Billionaires

California voters will decide 14 statewide propositions in the Nov. 3 election, measures placed on the ballot mostly by either powerful interest groups or lawmakers that will affect the lives of millions of Californians.

While a proposed tax on state billionaires has dominated headlines, voters will also have a chance to weigh in on a number of consequential issues, from healthcare to voter identification requirements and more.

Californians are accustomed to legislating by the ballot and often face a list of propositions. But even by the standards of the state’s direct democracy process, the 2026 election stands out. The campaigns supporting and opposing the ballot measures have already collected more than $100 million in contributions, and are expected to use their money to inundate the television airwaves, livestreams and social media feeds and to flood mailboxes with glossy campaign mailers over the coming months.

Here are the measures on the Nov. 3 ballot:

Proposition 1: The Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026

Spurred by the state’s affordable housing shortage, state lawmakers are asking voters to approve an $11.25-billion bond to boost affordable housing construction around the state.

Advocates say the funds would help build more than 40,000 shovel-ready affordable homes that are unable to move forward because of a financing gap and help preserve thousands of other existing units.

Proposition 1 includes specific funding for high-need groups, including $1.25 billion for a veterans’ home loan program, $1.15 billion for supportive housing for homeless people, $350 million for student housing at state universities, $450 million for farmworker housing and $200 million for Native American tribes.

“In California, we don’t turn away from the needs of our people — we meet them head-on,” said Gov. Gavin Newsom in a statement about the measure. “We are giving voters the power to help shape the future of housing in our state. This bond is about building communities, expanding access and affordability in California, where every family has a fair shot at a place to call home.”

Some Republicans took issue with the measure’s title — “The Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026” — arguing that it included veterans to have broader appeal while doing little to actually help homeless veterans.

“It’s a sad thing to say that you have to use the veterans as bait to get the people of the state of California to approve an $11-billion bond, and I just think that’s shameful,” said Sen. Shannon Grove (R-Bakersfield), an Army veteran. “Call it what it is. It’s a homeless bond, and it does include some veterans’ benefits, but it is not a veterans bond.”

Proposition 2: Save for California’s Future Act

This measure would give California lawmakers more flexibility over state spending and allow them to save money that could otherwise go back to taxpayers.

The measure, supported by Newsom, seeks to exempt deposits into state savings accounts from a spending limit that voters adopted through a series of ballot measures dating back to the late 1970s, and to increase the share of tax revenue that can be put into the rainy day fund.

Under an existing state appropriations restraint, also known as the Gann Limit, lawmakers cannot spend more than an amount determined by a formula that takes annual tax proceeds, changes to the population and cost of living into consideration. Tax revenue above the limit must be divided between schools and refunds to taxpayers.

The measure could incentivize lawmakers to save more money because funds tucked away in the rainy day fund would no longer be considered expenditures counted toward the spending limit. By allowing lawmakers to set aside more money that is not subjected to state spending limits, it could also allow them to hold onto money that otherwise would be returned to taxpayers under current law.

This proposed constitutional amendment was placed on the ballot by state lawmakers.

Proposition 3: Fund schools and healthcare

If passed, this proposition would make permanent an existing tax on high-income Californians.

The existing tax, passed by voters in 2012 and extended in 2016, is set to expire in 2031. It applies to people who earn more than $360,000 for single filers, $721,000 for joint filers, and $490,000 for heads of household. It adds between 1% to 3% to these high earners’ personal income tax rates.

According to the initiative text, the funds are largely earmarked for local school districts and community colleges, with some portion of the money going to California’s rainy day reserves — which the state uses to prevent cuts to healthcare and other services when revenues decline. The measure says revenues cannot be spent on state bureaucracy or administrative costs.

The state’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office expects the measure to bring in between $5 billion and $15 billion annually, depending on how the stock market is performing, with the amount expected to grow over time.

Proposition 4: Public financing of campaigns

This measure would allow the state and local governments to offer public campaign financing to candidates running for elected office. Candidates receiving the funding must abide by expenditure limits and adhere to the criteria set by statute, ordinance or charter to demonstrate broad support, such as demonstrate a large number of small dollar contributions.

None of the public campaign financing can come from funds designated for education, transportation or public safety. The financing cannot discriminate based on party or whether a candidate is a challenger or an incumbent. The public funds cannot be used for legal costs, fines or to pay back personal loans to a campaign.

This measure was placed on the ballot by the California Legislature and governor.

Proposition 5: Recall elections

This measure would change the way recall elections are conducted in California. Under this proposed constitutional amendment, during a recall election, voters would decide solely whether a politician should be removed from their elected position. If the recall is successful, that office would remain vacant until it is filled in accordance with existing law — either by a separate election or by appointment.

