“We Just Don’t Have Words” – Wildfires Spread Across California Wine Country

“We Just Don’t Have Words” – Wildfires Spread Across California Wine Country

Tyler Durden

Tue, 09/29/2020 – 08:08

A dangerous, fast-moving wildfire is ripping through Northern California’s wine country has more than tripled the size, forcing tens of thousands of residents to evacuate, reported Bloomberg

CalFire’s latest update shows the wildfire, called “Glass Fire,” is located in Napa County, has expanded into Sonoma County at a “dangerous rate of spread” and has scorched more than 36,000 acres. As of Monday, the fire is 0% contained, destroying 113 structures and has damaged or is threatening 8,543 others. About 1,500 fire personnel have been deployed to the region to contain the blaze. 

Around 70,000 residents of Sonoma and Napa counties have evacuated as hot, dry winds spread the fires into neighborhoods and vineyards, consuming commercial and residential building structures. 

Dozens of wineries are in the mandatory evacuation zones or evacuation warning zones. At least one winery has been destroyed, according to CNN affiliate KGO

KGO spoke with Dario Sattui, owner of Castello di Amorosa Winery in Calistoga, who said his “worst nightmare came true early Monday when part of his beloved winery caught fire.” 

Sen. Mike McGuire told KTVU-TV the Glass Fire is “moving at about 40 mph because of the wind, down the hill into the city of Santa Rosa, and we’re hoping for better conditions here today.” 

“We just don’t have words,” said McGuire, a Democrat representing Healdsburg in Sonoma County. “It’s an incredibly trying and emotional time right now.”

California’s peak fire season usually runs from September through November. As readers may recall, La Nina has amplified the fires with more than 8,100 wildfires have burned more than 3.7 million acres this year, according to CalFire. About 29 people have died, and more than 7,000 structures have been destroyed since Aug. 15. This year’s fire season could extend as late as December.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/33aGkRK Tyler Durden

Second Woman Accuses Nikola Founder Trevor Milton Of Sexual Abuse, Files Formal Complaint

Second Woman Accuses Nikola Founder Trevor Milton Of Sexual Abuse, Files Formal Complaint

Tyler Durden

Tue, 09/29/2020 – 07:47

Several days ago we were the first to ponder the question whether Nikola founder Trevor Milton had abruptly resigned from his position as Executive Chairman of the company as a result of imminent #MeToo claims, not just due to allegations raised about the company’s business practices raised by Hindenburg Research. It now looks like that could indeed be the case.

On Monday evening, CNBC posted a lengthy article detailing allegations of “sexual abuse” against Milton, by two women who have now filed complaints. One of the two allegations had never been reported on in the past. The new allegation involves a woman who is now 32 years old and is a lawyer, who alleged that Milton “digitally penetrated” her in 2004, when she worked for Milton, who was 22 while she was 15. 

“I kind of put that whole scenario of memory in a dark place, locked it up and tried to just forget about it,” the victim told CNBC. “He was in a position of power and he would give me a ride home from that job and this happened at the end of one of the days that I worked there and I was somewhat at his mercy because I couldn’t even go home until he was going to give me a ride home.”

A former friend of Milton’s claims that he remembered Milton bragging about the incident. “He told me he fingered her. He kept going on, saying I like young girls and I like virgins because they are naive,” Milton’s former friend, Tyler Winona, said.  

Trevor Milton’s spokesperson said he “strongly denies” the “false allegations” and said that “at no point in his life has Mr. Milton ever engaged in any inappropriate physical contact with anyone.”

Recall, about a week ago, a first woman’s claims were reported by The Wall Street Journal after Milton’s first cousin, Aubrey Smith, took to Twitter to allege sexual assault that took place in 1999:

On Monday, new allegations about Mr. Milton’s conduct emerged when a woman accused him on Twitter of sexually assaulting her when the two were younger.

Aubrey Smith, who says she is Mr. Milton’s first cousin, claimed in a series of tweets that he inappropriately touched her when she was 15 and visiting Utah for their grandfather’s funeral in September 1999. She says Mr. Milton was 18 years old at the time.

When reached by phone, Ms. Smith confirmed to The Wall Street Journal that she had made the posts on Twitter and said she wanted to go public now as other questions about Mr. Milton’s conduct have surfaced. Another family member also confirmed Mr. Milton is her cousin.

