Judge Blocks Asylum Rule, Green New Deal, Affordable Housing Policy
Speaker 1: 00:00 Federal courts are being kept busy by challenges to recent Trump administration. Immigration policy changes on Wednesday, a federal judge in California issued an injunction against the government's new asylum restrictions. That ruling came just hours after a judge in Washington d c said the policy could continue and another immigration case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling that puts thousands of illegal entry convictions in San Diego in jeopardy. KPBS reporter Max Revlon Nether joins us by Skype and Max. Welcome. Hi. Now the immigration policy change that got to rulings yesterday is the one that restricts asylum claims from people who've traveled through so-called safe third countries. What did the judge in California say about why he's issuing the injunction? Speaker 2: 00:49 Well, the judge basically said that he was objecting to this on two grounds. I should mention that this is the same judge that had heard an earlier asylum ban, which banned people from applying for asylum if they entered the u s outside of a port of entry. He struck that down at the end of last year and just by happenstance happen to be hearing the same case and said at the beginning of the hearing that a lot of the argument that the government was making for the constitutionality of this asylum ban violated it in the same ways that the first asylum ban, uh, violated it. And that was because, and in his writing, this went against the express wishes of Congress when they were writing our asylum laws to, to bring it into accordance and agreement with international asylum laws. So that was number one is that he found it was not in line with what Congress intended. The second thing that he objected to was basically the process by which the rule was handed down. I spoke yesterday with Sarah Peer sees an attorney with the Migration Policy Institute and here's what she had to say about the process of rulemaking. Speaker 3: 01:55 This new asylum bar is different on the federal argument, but in the process argument, it's exactly the same. It was exactly the same process for issuing a regulation will going around noticing comment and it has exactly the same excuses for why they went around noticing comments. Speaker 2: 02:12 So basically the government was saying that it could skip several steps that it has for rulemaking because that this was a pressing international issue and that the government itself was using this instrument in this policy to pressure Mexico into taking a firmer stance on immigration. And that was something that the judge really did not listen kindly to. He, he, um, was not combative I would say. But really skeptical of the government's argument that this was a necessity based on, you know, diplomacy and foreign relations. Speaker 1: 02:45 Does this injunction apply to the entire country? Speaker 2: 02:49 Yes, it does. So, uh, things get a little bit interesting here because we know that earlier in the day yesterday, a judge in Washington d c upheld the rule pending, you know, litigation and wants to see this play out in courts. Of course, the judge in San Francisco issued a nationwide injunction, which takes effect immediately. So you have two separate district court judges making two separate opinions. What happens in that case of course, is that the one who issued the injunction nationwide takes precedence. This cannot be enforced at any point until either I higher court, like the appellate courts were to take action on this. And in fact when the government was arguing yesterday in San Francisco saying, Hey, did you see this judge in DC? I'm actually have held the rule. The District Court judge kind of snapped at them and said, listen, that's what we have the appellate courts for. Speaker 2: 03:41 We're district court judges, we have different jurisdictions and we are allowed to make different rulings and both rulings are apparently headed toward the appeals court. Well, meanwhile, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling on Wednesday that could throw it thousands of convictions in the past year and this ruling applies specifically to San Diego. Tell us about that. So these prosecutions and these charges were part of what was called operate, what is called operation streamline, which was introduced in the southern district of California in around July at the beginning of July last year. And the whole thinking behind that was to basically mass prosecute in these mass hearings with 30 to 40 people in a courtroom at once for these very low level crimes of illegal entry into the United States. So when this came to San Diego last year as part of the Department of Justice's zero tolerance policy, it was a little bit different. What they did was they weren't charging people with the traditional charge that they had been doing in Texas and Arizona. They altered it slightly. So that instead of saying that you had crossed outside of a port of entry, they were charging you with basically avoiding inspection at ports of entry. And this led to a bunch of, uh, challenges by federal public defenders in San Diego. I spoke with Kara Hart Slur, who is one of the attorneys with the federal defenders of San Diego who worked on the challenge to these convictions. Here's her explaining it. Speaker 4: 05:13 And today with the ninth circuit said, is that the government was basically charging these cases wrong for the last year. It said that the way that they were charging them required you to show that they were coming through a report. Whereas almost all of these cases involve people coming through the desert. Speaker 2: 05:29 So basically what she's saying there is that they were charging people with literally the wrong charge. The ninth circuit yesterday said that basically all of these charges were in proper, not necessarily unconstitutional, but improper, and that they could all be challenged. Now, there's 400 of these cases on appeal and plus thousands more for people who have been removed from the country or voluntarily left the country, who, if they were to come into the country, could now challenge and have those convictions vacated. I've been speaking with KPBS reporter, Max Riverland, Adler, and Max. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 1: 00:00 The green new deal is a political framework that recognizes the responsibility of the federal government to address the threat climate change poses to the u s its supporters, including most of San Diego's congressional delegation outlined the necessity for the country to help achieve net zero global greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 among other investments in green infrastructure and jobs. The San Diego nonprofit climate action campaign is launching a new series of public events tonight, inviting the community to learn more about the green new deal. Renowned climate researcher Rom Rama. Nathan is speaking at tonight's event as part of the KPBS climate change desk. I caught up with Ramen nothin outside his office at Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla this week for a preview. Ron Ramanathan, thank you so much for joining us today. What's the first thing that you noticed about the air today? Was clean, clean today, right? Climate change impacting that at all? Not yet, Speaker 2: 01:00 but in some many places it is because when you heat the air, it traps more of the pollution, but there's also a big symbolism when this kind of looks so good. Most of us think when is climate change, right? So I think that's one of the reason we sort of feel in an ambivalent mall is it such a big problem? Right. And that's because climate change is happening. Some distant place in Sacramento, hundreds of miles away. I'm predicting that in what, 10 years the planet is going to hit by another 50% half a degree and climate change will be in everyone's living room. Speaker 1: 01:52 Well, and you know, recent developments in climate change research really support the urgency for the green new deals. 10 year timeline. What can you tell us about that? Oh, Speaker 2: 02:01 it's, it's a perfect timeline. I completely agree with that. As a scientist, I think worked on this problem for 45 years. Uh, it's not come to a stage where we have a narrow window to avoid this climate change, to become a disruptive crisis. It's heading there, but we still have that 10 year window to divert it. Speaker 1: 02:34 And one of the tenants of the green new deal is to power the United States at 100% through renewable zero emission energy sources. What did you find out about how this would really impact public health? Yeah, Speaker 2: 02:49 he's lovely. Huge, huge impact. Positive impact on public health because air pollution, the dominant source of air pollution is burning fossil fuels, coal, primarily gas and oil. And I teamed up with scientists in Germany and UK and we did the study. What, what are the benefits to the world I'm put to America. If he switched, completed completely renewables and be phone number, 140,000 lives can be saved. They are dying each year. They inhibited fossil fuels. And the benefits of that in terms of how much Americans are willing to pay for clean air is about a trillion dollars a year. And that's exactly what they need to switch from fossil to renewable. So to pay for itself, Speaker 1: 03:48 right? I mean and bring it home for me. I mean you, we've got thousands, hundreds of thousands of people who are dying because of bad air. That's asthma. What else? Speaker 2: 04:00 Regular asthma as one baby, the deaths are caused by heart, cardiovascular diseases, lung disease, weight. So those are the two. And the more insidious thing which is coming out is that this pollution gets into lungs and getting into our brains. So it's just not one or two ways, multiple ways until you're just counting the people who die because we can statistically do that. But in terms of people hurt, kids not able to breathe properly, allergies, there are so many. Speaker 1: 04:43 And outside of the health benefits of switching to renewables, you also found that the switch to renewables could also bring a financial benefit. Uh, explain how you came to that conclusion. Speaker 2: 04:54 The financial benefit comes from, again, different sources. First is the health benefits, the willingness to pay of Americans in terms of few million dollars. But life secondary is the air pollution destroys millions of tons of crops. Ozone destruction. So our agriculture productivity would increase tremendously. And uh, and what does that mean? Simply we'd, we need less water to grow the same food. So there's just the, the benefits are every sector possible, health, food security, air pollution. So there are multiple sectors which benefit from this. What could turn out to be the biggest benefit of all is slowing climate change, less homes, burning less homes, getting flooded just last week, 200 million are exposed to hundreds of a hundred degrees of more heat waves. Okay. So right now the evolution agriculture benefits is a major piece. In about 10 years, the climate benefits could be trillions Speaker 1: 06:16 and one way that you're helping to deliver that message to people is through your talks. And so on Thursday when you give your talk, what