The Chateau Diaries Truth Revealed
Here are some welcomes beautiful written by our own Rory in previous threads, and they say it so well:
“Welcome all new comers. May I just stress this discussion thread is a critique of La La Lande, with some objectivity. If you are a super fan of all things La La you may not enjoy this thread/discussion. It is respectful of different views, more like a dinner party debate, and very funny. Encourage you to read threads form the beginning.” (thread 9)
“To the newer posters – welcome, I have read sadness and anger in recent posts. We have all been there! On an earlier thread we discussed our own experiences. I was bidding on an auction for a beautiful set of poetry books, covered in blue fabrics for the peacock room at La La. For Stephanie. Not myself or what was needed in my own home. I wanted to be a part of that community. Many of us on this thread had a moment when it was longer fun – mine was as a Patreon being attacked for what I thought was a harmless, polite, constructive suggestion. How can one align to a community where you are attacked? Is not constructive feedback from people who care a gift?
So do not feel embarrassed. Do not feel naïve. Do not be angry. Continue to enjoy the CD vlogs with your eyes open, and perhaps, your wallet closed. “ (thread 82)
We highly recommend reading old threads. We realized there are loads of them, so a good way to get started is to read the “most liked posts” from each thread. The button under the title will lead you to all the Chateau Diary threads. The “most liked posts” button is on the menu on the right side of the top of the thread. Read a few pages of each.
Also please use the Search button and look for the answer to your questions before posting them, as many of the questions that come up have already been discussed at length, so catch up on that topic before bringing it up again. By all means, if you have something new to add to the topic we want to hear it!
WikiMedia for The Chateau Diaries / CD Wiki Page #2
Table of Contents for WikiMedia (link below)
* Selmar’s video on being bullied by Nati while at Lalande
* Patron Videos
* Success Stories – Interviews with Lalande Characters
* YouTubers speak out about Stephanie Jarvis
* Chateau Floor Plans
* Photos of Jarvis Properties
* Stephanie’s Childhood
* Photos of Mummy on Tattle Life
* Crotchgate in South Africa
* CNN Article on Stephanie
* Story about the Yellow Dress from Villioti
* Tattler Art Work
* Photo Gallery
The Chateau Diaries #2 | Tattle Life
on Wiki page #2
#StephanieJarvis of #TheChateauDiaries YouTube, Chateau de LaLande, and Chateau Unwrapped
Who was Stephanie Jarvis married to?
Stephanie Jarivs married some unlucky guy named Gregory Francis Mannion Clark when she was approximately 24 years old. The marriage lasted about 18 months, but they didn’t divorce for about 10 years. Stephanie Jarvis has been married to her ego since she was 14.
How much did Stephanie Jarvis pay for her chateau?
Stephanie Jarvis didn’t have any money to spend on Lalande, a farmhouse in France. But her father, Derek jarvis, and her ex-boyfriend, Nic Larkin, gave her the money to purchase Chateau de LaLande. It was approximately 890,000 Euros (590,000 pounds) In October 2005 (far too much!)
How old is Stephanie escape to the chateau?
Stephanie Elise Jarvis (b. 18th Aug. 1975) is 46 human years old. However, according to her gardener, Dan, she’s actually 50 years old. Her maturity level, on the other hand, is somewhere between an advanced toddler to a hormonal teenager.
What is the age difference between Stephanie Jarvis and Phillip?
Philip Janssen was born in September 1996, Stephanie Jarvis in August 1975.
Who is Stephanie Jarvis mother?
Stephanie Jarvis mother is Isabelle (Biggio) Jarvis aka Mummykins aka mini apron aka witchlet. After Derek Jarvis died, mummy married Percy Attfield, a rich old ex-tech entrepreneur from South Africa.
What did Stephanie Jarvis do for a living?
In most respects, Stephanie Jarvis, is a professional boondoggler. Other than that she is a successful globe-trotting, jet-setting YouTuber that funds her lavish lifestyle and renovations of her chateau by grifting donations from pensioners, shut-ins, and assorted sad-sacks.
Who is the Scottish man in escape to the chateau?
Gerry Grady aka Scottman, Stephanie Jarvis’ “brother”. He owns a tax business in Framlingham, UK when he isn’t visiting his darling baby sister at Chateau de la Lande in France.
Who is the lady in the chateau diaries?
Who is Stephanie Jarvis?
Stephanie Jarvis has appeared on Escape to the Chateau’s DIY TV show & YouTube, The Chateau Diaries. Using Patreon, she has raised over $500,000 dollars to renovate Chateau LaLande, her 16-century Chateau in France yet has not completed any significant work with the enormous sum of money. She can currently be found traveling to Venice’s Carnival, Florence, Barbados, New York, London, & Safari in South Africa with her young boyfriend.
Is Philip Janssen married?
Phillip Janssen is not married. The 25-year-old Philip (nicknamed Snorts) is currently dating 46-year-old Chatelaine Stephanie Jarvis of The Chateau Diaries YouTube Channel since Fall 2020. They reside in France at Chateau de LaLande and host a gift Youtube channel, Chateau Unwrapped, featuring over 2,000 gifts per year.
Does Stephanie Jarvis have a partner?
Stephanie Jarvis’ current boyfriend is Philip Janssen.
Where is Selmar?
Selmar Duin is in England living with his girlfriend Tatyanna.
Who is Tatiana on Chateau?
Tatyanna is Selmar’s girlfriend. They met online in 2021.
Who is David on chateau diaries?
Currently there is a David that is an employee at Chateau de LaLande, who help Mary Popin with cleaning. Earlier in Stephanie Jarvis’ The Chateau Diaries channel on YouTube there is a David that came several times as a volunteer and wore biking shorts.
Traits of a Narcissist
- Inflated sense of importance.
- The deep need for excessive attention and admiration.
- Perpetually troubled relationships.
- Grandiose sense of self-importance.
- Preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love.
- The belief they are special and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people or institutions.
- Sense of entitlement.
- Interpersonally exploitative behavior.
- Lack of empathy.
- Envy of others or a belief that others are envious of them.
- Demonstration of arrogant and haughty behaviors or attitudes.
- Future faking: promising a future that the manipulator has no intention of acting towards, making promises that they wont keep. Instead, they distort reality to get what they want from you now. In the hands of a skilled manipulator, future faking preys on your dreams and goals in order to fabulate a possible future so that they can string you along in the now. These promises are destined to be broken, and can be seen as a form of overpromising and underdelivering.
Stephanie Jarvis Narcissist Pattern of Treating People
Thread 119 Page 21
She did what is called “future faking” when she called a shed on the property “Selmar’s workshop” and didn’t correct him when he stated that he still saw himself at La Lande in 10 years. Selmar physically over exerted himself cutting and transporting the stone tiles in the downstairs loo in an effort to please Fanny but she didn’t care. He took Ruby to the vet when he was injured and took care of the animals since Fanny didn’t give a crap about them. Fanny didn’t give a shit.
Then, as others arrived at the Shitto, and Phillip and Anne Marie came, the takedown of Selmar started in earnest. Delays in the downstairs loo were blamed on him, Fanny started complaining about where he was parking his van (remember when Selmar was parked in the wooded area and Fanny refused to either cut down trees for him or did something to make him move his van next to the shitoo.)
Selmar started to slow down the work he was doing and Fanny used that to make him look bad. Anne Marie got a large room in which to create his workshop, and Selmar’s workshop went back to being called the woodshed. Selmar celebrated his birthday alone in the kitchen. When Selmar made contact with Tatyiana (sp? (unfortunately another narc), Fanny pretended to be concerned that Selmar was being catfishes but then acted happy and facilitated the video leaving the shitoo with no way of returning. She avidly encouraged the crazy idea about the fundraising. Also, Fanny evidently agreed to have Tatyiana at the Shitoo and then Nutty wouldn’t allow Tatiana to stay for one week until Fanny got back from a vacation.
Everything Fanny was doing was to make Selmar uncomfortable enough to leave and end the relationship without having to be directly accountable for her actions. That way, she doesn’t have to be the “bad guy” and tell him to leave. It is a very covert and passive aggressive way she uses to get rid of people when they are no longer useful to her and have become a burden.
Then she will have her current crew of “flying monkey”, e.g., Anne Marie, Nutty, Phillp, etc. to come and protect her and back her up in her actions.
There are no truly good times at the shitoo for anyone except Fanny. Everyone else is on borrowed time until their usefulness is us, and Fanny sends you on your way.
She did the same to Marie. Marie was her “best friend” until after the lockdown and Fanny’s you tube channel took off. They would eat dinner together in bed, watch movies, etc. Then Phillip arrived, Marie was replaced, Marie was charged rent for her flower killer workshop area and rent. Fanny made Marie do all the cooking non stop. Marie was pushed out when she go tired of cooking and cleaning nonstop and Phillip replaced her.
Watch for this pattern of behavior by Fanny over and over again. She is currently doing it to Ian. Anne Marie will be her flying monkey to put down Ian’s work and make sure he will not return to the shitoo. Ian went out of his way to help Fanny, gave her low rates, found the pews for the chapel, allowed her to film him nonstop, etc.
Fanny has also used Gerald for years as her flying monkey to get her out of situations, etc.
Dan needs to watch his back for he could easily come under the line of fire. Fanny screwed him by showing the pantry renovations on her channel without Dan being there. She is increasing her dismissive comments towards him. He thinks he is indispensable, as all of her previous victims did, but everyone is replaceable to a narc like Fanny.
Be careful Dan.
