A six-figure salary is considered low-income in a handful of California counties, according to the 2026 income limits set by the state’s Department of Housing & Community Development.
These new income limits, which took effect June 23, are used to calculate the cost of affordable housing for certain state housing assistance programs.
Most counties saw an increase in the cutoff for what is considered low-income, and seven counties—Santa Cruz, San Francisco, San Mateo, Marin, Santa Clara, Orange, and Santa Barbara—had their cutoffs set at six-figure amounts.
As Cynthia Cai details below for The Epoch Times, Santa Cruz County has the highest cutoff, with a limit set at $122,200 for a single-person household. This is a nearly 10 percent increase from the previous year, which set the low-income cutoff at $111,100.
For each additional person added to the household, the income cutoff is adjusted so that “income limits should be higher for larger families and lower for smaller families,” the Department of Housing & Community Development wrote in its memo.
Following Santa Cruz are three more coastal counties: San Francisco, San Mateo, and Marin.
These three counties have cutoffs of $117,700 for single-person households, which is also an increase from the previous year’s limit of $109,700.
The low-income limit in Santa Clara is set at $113,700 for single-person households, and in Santa Barbara it is set at $102,000.
Two counties, however, are maintaining their low-income cutoffs from last year. Solano County will continue to use $76,950 as its limit, and Shasta will continue to use $54,500.
These figures come as housing and affordability remain top issues for residents.
“California home prices continue to be much more expensive than the rest of the US,” the state’s Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) reported in its 2026 Housing Affordability Tracker.
A mid-tier home, or the average-value middle-market property, costs around $775,000 in California, according to the LAO. That’s nearly double the national average of $398,771 for a mid-tier house, according to Redfin.
The Golden State saw a rapid home price increase of 14 percent per year during the pandemic from 2020 to 2022, the LAO stated. But home price growth has slowed down since then. The average price of a mid-tier home is currently increasing by approximately 1 percent per year.
“While home prices have stabilized, housing has become less affordable for most Californians in recent years” due to incomes failing to keep pace with the increase in housing costs, the LAO added.
As a result, only about 23 percent of households would qualify for mid-tier home mortgages in 2026, down from roughly 31 percent in 2019.
The state’s low homeownership and higher-than-average rental costs and home values were also noted in a recent report by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), which said the state “has a housing problem.”
“Homeownership is the second lowest in the nation, and housing has become a dominant reason people leave the state,” the report states.
“Two of every three Californians say the cost of housing is a ‘big problem’ in their part of California.”
Ownership is particularly low among young adults, with about 31 percent of people between 30 and 34 years old reporting owning their own home. The national average for homeownership among that age group is about 49 percent.
Rental costs in California also exceed the national average by about 40 percent, the PPIC reported. The average cost to rent is about $2,159 in California compared with the national average of $1,526.
The PPIC noted that coastal cities face the highest costs, and large numbers of people are relocating inland, where costs are lower but housing supply struggles to keep up with demand.
Tyler Durden Tue, 06/30/2026 - 05:45We have previously discussed how many professors seem to compete in finding new forms of racism in every facet of society and education. Astrophysics, math, runoffs, science, statistics, and meritocracy have all been denounced as racist. In this academic cottage industry, professors secure publications and speaking opportunities by identifying racism in the expressions, images, or entire fields. It was, therefore, only a matter of time before time itself was declared racist.
Zakia Essanhaji, a professor of “organizational ethnography” at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, is the latest to make the case against “white time.”
Her recent paper titled “Academic time theft: stealing time, producing racialized inclusion in Dutch academia” builds on prior work condemning time as racist.
Rutgers Women’s and Gender Studies/Africana Studies Professor Brittney Cooper has also written about how time is racist. Mainstream media has positively cooed at the suggestion, including an interview with NPR. Cooper claimed that “white people own time” after framing the concept of time in “histories of European and Western thought.”
