Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Emerald Triangle communities were built on cannabis. Legalization has pushed them to the brink

News Feed
Monday, February 27, 2023

In summary Cannabis has been king in this rural area of northern California. But as prices plummet, communities and business owners are hurting, with no clear solutions in sight. Many blame Proposition 64 for undermining small growers. HAYFORK — It’s shortly before 8 a.m. and a touch above freezing at the Trinity County Fairgrounds. The food bank’s February distribution won’t begin for another half hour, but the line of cars already stretches into a third row of the parking lot. Joseph Felice, his red Dodge pickup idling with the heat cranked up, arrived around 7 to secure a spot near the front — eighth, to be exact — and ensure that he gets his pick of this month’s harvest: frozen catfish filets, eggplant, winter squash, potatoes, cans of mixed fruit, cartons of milk. Getting here early is crucial, because by the time the final cars roll through some two hours later — 210 families served — all that’s left are a few packages of diapers and noodles. Things are getting desperate in this remote, mountainous community in far northern California, where cannabis is king — the economy, the culture, the everything. Over the past two years, the price of weed has plummeted and people are broke. The monthly food bank distribution moved from a church to the fairgrounds last summer to accommodate surging demand. There’s only one sit-down restaurant left in town, a Mexican joint that closes every day at 6. Some residents have fled for Oklahoma, where it’s easier for cannabis cultivators to get licensed. Others are stuck, unable to unload their properties amid an abundance of supply and a dearth of demand. “I don’t see the same faces that I did before,” said Felice, 67, who performed maintenance work for a local grower for five years, until they called it quits at the end of last season. Felice lost not just his income, but also free housing on the farm. The food distribution is now a crucial bridge between Social Security checks and trips to Redding, 60 miles away, where he can get cheaper groceries. “I had plenty of money working out there,” Felice said. “But now that it’s gone, you have to do something.” First: A line of cars waits to receive food from the Trinity County Food Bank at the Trinity County Fairgrounds on Feb. 8, 2023. Second: Volunteers Jeff Mummy (right), Michael Merrill (center) and others prepare bags of food. Third: Volunteers Terry Scovil (center), and Shendi Klopfer load the car of a resident with food. Photos by Martin do Nascimento, CalMatters Just what that something might be for Hayfork — and the rest of the famous Emerald Triangle of Humboldt, Mendocino and Trinity counties — is unclear.  For decades before California legalized recreational cannabis in 2016, this rural region of about 245,000 people was the base of weed cultivation for the entire country. The effects of the price crash, which has been particularly acute in the past two years, can be felt throughout the three counties, both within the industry and far outside of it. Cultivators who can barely make ends meet are laying off employees, slashing expenses or shutting down their farms. That means money isn’t flowing into local businesses, nonprofits are getting fewer generous cash donations in brown paper bags, and local governments are collecting less in sales and property taxes. Workers who spent their whole lives in the cannabis industry are suddenly looking around for new careers that may not be there. Store clerks, gas station attendants and restaurant servers who relied on their patronage now find themselves with reduced hours, meager tips or out of a job altogether. A sense of despair and heartbreak has taken hold in many communities. People whisper about friends who are thinking about divorce or who killed themselves because they could not handle the financial devastation. And the pain is compounded by a feeling that their suffering has been all but invisible, overlooked by most Californians and dismissed by government officials who have never made good on the promises of legalization. “We’re constantly at war. That’s how it feels,” said Adrien Keys, president of the Trinity County Agriculture Alliance, a trade association for the local legal cannabis industry. Hayfork on Feb. 7, 2023. Photo by Martin do Nascimento, CalMatters These communities have been here before, stuck in a boom-and-bust cycle that played out with gold mining and cattle ranching and fishing. The last time, when the timber industry collapsed in the 1990s, cannabis cultivation flourished after the legalization of medical marijuana and filled the void. Now it’s unclear whether there’s anything left to sustain the local economies. Some imagine that growing tourism can be the salvation, or attracting new residents with remote jobs and a desire to live way off the grid, or perhaps a logging revival driven by the urgent need to thin out California’s wildfire-prone forests. Others hope that a cannabis turnaround might still be possible. But for a small, isolated town such as Hayfork — population: 2,300; high school student body: 88; empty sawmills: two — the answers are not obvious. The fear that the community could ultimately wither away is real. “Long-term, I’m worried about it,” said Scott Murrison, a 68-year resident of Hayfork who owns half a dozen local businesses, including the gas station and mini mart (revenues down 10-15% over the past few years), a grocery store (down by as much as a third), the laundromat (bringing in about half of what it did when it opened a decade ago), a bar (stabilized since adding food to the menu), a ranch (hanging on, because there’s still demand for locally-raised beef) and a couple of greenhouses (leased to his nephew, who is not growing cannabis this year). Scott Murrison inside a hoop house full of unused cannabis growing equipment in Hayfork on Feb. 7, 2023. Photo by Martin do Nascimento, CalMatters Without any real opportunities for young people coming out of school, Murrison said, they will have to move away, leaving Hayfork without a future. “A good, viable community needs those families and the young people,” he said. “A bunch of old people are just boring.” Boom and bust It wasn’t supposed to go this way. Cannabis should have been the sustainable alternative to gold and timber, a renewable resource that can be replanted each year. For a long time, it was. Despite the challenges of growing an illegal crop, including enforcement raids that still scar residents, the “war on drugs” kept product scarce and prices high. The lure of easy cash attracted people from around the world to the Emerald Triangle, an annual flow of “trimmigrants” who could walk away from the fall harvest season with thousands of dollars in their pockets, much of which was spent locally. “Everybody was making so much money it was insane,” Murrison said. “You could be here by accident, you could make money. Either trimming or growing or hauling water or if you had equipment, leveling spots or digging holes.” Then came Proposition 64, the ballot initiative approved by California voters in 2016 that finally legalized recreational cannabis use and commercial sales in the state, though they remain illegal under federal law. Proponents including Gov. Gavin Newsom pitched it as both a social justice measure and a boon for tax revenues. But the “green rush” that resulted has arguably harmed the Emerald Triangle more than it helped. Pots full of soil sit unused and growing weeds on Scott Murrison’s land in Hayfork on Feb. 7 2023. Photo by Martin do Nascimento, CalMatters New farmers, sometimes licensed and often not, streamed in, flooding the market with cannabis. A cap on the size of farms intended to give small growers a head start was abandoned in the final state regulations, opening the door to competing cultivation hubs in other regions of California with looser restrictions. And with most local jurisdictions still closed to dispensaries, the legal market has been unable to absorb the glut, resulting in plunging prices and a vicious cycle in which farmers grow even more weed to make up for it. Cultivators who might have commanded more than $1,000 for a pound of cannabis just a couple years ago said it is now selling for a few hundred dollars, not enough to break even with their expenses, taxes and fees. Commercial cannabis sales in California actually fell by 8% last year to $5.3 billion, according to just-released state tax data, the first decline since it became legal in 2018 and a further cramp on the industry. State tax revenue dropped from $251.3 million in the third quarter of 2022 to $221.6 million in the fourth quarter. “You can’t keep printing a dollar,” said Trinity County Supervisor Liam Gogan, who represents Hayfork and nearby Douglas City, where he said business at his grocery store is down an estimated 20%, a decline he expects is less than many other shops in town. Some parts of the Emerald Triangle are better positioned to weather the cannabis downturn; the coast is a tourist draw, the newly rechristened Cal Poly Humboldt in Arcata is undergoing a major expansion and there are government jobs in the county seats. But things are precarious in the vast rural expanses, which is most of Trinity County, where there are no incorporated cities. It has one of the smallest and poorest populations of any county in California — just 16,000 residents and a median household of about $42,000 a year. Outside of the Trinity Alps Wilderness in its northern reaches, there is little economy beyond weed. “It’s what we got,” said Gogan, who dismisses the possibility of tourism or any other industry offsetting cannabis losses as delusional. “No one’s knocking the door down.” Like many locals, he dreams that, with the exodus of cultivators and a drop in