SB 51: the California politics thread

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed

What's up this year? Lots!

- The housing crisis, Prop 10 and SB 827 (RIP (for now))
- Prop 5 (and the hope of a split roll measure in a couple of years?!)
- Prop 6 (lol this is going to lose I hope)
- When did Gavin Newsom disappoint you first?
- Feinstein vs De Leon (lol) and the state democratic party
- The state republican party (lol)
- Ballot Measure C in SF (this one seems nuts!)
- What is the deal with all the ballot measures, isn't that what we pay these people for?
- high speed rail (lol)
- single payer (lol)

Let's talk about it!

π” π”žπ”’π”¨ (caek), Tuesday, 16 October 2018 14:57 (three months ago) Permalink

someone explain SF measure C to me? is it doomed now breed, weiner, etc. are against it?

re: ballot measure 6, is apparently a lost cause at this point, ha, http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-california-gas-tax-repeal-campaign-cash-20180930-story.html. but prop 10 is not polling well either (and is kind of a mess legislatively as i understand it): https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article219033985.html.

LA measure B (city bank) is cool btw, and the LA times sucks for opposing it.

π” π”žπ”’π”¨ (caek), Tuesday, 16 October 2018 15:01 (three months ago) Permalink

I have no idea what's going to happen to measure C but I hope it passes. The split on the Dem side (Pelosi and various supervisors for it, bu Breed/Weiner/others against it) is kind of weird but idk how many voters really take their marching orders from Breed and Weiner tbh. Whereas everyone I know thinks bajillionaire companies paying more to house the people they've misplaced is a no-brainer.

ΞŸα½–Ο„ΞΉΟ‚, Tuesday, 16 October 2018 17:17 (three months ago) Permalink

uh wtf at the DST prop?

I'm really behind the times, yall are going to have to hold my hand as I fill out my ballot. The only ones that seem clear cut to me on first blush are 6 (NO) and 10 (YES).

Catherine Power (Leee), Tuesday, 16 October 2018 17:38 (three months ago) Permalink

agreed on 6 and 10.

the DST prop changes nothing but it gives the legislature the right to consider and in principle make changes. DST kills a few people people every march. vote yes IMO on that one.

the bond measures (1-4) are all yeses for me.

prop 5 extends the infamous prop 13 (i.e. restricts localities ability to fund education by restricting their ability to tax massive real estate wealth). you could make the case that extends it to be fairer, but any extension of prop 13 makes the task of removing it politically tougher. so no on 5 IMO.

8 11 and 12 are classic examples of "What is the deal with all the ballot measures, isn't that what we pay these people for?" i guess i'd be yes on 8, no on 11 and yes on 12?

π” π”žπ”’π”¨ (caek), Tuesday, 16 October 2018 17:48 (three months ago) Permalink

Sent my ballot in the other day. Yeah C has been worth it just to see Benioff and Jack@Twitter complaining at each other in public.

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 16 October 2018 17:50 (three months ago) Permalink

given the financial structure that tech VC encourage (i.e. avoid making a profit), i like that ballot measure C is a tax on revenue, not profits.

π” π”žπ”’π”¨ (caek), Tuesday, 16 October 2018 17:51 (three months ago) Permalink

caek did you go and get naturalized or somethin

I have measured out my life in coffee shop loyalty cards (silby), Tuesday, 16 October 2018 17:54 (three months ago) Permalink

no i can't vote, so i'm telling as many people as possible how to vote instead

π” π”žπ”’π”¨ (caek), Tuesday, 16 October 2018 17:55 (three months ago) Permalink

that's very generous of you; if I couldn't vote I don't know how I could stand researching ballot measures

anyway not californian so y'all can do whatever as long as you don't come for our water

I have measured out my life in coffee shop loyalty cards (silby), Tuesday, 16 October 2018 17:57 (three months ago) Permalink

also lol at gerry brown's veto statement for the 4am last call option

https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/SB-905-Veto.pdf

"mischief and mayhem".