Under current law, voters make two separate decisions during a recall election: Whether to remove the subject of the recall from office and, if they are booted, which candidate running to replace them should fill the position. The candidate who receives the most votes wins, even if they receive far less than 50% of the vote.

The proposed constitutional amendment would also allow the recalled politician to run in the next election to fill the vacancy, though they cannot be appointed to their former post. Under the current system, office holders targeted in a recall are barred from being a candidate to replace themselves in that same election.

The proposal comes in the wake of the unsuccessful, Republican-led recall campaign against Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2021, which in part tested voter sentiment about his response to the COVID-19 pandemic. One of the sponsors of the recall-reform measure was Sen. Josh Newman (D-Fullerton), who was recalled from office in 2018 after he voted to increase gas taxes for road repairs, legislation pushed by then-Gov. Jerry Brown. Newman won back his seat in 2020.

This proposed constitutional amendment was placed on the ballot by the California Legislature.

Proposition 37: Homeownership loan program

Proposition 37 would create a down payment assistance program to help middle-class Californians buy a new home.

The measure, spearheaded by former state Senate Majority Leader Bob Hertzberg, would allow middle-class California residents — defined as anyone who makes less than 200% of an area’s median income — borrow most of their down payment for a new home that they plan to live in. It is designed to boost construction of single-family homes.

A down payment is traditionally about 20% of the purchase price of a home. If passed, the measure would create a state-administered loan program that offers qualified homebuyers a second mortgage of up to 17% of a home’s sale price.

The proposition would allow the California Housing Finance Agency to issue up to $25 billion in revenue bonds to administer the program.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office does not anticipate the measure to result in direct state or local costs because the costs are meant to be covered by homeowners’ mortgage payments.

Proposition 38: Immunology research bond

Proposition 38 asks voters to approve an $8.4-billion bond to support research in the burgeoning fields of immunology and immunotherapy, which study the human immune system and how it can be used to prevent, treat and cure diseases.

If approved, half of the funding would go toward the creation of a new immunology and immunotherapy research institute affiliated with the University of California. The other half would fund research grants for other California-based universities and nonprofit medical research institutions to study potential treatments for cancer, Alzheimer’s disease and heart disease.

The measure has a built-in discount program for Californians — it requires that any technology or drugs developed from bond-funded research be sold to California patients for a price at least 20% below the national average.

Backers of the proposal include the Alzheimer’s Assn., National Multiple Sclerosis Society and other healthcare groups. Supporters argue the funding would facilitate research that could save lives and save patients “billions of dollars in health care costs by preventing and curing a range of debilitating diseases and illnesses,” according to the initiative text.

Proposition 39: Voter identification

Proposition 39 would require Californians to show government-issued identification every time they vote at the polls.

Currently, Californians must affirm under penalty of perjury that they are U.S. citizens and provide information to verify their identity, such as their birth date, driver’s license or Social Security number, when registering to vote, but they don’t have to present identification when they cast their ballot.

Under this measure, voters would also need to present government-issued ID each time they vote in-person at the polls or, if voting by mail, provide the last four digits of a “unique identifying number from government-issued identification” that matches the one they provided when they registered to vote. California would be required to provide free voter ID cards on request, and state and county election officials would be required to verify registered voters are U.S. citizens by using government data.

The voter ID measure has support from Assemblymember Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego), who has framed it as necessary to prevent voter fraud and restore trust. It comes as President Trump is pushing for stricter voter identification requirements and severe limits on voting by mail.

Democrats and voting rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, oppose the measure, saying California’s elections are already secure — voter impersonation and noncitizen voting cases are rare — and that it would make voting harder for many eligible voters, including people who have changed names, move frequently or face housing instability.

According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the measure would make election administration more expensive, costing state and local governments anywhere from tens of millions to low hundreds of millions of dollars annually, plus tens of millions in upfront implementation costs.

Proposition 40: Billionaire tax

This proposition, supported by a healthcare worker union, would impose a one-time tax of 5% on taxpayers and trusts with assets valued at more than $1 billion.

According to a state-prepared summary of the measure, 90% of the tax revenues would be spent on healthcare and 10% would fund food assistance or education-related programs. California’s richest residents would be able to spread the payments over five years.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates it would generate “tens of billions of dollars” spread over several years, but would lead to an annual decrease in state income tax revenues of “hundreds of millions of dollars or more.”

Newsom has publicly opposed the tax, arguing it would lead wealthy residents to leave the state and lead to future budget problems. Other opponents include Planned Parenthood, the California School Boards Assn. and a nonprofit called Building a Better California that is backed by tech execs and venture capitalists.

Some billionaires have already proactively moved themselves or their businesses out of the state because of the proposal, which as written would retroactively apply to residents of the state as of Jan. 1.

Proposition 41: Requires limits and audits on new state special taxes

This is one of two ballot measures crafted by opponents of the proposed initiative to impose a new tax on California billionaires, and it would in effect undercut or curtail that wealth tax.

