did.

Out-of-Town Money Fuels a Record-Breaking Campaign

Deng's reliance on donors beyond Palo Alto isn't new. Her campaign's own filing, covering July 1 through Sept. 19, showed she'd already brought in $166,128.92 in contributions year to date, including $83,822.11 in that single reporting period, according to a campaign filing published by padailypost.com. During that stretch, only 38% of her donations came from Palo Alto residents, per paloaltoonline.com, which also reported that $12,246 of her haul came from outside the Bay Area entirely. Chang, by contrast, drew 78% of her contributions from within the city, the outlet found.

Deng has said she asked friends from college, contacts in the nonprofit sector and people from her former home in Bellevue, Washington, to chip in, telling the Daily Post that most of her friends work as tech engineers, attorneys or in nonprofit circles. Palo Alto Online reported seven maximum individual contributions of $5,900 to her campaign.

A Crowded Field, a Lopsided Fundraising Gap

Deng and Chang are competing for one of three open seats on the Palo Alto City Council, alongside Mayor Vicki Veenker, Councilman Ed Lauing, Dr. Gary Gelchik, software engineer Brian Hamachek and Democratic Socialist candidate Raymond Goins. Councilwoman Julie Lythcott-Haims opted not to seek reelection, leaving the seat open.

The gap between Deng and the rest of the field is stark. Veenker had raised $50,119 as of Sept. 25 according to campaign forms, while Lauing's forms show $51,506 total. Goins raised $4,428 over the course of his campaign, and Gelchik and Hamachek both reported no fundraising at all. Deng's haul also dwarfs what past front-runners pulled in at comparable points in their own campaigns — Councilman George Lu had raised $51,145 at the same point in the campaign two years earlier, and Lythcott-Haims had raised $69,561 in 2022, the Daily Post reported. It's a figure that even outpaces entire past campaigns: Greg Scharff raised about $97,000 over his whole 2014 reelection bid, and Arthur Keller brought in around $96,000 running for council in 2016, according to paloaltoonline.com.

What Happens to Money Raised After the Deadline

Deng has pushed back on any suggestion that the late influx of cash is improper, saying in September that she saw nothing suspicious about her fundraising. Palo Alto Online reported that the next major campaign finance deadline fell on Oct. 22, covering money raised from Sept. 20 through Oct. 17 — a window that would capture at least some of the contributions logged after Deng said she'd stopped soliciting donations.

State rules do lay out what's supposed to happen once a campaign committee winds down. The California Fair Political Practices Commission says contributions received after a committee is formally closed must be returned to the contributors, and that committees may be required to file additional special reports depending on the timing and size of contributions or expenditures. Separate FPPC guidance on terminating a candidate committee similarly states that any money received after termination has to go back to the donor. None of that guidance establishes what, if anything, applies to Deng's campaign specifically.

Outside the campaign trail, Deng also serves as chief development officer for the Society for Heart's De-light, a group focused on engaging Chinese immigrants in the South Bay, according to the Daily Post. With the fundraising window narrowing and both leading candidates still logging contributions after announcing they were done, the final tally — and any questions about how that late money is handled — may not be fully clear until the next round of filings becomes public.

What the Federal Law Requires

According to the New York Post, which first reported the probe, the department is examining whether the districts crossed a line drawn by the PPRA. The Post reported that the law requires notice and written consent before certain surveys, evaluations or analyses, and that violations can lead to enforcement actions and potential loss of federal funding. The Pennsylvania Department of Education's summary describes the restriction as applying when students are required, as part of an applicable program, to take a survey, analysis or evaluation that reveals protected information—not to every classroom activity or survey. Protected categories include political and religious beliefs, mental health, sexual behavior, illegal or self-incriminating conduct, family relationships and income. San Francisco Unified's parent-rights guidance says parents must receive notice and an opportunity to opt their child out of other protected-information surveys regardless of funding source.

The alleged questionnaires reportedly surfaced as part of district ethnic studies curricula, and parents have accused the districts of ignoring requests to review ethnic studies materials or providing only partial access, the Post's reporting states. Schools are generally required to make all curriculum available to parents for review on request. Education Secretary Linda McMahon said parents have the right to opt their children out of these kinds of surveys, and said specific reasons prompted the federal investigations into the California districts, according to the same report. McMahon made her remarks while speaking Thursday at the Ronald Reagan Ranch Center for the Young America's Foundation in Santa Barbara.

What Parents Can Verify About Survey Rules

The PPRA standard is not a blanket requirement that parents consent to every classroom activity or survey: the Pennsylvania Department of Education's summary focuses on students required to take a sensitive-topic survey as part of an applicable program. SFUSD's published guidance says parents should receive notice and an opportunity to opt students out of protected-information surveys not funded by the Education Department, but that general guidance does not establish whether the district followed those procedures in this case. The sources cited here do not establish whether survey instruments or specific parent-notification procedures were available for the matters under investigation at Palo Alto Unified or North Monterey County Unified. As a separate-program comparison, a 2025-26 California Healthy Kids Survey consent form hosted on NMUSD's website says participation is voluntary and requires a parent's permission. That form concerns a separate survey program and is not evidence about the districts under investigation.

Who the Districts Serve

The three districts differ in size and geography. Palo Alto Unified enrolls around 10,000 students, San Francisco Unified serves more than 55,000, and North Monterey County Unified—which covers Castroville, Prunedale, Moss Landing, Aromas and parts of Salinas—serves roughly 4,200 students who are mostly Hispanic and socioeconomically disadvantaged, per the Post. Frank Miller, quoted in the report, said students should not be pressured to disclose intimate details or rank aspects of their identities by privilege. The reporting also describes allegedly required classroom activities called “wheel of power/privilege” or “mapping my identities” as part of the districts' ethnic studies coursework.