There is also apparently black time: “Time has a history, and so do black people. But we treat time as though it is timeless, as though it has always been this way, as though it doesn’t have a political history bound up with the plunder of indigenous lands, the genocide of indigenous people and the stealing of Africans from their homeland.”
Likewise, in “The Chronopolitics of Racial Time,” Jamaican academic Charles W. Mills described the “Euro-chronometer” as a Western-centric, linear timeline.
These works are often heavily laden with jargonistic narratives. In one study from Brazil, academics argue that “thinking of time outside and against the Euro-chronometer requires decolonial epistemologies that have the potential to disrupt racist chronologies.”
Professor Essanhaji continues this scholarship by “drawing on critical race theory and decolonial scholarship on chronopolitics and white time.” She applies with earlier work “to academic time theft to theorize how universities extract, fragment and defer the time of academics of colour through racialized institutional processes.”
“White time is not simply the time of the privileged, but the power to define temporality and progress itself. It is the colonization of time, known as the system of modernity/coloniality. As Vazquez […] argues, this system is maintained by erasing cyclical or relational understandings of time, ensuring that time is perceived as racing towards unattainable, more modern futures. In that sense, white time is both prescriptive and pre-emptive, foreclosing alternative futures and experiences of the past by delegitimizing other temporalities.”
Academics have long argued that non-white histories and figures are often “erased’ in scholarship. Such arguments have led to a move away from Western works or classics in favor of non-Western sources in higher education. However, the time scholarship suggests that the very construct of time has been shaped and furthers white domination and privilege.
In Professor Essanhaji’s work, this scholarship is used to challenge the demands placed on minority academics in publishing and other measures of academic achievement. Again, the work is heavily layered with jargonistic language. Here are her findings:
“The analysis identifies three mechanisms of academic time theft. First, prolonged uncertainty operates through racialized precariousness that keeps academics of colour in a condition of academic probation through insecure contracts and housing precarity. Second, ongoing disruption emerges through everyday racism that fragments attention, diverts emotional and intellectual labour, and interrupts academic continuity. Third, recursive evaluation operates through the continual resetting of inclusion and promotion criteria, producing perpetual states of “not yet” recognition and deferred academic futures. Together, these mechanisms sustain racialized temporal regimes in which academics of colour are positioned as perpetually “almost there” while white institutional time remains uninterrupted.”
These authors largely cite each other with little attention to countervailing viewpoints. It becomes a closed, self-perpetuating system as academics invite one another to speak at their universities and feed off one another. Few academics are willing to challenge such scholarship. Indeed, as we have discussed, departments have largely purged their ranks of conservative or contrarian voices.
As shown in this latest scholarship, the work in this area jettisons such “colonial” or “white” forms of analysis in favor of storytelling:
“I depart from a critical race perspective, employing counter-storytelling to construct (counter)narratives grounded in the lived experiences of people of colour. This method recognizes the connections between the historical impacts of colonialism and contemporary exclusions within organizations. By highlighting the experiences of people of colour navigating the university’s racism, I seek to provide rich accounts that reflect on how time is racialized and experienced in Dutch universities.”
There is a faux statistical framing based on “data” that is largely the subjective descriptions of minority academics:
“Initial open coding focused on participants’ descriptions of inequality across social, material and affective dimensions, including social, material and affective inequalities. While time was not predefined as an analytical category, it emerged inductively through participants’ recurring temporal framings of inequality.”
When one tries to drill down on the “data,” it appears entirely anecdotal and subjective, often turning on one or a handful of “narratives.” These stories are used to claim that academic measurements of success, driven by “white time,” are unfair to minority faculty: “these mechanisms position academics of colour perpetually as ‘almost there’ while their academic futures remain deferred.”
The thrust is that minority faculty should not be subject to traditional or accepted pathways for tenure or promotion:
“Academic time theft is not an incidental by-product of exclusion but a structural mechanism through which universities sustain white institutional time. It works by continuously delaying, interrupting and recalibrating what counts as academic legitimacy, ensuring that the labour of academics of colour remains productive for the institution while their progression is indefinitely postponed.
