Grief After Shooting, Scooter Crackdown, Time-Of-Use

Speaker 1: 00:00 The deadly mass shooting in Gilroy. Sunday has raised concerns about the effectiveness of California gun laws. Investigators say the weapon used by the Gilroy shooter is considered an assault rifle under California law and could not be legally purchased in the state, but it is legal in Nevada where the shooter apparently bought it. Governor Gavin Newsome addressed the issue of transporting guns across state lines and remarks about the Gilroy shooting yesterday. Speaker 2: 00:27 You know, I can't put borders up. Speaking of borders in a neighboring state where you can buy this damn stuff legally, how the hell is that possible? And I'm on it. I have no problem with the second amendment. You have a right to bear arms but not weapons of Goddamn mass destruction. Speaker 1: 00:43 The Gilroy shooting has also left California lawmakers wondering what more they can do to limit gun violence in the state. There are a handful of gun reforms under consideration in the legislature joining me by Skype as a reporter, Hannon Wiley of the Sacramento Bee who has reported on the gun laws being considered. And Hannah, welcome to the program. Speaker 3: 01:03 Thanks for having me. Speaker 1: 01:04 So California has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. How are lawmakers reacting to another instance of gun violence in the state? Speaker 3: 01:14 Like you said, the general ideas that California has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and the legislature even wants to do more to close some of the minor loopholes or details in legislation that leaves incidents like thousand oaks in San Bernardino capable of happening. But as governor Newsome and attorney general, Javier Bissera said, the laws in other states, California can't control those laws. So really they're looking at other states and they're looking at the White House and the Capitol in DC to pass some sweeping gun reform legislation that's on the federal level. Speaker 1: 01:53 Is there a sense among state legislators that the gun laws on the books are working despite these outbreaks of violence? Speaker 3: 02:02 There's more to be done, they said, but overall deaths have decreased. They say, and incidents like these are less common and guns are getting in the hands of people less often who aren't authorized to have them. So there, there are legislative efforts that have paid off, but it's just these minor loopholes that ended up turning into major ordeals. As we've seen this past weekend, Speaker 1: 02:28 one of the additional gun reforms being considered by state lawmakers is an effort to limit the number of guns that can be purchased at any one time. Tell us about that. Speaker 3: 02:38 Yes. So Senate bill 61 was written by Senator Anthony Portantino, who's written a handful of some of these gun control bills in California. And this legislative effort would specifically prohibit anyone from purchasing more than one fire arm, but specifically long guns per month. And the legislation also prohibits semiautomatic rifles to any person under 21. Speaker 1: 03:03 So supporters say the bill would stop people from walking into a gun store and coming out with an arsenal. But former governor Jerry Brown vetoed similar bills. So what's the argument against it? Speaker 3: 03:15 Right. So he vetoed basically the same bill last year, uh, also written by senator report and Tino. And really his argument was that, uh, there needs to be a fair and balanced approach to gun ownership and that you can't exclude people in legislation. That's intended to increase safety, but you can't exclude the people that use guns in a safe and fair way. Maybe they are hunting or protecting themselves, uh, and it creates this undue burden or limits their second amendment rights. And there's some legal questions surrounding second amendment violations potentially in some of these bills or proposals out of the capitol. Speaker 1: 03:55 Now there are also a couple of bills aimed at expanding gun violence restraining orders. How would they be expanded under these new proposals? Speaker 3: 04:04 So right now of close family members, so think spouse, domestic partner, a immediate family member, they can petition a court to temporarily take away guns from people who might, should not have them in a current mental state or a certain life event, et Cetera. But the argument under Assembly Bill 61 is that there are individuals may be in the work environment, school staff members, employees, employers, fellow employees and employers who are close to these individuals and who can see these exhibited warning signs early on and that they are in the capacity to pick up on this strange and concerning behavior and sometimes petition a court before in these mass shootings take place and, and get those restraining orders to take away those guns before tragic events like these can happen. Speaker 1: 04:56 And they're sort of a companion bill to this. And apparently some lawmakers think there's a lack of police training about when and how to file one of those gun restraining orders. Speaker 3: 05:06 Right? So the current basic training course for peace