Palo Alto's Ethnic Studies Timeline

Palo Alto Unified's path to its ethnic studies requirement has been anything but linear. Superintendent Don Austin announced an indefinite pause on making the course a graduation requirement in January 2025, before the Palo Alto school board voted 3-2 that same month to require it starting with the Class of 2029, according to the Post's account. The district's own materials confirm that outcome: Palo Alto Unified School District says Ethnic Studies will be a new graduation requirement for the Class of 2029, beginning with the ninth-grade class of 2025-26, and its Board of Education approved the course outline on January 23, 2025, confirming the requirement would stand regardless of a state funding-triggered mandate. The district also says students in its fall 2024 ethnic studies pilot were surveyed about their experiences and perspectives once the course was completed.

San Francisco's Longer History With the Subject

San Francisco Unified has offered ethnic studies since 2010, and its school board made it a two-semester graduation requirement in 2021. On June 30, 2025, Superintendent Dr. Maria Su announced a comprehensive plan for the district's ethnic studies curriculum beginning in the 2025-26 school year, according to the district's own 2025-2026 Ethnic Studies Plan. The district says students may request a different course that satisfies the requirement if they prefer not to take the designated class.

California's Stalled Statewide Mandate

The investigations land against the backdrop of a statewide ethnic studies mandate that still hasn't taken effect. California passed AB 101 in 2021, making it the first state to require ethnic studies for graduation, with implementation set for the Class of 2029-30 — but only once the legislature fully funds it, according to EdSource. That funding, estimated at roughly $276 million annually by Spectrum News 1, was left out of the 2025 state budget, and the requirement remains contingent on a future appropriation, according to The Sacramento Bee. As a result, California districts are not currently bound by a state ethnic studies graduation requirement and have been left to decide individually whether to make the course optional, require it anyway, or pause rollout altogether, EdSource reports. Some, like Los Angeles Unified and Santa Paula Unified, have moved forward on their own timelines, while Ventura Unified has not, per Spectrum News 1's reporting.

Part of a Broader Federal Pattern

The California probe is not an isolated action. The Education Department's Student Privacy Policy Office found the California Department of Education in violation of federal student records law in January and said state policies pressured schools to hide students' gender transitions from parents, per the Post's report. The department has also opened a Title IX investigation into Los Angeles Unified over policies it said automatically reassign teachers accused of sexual misconduct with students — an allegation LAUSD has disputed — plus sexual misconduct investigations into Tulare City and Wilsona school districts and an investigation into Etiwanda School District over complaints that it failed to protect Jewish students from antisemitic harassment. Separately, the Trump administration launched an enforcement action against Los Angeles Unified over a policy that allegedly kept students' gender identities confidential from parents, according to the Los Angeles Times. In Massachusetts, the department investigated two districts over a student's gender transition, weighing whether either the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act or PPRA had been violated — part of what Education Week describes as at least the 11th such investigation the administration has launched citing those privacy laws in transgender-student-policy disputes.

The irony is hard to miss: the basement in question, at 526 Bryant Street, had been leased by KG-Bryant to Palo Alto's own Planning and Development Services Department until January of this year, according to Palo Alto Online. The city had been using that building, along with City Hall and 285 Hamilton Avenue, as one of three locations for its permitting operations before giving up the lease.

According to the lawsuit, the trouble traces back further than last year's storms. The leak at the Bryant Street building was first documented as early as 2024, the filing states, well before the city vacated the space. The complaint alleges the tree's root system physically intruded into, beneath and against the property — reaching the basement's structural wall and even the structure supporting the public sidewalk out front.

A Leaky Storage Room And A Closer Look

By November 2025, the problem had become impossible to ignore. Palo Alto Building Manager Kyle Shea wrote that there was a good amount of water leaking in from the rains that day in the storage room, the report notes. The city owns the public parkway and the tree itself in front of 526 Bryant Street, with the tree falling under Palo Alto's urban forestry program.

Not long after, the city's Public Works Department issued a tree removal notice citing root damage to the basement, according to the lawsuit, with removal scheduled for on or after Jan. 2. KG-Bryant also hired engineering firm Allana Buick & Bers to investigate the source of the water intrusion. That firm issued its report on Feb. 5, ruling out other potential causes, per the filing.

The Price Tag On Root Damage

KG-Bryant's lawsuit puts the total damages at nearly $324,000. The bulk of that, about $318,000, covers remediation work the company says is necessary: removing the sidewalk, tearing out and replacing damaged waterproofing, installing new waterproofing, and planting a new tree. Another $5,700 is sought for investigation and mitigation costs tied to hiring Allana Buick & Bers.

The company argues in its filing that the property damage was substantial and disproportionate and warrants compensation, and claims the city has not paid just compensation for the harm done. As of Oct. 22, the city had not responded to the lawsuit, according to court filings cited by the same outlet.

What The City's Own Tree Rules Say

Palo Alto's tree management rules are notably strict when it comes to roots and removals. The city's Tree Technical Manual states that cutting tree roots without prior approval of the City Arborist is prohibited within a tree's protected area, and a written permit is generally required to remove a regulated tree except in specified emergencies, according to City of Palo Alto documents. The manual defines a street tree as any publicly owned tree, shrub or plant growing within the street right-of-way — like the one at the center of this dispute.

Separately, California Government Code section 835 lays out when a public entity can be held liable for a dangerous condition of its property, requiring a plaintiff to establish that the property was dangerous and that the condition proximately caused the injury, according to California Legislative Information. It remains to be seen how Palo Alto will respond to KG-Bryant's claims, or whether the city disputes the root-damage findings laid out in the lawsuit.