production, cannabis prices could rebound slightly. Some are noticing a modest recovery recently from the bleak depths of last year, when the most distressed farmers offloaded their product for fire-sale prices below $100 per pound, or simply destroyed crops they couldn’t sell. There have been nascent efforts at the state Capitol to help small cannabis growers. Newsom and legislators agreed last year to eliminate a cultivation tax after farmers from the Emerald Triangle lobbied aggressively for relief. But the intervention is far from enough to ensure their future in a turbulent cannabis market. State Sen. Mike McGuire, a Democrat who represents the north coast, blamed Proposition 64 for setting up family farmers for failure with a litany of “suffocating rules.” He is preparing to introduce legislation this spring that could undo some of those regulations for small growers, including an “antiquated, cockamamie licensing structure” that requires them to keep paying annual fees even if they fallow their land because of the price drop and a ban on selling cannabis directly to consumers, something that is allowed for other agricultural products. “These are solutions that will help stabilize the market and lift up family farmers for generations to come,” McGuire said. “The state needs to have a backbone to get it done.” Newsom, who once called himself the “poster child” for “everything that goes wrong” with Proposition 64, declined a request to discuss what’s happening in California’s historic cannabis communities. A spokesperson directed CalMatters to the Department of Cannabis Control, which did not make Director Nicole Elliott or anyone else available for an interview. In a statement, spokesperson David Hafner said the department has “made a point of regularly monitoring and visiting the Emerald Triangle and engaging directly with licensees to understand their challenges in real time.” Hafner said the department has advanced “several policies and programs that have directly or indirectly supported legacy growers in the Emerald Triangle,” including granting more than 1,000 fee waivers to cultivators in the region, revising regulations to more closely align with traditional farming practices and providing $40 million to bolster licensing efforts in the three counties. “The Department stands ready to assist policymakers,” Hafner said, “in developing actions that improve the legal cannabis market.” Though growers in the Emerald Triangle have been sharply critical of how the state has regulated cannabis, particularly its early decision to forgo a strict acreage cap, one recent development may be promising: In January, Elliott requested an opinion from the state Department of Justice about what federal legal risk California would face if it negotiated agreements with other states to allow cannabis commerce between them. That could eventually open a pathway for growers to export their weed out of California, a market expansion that some believe is the kick-start that their operations need. An increasing strain The escape hatch may be closing for those seeking a way out of the industry. When the value of cannabis dropped, so did the worth of the properties where it’s grown — even more so for the many farmers who, because of environmental lawsuits and bureaucratic negligence, have yet to receive final approval for their state-issued cultivation licenses. After years of operating on provisional licenses, they still do not technically have a legal business to sell to an interested buyer, if they could even find one. Some are simply abandoning the properties that they have built into farms with greenhouses and irrigation systems, though evidence of this dilemma is anecdotal. The Trinity County Assessor’s Office said it could not provide data on recent property sales levels or prices. “There’s no way I could get out of my property now what I put into it,” said Keys of the Trinity County Agriculture Alliance, who figures he would be forced to walk away entirely if he stopped growing. “I don’t know if I could sell it at all.” Buildings for cannabis growing sit unused on Scott Murisson’s land in Hayfork on Feb. 7, 2023. Photo by Martin do Nascimento, CalMatters For those residents who stay, the strain is only deepening. The number of people in Trinity County enrolled in CalFresh, the state’s monthly food benefits program, in December was 31% higher than the year before and more than 71% higher than the same period in 2019, before the coronavirus pandemic and inflation crisis, according to data compiled by the California Department of Social Services. That’s nearly three times the rate of increase for the entire state. Jeffry England, executive director of the Trinity County Food Bank, said his organization is handing out two and a half times as much food as when he took over the position six years ago. He estimates that the food bank serves about 1,200 families per month, as much as a fifth of the whole county’s population. It has added three new distribution sites in the past year. “It’s getting really bad,” England said. “There are some of them who are in line at the food bank who used to be our donors.” Jeff England manages the Trinity County Food Bank distribution at the Trinity County Fairgrounds on Feb. 8, 2023. Photo by Martin do Nascimento, CalMatters Not everyone who is struggling dreams of leaving Hayfork behind. Herlinda Vang, 54, arrived about seven years ago from the Fresno area, where she worked as a social worker at a nonprofit and grew vegetables near Clovis. Sensing the opportunity of recreational legalization, she moved months before the passage of Proposition 64 to start a cannabis farm. Vang has come to appreciate how safe and quiet the community is compared to a big city, where she worried about her youngest children, now 14 and 11 years old. She can hear the birds when she wakes up in the morning. “What I’m doing is also helping other people, saving other people’s life, too,” she said. “So that is something that I enjoy doing.” Herlinda Vang in Hayfork on Feb. 7, 2023. Photo by Martin do Nascimento, CalMatters But last year, Vang had difficulty getting county approvals and wasn’t able to start growing until mid-July, about six weeks later than she wanted. Her plants were small by harvest time, leaving her with less to sell at the already reduced prices. Even as she is making less than a third per pound now compared to when she first started growing, Vang remains committed to her farm for at least another few years to see if things will turn around — especially if interstate trade opens up and expands the market. Without many other skills or job prospects locally, she doesn’t expect she could make much more money than she does now trying to find more traditional work. She also loves that, on her farm, she sets her own rules and schedule, and is able to prioritize being a mother as well. “I cannot give up. I have put everything I have in here,” Vang said. “I have to hang in there for a couple more years and see if I can make it work.” That has meant sacrifices. Vang has stopped shopping online for new clothes and jewelry, sending money overseas and buying pricier groceries, such as seafood. She gave away three of her nine dogs and only takes her family out to dinner on rare occasions. Like many of her neighbors, Vang now supplements her pantry with staples from the food bank, though like many of her neighbors, she is also doing her part to hold the community together, helping to coordinate a new distribution site in Trinity Pines, a mountain settlement of predominantly Hmong farmers. A Facebook group called Hayforkers has become a forum for people looking for assistance or giving away extra food and household items. “I am a very tough person,” Vang said. “I’m happy that even though my income is not the same, but my family, my health remains the same and the people that I know, the community at large still love each other, still comfort each other.” First: Packaged noodles are part of the “cultural bags” distributed to Hmong community members by the Trinity County Food Bank at the Trinity County Fairgrounds on Feb. 8, 2023. Second: Cars line up at the Trinity County Fairgrounds for the food bank distribution. Photos by Martin do Nascimento, CalMatters. Ira Porter is also on a shoestring budget. He covers his $200 per month rent by collecting cans and bottles — there are fewer than there used to be — from people who don’t want to travel all the way to the county seat of Weaverville or Redding to turn them in. Porter, 59, used to do maintenance and repair work on cannabis farms, fixing cars, water systems, and trimming machines. His wife was a trimmer.  “I’d be busy all year round, you know, because there’s always something to do,” Porter said through the window of his white Volkswagen sedan as he waited at the Hayfork food distribution with his pug Biggee in his lap. “I don’t know how many of these farmers left, but I’m not getting any calls this year as far as to do that.” Ira Porter and his dog Biggee wait in line to receive food at the Trinity County Food Bank distribution at the Trinity County Fairgrounds on Feb. 8, 2023. Photo by Martin do Nascimento, CalMatters As the line of cars slowly worked its way through the parking lot of the Trinity County Fairgrounds, past the volunteers handing out boxes of vegetables and bags of noodles, Porter cataloged the things he loves about Hayfork: The open spaces. The fresh air. Hanging out at the creek looking for gold. Being able to leave the keys in his car at night and not having to lock the door to his house. Chopping wood for kindling in the winter. “I moved up here to get out of L.A. because it’s a zoo down there, and there’s just too many people, and they’re all pissed off because they don’t got no elbow room,” Porter said. “Up here, it’s just beautiful. I love this place, you know? I mean, cannabis industry or not, I want to live here and die here.”

