SB 51: the California politics thread

sorry -- you chose a bad example to make your point.

a lot of the procedural/logistical arguments against prop 15 (and for prop 13) neglect the existence of the entire rest of the world, where those problems have been solved and they do things the fair way, which is a little bit harder administratively, and it works out well.

nah, the lion's share should be paid by people who own the most valuable buildings.

but other states manage it, and so do other countries. it's a solved problem. california isn't special.

maybe the solution is a bad one? Idk. I'm sure there isn't just one solution. I am merely saying that in this context, where many of these buildings haven't been assessed properly in a very long time, there are a lot of big question marks that other places that might be better at regularly collecting data on buildings don't have, because they have better practices in terms of data collection.

i know you're skeptical that government can get anything right, but i promise you, when revenue is on the line, they will manage this fine.

nah, the lion's share should be paid by people who own the most valuable buildings.

― 𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Wednesday, October 14, 2020 12:20 PM (two minutes ago)

see the thing with that area is, the majority of the buildings are much smaller, and thus less valuable. Those apartment buildings were probably initially proposed to be much larger but had to be reduced in order to "fit with the neighborhood." There's another one in the pre-dev stage just north of 51st on Broadway on the former CCAC campus that is going to "meet that fate"

In that neighborhood from your tweet, there are a lot of single family homes and duplexes (a few triplexes), there are some smaller apartment buildings (less than 15 units), and there are a number of single story/2 story commercial buildings on the main streets -- ground floor retail, top floor either office or residential. The only buildings that are as large as those apartment buildings are the Kaiser medical buildings. There are a lot of Kaiser medical buildings. Oh, and there are some one story warehouse buildings that have been auto garages for a very very long time. Seriously, this is just not a good example for the point you are making -- there are plenty of other areas where there are new apartment buildings that are fairly comparable in size to older ones -- and there you would definitely see the striking difference that supports your argument.

i know you're skeptical that government can get anything right,

that's not my position -- just that it would take a fair amount of work, and maybe some tough compromises. I'm not saying it isn't impossible, I'm saying it's a challenge.

yeah i understand. i was mostly trolling there.

haha lol!

I dunno if 15 is going to raise rents or not but I voted for it because I think state funding for schools is at crisis levels and something needs to be done. I honestly don't understand how commercial rentals work at all. Often I'd think that landlords would rather have someone in there than not, but they also seem to have no issue jacking up leases and rates for shops and small restaurants and forcing them to close only to leave them sitting vacant for years and they seem to think this is an ok thing to do, so what the fuck do I know.

What do people suggest for 23? I voted no. I suppose I could change that vote if I felt like it were important enough (didn't turn in ballot yet) but my take was that it would be burdensome to dialysis centers. I only know one person on dialysis out here but I would hate to do anything that made it more difficult for him or anyone else to get this procedure done, which I'm fairly confident does not require a doctor present.

I would abstain on 23 if I could vote. Indictment of the ballot measure system.

why should we have to the legislators on this stuff. I voted no on 23

I voted for 15 too, but honestly I'm not comfortable with any of these propositions, or any of the ones in the past in CA

they are putting complicated proposals into the hands of voters who are really not all that interested. don't see how that is good

I sealed and signed my ballot and am ready to deliver it

I'm going to remain positive

correct opinion, the proposition system is bad

how did people vote on cash bail vs probably racist algorithms?

yes yes to end money bail

I agree with this guy (vice mayor of culver city and a good poster actually?!)

I’m voting YES on #Prop25 because Californians aren’t going to get another shot at removing bail bond industry money from politics for a generation. I’m aware of the problems with SB 10, but we won’t see anything better for years without eliminating the industry’s power.

— Alex “Yes on Measure RE, No on B” Fisch (@AlexFischCC) October 16, 2020

A yes on Prop 25 means we will almost certainly see frequent reform to bail as we stumble toward a better tomorrow. A no outcome probably means at least a generation of the status quo.

— Alex “Yes on Measure RE, No on B” Fisch (@AlexFischCC) October 16, 2020

not sure where to post this:

Just took an Uber for the first time in forever. The app said my driver was yes on prop 22. I asked him and he explained; NO, but the msg comes up with every ride and he decided to just click yes to make it go away.
Thats infuriating, misleading and probably illegal.#NoOnProp22

— Tonje Ettesvoll (@Unicorn__Voice) October 17, 2020

He made an independent contract with the devil, no big deal.

https://www.taxfairnessproject.org/map

congratulations to palo alto, menlo park, marin, berkeley, etc.