The job cuts come on top of roughly 800 positions, or 6% of the workforce, eliminated in an earlier February 2026 restructuring, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. Taken together, the two rounds bring eBay's total 2026 workforce reductions to approximately 15% of its year-end 2025 global headcount, which stood at 12,300 employees, as reported by The Next Web. The latest cuts are intended to simplify operations and reallocate resources toward the company's fastest-growing businesses, including authenticated luxury goods, collectibles and refurbished products.

The cuts aren't isolated to this round, either. eBay previously eliminated about 500 jobs in 2023 and roughly 1,000 positions in 2024, per the Chronicle's reporting, making 2026 the continuation of a multi-year trend of headcount reduction under Iannone, who became CEO in 2020.

A Stock Rally Complicates the Layoff Story

What makes this round notable is the backdrop: eBay's stock price has surged nearly 40% year-to-date in 2026, significantly outperforming the broader S&P 500's roughly 12% gain, according to Reuters copy published by Investing.com. Growth in categories like authenticated luxury and collectibles is part of the backdrop, even as the company sheds workers rather than adding them during a growth period.

Morgan Stanley named eBay its top internet stock pick in October, with analyst Nathan Feather estimating that interactive livestream selling via eBay Live accounts for roughly 40% of the company's 2026 gross merchandise volume growth, according to Barron's reporting referenced by Moomoo. Feather raised his price target on the stock to $132. The company has also been investing in artificial intelligence and other technology aimed at improving its marketplace for buyers and sellers.

San Francisco Office Closing as San Jose Absorbs Staff

Beyond the layoffs, eBay announced it would close its San Francisco office at 300 Mission St., with 198 employees moving to the company's San Jose headquarters, per the Chronicle. That consolidation follows eBay's earlier move to exit its former North First Street campus in San Jose, a decision tied to a $12 million lease termination fee the company paid in March. That former campus has since faced total foreclosure over $98.4 million in debt, as Hoodline previously reported, with the property's market value plummeting from $132.5 million in 2018 to $54.7 million this year.

eBay's physical footprint has also shrunk outside the Bay Area. The company downsized its Manhattan presence in June, relocating from 625 Avenue of the Americas to a smaller office in New York's Flatiron district, a move Hoodline covered as part of broader efforts to lower fixed facility costs while preserving regional presence.

Depop Deal and GameStop's Rejected Bid Loom Over Restructuring

eBay completed its acquisition of Depop, the secondhand fashion marketplace, in July 2026, expanding its reach among younger shoppers as part of its recommerce push. Depop will operate as a distinct brand while benefiting from eBay's resources, according to the company. Fashion United reported the all-cash deal totaled approximately $1.4 billion, including a $1.2 billion purchase price and $200 million in adjustments.

The restructuring also follows an unsolicited takeover drama earlier in the year. GameStop CEO Ryan Cohen launched a $56 billion cash-and-stock bid for eBay in May 2026, which eBay's board rejected as neither credible nor attractive, according to PYMNTS.com. In its pitch, GameStop had pointed to eBay's $2.4 billion in sales and marketing spending in fiscal 2025 against just one million net new active buyers, arguing as much as $1.2 billion could be cut from marketing alone, per MediaPost. Cohen later said GameStop was considering a partnership or joint venture but had made no final decision; he also said the company was continuing its acquisition pursuit.

Part of a Broader Bay Area Tech Pullback

eBay's cuts land amid a wider contraction across Silicon Valley. The Bay Area saw a net loss of 27,300 technology jobs in 2025.

California law requires employers to provide WARN notices for certain mass layoffs.

eBay is scheduled to report third-quarter financial results on October 28, a date that will give investors and laid-off workers alike a clearer picture of how the company's restructuring is translating into performance. For now, the company is pressing ahead with its pivot toward livestream selling, authenticated goods and younger shoppers drawn in through Depop, even as it trims the workforce that built its original marketplace.

The commission reviews land-use matters and recommends actions to the council. Its work can include citywide planning: a June 26, 2024, city agenda records the commission recommending Downtown Precise Plan amendments for council adoption.

The two seats whose terms end Dec. 31 are held by Bill Cranston and José Gutiérrez. At its October meeting, the council voted to defer appointments after Chris Clark raised the possibility that commissioner Paul Donahue could leave his seat if he wins a council race. Chris Clark, John McAlister, Alison Hicks and Ellen Kamei voted to delay; Mayor Emily Ann Ramos and Lucas Ramirez opposed it, Mountain View Voice reported.

Four people had applied for the two seats: Alex Amoroso, Elizabeth Conlan, Daniel Hulse and John Scarboro. The council’s next steps depend in part on the election. Mountain View Voice reported that if Donahue wins, the city would begin another recruitment period and consider candidates for all three seats; if he loses, Clark said, the city would not recruit again for the two openings. The account does not establish when appointments would be made after the election.

Council members disagreed over whether waiting was warranted. Ramirez argued that members could vote against candidates rather than delay the process; Ramos said the pause conflicted with her emphasis on civic participation and volunteer service. Kamei described the decision as a response to a recurring election-year problem of commissioners leaving to run for council, rather than a judgment about an individual applicant, according to Mountain View Voice.

Earlier decisions offer context, not a rule

The council has handled election-year appointments differently before. Mountain View Voice reported that two years earlier, the council reappointed an incumbent commissioner even though two commissioners were running for City Council. That episode is a precedent for comparison, but it does not determine how the council must handle this year’s vacancies.

A separate vacancy arose in 2025, when Clark resigned from the commission after winning a council seat. The council then appointed Tina Pham, whose term runs through the end of 2025, Mountain View Voice reported. That appointment adds another seat to address this year, but the current council has not yet said what it will decide after the election. The outcome will determine whether the city considers two vacancies or opens recruitment for a possible third.

