Ceres folks often groan over the fact that too many gas stations, Mexican restaurants and car washes are built here.

Of course, a universal complaint in most cities of a decent size, complain about too many Starbucks. It’s become sort of a national joke. Which made me chuckle when our sister newspaper, The Turlock Journal ran a story titled, “As one Starbucks closes in Turlock, another opens.”

But it appears that the days of a Starbucks on every corner may be coming to an end.

The Turlock Journal story notes that two Saturdays ago, the Starbucks at 2870 W. Monte Vista Ave. in the Target shopping center shut its doors for good but the next day, the coffee chain opened up shop at 1100 W. Monte Vista Ave., across from the Stanislaus State campus.

The new location was slated to be the 11th Starbucks in Turlock when it was first proposed in 2023. But the recent closure of the other Monte Vista location and the Stan State campus decreasing from two on-campus Starbucks spots to only one makes the current count at nine. Nine Starbucks!

Apparently there have been too many Starbucks nationwide as well. The sudden closure of the Turlock Starbucks came days after Starbucks announced that it would be immediately closing hundreds of stores in the U.S., Canada and Europe and laying off 900 nonretail employees.

Starbucks Chairman and CEO Brian Niccol said the underperforming stores didn’t see a path to financial stability or unable to create the physical environment customers expect.

More competition from drive-thru companies like Dutch Bros., inflation and consumer shifts have hurt Starbucks’ bottom line. Let’s not forget the steep prices at Starbucks. A survey showed that more than 70% of people said higher prices is why they will pay fewer visits Starbucks over the next year.

* * * * *

I’m a bit surprised that nobody on the Ceres City Council has decided to bring up a way to save some money. (Or am I?) Currently members of the Ceres Planning Commission are getting paid an $80 per month stipend for their service. The commission is supposed to meet twice per month on the first and third Mondays of the month.

But in recent years, most meetings have been cancelled for a lack of business. Last Monday’s meeting being cancelled was a recent example.

In all of 2024, the commission met only nine times and had 17 meetings cancelled! 

So far this year, 12 meetings have been cancelled out of 20.

How about paying commissioners per meeting attended rather than a flat monthly stipend? A stipend only makes sense if they are putting in the time.

City Manager Doug Dunford said there’s a lot going on but business doesn’t require commission consideration so he’s suggesting once per month meetings.

The total stipend expense for each year would be $80 times 12 times five, or $4,800. Paying per meeting would knock that expense down considerably. It’s not a lot of money but every dollar counts, right?

* * * * *

I’ve never been one to embrace the concept of hate speech or hate crimes.

Freedom of speech means the right to express even hateful comments. I do, however, believe in being civil toward one another.

Hate crimes implies motives. If a person attacks or kills or harasses someone based on race, creed, religion or sexual orientation, that act is already illegal!

Newsom cried foul when ABC pulled Jimmie Kimmel off the air, claiming it was Trump who pressured the network to do so despite the fact that Kimmel really ticked off half the country with his tasteless remarks.

The same week, 30 Democrats in the state Senate voted to pass Senate Bill 771 which would attempt to hold major social media companies accountable for “amplifying” violent or threatening content. All “no” votes came from Republicans. Not one Senate Democrat supported free speech in this vote.

SB 771 specifically targets social media platforms for the role they may play in “aiding and abetting” in so-called hate crimes by pushing content that could lead to a so-called hate crime.

Current law already provides penalties against individual people who aid, abet or conspire to commit acts of violence against people based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation and other protected characteristics. State Sen. Henry Stern, who wrote the law, said this would ensure major online platforms are held accountable similar to the way people are for the crime.

The proposed fines include up to $1 million in civil penalties for large social media companies that knowingly or intentionally amplify the threatening posts and $500,000 for those who allow it recklessly. If passed, it would take effect in 2027.

X’s Global Government Affairs condemned the bill, saying “It’s alarming that California lawmakers, sworn to uphold the Constitution, have so brazenly ignored their oath and voted to pass SB 771, knowingly undermining First Amendment protections. It would be more wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars to have to defend this in court.”

Just another example how California Democratic lawmakers are forever restricting freedoms they are sworn to protect and uphold.

* * * * *

One of the convenience stores I frequent had one of two entrance/exit doors closed right after school. Mind you, a high school is just down the street. The customer in front of me inquired as to the locked door and was told by the clerk, “The school kids. They take armfuls of stuff and just walk out the door.” I had my chance to chime in, “No morals are being taught.”

Actually it probably goes deeper than that. Think about it: What do the modern progressives preach? That corporations are evil and make their profits on the backs of the downtrodden. That rich people don’t pay their fair share. That the common man just can’t get ahead. Victimhood is embraced everywhere on the left. It’s impressed upon our young people. So the logical conclusion for those who subscribe to this victimhood is take what’s coming to you, they won’t miss it, they’re making money hand over fist. Stealing is justified in their mind to even the score.

But they’re not fooling their selves. They know stealing is wrong – it’s one of the morals that God puts on the hearts of all of us.

* * * * *

David Carreon has bought into the Newsom mindset that Prop 50 is only fair payback for Texas Democrats controlling their own destiny by redistricting.

Never mind that Texas is Texas. This is California and we voted to end politicians gerrymandering over a decade ago. We spoke loud and clear that an independent Citizens Redistricting Commission must draw boundary lines so it would be fair and not favor one party over the other. Newsom has given the bird to those voters, retaliating in a gamble with voters, hoping the new crop of mostly blue state voters forget about the choice in 2008 and will protect Texas’ decision. In short, Newsom has put forth Prop 50, lying about it and spending millions of dollars to convince blue voters to further drive Republicans from office. How? By re-drawing congressional district lines that give Republicans a significant disadvantage and tip the House of Representatives toward the Dems.

It’s essentially devious cheating from a devious mind. That’s Newsom, “tit for tat” all the way.

* * * * *

Want to hear something funny? Newsom has been waging war on “Big Oil” ever since he became governor and now that he’s running for the presidency of a more conservative country than blue California, he’s posturing himself as a friend of oil. Now he’s changing his tune – only for brownie points and so he can say, “I increased capacity, not kneecapped it.” He’s the ultimate walking contradiction. He knows that $6 to $7 per gallon gas prices would end his chances of occupying the White House. But there are a myriad of other issues where he has failed big time.

Newsom specifically signed SB 237, a climate and energy package that allows up to 2,000 new oil wells per year in Kern County, noting it aims to balance fuel supply during a time of high costs. The decision has drawn criticism from environmentalists who warned it risks damaging climate goals. Local officials are happy, of course, as should anyone who has to fill up the tank at a dollar more a gallon than those living in other states.

Just a short time ago — last fall actually – Gavin “I hate big oil” Newsom accused oil companies of gouging Californians and nobody else in the country when his party was the real culprit regarding highest-in-the-nation prices at the pump. So he he adopted new refinery regulations that the oil industry fought hard and in response, Valero and Phillips 76 announced closures of their refineries. Newsom said this of oil producers: “They are the polluted heart of this climate crisis. They continue to lie and they continue to manipulate and they’re taking advantage of you.”

Now he’s whistling a different tune. It’s all about political ambition, folks.

This column is the opinion of Jeff Benziger, and does not necessarily represent the opinion of The Ceres Courier or 209 Multimedia Corporation.  How do you feel about this? Let Jeff know at jeffb@cerescourier.com