π” π”žπ”’π”¨ (caek), Tuesday, 16 October 2018 17:58 (three months ago) Permalink

xp
He's the Frederik B of California!

nickn, Tuesday, 16 October 2018 18:02 (three months ago) Permalink

ha i do live here fwiw

π” π”žπ”’π”¨ (caek), Tuesday, 16 October 2018 18:05 (three months ago) Permalink

much as I find the Salesforce tower annoying (I work right next to it), I have to say this guy's allright. Or at least better than most.

Benioff and Salesforce have donated to multiple San Francisco Bay Area causes including $250 million to support hospitals, $11 million to help the homeless, and $50 million to public schools. In his talk, he acknowledges that some of city's business leaders haven't been as generous.

"I have gone hat in hand to every high net worth individual in the city," he said. "I know who is willing to give money, and who isn't. I already have the list. I know if we're going to raise money for our schools, the homeless and hospitals, there's a group of people in our city who are willing to give. And there's a group of people in the city who give nothing based on the level of wealth they have. You're either for the kids, the homeless and the hospitals, or you're for yourself."

ΞŸα½–Ο„ΞΉΟ‚, Tuesday, 16 October 2018 18:52 (three months ago) Permalink

graded on a curve he is easily the best of the bunch. SFDC has an obscure business relationship with ICE/CBP though.

π” π”žπ”’π”¨ (caek), Tuesday, 16 October 2018 19:14 (three months ago) Permalink

I have to admit I don't know what Salesforce does.

Catherine Power (Leee), Tuesday, 16 October 2018 19:16 (three months ago) Permalink

Aside from putting their name on things around the city and buying Metallica.

Catherine Power (Leee), Tuesday, 16 October 2018 19:17 (three months ago) Permalink

Salesforce makes Rolodex-as-a-Service for your entire company.

El Tomboto, Tuesday, 16 October 2018 19:23 (three months ago) Permalink

considering the software they sell is basically a spreadsheet/database combo from the 90s, their research team is also bizarrely good at AI/ML, which is one of their reasons their involvement with CBP is unnerving.

π” π”žπ”’π”¨ (caek), Tuesday, 16 October 2018 19:25 (three months ago) Permalink

I've used a few Salesforce databases in my job and basically a spreadsheet/database combo from the 90s seems about accurate. tbf there was a huge need/demand for this, so their success is not really much of a surprise.

ΞŸα½–Ο„ΞΉΟ‚, Tuesday, 16 October 2018 19:46 (three months ago) Permalink

Also it’s a federal election so off topic but it’s interesting because of the top two primary so: the congressional election where I live is between jimmy Gomez (democrat) and a Green Party guy. I believe this is the only two candidate congressional election involving the greens in the country. Based on the lawn signs and the number of times they’ve canvassed our home, the Green Party guy is going to run away with it. (He won’t. He’ll lose by like 40 points.)

π” π”žπ”’π”¨ (caek), Wednesday, 17 October 2018 02:49 (three months ago) Permalink

I can't believe I am actually going to vote for Gavin Newsom for the first time in like 20 years? ... like I actually voted against him for Lt. Gov. because I hated him so much as SF Mayor and before that as appointed stooge to Willie Brown on the Board of Supes ...

otoh I'm kinda cool with Jerry Brown as governor, and I kinda hated him as mayor,

and actually a lot of the current bullshit in Oakland can kinda be laid at his feet, though not really. Like I don't think any one person can be held responsible for the incompetence, venality, and obstructionist idiocy that is a lot of Oakland government: the people that don't have to run for office, so they can be pretty much awful and stupid with few repercussions to their careers.

There's some new local version of Howard Jarvis Taxpayers sending out mailers to Oakland addresses arguing against voting for various property tax measures on principle.

Oh yeah, Yes on Measure Y -- extending Just Cause protection to people that live in duplexes and triplexes (as opposed to currently where it's like 4+ units)

sarahell, Wednesday, 17 October 2018 05:54 (three months ago) Permalink

yeah latimes had a lot of dirt on newsom a few months ago but he was still one of the favorites

i'm still registered to vote but i'm not in the country anymore, but i would vote for newsom

F# A# (∞), Wednesday, 17 October 2018 06:03 (three months ago) Permalink

I'm with sarahell on the mixed feelings about Newsom. He is a guy who I *really* don't like or trust, even when a lot of his policy prescriptions and positions line up with mine. He's just a fucking slimeball that wants to be president really badly. Dunno if I will bother voting for him, he's almost certain to be the winner anyway.