Cannabis has been king in this rural area of northern California. But as prices plummet, communities and business owners are hurting, with no clear solutions in sight. Many blame Proposition 64 for undermining small growers.

Joseph Felice (right) and Kim Payne wait in line to receive food at the Trinity County Food Bank distribution at the Trinity County Fairgrounds on Feb. 8, 2023. Photo by Martin do Nascimento, CalMatters

In summary

Cannabis has been king in this rural area of northern California. But as prices plummet, communities and business owners are hurting, with no clear solutions in sight. Many blame Proposition 64 for undermining small growers.

HAYFORK — It’s shortly before 8 a.m. and a touch above freezing at the Trinity County Fairgrounds. The food bank’s February distribution won’t begin for another half hour, but the line of cars already stretches into a third row of the parking lot.

Joseph Felice, his red Dodge pickup idling with the heat cranked up, arrived around 7 to secure a spot near the front — eighth, to be exact — and ensure that he gets his pick of this month’s harvest: frozen catfish filets, eggplant, winter squash, potatoes, cans of mixed fruit, cartons of milk. Getting here early is crucial, because by the time the final cars roll through some two hours later — 210 families served — all that’s left are a few packages of diapers and noodles.

Things are getting desperate in this remote, mountainous community in far northern California, where cannabis is king — the economy, the culture, the everything. Over the past two years, the price of weed has plummeted and people are broke.

The monthly food bank distribution moved from a church to the fairgrounds last summer to accommodate surging demand. There’s only one sit-down restaurant left in town, a Mexican joint that closes every day at 6. Some residents have fled for Oklahoma, where it’s easier for cannabis cultivators to get licensed. Others are stuck, unable to unload their properties amid an abundance of supply and a dearth of demand.

“I don’t see the same faces that I did before,” said Felice, 67, who performed maintenance work for a local grower for five years, until they called it quits at the end of last season.

Felice lost not just his income, but also free housing on the farm. The food distribution is now a crucial bridge between Social Security checks and trips to Redding, 60 miles away, where he can get cheaper groceries.

“I had plenty of money working out there,” Felice said. “But now that it’s gone, you have to do something.”

Volunteers Terry Scovil (center), and Shendi Klopfer load the car of a community member with food from the Trinity County Food Bank at the Trinity County Fairgrounds on Feb. 8, 2023. Photo by Martin do Nascimento, CalMatters
First: A line of cars waits to receive food from the Trinity County Food Bank at the Trinity County Fairgrounds on Feb. 8, 2023. Second: Volunteers Jeff Mummy (right), Michael Merrill (center) and others prepare bags of food. Third: Volunteers Terry Scovil (center), and Shendi Klopfer load the car of a resident with food. Photos by Martin do Nascimento, CalMatters

Just what that something might be for Hayfork — and the rest of the famous Emerald Triangle of Humboldt, Mendocino and Trinity counties — is unclear. 

For decades before California legalized recreational cannabis in 2016, this rural region of about 245,000 people was the base of weed cultivation for the entire country. The effects of the price crash, which has been particularly acute in the past two years, can be felt throughout the three counties, both within the industry and far outside of it.

Cultivators who can barely make ends meet are laying off employees, slashing expenses or shutting down their farms. That means money isn’t flowing into local businesses, nonprofits are getting fewer generous cash donations in brown paper bags, and local governments are collecting less in sales and property taxes.

Workers who spent their whole lives in the cannabis industry are suddenly looking around for new careers that may not be there. Store clerks, gas station attendants and restaurant servers who relied on their patronage now find themselves with reduced hours, meager tips or out of a job altogether.

A sense of despair and heartbreak has taken hold in many communities. People whisper about friends who are thinking about divorce or who killed themselves because they could not handle the financial devastation. And the pain is compounded by a feeling that their suffering has been all but invisible, overlooked by most Californians and dismissed by government officials who have never made good on the promises of legalization.

“We’re constantly at war. That’s how it feels,” said Adrien Keys, president of the Trinity County Agriculture Alliance, a trade association for the local legal cannabis industry.

Hayfork on Feb. 7, 2023. Photo by Martin do Nascimento, CalMatters
Hayfork on Feb. 7, 2023. Photo by Martin do Nascimento, CalMatters

These communities have been here before, stuck in a boom-and-bust cycle that played out with gold mining and cattle ranching and fishing. The last time, when the timber industry collapsed in the 1990s, cannabis cultivation flourished after the legalization of medical marijuana and filled the void. Now it’s unclear whether there’s anything left to sustain the local economies.

Some imagine that growing tourism can be the salvation, or attracting new residents with remote jobs and a desire to live way off the grid, or perhaps a logging revival driven by the urgent need to thin out California’s wildfire-prone forests. Others hope that a cannabis turnaround might still be possible.

But for a small, isolated town such as Hayfork — population: 2,300; high school student body: 88; empty sawmills: two — the answers are not obvious. The fear that the community could ultimately wither away is real.

“Long-term, I’m worried about it,” said Scott Murrison, a 68-year resident of Hayfork who owns half a dozen local businesses, including the gas station and mini mart (revenues down 10-15% over the past few years), a grocery store (down by as much as a third), the laundromat (bringing in about half of what it did when it opened a decade ago), a bar (stabilized since adding food to the menu), a ranch (hanging on, because there’s still demand for locally-raised beef) and a couple of greenhouses (leased to his nephew, who is not growing cannabis this year).

Scott Murrison inside a hoop house full of unused cannabis growing equipment in Hayfork on Feb. 7, 2023. Photo by Martin do Nascimento, CalMatters
Scott Murrison inside a hoop house full of unused cannabis growing equipment in Hayfork on Feb. 7, 2023. Photo by Martin do Nascimento, CalMatters

Without any real opportunities for young people coming out of school, Murrison said, they will have to move away, leaving Hayfork without a future.

“A good, viable community needs those families and the young people,” he said. “A bunch of old people are just boring.”

Boom and bust

It wasn’t supposed to go this way.

Cannabis should have been the sustainable alternative to gold and timber, a renewable resource that can be replanted each year. For a long time, it was.

Despite the challenges of growing an illegal crop, including enforcement raids that still scar residents, the “war on drugs” kept product scarce and prices high. The lure of easy cash attracted people from around the world to the Emerald Triangle, an annual flow of “trimmigrants” who could walk away from the fall harvest season with thousands of dollars in their pockets, much of which was spent locally.

“Everybody was making so much money it was insane,” Murrison said. “You could be here by accident, you could make money. Either trimming or growing or hauling water or if you had equipment, leveling spots or digging holes.”

Then came Proposition 64, the ballot initiative approved by California voters in 2016 that finally legalized recreational cannabis use and commercial sales in the state, though they remain illegal under federal law. Proponents including Gov. Gavin Newsom pitched it as both a social justice measure and a boon for tax revenues.

But the “green rush” that resulted has arguably harmed the Emerald Triangle more than it helped.