This proposed ballot measure would also prohibit any new state taxes from being excluded from the state’s current voter-approved spending limit. The proposed billionaire tax would have such an exclusion. If the billionaire tax proposal is approved by voters but this proposal receives more votes, the billionaire tax measure would be voided.

The measure would require the state auditor to conduct a financial and performance audit of proposed ballot initiatives and of the programs they fund. The measure would require audits of any program that would receive funding from the special tax in the proposed initiative to assess the efficiency of the program and recommend who ought to reduce its annual costs by 10%. If the measure passes, the costs of the audits would be paid via the revenues generated by the special tax.

This ballot initiative is one of two so-called poison pills to sink the billionaire tax that is being bankrolled by Building a Better California, which has raised well over $100 million from the state’s most affluent. The largest donor is Sergey Brin, a co-founder of Google, who has reportedly moved out of California because of the tax proposal. He donated at least $82 million to the group as of late June.

Proposition 42: Ban on new state personal property taxes

This is one of two ballot measures created by opponents of the proposed initiative to impose a tax on California billionaires, and it would in effect void that wealth tax.

This proposed ballot measure would prohibit new taxes on personal property, intellectual property, retirement accounts and other assets and would limit situations in which a ballot measure or state lawmakers can impose or raise taxes retroactively — both of which are essential parts of the billionaire tax initiative.

If the billionaire tax proposal is approved by voters but this proposal receives more votes, the billionaire tax ballot measure would be voided.

This ballot initiative is one of two so-called poison pills to sink the billionaire tax that is being bankrolled by Building a Better California, which has raised well over $100 million from the state’s most affluent. The largest donor is Sergey Brin, a co-founder of Google, who has reportedly moved out of California because of the tax proposal. He donated at least $82 million to the group as of late June.

Proposition 43: Voting thresholds for special taxes

The measure would prohibit local governments from imposing new special taxes unless the proposed tax receives approval from two-thirds of voters. The restriction also applies to citizen initiatives, which currently only need a simple majority vote to be approved.

It would also limit cities’ ability to impose taxes on property sales. In charter cities, the measure would prevent voters from approving any real estate transfer taxes beyond the state’s existing rate of 0.11% of a property’s sale price. It would also cancel some existing property-related taxes.

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. supports Proposition 43. The advocacy group has characterized the measure as an effort to “save” 1978’s Proposition 13, the landmark initiative that capped California property tax increases and required a super-majority of votes to approve most future tax increases.

Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland), who authored the legislation that became Proposition 43 — ACA 22 — opposes the measure and has urged Californians to vote against it. She said the only reason she crafted the bill was because it was a necessary bargaining chip to torpedo another ballot measure backed by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. that would have devastated revenues for local governments and retroactively rescinded some local tax increases.

“I authored ACA 22 not because I wanted it to become law — but because it was the only path left to get the more dangerous initiative off the ballot before time ran out,” Wicks posted on social media.

Proposition 44: Regulate health clinic spending

If passed, Proposition 44 would require federally qualified health centers to spend 90% of their revenue on “program services advancing their charitable purpose” rather than management and overhead. Community clinics that fail to comply would be penalized, with fines placed in a state-managed fund to be spent on clinic workforce programs.

Advocates say clinics spend too much on executive pay and other administrative costs and not enough on patient care. The measure, which would dictate how clinics spend money, is designed to fix that. The measure is backed by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, an influential healthcare workers union, which argues it will help hold clinics accountable.

In May, the California Primary Care Assn., which represents more than 2,300 community health clinics, sued to block the ballot measure. The state’s powerful doctors’ lobby, the California Medical Assn., also opposes the measure, arguing it would ban clinics from keeping funding in reserves and hamper their ability to upgrade equipment or expand to new locations.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that enforcing the measure would cost the government up to the low tens of millions annually, and that much of the cost would be paid for through penalties and fees charged to affected clinics. The office says the measure has “uncertain” impacts and could lead to clinic closures.

Proposition 45: CEQA reform

This proposition would amend the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, and speed up the process for projects deemed “essential,” including certain housing, water, health, public safety, energy and transportation projects.

Jails, detention facilities and oil or natural gas production facilities would not be considered “essential” projects, according to the measure text.

If passed, the measure would set deadlines for public agencies to complete environmental review, allow expedited review of a project’s environmental impacts — currently, public agencies are required to consider a range of feasible alternatives to reduce environmental impacts — and establish deadlines for filing and resolving lawsuits.

CEQA lawsuits have often been used to block construction of housing in the state. For instance, in Berkeley, neighbors used CEQA — citing potential noise impact from partying students — to delay, for years, UC Berkeley’s construction of student dorms on People’s Park.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that the state and local government implementation will cost in the tens of millions of dollars for the first several years. It notes the legislation would probably result in net savings in the long term due to reduced administrative and legal workload.

