it's going to be that turd schiff isn't it
― π ππ’π¨ (caek), Tuesday, 11 August 2020 21:05 (three years ago) link
what about the woman who lost to Harris in the election -- it was super close?
though my preference would be Libby Schaaf -- take my mayor ... please!
― sarahell, Tuesday, 11 August 2020 21:07 (three years ago) link
though if he picks Barbara Lee, then maybe we can "upgrade" one of our less appealing City Council members ... oh Lynette G-M ... please seek higher office.
― sarahell, Tuesday, 11 August 2020 21:09 (three years ago) link
though it would be "hilarious" if Gavin chose his patron, Willie Brown ...
― sarahell, Tuesday, 11 August 2020 21:11 (three years ago) link
lol
Given that Uber rides have cratered during the pandemic, I wonder if people will care about this threat as much as they would have, say, a year ago https://t.co/MtQrfcUYdI— Laura J. Nelson π¦ (@laura_nelson) August 12, 2020
― π ππ’π¨ (caek), Wednesday, 12 August 2020 16:49 (three years ago) link
iirc spending (almost entirely from uber/lyft/doordash etc.) on the AB5 ballot measure is ~$110m. spending on prop 15 (the actual big deal about split roll property tax) is like 10% of that. to zuck's credit, almost all the pro-prop 15 money comes from his foundation.
― π ππ’π¨ (caek), Wednesday, 12 August 2020 16:52 (three years ago) link
Anyway I nominate caek to be our senator.
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 12 August 2020 16:57 (three years ago) link
Haha thank u I hereby repeal proposition 13 and make it illegal to enforce βno soccerβ rules at public parks.For anyone enjoying the rolling blackout drama, the iso today app is very well done!
― π ππ’π¨ (caek), Wednesday, 19 August 2020 01:58 (three years ago) link
The stakes are too high to sit out this election. This November we will put #SchoolsAndCommunitiesFirst by voting #YesOn15. Thank you @JoeBiden for being an early champion of #YesOn15! pic.twitter.com/0q7kHKj5Pu— Yes on Prop 15! (Schools & Communities First) (@Schools1stCA) August 21, 2020
you know who hasn't endorsed prop 15? the governor.
― π ππ’π¨ (caek), Friday, 21 August 2020 05:22 (three years ago) link
here are my ballot measure endorsements if you want to vote the caek slate
15: eliminate part of california's insane, unique property tax break, yes16: repeal law banning affirmative action, yes17: allow people on parole to vote, yes18: allow people who will be 18 years old by general to vote in primary, yes20: classify more crimes as felonies, collect more DNA, no21: allow more local rent control, yes22: undo law that made uber/lyft/etc. drivers employees, no24: more privacy online, yes25: replace cash bail (which sucks) with (algorithmic?) risk assesements (which also suck, but maybe a bit less), yes
no opinion: 14 (stem cell money), 23 (dialysis clinics), 19 (technical thing about inheritance of property tax breaks that bundles in some weird stuff about fires and honestly seems kind of weird given who is supporting it)
― π ππ’π¨ (caek), Friday, 21 August 2020 05:28 (three years ago) link
Iβd vote yes on 19 I think.
― sound of scampo talk to me (El Tomboto), Friday, 21 August 2020 06:07 (three years ago) link
so why is Lyft pulling out now when their ballot measure hasn't even been decided?
― sarahell, Friday, 21 August 2020 18:18 (three years ago) link
Theyβre not. They got a stay in court on ab5 enforcement yesterday.
― π ππ’π¨ (caek), Friday, 21 August 2020 19:43 (three years ago) link
meanwhile Doordash is sending out "sympathize with us" emails about how horrible it is that the mean state wants them to classify their workers as employees
― sarahell, Friday, 21 August 2020 19:45 (three years ago) link
Are absentee ballots mailed out yet?
― Ruth Bae Ginsburg (Leee), Friday, 21 August 2020 22:41 (three years ago) link
I havenβt seen any yet
― π ππ’π¨ (caek), Friday, 21 August 2020 23:05 (three years ago) link
Looking forward to reminding these people that trump said the quiet part out loud for them
Here, a liberal homeowner and retired teacher in San Jose who converted a 1930s triplex into a single-family home, grapples with his stance on single-family zoning and President Trump's embrace of it for exclusionary reasons https://t.co/lrlR41Y7Tp pic.twitter.com/XM6Lm0oE7T— Liam Dillon (@dillonliam) August 21, 2020
― π ππ’π¨ (caek), Saturday, 22 August 2020 13:52 (three years ago) link
usual shitty legislation under deadline at the end of the session last night, and also this. great job everybody.