According to SFGATE, the disclosure came in a Wednesday Securities and Exchange Commission filing in which Zuckerberg told Meta he was considering relocating because of the proposed tax. Meta reported that he raised the relocation concerns to a special committee as a potential company risk, and the company said his departure could raise employee questions about management. Separately, Politico reports that Zuckerberg informed Meta's special committee he was evaluating relocating his primary residence outside California entirely.

Meta's response was twofold: a commitment for Zuckerberg to remain in California or another jurisdiction where Meta has its headquarters, and to be based near the headquarters, for the next eight years, along with a structural fix for his stock. Politico notes the company would create a new class of share allowing Zuckerberg to sell up to half his economic stake in Meta without giving up voting control. CNBC reports that this new nonvoting Class C common stock will take effect in January 2027, and that Meta said Zuckerberg could face a significant, multi-billion-dollar tax payment based on his Meta stock ownership if Proposition 40 becomes law, according to CNBC.

A September Dinner and a Palo Alto Listing

The timeline behind the filing stretches back weeks. Per Wired, Zuckerberg told Meta board members on September 9 that he was considering leaving California, and he planned to list his Palo Alto home for sale just four days after that board dinner. Zuckerberg owns multimillion-dollar properties in both Palo Alto and Lake Tahoe, per SFGATE's reporting.

Meta has also pointed to pandemic-era precedent in explaining why it values having its CEO nearby. The company said it faced challenges during COVID-19 when Zuckerberg could not be physically present with management, and it told regulators that keeping him near Meta's Menlo Park headquarters remains important. Meta did not immediately respond when asked for comment, according to SFGATE's account of the filing.

Voting Control at the Center of the Deal

Zuckerberg draws just a $1 annual salary from Meta, a figure confirmed by the same Wired report that detailed the September board meeting. His wealth is tied overwhelmingly to his Meta shares, and he currently maintains 61% voting control as the company's chairman. Meta's filing indicates he opposes financing or other actions that would cause him to lose that voting control, which is why the company agreed to issue him additional shares structured to provide liquidity without reducing his voting interest.

Meta said that if Proposition 40 passes, Zuckerberg would likely sell or borrow against his Meta shares to pay the tax — a scenario the new share class is meant to soften without touching his grip on the company.

What Proposition 40 Would Actually Do

Proposition 40 is built around global net worth rather than annual income. According to the California Secretary of State's official voter guide analysis, California residents who were billionaires as of January 1, 2026 would owe a one-time state tax equal to 5% of their net worth, due in 2027 with an option to spread out payments. The tax would be assessed only once, and Zuckerberg would remain responsible for it even if he moved after January 2026.

The measure matters well beyond one CEO's stock portfolio. California depends heavily on progressive taxes on the wealthy to fund its government, and the state's billionaires already pay billions of dollars in income taxes. Proposition 40 supporters argue passing the tax will not trigger an exodus of billionaires, while the broader debate over the measure has become a flashpoint for how California taxes its wealthiest residents.

Economists Split on the Long-Term Math

Independent research adds a wrinkle to that debate. A paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research estimates the 2026 California Billionaire Tax Act would collect approximately $30 billion, within a range of $28 billion to $36 billion. But the same researchers estimate that publicly confirmed taxpayer migration has already eliminated nearly 30% of the act's wealth-tax base, and they calculate a negative $38.9 billion net present value for state revenues once permanently lost income-tax collections from departures are weighed against the one-time windfall. Across 100,000 simulated revenue and discount-rate scenarios, the NBER authors found 85% produced a negative net present value for the state.

CalMatters notes that experts say there is simply no way to know whether the tax will spark a large-scale exodus of billionaires from the state. Opponents have poured enormous resources into stopping it: campaign finance records show opponents have raised more than $205 million to defeat Proposition 40, with Google co-founder Sergey Brin alone contributing $102 million to the opposition campaign, which also backs Propositions 41 and 42, according to the outlet.

Opponents have raised more than $340 million to defeat Proposition 40. Voters remain divided on the measure according to polling cited in SFGATE's reporting. California voters will decide the measure's fate next month.

The draft ordinance, reported by Palo Alto Online, states that ICE facilities severely affect the environment of surrounding communities and have a history of poor living conditions and substandard medical care. City staff have flagged a gap in the current zoning code: public-facility-zoned properties, which allow facilities used by local and federal government agencies, could in theory let a private property owner establish a detention operation in Palo Alto. Per the staff report, officials consider that outcome unlikely given the size, location or existing uses of the city's public-facility parcels, but they want the moratorium in place while they study permanent fixes.

What the Freeze Would and Wouldn't Cover

The moratorium would not apply to existing custodial facilities already in operation, such as holding areas inside the public safety building or the superior court building, according to city staff. It would take effect immediately if the council approves it on Oct. 26, and it would expire automatically unless the council votes to extend it. During the pause, the city says it would use the time to analyze updates to regulations addressing the impacts of detention and custodial facilities and to evaluate which locations, if any, might be appropriate.

City attorney's office staff have already met with the staff of U.S. Representative Sam Liccardo and with the Immigrant Protection and Empowerment Network, a nonprofit that coordinates with groups working to protect immigrants in Santa Clara County. Liccardo's office issued a land-use policy toolkit in August giving Bay Area local governments draft zoning language and legal strategies to restrict ICE detention facilities through municipal police powers.

A Regional Pattern Takes Shape

Palo Alto's proposal follows a string of similar moratoria already established in San Jose, Los Altos and Gilroy, according to the Palo Alto Online report. The wave of local action traces back to the federal government's move to begin building an ICE detention facility on a parcel in unincorporated Santa Clara County near Gilroy, a project first reported by San José Spotlight in May and also covered by Hoodline. According to Local News Matters, a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction late Friday, Sept. 11, ordering a halt to federal construction on the proposed 18,700-square-foot facility at 7240 Holsclaw Road, after Santa Clara County and state prosecutors sued alleging federal environmental review violations. Palo Alto backed the county's lawsuit against ICE, per the Palo Alto Online report.