Times staff writers Seema Mehta and Phil Willon contributed to this report.

The trader-turned-campaigner argues that drastic steps need to be taken to close the UK’s huge wealth gap

Millionaire trader-turned-inequality campaigner Gary Stevenson is proposing a 2% annual tax on all those who have wealth above £10million in the UK.

The TV presenter will set out his argument in a Channel 4 programme in which he explores the growing concentration of wealth in Britain. He says that the UK’s poorest billionaire, with a wealth of just £1billion, makes £50 million a year in passive income at a rate of just 5%. That is nearly £1million every week, without getting out of bed.

And Gary, 40, argues that if nothing changes, the concentration of wealth at the top will only accelerate. “If this continues, it is inevitable that the billionaires and the super-rich will own a larger and larger share of the real wealth of this country, meaning other groups in society, the working class, the middle class, and the government will progressively own less and less.

“If we do not do anything about this system then very, very quickly the billionaires will own everything, and you will own nothing.”

In the UK, the richest 56 people have equal wealth to 27million people. In 2025 alone, the average billionaire grew their wealth by £231million. Meanwhile wages, in real terms, are lower than they were almost 20 years ago and the average student debt in England has soared from £3,200 in 2000 to £53,000 today.

Taxing wealth rather than income is not a new idea – Norway, Switzerland and Spain already have wealth taxes. Under his proposal, a person worth £11 million would pay £20,000 in tax a year, while some one worth one billion would pay £20 million.

Some estimates suggest that this system could raise £24billion annually, enough to fund the NHS, build affordable housing or cut taxes for workers who are on lower incomes.

A poll of 4,142 British adults found that 75% of the public support a wealth tax along with many experts. Gabriel Zucman, Professor of Economics, tells Gary: “There is a problem in our tax systems which is that the very rich have lower effective tax rates than the rest of the population.”

But there are plenty of billionaires, aristocrats, tax experts and finance influencers who argue against it. In the programme Reform party donor and billionaire entrepreneur Bassim Haidar – whose wealth is growing at around 12% a year, says that if it happened, he’d sell his businesses and quit Britain. “I would exit completely. Yeah, even if I sell them at a loss, I don’t care, cause it becomes a matter of principle. Wealth is mobile, so I’ll walk away. And listen, I’ll take a hit for one year, that’s fine. But then I’ll go, and I’ll never come back.”

Gary, who grew up in Ilford, east London, the son of a postman, thinks Haidar is scaremongering. “Rich people generate the majority of their income from owning assets. Your house, your supermarket, the farms that grow your food, the power plants that create your energy,” he argues. “Many wealthy people own assets which are fundamentally fixed to this country.”

He also discovers wealthy people who are quite happy to give a bit more. Julia Davies, who made her fortune building an accessories business and is a member of a group called Patriotic Millionaires, is one of them: “We’ve got to stop normalising this idea that it is normal to try and avoid contributing to public services and infrastructure, if you can massively afford to do that. I’m a millionaire, I’m not going anywhere. Why would I uproot myself and my family just to avoid contributing a bit more?”

– How to Get Filthy Rich with Gary Stevenson, Wednesday 8 July, 9pm, Channel 4

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Threads.

California Forever, the tech billionaire-backed group that hopes to build a city from scratch on farmland in the outer San Francisco Bay Area, is lobbying state leaders to fast-track a massive shipbuilding deal that would kick-start its development after years of local opposition.

The billionaires behind the project are seeking a deal to expedite environmental reviews of the development and, if necessary, bypass county restrictions on building by being absorbed into Suisun City boundaries. They’ve hired former Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and former Senate Majority Leader Bob Hertzberg — Democratic architects of landmark environmental laws — to make their case, and are using the prospect of luring a major shipbuilder to California to accelerate the dealmaking.

California Forever has pursued its project for nearly a decade, though the vision has shifted: At first pitched as a walkable city with cottages, bike lanes and even a water park, the plan then added a major shipbuilding operation and, last summer, a significant manufacturing hub.
California Forever’s proponents, led by the state’s powerful building trades union along with Realtors, peace officers and pro-housing groups, argue the latest proposal would boost the state’s economy and bring an estimated half a million jobs to California. And now, a prospective tenant has emerged: Defense company Saronic Technologies Inc., which builds autonomous vessels for use in national security, is deciding between California and Texas for its next factory. The state must fast-track the development or lose the deal, supporters argue.

The developers are seeking the state’s permission to use an 18-year-old environmental impact report for the shipyard development, limit any legal challenges to the project to 270 days, and allow Suisun City to annex their land if needed, according to Steinberg and Hertzberg.

“In short, if legislation is not approved, California will lose billions of dollars in investments and tens of thousands of jobs this summer to Texas and other states,” proponents wrote in a joint letter to Gov. Gavin Newsom and legislative leaders this week.