The Wall Street Journal spoke with two people who said that Ms. Smith told them about the alleged incident months afterward.

Seemingly corroborating the first woman’s claims, the CNBC story pointed out that while the #MeToo movement was in full force in 2017, Smith took to Facebook to make a post about the alleged assault. The post, now almost 3 years old, said: “When I was assaulted I was 15. I didn’t want to tell anyone, because I figured I should have known better” and that the person “only apologiz[ed] because he was my cousin.”

Both women filed formal complaints in Holladay, Utah, where the alleged assaults took place. 

Meanwhile, in a series of Tweets posted late Monday night, Hindenburg Research lambasted the numerous people who are still involved with the Nikola story, including investment bank Cowen, “value investing legend” Jeff Ubben and former GM executive Steve Girsky – all of whom claimed to have done due diligence before working with Milton and Nikola.

“$NKLA’s brand has gone from tarnished to toxic,” they concluded, asking “Will GM put its 112-year brand at risk for $NKLA stock that will likely be worthless by the time $GM can sell, and for cash that likely won’t be there when it comes time to spend?”.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/30kiL7j Tyler Durden

The US-China Tech Divide – Where Will it End?

Our news roundup is dominated by the seemingly endless ways that the US and China can find to quarrel over tech policy.  The Commerce Department’s plan to use an executive order to cut TikTok and WeChat out of the US market has now been enjoined. But the $50 Nick Weaver bet me that TikTok could tie its forced sale up until January is still at risk, because the administration has a double-barreled threat to use against that company – not just the executive order but also CFIUS – and the injunction so far only applies to the first. 

I predict that President Xi is likely to veto any deal that appeals to President Trump, just to show the power of his regime to interfere with US plans. That could spell the end of TikTok, at least in the US. Meanwhile, Dave Aitel points out, a similar but even more costly fate could await much of the electronic gaming industry, where WeChat parent TenCent is a dominant player. 

And just to show that the US is willing to do to US tech companies what it’s doing to Chinese tech companies, leaks point to the imminent filing of at least one and perhaps two antitrust lawsuits against Google. Maury Shenk leads us through the law and policy options.

The panelists dismiss as PR hype the claim that it was the threat of “material support” liability that caused Zoom to drop support for a PFLP hijacker’s speech to American university students. Instead, it looks like garden variety content moderation aimed this time at a favorite of the far left.

Dave explains the good and the bad of the CISA order requiring agencies to quickly patch the critical Netlogon bug

Maury and I debate whether Vladimir Putin is being serious or mocking when he proposes an election hacking ceasefire and a “reset” in the cyber relationship. We conclude that there’s some serious mocking in the proposal.

Dave and I also marvel at how Elon Musk, for all his iconoclasm, sure has managed to cozy up to both President Xi and President Trump, make a lot of money in both countries, and take surprisingly little flak for doing so.  The story that spurs this meditation is the news that Tesla is so dependent on Chinese chips for its autonomous driving engine that it’s suing the US to end the tariffs on its supply chain

 In quick hits and updates, we note a potentially big story: The Trump administration has slapped new restrictions on exports to Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation, China’s most advanced maker of computer chips. 

The press that lovingly detailed the allegations in the Steele dossier about President Trump’s ties to Moscow hasn’t been quite so enthusiastic about covering the dossier’s astounding fall from grace. The coup de grace came last week when it was revealed that the main source for the juiciest bits was flagged by the FBI ten years ago as a likely Russian foreign agent; he escaped a FISA order only because he left the country for a while in 2010. 

 The FISA court has issued an opinion on what constitutes a “facility” that can be tapped with a FISA order. It rejected the advice of Cyberlaw Podcast regular David Kris in an opinion that includes all the court’s legal reasoning but remains impenetrable because the facts are all classified. Maury and I come up with a plausible explanation of what was at stake.

The Trump administration has proposed section 230 reform legislation similar to the white paper we covered a couple of months ago. The proposal so completely occupies the reasonable middle of the content moderation debate that a Biden administration may not be able to come up with its own reforms without sounding fatally similar to President Trump. 