I wrote about how @BuffyWicks brought her 1-month-old baby to the Assembly floor after being denied a proxy vote request because she wasn't considered high risk for coronavirus, as her Republican colleagues next door voted from home. https://t.co/fe39s61mYV— Mackenzie Mays (@MackenzieMays) September 1, 2020
― π ππ’π¨ (caek), Tuesday, 1 September 2020 18:01 (three years ago) link
damn, and she didn't even have one of those organic baby chest wraps that are de rigeur with her constituents (which also include Berkeley, and only part of Oakland fyi) ... she is really making a point there ... good job, Buffy!
also this:https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/08/28/editorial-prop-15-wont-fix-biggest-california-property-tax-problem/
― sarahell, Tuesday, 1 September 2020 19:15 (three years ago) link
the editorial's argument is kinda specious tbh, even to me, who generally ends up in arguments here on ilx as the "advocate for small businesses" lol.
One thing that is unclear to me, is whether this affects what the state refers to as investment property. For example, where does residential rental property (e.g. large apartment buildings) fall on the split-roll? Do they stay with the unaffected owner-occupied houses because they are residences, or ...?
― sarahell, Tuesday, 1 September 2020 19:35 (three years ago) link
sarahell, what do you disagree with from the editorial? this makes sense to me: In short, the big problem is not the disparity between residential and other types of property. Itβs the disparity between the taxes paid by long-time property owners and those who purchased recently β an inequity thatβs found for both residential and commercial properties.
― lukas, Tuesday, 1 September 2020 19:49 (three years ago) link
that article is full of concern trolling. vote yes on prop 15 to begin to chip away at prop 13.
― π ππ’π¨ (caek), Tuesday, 1 September 2020 20:11 (three years ago) link
Californiaβs property tax system is a mess. Proposition 15, the βsplit rollβ measure on the Nov. 3 ballot, attempts to fix it. Unfortunately, it only makes matters worse.
I skimmed, so I might have missed it, but there is not even a claim, much less any evidence that it will "make matters worse" than the status quo in the article.
― π ππ’π¨ (caek), Tuesday, 1 September 2020 20:13 (three years ago) link
I disagree with its conclusion that people should vote no on 15, for one thing.
Also, the rationale that the brunt of the increase will fall on small business owners thus we should vote no. It's the same type of argument as "we should not waive rents during Covid because of the hypothetical poor little old ladies that rent out the family home". They provide no data to back up how much of the increase would affect small business owners (potentially), and how much would be large real estate companies passing through property tax increases to large retail conglomerates or other major corporations. ... Like, would you feel bad if large corporations had to pay more in property taxes to the state of California?
The editorial spends a bunch of time arguing about the share of property taxes paid by homeowners vs. the proportion of residential real estate to commercial ... which is kinda missing the point. If owners of commercial property were to pay more, it is possible that fewer special initiatives would be required that increase property taxes on homeowners. Yeah, I know people can (and will) take the cynical opinion that local jurisdictions will still take every opportunity to increase property taxes in order to fund government bloat and reward government inefficiency, corruption, and incompetence (though mostly on FB groups and not on ilx).
― sarahell, Tuesday, 1 September 2020 20:14 (three years ago) link
that article is full of concern trolling.
in short, yes, otm.
it is so thin that my suspicious is that is intentional FUD
― π ππ’π¨ (caek), Tuesday, 1 September 2020 20:16 (three years ago) link
*suspicion
― π ππ’π¨ (caek), Tuesday, 1 September 2020 20:17 (three years ago) link
also, the concern trolling is even more troll-y as there are provisions that support small businesses as well as recent legislation (maybe this is just at local levels and not statewide) that puts small businesses into the protected category for covid related eviction moratoriums ...
― sarahell, Tuesday, 1 September 2020 20:18 (three years ago) link
ah, makes sense.
― lukas, Tuesday, 1 September 2020 20:19 (three years ago) link
β π ππ’π¨ (caek), Tuesday, September 1, 2020 1:16 PM (two minutes ago)
Yeah -- it totally reads that way. Like, it makes me suspect this was ghost-written by some commercial property owners lobbyists. The Mercury/EB Times has actually done some great reporting and supported "my people" ... so this was super disappointing. It does remind me of the editorial voice/stance of the paper when I was growing up in the 1980s though.
― sarahell, Tuesday, 1 September 2020 20:21 (three years ago) link
(apart from the Gary Webb series on the CIA / war on drugs connection, which I remember reading at my parents' dining room table)
― sarahell, Tuesday, 1 September 2020 20:22 (three years ago) link
yeah on re-read it really is yech. must remember to wear my appropriate paranoia hat.