…To ensure that people of colour have academic futures, researchers and policymakers must break with the white temporality of academic work within which progress for some is enabled and for others is ongoingly deferred.”
Academia has already embraced narrative-driven scholarship in many departments as an alternative to traditional academic analysis. The Critical Legal Studies movement, for example, has challenged conventional scholarship as too restrictive and exclusionary. Few academics today dare to challenge such scholarship on the merits. To do so is to risk being labeled as reactionary or, even worse, racist.
This latest scholarship further challenges the time and structure for advancement for minority faculty as inherently racist. The question is whether the appointments and promotion process is at risk of losing objective and consistent measurements of scholarship.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Tyler Durden Tue, 06/30/2026 - 05:00North America leads the world in the use of cannabis, opioids and amphetamines.
According to numbers published today in the UN's World Drug Report, North Americans between the ages of 15 and 64 were 75 percent to 90 percent more likely to have consumed these drugs in 2024 than residents of second-ranked Oceania. The odds of dying of an accidental opioid overdose in the United States was still higher the same year as the risk of losing one's life due to a car crash or suicide. Despite this, overdose deaths in the U.S. have in the last couple of years come down from their peaks.
As Statista's Katharina Buchholz reports, according to the report, broader marijuana legalization in the U.S. drove consumption. Oceania had the highest prevalence of cocaine and ecstasy use, mainly in Australia and New Zealand. South America saw a relatively high use of cocaine and amphetamines, while opioids were more widespread in Asia than in South America or Europe.
You will find more infographics at Statista
In total, 331 million people worldwide consumed drugs in 2024, equivalent to 6.2 percent of the global population.
While marijuana remains the most common drug by far, the UN observed a change in the second-placed market for opioids.
Here, synthetic opioids have been taking on an increasingly larger role in response to the crackdown on opium poppy production in Afghanistan.
Strong synthetic opioids like fentanyl have been a major driver in the American overdose epidemic and as of 2025 were still detected in more than half of all U.S. drug deaths.
Amphetamines – at a global annual use prevalence of 0.6 percent the world's third biggest drug – have meanwhile seen their market globalize.
Myanmar has emerged as a major producer country for amphetamines consumed globally and has also picked up opiate production as Afghanistan's output decreased.
The UN also said it was seeing drug manufacturers using innovation as a tool to "skirt regulations and avoid detection", leading to the type of drugs found in seizures continuously evolving and increasing in variety.
Tyler Durden Tue, 06/30/2026 - 04:15Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity News,
A theme park in Britain has received intense backlash for marketing exclusive access, halal vendors and Islamic stalls, effectively sidelining non-Muslims.
Gulliver's Land in Milton Keynes is handing its rides and grounds to a day promoted as reserved exclusively for the Muslim community. Organisers described it as a "Muslim Theme Park experience" with unlimited rides, halal food vendors, Islamic stalls, kids' activities and limited tickets sold primarily to that group.
Promotional material from Mubarak Moments, the group behind the event, highlights "a theme park reserved exclusively for the Muslim community" and "exclusive access... for one evening only," effectively confirming the event is a faith-targeted buyout of a family theme park.
Another day in 2026 Britain: Gulliver's Land hosting a 'Muslim Theme Park Experience' with halal only vibes and Islamic stalls.
Faith, fun & family... for some. Where's the English family day?
Imagine the outrage if they had an English only day. pic.twitter.com/27zDtZJsb7
A Milton Keynes local community hub post on Facebook stated "This event has been independently organised by a Muslim community group, so naturally its primary focus is on bringing the Muslim community together, just as any community group would when organising an event for its members."
The post continued, "That said, there is nothing to suggest that people of other faiths or backgrounds are unable to attend and enjoy the event. Everyone is welcome to attend in the spirit of mutual respect and understanding."