But some locals and lawmakers are skeptical, arguing that details about the project remain scarce. The proposed development would convert vast farmlands into factories and risk harming the surrounding ecosystem, they said, which deserves rigorous environmental review under the landmark California Environmental Quality Act that proponents are seeking to expedite.

State Sen. Christopher Cabaldon (D-West Sacramento) is shown during a Senate floor session at the state Capitol in Sacramento on Feb. 20, 2025.

(Fred Greaves / CalMatters)

“For a project this scale in this location, it is what the [law] was designed for,” said Sen. Christopher Cabaldon (D-West Sacramento), who represents the area. “A central question for the people of Solano County is: Is this going to be for the community or is this a conversion project that leaves them behind?”

Opponents also slammed California Forever for pursuing relief behind closed doors with state leaders and circumventing local opposition. Since 2018, the group has secretly bought up agricultural land, shelled out hundreds of millions of dollars to court local residents and spent at least $330,000 lobbying the governor and legislative leaders for favorable legislation.

“I think they know that the only way this actually happens is under cover of darkness, by trying to essentially get the governor to work this plan for them,” said Jordan Grimes, legislative director at Greenbelt Alliance, which has advocated for streamlined environmental reviews for housing projects.

Secretive beginnings foment distrust

For residents of Solano County, an agricultural community on the outskirts of the Bay Area that includes coastal areas next to a deep-water shipping lane, the suspicion around California Forever has been hard to shake.

The group’s subsidiary, Flannery Associates, started buying up farmland in 2018, eventually acquiring 62,000 acres while routinely refusing to answer questions about its backers. Some farmers later alleged the company used strong-arm tactics to get them to sell.

In 2023, Flannery’s backers were unmasked as a group of wealthy venture capitalists, including the founders of LinkedIn and Netscape, all led by former Goldman Sachs trader and real estate developer Jan Sramek. Marc Andreessen, co-founder of venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, holds investments in both California Forever and Saronic, the defense company eyeing California. Andreessen’s firm did not immediately return a CalMatters inquiry for comment.

Despite rocky beginnings, California Forever needed the majority of Solano County voters on its side due to a 1984 “orderly growth” law that requires voters to approve development on unincorporated land.

In 2024, the company debuted the East Solano Plan to rezone 17,500 acres of agricultural land for a dense, 400,000-person city. The proposal was set to go before voters that year, but its backers pulled it following powerful grassroots opposition, poor polling and a county assessment that found holes in the plan. Sramek acknowledged the group likely moved too fast and said the initiative would go back before voters in 2026.

Instead, the group has pivoted. The East Solano Plan has become the Suisun Expansion Plan and the Solano Shipyard. In January 2025, Suisun City’s city council directed its manager to explore expanding the city’s limits through annexation, which is now underway, although it could take years.

State Route 113 runs through land where California Forever plans to put its new city in Solano County.

(Loren Elliott / CalMatters)

“The annexation and the shipbuilding have been a clear way to work around the need for voter support in Solano County,” said Nate Huntington, a member of the grassroots group Solano Together, which formed in response to the secretive land purchases. Huntington pointed out that California Forever hasn’t even submitted a proposal for a shipbuilding facility to the county.

“All of this has been happening in backrooms of Sacramento, and it’s not been publicly available.”

Seeking state environmental relief

California Forever is now selling the development to the state as a major incentive to lure manufacturers and shipbuilders to California — and the subsequent need for housing to accommodate the promised jobs.

The company wants the governor and state lawmakers to cut red tape for the development and require enough housing for the new jobs. Steinberg and Hertzberg told CalMatters they are contemplating legislation to that end, but only after California Forever signs a lease with a manufacturer or shipbuilder.

Their plan would allow the governor to designate construction on company land as “environmental leadership development projects,” which would effectively require any litigation to be resolved within 270 days. Steinberg authored the state law streamlining that process in 2013.

State law requires government agencies to prepare a report for any project that might have a significant impact on the environment. Instead of assessing the impact of the proposed shipyard, Steinberg and Hertzberg’s proposal would use a 2008 report, which designated the area where the shipyard would go as “water-dependent industrial usage.” Most of California Forever’s 7,500-acre planned footprint does not have that designation.

Steinberg told CalMatters the report is sufficient since the site has changed little.

“The state and county need the ability to say yes now to these numerous opportunities,” he said in a text. A new report, he said, “would require years of additional delay and lost opportunities.”

But the report is outdated, Cabaldon argues.

“This is completely different,” he said. “Just the notion that you would just say, ‘We are not going to do any assessments at all and we’ll just rely on this old one’ — that is not consistent with what the public interest is.”

Steinberg and Hertzberg also want the state to require enough housing in the area, but to allow surrounding cities and Solano County to permit local housing developers to build first.