Pots full of soil sit unused and growing weeds on Scott Murrison's land in Hayfork on Feb. 7 2023. Photo by Martin do Nascimento, CalMatters
Pots full of soil sit unused and growing weeds on Scott Murrison’s land in Hayfork on Feb. 7 2023. Photo by Martin do Nascimento, CalMatters

New farmers, sometimes licensed and often not, streamed in, flooding the market with cannabis. A cap on the size of farms intended to give small growers a head start was abandoned in the final state regulations, opening the door to competing cultivation hubs in other regions of California with looser restrictions. And with most local jurisdictions still closed to dispensaries, the legal market has been unable to absorb the glut, resulting in plunging prices and a vicious cycle in which farmers grow even more weed to make up for it.

Cultivators who might have commanded more than $1,000 for a pound of cannabis just a couple years ago said it is now selling for a few hundred dollars, not enough to break even with their expenses, taxes and fees.

Commercial cannabis sales in California actually fell by 8% last year to $5.3 billion, according to just-released state tax data, the first decline since it became legal in 2018 and a further cramp on the industry. State tax revenue dropped from $251.3 million in the third quarter of 2022 to $221.6 million in the fourth quarter.

“You can’t keep printing a dollar,” said Trinity County Supervisor Liam Gogan, who represents Hayfork and nearby Douglas City, where he said business at his grocery store is down an estimated 20%, a decline he expects is less than many other shops in town.

Some parts of the Emerald Triangle are better positioned to weather the cannabis downturn; the coast is a tourist draw, the newly rechristened Cal Poly Humboldt in Arcata is undergoing a major expansion and there are government jobs in the county seats.

But things are precarious in the vast rural expanses, which is most of Trinity County, where there are no incorporated cities. It has one of the smallest and poorest populations of any county in California — just 16,000 residents and a median household of about $42,000 a year. Outside of the Trinity Alps Wilderness in its northern reaches, there is little economy beyond weed.

“It’s what we got,” said Gogan, who dismisses the possibility of tourism or any other industry offsetting cannabis losses as delusional. “No one’s knocking the door down.”

Like many locals, he dreams that, with the exodus of cultivators and a drop in production, cannabis prices could rebound slightly. Some are noticing a modest recovery recently from the bleak depths of last year, when the most distressed farmers offloaded their product for fire-sale prices below $100 per pound, or simply destroyed crops they couldn’t sell.

There have been nascent efforts at the state Capitol to help small cannabis growers. Newsom and legislators agreed last year to eliminate a cultivation tax after farmers from the Emerald Triangle lobbied aggressively for relief. But the intervention is far from enough to ensure their future in a turbulent cannabis market.

State Sen. Mike McGuire, a Democrat who represents the north coast, blamed Proposition 64 for setting up family farmers for failure with a litany of “suffocating rules.” He is preparing to introduce legislation this spring that could undo some of those regulations for small growers, including an “antiquated, cockamamie licensing structure” that requires them to keep paying annual fees even if they fallow their land because of the price drop and a ban on selling cannabis directly to consumers, something that is allowed for other agricultural products.

“These are solutions that will help stabilize the market and lift up family farmers for generations to come,” McGuire said. “The state needs to have a backbone to get it done.”

Newsom, who once called himself the “poster child” for “everything that goes wrong” with Proposition 64, declined a request to discuss what’s happening in California’s historic cannabis communities. A spokesperson directed CalMatters to the Department of Cannabis Control, which did not make Director Nicole Elliott or anyone else available for an interview.

In a statement, spokesperson David Hafner said the department has “made a point of regularly monitoring and visiting the Emerald Triangle and engaging directly with licensees to understand their challenges in real time.”

Hafner said the department has advanced “several policies and programs that have directly or indirectly supported legacy growers in the Emerald Triangle,” including granting more than 1,000 fee waivers to cultivators in the region, revising regulations to more closely align with traditional farming practices and providing $40 million to bolster licensing efforts in the three counties.

“The Department stands ready to assist policymakers,” Hafner said, “in developing actions that improve the legal cannabis market.”

Though growers in the Emerald Triangle have been sharply critical of how the state has regulated cannabis, particularly its early decision to forgo a strict acreage cap, one recent development may be promising: In January, Elliott requested an opinion from the state Department of Justice about what federal legal risk California would face if it negotiated agreements with other states to allow cannabis commerce between them.

That could eventually open a pathway for growers to export their weed out of California, a market expansion that some believe is the kick-start that their operations need.

An increasing strain

The escape hatch may be closing for those seeking a way out of the industry.

When the value of cannabis dropped, so did the worth of the properties where it’s grown — even more so for the many farmers who, because of environmental lawsuits and bureaucratic negligence, have yet to receive final approval for their state-issued cultivation licenses. After years of operating on provisional licenses, they still do not technically have a legal business to sell to an interested buyer, if they could even find one.

Some are simply abandoning the properties that they have built into farms with greenhouses and irrigation systems, though evidence of this dilemma is anecdotal. The Trinity County Assessor’s Office said it could not provide data on recent property sales levels or prices.

“There’s no way I could get out of my property now what I put into it,” said Keys of the Trinity County Agriculture Alliance, who figures he would be forced to walk away entirely if he stopped growing. “I don’t know if I could sell it at all.”

Buildings for cannabis growing sit unused on Scott Murisson's land in Hayfork on Feb. 7, 2023. Photo by Martin do Nascimento, CalMatters
Buildings for cannabis growing sit unused on Scott Murisson’s land in Hayfork on Feb. 7, 2023. Photo by Martin do Nascimento, CalMatters

For those residents who stay, the strain is only deepening.

The number of people in Trinity County enrolled in CalFresh, the state’s monthly food benefits program, in December was 31% higher than the year before and more than 71% higher than the same period in 2019, before the coronavirus pandemic and inflation crisis, according to data compiled by the California Department of Social Services. That’s nearly three times the rate of increase for the entire state.

Jeffry England, executive director of the Trinity County Food Bank, said his organization is handing out two and a half times as much food as when he took over the position six years ago. He estimates that the food bank serves about 1,200 families per month, as much as a fifth of the whole county’s population. It has added three new distribution sites in the past year.

“It’s getting really bad,” England said. “There are some of them who are in line at the food bank who used to be our donors.”

Jeff England manages the Trinity County Food Bank distribution at the Trinity County Fairgrounds on Feb. 8, 2023. Photo by Martin do Nascimento, CalMatters
Jeff England manages the Trinity County Food Bank distribution at the Trinity County Fairgrounds on Feb. 8, 2023. Photo by Martin do Nascimento, CalMatters

Not everyone who is struggling dreams of leaving Hayfork behind.

Herlinda Vang, 54, arrived about seven years ago from the Fresno area, where she worked as a social worker at a nonprofit and grew vegetables near Clovis. Sensing the opportunity of recreational legalization, she moved months before the passage of Proposition 64 to start a cannabis farm.

Vang has come to appreciate how safe and quiet the community is compared to a big city, where she worried about her youngest children, now 14 and 11 years old. She can hear the birds when she wakes up in the morning.

“What I’m doing is also helping other people, saving other people’s life, too,” she said. “So that is something that I enjoy doing.”

Herlinda Vang in Hayfork on Feb. 7, 2023. Photo by Martin do Nascimento, CalMatters
Herlinda Vang in Hayfork on Feb. 7, 2023. Photo by Martin do Nascimento, CalMatters

But last year, Vang had difficulty getting county approvals and wasn’t able to start growing until mid-July, about six weeks later than she wanted. Her plants were small by harvest time, leaving her with less to sell at the already reduced prices.