ΞŸα½–Ο„ΞΉΟ‚, Wednesday, 17 October 2018 16:35 (three months ago) Permalink

i remember being a local blogger about 10 or so years ago and my fave thing was comparing him to Christian Bale as Patrick Bateman

sarahell, Wednesday, 17 October 2018 16:37 (three months ago) Permalink

I think he is also a big fan of Huey Lewis & the News iirc

sarahell, Wednesday, 17 October 2018 16:38 (three months ago) Permalink

I can't hate him, he stepped forward to support same-sex marriage at a time when most of the rest of the country was charging in the other direction

Dan S, Wednesday, 17 October 2018 16:44 (three months ago) Permalink

comparing him to Christian Bale as Patrick Bateman

yeah you weren't alone in this the similarity is just too eerie

ΞŸα½–Ο„ΞΉΟ‚, Wednesday, 17 October 2018 16:54 (three months ago) Permalink

he stepped forward to support same-sex marriage at a time when most of the rest of the country was charging in the other direction when it was most politically advantageous to him personally, handed the GOP a wedge-issue that helped get Dubya re-elected, resulted in the passage of Prop 8 in California actually *banning* gay marriage, and did not actually result in any valid gay marriages

fixed

that whole charade was nauseating, grandstanding at his worst. He knew he didn't have a legal leg to stand on and did it for the purposes of benefiting no one but himself.

ΞŸα½–Ο„ΞΉΟ‚, Wednesday, 17 October 2018 16:55 (three months ago) Permalink

xp - even when in practice it was preaching to the choir and a high profile distraction from his pro-development/pro-corporate policies?

sarahell, Wednesday, 17 October 2018 16:56 (three months ago) Permalink

^^^

ΞŸα½–Ο„ΞΉΟ‚, Wednesday, 17 October 2018 16:58 (three months ago) Permalink

he has a history of this grandstanding, like when he wanted to improve the health of poor & working class San Franciscans by banning cigarette sales from chain stores with pharmacies -- that pretty much affected nothing except the ability to buy fairly low-priced cigarettes at Walgreen's stores. ... as opposed to walking a block or less to a liquor store and buying cigarettes

sarahell, Wednesday, 17 October 2018 16:58 (three months ago) Permalink

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55cG7EytB7M

omg I pulled up this video to show how fuckin obnoxious he was at the time and the closed captioning is wild

**APPLAUSE BY HOMOSEXUALS**

officer sonny bonds, lytton pd (mayor jingleberries), Wednesday, 17 October 2018 16:58 (three months ago) Permalink

xp the conversation it started was a huge push forward for gay rights

Dan S, Wednesday, 17 October 2018 16:59 (three months ago) Permalink

i don't think he literally tried to feed a cat to an ATM tho

sarahell, Wednesday, 17 October 2018 17:00 (three months ago) Permalink

the conversation it started was a huge push forward for gay rights

he didn't start it - Alaska and Arizona already had gay marriage rulings on the books - he just made the splashiest (and emptiest) show about it. which is his modus operandi.

ΞŸα½–Ο„ΞΉΟ‚, Wednesday, 17 October 2018 17:03 (three months ago) Permalink

xp Dan -- I'm not saying he's evil incarnate, just that it was a self-serving move. And it is often super useful to be reminded that in the central SF Bay Area, one lives in kinda a political bubble and that there is certain hair-splitting we do here, some more-progressive-than-thou type stuff, that looks ridiculous to most other Americans

sarahell, Wednesday, 17 October 2018 17:04 (three months ago) Permalink

Oh yeah, and Oakland has a mayoral election ...

sarahell, Wednesday, 17 October 2018 17:05 (three months ago) Permalink

Alaska and Arizona, come on. This *was* a big push forward.