But if local governments aren’t willing to or cannot build enough housing within the timeline the manufacturer or the shipbuilder wants, Steinberg and Hertzberg’s proposal would allow Suisun City to annex adjacent California Forever-owned county land into its city boundaries — a controversial idea that has drawn fierce local opposition. The move would be a “last resort,” Steinberg and Hertzberg stressed repeatedly.

The annexation would effectively bypass the county’s orderly growth initiative, which requires voters to have a say in development.

“The shipbuilders and manufacturers need certainty on a much faster timeline,” Steinberg said.

Cabaldon said the pitch to build new housing to accommodate theoretical jobs is “fantastical,” noting that Saronic, the proposed shipbuilder, is a leader in automation.

“There’s no indication that this is going to generate on an ongoing basis that many jobs, and certainly not more jobs than we have housing for even today without building a single additional unit,” he said.

Historic union agreement prompts support

In January, California Forever announced it had signed a 40-year deal with the Napa/Solano Building Trades Council and Northern California Carpenters Union to use union labor to build its development. The agreement was an important political alliance for Chief Executive Sramek, bringing more influential advocates to the table.

According to Digital Democracy, both the Building Trades Council and the Carpenters Union have given roughly $10 million in direct donations to legislative candidates since 2000.

Those advocates made themselves heard over the last few weeks, following a Texas county court approving significant tax incentives to lure Saronic to Brownsville. In a statement, Saronic said its nationwide search is still “active and ongoing.”

The California Alliance for Jobs, an alliance of influential construction companies and workers, drafted two letters in quick succession calling for legislative leaders to streamline the California Forever expansion and shipyard.

“We champed at the bit to go all in to get this project moving, and to get legislation through Sacramento this session,” said Joshua Arce, executive director of the alliance.

Suisun City Councilmember Princess Washington, who has consistently been the sole vote on the council against the annexation plan, said she feels organized labor is being used as “political pressure” to win approval.

“Processes are slow, but they’re done that way through government to ensure that it’s being done correctly, that all parties of interest are being treated fairly, and there’s checks and balances,” Washington said.

“It’s unheard of for a project to be done as quickly as they want it to be done.”

In a statement, California Forever spokesperson Jim Wunderman said any shipyard project will comply with all California environmental and land-use laws. He said county supervisors already approved using the 2008 impact report, and that legislation would allow the group to “meet prospective employers’ timelines.”

He said by pursuing expansion within Suisun City, California Forever is following the community’s preferences by channeling new growth into existing cities.

An ongoing presence in the Capitol

Since 2024, California Forever has spent at least $330,000 lobbying the Legislature and governor’s office on bills and other actions, according to campaign finance records.

Steinberg and Hertzberg told CalMatters they were hired in April as “special counsel,” not lobbyists, meaning they are spending less than a third of their time talking with public officials.

Grimes, who said he respects Steinberg for leading landmark environmental land-use reforms in the Legislature, said he’s disappointed in his advocacy for California Forever, “a project that is antithetical to all of this.”

Sheep graze on land where California Forever plans to build its new city in Solano County.

(Loren Elliott / CalMatters)

California Forever reported spending $90,000 lobbying the governor’s office and the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development, called GO-Biz, last year on “federal shipbuilding activities and California business attraction and retention activities.”

“GO-Biz has discussed relevant state incentive programs with Saronic and explained how they operate,” said GO-Biz spokesperson Willie Rudman. He said the agency does not offer incentive packages to specific companies.

Last fall though, GO-Biz helped organize a bid for Saronic to settle in Solano County. County staff reported during a board meeting that GO-Biz supported a legislative effort to override the county’s “orderly growth” law.

County supervisors rushed through a proposal to change the boundaries of the Solano Shipyard to comply, but with just days remaining before the end of the legislative session, Assemblymember Lori D. Wilson, a Democrat from Suisun City, said there wasn’t time to introduce legislation.

Since then, Wilson said, the proposal has been on the table, but “nothing’s been requested” of her office by California Forever.

The company also urged lawmakers to act fast or risk losing the shipbuilder to Texas last year — a negotiating tactic common in economic development, Cabaldon said.

But Cabaldon argued that Saronic will decide where to place its shipyard based on “defense needs of the United States of America” instead of state incentives.

“We have to negotiate with our eyes open,” he said.

Wolffe and Yu write for CalMatters.

The changes will kick in from 2027

Wizz Air has made an announcement that will affect passengers planning to fly with the budget carrier from 2027 onwards. It has confirmed that travellers will soon be able to enjoy high-speed internet access on board.

The airline, which is based in Hungary, revealed it is fitting Elon Musk’s Starlink internet system across all its “new generation” aircraft. Wizz Air claims it will be the first European ultra-low-cost carrier to adopt the technology.