And in yet more China news, Maury and Dave explore the meaning of Nvidia’s bid for ARM, and Maury expresses no surprise at all that WeWork is selling off a big chunk of its Chinese operations 

Oh, and we have new theme music, courtesy of Ken Weissman of Weissman Sound Design.  Hope you like it!

Download the 330th Episode (mp3)

You can subscribe to The Cyberlaw Podcast using iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Pocket Casts, or our RSS feed. As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with @stewartbaker on Twitter. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to CyberlawPodcast@steptoe.com. Remember: If your suggested guest appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug!

The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of their institutions, clients, friends, families, or pets.

 

 

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3n2WvIM
via IFTTT

Confirmed COVID-19 Deaths Top 1 Million Mark, With Many More Uncounted: Live Updates

Confirmed COVID-19 Deaths Top 1 Million Mark, With Many More Uncounted: Live Updates

Tyler Durden

Tue, 09/29/2020 – 06:59

Summary:

  • BofA examines the US “herd immunity threshold”
  • Global death toll tops 1 million
  • Trump promises 150 million rapid tests
  • Victoria reports just 10 cases
  • Texas, California see fewest new deaths in three months
  • Cities in Northern England urge rollback of local lockdown measures
  • India’s hardest hit state prepares to reopen restaurants, bars

* * *

Update (0730ET): With the virus’s mortality rate in focus Tuesday morning, we’d like to share with readers some findings from a Bank of America note exploring the concept of “herd immunity”. A population is said to have “herd immunity” when the number of people who have already been sickened (and therefore now have immunity, at least in theory) exceeds the outcome of the formula “1 –  (1/R)” where “R” is the transmission rate of the virus, ie the average number of people infected by each person with COVID-19. When the transmission rate drops below 1, the virus is said to be slowing. 

The intuition, according to the BofA team, is that if the share of the population with immunity – we’ll call that “P” – is greater than the herd immunity threshold, or 1 – (1/R), then the probability that a person who is exposed to the disease gets sick – which is always (1 – P) – would be less than 1/R, or the rate of spread. Therefore the average number of people infected by each person who is exposed to the disease is less than one, since R*(1 – P) < 1, and so the disease dies out instead of spreading.

Where does that leave the US?

Of course, finding accurate numbers to plug in for these variables is harder than it seems since most of the “herd” isn’t “branded”, as BofA points out.

* * *

As outbreaks in New York, Moscow, London, Madrid and Marseilles intensify, the death toll for the global COVID-19 pandemic topped 1 million, according to the latest batch of mortality data reported on Monday. Though the pace of new fatalities accelerated sightly day over day, the world still reported fewer than 4k new deaths – 3,912, to be exact – bringing the tally to 1,002,296.

The number of new cases reported yesterday also rebounded, with 275,892 new cases according to Johns Hopkins final reading; as of 0630ET on Tuesday, the global tally had climbed to 33,384,153.

As the AP pointed out, while the official death toll is 1 million, the real total could be as much as 2x higher, according to a projection that has been widely cited in the Western press. Here’s the AP:

Even then, the toll is almost certainly a vast undercount because of inadequate or inconsistent testing and reporting. And more people are dying daily, shrouding families and communities in grief in almost every corner of the world.

In terms of the big news from overnight and the morning session, Bloomberg reported just moments ago that Tianjin-based CanSino Biologics is launching Phase 2 trials in eastern China. The trials will also test the company’s COVID-19 vaccine in two doses, according to the trial protocol posted on database. The trial will involve 481 volunteers, including minors aged between 6-18 and people aged 56 or older, as well as those who have previously received the company’s Ebola vaccine, which was developed using a similar technology. The trial is double-blind, randomized and placebo-controlled.

Here’s the rest of the news overnight.

After imposing new social distancing measures, Spain is set to extend its temporary leave schemes until the end of January, as the pandemic continues to hammer its economy.

The cabinet will meet on Tuesday to approve an extension of the emergency schemes, known as ERTEs, until Jan. 31. The benefits for laid off or under-employed workers were expected to expire on Wednesday.

After President Trump again announced plans to supply 150 million rapid COVID-19 tests to the states, Novacyt, the Anglo-French biotech company has agreed to supply testing equipment and rapid coronavirus tests to the UK government. The company will supply 300 PCR testing machines and test kits for £150 million for the first 14 weeks, potentially extending supply of the common antigen test by another 10 weeks for £100 million (Source: FT).

