SB 51: the California politics thread

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!

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.

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.

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).

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?

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.

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.

caek did you go and get naturalized or somethin

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

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

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".

xp
He's the Frederik B of California!

ha i do live here fwiw

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."

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.)

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)

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

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.

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

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

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

comparing him to Christian Bale as Patrick Bateman

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

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.

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

^^^

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

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**

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

on paper he has done all the right things

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

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

yeah, i know what you mean

i guess i should say given the options

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.

Well when the alternative is John Cox...

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.

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

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

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

i forget, are you in LA?

sandy eggo

city of

ah i cannot help you.

anyone reading this in LA:

superior court #4: sauceda on the grounds that the other guy is endorsed by the police unions.

#16: hunter. michel's husband is an NRA lawyer and her son is called Colt and her dog is called Heston. also michel is endorsed by the LAT which in court elections seems to indicate a "nice little beach community" type.

#60: hancock. ex public defender (rather than prosecutor) and woman.

no news here for anyone local, but prop c goes national

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/19/technology/san-francisco-taxes-homeless.html

i didn't know this though:

In 2012, San Francisco also adjusted its tax code by switching from a payroll tax to a gross receipts tax, a change that favored the tech industry, which spends extravagantly to recruit top engineers.

superior court #4: sauceda on the grounds that the other guy is endorsed by the police unions

i definitely voted against the guy that said "proud to be law enforcement's choice"

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-road-map-thurmond-tuck-schools-charters-unions-20181021-story.html

I am going to ask an extremely ignorant question: what is the billionaire obsession with charter schools? an untapped market?

i think it's the standard "free enterprise" thing that appeals to business people, like public schools are hamstrung by all these government regulations, what if we could "disrupt" that and do more or less what we want but still get the same government funding that the public schools do?

yeah it's total bullshit

i endorse these endorsements

https://lawebsitedotnet.wordpress.com/

rich people also send their kids to private schools so they dgaf about using charters as a lab for their dumb theories. they're not affected.

Weird new republican ad buy

A plane crashed onto the 101 Freeway in Agoura Hills on Tuesday afternoon, authorities said. https://t.co/L09NSqhq3k pic.twitter.com/dXHLoY4aKB

— Los Angeles Times (@latimes) October 23, 2018

would sign a prop that seized all assets of a rich warplane flying asshole that fucks up everybody's commute

Opposition to PROP 10

Officials

Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), 2018 gubernatorial candidate[47]
John Cox (R), 2018 gubernatorial candidate[47]

Parties

California Republican Party[48]

When did Gavin Newsom disappoint you first?

I betcha nobody here remembers Brittanie Mountz.

lol who could forget

I actually remember Newsom's Gay Marriage Gambit as a pretty savvy move to consolidate the city behind him after a divisive election (and I definitely didn't vote for him in that one).

But he will not be as competent as Brown, that's for sure. Hopefully it will be enough.

I betcha nobody here remembers Brittanie Mountz.

― Jersey Al (Albert R. Broccoli), Tuesday, October 23, 2018 6:04 PM (yesterday)

oh I remember! she had the best name, the jokes wrote themselves

i also endorse these endorsements:

https://tjr.xxx/content/two-evils-voting-guide-nov-2018.pdf?1540269420

Surprising revelation from @GavinNewsom, former 2-term Mayor of SF: he hasn’t read #PropC and has no opinion on it. Tax tech to help homeless? No view. Not even in the abstract. “I haven’t read it.” pic.twitter.com/0RpAbozJFA

— Doug Sovern (@SovernNation) October 30, 2018

prop 10 seems like it's going to lose:

http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-may-2018-proposition-10-s-support-craters-in-new-1540406834-htmlstory.html

possibly thanks to this kind of nonsense (the same people will tell you that prop 10 will result in fewer houses being built. pick a side people!)

silver linings though:

http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-may-2018-prop-6-leaders-threaten-recall-campaign-1540838655-htmlstory.html

missing link there sorry

Why’s @AptAssocGLA gonna go ahead and make this old lady lie like that pic.twitter.com/GiSMsSydF8

— Scott Frazier (@safrazie) October 28, 2018

damn dude, she looks like she's only in her mid-50s??

that Doug Sovern tweet is bullshit. Newsom has already weighed in on Prop C

(he thinks Prop C could make the problem worse. don't agree)