do you hope people walk away with? Speaker 2: 06:27 I think what, what I liked him too, this, uh, particularly this marquis Aleksandra crushed your car test LLCs bill, is that they have the timescale, right? We have won the 10 years before a lot of people get hurt. Number two, it's going to save lives. It's going to improve people's health and lives. And you know, America has over 40 to 50 million wonderful people, poor. They've no access to clean energy. This bill would provide energy access in a democratic way. Everyone has access. So overall, I don't see a single negative thing. One thing which has been pointed out at that bell. Oh, it's gonna bring the economy down, right? California and San Diego, we should be proud with the Republican mayor. We are leading this energy revolution. We have shown it doesn't hurt the economy. Our GDP has growing up while our carbon emission is going down. So there's just no basis for any of these claims about how it's going to hurt the economy. All we know is if anything, it helps the economy. That's the message I want them to take back. Ron Romanoff and thank you so much for taking time to talk. Speaker 3: 07:58 Okay. Speaker 1: 00:00 21 researchers from UC San Diego were involved in a study performed on babies in China that has been called on ethical, risky and misleading. I knew source investigative reporter Jill Castalano has the story. Speaker 2: 00:14 In 2016 a team of researchers from UC San Diego and China published a landmark paper in nature, one of the most high profile scientific journals in the world. Speaker 1: 00:25 So what I show you today is a remarkable transformation of how we think about regeneration and repair our own tissue. Speaker 2: 00:33 That's doctor Kang Zhang describing the research to an audience two years ago. John is the former chief of eye genetics at UC s d he helped design the study, which involved surgically removing the cloudy part of the eye, Speaker 1: 00:48 so when new lens could regrow naturally, and this is again before a surgery, the eye has a cataract and after surgery is entirely clear. This is just the small incision that a little scar the patient can see very well. And the being functional very, very nicely in life. Speaker 2: 01:04 Surgeries were tested on a dozen babies with cataracts and the researchers claim their results are much better at than what you see with current treatments. Speaker 1: 01:12 I want to thank you. I know also thanks to chancellor for this wonderful opportunity. They'll tell you the researching my laboratory and an n and also want to thank you for your attention. Speaker 2: 01:26 Dimitrios vulvas is an ophthalmology chair at Harvard medical school. As Volvo's read the paper, he became upset and angry. He called the study Speaker 3: 01:36 both scientifically not sound and ethically. I'm justifiable in the u s in the world. Speaker 2: 01:45 Vava was especially concerned that the surgeries were tested on infants in both of their eyes rather than just one. That means if the experiment went wrong, the researchers could have caused the babies to lose their vision. We are good to go. Craig Klugman is a bioethicist at DePaul University. If you do it in both eyes, the chance of having a bad outcome are increased. If you use the idea that you want to limit the amount of harm to a patient, doing it in one eye makes more sense. After this study published vulvas and more than two dozen ophthalmologists from around the world sent letters to nature about their concerns. A key point was that this new treatment did not work any better than treatments that already exist. Despite what the researchers claimed. Klugman says, having so many doctors reacted negatively to a research paper is unusual. I'd say that's not the Norman Science, and what it tells me is that there's a real concern of how this work was gone. Speaker 2: 02:46 About an ethics review board in China approved the cataract study, but experts told I knew source the experiment probably would not have passed an ethics review in the United States. Starting in 1996 China began setting up Western style ethics review boards that approve studies in advance and can shut them down if they're dangerous. But these review boards aren't consistent, efficient, or well organized and China's standards for research ethics continue to draw criticism. The head of the summit call doctor has study irresponsible. In November, a Chinese researcher announced he had performed gene editing on human embryos, sparking international outrage. A lot has been caused, I should not have been caused. It's very disturbing. It's inappropriate. Scientists around the world worried about the potential health effects for these children and the possibility of designer babies, which would be gene edited for traits like eye and hair color. Here's Klugman again describing research in China. One of their Speaker 4: 03:46 goals is to be, you know, the foremost scientific research country in the world and by doing that they are pushing the the edges. Speaker 2: 03:57 John told, I knew source that he and other scientists in the cataract study went through a proper ethics review in China. He said the study was not unethical, inaccurate or misleading. UC San Diego would not respond to I. New sources. Questions for KPBS. I'm I knew source investigative reporter Jill Castillano. Speaker 1: 04:15 Joining me is I new source reporter Brad Racino who worked with Joe Castillano on this story and Brad, welcome. Thanks Maureen. How did you see San Diego researchers get involved in this cataract study taking place in China? Do they often partner with research being conducted in other