officers, according to the bill analysis, does not include training on gun violence restraining orders. So there's a commission that trains officers and there's about eight hours, they say that's dedicated to domestic violence restraining orders, but none of that is dedicated to gun violence restraining orders. So this legislation with specifically tasked to the commission to really ramp up police officer training on how to file and respond to gun violence restraining orders and increase their understanding of when it's appropriate to file one as well. Speaker 1: 05:44 Since recent laws allow law enforcement to remove guns from people who illegally possess them, that can be a dangerous thing for police agencies. Now a new bill would start a pilot program in several cities, including San Diego. Tell us about that. Speaker 3: 06:01 Right. So the California Department of Justice oversees this, this program called the arm's prohibited person systems and it is the statewide, uh, initiative to remove firearms from those who illegally possess them. Maybe they have a criminal record, maybe they have a domestic violence restraining order against them, but there is a growing backlog in the thousands that the department just can't keep up with. And they partner with local law enforcement agencies to remove the weapons. But this specific bill would implement this pilot program that gives a lot of power to some of these county law enforcement organizations and agencies and allows them to, to handle the reinforcement of the system. And the confiscation of these weapons in a more authoritative manner. Speaker 1: 06:52 When could law makers in Sacramento consider these new bills? Speaker 3: 06:56 So the legislature reconvenes on August 12th, and a lot of these bills are hanging in the appropriation suspense file, and they'll get the green or red light from lawmakers once the ledge reconvened in mid August. So we'll start to see some of these bills get extra attention, I'm sure, because of the Gillray shooting that happened on Sunday. Speaker 1: 07:18 I've been speaking with reporter Hannah Wiley of the Sacramento Bee and Hannah, thank you very much. Speaker 3: 07:23 Thank you. I appreciate it. Speaker 4: 07:31 [inaudible] Speaker 5: 07:34 uh. Speaker 1: 00:00 The efforts to have greener transportation and safe streets and walkways are in conflict. As San Diego works to implement dock plus scooter regulations. Beliefs have been cracking down ticketing riders for violating ordinances as KPBS is Matt Hoffman reports the tickets aren't cheap and come as a surprise to those who had no idea they were violating any laws when writing a scooter. Matt, thanks for joining us. So first a, what are the problems some have with Speaker 2: 00:27 scooters? Right? So there's a lot of anecdotal things we hear, I mean accidents, people drop them all over the sidewalks, they're blocking access for people in wheelchairs. Um, they're speeding down the sidewalks, potentially running into people. Um, then, uh, near some of the beach areas. You hear a lot of stories about people who are intoxicated riding these scooters. Um, there have been some deaths on these scooters related to accidents. So those are just some of the problems with scooters. Speaker 1: 00:48 So then what exactly do the new scooter regulations say? Speaker 2: 00:52 Right? Yeah, they went into effect, uh, this month actually. And the new rules requires specific staging and parking areas. It also limits the speed in some areas like near the boardwalk and downtown to like eight miles an hour. Um, but like I said, that you can't park them in certain areas, like during comic con, you could not park them near the convention center. Um, it also requires a permitting process for secure. So you have to pay a fee every single time, uh, that they put a new scooter on the road. Um, they also have to have a, uh, pay a fee to permit just to have the scooters. And then there's also a fee if they get impounded two for the operator. Speaker 1: 01:22 All right. So that we're very clear. What's no longer allowed, for instance. Speaker 2: 01:26 That's right. So downtown, they have these new scooter corrals and they're working to put in another places. And basically if those corrals are there, you see, you're supposed to park them in those corrals. You're no longer allowed to park them on the sidewalks. You weren't supposed to park them on the sidewalks before, but, uh, there was selective enforcement on that. Um, also like we talked about near the beach areas, I used to be able to fly down a mission beach going, I think they go almost nearly 20 miles an hour. And now the companies are supposed to be putting in geo-fencing that limits that to eight miles an hour. So you're not allowed to just speed around in certain areas anymore. Speaker 1: 01:56 And how are writers supposed to find out what the new rules are? Speaker 2: 01:59 Right? So when you rent these scooters, they, they take you through a prompt where they tell you these other things. Uh, but also it's printed on the scooters. There's certain things that say, you know, no double writing. Um, don't write on the sidewalks. But I mean, we were just down there yesterday. We