Foundations
Here's a look at documents from U.S. foundations
Featured Stories
Foundation for Economic Education Issues Commentary: Rent Control
DETROIT, Michigan, Dec. 1 -- The Foundation for Economic Education issued the following commentary:
* * *
Rent Control
The zombie idea that never dies.
By Sergio Martinez
As 2026 looms, it brings with it an anniversary worth noticing: eighty years since Milton Friedman and George Stigler published Roofs or Ceilings?, the very first pamphlet of the newly founded Foundation for Economic Education (FEE). The year was 1946. World War II had just ended, America faced rapidly shifting housing markets, and policymakers embraced rent control as a supposedly necessary intervention to protect tenants
... Show Full Article
DETROIT, Michigan, Dec. 1 -- The Foundation for Economic Education issued the following commentary:
* * *
Rent Control
The zombie idea that never dies.
By Sergio Martinez
As 2026 looms, it brings with it an anniversary worth noticing: eighty years since Milton Friedman and George Stigler published Roofs or Ceilings?, the very first pamphlet of the newly founded Foundation for Economic Education (FEE). The year was 1946. World War II had just ended, America faced rapidly shifting housing markets, and policymakers embraced rent control as a supposedly necessary intervention to protect tenantsfrom rising prices.
Eighty years later, rent control is back.
Across the worldfrom New York to Berlin, Barcelona, and Mexico City politicians have resurrected the idea in response to the anxieties of younger generations priced out of their neighborhoods. Campaigns like "Freeze the Rent," championed in places like New York by figures such as Zohran Mamdani, have made rent control fashionable again in political discourse.
But if the idea has been resurrected, then one of its earliest and most powerful refutations deserves resurrection, too.
In Roofs or Ceilings?, Friedman and Stigler famously contrasted two episodes in the history of San Francisco:
* In 1906, after the earthquake and fires destroyed half the city's housing stock, rents were allowed to rise. No lasting shortage developed.
* In 1946, with only a modest increase in housing demand after WWII, the city suffered a severe housing shortage, precisely because rent controls prevented prices from adjusting.
The lesson they drew was clear. Price controls paralyze the mechanism that allocates scarce resources.
Rent control is a subset of price controls. While its supposed goal is sympatheticthe desire to make housing affordableit fails for a simple reason: it prevents prices from doing the job they exist to do.
Prices are signals. They convey information about scarcity, preferences, and trade-offs. A rising rent is not merely a burden on tenants. It also sends a message to everyone involved in the housing market. To builders, it says, "Build moredevote more land, labor, and capital to housing." To tenants and prospective tenants, it says, "Housing is becoming scarceadjust, economize, take in more roommates, move to a smaller apartment, or consider alternative locations."
When rents are capped artificially below equilibrium:
* Landlords want to supply fewer units at the controlled price.
* Tenants want to rent more units at that price.
* The gap between quantity demanded and quantity supplied becomes a shortage.
If the price system is a communication network, rent control turns down the volume and adds static. The result is miscommunication, misallocation, and frustration on both sides of the market.
The empirical literature on rent control is large and points in the same direction. Kholodilin (2024) reviewed more than a hundred studies and found consistent patterns across cities and decades. Rent control reduces the supply of rental housing, distorts the allocation of space, and leads to visible deterioration in building quality. Rents in uncontrolled units rise as demand shifts toward the parts of the market still available. Residential construction slows, and mobility declines as tenants hold on to regulated units. Rent control transfers wealth to a group of incumbent tenants who happen to hold onto their regulated units, but the gains to these lucky occupants do not offset the costs imposed on those who search for housing and find nothing available.
An influential study on rent control is the paper by Diamond, McQuade, and Qian (2019), which exploits a quasi-experimental expansion of rent regulation in San Francisco. They find that the policy triggered a substantial withdrawal of rental units from the market: landlords responded by converting roughly 15% of the newly controlled units into condominiums, redeveloping them, or occupying them themselves. This contraction in the regulated segment of the market had consequences far beyond those units. As supply shrank, displaced demand shifted toward the uncontrolled part of the housing stock. The result was a citywide increase in rents of about 5%an effect that only makes sense when we step outside a narrow, partial-equilibrium perspective and consider the housing market as an interconnected system. When rent control makes one segment less attractive to landlords, demand spills over into other segments, driving up prices for everyone else. Meanwhile, the tenants who remained in regulated units became significantly more stationary: the study finds that turnover fell by 10 to 20%, as households stayed put to preserve the benefits of their below-market rent.