Mountain View's city council voted earlier this month to establish its own temporary moratorium on applications for detention, custodial or processing facilities. The San José Spotlight reported that Gilroy's council unanimously adopted a 45-day moratorium on Oct. 5 blocking land-use applications for new detention facilities on public or private land, citing community safety and agricultural preservation, while San Jose's council first endorsed its own moratorium on detention center proposals on Sept. 15 amid concerns about emergency-response times and infrastructure impacts, then voted unanimously later.

The Legal Playbook Behind the Moratoria

These temporary freezes rest on California Government Code Section 65858, which lets municipal and county legislative bodies pass emergency interim urgency ordinances for up to 45 days — extendable for up to two years — to halt land-use permit approvals while studying zoning updates, according to the California Sign Association. Extensions beyond the initial 45 days require a four-fifths vote of the city council. Cities are leaning on zoning authority rather than outright bans because of a 2022 ruling: an en banc panel of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found in *GEO Group v. Newsom* that California's Assembly Bill 32, a statewide ban on private, for-profit detention facilities, violated the Supremacy Clause by interfering with federal immigration operations. The zoning approach instead relies on municipal police powers affirmed nearly a century earlier in the 1926 U.S. Supreme Court ruling *Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.*, which established local government authority to regulate land use, public health and safety, according to Liccardo's office.

State lawmakers have moved on a parallel track. Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 423, the Detention Facility Transparency Act, on Sept. 29, requiring local agencies, upon public request, to provide audio recordings and written records of 911 calls from privately run facilities, subject to an active-investigation exception and redactions, according to CalMatters. The proposed ICE detention facility near Gilroy has become a focus of local debate.

Local Policing and Political Backdrop

The Palo Alto Police Department already prohibits its officers from working with ICE and from asking about immigration status to make an arrest, according to the Palo Alto Online report. The proposed moratorium also arrives against the backdrop of the killings of Renee Nicole Good and Alex Pretti by federal officers earlier this year, per the same report. Separately, Mayor Vicki Veenker and Vice Mayor Greer Stone had floated a colleague's memo about ICE back in January, but the proposal was scrapped and never returned to the dais, according to Palo Alto Online.

If the council approves the moratorium Oct. 26, the ordinance would find that Palo Alto's public health, safety and welfare warrant a temporary pause while the city studies how to permanently address the impacts of detention and custodial facilities and evaluate where, if anywhere, such uses might be appropriate. The vote would place Palo Alto alongside San Jose, Gilroy, Los Altos and Mountain View in a regional effort to keep new ICE facilities out of Santa Clara County for now.

As reported by The Mercury News, Liccardo co-authored the bill with Reps. Jason Crow, Don Bacon and Maria Salazar, and he has said the measure now carries five Republican co-sponsors. The legislation would make Afghan immigrants eligible again for Temporary Protected Status and shield them from deportation while their immigration cases proceed. Liccardo has argued that the country should keep its promises to Afghans who risked their lives supporting the U.S. military, a commitment he says has frayed since American forces withdrew from Afghanistan in 2021.

Temporary Protected Status exists to protect people who cannot safely return home because of conflict or disaster, and the Biden administration granted it to eligible Afghans in 2022. According to AfghanEvac, the new bill would designate Afghanistan for TPS through July 1, 2029, while still requiring applicants to undergo biometric and national-security vetting, with the Department of Homeland Security required to decide each case within 90 days. The organization describes the measure as one that protects vetted allies already in the United States from deportation to the Taliban and restores their right to work.

A Termination With Conflicting Dates

The Trump administration ended Afghan TPS in 2025 as part of a broader rollback that halted protections for immigrants from 13 countries. The federal record on exactly when that termination took hold is not entirely consistent: the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services stated that TPS benefits for Afghanistan were no longer in effect as of July 22, 2025, while a notice in the Federal Register listed the termination's effective date as July 14, 2025.

Per the Bay Area News Group's reporting, more than 8,000 Afghan refugees nationally face deportation risk as a result. Fremont is described in that reporting as home to one of the largest concentrations of Afghan immigrants in the country, giving the stalled bill outsized local stakes even as it sits in Washington gridlock. H.R. 9899 was read twice and referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, according to a bill-status record from GovInfo, where it has remained since.

Why a Discharge Petition

House leadership controls which bills proceed out of committee, and a discharge petition is the rarely used workaround: once it collects at least 218 signatures, it forces a floor vote regardless of what leadership wants. The Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House maintains a public search page for discharge petitions filed in the current session. Once considered rare, the maneuver has become more common during the Trump era, the Mercury News reporting notes.

A recent precedent shows how the tactic can work. A discharge petition tied to a Haitian immigrant TPS bill reached 218 signatures after four Republican House members signed on, and the House went on to pass that Haiti TPS measure on April 16, 2026, according to House floor records. Rep. Ro Khanna and Rep. Thomas Massie also used a discharge petition last year in their effort to obtain investigative records related to Jeffrey Epstein, another example of the rule cutting across party lines when lawmakers want to force leadership's hand.

The Political Math Ahead of the Midterms

House Speaker Mike Johnson is governing with a razor-thin majority, where Democrats hold 214 seats, and the House majority faces real electoral risk in the upcoming midterm election. A spokesperson for Johnson did not respond to a request for comment for the Mercury News story, but the spokesperson previously told reporters that discharge petitions are typically used against the majority party and are unwelcome.