saw lots of double writers, um, and we saw lots of people writing on the sidewalks. And it seems that there's a lot of confusion, um, where there's people that just aren't reading it. Um, or there's people that come from out of town like, uh, other countries overseas. How do they understand this? And you talk to a tourist who told you he wishes there were clear rules? Yeah, we talked to a man named Anthony Design, um, who was about to rent a scooter in mission beach. Um, and he said, you know, that the rules are very unclear and that he wishes they were more clear. Yeah. How do you really enforce that or communicate over to somebody intelligently? You know, if it's just in some fine print, it's, I'm not going to read it. There's not a lot of information as to even tell me where I'm supposed to park it or even do with it. Speaker 1: 02:50 So that in mind then, you know, where can tourist or, or writers find clear, concise rules to this? Or if you talk to, like I Speaker 2: 02:59 talked to lime yesterday, they said it's all right there in the app, but people have to read it. So I mean, if you're just ignorant and you don't read it, um, then you could get a ticket. I mean, yesterday we were out there, uh, we saw a two gentlemen who are new to town and they, they said that, yeah, we, we, we didn't read the rules and they got, they got tagged for riding on the sidewalk, $150 ticket. They said, um, and the one kid said, you know, I don't really care. He said, I got, I guess I could've read the rules, but it was my ignorance that led me not to do it. There was another family right across the street who got a ticket because they had two kids who were under 16 riding the scooters. Uh, they did have helmets on though. Speaker 2: 03:31 Um, but they weren't allowed to ride them because they were so young. And the family says that they just, they did not know. I mean, on the scooters itself, most of them say you have to be 18 years or older to ride. That's a scooter requirement. Obviously the San Diego police have a 15 and a half or older requirement. You think they'll start posting signs. You know, I talked to council member Chris Kade about this yesterday and uh, you know, you can do all of the, uh, sign is that, that, that you want, he talked about, you know, maybe putting up some signs, but at the end of the day, if it's literally printed on the scooter, I mean it's right where they're at. Most of the screws, right where your foot goes on the scooter, it says id required, uh, 18 years or older, no double writing, no writing on sidewalks. Speaker 2: 04:09 Um, at the end of the day, if you just want to be an ignorant consumer, then you possibly can get a ticket. I mean, it's like when you go, and obviously they're not enforcing these all the times, like when you're speeding on the freeway, you might not get a ticket every single time, but when they're doing some enforcement of that area, you might get dinged and there are city rules about where scooters can be left, which often are not followed. Remind us what happened after comicon. Yeah. So during Comicon, uh, the city rounded up 2,500 scooters and bikes. Um, and like we mentioned earlier, part of that permitting process to scooter companies have to pay a $65 fine. Uh, many of those scooters were picked up. Um, and it costs an estimated over $160,000 for the city that the city says they're not making any money off that they say that that's just paying their costs to go pick up the scooters. Speaker 2: 04:50 But this was one of their big first enforcement actions. They say they usually pick up a couple of dozen a day, but during comicon they really laid the hammer down. And what's Barbara Bree proposing? And what is her rationale? Is it an outright ban or, right. So Barbara Bre, it's not an outright ban. It's a, well, it's an outright temporary ban, a moratorium that she wants to put on the scooters. She says the [inaudible], there's simply too many scooters on the streets. They're posing safety hazards and police have much better things to do than go out and try to get these people who are writing on the sidewalks and such. Um, she says like other cities, she would want to, um, have all the cities, uh, scooter contracts eliminated and open up a new RFP process, requests for proposals, and then only select a couple scooter companies, make the rules more clear and then bring them back. Speaker 2: 05:35 So she's not calling for an outright ban. She just wants a temporary ban until this can happen. But it's unclear if she has support from her colleague. Um, Scott Sherman said, hell no. That was the direct quote. Chris Kate said, absolutely not. Are they used for transportation to or from work for instance? Yeah, I mean if you talk, talk to a lot of people, they say they use them for that extra mile. I've even talked to some city staffers who say that they take them sometimes instead of city vehicles, if they're just going somewhere downtown. Um, and in terms of how many scooters are out there, uh, we talked to Lyman. They, they send us a statement that says with over 3 million trips taken by writers across San Diego, a moratorium only harm those who have come to rely on scooters every day. Got