It added, "As with any community-led event, it is expected that those attending will be supportive of the organisers, respectful of the event's purpose, and considerate of everyone present."
Some suggested the event was fake, manufactured as rage bait, but the organiser's original post is here:
Note how the image on that post features a Muslim family, where as in the other image that element has been removed.
Responses poured in immediately. One user summed up the widespread frustration: "Two-tier Britain in full effect. While English culture gets sidelined and mocked, we're funding and celebrating parallel societies on our own soil. Gulliver's Land should be for British families, not imported theocracies."
Exactly.
Two-tier Britain in full effect.
While English culture gets sidelined and mocked, we're funding and celebrating parallel societies on our own soil.
Gulliver's Land should be for British families, not imported theocracies.
This nonsense ends when we take back...
Others asked the obvious follow-up questions that never receive answers from officials or venue managers: when is the Christian family day, the English-only evening, or the Jewish community slot? Calls for boycott spread quickly. Several noted the hypocrisy directly: if the same marketing had read "reserved exclusively for the English community," every equality body, media outlet and politician would have descended within hours.
How does this support multiculturism – this is deeply divisive.
When will people be told to sit at the back of the bus for segregation! Wake up to Racism in all its guises!
When is the Christian, Jewish, Sikh Theme park experience day?
— Ben Graham (@BenGrahamUK) June 29, 2026not very inclusive
— The Celtic Patriot (@Celticpatriot_) June 29, 2026While Americans reading this might think it's another example of how far teh UK has fallen, this is also going on over there, in Texas of all places.
Earlier this year a taxpayer-funded indoor waterpark in Grand Prairie, Texas - the $88 million Epic Waters facility built with public sales tax money - advertised its 3rd Annual DFW Epic Eid celebration as a "Muslims only" event. Flyers specified modest dress rules including burkinis for women, halal-slaughtered meat, a private prayer room, and Islamic etiquette such as lowered gaze around the opposite sex.
Backlash forced organisers to edit the language to "modest dress only" and "all are welcome," yet the underlying restrictions remained visible in FAQs. Critics pointed out the obvious double standard: a publicly funded venue effectively closed to regular visitors for a faith-specific gathering.
The outrage was immediate and effective. Texas Governor Greg Abbott threatened to withhold $530,000 in state grants from the city if the discriminatory event proceeded. Grand Prairie officials canceled it.
Perhaps an even more disturbing development in Texas is the East Plano Islamic Community project, rebranded as The Meadow. This planned development of 1,000 homes, a mosque and schools has drawn concerns over potential Sharia enforcement inside what amounts to a parallel community.
NEW: 'Muslim City' in Texas gets legal win after a judge ordered that the state must comply with developers.
The East Plano Islamic Community (EPIC), which has now been rebranded to The Meadow, will feature 1,000 homes, a mosque, schools, and more.
Texas leaders are worried... pic.twitter.com/HoSvNeV307
Governor Abbott has been clear that Sharia law, Sharia cities and no-go zones have no place in Texas. Developers still secured a legal win ordering state compliance.
Meanwhile, back in the UK, multiple landlords have advertised rental properties exclusively for Muslims in breach of the Equality Act 2010. Ads on Facebook, Gumtree and Telegram specified "Muslim only," "only for Muslims," or "for 2 Muslim boys or 2 Muslim girls." Some targeted Muslim students only. These are not fringe cases. Investigations found dozens of such listings operating in plain sight while authorities focus enforcement resources elsewhere.
Any native British landlord attempting the reverse - advertising "English only" or "Christian only" - would face immediate investigation, fines and media pile-ons. The asymmetry is the definition of two-tier treatment.
Britain's own institutions have tilted the field further. All members of the government's "anti-Muslim hostility" advisory group have documented links to Islamist organisations. The state effectively handed rule-writing power over "hostility" definitions to the very networks that benefit from reduced scrutiny.