The airline has yet to confirm whether passengers will be charged for using the service. Starlink — owned by billionaire Mr Musk’s SpaceX aerospace firm — operates via thousands of satellites in orbit around Earth. A growing number of airlines have already begun offering the service or have announced plans to introduce it, including British Airways and Virgin Atlantic.

Ian Malin, chief commercial officer of Wizz Air, said: “Ultra low-cost travel has always been about making opportunities accessible to more people. In 2027, we’re taking that philosophy into the space era.

“Our customers shouldn’t have to choose between affordable fares and reliable internet onboard to stay connected to the people, work and moments that matter most. We’re proud to lead that change by collaborating with Starlink to bring maximum benefit to Wizz Air.”

In January, a row broke out between Mr Musk and Ryanair boss Michael O’Leary over whether Starlink could be used on the airline’s flights. After Mr O’Leary dismissed the idea as unfeasible, Mr Musk branded Mr O’Leary an “idiot” and a “chimp”, and speculated on X about potentially buying the airline.

Mr O’Leary claimed the “PR spat” had driven a 2-3% increase in sales.

Clarkson’s Farm star Lisa Hogan returns to screens for season five, but what do we know about her previous relationships?

The fifth season of Clarkson’s Farm has finally arrived, with four brand-new episodes landing on Wednesday, 3rd June.

After Jeremy Clarkson’s emergency hospital dash back in October 2024, the former Top Gear and The Grand Tour co-presenter lost no time in returning to work at Diddly Squat.

The latest series chronicles Jeremy as he teams up once more with Kaleb Cooper and his other half, Lisa Hogan, on fresh farming ventures, including so-called ‘Easycare’ sheep which prove to be amongst the most challenging animals on the farm, a touching Christmas celebration and even AI-powered tractors.

Now the show has been running for half a decade, with a sixth series scheduled for next year, audiences have become more familiar than ever with television couple Jeremy and Lisa.

However, did you know Lisa was previously wed before encountering Jeremy at a gathering in 2017? Let’s explore what we know about her former spouse, reports Wales Online.

Who is Lisa Hogan’s ex-husband?

Lisa was formerly married to Baron Steven Bentinck, an art collector and Dutch aristocrat residing in Madrid.

He belongs to the House of Bentinck family of Dutch, German and British nobility and is the nephew of steel magnate and art collector Baron Heinrich von Thyssen.

Baron Steven and Lisa first crossed paths in 1996 and tied the knot in 1998. They stayed together for 30 years, until 2011, and share three children, Wolfe, Alice, and Lizzy.

Lisa’s former husband was also previously wed to Nora de Picciotto. He is 69, 17 years Lisa’s senior, with her being 52. His precise net worth remains undisclosed but is thought to run into the multi-millions owing to his links with billionaire industrialist von Thyssen and his remarkable collection of luxury assets, which previously included the 147-foot yacht, alongside several high-value properties such as the Duntreath Castle estate in Scotland.

The Bentinck family wealth is understood to reach into the hundreds of millions, with their Welbeck Estates Company holdings alone estimated at over £230 million.

Get 30 days of Prime Video totally free

This article contains affiliate links, we will receive a commission on any sales we generate from it. Learn more

£8.99

£0

Amazon

Get Prime Video here

TV lovers can get 30 days’ free access to binge great shows like Clarkson’s Farm by signing up to Amazon Prime. Just remember to cancel at the end and you won’t be charged.

Prior to her relationship with Jeremy, Lisa was also involved with Canadian businessman Craig Cohan for a period after meeting at a birthday celebration in Moscow. The pair were seen together at a Battersea Power Station event in April 2014, although the exact timeline of their romance and separation remains unclear.

Jeremy, for his part, has been married twice before. His first wife is Alex Hall, whom he wed in 1989 for six months, while his second is manager Frances Cain, marrying in 1993. They share three children together and separated in 2014.

Clarkson’s Farm season 5 continues Wednesdays on Prime Video.

Normal flows of fossil fuels from the Gulf have effectively been at a standstill since the war broke out and the Strait of Hormuz was blockaded, leading to shortages and flight cancellations

Billionaires and the ultra-rich are taking more and more private jet flights despite a jet fuel crisis in commercial aviation.

While major airlines cancel tens of thousands of flights due to jet fuel issues caused by the Iran War, chartered and private aviation is booming, according to analysis shared with the Mirror.

“Aside from the Middle East, the global private jet industry has not been affected by rising fuel costs,” Nick Koscinski, analyst at WINGX Advance aviation data firm, told the Mirror. “In fact, global private jet flights are up 4.7% year-to-date through 19 April.”

In US cities that have been hit by Transportation Security Administration staff shortages amid a pay freeze, there have been much higher usage rises, with a 17% yearly increase in Washington, DC, and Houston.