Seinfeld even captured this distortion: the characters scan obituaries hoping to find a newly vacated rent-controlled apartmenta point highlighted by economist Alex Tabarrok in the video below:
Rent control eliminates price competitionbut competition itself does not disappear. It merely shifts to non-price dimensions. Glaeser and Luttmer (2003) show the scale of the misallocation created by this shift: they estimate that "21% of New York renters live in units with more or fewer rooms than they would occupy in a free-market city." And as Alchian and Allen (2018) emphasize, once prices are prevented from performing their allocative role, landlords inevitably fall back on nonmoney criteria such as "gender, marital status, age, creed, color, pet ownership, eating and drinking habits, personalities, and so forth." Shortages increase undesirable types of discrimination. Minorities and outsiders lose the ability to counteract a landlord's bias by offering a higher rent. When prices cannot adjust, personal characteristics take on a larger role in determining who gains access to scarce housing.
Rent control discourages repairs and maintenance, effects that remain invisible in the short term but accumulate as time passes. Quality declines as landlords lack incentives to fix problems in their buildings. A new coat of paint or a roof repair can be costly, and these costs cannot be recovered when rents are capped. Investment in improvements pays only when prospective tenants are able to reward those improvements through higher bids. The policy acts like a slow-moving bacterium that spreads through the market and rots housing from the inside.
The long-term answer to housing scarcity is an increase in supply. Cities need more homes, more density, and more opportunities for private builders to respond to demand. Zoning laws should be eased because they restrict alternatives for housing with no clear social benefit. Long permitting processes slow down projects that could lower rents for thousands of people. Bryan Caplan's recent book Build, Baby, Build develops the YIMBY position: building more housing is the way to make housing affordable in the long run.
Housing abundance requires investment, legal room to build, and a regulatory framework that allows supply to adapt. Affordable cities are produced through construction and the free market, not through price ceilings.
* * *
Sergio Martinez is an Editorial Associate at the Foundation for Economic Education, with a background in the public sector and experience speaking at numerous forums and seminars on economic education.
***
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/rent-control/
Foundation for Economic Education Posts Commentary: Dream of Deflation
DETROIT, Michigan, Nov. 30 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary:
* * *
A Dream of Deflation
By Chris Baecker
Washington bureaucrats can never replicate the dynamics of the market.
The most pleasant surprise in my first year teaching economics and government full-time was being asked to take on a financial literacy course, too. My friends and family have always teased me about keeping the thermostat at 78deg during Texas summers, but it looks like such prudence paid off.
Current events have helped illustrate this class, just as they have for economics
... Show Full Article
DETROIT, Michigan, Nov. 30 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary:
* * *
A Dream of Deflation
By Chris Baecker
Washington bureaucrats can never replicate the dynamics of the market.
The most pleasant surprise in my first year teaching economics and government full-time was being asked to take on a financial literacy course, too. My friends and family have always teased me about keeping the thermostat at 78deg during Texas summers, but it looks like such prudence paid off.
Current events have helped illustrate this class, just as they have for economicsand government.
The Wall Street Journal recently detailed how consumers are making "every penny count" on groceries. Some are diluting household cleaners, while others are merely dabbing their toothbrush with toothpaste.
This is largely due to the inflationary wreckage from the Covid shutdowns a few years ago. The ascendant protectionism of the last decade has added even more upward pressure to prices.
There is a cruel irony here.
Policymakers, economic experts in the media, and academia have made no secret this century of their desire for higher inflation. It stems from both a fear of Great Depression-era deflation, and a belief that a rising price level spurs production.
This is merely another example of how far this cohort has migrated from basic economics toward a central planning frame of mind, and lost touch with the average citizen along the way.
A basic supply and demand graph does indeed show that high or rising prices attract more production. Under normal circumstances, however, this is often the result of someone striking gold with a new product, not some bureaucrat in Washington, DC, flipping a switch.
For a while, such an innovator has a corner on the market, as he's the only producer of this new product. Operations likely being relatively small at the outset, he raises prices to keep from being overwhelmed by demand, with the higher price also indicating who values the product most.
This high demand should also lead him to start thinking long-term about expanding, and achieving economies of scale. That would eventually push down the consumer price. Inevitably, other enterprising entrepreneurs will see an opportunity to grab a piece of the pie.
The example I always use with students is the now-ubiquitous flat-screen TV.