Schools received official guidance urging staff and pupils to report perceived "anti-Muslim hostility," creating an Orwellian atmosphere where questioning Islamic practices or parallel societies risks being treated as thoughtcrime.
The same authorities that move swiftly against native dissent have shown remarkable tolerance for actual criminal networks. Sadiq Khan once claimed there were no grooming gangs in London. Police are currently investigating around 4,000 cases.
None of this is about preventing people from celebrating their faith. It is about whether public venues, taxpayer assets and the legal system treat every community by the same rules. When theme parks, waterparks and housing markets begin carving out faith-exclusive zones while the host population is told any reciprocal preference is bigotry, the social contract fractures.
Texas demonstrated that elected leaders can still draw a line against explicit religious discrimination in public facilities and win. Britain's trajectory has been the opposite: accommodation of separatism, institutional capture by one-sided "hostility" definitions, and native families left wondering why their own cultural continuity receives less protection than imported alternatives.
The Gulliver's Land episode is simply the latest visible symptom. It will not be the last unless the underlying policy of mass low-assimilation immigration and selective multiculturalism is reversed. Equal rights mean equal rules. Anything less is not tolerance - it is managed decline.
Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.
Tyler Durden Tue, 06/30/2026 - 03:30Latvia has announced confirmation its government has inked a new deal for Ukraine to assist in a Ukrainian drone manufacturing plant on Latvian soil, right near the border with Russia, as well as close to the Belarusian border.
Latvian Prime Minister Andris Kulbergs said following an emergency cabinet meeting held in Latgale that his country will "accelerate plans to establish a joint drone manufacturing facility with Ukraine and aims to locate it near the country’s eastern border region," regional media reports.
Shahed-136 drone. Creative CommonsThe small Baltic country has been a member of NATO since 2004, and along with other allies like Estonia and Lithuania (both of which also joined NATO during the mid-2000s expansion wave).
These Baltic states have remained outspoken in their anti-Moscow hawkishness, and this latest announced plan of Latvia to produce drones with Ukraine once again reveals that there's no heed being given to Russia's red lines.
The Kremlin has for years warned European states that constant NATO and military infrastructure expansion right up to Russia's borders could trigger major war. Of course, in Ukraine it has, but fears remain that some kind of major provocation could result in direct Russia-NATO conflict.
Regional media is really emphasizing the closeness of the planned facility to Russia:
Kulbergs said the agreement on cooperation in the field of unmanned systems, signed at the beginning of June, includes plans for joint production. In particular, a manufacturing facility is to be built rapidly near Latvia's border with Russia.
The prime minister said the government would do everything necessary to ensure the facility is located close to the border. He added that the region needs economic activity, investment and jobs.
So now these Baltic leaders are just openly prodding and provoking Russia, it seems.
The Latvian leader after saying all of this is still promoting the 'defensive' nature of such a joint drone program: "Kulbergs also said that new counter-drone systems are expected to become operational along Latvia's borders with Belarus and Russia in July and August, allowing the country to respond to aerial threats without deploying aircraft on every occasion."
"If there is a drone threat, we will not have to scramble aircraft every time. It is a very expensive and effective solution, but it is neither the best nor the most efficient one," he said further.
There's been a heightened spillover threat of UAVs from the context of the Russia-Ukraine theater, however, in some cases these have been reported to be errant Ukrainian drones, and not just Russian ones.
Russian media has really seized on this trend...
Latvia and Ukraine to build interceptor drones together — to defend Latvian airspace from drone incursions
Every drone that has breached Latvian airspace has been UKRAINIAN
Kiev now manufacturing drones in Latvia to shoot down drones from Kiev? pic.twitter.com/JJjU9jaaoU
Kulbergs is also saying he hopes to reach Ukraine's level of drone defense by the end of the year. The Zelensky government has over the past year been aggressively marketing its expertise to allied nations, and even in the Middle East in the context of the Iran war.
Tyler Durden Tue, 06/30/2026 - 02:45