Even as she is making less than a third per pound now compared to when she first started growing, Vang remains committed to her farm for at least another few years to see if things will turn around — especially if interstate trade opens up and expands the market.

Without many other skills or job prospects locally, she doesn’t expect she could make much more money than she does now trying to find more traditional work. She also loves that, on her farm, she sets her own rules and schedule, and is able to prioritize being a mother as well.

“I cannot give up. I have put everything I have in here,” Vang said. “I have to hang in there for a couple more years and see if I can make it work.”

That has meant sacrifices. Vang has stopped shopping online for new clothes and jewelry, sending money overseas and buying pricier groceries, such as seafood. She gave away three of her nine dogs and only takes her family out to dinner on rare occasions.

Like many of her neighbors, Vang now supplements her pantry with staples from the food bank, though like many of her neighbors, she is also doing her part to hold the community together, helping to coordinate a new distribution site in Trinity Pines, a mountain settlement of predominantly Hmong farmers. A Facebook group called Hayforkers has become a forum for people looking for assistance or giving away extra food and household items.

“I am a very tough person,” Vang said. “I’m happy that even though my income is not the same, but my family, my health remains the same and the people that I know, the community at large still love each other, still comfort each other.”

Ira Porter is also on a shoestring budget. He covers his $200 per month rent by collecting cans and bottles — there are fewer than there used to be — from people who don’t want to travel all the way to the county seat of Weaverville or Redding to turn them in.

Porter, 59, used to do maintenance and repair work on cannabis farms, fixing cars, water systems, and trimming machines. His wife was a trimmer. 

“I’d be busy all year round, you know, because there’s always something to do,” Porter said through the window of his white Volkswagen sedan as he waited at the Hayfork food distribution with his pug Biggee in his lap. “I don’t know how many of these farmers left, but I’m not getting any calls this year as far as to do that.”

Ira Porter and his dog Biggee wait in line to receive food at the Trinity County Food Bank distribution at the Trinity County Fairgrounds on Feb. 8, 2023. Photo by Martin do Nascimento, CalMatters
Ira Porter and his dog Biggee wait in line to receive food at the Trinity County Food Bank distribution at the Trinity County Fairgrounds on Feb. 8, 2023. Photo by Martin do Nascimento, CalMatters

As the line of cars slowly worked its way through the parking lot of the Trinity County Fairgrounds, past the volunteers handing out boxes of vegetables and bags of noodles, Porter cataloged the things he loves about Hayfork: The open spaces. The fresh air. Hanging out at the creek looking for gold. Being able to leave the keys in his car at night and not having to lock the door to his house. Chopping wood for kindling in the winter.

“I moved up here to get out of L.A. because it’s a zoo down there, and there’s just too many people, and they’re all pissed off because they don’t got no elbow room,” Porter said. “Up here, it’s just beautiful. I love this place, you know? I mean, cannabis industry or not, I want to live here and die here.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

To Play or Not to Play With Your Kid?

It shouldn’t be this hard to decide.