It. Read the fine print when you get ahold of the scooters, it sounds like. Exactly, exactly. I've been speaking with KPBS reporter, Matt Hoffman. Matt. Thank you. Thanks Jared. Speaker 3: 06:25 [inaudible]. peaker 1: 00:00 It is a turbulent time in the U S for immigration. The Trump administration continues to change the rules about who can stay in the U S I'll overthrow. Lotto is a binational organization providing legal services on both sides of the border serving deportees migrants and refugees. KPBS evening edition, Anchor Ebony Monet spoke with Erica Ben Yarrow Litigation director of Aloe. Throw Lotto. Speaker 2: 00:25 Recently the Trump administration expanded its rapid deportation policy, which gives immigration officers the authority to deport migrants without allowing them to see a judge. What's your reaction to this policy change? Rapid deportation or expedited removal has always been part of immigration law was just usually applied to people who were apprehended at the border. So the policy changes that that process could be applied to anyone caught anywhere within the United States. Um, and the idea is if someone has been in the United States for more than two years, they should not be subject to this policy. However, um, the fact that you cannot see an immigration judge and that there's no judicial review of your removal means that you know, that time period doesn't really matter. There's not going to be anyone reviewing any documentation provided to immigration officials. And we saw a recent case of an 18 year old US citizen who was detained for almost a month by customs and border protection, even though his mother went with an original us birth certificate to immigration officials. Speaker 2: 01:30 And that's a result of not having a judge review these removals. So the result is going to be that people of color, including US citizens, will be deported in greater numbers without ever having access to a judge. And so in order to prove your citizenship, does this come down to people having to walk around with documentation at all times? It does come down to that, but even when you provide documentation of citizenship, that doesn't mean that ice or CBP is going to let you go. Um, I, in the past decade of working in immigration detention facilities, I've encountered dozens of US citizens who were mistakenly detained by ice and accused of not being citizens. As an attorney, I've represented these people and provided original documentation to immigration officials. And still it's very difficult, um, to get them to release people. So you can imagine this, you know, expanded authority to remove people without any due process is obviously going to result in removals of US citizens, even when those people have documentation to prove their citizenship. Speaker 2: 02:38 And any idea how, um, Mexico plans to deal with the influx of migrants. Mexico does not have publicly funded programs to help with deportee reintegration. It does not have publicly funded programs to help refugees who are moving through the country. So, you know, we have this combination of tens of thousands of refugees stuck at the border right now who are seeking asylum in the United States. Um, plus of course thousands of people being deported, um, every year, tens of thousands of people being deported every year, as has been the case, um, under this administration and previous administration. So there's, um, a complete overload of the civil society system, that Gen that traditionally has responded, um, to this population and has provided support, um, especially to deportees. So I just, I think there's going to be a lot more deportees who fall through the cracks, um, who end up homeless or who try to come back, uh, unlawfully to be with their families again. Speaker 2: 03:41 So what do you think is the way the u s can do a better job of finding a balance between securing the border while allowing in asylum seekers the myth that we need to further secure the border has resulted in militarization at the border and racial profiling of both US citizens and noncitizens of color. We do not need more border security. Border Security equals violation of constitutional rights. You know, customs and border protection has jurisdiction within a hundred miles of both a land and sea border. Two thirds of the u s population lives within the zone and the constitution does not apply. You know, customs and border protection or border patrol can search you without a warrant. They can go through your electronic devices without a warrant. They can detain you without access to an attorney. So we don't need more border security. That's the first part. Speaker 2: 04:35 Second part is that these refugees and asylum seekers are coming to the United States to seek protection. The vast majority, almost all of them do not have criminal convictions. They don't pose any kind of security threat to the United States. And almost all of them actually show up to court a contrary to what Trump consistently claims. Um, and you know, immigration court statistics themselves show that asylum seeking families by and large show up to their court hearings. So we don't, they're there. That's a false dichotomy. And