Stephanie Jarvis has received $116,854.00 minimum on Chateau Unwrapped
Given an 8 month backlog of gifts and 2 filmed gift grabs monthly, she had 16 grab sessions to be filmed, with an average minimum value of $1180 would equal an additional $18, 880 in gifts waiting to be opened.
This brings the bare minimun of gifts just opened and waiting to be opened on camera to $116,854.00. This amount doesn’t include foods, handcrafted items, expensive antiques, etc or the value of gifts never accounted for and shown onscreen or received by Patreon guests at the B and B. IThe Amount is probably much, much greater than this.
113.4 KBViews: 0
Chateau de Lalande
HMN – heap in the middle of nowhere
SJ’s London Flat
Flat 34B – bolt hole SJ
Stephanie Elisa Jarvis (b. 18th Aug. 1975)
LOTL/LOTLL – Lady of the (Lost) Lake
SSB- She Who Shouts from the balcony
QBC- Queen of bed chambers
MB – Madame Boneyparts
SJ – Stephanie Jarvis
Fanny – Stephanie Jarvis
PSDFHB – princess shouting down from her balcony
PRSDBP – princess in her robe shouting down from her balcony at the peasants
Isabelle Jarvis (nee Biggio, b. 17th July 1941)
MMAF – Mad Man’s Arse Face
Mini Apron –
married 1962/3 to Derek Jarvis, widowed 2009
married to Percy Atfield year.
Michael Potts (b. 27th July 1977. Stephanie’s ex boyfriend of 10 years, a co-owner of LaLande.)
Ruth Kelly (b. 1981) MPotts current squeeze
Natalia Oliveto (b.1981)
Amaury Alastair Richmond (b. Jun 1987)(SJs cousin)
Dan Preston (SJ’s head gardener, handyman, and sometimes chef)
DTM – Dan The Man
Marie Wiik (b.1991)
Floral Roadkill (FRK / RK)
Cave – FRK workshop in UK
Philip Janssen (b. 1996) SJ’s current boyfriend
BJJ – Baby Jesus Jeans
PP (Nostril of Lalande)
UH – Uriah Heep
Dutch Boyfriend (DB)
@Marquis de Potpourri
@Jikki2 is the coiner of the verb philipicate,
I hereby proclaim that the noun for philipicate is philipicunt,
you know like officiate/officiant.
Chantal Richmond (b. Dec 1954) SJ’s aunt, IJ’s sister
Stephen Richmond (b. Mar 1957) Chantal’s husband, SJ’s uncle
Chateau de La Basmaignée aka Begmania
Home of the Pethrick clan
Michael Petherick (b.1986)
MOLD: Man Of Lost Design (“Angel Strawbridge stole my wallpaper design”)
Crybaby (for example, “I’m broke…send me money!” or “Angel stole my design”)
Sir Trotter BDSM
Picasso Potter (@bubbleworld)
Billy Petherick (b.1988) partner Gwendoline Mouchel
Billy the Deserter
According to a Dec 17, 2021 article in the UK Daily Mail, Billy Petherick was AWOL from military from
July 2009 – Sept 2021. Billy was caught, returned to UK, and was charged with AWOL. He managed to dodge any jail time.
Link to article:
Trotter, Petherdick – any Petherick family reference
Sherrie Petherick (b. 1962)
Mick Pethrick (b. 1944)
Pa Trotter – Mr Petherick Esq
PILF: The only Petherick I’d like to be filmed with – Pa ‘Mick’ Trotter
Elias Truedsson – one of MPethrick’s cameramen
Master – Swedish director of
Brenda Gibbons – (superfan/Facebook admin) from Donegal Ireland
Karen Cbomb – other superfan/admin, Canada
Jill Scott, New Zealand – – rabid serial deletor of unfan comments on premier chat
Donegals – Limericks (renamed in honour of Dear Brenda)
Agents – Tattlers who find out juicy background info
Chat O (or variations) – Chateau (how Brenda says it)
“BuyMeACoffee” – give me money (no, really, give me money, I really need it)
MBNS;GF – more boring narc stuff; gimme facts
Wet Blanket – Fun hoover
Mickey Dodger – Woman who avoids sexual encounters
BasMinger: Château de Basmaignée/aka Trotter Towers, the spin off Vlogs of the Trotters. @Jeeves
Begmania: château de Basmaignée @Le Comte de Monte Cristo
Cadge: Cadeaux at the Châteaux’ channel @Definitely Maybe
Dadification: The attribution of Derek’s nature or characteristics at each and every opportunity. @Jeeves
(a) Derek, to be a Derek: someone who is obsessed with boobs @Gibson
(a) Fouquet: as in to pull a Fouquet. The act of using public funds to finance once lavish lifestyle, in honour of the Great Nicolas Fouquet, Louis the XIV’s finance minister and builder of celebrated Château of Vaux-le-Vicomte (the most ostentatious Château of its time, pre-dating the Versailles renovations) who finished his life in jail being accused by the King of mismanagement of funds. @justcommonsense
GAG: Grab a Gift @Mrs O
Gustavo: male prostitute with expensive tastes @Hercule P
High Priestess Skankadankadingdong: SJ’s name @lalablahblah
Madrid syndrome: Named for Michael Petherick; stricto sensu, long journey to have some bedroom activities in a very expensive hotel in the middle of a pandemy
Flexible version, long journey to have some bedroom activities in a very expensive place @Hercule P
Petherfending: defending Petherick @Joy no toile
@Marquis de Potpourri when BJJ.
a) . annoying shares an opinion behind the camera,
b) . makes things and ideas more confusing;
c) . pretends to be an expert on something.
parwhobble’ (19th-century English dialect): to dominate a conversation by talking continuously, without listening to a word from anyone else.
‘snollygoster’ (19th century): an individual guided by personal gain rather than by principles.
‘ingordigiousness’: extreme greed; an insatiable desire for wealth at any cost.
Selmarize – to devalue and degrade someone who’s outlived their usefulness to the narcissist (Stephanie Jarvis) in preparation for tossing them aside.
Selmobile: Selmar’s camper-van vehicle of love and adventure @Princess and the Pea or @Gibson .
Spored: bored with Spode, I am so spored right now, or Diesel is spored; he wants his old dog dish back. @ProfessorPlum
Stephanese: What would be your definition? @mummydearest
Stephfending: when I actually do feel the need to defend SJ. @Milre
Stephiphany: a sudden awareness of the chance to swindle @ProfessorPlum
Trolliosis: a debilitating condition caused by Tattlers asking questions or making observations relating to grifting @lalablahblah
To Versailles: to behave like Marie-Antoinette (Sofia Coppola’s dancing, dressing-up, gambling, romanticising nature version of Marie-Antoinette) As in They Versailled again all night yesterday! @justcommonsense
To Versailles up: to make Versailles-inspired design choices that, depending on taste and budget, may result in a nouveau-riche or tat-like look. As in They Versailled up the entrance, it looks [insert preferred adjective]! @justcommonsense
Companies & Charity Associations Owned by Stephanie Jarvis
Films and audio production company : only 1 director (Steph).
CHATEAU DE LALANDE (CROZON-SUR-VAUVRE) dirigeants sur SOCIETE.COM – 893407114
CHATEAU DE LALANDE à CROZON-SUR-VAUVRE (36140) dirigeants, mandataires sociaux, commissairess aux comptes
BnB company : 1 name (Steph)
MADAME STEPHANIE JARVIS (CROZON-SUR-VAUVRE) Chiffre d’affaires, résultat, bilans sur SOCIETE.COM – 801982604
MADAME STEPHANIE JARVIS à CROZON-SUR-VAUVRE (36140) RCS, SIREN, SIRET, bilans, statuts, chiffre d’affaires, dirigeants, cartographie, alertes, annonces légales, enquêtes, APE, NAF, TVA intracommunautaire
Charity Association (Association 1901) : No name
Résultats de recherche | Associations | journal-officiel.gouv.fr
Exemple de page : Asso – résultat de recherche
How much does Stephanie Jarvis make on YouTube?
Jan 6, 2022
#838 Thread 103
“GAG channel made €23K with about 3.8M views. Extrapolating those numbers, Stefanny’s personal YouTube income from 2021 was €167K.
Eat dust, peasants.”
How Stephanie Jarvis pays her employees in her own words
Thanks to KikiGee for the find! https://tattle.life/threads/the-chateau-diaries-108-crazy-strange-eyes-wide-shut-in-the-middle-of-nowhere.26514/page-13#post-8060150
From comments on “Clearing the Chateau Attic” January 20, 2022
Stephanie Jarvis – The million pound heiress
how much did La Lande cost
2005 October – bought la Lande for 890,000 Euros (590,000 pounds) with Nick Larkin. They each sold a 2 bedroom London flat, and together had 590,000 pounds to spend). It should be noted that the only way a 29 year old would have a 245,000 London flat to sell was because her parents bought it for her.
At the same time she & Nick bought la Lande her parents sold a 7 bedroom house in England & they bought a 1 bedroom house They decided to give her her inheritance while they were still alive. She used this money in 2 ways 1) to get a new flat in London (her BnB in Angel, Islington) (??Price maybe another 300,000))) 2) the rest on renovations at the Chateau. She tells us the renos cost over 300,000 pounds,
2006 started renos after living in la Lande for a year
2009 Daddy passes away (more inheritance? Or did it all go to Mummy for now?)
2019 they had the chateau revalued when Michael Potts wanted to buy in. It was valued at 890,000 Euros, exactly what they paid for it in 2005
Her 2 bed flat in Cloudesly Place, Islington is probably worth approximately 700,000 pounds today.
Still to inherit from Mummy, house in Framlingham, apartment in southern France, Beach house in Southbroom, South Africa.