When I bought my first one more than twenty years ago, it was a 42'' plasma that went for around $2,500. In Elf (2003), the character Miles Finch bragged about them. They weren't cheap.
Eventually, more competitors jumped in offering the same for less. Or, they offered more features for the same price, like high-definition or app capability (smart TVs), etc. Or both.
Voila! Now, customers can get the same thing I once paid $2,500 for, at a tenth of that price. I watched Wal-Mart employees yesterday wheeling around a 98'' that goes for $1,500more than double the TV for 60% of the price ! This virtuous cycle is the organic way in which prices drop.
Most consumers would likely welcome such deflation. Not the elite establishment though, and for a couple of reasons.
By comparison, in the inverse case, when people expect a rising price level, they tend to buy stuff as soon as they get the money, before their purchasing power drops. See Venezuela or Zimbabwe for extreme examples.
It's not illogical to assume the opposite in a state of deflation. If consumers know prices are going to go down, we'll hold off on purchases. Why buy today if it's pretty certain to cost less tomorrow?
But we're Americans: we like to buy stuff, and the sooner the better. It's practically scientifically-proven. We like to buy so many gadgets, toys, and trinkets that we have to rent storage space for our stuff.
How many cars have lost their space in the garage for exactly this reason?
And even if we do hold out, and some semblance of deflation creeps in, it would necessarily bring with it a rising value in the dollar, which would literally allow for more bang for the buck. A stout correction in that direction is long overdue.
To make that stick, however, we need leadership that stops toying with Americans and affixes a value to our currency. The last time the dollar had at least firm backing in DC, in the 1980s and 1990s, we experienced solid, steady growth with minimal interruption. The results when that's been the case (pre-1971, the 1980s and 1990s) speak for themselves.
But here we are, so hindered by higher prices that even "cheaper generics haven't seen a corresponding increase" in demand. We're where experts feared we'd be, but poorer for it.
Though consumer surplus is unlikely to be included in the relatively abbreviated econ lesson in financial literacy, I might mention it nevertheless. It would be relevant to discuss what they might do with the savings such as we've seen with flat-screens.
If they arrive at a point in life, however, where they're squeezing out savings by "using half the recommended amount" of "laundry powder," they'll already know more flat-screens aren't in the calculus.
* * *
Christopher E. Baecker teaches economics at Northwest Vista College, is the policy director and editor at InfuseSA, and is a board member for the Institute for Objective Policy Assessment.
***
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/a-dream-of-deflation/
Antitrust and Tariffs Are on a Collision Course
DETROIT, Michigan, Nov. 28 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary:
* * *
Antitrust and Tariffs Are on a Collision Course
Vertical mergers may be the solution.
By Rachel Chiu
Until the Supreme Court decides whether Trump's tariffs are constitutional, American businesses are stuck in limbo - and the best way out invites antitrust scrutiny.
During its second-quarter earnings call in August, Home Depot executives discussed the impact of tariffs on its business. The retailer sources over 50% of its products domestically, but despite limited imports, it conceded
... Show Full Article
DETROIT, Michigan, Nov. 28 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary:
* * *
Antitrust and Tariffs Are on a Collision Course
Vertical mergers may be the solution.
By Rachel Chiu
Until the Supreme Court decides whether Trump's tariffs are constitutional, American businesses are stuck in limbo - and the best way out invites antitrust scrutiny.
During its second-quarter earnings call in August, Home Depot executives discussed the impact of tariffs on its business. The retailer sources over 50% of its products domestically, but despite limited imports, it concededthat it needed to raise prices as a result of the tariffs. During this period of uncertainty, Home Depot and its subsidiary entered into an agreement to acquire building materials distributor Gypsum Management & Supply. This move consolidates their supply chain for building materials, including drywall, ceilings, and steel framing. Likewise, this summer, Walmart opened its first beef facility to create "more resiliency in [its] supply chain."
Barring Supreme Court intervention - which seems likely, though not certain after this month's oral arguments the tariffs are here to stay, making vertical mergers an attractive option for businesses seeking to tariff-proof their operations. If SCOTUS finds that Trump's tariffs are legal, these mergers could be the first of many among American businesses.
In that case, antitrust regulators pose a real risk to the economy. Antitrust regulators today are more reticent than ever before to bless acquisitions involving vertical mergers without rigorous scrutiny.
