Santa Barbara County News and Events

Hancock Terrace in Santa Maria Sells for $75 Million, Set for Affordable Housing Conversion

Kraig Pakulski 0 20 Article rating: No rating
A major multifamily property on the Central Coast has officially changed hands in a deal that is expected to add affordable housing in Santa Maria.   Hancock Terrace, a 272-unit multifamily […]

The post Hancock Terrace in Santa Maria Sells for $75 Million, Set for Affordable Housing Conversion appeared first on edhat.

The $134-billion question: Who will get a tariff refund?

Kraig Pakulski 0 21 Article rating: No rating

By Elisabeth Buchwald, CNN

(CNN) — The battle is just starting for the 300,000 businesses that want $134 billion in tariffs refunded.

As it turns out, convincing six Supreme Court justices that President Donald Trump overstepped his authority in imposing sweeping tariffs relying on emergency economic powers was the easy part. The hard part: Getting a clear answer on what happens to the tens of billions of dollars that US companies forked over after Trump jacked up tariffs on every global partner last year.

The Trump administration — both formally and informally — has promised to refund duties collected if the Supreme Court issued a ruling against them. But neither the administration nor any of the justices have specified exactly how it would work.

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote, “Refunds of billions of dollars would have significant consequences for the US Treasury.”

“The Court says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers. But that process is likely to be a ‘mess,’ as was acknowledged at oral argument,” he continued.

On Friday, President Donald Trump questioned why the justices didn’t state whether the tariff revenue needs to be returned. “I guess it has to get litigated for the next two years,” he told reporters. He then said it could be “the next five years.”

That likely means that businesses will have to fight tooth and nail for any chance at a refund — even though the government keeps meticulous records of all tariff payments.

“The case was never about refunds, and it was inconceivable that the Supreme Court would get into the weeds of how you apply refunds,” said Ted Posner, a trade attorney and partner at Baker Botts.

“We’re now talking to companies about the next steps, which means more waiting, this time for the Court of International Trade. Any refund process is going to require meticulous submissions, and for now, companies and even countries are left in limbo.” Essentially, that means individual importers will have to file their own lawsuits for a chance at a refund.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a Reuters interview last month the agency has enough cash on hand to refund importers, but that the process could play out over a year.

“It won’t be a problem if we have to do it, but I can tell you that if it happens — which I don’t think it’s going to — it’s just a corporate boondoggle,” Bessent said. Then Bessent asked whether companies like Costco, which preemptively sued the US government in an effort to secure its stake in a refund, would return any of the funds they receive to customers.

“I’ve got a feeling the American people won’t see it,” Bessent said Friday at an event hosted by the Economic Club of Dallas.

This wouldn’t be the first time the government had to issue tariff refunds as a result of a Supreme Court decision. A 1998 decision resulted in $730 million in tariff refunds to American companies, though it took two years to accomplish.

“It is an open question whether Customs and Border Protection will follow historical precedent or existing processes, or whether a new process will be needed to address the sheer scope and volume of the IEEPA tariffs,” Alexis Early a trade attorney and partner at BCLP, said, referring to the set of tariffs that the Supreme Court struck down.

As for the consumers who paid for the tariffs via higher prices, it’s looking l

State watchdog and District Attorney’s Office dismiss Supervisor’s allegations against opponent

Kraig Pakulski 0 23 Article rating: No rating

SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, Calif. (KEYT) – A statewide watchdog and county prosecutor have found that allegations of campaign finance violations filed against a challenger in the upcoming Supervisor's race were unfounded, but the Supervisor who filed them argues they highlight a bigger issue.

On Sunday, Feb. 15, San Luis Obispo County Fourth District Supervisor Jimmy Paulding announced that he had filed a formal complaint with both the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) and the County's District Attorney's Office.

The complaint alleged that Adam Verdin, a candidate for Supervisor in the same district, reported a donation from local development firm Covelop Inc. that was double the legal limit of $5,900 per donor, per election.

Supervisor Paulding noted the Covelop Inc. donation he wanted investigated was reported on a campaign statement that Verdin signed on Jan. 29, 2026, and went on to highlight in his letter to the state's Fair Political Practices Commission that, "Verdin’s campaign has accepted maximum or near-maximum donations from multiple development-linked donors with active interests in county land use decisions."