1st London flat 245,000 pounds
2nd London flat 300,000 pounds (guess, now valued about 700,000)
money for reno 300,000 pounds – initial renovations from 2006-2009, all decor work happened after this, but she doesn’t say where she got the money from for this.
that’s 845,000 pounds in just real-estate and renos
This doesn’t count any money they have given her just for living expenses in life, trips places, inheritance after daddy passed.
So she’s easily already inherited over a million pounds and still has mummy’s properties and cash etc to inherit.
Information found in this vlog, as told by Stephanie herself.
Also to be noted, Stephanie, of her own admission, says she had no career and lived a laid back life for over 40 years, one the complete opposite of her parents who had a hard work ethic. She describes her self as being so laid back it was to the point of inactivity, and that she had a rest for 40 years. This can be found in her interview with Marie on Success Stories.
Becoming A Full Time Youtuber & Finding Your Motivation With Stephanie Jarvis – YouTube
It’s NOT a lake, it’s a POND, Stephanie Jarvis!!
Properties own by Isabelle Jarvis & Stephanie Jarvis
1) Isabelle’s house in Suffolk (photos The Chateau Diaries #2 | Tattle Life)
3) Stephanie’s 50% ownership of Chateau de la Lande
4) Isabelle’s flat in the south of France in Agde, close to Bézier
“The house of her grandmother is in Bézier and since her passing probably now shared with the rest of Isabel’s siblings, but that’s my guess, no real knowledge. Isabel however also owns an apartment in Agde, close to Bézier, that they usually rent out through an agent. She and Percy would go there when her mother was still alive to spend some private days. No clue if they still hang onto it. SJ would pretend to have ‘forgotten’ all about this property, find keys in her desk and then make a casual remark about ‘her apartment at the Mediterranean’.” per Clara on thread 12
The Chateau Diaries #12 Carry on grifting | Page 2 | Tattle Life
5) Isabelle’s beach house in Southbroom, South Africa (photos The Chateau Diaries #2 | Tattle Life)
Stephanie Jarvis’ Main Squeeze Glossary
1. Gregory Francis Mannion Clark – Husband and boyfriend, on and off at uni. SJ approx 18
2. Nic Larkin – apparently just friends at uni (but also dated according to CB?)
3. Married Husband 23-24 (wedding registered in July 1999, she was 23 at the time) marriage lasted for 18 months.
4. Michael Potts met through Oliver Strong on and off 10 years. Open relationship in the end. Buys Chateau 2005 during relationship age 29.
5. Edmond Fokker van Craayenstein (player in tight trousers who pretends to be an aristocrat-BF with guy who said “let the 80 years-olds die off”)
6. Mason Dwinell on and off (last we heard he is still staring at the sun?)
7. Ludwig Norweigner (otherwise known as Nordic Weirdo, alcoholic friend unceremoniously dumped at the train station without a ticket)
8. James Jardine (turned out to be “too much” for the girl who never has enough)
9. Daniel Hengeveld (nicknamed Druggy Daniel, because of his not so secret habits. IJ was furious about that romance and the fact that he introduced narcotics into the shat-o. Christmas 2016)
10. Various volunteers ad nauseum (bread oven guy Walton, Christian We etc.)
11. BJJ (any port in a storm, eh Stephanie?)
Jarvis Dates and Timeline
* Isabelle Jarvis (nee Biggio) b. 17th July 1941)
* Derek Charles Jarvis b. 23rd February 1940 d. 2009
**Isabelle & Derek married 1962/3
* Gerry Grady b. March 1960
* Stephanie b. 18th Aug. 1975
* Percy Attfield b. May 4, 1942, Percy’s wife, Rina, passed away Sept 10, 2013 in her sleep, she had not been ill, it was very unexpected.
***Isabelle married Percy Attfield July 2019, they met approx 2014
Isabelle & Percy’s meeting and wedding
OUR IDYLLIC CHATEAU WEDDING! – YouTube
Mummy explained how she and Percy met, wedding plans, and pictures.
Derek Charles Jarvis Obituary
How Gerry Grady joined the Jarvis Family
First wife was Rina. She passed away in her sleep September 10, 2013
Percy and Rina Attfield (stunthanger.com)
Derrick Attfield (partner Phillipa Minnar, they have 3 children, 2 sons and daughter, their eldest son is old enough to be married, daughter is a teen, and youngest son is about 11) Derrick lives in South Africa and he is a doctor.
Andre Attfield (married to Claudia Attfieldl – Fuchs, they have 2 teenage daughters). Andre is a doctor (general surgeon) in South Africa
Richard Attfield (married to Bev Attfield). Richard is an engineer in Vancouver, BC
Percy wanted to be a pilot but was too short. He became and accounting clerk in a government department. It was just the beginning of computers and when the department got their first computers they asked if anyone was interested in learning about them and working on them and Percy said he was interested. Percy spent 72 years working in computers. In 1979 he and 3 friends started a company in the computer field. 10 years later the company had grown to 400 people. The company worked all over the world. Percy also spent time in Australia, England, Netherlands and to America for 7 years.
Renovations . restoration
Dated : 19-11-2020
Incomplete at this date
Today at 4:34 AM
Just doing a La La stocktake, stimulated by some fans’ comments and also comments on the zero gain in property value. Also hope some of the frenzied fans read this as a courtesy reminder of the current inhabitable status of the farmhouse.
1. THE BASICS – infrastructure to be habitable
1.1 Working heating – replacement units
and new/expanded units needed
– gathered funds for this purpose from patron – seems egar to do facade first- claims will be done in winter 2024
1.2 Water pressure? (toilet not flushing)
1.3 Hot water?
1.4 Windows – rotted, repainting throughout
1.5 Damp/mould problems especially
1.6 Ceiling fix for recent leaks back
corridor and kitchen
1.7 Facade falling down – Claims t have sent planning permission to council to move some windows to match the old pre fire façade – allegedly sent in in late spring – waiting updates
1.8 Shutters at risk of falling down, some
need replacement – currently have old shutters in attic of doom
1.9 No roof contingency savings plan
1.10 Mouse infestation in kitchen. Bats and
Owls have to be tolerated due to
1.11 External stairs to gites, fire stairs
2. WORKING AREAS (ie contribute to earning money) – practicalities for community living & BnB, Gites
2.1 Kitchen – working stove, suitable bench
tops for food prep and storage (height and
surface). SJ desired a new fridge and
2.2 Downstairs Loo ( completed)
2.3 Gites –
a) Natti’s needs completion ( waiting on the return of Ian- who seems to have run away), – currently storage for the GAG gift pile
upgrade Nic’s & Marquis apartment
b) Gerry’s to be built/completed – began on channel 4 – unsure on current status
2.4 Peacock bedroom & wallpaper –
currently half a wall of paper missing
2.5 Locks on all bedroom and gite doors.
NOTE: The pantry/wine cellar has one.
3. PUBLIC AREAS
3.1 Grand Salon – panelling ( currently waiting on anne marie)
3.2 Winter salon – library shelves
3.3 Petite salon – functioning- however desire
to paint it purple
3.4 Dining Room – still waiting for final
curtain (16 years) and the tutorial (2 years)
3.5 Patio area – stairs, wall, flooring/base – Currently crumbling and unstable
3.6 The Chapel – roof done, windows almost
complete, the restoration internally waiting on missing chapel restorer ( last seen months ago)
3.7 Leisure area – the pool, swimming pond,
3.8 Marquee salon – current under construction by Anne Marie with panelling – will be shown on channel 4 ( potentially autumn 2022)
3.9 – The LAKE – claims to have 1000 of £ in funds away for this -said has done survey 2/3.
4. PRIVATE AREAS
4.1 SJ bedroom/office/dressing
room/bathroom – walls, floor, decor
4.2 China Pantry completion, at moment
just concrete floor, incomplete walls ( Waiting on return of Ian)
4.3 Attic completion – one half strewn with
junk – talk of turning it into a Billard room
5 – Outdoor space
5.1 Chapel garden completed summer 2022
5.2 – plans for amphitheatre and other gardens on patron video – no defined start date
List of Charities that received money from Chateau Unwrapped
July 2020: British Heart Foundation UK (in memory of my father) €634
August 2020: Alzheimer’s Research UK (in memory of all of the residents of my parents’ nursing homes) €350
September 2020: Prostate Cancer Foundation (in memory of Selmar’s father) €1255
October 2020: Medecins sans Frontieres (chosen by my mother to support vaccinations in Africa) €942 (equivalent to 426 cholera vaccinations)
November & December 2020 & Jan & Feb 2021: A Lalande Fashion Scholarship for a student at the Villioti Fashion Institute in South Africa €5500
March 2021: Suffolk Artlink £1505
April 2021: Association Petit Prince €1.689
May 2021: Melanoma Focus €1.204
June 2021: Aide aux JeunesDiabétiques €1.735
Time lines, Arrivals, Departures
March 15, 2020 vlog is on the river in Vietnam
March 17, 2020 is when lockdown started in France, Stephanie returns to LaLande
March 17, 2020 – June, 2020
present during lock down: Stephanie, Isabelle, Nick, Marie, Antoine, Selmar
May 17, 2020 CD How our vlog has changed Chateau Life. Mentioned that the gardener (Dan) started yesterday
May 28, 2020 CD A Chateau in Full Bloom 18:40 we see Dan for the first time, on his 2nd visit to Lalande
May 29, 2020 she goes to Basmaignee and does a live chat with Michael, he returns to laLande with her and stays until June 23, 2022. First time she goes away since lock down started, and Michael is her first guest.
June 16, 2020 CD A Spot of Rain Can’t Stop Us. Nick, Marie, and Antoine leave at the end of lock down.