Facing tariffs that substantially raise the cost of imported goods, companies have two choices: pass the added costs downstream to consumers; or, as President Trump would prefer, modify their supply chain so that critical inputs are obtained domestically rather than from foreign firms. Supply chain modifications may still raise prices for consumers unless there is some innovation or change in efficiencies that enables companies to choose American firms to work with and also to pay less for the inputs that they once sourced from abroad.
As Home Depot and Walmart show, this innovation is often vertical integration.
Regulators once considered vertical mergers intrinsically unproblematic. In The Antitrust Paradox, Robert Bork argued that vertical mergers produce greater efficiencies between two firms, as there is no longer a cost associated with transacting after the merger has occurred. This idea is reflected in the 1984 iteration of the Justice Department's Merger Guidelines and the short-lived 2020 Vertical Merger Guidelines, which the Biden administration quickly rescinded.
However, in recent years, academics have cautioned against this traditional view, claiming that the reality is more complex, as these mergers produce a mix of pro- and anti-competitive effects that warrant more rigorous regulatory review. In 2023, the Federal Trade Commission and Justice Department modified the Merger Guidelines to reflect this skepticism. Three days prior, this new approach to vertical mergers gained judicial traction: the Fifth Circuit sided with regulators in blocking a vertical merger between biotechnology firm Illumina and its spinoff, Grail, citing concerns over incentives to foreclose critical inputs from rivals.
Regulators' new reluctance to accept vertical mergers is consistent with the broader, neo-Brandeisian movement to bolster antitrust enforcement overall. Proponents of this view believe that consolidation of power is suspect, favoring instead an anti-monopoly agenda that they purport is more democratic and socially beneficial.
The neo-Brandeisian frameworks are still in place today. In February, FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson announced that the agency would continue to follow the 2023 Merger Guidelines because they are "by and large... a restatement of prior iterations of the guidelines, and a reflection of what can be found in case law. That is good reason to retain them." Contrary to Ferguson's memorandum, the 2023 guidelines sidestepped modern precedent in favor of older standards and cases that, while never overruled, reflect a more agency-friendly, anti-bigness mentality.
The nexus between tariffs and vertical mergers underscores the stakes of potential enforcement, a threat that is very capable of undermining businesses when they are already scrambling to find solutions.
The Supreme Court might moot this question. If the justices hold that President Trump lacks the authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to issue the tariffs, then businesses will not rush to vertically integrate. But in a tariff-laden economy, other companies may be forced to follow Home Depot and Walmart's lead. Despite regulators' readiness to interfere, vertical mergers serve as an important tool to bring production back to the United States - perhaps the only tool left.
* * *
Rachel Chiu is a J.D. candidate at Yale Law School and a Young Voices contributor focused on online speech and technology policy.
***
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/antitrust-and-tariffs-are-on-a-collision-course/
Health Foundation Responds to Autumn Budget 2025
LONDON, England, Nov. 27 -- The Health Foundation posted the following statement on Nov. 26, 2025, by Director of Policy and Research Hugh Alderwick in response to the Chancellor's budget:
* * *
Health Foundation responds to Autumn Budget 2025
'Tackling NHS waiting lists was one of the Chancellor's three priorities for the Budget, but making this happen will be tough with the resources on offer. Most of the additional day-to-day funding for the NHS already announced in the Spending Review will be eaten up by rising costs, like pay growth and meeting rising demand - as well as the costs of the
... Show Full Article
LONDON, England, Nov. 27 -- The Health Foundation posted the following statement on Nov. 26, 2025, by Director of Policy and Research Hugh Alderwick in response to the Chancellor's budget:
* * *
Health Foundation responds to Autumn Budget 2025
'Tackling NHS waiting lists was one of the Chancellor's three priorities for the Budget, but making this happen will be tough with the resources on offer. Most of the additional day-to-day funding for the NHS already announced in the Spending Review will be eaten up by rising costs, like pay growth and meeting rising demand - as well as the costs of thegovernment's own NHS reorganisation. Boosting productivity will be critical to avoid a large gap between the health service people expect and the resources available to deliver it.
'The announcement of pound sterling300m investment for digital infrastructure is welcome and could help the NHS improve productivity. But the NHS's maintenance backlog - including urgent repairs to avoid injury - currently stands at pound sterling15.9bn and growth in capital spending is still constrained after years of underinvestment that put us behind health systems in comparable countries.