countries? Yes. Researchers often partner with collaborators both locally and internationally. It depends on usually there's a shared expertise or resources that they want to lean on each other. For doctors. Zhang actually has a lab in China as well as he had uh, employment with Ucs d. He had postdoctoral students both at UCLA and in China, so it made sense for him to work with collaborators in China as he has done before. How did you enjoy find out about the overwhelming amount of criticism that came as a response to the cataract research published in nature? In April, we published our first story on Dr Jong and as a result of that we got an unsolicited email from doctor Dimitrios at verbus at Harvard medical school who brought up this nature article, said that he and many of his colleagues had problems with it and for years have been trying to get nature to retract the article. Speaker 1: 05:26 So Joel reached out to him, interviewed him a couple times as well as some of his colleagues, including Debra Vanderveen at Harvard and Chris Hammond at Kings College in London. Now you mentioned the previous article, Dr John has been the subject of several. I knew source investigative reports. Can you recap for us the allegations that have been made against his research ethics? Sure. So back in February or March, we had found an audit that ucs d had done on Dr Zahng several years ago. And in that audit combined with the FDA, the followup audit and inspection that occurred of Dr Zahng, there were findings that Junge had enrolled people in his studies that he shouldn't have, including a minor. He lost records for both his patients and for his study drugs. He performed tests on patients without their permission. He even poked a hole in one subjects. I and I like to clear up, these aren't actually allegations. Speaker 1: 06:17 These are actually documented findings by ucs, D and FDA. And then after that we independently had found that Zang had many nondisclosures with both ucs d and with the research journals such as nature that he had published in. And these nondisclosures had a lot to do with his business interests abroad. And those findings actually led to zangs resignation earlier this month. Now, has there been any reason to suspect that the UC researchers partnered with this Chinese cataract experiment? Precisely because it would not be allowed in the U s we don't have evidence to support that. But the underlying thread there is something interesting and it's something that we explore in the story, which is that the, the Western world of research ethics has struggled for decades to come to an understanding with China on best practices and principles regarding research. Dr Jiang himself did state that the reason that they wanted to do this in China according to him is that, uh, it's easier to perform clinical trials on primates there, that this would cut years off the clinical trials length and that there are far fewer animal protesters in China than in the u s so it was actually easier to get through the clinical stage of primate testing to get to the human subject stage by doing it in China. Speaker 1: 07:25 Tell us more about what you were able to find out about the ethical standards for medical research in China. Why is it that they seem to be conducting experiments more rapidly and less cautiously than other scientists? So China for most of, it's a lot of its history, you know, didn't have, wasn't, it wasn't even close to the u s in terms of research and development, uh, medical research, clinical trials, and then they'd been playing catch up over the last few decades and they've been doing it, um, very fast. In fact, there they are almost caught up to us in terms of research and development and the percentage of their GDP they spend on that. Uh, but their along with that and playing catch up and going about this as fast as they have, they've encountered a number of problems with medical research ethics, including that their institutional review boards, which are the boards that oversee human patient protection, human subject protection, they're not consistent. Speaker 1: 08:15 They're not well organized. There is a huge problem with plagiarism among scientists in China. Um, and, and there's just an overwhelming amount of criticism among the rest of Western world as, uh, as it relates to China. So Chinese researchers in China in general are facing an uphill battle when it comes to trying to get up to par with what's happening in the u s well, critics are saying that this risky treatment on infants, the cataract treatment that you reported on didn't work any better than treatments that already exist. Dr John told you, the research quote revealed an immense potential for alleviating suffering and improving the quality of life for countless people unquote. Were you able to determine which assessment is most likely true? No, we can't really determine that as reporters. Um, you know, Giang and his collaborator, Dr Lou both stand by this research say that it has, it has been argued in nature, um, for the last couple of years and that they are right, that they have proven their point. Speaker 1: 09:13 They're detractors, including the 20 something researchers around the world who have written in nature claimed that they are still, they are. Right. Um, so we're just here to kind of present that discussion. We're not here to pick which one is right. Dr. Young responded to your questions for this investigative report. Has he done? So for previous reports? No. It was actually a shock and a surprise for Jill to, uh, get an email from him the other day. Cause we, like you said, we've been reporting on him for