The first time that Megan Roth, an urban planner in Calgary, Canada, Googled independent play, her daughter had just received a number of toys for her second birthday. None engaged her for long. The toddler preferred doing household tasks with her parents: refilling the bird feeder, replacing batteries in the smoke detector. Roth thought it was cute at first, but then she started hearing that her daughter should be able to play without much, if any, adult input. Family members commented on what they saw as her daughter’s short attention span. In parenting forums and on social-media accounts, tips for encouraging solitary play were as abundant as beads in a craft kit. “It caused me a lot of worry,” Roth told me, “and anxiety that I had ruined her somehow.”The phrase independent play, popularized by the parenting educator Janet Lansbury, was almost unheard-of 15 years ago. Today, it is Googled more often than baby-led weaning or free-range parenting. Toy brands such as Lovevery, Melissa & Doug, and Hape market their products’ ability to encourage children’s autonomy. And then there’s social media. The parenting influencer Jerrica Sannes, for instance, has written that to ensure children’s cognitive and psychological development, parents “have to set aside a minimum of 5 hours per day for independent, unstructured, adult-free, sensory-rich, risky, creative PLAY particularly throughout the early stages of brain development,” and that playing with young children “actually often undermines” connection.For some parents, the idea that it’s good for children to play on their own can offer relief: How reassuring to hear that, far from being neglectful because we don’t love playing princesses, we might be better off refraining. Yet for other parents, the advice has become just one more thing to fret about; they wonder if they’re playing with their children too much. Veronica Lopes, a mother in Toronto, told me that she recently created a “parking lot” made of tape and cardboard rolls for her 2-year-old. They used it to play cars together. But “I’ve started to doubt myself,” she said. “The more I’m hearing people talk about this, the more I’m like … Am I not doing this right?”[Read: Why don’t we teach people how to parent?]You can hear this concern echoed on a podcast hosted by Lansbury. In one episode, she problem-solves for a mom whose 14-week-old infant will lie on the floor to play alone for only “20 minutes, tops,” before crying. In another, a mother says that although her eight-month-old is happy to play independently for “long periods,” he loses it when she leaves the room. “Is he developmentally ready to be left alone for a little bit? Absolutely,” Lansbury responds. “It’s much easier for him and for us to get comfortable with this the earlier we start.”Over the past few years, while reporting on parenting issues, I’ve spoken with dozens of child psychologists and researchers who have left me with the impression that few aspects of parenting are black-and-white except, perhaps, for one: Responding to children in a way that is sensitive, prompt, and attuned to their stage of development is crucial to raising healthy, happy children. So look at the recent discourse on independent play and it’s easy to see why some parents are confused. For one, it seems full of contradictions: Independent play means without parents, but also with parents; it’s natural, but it has to be taught from an early age; we should trust children’s instincts in play, but not when their instincts lead them to seek our involvement. In an interview, Sannes told me, “When I say ‘independent play,’ what I mean is unstructured, free play … It’s really just letting go of control of children’s time.” I also spoke with Lansbury, who said that encouraging independent play is never about “forcing” a behavior. “Nothing I teach is about ‘getting’ a child to do anything,” she said. “It’s about getting ourselves out of the way.” (After our conversation, she emphasized this point in a new blog post on independent-play “myths.” No.1, she wrote: “Independent play means leaving children alone.”)Yet some parents seem to be absorbing the message—especially from social media, the great flattener of nuanced communications—that in playing with their kids, they might be doing them a disservice, and that all children, regardless of age, temperament, or ability, should be capable of initiating and sustaining play for long periods. I asked Roberta Golinkoff, a developmental psychologist and the founder of the Child’s Play, Learning, and Development Lab at the University of Delaware, if she has come across any research supporting such interpretations. “I’ve been in this business a long time,” she said—50 years. “I have not seen anything about that.” The developmental psychologist Catherine Tamis-LeMonda, who leads NYU’s Play and Language Lab, also put it to me bluntly: “It’s entirely wrong, according to science.”The scientific literature rarely refers to “independent play.” Studies instead focus on “unstructured” or “free” play, which is child-led with no predetermined goal—and has been shown to have numerous benefits. Studies have found, for example, that children who participate in more unstructured play are likely to have better emotional self-regulation, executive functioning, and academic performance later in life.Notably, free play doesn’t mean that adults have to remain uninvolved. (One study co-authored by Golinkoff listed participating in “Mommy & Me classes”—presumably with Mommy—as “free, unstructured play.”) In fact, research has shown that the younger the child, the more support they need. Sandra Russ, a clinical child psychologist at Case Western Reserve University, told me this was especially true of pretend play. “Many young kids need a little help,” she said. “Scaffolding is important.” Russ has found that if a parent “models” a bit—pretending a red Lego is a fire engine, say—the child is more likely to pursue the play and pretend on their own. Older neurodivergent children can also need scaffolding, she said. “They have trouble making up a story. They have trouble seeing that a Lego can be many different things.”[Read: The one big thing you can do for your kids]And an abundance of research indicates that children benefit from playing with their parents. One review of multiple studies suggested that when fathers play with their kids, the children can develop better cognitive, social, and emotional skills. Parents acting playfully has been linked with various advantages, such as improved emotion regulation, in their children. And a 2018 report from the American Academy of Pediatrics noted that parent-child play can help reduce “toxic stress” to “levels that are more compatible with coping and resilience.”Play with an adult also seems to keep children, including babies, more engaged. One study compared the attention spans of 12-month-olds when they played alone versus with a parent and found that many of the babies looked at objects longer, and were more attentive, when playing with a parent. Children also tend to be happier playing on their own if an adult plays with them first, Tamis-LeMonda told me. “Thinking that By participating, my child will be less inclined to be independent is wrong,” she said.What’s more, researchers have found risks when adults don’t actively engage with children who are trying to connect. The University of Calgary child psychologist Sheri Madigan conducted a meta-analysis this year adding to a mountain of research suggesting that responding quickly and appropriately to young children’s “signals of need and/or interest” has long-term benefits. It’s fine to put a happy baby down to play, Madigan told me. But “when that child is ever distressed, you want to be in that space with them immediately”—and respond in a way that they understand. For a preverbal child, that usually means picking them up.I asked Madigan about advice I’d heard Lansbury give on her podcast about not “saving” a crying baby right away: (“Immediately respond, but verbally,” Lansbury says. Otherwise “the baby gets the message … that they needed to be rescued.”) Madigan told me that this “may foster independent play, but it won’t foster a secure-attachment relationship”—the kind in which children believe that their caregiver will be there to keep them safe, and which has been shown to correlate with positive developmental outcomes, including better mental health. She added that even children who seem to excel at playing autonomously might be aching inwardly. In such children, she has found higher cortisol levels, indicating stress. “So while they’re engaging in independent play,” she said, “biologically, they’re struggling.”One proponent of kids having more adult-free playtime is the anthropologist David Lancy, whose book Learning Without Lessons: Pedagogy in Indigenous Communities examines how children learn and play in small, preindustrial societies. Lancy told me that in the cultures he has studied, it’s seen as strange, even laughable, for adults to play with children. But his findings come with a caveat: Although hunter-gatherer societies rarely feature adult-child play, this doesn’t mean that children are left to play alone, or that anyone wants them to. In close-knit communities, the child still plays in multiage groups; the ideal is for them to seek out play with peers and other caregivers, such as older siblings. “There is solo play,” Lancy said. “But it’s not desirable.”The challenge in societies built around the nuclear family, as in the United States, is that children might have fewer playmates close to home—turning parents into a default. But in the U.S., there’s little evidence to show that parents spend too much time playing with their kids. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, parents play with their children ages 6 and younger an average of 37 minutes a day. And the play-based approach taken by many day cares and preschools, combined with those centers’ high child-to-caregiver ratios, means that young children being cared for outside the home are probably already learning to entertain themselves some of the time.Researchers note, too, that children play when we don’t realize it. Banging a spoon during lunch? Play. Mouthing a shoe? Play. Helping to replace batteries? Also play. “They will explore and discover on their own those times you’re not there,” Tamis-LeMonda said. “And they’ll explore and discover when you are there. Participating does not mean your child will now not discover.”Few experts would argue that children shouldn’t get more time for autonomous play, especially outdoors. But as Lancy and others have noted, the diminishment of this kind of play often stems from external factors: crime, street traffic, increasing schoolwork. If we want children to play more without adult involvement, we might be better off focusing on goals such as preserving urban green space, reducing homework, and protecting recess—all of which play researchers tend to advocate for.[Read: What adults lost when kids stopped playing in the street]The anxiety among parents over how to best “teach” independent play points to another problem. It suggests a belief—despite what we know about how genetic, environmental, socioeconomic, and other factors can shape behavior—that our children’s personalities are as pliable as Play-Doh, and that any lumpy bits are indications that we have only ourselves, the sculptors, to blame. The fact that adults’ quest for perfectionism seeps into play, which every person I spoke with agreed should be the easy, joyful part of parenting, feels particularly sad. “Moms,” Golinkoff said, “have enough to worry about.”In one of her blog posts on fostering independent play, Lansbury used the example of a baby rolling a ball. “Don’t roll the ball back,” she advised. Instead, “just quietly watch, or offer a simple reflection like, ‘you pushed that ball and it rolled away.’” Reading it, I was reminded of one of my most savored memories from my daughter’s infancy: the time she first tossed a ball to me. I’ve always been semi-allergic to games of catch. But I didn’t hesitate before throwing the ball back. For 10 minutes, we continued, her peals of laughter piercing every round. I’m glad I didn’t tarnish the moment by questioning my instinct. I’m grateful I threw the ball.​​When you buy a book using a link on this page, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic.

Job killer or neighborhood protector? Proposed warehouse rules divide Inland Empire

Last-minute legislation would limit where distribution centers can go. Supporters say it would shield neighborhoods from traffic and deliver cleaner air. But business groups warn the bill could threaten jobs in a booming industry.