Bush had already given his SOTU pressing for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Massachusetts was on track to start allowing marriages in May of that year. A backlash was going to happen in 2004. And Prop 8 was a direct response to the California Supreme Court recognizing marriage rights in 2008

agree that it was a partly self-serving move, but it was also a very good thing

Dan S, Wednesday, 17 October 2018 17:11 (three months ago) Permalink

yeah, on paper he has done all the right things, but you read into the details of his life and he is a total slimeball

thing is, how else would you vote if not on what he has done and the positives more or less outweigh the negatives

i feel like this single payer healthcare program was hyped a lot in california, but like it's crazy when you do the math

i'm not against it though

F# A# (∞), Wednesday, 17 October 2018 17:36 (three months ago) Permalink

on paper he has done all the right things

not when he was mayor! he did a lot of not-right things

sarahell, Wednesday, 17 October 2018 17:37 (three months ago) Permalink

as mayor his sponsorship of Prop N (Care not Cash) was very controversial

Dan S, Wednesday, 17 October 2018 17:46 (three months ago) Permalink

yeah, i know what you mean

i guess i should say given the options

F# A# (∞), Wednesday, 17 October 2018 17:48 (three months ago) Permalink

I agree that policy-wise I'm compelled to vote for him, more or less. At the same time, I absolutely hate watching him talk and prior to our current scandal-goalpost-moving POS chief exec I would have assumed Newsom was a lock for doing something scandalously unethical/illegal that would tank his career. I guess we're going to find out soon enough.

ΞŸα½–Ο„ΞΉΟ‚, Wednesday, 17 October 2018 17:51 (three months ago) Permalink

Well when the alternative is John Cox...

Catherine Power (Leee), Wednesday, 17 October 2018 17:58 (three months ago) Permalink

i was listening to an interview with scott weiner and he mentioned that brown had vetoed the 4am last call thing but he would bring it back next year and didn't expect any problems with newsom on that issue. there was then a weird moment where the interviewer and weiner acknowledged that yes, newsom is a known partier.

π” π”žπ”’π”¨ (caek), Wednesday, 17 October 2018 19:17 (three months ago) Permalink

a friend of mine/former journalist wrote a semi-autobiographical novel that briefly features an obvious Newsom character riding around in a limo drinking champagne, doing blow and engaging in bisexual hijinks

ΞŸα½–Ο„ΞΉΟ‚, Wednesday, 17 October 2018 19:23 (three months ago) Permalink

"That, in turn, should be the opening line of your novel.

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 17 October 2018 19:39 (three months ago) Permalink

god damn i need a voter guide who tf are all these yahoo local judges speaking in code

the late great, Thursday, 18 October 2018 03:59 (three months ago) Permalink

i forget, are you in LA?

π” π”žπ”’π”¨ (caek), Thursday, 18 October 2018 04:20 (three months ago) Permalink

depends what kind of car you have obviously but generally flying is many times worse than driving a regular old gasoline-powered car

ΞŸα½–Ο„ΞΉΟ‚, Thursday, 29 November 2018 23:12 (one month ago) Permalink

i have a 2010 civic. it is blue.

π” π”žπ”’π”¨ (caek), Thursday, 29 November 2018 23:16 (one month ago) Permalink

is that just raw output or are you taking into account mobilizing hundreds/thousands of people at a time vs hundreds/thousands of (at times stalled) cars on the road

F# A# (∞), Thursday, 29 November 2018 23:16 (one month ago) Permalink

rough calc based on some general assumptions I've seen elsewhere is that the emissions/miles travelled ratio is about twice for airplanes (0.61333) vs what it is for cars (0.646667). Going by that, 330 miles from San Jose to Burbank is 114.4 kg of CO2 in a car, and 202.4 kg in a plane.