'Rising costs will also eat into an already over-stretched social care budget. The decision to boost the National Living Wage is welcome and will benefit the many low paid care workers delivering vital care and support, but it will also add to their employers' costs, with no additional government funding to cover it. We estimate that meeting demand for care, covering rising costs, improving access to services and boosting care workers' pay could cost an extra pound sterling8.7bn in 2028/29. Meantime, the government's plan for delivering the national care service it promised voters is still pending. The government needs to use the Casey review as a route to delivering meaningful reform to social care in England - not delaying it.
'The government is right to scrap the two-child benefit limit. The UK's poor performance on several measures of children's health is linked to our high levels of child poverty and deep inequalities. Removing the two-child limit is a cost-effective way to tackle child poverty quickly, but now needs to be backed up by a broader range of measures to tackle the root causes of poverty in the government's long-awaited child poverty strategy - including measures to ease the cost of essentials and long-term investment in early years provision.
'The government's plans to extend the Soft Drinks Industry Levy to include milk-based and milk-substitute drinks are welcome, given these products are often marketed to children as healthy alternatives yet are contributing to increasing the UK's already high obesity levels. But - again - a far more ambitious strategy from government is needed, including measures to improve the overall quality of food, lower the cost of a healthy diet and address the underlying social and economic conditions that shape people's ability to live a healthy life.
'Standing back, over a year into the new government, Labour's 'health mission' has still not materialised. Some measures announced today will have a positive impact on health and inequalities. But the Budget continues the trend of the government announcing a patchwork of policies in the absence of a coherent long-term strategy for improving the nation's health.'
* * *
About the Health Foundation
The Health Foundation is an independent charitable organisation working to build a healthier UK.
www.health.org.uk
* * *
Original text here: https://www.health.org.uk/press-office/press-releases/health-foundation-responds-to-autumn-budget-2025
Alberta and Ottawa's fossil fuel fantasy sacrifices environment
VANCOUVER, British Columbia, Nov. 27 -- The David Suzuki Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
Alberta and Ottawa's fossil fuel fantasy sacrifices environment
*
Strong environmental regulations are in Canada's national interest, yet the federal government and Alberta plan to unravel nine protections in historic setback for climate policy
VANCOUVER UNCEDED MUSQUEAM, SQUAMISH AND TSLEIL-WAUTUTH TERRITORIES
Prime Minister Mark Carney and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith dealt a devastating blow to climate and nature by signing a memorandum of understanding for a new Alberta-to-British
... Show Full Article
VANCOUVER, British Columbia, Nov. 27 -- The David Suzuki Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
Alberta and Ottawa's fossil fuel fantasy sacrifices environment
*
Strong environmental regulations are in Canada's national interest, yet the federal government and Alberta plan to unravel nine protections in historic setback for climate policy
VANCOUVER UNCEDED MUSQUEAM, SQUAMISH AND TSLEIL-WAUTUTH TERRITORIES
Prime Minister Mark Carney and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith dealt a devastating blow to climate and nature by signing a memorandum of understanding for a new Alberta-to-BritishColumbia bitumen pipeline while scrapping environmental policies. The David Suzuki Foundation vehemently opposes this proposed pipeline and calls on the federal government to stand firm on environmental standards and advance Canada's clean energy transition.
"Planning to build a new pipeline in 2025 is fundamentally irreconcilable with the International Court of Justice's opinion affirming states' duties to prevent further climate harm," said David Suzuki Foundation climate director Sabaa Khan. "The federal government can't claim to respect its climate commitments under international law while underwriting fossil fuel expansion that locks Canada into decades of avoidable emissions. This is not only a moral and legal contradiction; it is a massive financial risk."
The Foundation denounces the prime minister's misleading comment that this pipeline represents an "energy transition" when it aims to scrap hard-fought environmental protections. "The notion that Canada can meaningfully shift toward sustainability while doubling down on fossil fuel infrastructure is simply unrealistic," Khan said. "A true energy transition can't be built on expanded oil pipelines, liquefied natural gas exports or increased fossil fuel production even with unproven 'carbon capture' tacked on."
Every dollar invested in new oil and gas infrastructure today is a future stranded asset tomorrow, and a pollution legacy that Canadians will be forced to clean up long after profits have left the country. "Burning fossil fuels is the main cause of climate change. Canadians deserve a government that protects them from climate and liability risks, not one that sacrifices environmental standards to prop up a declining, high-pollution industry. This pipeline is legally indefensible," Khan said.