Normal flows of fossil fuels from the Gulf have effectively been at a standstill since the war broke out and the Strait of Hormuz was blockaded. A fifth of the world’s oil and gas typically flows through the Strait.

Last week, global jet fuel shipments fell to the lowest recorded level. Just under 2.3m tonnes of jet fuel and kerosene were transported on ships in the seven days to 26 April, according to data company Kpler. The figure represents less than half the average weekly volume shipped before the war. Earlier this month, the International Energy Agency warned that Europe could run out of jet fuel in weeks.

WINGX Advance analysis notes that Jet A1 prices have approximately doubled since January, and they represent about 30% of variable operating costs for private jet operators.

“So this cost is significant. Our impression is that the cost increase has largely been passed through to end-users. As flight activity for private jets is up this year vs last year, clearly demand seems to be inelastic at least for now,” analyst Richard Koe added.

Flying in a private jet is one of the most fuel-intensive, emissions-spewing activities a human can engage in.

Overall, private aviation emissions increased by 46% between 2019 and 2023, with industry expectations of continued strong growth, according to a Nature journal Communications Earth & Environment study.

It also found that most of these small planes spew more heat-trapping carbon dioxide in about two hours of flying than the average person does in about a year.

In 2023, roughly a quarter million of the super wealthy, who were worth a total of $31 trillion, emitted 17.2 million tons (15.6 million metric tons) of carbon dioxide flying in private jets. That’s about the same amount as the overall yearly emissions of the 67 million people who live in Tanzania.

Stefan Gössling, a transportation researcher at the business school of Sweden’s Linnaeus University, said the issue wasn’t so much the emissions, which remain a small part of those produced globally, but the lack of fairness.

“The damage is done by those with a lot of money and the cost is borne by those with very little money,” Gössling said. A separate report by Oxfam claimed that billionaires emit more carbon pollution in 90 minutes than the average person does in a lifetime.

Ryanair was established in 1985 and has gone onto become one of the most popular airlines in the world, thanks to its budget-friendly flights. Now, the airline has shared the one mistake passengers always make

Ryanair has detailed the one mistake the average passenger continues to make and it’s caused quite a stir. The budget-friendly airline is famed for its reasonably priced flights, boldly declaring on its website that it offers “Europe’s lowest fares”.

Founded in 1985 by Irish aviation executive Christopher Ryan and Irish billionaire businessman and philanthropist Tony Ryan, the company was named after its founders. Today, it boasts a fleet of more than 600 planes.

It operates 3,500 short-haul flights per day and serves around 230 airports in more than 40 countries across Europe, as well as in Turkey, Jordan and Morocco.

Like many companies, Ryanair maintains a consistent presence on social media. In a recent video posted on TikTok, the airline humorously poked fun at a common travel blunder many people are guilty of making – packing suitcases which are too large.

All Ryanair fares “include one small personal bag (40cm x 30cm x 20cm) that must fit under the seat”, which may be a handbag or a laptop bag.

Ryanair’s baggage policy states: “Additional options include Priority boarding with a second 10kg cabin bag, checked bags of 10kg, 20kg (up to 3), or 23kg (1 allowed).

“Infants have no cabin allowance but may bring a 5kg baby bag and two baby equipment items free.”

But it seems some passengers fail to check the size of their bags. In the TikTok clip, an animated image of a man holding a comically oversized bag could be seen moving across the screen towards the check-in desk.

Text written over the top of the footage branded the man an “average Ryanair passenger”. In a voiceover, he is told: “Your bag is too big, sir.”

The voiceover then detailed a string of excuses and responses Ryanair staff often hear, including “it fit at home”, “this is unfair”, “how could you do this?” and “I’m never flying Ryanair again”.

The lighthearted video has, so far, gained 245,900 views and hundreds of comments. One TikTok user said: “It is like their first time every time! Never ceases to amaze me. It is not as if you don’t get enough reminders either as to what you have booked and paid for…”

Another jokingly asked: “What bag should I bring then?????????” A third shared: “My uncle does that.” To which, Ryanair replied: “He will be charged.”

But someone else quipped: “Does paying extra at the gate magically make the bag smaller/lighter?”

One person said: “At the gate they say that you can carry 2 bags a person though.” Another quipped: “I’ll just travel by unicorn instead.”

The low-cost Irish airline is headquartered in Swords, County Dublin, Ireland. Based on the annual number of international passengers carried, the fleet size and the number of flights, Ryanair is the largest airline in the world. It’s the second-largest airline worldwide based on market capitalisation after Delta Air Lines.

It boasts a fleet of 613 planes, including 26 leased aircraft.

Approximately 95% of aircrafts used by Ryanair are single-aisle Boeing 737s. The 737-8-200 was designed by Boeing specifically for Ryanair in order to help the company carry more people at a lower cost per passenger.