ΞŸα½–Ο„ΞΉΟ‚, Thursday, 29 November 2018 23:19 (one month ago) Permalink

and of course https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_aviation

ΞŸα½–Ο„ΞΉΟ‚, Thursday, 29 November 2018 23:21 (one month ago) Permalink

unlike with cars, idk how you build an all-electric airplane, or one that runs on, say, hydrogen

ΞŸα½–Ο„ΞΉΟ‚, Thursday, 29 November 2018 23:26 (one month ago) Permalink

most of the current prototypes are built around batteries:

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/this-startup-is-building-an-electric-airplane

sleeve, Thursday, 29 November 2018 23:31 (one month ago) Permalink

huh interesting. no idea how that works from an engineering perspective, but hey go get em guys

ΞŸα½–Ο„ΞΉΟ‚, Thursday, 29 November 2018 23:34 (one month ago) Permalink

a blue civic is far worse for the environment than any other color. who the fuck buys a blue car?

akm, Friday, 30 November 2018 13:22 (one month ago) Permalink

one of my old drummers once said about someone, derisively: "he drives a car like an Australian drives a blue car". I have no idea what that meant and it's still funny to me. Said drummer now lives in Australia.

akm, Friday, 30 November 2018 13:23 (one month ago) Permalink

Am with Shakey: I'm really excited about California High Speed Rail.

Also connecting communities that have been left behind in other ways (eg Stockton / Fresno / Bakersfield) is a "political reason" I can get behind.

Real question is whether we can find a way to do these types of projects with appropriate environmental/local checks without letting NIMBY's and the like obstruct them. Getting this line through Atherton, for example, is going to be a battle.

fajita seas, Friday, 30 November 2018 18:12 (one month ago) Permalink

emissions/miles travelled ratio is about twice for airplanes (0.61333) vs what it is for cars (0.646667)

dunno what I did here but I obviously misentered a digit, the ratio should've been 0.346667 for cars

just for you math nerds out there

ΞŸα½–Ο„ΞΉΟ‚, Friday, 30 November 2018 18:17 (one month ago) Permalink

Isn’t part of the problem with air travel that emissions/mile is not linear because of the relative expense of take off? Like a 1000 mile flight does not release twice the emissions of a 500 mile flight.

π” π”žπ”’π”¨ (caek), Friday, 30 November 2018 18:20 (one month ago) Permalink

that would make sense, tbh I haven't dug into it too much

ΞŸα½–Ο„ΞΉΟ‚, Friday, 30 November 2018 18:22 (one month ago) Permalink

There is the same factor in cars, in that starting and running a cold engine pollutes much more than cruising with a hot engine.

nickn, Friday, 30 November 2018 18:29 (one month ago) Permalink

right but energy per person to get to "cruising" (e.g. 30 mph or 30,000ft) is much larger for the plane than the car because of gravity. i guess i should look into this.

π” π”žπ”’π”¨ (caek), Friday, 30 November 2018 18:56 (one month ago) Permalink

I'm not sure on the precise models, but search "carbon travel calculator" is one resource.

And I don't think there's any non-hydrocarbon aircraft that can plausibly fly this route at scale on any roadmap today.

Trains are pretty efficient. That's why they're still in use.

fajita seas, Friday, 30 November 2018 21:37 (one month ago) Permalink

Central Valley is flat as can be. That is exactly what works best for trains.

A is for (Aimless), Friday, 30 November 2018 21:42 (one month ago) Permalink

the other thing that works best for trains is direct routes to densely populated areas

iatee, Friday, 30 November 2018 22:19 (one month ago) Permalink

another thing that works best for railroads is constructing them in sparsely populated areas, because the costs of construction and easements in densely populated ones could sink the project

sarahell, Friday, 30 November 2018 22:23 (one month ago) Permalink

bunch a amateur caltrans engineers on here

ΞŸα½–Ο„ΞΉΟ‚, Friday, 30 November 2018 22:24 (one month ago) Permalink

I would like to be able to take the train from Seattle to LA in less than two entire days so please do build that train

I have measured out my life in coffee shop loyalty cards (silby), Friday, 30 November 2018 22:27 (one month ago) Permalink

based on this week's charter school discussion, threads where everyone is an amateur are more "fun" than when there are posters that actually know shit

sarahell, Friday, 30 November 2018 22:28 (one month ago) Permalink

NB I'm not saying how to do it I'm just asking

I have measured out my life in coffee shop loyalty cards (silby), Friday, 30 November 2018 22:29 (one month ago) Permalink

i want this train to have a smoking car, like, if they don't have a smoking car, I kinda don't care as much

sarahell, Friday, 30 November 2018 22:29 (one month ago) Permalink

I understand and agree with banning smoking on planes because you can't really isolate the smoke, but on a train, you totally can.