June 24, 2020 First full cadeaux (present: Mummy, Selmar, Nati)
June 25, 2020 CD True Chateau Life Tomaz arrives
July 2, 2020 Gerry arrives first time after lock down, Ian the electrician, is at the dinner table
July 16, 2020 CD Bastille Day and the Return of Marie Marie from Norway returns , Gerry leaves
August 4, 2020 CD Mummy & Percy’s Lockdown Wedding Anniversary. Kim Raad is introduced as a friend that was with Michael Pott’s at university in South Africa.
* August 23, 2020 CD Sunday’s at the Chateau: Treasures from the Brocante. We see Hanni and Hash for the first time.
August 25, 2020 CD Running for Water. Hash is introduced (14:27) as a guest that is chateau shopping in the local area, he’s introduced as a designer that has done work around the world. Cat arrives (19:46).
August 27, 2020 CD Goodbyes from LaLande – Tomaz leaves.
September 1, 2020 CD Music and Gardens – Nicky is introduced (3:30) she’s there for 8 days.
September 3, 2020 – CD Chainsaw and Porcelain – Hanni is introduced (2:11).
September 10, 2020 CD Micheal Petherick at Lalande Michael returns with Ryan in tow. Davy is first introduced at 14:33 https://youtu.be/WxvguWA8nIU?t=873 Davy intro, arrives as a volunteer 23:39
September 21, 2020 CD – Cadeaux at the Chateau with Dan the Gardener 52:59 – Philip arrives at laLande
March 4, 2021 CD – Spring is in the air! – 2:33 first time Nick the tree surgeon is there.
August 24, 2021 CD My Cousin’s Moved In. Amaury arrives at laLande.
Who IS Clara Burnett?
Wouldn’t you like to know!! But alas, you will not find out here!
Clara first shows up in thread 8 here on Tattle, bringing a lot of great information. She has been to la Lande and was friends with the former guardians (2014-2017), a young Dutch gay couple. She has multiple connections and “eyes & ears” on the ground, though the Dutch couple are not among them.
Many attempts to guess who Clara is have happened, anyone from Nati, Mary Poppin, Dana, and on and on, but no, we don’t know who she is, and we want to keep it that way!
All you need to know is she has proven multiple times she has legit eyes and ears on la Lande and Stephanie as she’s told us things were going down long before we saw them in a vlog. There is no need to question her. She’s quite clear when she knows something or when she’s just hearing rumors or rumblings. Just sit back and enjoy her content!
Who is CNN’s Martha Shade?
Stephanie Jarvis gets featured on CNN’s Travel with an article by journalist Martha Shade.
Martha Shade is CNN Producer for Special Projects who also happens to be a patron of Chateau Diaries.
Why Stephanie Jarvis falls out with former guardians explained by Clara in Thread #8
“The short version: my friends came to ‘babysit’ her chateau for three months while mylady would be laying her behind on a poolbed in Southafrica, but ended up staying three years, helped her set up the B&B business that she was too lazy and inexperienced to tend to herself and in the end were pushed out after being threatened by homophobic volunteers, who Isabelle valued higher because of the free work they were supplying. It was all very hush hush and my friends were shocked by the disloyalty of what they thought to be their closest allies. They tried to talk to SJ about their grievances but were send off with the chateau’s motto of ‘being tolerant to intolerant people’. If you start asking questions or think your loyalty would account for something after such a long time of service to their whims, they lose interest. They want to be adored, not questioned, especially not on their lack of morality. If you’re no longer of actual use to them, no matter the time and effort you’ve put in, they drop you like trash and look the other way, litteraly.”
More of the first information Clara Burnett reveals at Tattle
Why Nic Larkin wears a bag on his head – with Clara Barnett
Clara Burnett explains:
“he was the only one who confronted SJ with the begging for gifts she says she isn’t begging for, but people just like to surprise her and give her stuff. He told her it was wrong morally and ethically and there would be a lot of people offended and disgusted by it were she to continue. This is when she made the whole thing into a separate channel which made it even worse because she now linked her greed to charity. As usual when Larkin protest against something SJ does or doesn’t do, his objections were cast aside. The “success” of the channel was then used to further humiliate Larkin, as she thinks the constant stream of gifts is proving him wrong. Also as usual, for Larkin there was no other way than to head for the hills and choose the hares. To avoid complete moral sell-out, he only agreed to appear in her vlogs unrecognizable. Over time it has lost it’s original statement of moral disgust as she turned it into a gimmick. She is ever so skillful in using the standing of Larkin’s background and education in her favor without submitting to the burden of its appurtenant ethicality.”
(37) The Chateau Diaries #103 Keep your dreams, SJ. Give everyone else their money back | Page 34 | Tattle Life
Isabelle’s mother’s obituary
Thread Summaries, Links to summaries
**** Thread #7 Highly Recommended
Highly recommended for a complete read. Full of hilarious paragraphs that you will enjoy!
* was the first thread with the start of the CD glossary, which eventually became the beginning of our CD wiki.
* Dan had his GoFund me up for purchasing the chateau (by Dec 29 it was over and it had sold to someone else)
*Brenda running a “Who is your La La Land (spelling deliberate) soul mate” quiz.
*Selmar does Yoga in the chapel.
*Concern for virtual assistant Yvonne.
*Sadie’s racist remarks are exposed.
*SJ & PJ are spotted wearing similar rings!
*Attempts to count how many guests were at the chateau at Christmas, breaking the restrictions
*And Prince and the Pea blows her Tattler cover on FB and she then no longer uses the name here. Thus the name suggestions for the next thread were in her honor.
***Thread #8 – Highly Recommended
Clara Burnett arrives in the CD threads on Tattle. Life and begins to share in person impressions she’s had of SJ and others at Lalande and has sources in the region of la Lande that she gleans info from to share with us.
There is a lot of chatter about Brenda Gibbons pulling away from Lalande and about superfan Jill Scott aka Jumpsuit Jill and her crimes.
Clara found Tattle.Life courtesy of Brenda Gibbons mentioning it on her FB page!
This is a very detailed post on the first information Clara Burnett reveals:
(1) The Chateau Diaries #9 Venetian crown while the chateau burns down | Tattle Life
Thread # 54
In which Stephanie’s Birthday is celebrated, discussions regarding the McQueen dress and the infamous pic in Tuscany are occurring, and the BIG ANNOUNCEMENT is revealed: STEFFY IS GOING TO BE A CHRISTIE’S TASTEMAKER! ….along with a holiday for two weeks prior so Sir Snorts and his Chatelaine can enter the US for the Christie’s gig. (And do things none of us want to consider imagining. ) – Summary by MagpieSassyPants in thread 95
2021 Travels by #StephanieJarvis – in spite of the COVID pandemic
1. January 26 – visited Le Fleur, Normandy
2. March 14 – visited Marc & Amy and toured Marc’s family’s chateau (not Rosieres)
2a. She stayed at the B&B Domaine de Chalaniat with Philip on her way to (or from) Amy & Marc
3. March 25 – went to Dordogne
4. May 23 – visited Edd & Anna @ Chateau Lagorce, Bordeaux
5. June 6 – Visited Sarah & George @ Chateau de Brives
6. July 18 – wine tasting with Edd & Anna in St. Emilion, Bordeaux
7. June 20 – visited Amaury @ Castle Ten Berghe,
8. July 4 – Visited Tim & Rebecca @ Chateau de la Ruche
9. August 1 – Antiques fair in Le Mans (with George & Sarah)
10. August – Tuscany, Italy
11. August/September – Barbados/ NYC/Versailles/Paris
12. October 25 – London, gift opening with Cat on her birthday
13. November – Belgium (to see Nick & Marie right before Dutch Boyfriend Reveal on Nov 10)
14. November 11 – Paris with MPethrick
15. November 13-20 – London with Dan
Stephanie Jarvis’ Flying Monkeys
SJ’s superfans and supporters (or her “minions”) will attempt to derail Chateau Diaries Tattle threads, or try to create “drama” within the Tattle thread. These persons are known as Stephanie’s “flying monkeys.”
“The term ‘flying monkeys’ is another way of saying ‘abuse by proxy’ or having someone else do the bidding of…a narcissist. The term flying monkey was coined after the flying monkeys in the Wizard of Oz that were under the spell of the Wicked Witch of the West, to do her bidding against Dorothy and her friends.
This common narcissistic tactic uses friends and family of the victim to spy on them, spread gossip while painting the narcissist as the victim and their target as the perpetrator. …To maintain the illusion of the power they have over you, the narcissist will employ the use of third parties, through which they will attempt to continue control and manipulate you.”
Article reference: https://narcissistabusesupport.com/red-flags/use-flying-monkeys/
Support mammal (Philip Janssen) first year –
in hiding in plain sight
This is a title that’d really annoy her as it’s true.
She started off with a camera in vertical mode and just chatted away informatively, she then took advice, upped the ante and started to gain followers. A huge number of these were prepared to become patrons to help her with the Chateau. Now, in her drive to create more content she’s blogging for clicks and it shows. Adding insult to injury she’s nepotistically promoting an obsequious, snorting man child well beyond his worth and capabilities. People are going to resent their patronage or their YouTube views paying a cent for his upkeep.
Film without inserting himself
Use a drone
Do anything remotely handy
Lay a table
Has no tertiary qualifications
Has bizarre amount of allergies
Has no technical skills
Table of Contents
California voters have now received their mail ballots, and the November 8 general election has entered its final stage. Amid rising prices and economic uncertainty—as well as deep partisan divisions over social and political issues—Californians are processing a great deal of information to help them choose state constitutional officers and state legislators and to make policy decisions about state propositions. The 2022 midterm election also features a closely divided Congress, with the likelihood that a few races in California may determine which party controls the US House.