Prop C is a good thing!, really hope it passes

Agree completely re Prop C

Prop 10 is doomed, but I may vote for it anyway.

submitted without comment

http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/home/images/VoterGuides/2018-November-Workers-Voter-Guide.pdf

except that the candidates they are endorsing look really young

the best thing on twitter right now is marc benioff dunking on rich silicon valley guys who won’t pay a tiny tax to fund anti-homelessness initiatives https://t.co/IDjDXsaqJb

— we're going to abolish ICE (@SeanMcElwee) November 4, 2018

yeah benioff is pretty legit for a billionaire ceo

all the bonds except the admittedly slightly weird water bond passed

5 (extend limits on property tax) and 6 (remove gas tax and let the state fall apart) failed :-(

rent control wasn't even close though :-(

the charter guy is winning superintendent of public instruction but it's close and has not been called yet

kounalakis won lieutenant gov. did anyone have a strong opinion about that one? neither seems like particularly promising future governers.

looks like la county is about to vote out the sheriff for the first time in 100+ years. the replacement has the support of the LASD rank and file which is huge fucking red flag, but he ran on a "get ICE out of LA jails" platform (LASD runs the county jails).

la city public bank failed :-(

the NRA-sponsored judge lost in LA county :-)

proposition C passed though and by a lot1

Surely you meant to smile on 5 and 6 losing.

yeah idgi re: 6

Looks like the one District I was focusing on (10 - Harder vs. Denham) might still be too close to call, last time I checked the results were w/in 1,000 votes.

Looks like Rohrabacher is out though, which is awesome

yeah i got confused about smileys.

5 (extend limits on property tax) and 6 (remove gas tax and let the state fall apart) failed :-)

can't believe Nunes is still gonna be around

I can't believe Duncan Hunter is still going to be around

I read something about C that it might be taken to court because it's a tax prop that didn't get the required two-thirds majority?

sounds inevitable

I assume that's another thing we can thank Prop 13 for.

wait hunter won? jfc

What's the matter with San Diego?

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/11/7/18066314/house-midterms-results-duncan-hunter-winner

Camp Pendleton

Nah, that's NE county SD exurbs, pretty red to begin with (2R:1D) & they are certainly not going to vote for a guy who is half-Palestine/half-Mexican.

San Diego is pretty deep blue, but not out there

https://hunter.house.gov/our-district

Santee!

Can't believe prop 11 passed, 'Let's all get together and screw private ambulance workers!'

But otherwise not too bad here in CA.

the sooner we can never adjust our microwave clocks again the better

also Ammar Campa-Najjar still wouldn't have won if he'd become a horse and changed his name to Bill Stevens, so deep is the backcountry chaparral love for vaping veterans

But otherwise not too bad here in CA.

― fajita seas, Wednesday, November 7, 2018 7:22 PM (yesterday)

well, except for the fact that people were more concerned about the living conditions of animals that will become food than human beings who are renters, which is quite shit

same in 2008! chickens 01, gay people 00

And probably all the 2008 chickens are long eaten by now

The LA podcast today is a post mortem of the election and also the fact that one of our councilmen Jose huizar was raided by the FBI the morning after. De Leon is a future mayoral candidate and was state senator for the district that covers the council district. They’re speculating and repeating rumours that de Leon will run for this seat then mayor (he would walk both races, and in some ways LA council is a promotion from state senate).

lol xp

Also they make the point that running a state ballot measure for rent control, rather than incremental and local changes where costa Hawkins and local circumstances allow it (which is a few cities in socal, not sure about up north), was a major tactical error. (Largely made by noted LA crank and AHF syphilis invasion billboard guy Michael Weinstein).

It’s a good podcast imo btw https://overcast.fm/+Mkf9-9PBU

which is a few cities in socal, not sure about up north

I would be surprised if San Francisco didn't have the strongest tenant protections in the state. Berkeley has some, as do Oakland, and some smaller Bay Area cities.

Right but the way Costa Hawkins work affects a city’s ability to vote to expand the rent control aspect of those protections in weird/complex ways. Prop 5 would have repealed costa Hawkins, but some city’s still have wiggle room. I’d be surprised if sf wasn’t already it it’s limits.