Liccardo has said he expects increased interest in his bill after the election, particularly from Republicans and especially those with Afghanistan military service in their backgrounds, and he has suggested that Republicans up for reelection may be more willing to sign on once voting is behind them. Control of the U.S. House will be decided on November 3, 2026, just days before Liccardo says he plans to file the petition.

Donna Crane, a lecturer in San Jose State University's political science department, told the Mercury News that discharge petitions give the minority party a powerful means of influencing the House floor schedule, and that Republicans have used the tool in the past to distance themselves from President Donald Trump. Joseph Azam, a Berkeley resident and board chair of the Afghan-American Foundation, said the stalling of Liccardo's bill has been frustrating but that he supports the discharge petition strategy. Azam has said that ending TPS shook people's belief that protecting Afghans is a bipartisan priority, and he has urged supporters to use every available tool to defend Afghans and hold members of Congress accountable.

Eisenberg was first elected to the board in 2022 after unseating incumbent Gary Kremen, according to The Mercury News. District 7 covers portions of Mountain View, Palo Alto, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Monte Sereno and Los Gatos, among other communities, as Mountain View Voice reports. Dailey, a Los Altos city councilman and former mayor, has also served on the Santa Clara Valley Water Commission for four years.

A Censure That Still Shadows Her Campaign

On March 14, 2024, the Valley Water Board of Directors voted to censure Eisenberg for misconduct and approved additional disciplinary actions, according to a news release from Valley Water. The board voted 6-1 to censure her for mishandling confidential information and, separately, 6-1 to censure her for discriminatory harassment, abusive conduct and improper direction to staff, per the same release. The Mercury News, however, reported that the board voted 6-0 to censure Eisenberg and strip her committee assignments — a discrepancy neither account resolves.

The censure followed an investigation into complaints against Eisenberg. Valley Water's release stated that eight complaints were substantiated for discriminatory harassment, abusive conduct and improper direction to staff. Separately, Palo Alto Online reported that investigators substantiated nine of 25 total complaints alleging harassing or offensive conduct, a figure that diverges from the agency's own count. The board also approved removing Eisenberg from all roles and responsibilities representing the board and district in a 5-2 vote, per Valley Water's release.

The 2,000-Page Document at the Center of the Dispute

Part of the fallout stemmed from Eisenberg's removal of roughly 2,000 pages of an unredacted confidential investigation from Valley Water headquarters on Jan. 29, 2024, according to the district's release. Eisenberg has denied the underlying allegations of harassment, abuse and discriminatory remarks, according to Mountain View Voice, and has said the conversations characterized as abusive were mostly taken out of context. She told the outlet her comments about men building with concrete and men engineers were misconstrued, saying she was quoting from Cadillac Desert, Marc Reisner's book on the history of water policy and dams.

Eisenberg has said she removed two executives she characterized as corrupt and believes her censure would not continue if she is reelected, because the people she quarreled with no longer work at Valley Water — adding that everyone who had complained about her has since left the district, according to Mountain View Voice. She also said her accusation of corruption against Rick Callender was accurate; a separate external investigation found substantiated claims that Callender sexually harassed Valley Water employees, per the same Mountain View Voice report.

Lawsuit, Then a Removal From the Podium

Eisenberg filed a federal lawsuit on Oct. 9, 2026, alleging whistleblower retaliation, defamation and emotional distress against Valley Water and former officials, The Mercury News reported. According to Mountain View Voice, the suit — filed by attorney Evan C. Nelson of Brothers Smith's Walnut Creek offices — raises whistleblower retaliation and 12 other claims against Valley Water, Callender and district counsel Carlos Orellana. The lawsuit alleges the retaliation followed Eisenberg's concerns about gender bias in committee appointments and what she describes as potentially concealed financial disclosures tied to a federal loan application, per the same outlet.

Four days after the lawsuit was filed, Eisenberg was removed from a Valley Water public meeting by security on Tuesday after refusing to yield the floor, according to The Mercury News. The case against Eisenberg remains ongoing, Mountain View Voice reports.

Flood Protection and Water Affordability Take Center Stage

Beyond the legal fight, Eisenberg has staked her campaign on affordability, sustainability, and community and flood protection, according to Mountain View Voice. She has said water affordability is essential and credits herself with stopping the proposed Pacheco Dam project, which she said would have increased residents' water rates fourfold. She said she is proud of her influence on the board despite the turmoil.

Valley Water itself manages an integrated water-resources system that includes clean water supply, flood protection and stream stewardship on behalf of Santa Clara County's 2 million residents, according to the agency. The district is divided into seven geographic territories, each with one voter-appointed director, and leads county stream maintenance and flood protection efforts.

Flood protection has particular resonance in District 7 because of the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority, founded in 1999 to focus on flood risk reduction and habitat restoration along the creek in Palo Alto, East Palo Alto and Menlo Park — work rooted in a 1998 flood that damaged more than 1,700 properties, per Mountain View Voice. Eisenberg served as the JPA's vice chair in 2023 and says she was removed from that committee assignment because of her censure, though she maintains she has continued attending JPA meetings and representing her community. Valley Water's Bay-to-Highway 101 San Francisquito Creek project, covering about 1.5 miles with a $44.5 million construction cost, uses a horizontal, or “living,” levee designed to adapt as sea levels rise, according to the Valley Water project page, which describes it as the first step toward protecting more than 5,700 homes and businesses from creek flooding.

How Eisenberg Entered Politics

Eisenberg has said she had no intention of becoming a local politician until retired Santa Clara County Judge LaDoris Cordell suggested she run for the District 7 seat, according to Mountain View Voice. Kremen, the man she unseated, had previously been accused of bullying in an external investigation, per the same report. Eisenberg's resume includes serving as a parent representative on the Palo Alto Unified School District's local district advisory committee in 2018, a board director for the Palo Alto High School baseball team's parents association in 2023, and a community legal advisor for the North American African American Civil Rights Organization in 2024.