What in the world is going on with the dialysis proposition? Y’all have to do so much research to vote.

California state ballot initiatives are worded like “Vote no if don’t not want thing to do not happen, or will” and if you fuck it up you legalize babies working for Instacart

— Mark Agee (@MarkAgee) October 15, 2020

lol otm

I decided to vote in DC one last time because I didn’t feel like I could deal with figuring out CA props whilst in the midst of moving. Next time, CA, next time.

dialysis is one of those weird things where it's like, every election there is some proposition related to it on the ballot, and the majority of voters are like "idk and/or idgaf" ... it just seems a potentially bad thing to let the general population decide.

My guess is that a bunch of shady unlicensed dialysis centers popped up due to some new insurance code and have been getting away with shoddy practices (see: drug treatment centers in Florida). This bill adds a little regulation to them (requires having a doctor on-site, which doesn't seem wildly overbearing), so of course they hate it. I voted yes.

the fact that you have to guess is an indictment of the system

iow, sarahell otm

Everything decided by ballot measure is a bad thing to let the population decide, and it’s particularly bad when you remember decisions made by ballot measure can only be overturned by another ballot measure. But yeah, triple negatives in wording and insanely technical issues very few people have direct experience of are the worse offenders.

the population shouldn't get to decide anything??? ... like that logic seems suspect and what lead to things like the electoral college and the fact that we have the same number of Senators as North Dakota.

Ballot measures are a nice idea in theory but the past 100 years have shown that they are an unbelievably bad way of running a government, and they are getting worse.

yeah I don't think the fact that the founders wanted to entrench a slave-owning minority discredits the whole idea of representative democracy

Yeah the US senate is not the alternative. Getting rid of ballot measures s the alternative.

Ballot measures are a nice idea in theory but the past 100 years have shown that they are an unbelievably bad way of running a government, and they are getting worse.

I could argue that our federal government, sans ballot measures, is also run quite badly, and has definitely gotten worse! ... Like "worse than what" is my question to you.

there are/have been ballot measures that have been effective in terms of pressuring legislators to actually respond to what people want ... idk ... remind me how long you've lived in California, caek?

Just get rid of ballot measures! Keep everything else the in the CA constitution same. It works all over the world.

(and stop forgetting the rest of the world exists and has things to teach us. why are the only options the status quo or the ... federal constitution?!?)

the rest of the world works so so so so well. geez ... you have this unrealistic view of "the rest of the world"

Apparently not long enough because my first thought isn’t “we can keep doing what we’re doing or we can ... South Dakota”

Looking by forward to tons of prop 22s, ie tech companies paying for laws that literally cannot be overturned.

I don't understand your problem with ballot measures. It appears that you want elected officials to have to decide everything through the legislative process, which you know, concentrates power more in the hands of the elected officials ... the direct democracy of ballot measures, if done well, is actually a nice form of checks & balances to that. But maybe, we both are coming from this place of idealism, where we are being a bit too hand-wavey about the fact the reality of the systems we are advocating for, is actually mediocre.

xp as opposed to tech companies buying candidates?

Yes because a law passed by a corrupt politician can be overturned but a ballot measure cannot unless you have more money than the people that passed it!!!!!

I’m not saying representative democracy is perfect. I’m saying ballot measures are a greater concentration of power among the very rich than no ballot measures.

I’ll do some googling another time for details but I just want to say for now that the view that ballot measures result in bad government wherever they’re tried is an extremely conventional and mainstream idea that is empirically pretty obviously true.

it’s also very easy to see how the problems with ballot measures (kakistocracy) are worse in states that suffer from extreme concentration of wealth, which is e.g. California. And that concentration is getting worse here very fast. We need to get rid of them ASAP.

i disagree -- i think having a mix of representative and direct democracy is good -- and maybe some of this is my age + remembered history of CA politics that I've lived through and my parents and grandparents and great-grandparents lived through, but I don't see how it's more difficult for the very rich to buy politicians as opposed to buying individual voters. They have been very successful at this in the past! I feel like things are less grotesquely corrupt in Sacramento than they were in the 80s and 90s ... and maybe that's a big difference in our perception here. But, you do strike me as way more authoritarian than I am.

Thought experiment to prove ballot measures are bad: imagine we had them at the federal level. Think what would be this year’s prop 22, ie a well resourced group buying a law that cannot be repealed other than by a group with more money.

removing Trump from office?

Prosecuting cops that kill black people?

Thought experiment to prove ballot measures are good: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition_103