SB 51: the California politics thread

this seems like an argument that CA should not offer services because they don't do as good a job offering services to non-english speakers?

I'm saying, it's easier to provide services in a country where most everyone looks the same and speaks the same language. Not that it shouldn't be done by the state. You were the one that brought up other countries.

It's more about the cost and challenges of implementation, rather than arguing against it being done.

ok

but I think that covid has made it more possible to have state-run services in that they have had to develop infrastructure that previously they didn't have, and that was used as a reason for not having state run services.

hopefully that's true!

Any thoughts on the proposed PUC rules to stop allowing net usage metering for solar and charge solar customers for the PRIVILEGE of having installed solar panels? As someone who just installed solar, plus a battery, it smacks of utility rent-seeking. Plus, they are doing this pathetic woke-washing where they claim if they don't get this money, it will hurt minority communities, since they won't be able to use all that money to build desert solar installations.

― DJI, Wednesday, December 15, 2021 1:53 PM (one month ago) bookmarkflaglink

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/17/opinion/schwarzenegger-solar-power-california.html

community theater groups overreacting to AB5 i see

Suspicious fire scorches home of Lorena Gonzalez, who just stepped down as a State Assemblywoman to become president of the California Federation of Labor https://t.co/w95HvRZtqN

— Steven Greenhouse (@greenhousenyt) January 15, 2022

lol ... guessing it's more likely some anti-vaxxer right wingnuts

Yah, Fletcher switched parties from Republican to Democrat mid-way through his campaign in the 2013 San Diego mayor's election and the fascists down there haven't let him forget it.

Boo: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-01-31/single-payer-healthcare-proposal-fizzles-in-california-assembly

Lmao

Wealthy Silicon Valley suburb Woodside — median household income $250k — declares the entire town "mountain lion habitat" in an attempt to sidestep a new state law allowing duplexes on single-family home lots https://t.co/IFR74HdWyM

— Liam Dillon (@dillonliam) February 2, 2022

I saw that today.. however, mountain lions have been visiting some pretty densely populated neighborhoods lately, I don't think they're at all put off by duplexes

mountain lions have been visiting some pretty densely populated neighborhoods lately,

for sure! ... and not to be a total dick, but to be somewhat dickish ... anyone in Woodside who then has a mountain lion attack / kill / eat their beloved pet and complains about it ... I feel like we all should suggest they move to a more densely populated area.

A “license to burn.”

That’s what environmental justice advocates are calling the safety certificate Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration issued to PG&E late Monday, allowing the utility to “recover catastrophic wildfire costs from its ratepayers” or from a $21 billion state insurance fund partly funded by surcharges on customers’ power bills for the next 20 years.

https://www.sanjoseinside.com/news/california-gives-pge-approval-to-bill-customers-for-wildfire-costs/

i still am a strong supporter of building thousands of luxury condos near Orinda BART

Woodside has a major freeway running through it IIUC. Feel like if the mountain lions are ok with that they’re going to be ok with duplexes.

280 runs somewhat near Woodside, but the 'downtown' part is pretty rural, if by rural you mean upscale groceries and localvore dining spots

Mountain lions: the original locavores.

pomeranian pozole

free range maltipoo

see also: Outside Cats thread

bodied

While Woodside abuts and contains mountain lion habitat, a blanket prohibition against adding an additional unit on an already developed parcel anywhere in the town is neither required by the California Endangered Species Act, nor contributing to the protection of mountain lions. https://t.co/NCGOub6PEK

— Mountain Lion Fdn (@MtnLionFdn) February 3, 2022

Yeah, they're grasping at straws and 'habitat protection' is probably all the NIMBY juice they can muster

this is suicide

BREAKING: UC Berkeley must slash admissions by thousands after state Supreme Court sides with neighbors who sued. https://t.co/yB6gLmYwi5

— Sara Libby (@SaraLibby) March 3, 2022

Hey, the state school I went to was taken over by Mitch Daniels. That certainly is worse!

whoa damn! Seriously though, UC Berkeley bullies the town of Berkeley in classic "corporate company town" style especially in terms of real estate development. I'm kinda cheering for this like when the city of Richmond passed a special tax on Chevron.

Let them go to UC Merced!

build housing at the Richmond Field Station where they've been moving a lot of campus operations so they can sell off buildings they own in Berkeley

and while they're at it, improve public transit access to that facility ...

Let them go to UC Merced!

too bad for the kids with offers from uc merced!