The measure appears on the November 3 ballot and needs a simple majority to pass, according to Ballotpedia. A $10 rate was projected during a community survey period to generate about $2 million annually. As reported by the Palo Alto Daily Post, the town's average home sale price is $4.29 million, meaning a typical transaction would generate roughly $42,900 in tax under Measure N.

Portola Valley's current real property transfer tax sits at just $0.55 per $1,000 of sale price, a rate that has remained essentially unchanged since 1967, according to Portola Valley Forward. Under California law, general law municipalities are capped at that same $0.55 per $1,000 rate, the same source notes, which is why the town council packaged the tax increase together with a charter change rather than proposing the tax alone. A town charter would let Portola Valley enforce its own local laws so long as they remain consistent with the U.S. and state constitutions, per the Daily Post's reporting, whereas general law towns like Portola Valley must keep local laws aligned with state statutes and the state constitution.

Only a Handful of Charter Cities Exist Countywide

Redwood City and the City of San Mateo are the only other jurisdictions in San Mateo County that currently operate as charter cities with authority to set their own transfer tax rates, according to a report from Campi. That scarcity underscores how unusual Portola Valley's proposal is among its neighbors, most of which remain bound by the same decades-old state cap.

The push for new revenue comes as the town's finances have tightened considerably. The Daily Post reports Portola Valley faces an ongoing structural deficit in its general fund of $700,000 a year — the kind of gap that occurs when government spending outpaces permanent tax revenue without corresponding cuts. Town Manager Darcy Smith told the Daily Post the town has had to trim wildfire prevention funding because of budget pressures, even as the town has otherwise tried to increase resources for employees and emergency services.

Sheriff's Contract and Shrinking Reserves Drive the Numbers

Portola Valley's contract with the San Mateo County Sheriff's Office, which provides the town's primary police patrol services, has climbed roughly 85% over the past five years, per Portola Valley Forward's FAQ page. Meanwhile, the town's general fund reserves have slid from about 60% down to 20% of annual operating expenses, and municipal staff project reserves will be fully exhausted by 2030 without new local revenue, the same source states.

Should Measure N fail, town staff estimate Portola Valley will need to make roughly $1.2 million in municipal service cuts over two fiscal years just to maintain its required minimum reserve policy, according to the same Portola Valley Forward findings. The Portola Valley Town Council voted unanimously on July 22 to place Measure N on the ballot, following a year of public outreach and budget discussions, as detailed in the Town of Portola Valley's own town manager blog.

What Supporters Say the Money Would Fund

Town officials have identified wildfire brush clearance, faster 911 emergency response times, storm drain repairs, road maintenance, and preserving local control over land-use and zoning decisions as priorities for potential Measure N revenue. Proponents of the measure — Gary Nielsen, Fred Leach, Nancy Lund, Brenda Lane Munks and Rita Come Whitney — signed the official ballot argument in favor, framing the tax as a path to financial stability, local autonomy and stronger emergency reserves, according to the Daily Post.

Critics Call the Tax Burden Unfair

Not everyone is on board. William Urban, who wrote the official ballot argument against Measure N, contends the tax would be inequitable across taxpayers. He argues the town does not need a charter in the first place because its local autonomy has never been compromised, the Daily Post reports.

Urban has said that the 2 to 3% of residents who sell property in a given year would pay $45,000 or more on an average-priced home sale, while the 97 to 98% of residents who aren't selling — including renters — would pay nothing at all. Measure N leaves the actual arrangement for who pays the tax, seller or buyer, up to negotiation between the two parties in any given sale.

A clerical error also became part of the campaign fight: opponents say the printed rebuttal to the pro-Measure N argument omitted signer Danna Breen's name in official county voter guides, according to the Town of Portola Valley's election information page.

The idea surfaced after a legal fight in Santa Barbara, where the city folded streaming video into its existing utility tax, according to Palo Alto Daily Post. Santa Barbara's utility tax sits at 5.75% and already covers cable TV, and the city applied that same rate to streaming subscriptions as part of the levy, per the Daily Post. Disney sued over the move, but the California Court of Appeal upheld the streaming tax on January 30, 2026, and tossed out Disney's challenge, the newspaper reports.

That appellate ruling became final after the California Supreme Court denied Disney's petition for review on April 22, 2026, according to HdL Companies. The court found that the federal Internet Tax Freedom Act does not shield streaming subscriptions from local taxation, since digital subscriptions count as non-tangible services rather than products similar to DVD rentals, per the appellate decision detailed by Justia Law. The same ruling held that applying Santa Barbara's existing, voter-approved video utility tax to streaming did not violate Proposition 218, since enforcing the ordinance's broad original intent did not amount to creating a new tax or raising a rate, Justia Law notes.

How Santa Barbara's Tax Already Reached Streaming

Santa Barbara voters actually approved the underlying ordinance back in 2008, passing Measure G as a technology-neutral telecommunications and video users' tax that explicitly covered video delivered over the internet, according to Bradley Werner LLC. That ordinance reduced the city's overall telecommunications tax rate to 5.75% while broadening its definitions to anticipate services that didn't widely exist yet at the time of the vote, the firm's analysis states. When the city later audited major media companies, it recovered $506,117 in back taxes, penalties, and interest from Hulu, $68,950 from Disney Platform Distribution, and $37,270 from BAMTech, covering the period from 2018 through 2020, per HdL Companies.