can we move on to a relatively recently discovered database, which was monitoring people who frequently crossed the border and this includes humanitarians and activists and journalists and, and even attorneys. Um, I'll ultra lotto, um, has filed a lawsuit. What was your reaction to finding out that you were in the database? I wasn't surprised because my organization is the only binational organization at the California border providing services to both deportees and refugees. Speaker 2: 05:44 Um, we've been the subject of harassment by both us and Mexican officials in the past. Um, shortly before the list was leaked to the media. Um, my co-director century pass was revoked without explanation. Um, so I wasn't surprised to find myself on that list. Um, what the practical result has been is that my movement, um, around the country and around the globe has been severely restricted. Um, what I know is that I will be detained and deported. Um, if I try to travel to any country outside the United States, I was able to get Mexico to wave the alert that the u s has placed on my passport. But as of today, my co-director, Nora Phillips, um, who's the named plaintiff in the lawsuit we recently filed, has not been able to return to Mexico. And she is the director of our deportee assistance programs. So we have not been able to provide robust assistance to deportees since her expulsion from Mexico almost six months ago. So ultimately those are the people who suffer. And now with this expedited removal, uh, rule that's recently put into effect, we, I'm sure we're going to see many more deportees who really need that assistance. Speaker 1: 06:57 That was Erica Bro. Litigation director of ultra [inaudible] speaking to KPBS evening edition Anchor Ebony Monet Speaker 3: 07:11 [inaudible]. Speaker 1: 00:00 San Diego gas and electric has already transitioned hundreds of thousands of its customers to a time of use energy plant. Hey, PBS science and technology reporter Shalina Chet Lani says, the shift is a response to a changing electric grid in California Speaker 2: 00:17 on a university of San Diego, rooftop Scott Anders walks down an aisle within a sea of solar arrays. He's the director of the energy policy initiatives center here. Andrew says California has major climate action goals. So over the last decade, the amount of renewables, particularly solar on the states electric grid has increased three fold increase in solar is really a combination of large scale solar and then also building or site specific installations like this one here. But this increase in renewables has created some issues for grid operators. They're variable resources. They don't produce energy all the time. Solar panels only produce when the sun is shining and wind turbines only produced when the wind is blowing. State law mandates that 60% of California's energy must come from renewables like solar by 2030 but right now they only provide around 30% so half that amount. So the same challenges we see now will increase and there are some strategies that California is looking at to mitigate those challenges. One is the time of use rates. Time of use rates are all about supply and demand. When the sun is shining in the morning, Speaker 1: 01:26 there's lots of clean solar energy on the grid. The price therefore is cheaper, but towards the evening when the supply of solar is going down, electricity demand is going up. Utilities have to turn on their natural gas plants which are not as clean, so energy becomes more expensive. Andrew says this price shift is a way to change consumers habits, so more people end up using the cheaper and cleaner energy. Speaker 2: 01:52 If we can align the price, we charge customers to the, to the price in the market. That helps get people consuming in the middle of the day rather than in the evening. It's not just us Speaker 1: 02:01 CG and e making this change. The California Public Utilities Commission has mandated that all investor owned utilities switch their customers over to a default opt out time of use energy plan SDG and e just happens to be the first one in this transition. Still many of the utilities customers are worrying they're about to spend more money on their electricity bills within this new 4:00 PM to 9:00 PM peak window in a model smart home within the energy innovation center, SDG e communication manager, West Jones points to a number of Speaker 3: 02:35 Marc appliances, smart appliances or things that you can use when you're not actually there on scene at the time using it and you can, you know, program your phone to a lot of these appliances are, they're automated. Joan says for those who don't have smart appliances, time of use may require a shift in schedule. What are some things in here that the average person might have? Maybe that's not a smart appliance that they can adjust their life? Well, I mean even like, so obviously if you're going to run your dishwasher, if you can wait until after 9:00 PM to start running it on your own, that's going to help you save on your bill. Speaker 1: 03:08 June's also suggest running the laundry after 9:00 PM or adjusting the thermostat to cool the house early in the day. But Jones admits