SB 51: the California politics thread

yeah, wildfire risk

With locations like hospitals in them, you can’t go wrong

is PG&E legally obliged to cut power or are they doing it to reduce their legal liability?

It's very possible PG&E is being extra-conservative with power shutdowns because a fire during the firm's bankruptcy case would be harder for them to deal with than a fire outside of bankruptcy. This thread explains why (1/

— Jared Ellias (@jared_ellias) October 10, 2019

re: that note, Sequoia Hospital is in Redwood City, I know the area and it doesn't seem like it is at particular risk for fire

meanwhile I get a text from AT&T saying they know these planned PG&E outages are an inconvenience and that AT&T won't charge overage fees for calls and texts and data use or whatever that exceeds plan rates.

I get a text from my landlord, who doesn't have any idea whether our building is in the outage zone ... it isn't, we're not even close to the line ... but like, you own this building? Wouldn't you uh, make a point of finding out?

This is the most ridiculous statewide event since the Gray Davis recall where people thought it would be awesome to elect Arnold Schwarzenegger governor

re moraga fire: NBC Bay Area news just said firefighters are having to go door to door to evacuate people becauseeeeee-- the power is out in that area, so emergency warning services aren't working!

this is so absolutely fucked

— PatF Zine Preorders are Live!👑💕 deets @ patfzine (@jtbtweetin) October 10, 2019

statewide event

pedant alert: it is not a statewide event

You have $10 to build California

$30 not on fire
$20 functioning electrical grid
$15 high speed rail between major population centers
$3 mad at homeless people
$4 Diane Feinstein worth a hundred million dollars

— greg (@weedguy420boner) October 9, 2019

Are you curious how PG&E execs celebrated the 2 year anniversary of the Tubbs Fire (22 deaths, 5,643 structures destroyed,Santa Rosa's economic loss estimated at $1.2 billion (2017 USD), with five percent of the city's housing stock destroyed)...

https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/PG-E-gas-employees-wined-and-dined-just-before-14512194.php

showing dudes like the WeWork CEO how it's done ...

https://www.kqed.org/science/1950014/wildfire-smoke-expected-to-blanket-bay-area-friday-high-wind-warning-this-weekend

Damn.

PG&E does it again!

Imagine helping set up this civil defense infrastructure with a picture in your head of bomb-heavy Tupolev 95s coming over the pole, and the first time it’s used in earnest at any scale is because we mismanaged the land and are burning 100 million barrels of oil a day. https://t.co/KWzpY6r5Py

— Charlie Loyd (@vruba) October 27, 2019

The Blue-ing of Southern California has kept up since 2018. The state recently released new numbers on party reg by CD. Here are some shifts *since last October*

CA45: R+5.8→R+3.8
CA50: R+13.3→R+11.4
CA49: R+3.8→R+2.0
CA25: D+4.3→D+6.0
CA39: D+0.5→D+2.2
CA48: R+8.6→R+7.0

— Will Jordan (@williamjordann) November 12, 2019

I read through AB5 for a client yesterday -- it's gonna affect so many businesses/people -- though I do wonder about enforcement.

does it create an individual cause of action for a worker who believes they've been misclassified as an independent contractor?

i believe the process for that remains the same -- it is definitely rampant, and most enforcement that I'm aware of comes as a result of worker complaints/action. The gist of it is that it previously there was a lot more leeway for classifying a worker as an independent contractor, and under AB5, there is a lot less. Basically it creates a two part test: if the conditions (i.e. relationship between employer and worker) fail the first part of the test (or don't meet a handful of exceptions, a few of which are temporary) then the stricter standards are applied (these are the new ones) ... if the conditions don't fail the first part, then the older standards are applied (or rather, a somewhat stricter version of the older standards).

I think a lot of challenges will depend on the use of "professional services contracts" and what constitutes the regular business activity.

I read this article this morning with some dismay. I am in opposition to ballot measure governance in principle but this seems like it would have a lot of unintended (or actually intended consequences), and once again seems to focus on being punitive first and foremost.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/philmatier/article/Ballot-measure-would-tighten-up-rules-for-dealing-14948663.php

A recent statewide poll by 3M Research found that 90% of the voters surveyed listed homelessness as the No. 1 problem facing the state — 87% of the voters in the Bay Area listed it as the top problem.

“It was remarkable” to get voters’ views on a variety of issues headed for the November ballot, said Democratic consultant Chris Tapio, whose firm commissioned the poll, taken from Nov. 21 to 27.

“In all my years of polling, I’ve never seen 90% of the voters agree on anything, but they all agree that homelessness is the top problem,” he said.

The poll also found 73% of the voters support Gatto’s measure.

Tapio said voter support for the initiative appears to be borne of frustration with state and local governments and law enforcement dealing with the problem.

“This could be a Proposition 13 moment,” Tapio said, referring to the landmark property tax reform initiative passed by voters in 1978 after years of legislative inaction.

The allusion to Prop 13 definitely inspires confidence.

this sounds like it will end up being super racist in application

Also, another initial thought, "let me guess, they won't have enough shelter beds, so the people arrested are gonna get sent to jail"

My take as well

people who want to eliminate homelessness vs people who just don’t want to see homeless people and don’t care how they’re “taken care of”

borne of frustration with state and local governments and law enforcement dealing with the problem.