These are among the key findings of a statewide survey on state and national issues conducted from October 14 to 23 by the Public Policy Institute of California:
- Many Californians have negative perceptions of their personal finances and the US economy. Seventy-six percent rate the nation’s economy as “not so good” or “poor.” Thirty-nine percent say their finances are “worse off” today than a year ago. Forty-seven percent say that things in California are going in the right direction, while 33 percent think things in the US are going in the right direction; partisans differ in their overall outlook.→
- Among likely voters, 55 percent would vote for Gavin Newsom and 36 percent would vote for Brian Dahle if the governor’s election were today. Partisans are deeply divided in their choices. Sixty percent are very or fairly closely following news about the governor’s race. Sixty-two percent are satisfied with the candidate choices in the governor’s election.→
- When likely voters are read the ballot title and labels, 34 percent would vote yes on Proposition 26 (sports betting at tribal casinos), 26 percent would vote yes on Proposition 27 (online sports gambling),and 41 percent would vote yes on Proposition 30 (reducing greenhouse gases). Most likely voters say they are not personally interested in sports betting, and 48 percent think it would be a “bad thing” if it became legal in the state. Fewer than half of likely voters say the vote outcome of Propositions 26, 27, or 30 is very important to them.→
- Fifty-six percent of likely voters would support the Democratic candidate in their US House race if the election were today. Sixty-one percent say the issue of abortion rights is very important in their vote for Congress this year; Democrats are far more likely than Republicans or independents to hold this view. About half are “extremely” or “very” enthusiastic about voting for Congress this year; 54 percent of Republicans and Democrats, and 41 percent of independents, are highly enthusiastic this year.→
- Forty-five percent of Californians and 40 percent of likely voters are satisfied with the way that democracy is working in the United States. Republicans are far less likely than Democrats and independents to hold this positive view. There is rare partisan consensus on one topic: majorities of Democrats, Republicans, and independents are pessimistic that Americans with different political views can still come together and work out their differences.→
- Majorities of California adults and likely voters approve of Governor Gavin Newsom and President Joe Biden. About four in ten or more California adults and likely voters approve of US Senator Dianne Feinstein and US Senator Alex Padilla. These approval ratings vary across partisan groups. Approval of the state legislature is higher than approval of the US Congress.→
With less than two weeks to go until what is set to be a highly consequential midterm election, California adults are divided on whether the state is generally headed in the right direction (47%) or wrong direction (48%); a majority of likely voters (54%) think the state is headed in the wrong direction (43% right direction). Similar shares held this view last month (wrong direction: 44% adults, 49% likely voters; right direction: 50% adults, 48% likely voters). Today, there is a wide partisan divide: seven in ten Democrats are optimistic about the direction of the state, while 91 percent of Republicans and 59 percent of independents are pessimistic. Majorities of residents in the Central Valley and Orange/San Diego say the state is going in the wrong direction, while a majority in the San Francisco Bay Area say right direction; adults elsewhere are divided. Across demographic groups, Californians ages 18 to 34 (60%), Asian Americans (52%), college graduates (52%), renters (52%), and women (52%) are the only groups in which a majority are optimistic about California’s direction.
Californians are much more pessimistic about the direction of the country than they are about the direction of the state. Solid majorities of adults (62%) and likely voters (71%) say the United States is going in the wrong direction, and majorities have held this view since September 2021. One in three or fewer adults (33%) and likely voters (25%) think the country is going in the right direction. Majorities across all demographic groups and partisan groups, as well as across regions, are pessimistic about the direction of the United States.
The state of the economy and inflation are likely to play a critical role in the upcoming election, and about four in ten adults (39%) and likely voters (43%) say they and their family are worse off financially than they were a year ago. Similar shares say they are financially in about the same spot (43% adults, 44% likely voters). The share who feel they are worse off has risen slightly among likely voters since May, but is similar among adults (37% adults, 36% likely voters). Fewer than two in ten Californians say they are better off than they were one year ago (17% adults, 13% likely voters). A wide partisan divide exists: most Democrats and independents say their financial situation is about the same as a year ago, while solid majorities of Republicans say they are worse off. Regionally, about half in the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles say they are about the same, while half in the Central Valley say they are worse off; residents elsewhere are divided between being worse off and the same. Across demographic groups, pluralities say they are either financially about the same as last year or worse off, with the exception of African Americans (51% about the same, 33% worse off, 16% better off) and Asian Americans (51% about the same, 27% worse off, 20% better off). The shares saying they are worse off decline as educational attainment increases.
With persistent inflation and concerns about a possible recession in the future, an overwhelming majority of Californians believe the US economy is in not so good (43% adults, 40% likely voters) or poor (33% adults, 36% likely voters) shape. About a quarter of adults (3% excellent, 20% good) and likely voters (2% excellent, 23% good) feel positively about the national economy. Strong majorities across partisan groups feel negatively, but Republicans and independents are much more likely than Democrats to say the economy is in poor shape. Solid majorities across the state’s major regions as well as all demographic groups say the economy is in not so good or poor shape. In a recent ABC News/Washington Post poll, 24 percent (3% excellent, 21% good) of adults nationwide felt positively about the US economy, while 74 percent (36% not so good, 38% poor) expressed negative views.
Six in ten likely voters say they are following news about the 2022 governor’s race very (25%) or fairly (35%) closely—a share that has risen from half just a month ago (17% very, 33% fairly). This finding is somewhat similar to October 2018, when 68 percent said this (28% very, 40% closely) a month before the previous gubernatorial election. Today, majorities across partisan, demographic, and regional groups say they are following news about the gubernatorial election either very or fairly closely. The shares saying they are following the news very closely is highest among residents in Republican districts (39%), Republicans (30%), whites (29%), and adults with incomes of $40,000 to $79,999 (29%). Older likely voters (27%) are slightly more likely than younger likely voters (21%) to say they are following the news closely.
Democratic incumbent Gavin Newsom is ahead of Republican Brian Dahle (55% to 36%) among likely voters, while few say they would not vote, would vote for neither, or don’t know who they would vote for in the governor’s race. The share supporting the reelection of the governor was similar a month ago (58% Newsom, 31% Dahle). Today, Newsom enjoys the support of most Democrats (91%), while most Republicans (86%) support Dahle; Newsom has an edge over Dahle among independent likely voters (47% Newsom, 37% Dahle). Across the state’s regions, two in three in the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles support Newsom, as do nearly half in the Inland Empire and Orange/San Diego; likely voters in the Central Valley are split. Newsom leads in all demographic groups, with the exception of men (45% Newsom, 44% Dahle) and those with a high school diploma only (46% Newsom, 49% Dahle). The share supporting Newsom grows as educational attainment increases (46% high school only, 56% some college, 60% college graduates), while it decreases with rising income (64% less than $40,000, 56% $40,000 to $79,999, 52% $80,000 or more).
A solid majority of likely voters (62%) are satisfied with their choices of candidates in the November 8 election, while about three in ten (32%) are not satisfied. Shares expressing satisfaction have increased somewhat from a month ago (53%) and were similar prior to the 2018 gubernatorial election (60% October 2018). Today, a solid majority of Democrats (79%) and independents (61%) say they are satisfied, compared to fewer than half of Republicans (44%). Majorities across demographic groups say they are satisfied, and notably, women (68%) are more likely than men (56%) to say this. Majorities across the state’s regions say they are satisfied with their choices of candidates in the upcoming gubernatorial election.
State Propositions 26, 27, and 30
In the upcoming November 8 election, there will be seven state propositions for voters. Due to time constraints, our survey only asked about three ballot measures: Propositions 26, 27, and 30. For each, we read the proposition number, ballot, and ballot label. Two of the state ballot measures were also included in the September survey (Propositions 27 and 30), while Proposition 26 was not.
If the election were held today, 34 percent of likely voters would vote “yes,” 57 percent would vote “no,” and 9 percent are unsure of how they would vote on Proposition 26—Allows In-Person Roulette, Dice, Game, Sports Wagering on Tribal Lands. This measure would allow in-person sports betting at racetracks and tribal casinos, requiring that racetracks and casinos offering sports betting make certain payments to the state to support state regulatory costs. It also allows roulette and dice games at tribal casinos and adds a new way to enforce certain state gambling laws. There is partisan agreement on Prop 26: fewer than four in ten Democrats, Republicans, and independents would vote “yes.” Moreover, less than a majority across all regions and demographic groups—with the exception of likely voters ages 18 to 44 (51% yes, 44% no)—would vote “yes.”
If the election were held today, 26 percent of likely voters would vote “yes,” 67 percent would vote “no,” and 8 percent are unsure of how they would vote on Proposition 27—Allows Online and Mobile Sports Wagering Outside Tribal Lands. This citizens’ initiative would allow Indian tribes and affiliated businesses to operate online and mobile sports wagering outside tribal lands. Strong majorities across partisan groups would vote “no” on Prop 27. The share voting “yes” has decreased since a month ago (34% September). Today, fewer than three in ten across partisan groups would vote “yes” on Prop 27. Moreover, fewer than four in ten across regions, gender, racial/ethnic, education, and income groups would vote “yes.” Likely voters ages 18 to 44 (41%) are far more likely than older likely voters ages 45 and above (19%) to say they would vote “yes.”