In summary Last-minute legislation would limit where distribution centers can go. Supporters say it would shield neighborhoods from traffic and deliver cleaner air. But business groups warn the bill could threaten jobs in a booming industry. California is poised to set new rules for warehouse locations and truck routes with a last-minute bill to curtail air pollution and traffic from distribution centers.  But local government groups oppose the legislation, and business groups warn that it would place onerous requirements on warehouse developments and cities, threatening trade and jobs. Gov. Gavin Newsom has until the end of the month to sign or veto the bill. Assembly Bill 98 passed in the final hours before the Legislature adjourned Saturday, after lawmakers swapped out language from an agricultural bill for the new warehouse restrictions.  The bill would tighten building standards for new warehouses; ban heavy-duty diesel truck traffic next to sensitive sites including homes, schools, parks and nursing homes; and require local governments to update truck routes to avoid residential streets, said Assemblymember Eloise Gómez Reyes, a San Bernardino Democrat who co-authored the bill. The measure would also add minimum distance requirements between homes and warehouses, along with buffers featuring walls and landscaping. The bill would also require replacement of two new homes for every one that’s demolished to make room for new logistics centers, along with 12 months rental payment to displaced renters. Reyes said the bill would counter the environmental and health effects of explosive warehouse growth in the Inland Empire, where 4,000 warehouses occupy a billion square feet combined and generate more than 600,000 truck trips per day. “We have tried to do as best we can, remembering that it’s the health of the residents of California that has to be the state’s top priority,” she told CalMatters Monday. “Everything else is secondary.” Although the bill was pushed through the Legislature in the last week of session, Reyes said it’s the product of years of effort and “not something that happened overnight.” Reyes introduced a separate bill earlier this year that would have created bigger buffers between warehouses and sensitive sites, but it failed in committee. She said this bill is a starting point for better health protections in warehouse planning.  “I think what we have put together is a common sense approach and it’s a very important first step,” she said.  However business leaders objected to its rushed passage, arguing that it could put a chokehold on trade, endanger jobs and spike consumer costs. The very fact that an earlier bill didn’t make it out of committee shows that the issue deserved more time and attention, said Paul Granillo, president and CEO of the Inland Empire Economic Partnership. “Anything that is put together in that short a time, in smoke-filled rooms is not good policy; and AB 98 is not good policy,” he said.  Granillo said the restrictions could increase the cost of everyday goods and push business out of state.  “This type of legislation just signals to people that would invest in creating jobs in California that California is not a job-friendly state,” he said. A large warehouse at the end of a cul-de-sac in a residential neighborhood in San Bernardino on Feb. 16, 2023. Pablo Unzueta for CalMatters Melissa Sparks-Kranz, a lobbyist for the League of California Cities, said the bill’s cost to local governments would be prohibitive, forcing cities to spend between $100,000 and several million dollars each to develop the new traffic plans, with penalties of $50,000 for delays in those updates. The league is urging Newsom to veto the bill; the California State Association of Counties is also against it. Granillo added that the bill’s standards for setbacks and truck routes strip local governments of their land use authority. “The idea that the state thinks it can come up with a solution that will work in all cities of California is ludicrous,” he said. The California Chamber of Commerce, however, called the bill a “valuable compromise” that could provide a backstop against more extensive legislation and litigation affecting warehouse projects. Warehouse developments have long been a mixed blessing to communities in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, offering steady employment and economic growth, but worsening the region’s haze of pollution and imposing heavy traffic on neighborhood streets.  Riverside and San Bernardino rank first and second among the counties with highest ozone levels and among the top dozen for particulate pollution. Activists link the proliferation of warehouses to unusually high rates of asthma and cancer. Local and state officials have tried to thread the needle between environmental protections and economic growth, but sometimes they leave community members, particularly those in low-income communities of color, with the sense that they are cut out of the conversation.  Those concerns made for an unlikely alignment between industry groups and environmental justice advocates. The Jurupa Valley-based Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice also opposed the bill, arguing that it didn’t go far enough to control persistent air pollution from the warehouse boom. Although the legislation set minimum setbacks of 300 to 500 feet from warehouse docks to the property line of sensitive sites, it fell short of the 1,000 feet recommended to avoid the worst diesel exposure, said Ana Gonzalez, the center’s executive director. And it calls for warehouses to use zero-emission engines when “operationally feasible,” which she said leaves loopholes for developers. Gonzalez admitted that she was surprised to join industry groups in opposition: “It put us in a muddy place, because we never thought we would be on the same side opposing a warehouse or environmental justice bill.” Other groups said the bill strikes a balance between environmental and economic interests, even if it didn’t please either side. James Thuerwachter, a lobbyist for the California State Council of Laborers, which represents workers in the construction industry, said the bill accommodates job creation and environmental regulation.  “AB 98 brings innovative solutions to tackle immediate air quality, safety, and supply chain issues, while also bringing our distribution process into the 21st century,” he said in a state Senate Appropriations Committee hearing last week. While the bill didn’t meet all her expectations, Gonzalez said it sets baseline environmental health standards that community groups can use to push for greater protections. “Our organization feels that if the governor signs this bill, there is an opportunity to build from here and do better,” she said.

Study: EV charging stations boost spending at nearby businesses

The spending increases were particularly pronounced for businesses within 100 yards of charging stations, and for businesses in low-income areas.

Charging stations for electric vehicles are essential for cleaning up the transportation sector. A new study by MIT researchers suggests they’re good for business, too.The study found that, in California, opening a charging station boosted annual spending at each nearby business by an average of about $1,500 in 2019 and about $400 between January 2021 and June 2023. The spending bump amounts to thousands of extra dollars annually for nearby businesses, with the increase particularly pronounced for businesses in underresourced areas.The study’s authors hope the research paints a more holistic picture of the benefits of EV charging stations, beyond environmental factors.“These increases are equal to a significant chunk of the cost of installing an EV charger, and I hope this study sheds light on these economic benefits,” says lead author Yunhan Zheng MCP ’21, SM ’21, PhD ’24, a postdoc at the Singapore-MIT Alliance for Research and Technology (SMART). “The findings could also diversify the income stream for charger providers and site hosts, and lead to more informed business models for EV charging stations.”Zheng’s co-authors on the paper, which was published today in Nature Communications, are David Keith, a senior lecturer at the MIT Sloan School of Management; Jinhua Zhao, an MIT professor of cities and transportation; and alumni Shenhao Wang MCP ’17, SM ’17, PhD ’20 and Mi Diao MCP ’06, PhD ’10.Understanding the EV effectIncreasing the number of electric vehicle charging stations is seen as a key prerequisite for the transition to a cleaner, electrified transportation sector. As such, the 2021 U.S. Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act committed $7.5 billion to build a national network of public electric vehicle chargers across the U.S.But a large amount of private investment will also be needed to make charging stations ubiquitous.“The U.S. is investing a lot in EV chargers and really encouraging EV adoption, but many EV charging providers can’t make enough money at this stage, and getting to profitability is a major challenge,” Zheng says.EV advocates have long argued that the presence of charging stations brings economic benefits to surrounding communities, but Zheng says previous studies on their impact relied on surveys or were small-scale. Her team of collaborators wanted to make advocates’ claims more empirical.For their study, the researchers collected data from over 4,000 charging stations in California and 140,000 businesses, relying on anonymized credit and debit card transactions to measure changes in consumer spending. The researchers used data from 2019 through June of 2023, skipping the year 2020 to minimize the impact of the pandemic.To judge whether charging stations caused customer spending increases, the researchers compared data from businesses within 500 meters of new charging stations before and after their installation. They also analyzed transactions from similar businesses in the same time frame that weren’t near charging stations.Supercharging nearby businessesThe researchers found that installing a charging station boosted annual spending at nearby establishments by an average of 1.4 percent in 2019 and 0.8 percent from January 2021 to June 2023.While that might sound like a small amount per business, it amounts to thousands of dollars in overall consumer spending increases. Specifically, those percentages translate to almost $23,000 in cumulative spending increases in 2019 and about $3,400 per year from 2021 through June 2023.Zheng says the decline in spending increases over the two time periods might be due to a saturation of EV chargers, leading to lower utilization, as well as an overall decrease in spending per business after the Covid-19 pandemic and a reduced number of businesses served by each EV charging station in the second period. Despite this decline, the annual impact of a charging station on all its surrounding businesses would still cover approximately 11.2 percent of the average infrastructure and installation cost of a standard charging station.Through both time frames, the spending increases were highest for businesses within about a football field’s distance from the new stations. They were also significant for businesses in disadvantaged and low-income areas, as designated by California and the Justice40 Initiative.“The positive impacts of EV charging stations on businesses are not constrained solely to some high-income neighborhoods,” Wang says. “It highlights the importance for policymakers to develop EV charging stations in marginalized areas, because they not only foster a cleaner environment, but also serve as a catalyst for enhancing economic vitality.”Zheng believes the findings hold a lesson for charging station developers seeking to improve the profitability of their projects.“The joint gas station and convenience store business model could also be adopted to EV charging stations,” Zheng says. “Traditionally, many gas stations are affiliated with retail store chains, which enables owners to both sell fuel and attract customers to diversify their revenue stream. EV charging providers could consider a similar approach to internalize the positive impact of EV charging stations.”Zheng also says the findings could support the creation of new funding models for charging stations, such as multiple businesses sharing the costs of construction so they can all benefit from the added spending.Those changes could accelerate the creation of charging networks, but Zheng cautions that further research is needed to understand how much the study’s findings can be extrapolated to other areas. She encourages other researchers to study the economic effects of charging stations and hopes future research includes states beyond California and even other countries.“A huge number of studies have focused on retail sales effects from traditional transportation infrastructure, such as rail and subway stations, bus stops, and street configurations,” Zhao says. “This research provides evidence for an important, emerging piece of transportation infrastructure and shows a consistently positive effect on local businesses, paving the way for future research in this area.”The research was supported, in part, by the Singapore-MIT Alliance for Research and Technology (SMART) and the Singapore National Research Foundation. Diao was partially supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Shanghai and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China.