sarahell, Friday, 30 November 2018 22:32 (one month ago) Permalink

a train that starts operating in 2050-california will probably not have a smoking car

iatee, Friday, 30 November 2018 22:33 (one month ago) Permalink

...but it might have a vaping car ;)

sleeve, Friday, 30 November 2018 22:35 (one month ago) Permalink

xpost It seems that some people hold the view that this project, or public-works projects in general, need to be economical in a closed-system sense. That is, when you open it up and set up a fare gate you should get your money back.

But that's not how a whole lot of public-works projects we rely on and consider successful work. I don't think this needs to meet that criteria.

It's not dumb to run the train through the route they're building on. It was a conscious decision. It may not meet goals a person agrees with, but that doesn't mean those goals are the only ones that matter.

fajita seas, Friday, 30 November 2018 22:35 (one month ago) Permalink

I understand and agree with banning smoking on planes because you can't really isolate the smoke, but on a train, you totally can.

― sarahell, Friday, November 30, 2018 2:32 PM (three minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

but people have to work on a train

( Ν‘β˜‰ ΝœΚ– Ν‘β˜‰) (jim in vancouver), Friday, 30 November 2018 22:35 (one month ago) Permalink

worth reading about this project: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Speed_2. obviously the politics are different but the political imperatives (people want the economic and social benefit of trains without the tracks and the trains) are the same.

π” π”žπ”’π”¨ (caek), Friday, 30 November 2018 22:43 (one month ago) Permalink

i see the argument(s!) for going through the central valley (spread the wealth, simpler engineering problems), but infrastructure that encourages the urbanization of somewhere that is going to be 120+ Β°F on the reg is not necessarily a point in its favour.

basically i'm saying the train should go through the central valley but not stop there (half joking)

π” π”žπ”’π”¨ (caek), Friday, 30 November 2018 22:46 (one month ago) Permalink

xpost It seems that some people hold the view that this project, or public-works projects in general, need to be economical in a closed-system sense. That is, when you open it up and set up a fare gate you should get your money back.

But that's not how a whole lot of public-works projects we rely on and consider successful work. I don't think this needs to meet that criteria.

It's not dumb to run the train through the route they're building on. It was a conscious decision. It may not meet goals a person agrees with, but that doesn't mean those goals are the only ones that matter.

I think you're conflating two criticisms here. public transit is rarely economical and shouldn't be, but projects in america also end up costing considerably more than they do in other countries and we shouldn't just gloss over that forever.

the path that its taking was a political price we probably had to pay. there are winners and losers from these choices.

iatee, Friday, 30 November 2018 22:47 (one month ago) Permalink

i'll be dead by 2050 so really idgaf

sarahell, Friday, 30 November 2018 22:47 (one month ago) Permalink

^ smoker

Newsted joins this band and quickly he’s subdued (Leee), Friday, 30 November 2018 22:52 (one month ago) Permalink

projects in america also end up costing considerably more than they do in other countries and we shouldn't just gloss over that forever.

This is more expensive to build in CA than it would be elsewhere regardless of route. I think focusing on the route is a distraction from looking at other issues that cause this to be the case. If we can fix those, we have better hopes of having more public transit here.

fajita seas, Friday, 30 November 2018 22:56 (one month ago) Permalink

Wiener made three major changes to the bill that aim to soften opposition from tenant groups and their allies that helped torpedo the prior effort. The legislation blocks developers from using the bill if they planned to knock down properties that renters had occupied within at least the previous seven years. It also allows communities facing pressures from gentrification and displacement to propose alternative plans to boost homebuilding instead of using the system outlined in the bill. And it loosens local zoning restrictions in communities with high median incomes, quality schools and short commutes to jobs, even if there isn’t access to transit nearby β€” an effort to push development into wealthier areas that might have previously resisted it.

Key details about the latter two provisions remain unresolved, as do rules about how much of the new development will be reserved for low-income residents.