Maharashtra, the Indian state hardest hit by coronavirus and home to India’s financial capital, Mumbai, will reopen restaurants and bars beginning next month as PM Modi seeks to revive the Indian economy. The state has 1.3 million confirmed COVID-19 infections and 35,000 deaths. It also has more cases than Russia, the world’s fourth-most-affected country (Source: FT).

City council leaders from Liverpool, Leeds and Manchester upped the pressure on the government to reduce new ‘local lockdown’ measures as they crush the local economy. In a letter to health secretary Matt Hancock and business secretary Alok Sharma, the leaders complained that hotel occupancy is at around 30% normal levels and footfall has fallen by more than 2/3rds due to the local lockdown measures (Source: FT)

The Australian state of Victoria reported 10 new coronavirus infections on Tuesday morning, as authorities eased lockdown measures in Melbourne after suppressing an outbreak.

With the US death toll slowly moving higher, Texas reported its smallest daily increase in deaths in about three months on Monday, as just 11 deaths were counted as COVID-19 deaths. California also reported its smallest increase in deaths in three weeks on Monday, and its lowest daily tally in a week. (Source: JHU).

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3n0ziqO Tyler Durden

The US-China Tech Divide – Where Will it End?

Our news roundup is dominated by the seemingly endless ways that the US and China can find to quarrel over tech policy.  The Commerce Department’s plan to use an executive order to cut TikTok and WeChat out of the US market has now been enjoined. But the $50 Nick Weaver bet me that TikTok could tie its forced sale up until January is still at risk, because the administration has a double-barreled threat to use against that company – not just the executive order but also CFIUS – and the injunction so far only applies to the first. 

I predict that President Xi is likely to veto any deal that appeals to President Trump, just to show the power of his regime to interfere with US plans. That could spell the end of TikTok, at least in the US. Meanwhile, Dave Aitel points out, a similar but even more costly fate could await much of the electronic gaming industry, where WeChat parent TenCent is a dominant player. 

And just to show that the US is willing to do to US tech companies what it’s doing to Chinese tech companies, leaks point to the imminent filing of at least one and perhaps two antitrust lawsuits against Google. Maury Shenk leads us through the law and policy options.

The panelists dismiss as PR hype the claim that it was the threat of “material support” liability that caused Zoom to drop support for a PFLP hijacker’s speech to American university students. Instead, it looks like garden variety content moderation aimed this time at a favorite of the far left.

Dave explains the good and the bad of the CISA order requiring agencies to quickly patch the critical Netlogon bug

Maury and I debate whether Vladimir Putin is being serious or mocking when he proposes an election hacking ceasefire and a “reset” in the cyber relationship. We conclude that there’s some serious mocking in the proposal.

Dave and I also marvel at how Elon Musk, for all his iconoclasm, sure has managed to cozy up to both President Xi and President Trump, make a lot of money in both countries, and take surprisingly little flak for doing so.  The story that spurs this meditation is the news that Tesla is so dependent on Chinese chips for its autonomous driving engine that it’s suing the US to end the tariffs on its supply chain

 In quick hits and updates, we note a potentially big story: The Trump administration has slapped new restrictions on exports to Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation, China’s most advanced maker of computer chips. 

The press that lovingly detailed the allegations in the Steele dossier about President Trump’s ties to Moscow hasn’t been quite so enthusiastic about covering the dossier’s astounding fall from grace. The coup de grace came last week when it was revealed that the main source for the juiciest bits was flagged by the FBI ten years ago as a likely Russian foreign agent; he escaped a FISA order only because he left the country for a while in 2010. 

 The FISA court has issued an opinion on what constitutes a “facility” that can be tapped with a FISA order. It rejected the advice of Cyberlaw Podcast regular David Kris in an opinion that includes all the court’s legal reasoning but remains impenetrable because the facts are all classified. Maury and I come up with a plausible explanation of what was at stake.

The Trump administration has proposed section 230 reform legislation similar to the white paper we covered a couple of months ago. The proposal so completely occupies the reasonable middle of the content moderation debate that a Biden administration may not be able to come up with its own reforms without sounding fatally similar to President Trump. 