Los Altos Vice Mayor Larry Lang said he first learned about the streaming tax opportunity at the League of California Cities annual conference, held September 23 to 25, 2026 in Anaheim, according to the Daily Post. Lang said Santa Barbara has opened the way for other cities to pursue the same kind of tax, and said he has since spoken with City Manager Gabriel Engeland about the idea, the paper reports. Los Altos already imposes a 3.2% tax on cable TV bills, giving the city an existing utility tax framework that officials are now looking to extend to streaming subscriptions, per the Daily Post.

A Playbook Spreading Among California Cities

Materials presented at that same League of California Cities conference framed the Santa Barbara ruling as a playbook for municipal finance, specifically advising city leaders that existing cable utility taxes represent an untapped source of revenue, according to the League of California Cities. More than 150 California cities and four counties already impose a utility user tax, with voter-approved rates ranging from 1% to 11% that supply an average of 15% of general fund revenues for the cities that have adopted them, according to a city finance primer cited by the City of Rocklin. Within Santa Clara County, San Jose has a utility-tax ordinance.

Comparable local ordinances may be evaluated to determine whether existing taxes cover streaming. Chicago's Amusement Tax is 10.25% for electronically delivered amusements.

For now, Los Altos' exploration of a streaming tax remains in early discussion, with Lang and Engeland having only begun conversations about whether to pursue it, per the Daily Post. Whether the city moves forward, and how quickly, remains to be seen.

The layoffs stem from a financial emergency that the Hollister City Council formally declared on October 2, after City Manager Ana Cortez reported the general fund could not cover the city's upcoming payroll. As reported by SanBenito.com, the general fund reserve had held nearly $7.8 million in cash as recently as June 2025 before plummeting to its near-empty balance. To keep the city running, the council unanimously approved an $18 million interfund loan, pulling $11 million for the general fund and $7 million for the water fund from traffic and parks impact fee accounts at 4% interest, due back by June 30, 2027.

According to The Mercury News, the police department laid off eight civilian staff members on Wednesday, according to Hollister Police Officers Association president Bo Leland, who said the city also terminated one probationary civilian staffer earlier in the week and laid off an administrative police captain. Leland said the city manager cut every civilian police employee without consulting the police department, the union, or the police chief. The city alerted the police union to the impending reductions as a professional courtesy on Monday and sent the same notice to other affected labor groups the same day.

Union Warns Department Can't Keep Up With Basic Work

The Hollister Police Officers Association said the layoffs would leave the department without records staff, code enforcement, building and fleet maintenance, patrol community service officers, and evidence-section personnel. Leland said no one would be left to answer phones, release reports, or release towed and impounded vehicles, and that no one would be available to process arrest reports for delivery to the district attorney's office. He said police officers are not trained in California public records law, and that civilian work had ground to a halt and could not restart until employees returned.

The department now has just one administrative services supervisor remaining as its only non-gun-carrying employee, per Leland's account to the same outlet. The police lobby closed at 10 a.m. Wednesday and was expected to reopen at 8 a.m. Thursday. The city said senior administrative leadership and the animal control division were not impacted by the cuts, and called the union's characterization of the layoffs premature, misleading and factually inaccurate, though it did not confirm the exact number of employees affected.

San Benito County Sheriff-Coroner-Marshal Eric S. Taylor said he was deeply concerned about the cuts to civilian police staff, warning that removing civilian employees would harm public safety because they support police operations. The city said it intends to fill seven vacant police officer positions, budgeting $1.99 million for those roles, while the laid-off civilian employees accounted for $1.4 million in the budget, according to figures Leland provided.

A Decade of Deficits Finally Catches Up

City officials say Hollister faced a budget deficit of almost $7 million for the 2025-2026 fiscal year, with anticipated revenue of $50.2 million against budgeted expenses of $57.1 million. The city said other personnel had to be reduced to protect police and fire services, and that workforce reductions became unavoidable because personnel costs make up a substantial share of its operating budget. Officials acknowledged the decisions affect dedicated public servants who contributed to the community.

The warning signs stretch back months. City departments will revise service levels and operating hours in the coming days to adjust to the reduced staffing, per the city's own statement. Cortez told the council at its June 9 meeting that the city had been operating under structural deficits for at least ten years, according to BenitoLink, though council members struggled to agree on alternative budget proposals or reserve targets during subsequent discussions. The city offered retirement and voluntary-separation incentives in July, and several employees accepted them, but the city later said those earlier reductions did not generate sufficient savings.

Hollister had not completed budget audits since 2022. Cortez, who assumed office in February with an annual base salary of $265,000 after previously serving as city manager in Helena, Montana, and Carnation, Washington, cited years of improper interfund transfers and weak cash controls in explaining how the shortfall compounded. She replaced former City Manager David Mirrione, who stepped down in September 2025 following a vote of no confidence from the local firefighters union.

Water Rates and Tax Increases Among the Options on the Table

The city is facing financial problems, and possible water-rate increases have also been discussed. BenitoLink reports that Cortez found in April that the potable water department had spent $26.4 million more than it collected over the past decade. The council also voted to request state legislation that would let Hollister seek voter approval for a 1% local transaction and use tax increase above the state cap, a move that would push the city's local sales and use tax rate, currently 9.25%, even higher.

The Service Employees International Union Local 521 posted about the layoffs, while city employees commented at the October 2 council meeting. The city also lost key administrators throughout the year, including former Fire Chief Jonathan Goulding in June, alongside vacancies in the public works and parks directorships, with temporary retired officials appointed to fill the gaps.

The council also approved a multi-year utility rate restructuring plan in June that raises fixed monthly charges through fiscal year 2030, lifting fixed monthly residential water charges from a range of $23.98 to $37.52 up to $33.33 to $52.15. Whether that plan, the interfund loan, a possible water privatization deal, or deeper staff cuts will ultimately stabilize city finances remains an open question as tensions continue between Cortez, labor unions and public safety personnel over the path forward.