π” π”žπ”’π”¨ (caek), Tuesday, 4 December 2018 18:33 (one month ago) Permalink

amazing thread

This is literally the YIMBY-est year in the Legislature. Ho boy. I am reviewing all the bills that dropped today - join me. A thread. (1/x)

— Louis Mirante (@louismirante) December 4, 2018

π” π”žπ”’π”¨ (caek), Tuesday, 4 December 2018 22:06 (one month ago) Permalink

some notable bills

AB 56!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Edwardo Garcia) would require a report on how to nationalize the energy industry for all residential customers.

— Louis Mirante (@louismirante) December 4, 2018

AB 68 (@PhilTing) is a MAJOR reform, allowing more casitas or accessory dwelling units. It allows more nice tiny homes in your backyard! Very cool.

— Louis Mirante (@louismirante) December 4, 2018

(already a big and surprisingly effective deal in LA county)

SB 50 has 11 co-authors, meaning the bill already has the support of fully ten percent of #caleg, and it is just day 1. Boy, this is gunna be a year.

— Louis Mirante (@louismirante) December 4, 2018

π” π”žπ”’π”¨ (caek), Tuesday, 4 December 2018 22:09 (one month ago) Permalink

two weeks pass...

Oof. pic.twitter.com/FFC1Ltg9TI

— 🌹RevolutionaryπŸ’₯ClownπŸ‰ (@RevClown) December 21, 2018

π” π”žπ”’π”¨ (caek), Saturday, 22 December 2018 20:23 (four weeks ago) Permalink

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Proposition-13-is-no-longer-off-limits-in-13492400.php

missing from this article: possible global recession right around the time we're asking people to vote for higher taxes on businesses.

π” π”žπ”’π”¨ (caek), Sunday, 30 December 2018 18:59 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Just as there's never a convenient time for an emergency, there's never a convenient time to raise taxes. It would be nice if governments around the globe all decided to shut down those off-shore shell companies used for tax evasion. That would raise a fair bit of pocket change.

A is for (Aimless), Sunday, 30 December 2018 19:09 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Yeah and of course it's exactly because of recessions that CA needs to diversify its revenue beyond pro-cyclical income taxes...

fajita seas, Sunday, 30 December 2018 23:34 (three weeks ago) Permalink

this is a good article on one aspect of that cyclical revenue hazard

https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-pol-ca-next-california-economy/

π” π”žπ”’π”¨ (caek), Wednesday, 2 January 2019 18:05 (two weeks ago) Permalink

good point:

SB 827 didn’t pass but it moved the window. Marin’s state senator feels compelled to offer a housing bill. https://t.co/fiAQbjJq7v

— πŸŽ„ Dingnogitude! πŸŽ„ (@VamonosLA) January 2, 2019

π” π”žπ”’π”¨ (caek), Wednesday, 2 January 2019 18:06 (two weeks ago) Permalink

long thread of wonky stuff

New California Gov. @GavinNewsom is proposing a huge new investment in low-income housing and a host of new policies to boost housing production overall in his first budget

— Liam Dillon (@dillonliam) January 10, 2019

including this

Wow. Newsom now talking about housing. He says if cities and countries don’t meet their housing production goals, the state will take away gas tax money from them

— Liam Dillon (@dillonliam) January 10, 2019


Cannot underscore how big a deal this is. The new governor says if cities don’t meet their housing goals they will lose transportation funds. A huge stick. β€œIf you’re not hitting your goals, I don’t know why you should be getting the money.”

— Liam Dillon (@dillonliam) January 10, 2019

π” π”žπ”’π”¨ (caek), Thursday, 10 January 2019 20:15 (one week ago) Permalink

it's all proposition 13

31,000 teachers are on strike in LA for smaller class sizes (and better pay), and the school district is pleading povertyβ€”we shouldn't forget some of the reasons why California's largest public school district is perpetually underfunded:

— Sam Dean πŸ¦… (@SamAugustDean) January 14, 2019

π” π”žπ”’π”¨ (caek), Monday, 14 January 2019 18:06 (one week ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.