some families may find that challenging Speaker 3: 03:17 that they feel like they can't shift any of their usage and they have to use all their appliances or at a time they may find the plans not right for them and they have the choice to opt out. Speaker 1: 03:25 In the meantime, he says STG knee will have a one year pricing guarantee. So if you end up spending more on this plan, the utility, we'll credit you back. The difference joining me is KPBS science and technology reporter Shalina Chot Lonnie Shelina, welcome. Hi, thanks for having me. Is there any general estimate on how much consumers could save if they were able to switch most of their energy use out of that four to 9:00 PM window? Yeah. So generally, if you aren't using energy during that four to 9:00 PM window, you should see some savings on your energy bill. But it, it all depends, right on how much energy you're using. A, because time of use rate plans are not just based on when you're using energy, but how much energy you're actually consuming. So a SDG and e has a tool online that allows you to compare pricing plans and so you can, uh, see whether you'll actually end up spending more or less based off of how much energy you're using. Speaker 1: 04:21 So California's climate action plan is forcing SDG and e and other utilities to use more renewable energy sources. Tell us why that's creating more emphasis on switching the peak usage times. Sure. So yeah, California is going through a lot of changes right now. Uh, the, there's a state mandate for 60% of our energy to come from renewables by 2030, and that's 100% by 2045. Uh, so most of that is solar and solar is a very variable resource. That means most of the energy that's coming, um, is happening at a specific part of the day, mostly in the morning. And we don't have a lot of uh, really powerful battery storage right now. It's very expensive. The technology is still getting built. So that means that when we are adding more solar on the grid, uh, the utilities want to send a signal to customers that they should be using energy when there is most solar energy available. Speaker 1: 05:16 And so that's shifted the peak times. Traditionally it would be around 11:00 AM to 6:00 PM to a more variable solar energy kind of timelines. So CPEC wants that peak window to be four to nine because that's when the sun is going down. But demand is going up. What about energy consumers who are also energy producers, people who have invested in solar panels, what effect could the new time of use plan have on them? This is one complaint that I've heard a lot from the time of use switches. You know, when you are installing solar panels on your roof, the idea is that you're going to be saving money in the longterm because you are not only producing your own energy, but you're putting energy back onto the grid, um, and getting a credit back on your bill that'll just help you save more. But now because the time of use plan is based largely on solar, um, it could impact the rate of the credit that, uh, solar customers are getting back so they might actually be getting less money back. So I actually talked to a West Jones at SDG knee. He says he has some explanation for that. Speaker 4: 06:20 It's going to depend on each, the size of a customer's system. It's independent on how they manage their bills and when they use energy, um, and as well as sort of how much energy they're putting back on the grid. A lot of that can factor into, um, how big your system is and your overall usage. So it's not easy to say, uh, particularly how will one Cutler be impacted because it depends on each household and how their system operates. Speaker 1: 06:48 And one thing to also note, um, is that the time at which you installed your solar system also plays a big role in how you're going to be impacted by the time of use changed. So if you installed your solar panels before around mid 2016, you have an option to be on your s your, the plan that you originally opted in for when you installed your solar panels. After that time, you are pretty much automatically put on a time of use plan. So if you installed your solar panels after around 2017, the time of you switch really is kind of negligible for you. So it's nice and complicated. Yeah. STG and he says, getting time of view savings actually is pretty easy if you have smart appliances. But since smart appliances are more expensive, doesn't that mean the biggest savings might go to people who need it? Speaker 1: 07:37 The least? There is a potential for that. Um, and that was actually a, an argument that was brought up by the Colorado Public Utilities Commission. Uh, there was a utility there that wanted to shift some of its customers over a time to time of use, but the commission denied it because the concern with that with smart appliances, right, is that that they allow more energy efficiency. They help customers put delays and timers and help them figure out how they can shift their energy use around. But again, for low income customers, there's the question of finances there again, coupled with all of these other issues that they might be dealing with already. Now, quite a significant number of people who