And in yet more China news, Maury and Dave explore the meaning of Nvidia’s bid for ARM, and Maury expresses no surprise at all that WeWork is selling off a big chunk of its Chinese operations 

Oh, and we have new theme music, courtesy of Ken Weissman of Weissman Sound Design.  Hope you like it!

Download the 330th Episode (mp3)

You can subscribe to The Cyberlaw Podcast using iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Pocket Casts, or our RSS feed. As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with @stewartbaker on Twitter. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to CyberlawPodcast@steptoe.com. Remember: If your suggested guest appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug!

The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of their institutions, clients, friends, families, or pets.

 

 

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3n2WvIM
via IFTTT

The Media’s Nervous Breakdown Over Race

topicspolitics

If you were alive and on social media in early June, you were almost certainly swamped by scores of media and cultural organizations putting out statements, Instagram posts, and self-critical columns expressing solidarity in the fight against systemic prejudice.

“We recognize that there is much work to be done, and we are committed to engaging in this work to eradicate institutional racism,” announced the Poetry Foundation, publisher of Poetry magazine. “I have tried to diversify our newsroom over the past 7 years, but I HAVE NOT DONE ENOUGH,” confessed the editor in chief of Variety. The women’s lifestyle publication Refinery29, like many websites, changed its homepage color to black instead of its usual peppy pink.

Within days, the heads of all those institutions were out of a job.

In summer 2020, the American media experienced something like a collective nervous breakdown. Against the backdrop of the coronavirus and associated lockdowns, with whole sections of the industry teetering on the edge of collapse, newsrooms from coast to coast engaged in a series of internal revolts about race, defenestrating editors over everything from headlines to Halloween costumes.

Current and former employees launched self-styled “name-and-shame” campaigns on Twitter to out editors and organizations whose commitment to diversity and equity were deemed insufficient. A Broadway actress created a public spreadsheet called “Theaters Not Speaking Out”; participants were encouraged to “add names to this document who have not made a statement against injustices toward black people.” Heads rolled at The Philadelphia Inquirer, the Los Angeles TimesBon Appétit, the National Book Critics Circle, Chicago’s Second City Theater, The New York Times, and scores of other cultural institutions and corporations.

“Institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms,” noted a group of 153 writers and academics, including such left-leaning luminaries as Salman Rushdie and Noam Chomsky, in a joint letter published online by Harper’s magazine on July 7. “Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes.”

The Harper’s letter, like the actions that precipitated it, revealed a split within the broader intelligentsia. On one side are people defending the values of liberalism—free speech, due process, individualism. On the other are those chipping away broadly at institutions they judge to be abetting a corrupted, discriminatory power structure. One side laments each broken egg; the other is busy making omelets.

That divide was on stark display within minutes of the letter’s publication, as an entire generation of left-leaning commentators and journalists rose up nearly as one to douse the whole effort with bile. “The signatories, many of them white, wealthy, and endowed with massive platforms, argue that they are afraid of being silenced,” snarled a counter-letter signed by 164 writers three days later. “The irony of the piece is that nowhere in it do the signatories mention how marginalized voices have been silenced for generations in journalism, academia, and publishing.”

There is an asymmetry of approach between anti-liberals—of both left and right—and their increasingly alarmed critics. While the latter camp tends to treat controversies and individuals on a case-by-case basis, the former is forever trying to herd people into binary categories. In the words of bestselling author Ibram X. Kendi, “You’re either racist or antiracist; there’s no such thing as ‘not racist.'”

The Manicheans have special contempt for those who refuse such designations, especially when they’re otherwise on the same side of the political spectrum. That the Harper’s authors came mostly from the left and prefaced their brief complaint with a swipe at President Donald Trump bought them no sympathy from their progressive tormentors. So signatory Yascha Mounk founds an earnest new publication called Persuasion, even while being dismissed by such leftists as The Daily Beast‘s Laura Bradley as belonging to a “coven of fools.”

This witch-burning moment will hopefully recede, but the fuel in this accursed year will continue piling up.

 

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/30jzfwr
via IFTTT

The Media’s Nervous Breakdown Over Race

topicspolitics

If you were alive and on social media in early June, you were almost certainly swamped by scores of media and cultural organizations putting out statements, Instagram posts, and self-critical columns expressing solidarity in the fight against systemic prejudice.