I thought that was the one UC that can take more students than are accepted.

I don’t think they can take 5000 extra students this august.

Application rates are way up at all the UCs and most of the Cal States. I think UC Merced and UC Riverside are maxed for this year too.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-02-24/uc-breaks-fall-2022-college-admission-application-records
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-12-15/too-many-qualified-students-are-shut-out-of-uc-csu-a-new-study-suggests-how-to-help

This article breaks down the origins of CEQA. California progressivism in the 60s and 70s was pastoralist and Malthusian: the population must be limited & everyone should live on a farm. It was discredited and died away but many remnants are still herehttps://t.co/Rci5ejWs3W

— Darrell Owens (@IDoTheThinking) March 5, 2022

They sued Berkeley over CEQA? Whoa! I was kinda cheering the result because of the fact that UC Berkeley is responsible for a lot of gentrification of Berkeley and Oakland, and that is something I think they should be checked on tbh. Though the whole thing isn't just UC Berkeley's fault; it's a result of the student loan bubble that makes it such that students can "afford" to pay rents higher than long-term regional residents, and students are appealing tenants to landlords because they will move out sooner and rents can get raised to market rate more easily.

In the area near-ish campus, there isn't too much that isn't dense multi-story buildings outside of privately owned single family homes, and commercial buildings. There are a few blocks of commercial structures that appear in the process of being torn down for housing of some sort. But, are they gonna eminent domain people's houses to tear down and build dorms? ... They are trying to build dense housing on the site of People's Park, which is just tone-deaf in terms of the gentrifying role the University has played in the past 20 or so years.

Seriously, they should build housing near the Richmond Field Station, where they own property, are expanding operations, and there is way more underutilized land than in the City of Berkeley.

Anyway

BREAKING: @GavinNewsom signs bill to help UC Berkeley avoid a cap on its in-person fall enrollment, and block student enrollment from being considered as a separate project under CEQA.

— Emily Hoeven (@emily_hoeven) March 15, 2022

no surprise there!

There's apparently a separate amendment on the bill that makes me king. So, to begin with hey wait everyone get back here

if i were morbzian i would start calling him Joe Biden Jr

Our elderly president is already Joe Biden Jr for what it's worth hehe

Joe Biden Jr Jr then

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-03-14/editorial-racist-california-article-34-public-affordable-housing

Jesus how did I not know about this

i didn't know about it either! i know that we (Oakland) recently approved a ballot measure that was for affordable housing, but I thought it involved bond funds, which seem to require a ballot measure? I think some of the ignorance is due to the sad fact that in order to build affordable housing, cities in California end up having to issue muni bonds or raise property taxes.

Article 34 comes up a lot in the history of Chavez Ravine and its theft for Dodger Stadium. IIRC at least one OC city incorporated as a way to gerrymander voting against public housing.

oooh ... actually that's a historical thing that I've been meaning to read more about because I first learned about it from a James Ellroy novel (lol)

Seriously though, UC Berkeley bullies the town of Berkeley in classic "corporate company town" style especially in terms of real estate development.

tell me more about this! i don't live in berkeley or even california and i've read only a little about the current issue, but UC berkeley strikes me as fundamentally different from say, yale buying up half of new haven or similar private universities that encroach on the surrounding neighborhoods in that it is a *public* institution? maybe that is super naive bc power is power i guess --just bc it is the state doesn't mean it is for the public of course -- but i do wonder if it is really in the public interest -- apart from the locals in berkeley who don't want high rises -- for one of the best public research universities in the state (country, too) to slash enrollment by thousands? again i'm an outsider and you know WAY more about this than me, but is the claim i've heard that this is mostly berkeley NIMBYists incorrect?

no slashing the enrollment by thousands was not in the public interest.

berkeley is not a large city by landmass and it has always been hard to find housing here. I started UC Berkeley in 1990 and even then they did not offer enough campus housing for more than a sliver of the students. They have been slowly improving on this over the past 30 years but not nearly enough. There is a huge fight in berkeley between pro-development, pro-housing people (which is frankly the majority) and some very vocal anti development people, some of whom have some legitimate complaints (it is true that dense housing in areas with poor roads leading out of the neighborhoods is unsafe, I think) and a lot of whom are just angry about getting rid of single family housing zoning.

Dense housing with no roads would be better.

I'm talking about areas near and in the hills that are a fire danger.

If a neighborhood’s density is restricted by its need to evacuate in a fire then the neighborhood should not exist. Let Malibu burn.