Indigenous communities are most at risk from climate change because of their close ties to the natural environment, the injustices and burdens of colonialism, and the effects of industrial resource extraction. "This proposed pipeline is a massive economic and health threat that takes us further away from true reconciliation," Khan said.
"B.C.'s north coast is rugged, wild and priceless. Home to iconic species and sensitive ecosystems, its waters are famous for fierce storms and treacherous passages," said Erin Roger, nature director at the David Suzuki Foundation. "A new pipeline will destroy habitats, displace species and increase the risk of oil spills, which would be catastrophic for the region. Weakening the tanker ban with 'appropriate adjustments' for increased tanker traffic defeats the purpose of the ban. We need our political leaders to focus on projects that protect and restore natural spaces not roll back environmental safeguards."
The Foundation argues that Canada should be using this political moment to focus on real nation-building projects.
"More than wasting precious time and money on a pipeline that will never be built, this MOU is also a death blow to Canada's clean electricity regulations, adding to the abandonment of climate action from this federal government," said Stephen Thomas, clean energy manager at the David Suzuki Foundation. "Low-cost renewable energy and a strengthened east-west grid are among the strongest opportunities we have to save Canadians money on their energy bills, create good jobs and position Canada for the future. Our federal government needs to get out of its own way and start building the future we know is possible."
- 30 -
For more information or interviews, please contact:
Rosie Rattray, rrattray@davidsuzuki.org, 416.570.3728
***
Original text here: https://davidsuzuki.org/press/alberta-and-ottawas-fossil-fuel-fantasy-sacrifices-environment/
WLF Asks Supreme Court to Review Decision Diluting Fifth Amendment Protection for Water Rights
WASHINGTON, Nov. 26 [Category: Law/Legal] -- The Washington Legal Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
WLF Asks Supreme Court to Review Decision Diluting Fifth Amendment Protection for Water Rights
*
(Washington, DC)Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) today asked the United States Supreme Court to review, and ultimately to reverse, a lower court's decision that the federal government's forced reallocation of water does not constitute a physical taking under the Fifth Amendment.
The case arises from an effort by the United States to take, without paying for it, 49,800 acre-feet
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, Nov. 26 [Category: Law/Legal] -- The Washington Legal Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
WLF Asks Supreme Court to Review Decision Diluting Fifth Amendment Protection for Water Rights
*
(Washington, DC)Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) today asked the United States Supreme Court to review, and ultimately to reverse, a lower court's decision that the federal government's forced reallocation of water does not constitute a physical taking under the Fifth Amendment.
The case arises from an effort by the United States to take, without paying for it, 49,800 acre-feetof Santa Clara River water owned by the United Water Conservation District. The Fifth Amendment requires the federal government to pay "just compensation" whenever it takes another's property for "public use." But the Federal Circuit held that the United States's redirection of the Conservation District's water was a "regulatory" takingwhich means, in practice, that the federal government will get the water for free.
WLF's brief explains why that's wrong. Had the federal government tried this gambit with land, or even the "enveloping atmosphere" over real estate, it would have been considered a physical taking, and the United States would have had to pay. There's no legitimate reason to treat water as a second-class property right. As the brief says, "Since the 'Constitution protects rather than creates property interests,' deprivations of water shouldn't be treated any differently than deprivations of land."
***
Original text here: https://www.wlf.org/2025/11/26/communicating/wlf-asks-supreme-court-to-review-decision-diluting-fifth-amendment-protection-for-water-rights/
San Diego Foundation Raises $32.3 Million for Unity Fund to Help Keep San Diegans Fed, Housed & Healthy
SAN DIEGO, California, Nov. 26 -- The San Diego Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
San Diego Foundation Raises $32.3 Million for Unity Fund to Help Keep San Diegans Fed, Housed & Healthy
*
November 26, 2025 - San Diego, CA - San Diego Foundation (SDF) today announced it has raised $32.3 million for the San Diego Unity Fund, and awarded more than $960,000, including this week's awards of $710,000 in Unity Fund emergency housing grants to five local nonprofits working to keep seniors and families housed. The rapid-response funding comes as federal cuts and rising costs put more
... Show Full Article
SAN DIEGO, California, Nov. 26 -- The San Diego Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
San Diego Foundation Raises $32.3 Million for Unity Fund to Help Keep San Diegans Fed, Housed & Healthy
*
November 26, 2025 - San Diego, CA - San Diego Foundation (SDF) today announced it has raised $32.3 million for the San Diego Unity Fund, and awarded more than $960,000, including this week's awards of $710,000 in Unity Fund emergency housing grants to five local nonprofits working to keep seniors and families housed. The rapid-response funding comes as federal cuts and rising costs put moreresidents at risk of losing their homes.