According to Supervisor Paulding in his complaint, Verdin's defense of the developer donations showed, "a troubling disregard for the purpose of contribution limits and pay-to-play laws, which are designed to prevent both actual corruption and the appearance of special-interest influence."

As of Jan. 1, 2025, state law requires elected officials in California who receive contributions over $250 to recuse themselves from decisions involving the contributor for the next 12 months.

"Campaign finance laws exist to protect public trust, not to manufacture controversy where none exists. It's disappointing to see the incumbent mischaracterize campaign law for a headline," countered Verdin when reached for comment. "Covelop, Inc.'s $11,800 contributions to date to the Verdin campaign were allocated $5,900 to the June 2026 primary election and $5,900 to the November 2026 general election. The Verdin campaign report clearly reflects this allocation of the two Covelop, Inc. contributions on pages 14 and 26 of its year-end 2025 campaign report filed with the County Clerk."

The distinction between primary and general election contributions was noted by state and county oversight groups.

The FPPC issued a written dismissal of the allegations and the District Attorney's Office concluded in a written statement Thursday to Supervisor Paulding that it's Public Integrity Unit, "found no evidence to support your allegation."

Undeterred, Supervisor Paulding posted on Facebook that while the FPPC found no technical violation of campaign finance rules, "voters should look at the bigger picture."

"Before I was elected, developer special interests had controlled South County for years. The previous Supervisor was primarily funded by them, and those same developers fought hard to defeat me," Supervisor Paulding stated. "Now those same special interests are funneling tens of thousands of dollars into my opponent's campaign".

As it currently stands, the race for the Fourth District is between Supervisor Paulding and Verdin.

Without another candidate entering the race before t

State watchdog and District Attorney’s Office dismiss Supervisor’s allegations against opponent

Kraig Pakulski 0 25 Article rating: No rating

SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, Calif. (KEYT) – A statewide watchdog and county prosecutor have found that allegations of campaign finance violations filed against a challenger in the upcoming Supervisor's race were unfounded, but the Supervisor who filed them argues they highlight a bigger issue.

On Sunday, Feb. 15, San Luis Obispo County Fourth District Supervisor Jimmy Paulding announced that he had filed a formal complaint with both the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) and the County's District Attorney's Office.

The complaint alleged that Adam Verdin, a candidate for Supervisor in the same district, reported a donation from local development firm Covelop Inc. that was double the legal limit of $5,900 per donor, per election.

Supervisor Paulding noted the Covelop Inc. donation he wanted investigated was reported on a campaign statement that Verdin signed on Jan. 29, 2026, and went on to highlight in his letter to the state's Fair Political Practices Commission that, "Verdin’s campaign has accepted maximum or near-maximum donations from multiple development-linked donors with active interests in county land use decisions."

According to Supervisor Paulding in his complaint, Verdin's defense of the developer donations showed, "a troubling disregard for the purpose of contribution limits and pay-to-play laws, which are designed to prevent both actual corruption and the appearance of special-interest influence."

As of Jan. 1, 2025, state law requires elected officials in California who receive contributions over $250 to recuse themselves from decisions involving the contributor for the next 12 months.

"Campaign finance laws exist to protect public trust, not to manufacture controversy where none exists. It's disappointing to see the incumbent mischaracterize campaign law for a headline," countered Verdin when reached for comment. "Covelop, Inc.'s $11,800 contributions to date to the Verdin campaign were allocated $5,900 to the June 2026 primary election and $5,900 to the November 2026 general election. The Verdin campaign report clearly reflects this allocation of the two Covelop, Inc. contributions on pages 14 and 26 of its year-end 2025 campaign report filed with the County Clerk."

The distinction between primary and general election contributions was noted by state and county oversight groups.

The FPPC issued a written dismissal of the allegations and the District Attorney's Office concluded in a written statement Thursday to Supervisor Paulding that it's Public Integrity Unit, "found no evidence to support your allegation."

Undeterred, Supervisor Paulding posted on Facebook that while the FPPC found no technical violation of campaign finance rules, "voters should look at the bigger picture."

"Before I was elected, developer special interests had controlled South County for years. The previous Supervisor was primarily funded by them, and those same developers fought hard to defeat me," Supervisor Paulding stated. "Now those same special interests are funnel

RSS
First28842885288628872889289128922893Last