“We recognize that there is much work to be done, and we are committed to engaging in this work to eradicate institutional racism,” announced the Poetry Foundation, publisher of Poetry magazine. “I have tried to diversify our newsroom over the past 7 years, but I HAVE NOT DONE ENOUGH,” confessed the editor in chief of Variety. The women’s lifestyle publication Refinery29, like many websites, changed its homepage color to black instead of its usual peppy pink.

Within days, the heads of all those institutions were out of a job.

In summer 2020, the American media experienced something like a collective nervous breakdown. Against the backdrop of the coronavirus and associated lockdowns, with whole sections of the industry teetering on the edge of collapse, newsrooms from coast to coast engaged in a series of internal revolts about race, defenestrating editors over everything from headlines to Halloween costumes.

Current and former employees launched self-styled “name-and-shame” campaigns on Twitter to out editors and organizations whose commitment to diversity and equity were deemed insufficient. A Broadway actress created a public spreadsheet called “Theaters Not Speaking Out”; participants were encouraged to “add names to this document who have not made a statement against injustices toward black people.” Heads rolled at The Philadelphia Inquirer, the Los Angeles TimesBon Appétit, the National Book Critics Circle, Chicago’s Second City Theater, The New York Times, and scores of other cultural institutions and corporations.

“Institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms,” noted a group of 153 writers and academics, including such left-leaning luminaries as Salman Rushdie and Noam Chomsky, in a joint letter published online by Harper’s magazine on July 7. “Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes.”

The Harper’s letter, like the actions that precipitated it, revealed a split within the broader intelligentsia. On one side are people defending the values of liberalism—free speech, due process, individualism. On the other are those chipping away broadly at institutions they judge to be abetting a corrupted, discriminatory power structure. One side laments each broken egg; the other is busy making omelets.

That divide was on stark display within minutes of the letter’s publication, as an entire generation of left-leaning commentators and journalists rose up nearly as one to douse the whole effort with bile. “The signatories, many of them white, wealthy, and endowed with massive platforms, argue that they are afraid of being silenced,” snarled a counter-letter signed by 164 writers three days later. “The irony of the piece is that nowhere in it do the signatories mention how marginalized voices have been silenced for generations in journalism, academia, and publishing.”

There is an asymmetry of approach between anti-liberals—of both left and right—and their increasingly alarmed critics. While the latter camp tends to treat controversies and individuals on a case-by-case basis, the former is forever trying to herd people into binary categories. In the words of bestselling author Ibram X. Kendi, “You’re either racist or antiracist; there’s no such thing as ‘not racist.'”

The Manicheans have special contempt for those who refuse such designations, especially when they’re otherwise on the same side of the political spectrum. That the Harper’s authors came mostly from the left and prefaced their brief complaint with a swipe at President Donald Trump bought them no sympathy from their progressive tormentors. So signatory Yascha Mounk founds an earnest new publication called Persuasion, even while being dismissed by such leftists as The Daily Beast‘s Laura Bradley as belonging to a “coven of fools.”

This witch-burning moment will hopefully recede, but the fuel in this accursed year will continue piling up.

 

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/30jzfwr
via IFTTT

“We Are Not Amused!” Queen Of England Hurt By Commercial Real-Estate Collapse

“We Are Not Amused!” Queen Of England Hurt By Commercial Real-Estate Collapse

Tyler Durden

Tue, 09/29/2020 – 05:00

Authored by Nick Corbishley via Wolf Street,

Crown Estates, which manages the Queen of England’s portfolio, recently wrote down the value of 17 shopping and leisure centers by 17%, cutting Her Majesty’s net worth by £552 million. As The Economist points out, this is “fairly small beer” set against the £13.4 billion valuation of the Queen’s property portfolio, which includes some of London’s toniest real estate.

But the Queen will not be left out of pocket, since her income — set at 25% of the profits generated by the Crown Estate — will be topped up with a taxpayer bailout. In fact, thanks to the Sovereign Grant Act of 2011, the overall amount given to the Queen each year in order to fund her official duties is never allowed to fall, regardless of what is happening in the broader economy.

“In the event of a reduction in the Crown Estate’s profits, the sovereign grant is set at the same level as the previous year,” a spokesperson told The Independent.