Created in response to federal funding reductions in food, housing and healthcare programs, the San Diego Unity Fund is San Diego Foundation's rapid response fund for local nonprofits. To date, the Fund has raised more than $300,000 from cash and online donations, $12 million from the San Diego County Partnership to Protect San Diegans, and $20 million from San Diego Foundation, including more than $700,000 from SDF fundholders, including the Peacemakers Fund, Linda F. Hervey, Paul Eichen and Susan Flieder, The Colwell Family Fund, and the Eugene M. and Joan F. Foster Family Charitable Fund. Individuals, families, businesses and organizations can donate and find additional information about San Diego Unity Fund at SDFoundation.org/Unity.
Federal reductions in housing and homelessness programs, along with proposed national rule changes that could shift resources away from long-term housing support, are adding new strain on local families. In San Diego, many households using housing vouchers may face significant rent increases in the next few months, creating additional pressure on seniors and working families already struggling to keep up with rising costs. These shifts are leaving more residents vulnerable to displacement, making rapid local support essential.
"Many more seniors and families are now one unexpected bill away from falling behind on their housing," said Mark Stuart, President and CEO of San Diego Foundation. "As federal support is reduced, local nonprofits are being asked to do more with less, and our community is stepping up. Thanks to generous Unity Fund donors, we can move quickly so a missed paycheck or surprise medical expense does not turn into an eviction or a night sleeping in a car."
Grant funding from San Diego Unity Fund will be rolling and focus on food security, housing stability and healthcare. This round of awards will go to the following nonprofits:
* ElderHelp ($250,000): Help keep seniors safe in their homes and provide nutrition, transportation and care coordination services.
* Urban League of San Diego County ($350,000): Support families who are at imminent risk of homelessness by providing emergency payment directly to landlords.
* Partnership for the Advancement of New Americans (PANA) ( $50,000): Keep families housed with emergency rent assistance, and to provide food and case management.
* San Diego Rescue Mission ( $60,000): Provide emergency shelter, nutritious meals and trauma-informed care to individual and families experiencing homelessness.
"Safe, stable housing is not a luxuryit's a fundamental need that enables seniors to maintain their dignity and connection to their communities," said Deborah Martin CEO and Executive Director of ElderHelp. "This grant from San Diego Foundation's Unity Fund will allow ElderHelp to continue providing comprehensive support that helps older adults age in place with safety and independence. With this funding, more seniors can remain in the homes and communities they lovea critical factor in reducing hospitalizations, preventing falls, and promoting overall health and longevity."
"We are deeply grateful to the San Diego Foundation for this critical support," said Al Abdallah, President and CEO of the Urban League of San Diego County. "This grant allows us to provide direct assistance to individuals and families at real risk of housing displacement. By helping cover mortgage and rental payments, we are not only stabilizing households, but we are also preserving dignity, safety and opportunity for our community members. Together, we are ensuring that more San Diegans can remain housed and hopeful."
In addition to standing up the San Diego Unity Fund, San Diego Foundation joined United for San Diego an unprecedented partnership among three of San Diego's largest foundations: Prebys Foundation, Price Philanthropies, San Diego Foundation, and the Price Family. Formed in response to deep federal funding cuts, the partners are working together to protect access to food, housing, and healthcare for families in need.
San Diego Foundation created the Unity Fund to give everyone the opportunity to contribute directly to this vital community effort. Individuals, families, businesses and organizations can donate and find additional information about San Diego Unity Fund at SDFoundation.org/Unity.
About San Diego Foundation
San Diego Foundation believes in just, equitable and resilient communities where every San Diegan can prosper, thrive and feel like they belong. We partner with donors, nonprofits and regional leaders to co-create solutions that respond to community needs and strengthen San Diego. Since our founding in 1975, our community foundation has granted $1.8 billion to nonprofits to improve quality of life in San Diego County and beyond. Join us in commemorating 50 years of impact and looking toward the next 50 by learning more at SDFoundation.org.
***
Original text here: https://www.sdfoundation.org/news-events/sdf-news/san-diego-foundation-raises-32-3-million-for-unity-fund-to-help-keep-san-diegans-fed-housed-healthy/