Op-ed: We mobilized to defend the EPA in Trump's first term. This time the stakes are even higher.

In early 2017 when the Trump administration was just starting to reveal its true intentions, I and other U.S. Environmental Protection Agency alumni formed a resistance organization to mobilize a defense for our former EPA colleagues and the mission to which they, and we, had devoted our professional lives.We fact-checked the Trump administration’s version of environmental protection and defended the integrity of the agency and its personnel. We provided critical information to reporters, environmental organizations and Capitol Hill.I walked away when the Biden-Harris administration took power. The EPA was liberated to do its job, to continue the path that had been set decades before in the Nixon administration and pretty much continued since, with the glaring exception of the Trump years (and the first couple of years of Reagan, thank you, Anne Gorsuch).We are now facing another period of uncertainty. One potential outcome of the upcoming election is continued normalcy in which the EPA does its job (albeit under the surveillance of an unsympathetic Supreme Court; thank you, Neil Gorsuch).Another possible outcome is the chaos and brutality set out in Project 2025, which would dismantle the expertise of the career civil service and set progress back to the time before we recognized that pollution does not respect state lines and that every citizen is entitled to environmental protections, wherever they live. Project 2025, a conservative blueprint that Trump has disavowed but was, in part, crafted by several former Cabinet members of his first administration, would give “the primary role in making choices about the environment” back to state governments. It would remove climate protection from the EPA’s to-do list.As we have already lived through this sad drama, I went back and read what I wrote two years ago in the Democracy Journal about the organization we established to fight for environmental protections. Just as a reminder of what can and likely will happen with a Trump second term, I’d suggest you do as well. We are now facing another period of uncertainty. One potential outcome of the upcoming election is continued normalcy ... another possible outcome is the chaos and brutality set out in Project 2025.The article describes the various attacks on both the substance and the process of environmental protection. It describes the tremendous effort it took to document and fight. The entire enterprise was predicated on the assumption that facts are facts and that making those facts available to people through a free press would be sufficient to help mobilize resistance and engage rationality, that information would help people understand what was at stake and nudge them toward action.To some extent, we had a bit of an advantage because the folks who were assigned by the first Trump administration to carry out this carnage were mostly novices. They had never before torn down government institutions.Project 2025 shows they aren’t novices anymore. They have a better understanding of the levers of power and how things get done in the federal government. They are primed and ready to do serious damage, should they get the chance.In the last part of that article, I tried to think about whether the business model for our effort could work if the agency were again under attack. I have no doubt that EPA alumni could be mobilized. And there are still reporters willing to shine a light on injustices and violations of law.Where I have doubt is whether the circumstances are so different that the same theory of the case and the same tools would be insufficient.Project 2025 shows they aren’t novices anymore. They have a better understanding of the levers of power and how things get done in the federal government. They are primed and ready to do serious damage, should they get the chance.In 2017-2021, we could reasonably hope that Trump and Trumpism were temporary. A second round of Trump could “mean that we have misread our own country,” as I wrote, which would make it harder to organize and to keep up our spirits this time around.There are so many uncertainties, such cratering of principles we thought we could rely on in our effort.What does a second Trump election with his myriad lies say about the power of facts and truth? What happens to the EPA when its cadre of scientists, analysts, lawyers, economists and other specialists are removed from their jobs or intimidated? How can advocates for clean air and clean water rely on an increasingly dysfunctional Congress to provide the minute and specific instructions apparently required now that the Chevron doctrine has been disposed of? Does a Trump-dominated EPA even try to carry out its statutory duties, much less try to work its way around the restrictions recently placed on it by the Supreme Court?As I said in my analysis, the rules as we understand them are changing before our eyes. It would be well to refresh our memories of the realities of those challenging days. Read "Lessons for the Next Resistance."

In early 2017 when the Trump administration was just starting to reveal its true intentions, I and other U.S. Environmental Protection Agency alumni formed a resistance organization to mobilize a defense for our former EPA colleagues and the mission to which they, and we, had devoted our professional lives.We fact-checked the Trump administration’s version of environmental protection and defended the integrity of the agency and its personnel. We provided critical information to reporters, environmental organizations and Capitol Hill.I walked away when the Biden-Harris administration took power. The EPA was liberated to do its job, to continue the path that had been set decades before in the Nixon administration and pretty much continued since, with the glaring exception of the Trump years (and the first couple of years of Reagan, thank you, Anne Gorsuch).We are now facing another period of uncertainty. One potential outcome of the upcoming election is continued normalcy in which the EPA does its job (albeit under the surveillance of an unsympathetic Supreme Court; thank you, Neil Gorsuch).Another possible outcome is the chaos and brutality set out in Project 2025, which would dismantle the expertise of the career civil service and set progress back to the time before we recognized that pollution does not respect state lines and that every citizen is entitled to environmental protections, wherever they live. Project 2025, a conservative blueprint that Trump has disavowed but was, in part, crafted by several former Cabinet members of his first administration, would give “the primary role in making choices about the environment” back to state governments. It would remove climate protection from the EPA’s to-do list.As we have already lived through this sad drama, I went back and read what I wrote two years ago in the Democracy Journal about the organization we established to fight for environmental protections. Just as a reminder of what can and likely will happen with a Trump second term, I’d suggest you do as well. We are now facing another period of uncertainty. One potential outcome of the upcoming election is continued normalcy ... another possible outcome is the chaos and brutality set out in Project 2025.The article describes the various attacks on both the substance and the process of environmental protection. It describes the tremendous effort it took to document and fight. The entire enterprise was predicated on the assumption that facts are facts and that making those facts available to people through a free press would be sufficient to help mobilize resistance and engage rationality, that information would help people understand what was at stake and nudge them toward action.To some extent, we had a bit of an advantage because the folks who were assigned by the first Trump administration to carry out this carnage were mostly novices. They had never before torn down government institutions.Project 2025 shows they aren’t novices anymore. They have a better understanding of the levers of power and how things get done in the federal government. They are primed and ready to do serious damage, should they get the chance.In the last part of that article, I tried to think about whether the business model for our effort could work if the agency were again under attack. I have no doubt that EPA alumni could be mobilized. And there are still reporters willing to shine a light on injustices and violations of law.Where I have doubt is whether the circumstances are so different that the same theory of the case and the same tools would be insufficient.Project 2025 shows they aren’t novices anymore. They have a better understanding of the levers of power and how things get done in the federal government. They are primed and ready to do serious damage, should they get the chance.In 2017-2021, we could reasonably hope that Trump and Trumpism were temporary. A second round of Trump could “mean that we have misread our own country,” as I wrote, which would make it harder to organize and to keep up our spirits this time around.There are so many uncertainties, such cratering of principles we thought we could rely on in our effort.What does a second Trump election with his myriad lies say about the power of facts and truth? What happens to the EPA when its cadre of scientists, analysts, lawyers, economists and other specialists are removed from their jobs or intimidated? How can advocates for clean air and clean water rely on an increasingly dysfunctional Congress to provide the minute and specific instructions apparently required now that the Chevron doctrine has been disposed of? Does a Trump-dominated EPA even try to carry out its statutory duties, much less try to work its way around the restrictions recently placed on it by the Supreme Court?As I said in my analysis, the rules as we understand them are changing before our eyes. It would be well to refresh our memories of the realities of those challenging days. Read "Lessons for the Next Resistance."

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.