months and he has not responded to anything that we've asked him a couple of times. His attorney did respond to us but not from him. So Jill actually entered into an email dialogue with him, uh, multiple questions and followups with him over the last couple of weeks where he has answered these questions. Um, very recently, this is just over this weekend. He did, uh, tend to seem to step back from the research a bit and claimed that he really didn't have much to do with the, other than analyzing the data and being the English speaking fluent counterpart for his colleagues in China. So that was interesting. But no, he has not commented. I've been speaking with I new source reporter Brad Racino. Brad. Thank you. Thank you, Maureen. You can go to, I knew source.org/risky research to learn more. Speaker 5: 10:25 [inaudible]. Speaker 1: 00:00 Next week. San Diego City Council members are scheduled to vote on a major change to the city's affordable housing policy. The goal is to push the private market to more heavily subsidized homes for the poor KPBS Metro reporter Andrew Bowen says some developers are warning of unintended consequences. Speaker 2: 00:21 Okay. Speaker 3: 00:21 The intersection of Kansas Street and Howard Avenue in North Park construction crews are putting up the framing of a new apartment Speaker 2: 00:28 building. Speaker 3: 00:32 Come next year, this project will add 24 new homes to one of San Diego's most walkable bikeable transit rich neighborhoods. Three of these homes will be affordable to very low income households in San Diego. That could mean a single parent with one child making about $43,000 a year. These are two story of living spaces and then the bedrooms off of the side and then they'll have a loft. You can see up the up there. Barry Virile is this building's architect and developer. His project made use of the city's density bonus program, which gives developers a pass on certain regulations if they set aside and subsidize a portion of their homes for low income renters. Varroa says incentives are the best way to fix the housing crisis. There's a lot of developers that want to do the right thing and provide affordable housing as well. We just need to create the right atmosphere to where that can be done. Speaker 3: 01:26 But varroa is wary of a new affordable housing proposal going before the city council on Tuesday. Council President Georgette Gomez is asking her colleagues to update the city's inclusionary housing policy. Right now if a developer chooses not to include low income housing in their project, they have to pay a fee. The fees to support affordable housing elsewhere. Gomes wants to nearly double that fee. She says the policy is 16 years old and in need of an update a long time ago. The conditions have completely changed. The demand for affordable housing are completely different than what they were in 2003 so it was time. I think I should have been done earlier, but no one wanted to look at it. Gomez also wants to require developers to charge cheaper rents for the low income units when they do include them in their projects and she wants to give developers a few extra options for how to avoid paying the fees, like donating a piece of land for future affordable housing. Speaker 3: 02:27 That's huge. That's actually one of the things that is getting that it's not getting more attention, but the developers love that. They think that was very creative because there's different ways in which we can meet the need. Right, and all of it will benefit. So I do believe right now that what I'm proposing is something that is not going to kill the market. A. And. B, it's it's responsive to the crisis. Gomez included some developers in a six month long outreach process. She commissioned a study that found most projects could absorb the costs of her stricter policy without major impacts. Still, she says she's not surprised to developers have lined up against her proposal. I think they would have opposed to anything I would have presented. I'm not saying that this is going to resolve the crisis at all, but when we get more funding, if developers choose to pay the fee, um, with that get us to supporting more housing. Yes, Speaker 4: 03:26 there's a lot of good intentions, but sometimes those good intentions have negative outcomes. Speaker 3: 03:32 Barry Varroa says there are things in the proposal he likes, but overall he fears it will make things worse. Homebuilding permits have gone down in the county for the past two years at a time when housing scarcity is already pushing up home prices and rents. He says the city can't make it more expensive to build while also asking for more housing. Speaker 4: 03:53 Perhaps some of the bigger developers are going to choose to go elsewhere. I think that a carrot is far more effective than a stick. So yeah, I think we could be looking at waste to incentivize more development, more affordable development rather than penalizing someone for not doing the type of development that we need. Speaker 3: 04:14 Mayor Kevin Faulkner has been silent on Gomez proposal. If it passes the council, he'll be under pressure from his supporters in the building industry to issue a veto. And that will be a test for the Councils, Democrats who have yet to override a veto with their new six vote. Super majority. Andrew Bowen KPBS news Speaker 5: 04:35 [inaudible]. Speaker 1: 00:00 Though federal regulators say local government should face legal action if they tried to restrict wireless companies from delivering five Jeep San Diego residents. Essentially say you've got to play by our rules as our science and technology reporters. Shalina chant Lani