If the election were held today, 41 percent of likely voters would vote “yes,” 52 percent would vote “no,” and 7 percent are unsure of how they would vote on Proposition 30—Provides Funding for Programs to Reduce Air Pollution and Prevent Wildfires by Increasing Tax on Personal Income over $2 Million. This citizens’ initiative would increase taxes on Californians earning more than $2 million annually and allocate that tax revenue to zero-emission vehicle purchase incentives, vehicle charging stations, and wildfire prevention. The share saying “yes” on Prop 30 has decreased from 55 percent in our September survey (note: since September, Governor Newsom has been featured in “no on Prop 30” commercials). Today, unlike Prop 26 and Prop 27, partisan opinions are divided on Prop 30: 61 percent of Democrats would vote “yes,” compared to far fewer Republicans (15%) and independents (38%). Across regions, and among men and women, support falls short of a majority (36% men, 45% women). Fewer than half across racial/ethnic groups say they would vote “yes” (39% whites, 42% Latinos, 46% other racial/ethnic groups). Just over half of likely voters with incomes under $40,000 (52%) would vote “yes,” compared to fewer in higher-income groups (42% $40,000 to $79,999, 36% $80,000 or more). Nearly half of likely voters ages 18 to 44 (49%) would vote “yes,” compared to 37 percent of older likely voters.
Fewer than half of likely voters say the outcome of each of these state propositions is very important to them. Today, 21 percent of likely voters say the outcome of Prop 26 is very important, 31 percent say the outcome of Prop 27 is very important, and 42 percent say the outcome of Prop 30 is very important. The shares saying the outcomes are very important to them have remained similar to a month ago for Prop 27 (29%) and Prop 30 (42%). Today, when it comes to the importance of the outcome of Prop 26, one in four or fewer across partisan groups say it is very important to them. About one in three across partisan groups say the outcome of Prop 27 is very important to them. Fewer than half across partisan groups say the outcome of Prop 30 is very important to them.
When asked how they would vote if the 2022 election for the US House of Representatives were held today, 56 percent of likely voters say they would vote for or lean toward the Democratic candidate, while 39 percent would vote for or lean toward the Republican candidate. In September, a similar share of likely voters preferred the Democratic candidate (60% Democrat/lean Democrat, 34% Republican/lean Republican). Today, overwhelming majorities of partisans support their party’s candidate, while independents are divided (50% Democrat/lean Democrat, 44% Republican/lean Republican). Democratic candidates are preferred by a 26-point margin in Democratic-held districts, while Republican candidates are preferred by a 23-point margin in Republican-held districts. In the ten competitive California districts as defined by the Cook Political Report, the Democratic candidate is preferred by a 22-point margin (54% to 32%).
Abortion is another prominent issue in this election. When asked about the importance of abortion rights, 61 percent of likely voters say the issue is very important in determining their vote for Congress and another 20 percent say it is somewhat important; just 17 percent say it is not too or not at all important. Among partisans, an overwhelming majority of Democrats (78%) and 55 percent of independents say it is very important, compared to 43 percent of Republicans. Majorities across regions and all demographic groups—with the exception of men (49% very important)—say abortion rights are very important when making their choice among candidates for Congress.
With the controlling party in Congress hanging in the balance, 51 percent of likely voters say they are extremely or very enthusiastic about voting for Congress this year; another 29 percent are somewhat enthusiastic while 19 percent are either not too or not at all enthusiastic. In October 2018 before the last midterm election, a similar 53 percent of likely voters were extremely or very enthusiastic about voting for Congress (25% extremely, 28% very, 28% somewhat, 10% not too, 8% not at all). Today, Democrats and Republicans have about equal levels of enthusiasm, while independents are much less likely to be extremely or very enthusiastic. Half or more across regions are at least very enthusiastic, with the exceptions of likely voters in Los Angeles (44%) and the San Francisco Bay Area (43%). At least half across demographic groups are highly enthusiastic, with the exceptions of likely voters earning $40,000 to $79,999 annually (48%), women (47%), Latinos (43%), those with a high school diploma or less (42%), renters (42%), and 18- to 44-year-olds (37%).
Democracy and the Political Divide
As Californians prepare to vote in the upcoming midterm election, fewer than half of adults and likely voters are satisfied with the way democracy is working in the United States—and few are very satisfied. Satisfaction was higher in our February survey when 53 percent of adults and 48 percent of likely voters were satisfied with democracy in America. Today, half of Democrats and about four in ten independents are satisfied, compared to about one in five Republicans. Notably, four in ten Republicans are not at all satisfied. Across regions, half of residents in the San Francisco Bay Area (52%) and the Inland Empire (50%) are satisfied, compared to fewer elsewhere. Across demographic groups, fewer than half are satisfied, with the exception of Latinos (56%), those with a high school degree or less (55%), and those making less than $40,000 (53%).
In addition to the lack of satisfaction with the way democracy is working, Californians are divided about whether Americans of different political positions can still come together and work out their differences. Forty-nine percent are optimistic, while 46 percent are pessimistic. Optimism has been similar in more recent years, but has decreased 7 points since we first asked this question in September 2017 (56%). In September 2020, just before the 2020 general election, Californians were also divided (47% optimistic, 49% pessimistic).
Today, in a rare moment of bipartisan agreement, about four in ten Democrats, Republicans, and independents are optimistic that Americans of different political views will be able to come together. Across regions, about half in Orange/San Diego, the Inland Empire, and the San Francisco Bay Area are optimistic. Across demographic groups, only the following groups have a majority or more who are optimistic: African Americans and Latinos (61% each), those with a high school diploma or less (63%), and those with household incomes under $40,000 (61%). Notably, in 2017, half or more across parties, regions, and demographic groups were optimistic.
With about two weeks to go before Governor Newsom’s bid for reelection, a majority of Californians (54%) and likely voters (52%) approve of the way he is handling his job, while fewer disapprove (33% adults, 45% likely voters). Approval was nearly identical in September (52% adults, 55% likely voters) and has been 50 percent or more since January 2020. Today, about eight in ten Democrats—compared to about half of independents and about one in ten Republicans—approve of Governor Newsom. Half or more across regions approve of Newsom, except in the Central Valley (42%). Across demographic groups, about half or more approve of how Governor Newsom is handling his job.
With all 80 state assembly positions and half of state senate seats up for election, fewer than half of adults (49%) and likely voters (43%) approve of the way that the California Legislature is handling its job. Views are deeply divided along partisan lines; approval is highest in the San Francisco Bay Area and lowest in Orange/San Diego. About half across racial/ethnic groups approve, and approval is much higher among younger Californians.
Majorities of California adults (53%) and likely voters (52%) approve of the way President Biden is handling his job, while fewer disapprove (43% adults, 47% likely voters). Approval is similar to September (53% adults and likely voters), and Biden’s approval rating among adults has been at 50 percent or higher since we first asked this question in January 2021. Today, about eight in ten Democrats approve of Biden’s job performance, compared to about four in ten independents and one in ten Republicans. Approval is higher in the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles than in the Inland Empire, Orange/San Diego, and the Central Valley. About half or more across demographic groups approve of President Biden, with the exception of those with some college education (44%).
Approval of Congress remains low, with fewer than four in ten adults (37%) and likely voters (29%) approving. Approval of Congress among adults has been below 40 percent for all of 2022 after seeing a brief run above 40 percent for all of 2021. Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to approve of Congress. Fewer than half across regions and demographic groups approve of Congress.
US Senator Alex Padilla is on the California ballot twice this November—once for the remainder of Vice President Harris’s term and once for reelection. Senator Padilla has the approval of 46 percent of adults and 48 percent of likely voters (adults: 26% disapprove, 29% don’t know; likely voters: 31% disapprove, 22% don’t know). Approval in March was at 44 percent for adults and 39 percent for likely voters. Today, Padilla’s approval rating is much higher among Democrats than independents and Republicans. Across regions, about half in the San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles, and the Inland Empire approve of the US senator, compared to four in ten in Orange/San Diego and one in three in the Central Valley. Across demographic groups, about half or more approve among women, younger adults, African Americans, Asian Americans, and Latinos. Views are similar across education and income groups, with just fewer than half approving.
US Senator Dianne Feinstein—who is not on the California ballot this November—has the approval of 41 percent of adults and likely voters (adults: 42% disapprove, 17% don’t know; likely voters: 52% disapprove, 7% don’t know). Approval in March was at 41 percent for adults and 36 percent for likely voters. Today, Feinstein’s approval rating is far higher among Democrats and independents than Republicans. Across regions, approval reaches a majority only in the San Francisco Bay Area. Across demographic groups, approval reaches a majority only among African Americans
This map highlights the five geographic regions for which we present results; these regions account for approximately 90 percent of the state population. Residents of other geographic areas (in gray) are included in the results reported for all adults, registered voters, and likely voters, but sample sizes for these less-populous areas are not large enough to report separately.
The PPIC Statewide Survey is directed by Mark Baldassare, president and CEO and survey director at the Public Policy Institute of California. Coauthors of this report include survey analyst Deja Thomas, who was the project manager for this survey; associate survey director and research fellow Dean Bonner; and survey analyst Rachel Lawler. The Californians and Their Government survey is supported with funding from the Arjay and Frances F. Miller Foundation and the James Irvine Foundation. The PPIC Statewide Survey invites input, comments, and suggestions from policy and public opinion experts and from its own advisory committee, but survey methods, questions, and content are determined solely by PPIC’s survey team.
Findings in this report are based on a survey of 1,715 California adult residents, including 1,263 interviewed on cell phones and 452 interviewed on landline telephones. The sample included 569 respondents reached by calling back respondents who had previously completed an interview in PPIC Statewide Surveys in the last six months. Interviews took an average of 19 minutes to complete. Interviewing took place on weekend days and weekday nights from October 14–23, 2022.