“The revenue from the Crown Estate helps pay for our vital public services – over the last 10 years it has returned a total of £2.8 billion to the Exchequer.”

Any profits made by the Crown Estate are passed to the Treasury which, in turn, hands 25% of the profits back to the Queen through the sovereign grant. This year, things will be a little different. To cover the fall in value of the Crown’s Estate, the estate has struck an agreement with the Treasury that allows it to begin making “staggered” revenue payments to the government, thus keeping a larger share of the profits to itself.

It’s a nice deal if you can get it. Most other UK commercial landlords can’t, though many larger property owners have certainly been lobbying the government for support, which for the moment is not forthcoming.

Meanwhile, conditions in both the retail and office markets continue to deteriorate. The U.K.’s ongoing retail crisis and work-from-home (WFH) revolution have between them wiped out roughly half of the market cap of large REITs such as Land Securities Group Plc, British Land Company, and Shaftesbury so far this year.

Last week, the government extended its ban on evictions of commercial property tenants from September 30 to December 31, which angered some landlords who have seen the yields on their investments slide as businesses struggle to pay rent. First passed on March 26, the moratorium on evictions was an essential lifeline for many retail businesses or offices whose incomes had dropped dramatically during the lockdown.

But it also shifted financial stress from tenants to property owners and their lenders. And the longer it drags on — it has now been extended twice in six months — the more the stress grows.

U.K. commercial property firms have so far collected just 68% of the rent they were due in June, according to data issued on Wednesday by Re-Leased, after having collected only 18.2% on the due date. Unsurprisingly, retail landlords have been hit the hardest, having so far received just 60% of rents due for the June quarter, compared to 75% and 76% respectively for the industrial and office sectors.

Despite the recent frenetic efforts of the British government to undo the WFH revolution it set in motion, the UK has significantly lagged behind mainland Europe in getting workers back behind their desks. This week, the government reversed policy once again, as covid cases began surging, urging all “office workers who can work effectively from home” to do so “over the winter,” .

This is going to have a dire impact not only on the owners of office buildings but also on the shops, restaurants, bars, cafes and other struggling city-center retail and leisure businesses that depend on the custom of office workers. Many leisure and hospitality businesses are already reeling from the government’s imposition this week of a 10 o’clock curfew for bars and restaurants. The owners of these properties are also feeling the pinch.

Shaftesbury, a real estate investment trust (REIT) that mainly rents to independent retailers in London’s West End, reported on Friday that for the six months to September so far, it had collected just 41% of rent due. Ten percent of rents are expected to be subject to deferred collection arrangements; 23% are being waived and 26% remain outstanding. By the end of August, its vacancy rate had risen to 9.7% of estimated rental value, compared to 4.8% at the end of March.

As retail vacancy rates have risen, the balance of power has gradually shifted, from landlord to tenant. Even if evictions were allowed, in this crisis it will be very tough for landlords to find a replacement for an evicted tenant — which makes landlords somewhat more flexible in dealing with their tenants.

And many tenants aren’t paying their rents, either because they can’t or are choosing not to, in the hope of renegotiating the terms of their lease contract. Shaftesbury is letting tenants defer quarterly rent for a third consecutive quarter, while British Land, part-owner of the sprawling Broadgate office and retail complex in the City of London, is considering extending support to its smaller hospitality and shop tenants for the next quarter, reports Bloomberg.

It’s the main reason why fashion retailer New Look was able to secure such attractive terms from its landlords — including Landsec and British Land — in its latest voluntary insolvency procedure. By placing its store leases at the heart of its negotiations, the firm was able to ensure that 402 of its 470 stores would move to a turnover-linked model, whereby rent will be charged at between 2% and 12% of revenues. For the remaining 68 stores the firm will not have to pay rent for the next three years.

The property owners may not have liked the terms, but given New Look’s size and the huge holes its demise would have left in an already decimated brick-and-mortar retail landscape, they had little choice but to grudgingly accept them. By setting a precedent for turnover-based rents, it’s only a matter of time before other large stores begin asking for the same treatment. 

*  *  *

Enjoy reading WOLF STREET and want to support it? Using ad blockers – I totally get why – but want to support the site? You can donate. I appreciate it immensely. 

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3ieomlC Tyler Durden