― lukas, Tuesday, 1 September 2020 20:23 (three years ago) link
apologies for the SF-specific content but I saw some leftists eyerolling this, can anyone tell me why?
Proposition K: A measure that would authorize San Francisco to build or rehabilitate up to 10,000 units of affordable housing. Under the state Constitution, voters must approve low-income housing developments before they can be built. Prop. K, authored by Preston, would give the city the go-ahead to build such housing if it passes with simple-majority vote. The measure does not provide funding for the housing, however.
― lukas, Tuesday, 1 September 2020 20:30 (three years ago) link
(I don't think they were eyerolling the lack of funding, they just saw an ad for Prop K were reacting)
― lukas, Tuesday, 1 September 2020 20:31 (three years ago) link
the only thing i can think of is that there's an element of the left that thinks new housing necessarily results in gentrification and displacement. this is sometimes true. it seems unlikely to be true in the case of actual public housing.
― π ππ’π¨ (caek), Tuesday, 1 September 2020 20:56 (three years ago) link
San Francisco leftists are a special bunch ... (and not entirely unified) ... looking at the SF Planning Code is very telling in terms of how SF progressives view development vs. progressives in most of the rest of the country.
― sarahell, Tuesday, 1 September 2020 21:04 (three years ago) link
leftism truly is a land of contrasts
― π ππ’π¨ (caek), Tuesday, 1 September 2020 21:18 (three years ago) link
his *next tweet* was complaining about high rent. say what you will about gay shame but at least harassing techies has a plausible story around reducing demand!
― lukas, Tuesday, 1 September 2020 21:22 (three years ago) link
(i mean, not an actually plausible story.)
so is this a bunch of ppl or just one dude?
― sarahell, Tuesday, 1 September 2020 21:32 (three years ago) link
ha! i blew of some steam writing a letter to the editor about that mercury news editorial!
― π ππ’π¨ (caek), Tuesday, 1 September 2020 21:46 (three years ago) link
one dude tweeting with four or five people chiming in "omg lol" etc
xp
― lukas, Tuesday, 1 September 2020 21:47 (three years ago) link
ha i always wonder if i know the person ... and bonus points awarded to self if i know the person and have hidden the person on social media, like about half dozen self-righteous dudes whose anti-liberalism verges on alt-right tin foil hattiness
― sarahell, Tuesday, 1 September 2020 22:05 (three years ago) link
Elephant in the room: There is a MASSIVE shift in demand for housing in SF (seriously, on my morning run I saw literal rows of moving trucks & vans today/yesterday, definitely more than I've seen in the last 5 months and perhaps more than I've ever seen here in 23+ years).
My sister-in-law and husband (SF native) who were priced out of SF were doing Trulia searches on 2BRs in central SF under $3k and seeing 250+ units available and are seriously excited about coming back to their former neighborhood.
I can only imagine with most sectors' flexibility in WFH being projected out to even like end of 2021 in some cases that there will be a long-overdue market correction and hopefully a return to community and neighborhood pride, instead of SF housing being used as dorms for the people that work 60-90 minutes away in shitty NIMBY valley suburbs while their employers merely subsidize everything to keep them from actually "living" in SF.
― Jersey Al (Albert R. Broccoli), Tuesday, 1 September 2020 22:35 (three years ago) link
I hope you're right. I would love it if people who don't really want to live in SF didn't live here!
― lukas, Tuesday, 1 September 2020 23:05 (three years ago) link
one data point but an engineer i work with left SF and moved to santa cruz when covid kicked off. (now on fire lol california)
― π ππ’π¨ (caek), Tuesday, 1 September 2020 23:07 (three years ago) link
Even assuming remote work is broadly accepted forever though, I don't know how big the effect will be long term. Ambitious types will still want to show up to HQ in person, small startups will still want in-person war rooms ...
― lukas, Tuesday, 1 September 2020 23:34 (three years ago) link
also the weather is nice, the scenery is conventionally attractive, and there are dope ass restaurants, cultural sites, nightlife, plus the infrastructure for conventions/conferences etc. ... once things "get back to normal"
― sarahell, Wednesday, 2 September 2020 16:52 (three years ago) link
Omg, just now seeing that opposition editorial to prop 15.
Rather, we should create a new system that taxes all properties in direct proportion to their values. Proposition 15 fails to do that. Voters should reject it.
How about we achieve something winnable?
― john shopkins (naus), Friday, 4 September 2020 08:33 (three years ago) link
Now, rather than in the next election-cycle or two?
― john shopkins (naus), Friday, 4 September 2020 08:35 (three years ago) link