Cell phone interviews were conducted using a computer-generated random sample of cell phone numbers. Additionally, we utilized a registration-based sample (RBS) of cell phone numbers for adults who are registered to vote in California. All cell phone numbers with California area codes were eligible for selection. After a cell phone user was reached, the interviewer verified that this person was age 18 or older, a resident of California, and in a safe place to continue the survey (e.g., not driving). Cell phone respondents were offered a small reimbursement to help defray the cost of the call. Cell phone interviews were conducted with adults who have cell phone service only and with those who have both cell phone and landline service in the household.
Landline interviews were conducted using a computer-generated random sample of telephone numbers that ensured that both listed and unlisted numbers were called. Additionally, we utilized a registration-based sample (RBS) of landline phone numbers for adults who are registered to vote in California. All landline telephone exchanges in California were eligible for selection. After a household was reached, an adult respondent (age 18 or older) was randomly chosen for interviewing using the “last birthday method” to avoid biases in age and gender.
For both cell phones and landlines, telephone numbers were called as many as eight times. When no contact with an individual was made, calls to a number were limited to six. Also, to increase our ability to interview Asian American adults, we made up to three additional calls to phone numbers estimated by Survey Sampling International as likely to be associated with Asian American individuals.
Live landline and cell phone interviews were conducted by Abt Associates in English and Spanish, according to respondents’ preferences. Accent on Languages, Inc., translated new survey questions into Spanish, with assistance from Renatta DeFever.
Abt Associates uses the US Census Bureau’s 2016–2020 American Community Survey’s (ACS) Public Use Microdata Series for California (with regional coding information from the University of Minnesota’s Integrated Public Use Microdata Series for California) to compare certain demographic characteristics of the survey sample—region, age, gender, race/ethnicity, and education—with the characteristics of California’s adult population. The survey sample was closely comparable to the ACS figures. To estimate landline and cell phone service in California, Abt Associates used 2019 state-level estimates released by the National Center for Health Statistics—which used data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and the ACS. The estimates for California were then compared against landline and cell phone service reported in this survey. We also used voter registration data from the California Secretary of State to compare the party registration of registered voters in our sample to party registration statewide. The landline and cell phone samples were then integrated using a frame integration weight, while sample balancing adjusted for differences across region, age, gender, race/ethnicity, education, telephone service, and party registration groups.
The sampling error, taking design effects from weighting into consideration, is ±3.9 percent at the 95-percent confidence level for the total unweighted sample of 1,715 adults. This means that 95 times out of 100, the results will be within 3.9 percentage points of what they would be if all adults in California were interviewed. The sampling error for unweighted subgroups is larger: for the 1,439 registered voters, the sampling error is ±4.5 percent; for the 1,111 likely voters, it is ±5.1 percent. For the sampling errors of additional subgroups, please see the table at the end of this section. Sampling error is only one type of error to which surveys are subject. Results may also be affected by factors such as question wording, question order, and survey timing.
We present results for five geographic regions, accounting for approximately 90 percent of the state population. “Central Valley” includes Butte, Colusa, El Dorado, Fresno, Glenn, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, Placer, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Shasta, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Tulare, Yolo, and Yuba Counties. “San Francisco Bay Area” includes Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties. “Los Angeles” refers to Los Angeles County, “Inland Empire” refers to Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, and “Orange/San Diego” refers to Orange and San Diego Counties. Residents of other geographic areas are included in the results reported for all adults, registered voters, and likely voters, but sample sizes for these less-populous areas are not large enough to report separately. We also present results for congressional districts currently held by Democrats or Republicans, based on residential zip code and party of the local US House member. We analyze the results of those who live in competitive house districts as determined by the Cook Political Report’s 2022 House Race Ratings updated September 1, 2022. These districts are 3, 9, 13, 22, 27, 40, 41, 45, 47, and 49; a map of California’s congressional districts can be found here.
We present results for non-Hispanic whites, who account for 41 percent of the state’s adult population, and also for Latinos, who account for about a third of the state’s adult population and constitute one of the fastest-growing voter groups. We also present results for non-Hispanic Asian Americans, who make up about 16 percent of the state’s adult population, and non-Hispanic African Americans, who comprise about 6 percent. Results for other racial/ethnic groups—such as Native Americans—are included in the results reported for all adults, registered voters, and likely voters, but sample sizes are not large enough for separate analysis. Results for African American and Asian American likely voters are combined with those of other racial/ethnic groups because sample sizes for African American and Asian American likely voters are too small for separate analysis. We compare the opinions of those who report they are registered Democrats, registered Republicans, and no party preference or decline-to-state or independent voters; the results for those who say they are registered to vote in other parties are not large enough for separate analysis. We also analyze the responses of likely voters—so designated per their responses to survey questions about voter registration, previous election participation, intentions to vote this year, attention to election news, and current interest in politics.
The percentages presented in the report tables and in the questionnaire may not add to 100 due to rounding.
Numerous questions were adapted from national surveys by ABC News/Washington Post, CBS News, NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist, and the Pew Research Center. Additional details about our methodology can be found at www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/SurveyMethodology.pdf and are available upon request through email@example.com.
Questions and Responses
October 14–23, 2022
1,715 California adult residents; 1,111 California likely voters
Margin of error ±3.9% at 95% confidence level for the total sample, ±5.1% for likely voters. Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.
1. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Gavin Newsom is handling his job as governor of California?
14% don’t know
2. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that the California Legislature is handling its job?
14% don’t know
3. Do you think things in California are generally going in the right direction or the wrong direction?
47% right direction
48% wrong direction
5% don’t know
4. Thinking about your own personal finances—would you say that you and your family are financially better off, worse off, or just about the same as a year ago?
17% better off
39% worse off
1% don’t know
5. Next, some people are registered to vote and others are not. Are you absolutely certain that you are registered to vote in California?
74% yes [ask q5a]
26% no [skip to q6b]
5a. Are you registered as a Democrat, a Republican, another party, or are you registered as a decline-to-state or independent voter?
47% Democrat [ask q6]
24% Republican [ask q6a]
6% another party (specify) [skip to q7]
23% decline-to-state/independent [skip to 6b]
[likely voters only]
47% Democrat [ask q6]
27% Republican [ask q6a]
5% another party (specify) [skip to q7]
20% decline-to-state/independent [skip to 6b]
6. Would you call yourself a strong Democrat or not a very strong Democrat?
37% not very strong
2% don’t know
[skip to q7]
6a. Would you call yourself a strong Republican or not a very strong Republican?
38% not very strong
2% don’t know
[skip to q7]
6b. Do you think of yourself as closer to the Republican Party or Democratic Party?
23% Republican Party
44% Democratic Party
24% neither (volunteered)
9% don’t know
7. [likely voters only] If the November 8th election for governor were being held today, would you vote for [rotate]  Brian Dahle, a Republican, [or]  Gavin Newsom, a Democrat?
36% Brian Dahle, a Republican
55% Gavin Newsom, a Democrat
4% neither/would not vote for governor (volunteered)
5% don’t know
8. [likely voters only] How closely are you following news about candidates for the 2022 governor’s election—very closely, fairly closely, not too closely, or not at all closely?
25% very closely
35% fairly closely
25% not too closely
15% not at all closely
– don’t know
9. [likely voters only] In general, would you say you are satisfied or not satisfied with your choices of candidates in the election for governor on November 8th?
32% not satisfied
6% don’t know
10. [likely voters only] If the 2022 election for US House of Representatives were being held today, would you vote for [rotate]  the Republican candidate [or]  the Democratic candidate in your district? (ask if ‘other’ or ‘don’t know’: “As of today, do you lean more toward [read in same order as above]  the Republican candidate [or]  the Democratic candidate?”)
39% Republican/lean Republican
56% Democrat/lean Democrat
5% don’t know
11. [likely voters only] How important is the issue of abortion rights in your vote for Congress this year—is it very important, somewhat important, not too important, or not at all important?
61% very important
20% somewhat important
7% not too important
10% not at all important
– don’t know
12. [likely voters only] How enthusiastic would you say you are about voting for Congress this year—extremely enthusiastic, very enthusiastic, somewhat enthusiastic, not too enthusiastic, or not at all enthusiastic?
18% extremely enthusiastic
33% very enthusiastic
29% somewhat enthusiastic
14% not too enthusiastic
5% not at all enthusiastic
1% don’t know
Next, we have a few questions to ask you about some of the propositions on the November ballot.
13. [likely voters only] There are five citizens’ initiatives, one referendum, and one legislative constitutional amendment on the November 8 state ballot. Which one of the seven state propositions on the November 8 ballot are you most interested in?
20% Proposition 1 Constitutional Right to Reproductive Freedom, Abortion, Contraceptives
4% Proposition 26 Sports Betting at Tribal Casinos
10% Proposition 27 Allow Online Sports Betting
2% Proposition 28 Arts and Music Education Funding in Public Schools
7% Proposition 29 Impose New Rules on Dialysis Clinics
4% Proposition 30 Tax Millionaires for Electric Vehicle Programs, Wildfire Response and Prevention
3% Proposition 31 Uphold Flavored Tobacco Ban
11% none of them (volunteered)
4% all equally (volunteered)
1% other (specify) (volunteered)
33% don’t know
14. [likely voters only] Proposition 26 is called Allows In-Person Roulette, Dice Game, Sports Wagering on Tribal Lands. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute. It allows in-person sports betting at racetracks and tribal casinos, and requires that racetracks and casinos that offer sports betting to make certain payments to the state—such as to support state regulatory costs. The fiscal impact is increased state revenues, possibly reaching tens of millions of dollars annually. Some of these revenues would support increased state regulatory and enforcement costs that could reach the low tens of millions of dollars annually. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on Proposition 26?