Let's see. If I become so destitute that I have no place to sleep unless I huddle down in a doorway on a piece of cardboard, nowhere to piss or shit if I can't find a public toilet, and no place to eat unless I go to a soup kitchen, then these unavoidable consequences of my having being penniless would make me a law enforcement problem?!

Also, another initial thought, "let me guess, they won't have enough shelter beds, so the people arrested are gonna get sent to jail"

― sarahell, Sunday, January 5, 2020 7:46 PM (four hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

i haven't seen any other coverage of that ballot measure, but i'm pretty sure you can't run a ballot measure that says "implement a policy that has been ruled illegal by the federal government": https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-12-16/supreme-court-lets-stand-ruling-that-protects-homeless-who-sleep-on-sidewalk.

(which is not to say that whatever the trump administration is cooking up on this as part of their anti-california election year culture war stuff isn't going to be horrendous)

I don't see this initiative going anywhere tbh

It has no major backing, no money behind it, and it's of dubious legality.

this one is a bit more serious IIUC, but i also haven't heard anything about it since the supreme court refused to hear the boise case, which suggests they've been forced to rethink https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-11-27/california-housing-crisis-podcast-gavin-newsom-solve-homeless-ballot-measure.

xp caek -- just because sleeping on the sidewalk isn't illegal, they could easily come up with other "quality of life" violations -- which really makes you think about the definition of "quality of life" -- the quality of whose life? The lives of the homeless people, or the lives of the people that complain about having to engage with homeless people?

"engage" is putting it a little strongly - more like "be in physical proximity to"

they are engaging with their line of sight

they are disrupting their view

sarahell, of course. i'm just saying that specific ballot measure is not going to happen because:

1. it attempts to compel local govt to do something that is currently illegal according to federal courts (many cities *already* have similar regulations and have been forced to stop enforcing them by the boise ruling).

2. this guy's idea that you just need signatures and votes is, despite the "california ballot measures are crazy" meme, not really all you need, and he has no support.

buy you're absolutely right that more creative harassment of the homeless will always be something they try to do. they're trying to do it right now in LA e.g. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-09-06/homeless-sleeping-ban-rules-los-angeles.

you don't need a ballot measure for any of that though. this one is just showboating. which is why this is being covered by a columnist in one paper, not the news section of any paper afaict.

btw here's a ballot measure that absolutely sucks, probably wouldn't be thrown out by federal courts, and has sacramento establishment support: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-11-27/california-housing-crisis-podcast-gavin-newsom-solve-homeless-ballot-measure.

its back awooooo

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-01-06/sb-50-changes-single-family-zoning-california

(it's not going to pass)

Just ran into @GavinNewsom outside the Capitol. I asked him about #SB50: “I refuse to comment as we’re hours away from new clarity.”

— Liam Dillon (@dillonliam) January 29, 2020

To be clear “new clarity” is referring to the state senate vote that will almost certainly be happening this afternoon on #SB50

— Liam Dillon (@dillonliam) January 29, 2020

it might pass?

better than the old clarity

gonna miss the current opacity :(

welp

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/California-Senate-kills-SB50-denser-housing-bill-15015081.php

Orinda, Napa, and San Mateo you say... well locally, Glazer's always been a dick

it was southern california that did it. the representatives of rich nimbies deserve the blame as they were most of the no votes, but it fell by a small margin and would have passed with support from a couple of east/south LA senators with what seem to be sincerely held concerns about vulnerable communities and the fact that this bill didn't simultaneously address rent control.

i say "seem" because while they may be sincerely held, the final form went quite a long way to avoid having any implications at all for east/south LA.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EPfutGvU0AAX9xs?format=jpg&name=large

i was so excited to see south pasadena turn into dubai :-(

I see on fb that the Esotouric people were against it because they thought it would lead to the destruction of historic/"LA fabric*" properties.

* Bungalow courts, Mission/Craftsman/Moderne/etc houses.

It would have made it legal to build more bungalow courts. They’re currently almost always forbidden by postwar zoning changes.

But no developer's gonna build a low-density bungalow court when they can build s 4-6 story block (w/underground parking).

This is all based on what I read from interested parties in twitter so who knows, but I don’t think that’s true.

For one, a much larger set of developers can finance single floor buildings like that. There aren’t enough developers capable of building mid rises on the land sb50 etc. would make usable.

The other thing is new bungalow courts are apparently a kind of sweet spot financially. You can make your money back renting them for 1000 month because they’re relatively cheap to build, but they rent for multiples of that. The profit margin on a “luxury” (ie not old) apartment is smaller as a percentage.

Every new project in Pasadena is at least three stories, most are 4-6. I don't see anyone getting rid of a couple houses on a half acre only to put up 6-8 bungalows.

The Esotouric thing I mentioned was a developer wanting to tear down a 1930s bungalow court in the Melrose area in LA for a much higher density project.

It was parking requirements that killed bungalows, with 2 spots necessary per unit there wasn't room for enough sq ft of living area, so developers went for the 2-story dingbat style, with parking on the bottom.

every new project in pasadena is mid-rise because sb50 or similar legislation hasn't passed so multi-unit zoned land is rare and expensive, so you have to build 12+ units to make money. i don't think it would stay that way if everything within half a mile of the gold line got upzoned.

Ehhh, I don't know, I can't see a developer choosing small scale when they could go larger.