reports, San Diego is moving forward with five g and implementing new limitations on the high speed technology. Shalina thanks for joining us. Hey, thanks for having me here. So first, remind us why the city is required to upgrade to 5g. So San Diego has some pretty big smart city goals to begin with. So this transition to five g technology is already in the city's plan, but last year that transition got sped up because the FCC announced rollbacks on regulations around telecommunications providers and how they would be able to build their 5g infrastructure and effect that basically limited city's abilities to stall on accepting or denying permits for new poles and cells to be placed to support this infrastructure. Speaker 1: 01:03 Um, so that created some timelines that San Diego among other cities has to meet or face potential legal action from these providers. So what will five g technology change for us in our everyday lives? Yeah. So 5g promises faster internet speeds, higher connectivity, um, basically everywhere. It can impacts a major industries like the healthcare industry with things like virtual surgery by, um, getting rid of that, you know, delay between a surgeon wearing a virtual reality set and a robot actually performing a surgery. Um, and there are some potential benefits for low income communities too as well. A lot of low income students rely on their phones to be able to do their homework, so if they have higher speeds, and that's really great. Um, but you know, there are also some challenges for five g to work. It relies on basically these small cells being placed everywhere. Speaker 1: 01:56 So, you know, some paces might not be able to get that connectivity and that could actually result in a digital divide. Well, speaking of those small cells, what are the new limitations on five g technology here in San Diego? So the city on Tuesday almost unanimously voted to put in place regulations around these small cells, basically because they look kind of ugly. Uh, so regulations are aesthetic. Um, so they put in place specific design and processing requirements, uh, that, you know, are side by side the federal and state regulations around not limiting 5g infrastructure from being put in place. Essentially the city is putting the small cells in, but it's making some aesthetic, uh, limitation so that they aren't obtrusive. Okay. So there are some requirements as to how these things look basically. Uh, will the city face legal challenges to this? That's hard to say because the FCC isn't particularly for any type of delay when it comes to putting in these small cells. Speaker 1: 03:03 And an aesthetic requirement could be a type of delay, uh, or, uh, a burden for the wireless, uh, telecommunications providers. Um, but the city for the most part is complying with federal regulations. It's a meeting timeframe requirements for putting in place at standards. So it doesn't seem like the city is going gonna face any legal challenges to this. So what was it about the technology that residents had a problem with? So there are a couple of issues with the technology on the firsthand. It's kind of ugly. Uh, the, for five g to work, it relies on things called small cells, which are these shoe box size equipment that has to be put on Poles, um, for the intentive, uh, technology to be working. And so there are some cities in California like San Francisco that have already really pushed back on it in the California Supreme Court actually upheld that these small cells could pose aesthetic challenges for cities for things like tourism because cities that uh, you know, rely on people coming in and appreciating the, the, the splendor and the looks of the city, um, could face some issues with that. Speaker 1: 04:10 And San Diego, uh, residents are also having similar concerns. There are a lot of historic districts in San Diego that are very beautiful and residents are very concerned that this is going to take away from the, the look of these historic districts. And then there's also another issue which is kind of interesting. Um, a movement of folks who believe that there is more radiation that could potentially be admitted from the small cells. Cell phone towers give off, um, small amounts of radiation. Um, naturally because they, uh, are emitting radio waves. Uh, and so the, the belief is that the more these small cells are placed on every single block, the more you're going to be exposed to radiation. Um, there is not a lot of evidence to support that that is going to, to actually have a major impact on people. But it's a concern that has been floating around. Speaker 1: 05:06 So what happens to communities that have poor design or maintenance on these cell towers? Well, residents start to get concerned. Um, there are, you know, there's the arguments about people not wanting to move in to these areas. Some arguments about, um, housing developers not wanting to build an areas where there are a lot of these so-called ugly small cells being placed on Poles. Um, so there's some concern that this infrastructure is actually going to take away from some neighborhoods being able to develop or maintain that look that, you know, folks have liked for a really long time and one when we start to see five g technology here in San Diego. So San Diego has been beginning this transition to becoming a smart city. For a really long time. So actually year 18 t, a, t and t already announced a service in San Diego with 5g. So 5g is here. It's just going to be rolled out on a larger scale. All right. I've been speaking with KPBS science and technology reporters. Shalina Chaat, Lonnie Shalina. Thank you so much. Thank you.