9% don’t know
15. [likely voters only] How important to you is the outcome of the vote on Proposition 26—is it very important, somewhat important, not too important, or not at all important?
21% very important
37% somewhat important
26% not too important
11% not at all important
5% don’t know
16. [likely voters only] Proposition 27 is called Allows Online and Mobile Sports Wagering Outside Tribal Lands. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. It allows Indian tribes and affiliated businesses to operate online and mobile sports wagering outside tribal lands. It directs revenues to regulatory costs, homelessness programs, and nonparticipating tribes. The fiscal impact is increased state revenues, possibly in the hundreds of millions of dollars but not likely to exceed $500 million annually. Some revenues would support state regulatory costs, possibly reaching the mid-tens of millions of dollars annually. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on Proposition 27?
8% don’t know
17. [likely voters only] How important to you is the outcome of the vote on Proposition 27—is it very important, somewhat important, not too important, or not at all important?
31% very important
34% somewhat important
22% not too important
9% not at all important
4% don’t know
18. [likely voters only] Would you say you are personally interested in betting on sports, or not?
9% yes, interested
90% no, not interested
– don’t know
19. [likely voters only] Thinking about the fact that betting money on sports is now legal in most of the country—if sports betting was made legal in California, do you think this would be a good thing or bad thing for the state?
30% good thing
48% bad thing
11% neither a good thing nor bad thing, doesn’t matter (volunteered)
11% don’t know
20. [likely voters only] Proposition 30 is called Provides Funding for Programs to Reduce Air Pollution and Prevent Wildfires by Increasing Tax on Personal Income over $2 Million. Initiative Statute. It allocates tax revenues to zero-emission vehicle purchase incentives, vehicle charging stations, and wildfire prevention. The fiscal impact is increased state tax revenue ranging from $3.5 billion to $5 billion annually, with the new funding used to support zero-emission vehicle programs and wildfire response and prevention activities. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on Proposition 30?
7% don’t know
21. [likely voters only] How important to you is the outcome of the vote on Proposition 30—is it very important, somewhat important, not too important, or not at all important?
42% very important
38% somewhat important
13% not too important
4% not at all important
3% don’t know
Next, we are interested in your opinions about the citizens’ initiatives and referenda that appear on the state ballot as propositions this fall. Do you agree or disagree with these statements?
[rotate questions 22 and 23]
22. [likely voters only] There are too many propositions on the state ballot—do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree?
20% strongly agree
27% somewhat agree
27% somewhat disagree
22% strongly disagree
5% don’t know
23. [likely voters only] The propositions on the state ballot reflect the concerns of average California residents—do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree?
14% strongly agree
36% somewhat agree
25% somewhat disagree
21% strongly disagree
4% don’t know
Reforms have been suggested to address issues in California’s direct democracy process.
24. [likely voters only] Would you favor or oppose a new law that would increase the number of signatures required to qualify an initiative, referendum, or recall for the state ballot?
10% don’t know
25. [likely voters only] Would you favor or oppose a new law that would allow electronic signature gathering over the internet to qualify an initiative, referendum, or recall for the state ballot?
5% don’t know
26. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way that Joe Biden is handling his job as president?
4% don’t know
[rotate questions 27 and 28]
27. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way Alex Padilla is handling his job as US Senator?
29% don’t know
28. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way Dianne Feinstein is handling her job as US Senator?
17% don’t know
29. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of the way the US Congress is handling its job?
7% don’t know
30. Do you think things in the United States are generally going in the right direction or the wrong direction?
33% right direction
62% wrong direction
5% don’t know
31. Would you describe the state of the nation’s economy these days as excellent, good, not so good, or poor?
43% not so good
1% don’t know
32. How satisfied are you with the way democracy is working in the United States? Are you very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, not too satisfied, or not at all satisfied?
7% very satisfied
38% somewhat satisfied
29% not too satisfied
23% not at all satisfied
2% don’t know
33. These days, do you feel [rotate]  (optimistic) [or]  (pessimistic) that Americans of different political views can still come together and work out their differences?
4% don’t know
On another topic,
34. What is your opinion with regard to race relations in the United States today? Would you say things are [rotate 1 and 2]  (better),  (worse), or about the same than they were a year ago?
44% about the same
2% don’t know
35. When it comes to racial discrimination, which do you think is the bigger problem for the country today—[rotate]  People seeing racial discrimination where it really does NOT exist [or]  People NOT seeing racial discrimination where it really DOES exist?
37% people seeing racial discrimination where it really does not exist
54% people not seeing racial discrimination where it really does exist
9% don’t know
36. Next, would you consider yourself to be politically: [read list, rotate order top to bottom]
17% very liberal
19% somewhat liberal
20% somewhat conservative
12% very conservative
3% don’t know
37. Generally speaking, how much interest would you say you have in politics—a great deal, a fair amount, only a little, or none?
26% great deal
37% fair amount
28% only a little
-% don’t know
[d1–d15 demographic questions]
Mark Baldassare is president and CEO of the Public Policy Institute of California, where he holds the Arjay and Frances Fearing Miller Chair in Public Policy. He is a leading expert on public opinion and survey methodology, and has directed the PPIC Statewide Survey since 1998. He is an authority on elections, voter behavior, and political and fiscal reform, and the author of ten books and numerous publications. Previously, he served as PPIC’s director of research and senior fellow. Before joining PPIC, he was a professor of urban and regional planning in the School of Social Ecology at the University of California, Irvine, where he held the Johnson Chair in Civic Governance. He has conducted surveys for the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, and the California Business Roundtable. He holds a PhD in sociology from the University of California, Berkeley.
Dean Bonner is associate survey director and research fellow at PPIC, where he coauthors the PPIC Statewide Survey—a large-scale public opinion project designed to develop an in-depth profile of the social, economic, and political attitudes at work in California elections and policymaking. He has expertise in public opinion and survey research, political attitudes and participation, and voting behavior. Before joining PPIC, he taught political science at Tulane University and was a research associate at the University of New Orleans Survey Research Center. He holds a PhD and MA in political science from the University of New Orleans.
Rachel Lawler is a survey analyst at the Public Policy Institute of California, where she works with the statewide survey team. Prior to joining PPIC, she was a client manager in Kantar Millward Brown’s Dublin, Ireland office. In that role, she led and contributed to a variety of quantitative and qualitative studies for both government and corporate clients. She holds an MA in American politics and foreign policy from the University College Dublin and a BA in political science from Chapman University.
Deja Thomas is a survey analyst at the Public Policy Institute of California, where she works with the statewide survey team. Prior to joining PPIC, she was a research assistant with the social and demographic trends team at the Pew Research Center. In that role, she contributed to a variety of national quantitative and qualitative survey studies. She holds a BA in psychology from the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa.
This survey was supported with funding from the Arjay and Frances F. Miller Foundation and the James Irvine Foundation.
PPIC Statewide Advisory Committee
Senior Vice President, External Relations
Angela Glover Blackwell
Founder in Residence
Executive Vice President and
Chief Operating Officer
Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation
Bruce E. Cain
Bill Lane Center for the American West
Chief Research Officer and Senior Vice President,
Strategic Partnerships and Business Development
Joshua J. Dyck
Center for Public Opinion
University of Massachusetts, Lowell
Lisa García Bedolla
Vice Provost for Graduate Studies and
Dean of the Graduate Division
University of California, Berkeley
President and CEO
Joint Venture Silicon Valley
Sherry Bebitch Jeffe
Sol Price School of Public Policy
University of Southern California
California Business Roundtable
Carol S. Larson
The David and Lucile Packard Foundation
Chief Executive Officer & Founder
Lucas Public Affairs
Fiscal and Policy Analyst
California Legislative Analyst’s Office
Vice President of Government Relations
The Walt Disney Company
Robert K. Ross, MD
President and CEO
The California Endowment
Survey Specialist Consultant
Most Reverend Jaime Soto
Bishop of Sacramento
Roman Catholic Diocese of Sacramento
Helen Iris Torres
Hispanas Organized for Political Equality
David C. Wilson, PhD
Dean and Professor
Richard and Rhoda Goldman School
of Public Policy
University of California, Berkeley
PPIC Board of Directors
Chet Hewitt, Chair
President and CEO
Sierra Health Foundation
President and CEO
Public Policy Institute of California
Terner Center for Housing Innovation
University of California, Berkeley
Louise Henry Bryson
Chair Emerita, Board of Trustees
J. Paul Getty Trust
President and CEO
Fresno Building Healthy Communities
A. Marisa Chun
Judge, Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco
Delta Stewardship Council
Author and Farmer
Steven A. Merksamer
Nielsen Merksamer Parrinello
Gross & Leoni LLP
Steven J. Olson
O’Melveny & Myers LLP
Leon E. Panetta
The Panetta Institute for Public Policy
Gerald L. Parsky
Aurora Capital Group
Chairman and Co-founder
Cassandra Walker Pye
Lucas Public Affairs
Helen Iris Torres
Hispanas Organized for Political Equality
Gaddi H. Vasquez
Retired Senior Vice President, Government Affairs
Southern California Edison
© 2022 Public Policy Institute of California
The Public Policy Institute of California is dedicated to informing and improving public policy in California through independent, objective, nonpartisan research.
PPIC is a public charity. It does not take or support positions on any ballot measures or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office.
Short sections of text, not to exceed three paragraphs, may be quoted without written permission provided that full attribution is given to the source.
Research publications reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of our funders or of the staff, officers, advisory councils, or board of directors of the Public Policy Institute of California.