have been paying attention according to your feature, have chosen to opt out of this new time of use plan. Now you send your little card back to SDG and e and you say you don't want to be on a time of use plan. Speaker 1: 08:32 Do you get any confirmation? I mean, how do you know that you're just not automatically on this new plant? Yeah, so there are a couple of ways to know for sure. A, you can go online to your my account and it'll say there, um, what type of plan that you're on. Um, if you get your bill in the mail, it should say on your bill as well. And this is a pilot program and it's an experiment by SDG e how will they determine if it's a success we should find out in August when SDG and e has a quarterly report, how many customers are opting out of this time of use plan? And that'll help us see what type of success the utilities happening having in this transition. And I have been speaking with KPBS science and technology reporter Shalina Chet Lani Shalina. Thank you. Thanks. Speaker 5: 09:22 Uh. Speaker 1: 00:00 In San Diego, like much of California talk these days is about the sky high cost of housing and whether to move, but there was a time when cheap land and the promise of a Balmy climate inspired scores of sick Americans to flock to southern California as part of our California dream collaboration. KPBS is a Meta Sharma has this story. Speaker 2: 00:22 After the civil war, San Diego didn't have a lot going for it economically, but it had beauty galore. Speaker 3: 00:29 The valley was green, the river was flowing, the mountains were on both sides of the valley. Geraniums grew here. Every flower imaginable like the beach, the sun look very much like southern Spain. Speaker 2: 00:44 Historian IRS Ang Strand says the weather was equally Mediterranean. Speaker 3: 00:49 It does have the best climate in the United States. It's an average of 70 degrees Speaker 2: 00:55 worth spread. Ailing businessmen and families started coming to the region in the late 18 hundreds some credited their healing to the even climate spawning, the birth of what was then called the invalid trade. Andy Strathmerton as a history professor at Cal State San Marcos. Speaker 3: 01:13 There was a trade in invalids in the sense that you could make a fortune by offering what they wanted. Speaker 2: 01:20 Strottman says the idea was to sell San Diego's sea topography and temperate weather as a tonic, especially to people with tuberculosis. At times the sales pitch surpassed hyperbole death in San Diego was described as a remarkable event. University of San Diego History Professor David Miller called it pure boosterism. There was a story of a man who lived to be 109 or was it maybe a hundred or 200 years old, something ridiculous and got so sick of it living in California that he took him out of California so he could die. The air in southern California was touted as so fresh and beneficial that it would bestow its people with melodic voices. Eventually creating an entire race of singers and everyone was in on it. The citrus industry's orange crate art depicted southern California as Eden with beautiful people against the backdrop of picture rescaled landscapes. Miller says transportation did. It's part too. You have the railroads actively marketing health to sick patients to bring people to San Diego to develop it. San Diego and Los Angeles even competed for the patients. The cities trashed talk to each other. According to the book health seekers at Southern California, Angelenos Warren's travelers not to go self because San Diego's constant fog caused malaria, diptheria and a slew of other contagious diseases, but it didn't work. San Diego became known as a cure for almost any illness, says historian and Strand quoting from the British newspaper publisher Samuel's story. Speaker 3: 02:58 This is land of promise for those threatened with or suffering from consumption, asthma, throat diseases, dyspepsia or physical prostration. Infectious diseases are scarcely known. Speaker 2: 03:12 In 1890 at Cape Wearing San Diego physician named Peter Rehman, Dino published a book called longevity and climate. I asked retired pediatric surgeon, George Kaplan to read an excerpt. Speaker 4: 03:26 Let's see here. Has been shown to exercise it as cited preventive action. In the case of consumption, Speaker 2: 03:32 could there be any truth to it Speaker 4: 03:35 scientifically? Unfortunately, I don't want to get as, what's your merit? But if you came to San Diego or any of the other places that were thought to be of benefit for tuberculosis, and you recovered, obviously use Fred, the word Speaker 2: 03:52 San Diego benefited from the scores of people with illnesses that came to this city. And in 1870 San Diego Union editorial titled Our Winning Card, the author wrote quote, it is hardly too much to assert that probably two thirds of our population and wealth aside from our largest land owners, has been drawn to San Diego by its advantages as a health resort alone. Those sick people helped turn San Diego into the city. It is today in San Diego. I'm, I'm Ethan Sharma. Tomorrow, how San Diego's reputation as a healthy city continues to attract people today. Speaker 3: 04:33 Okay.