Ps https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/11/05/gavin-newsom-the-next-head-of-the-california-resistance

Did anyone see yet if there’s a supermajority in both houses? The count was drifting left in the sense it might be but it wasn’t enough yet when I tried to figure out.

Election Day may be over, but California has more than 4.5 million ballots left to count.

The uncounted ballots could push voter turnout to nearly 60 percent of those registered. Participation in a non-presidential election has not hit 60 percent in California since 1994, although it hit 59 percent in 2010.

https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article221392480.html

Did anyone see yet if there’s a supermajority in both houses?

Does this matter a lot with a Democratic governor?

A supermajority would allow the Democrats to pass any legislation without GOP help. As I understand it they already have a supermajority in the Assembly. In the Senate they need 27 seats, and according to Politico: “it now appears Democratic Sen. Ricardo Lara is in good shape to become insurance commissioner, which would leave a vacancy for months in the upper house. And the race in District 12 between Democrat Anna Caballero and Republican Rob Poythress remains too close to know if Democrats will have 27 even if Lara departs.”

Heard a politician refer to the legislature in Illinois now as a super-supermajority.

Does this matter a lot with a Democratic governor?

― Guayaquil (eephus!), Friday, November 9, 2018 10:05 AM (one hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yes. certain kinds of legislation (mostly money-raising stuff, i think?) requires 2/3 majorities (in both houses?) to pass.

ohhhhh, OK

(mostly money-raising stuff, i think?)

Two-thirds is required for any tax-related stuff.

also Ammar Campa-Najjar still wouldn't have won if he'd become a horse and changed his name to Bill Stevens, so deep is the backcountry chaparral love for vaping veterans

― del griffith, Thursday, November 8, 2018 3:29 AM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

wtf thats my name, dude. :o

How do you Angelenos like Garcetti?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0JNZhm3NNo

He didn't correct the "breakdancing" bit (he's popping), so I am already wary.

He sang the shit out of the national anthem at a roller derby event I went to when he was a city councilman but he kinda sucks. He’s ambitious as hell kinda like newsom.

He’s also less of a crowd pleasing blank slate than newsom. He has (bad) opinions. He will get nowhere if he runs in 2020.

the mayor of LA hardly does anything. the city council has all the power. hes a glorified cheerleader. all he accomplished was bagging the olympics that nobody really wants and is gonna fuck up the city.

he was in training for the job at 18 and presumably before that but hey I for one like him

I look forward to voting for him when he runs for governor

insanely close race (0.1% lead) but the public school guy just pulled ahead of the charter school guy in SPI

#.SPI Update pic.twitter.com/7brkOKjOyF

— CATargetBot (@CATargetBot) November 13, 2018

Oh hell yes! Go Tony!!

Feel like both of those guys have their merits but are both pretty flawed too...

That's kinda like saying Obama and Hitler are both pretty flawed

lol, you sound rational.

Charter schools are basically a scheme to allow speculators to harvest wealth from state and local taxes with education of children as an incidental side effect.

Universal free primary+secondary education is one of America's two good ideas and charter schools are a perversion

They're basically on the same page, hardline Dems who come from the non-profit education sector :

* Both Thurmond & Tuck are anti-FOR-PROFIT charter schools.
* Both want to shut down charter schools that are failing & mishandling public funds.
* Both are self-proclaimed neutral on whether they are pro- or anti- Charter Schools.
* Both had ugly, untrue campaigns of deception trying to slander the other candidate.

Their only significant difference is on local districts' ability to appeal charter schools approval (Thurmond anti-, Tuck pro-*)... *only in rural areas of California.

My main beef with Thurmond is he lacked the spine to vote on AB1220**, something that would help define his stance in the race but instead showed him to be prone to petty political power moves.

**http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB1220

I need to dig into this so thank you, but “non profit” education seems like very careful branding.

Charter schools are basically a scheme to allow speculators to harvest wealth from state and local taxes with education of children as an incidental side effect.

― I have measured out my life in coffee shop loyalty cards (silby), Tuesday, November 13, 2018 9:52 AM (three hours ago

yes, and, to do so while fostering increasing inequity/inequality of opportunity for the children being educated. It's a real, serious problem in urban areas with a lot of poverty and income inequality

I need to dig into this so thank you, but “non profit” education seems like very careful branding.

― 𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Tuesday, November 13, 2018 11:07 AM (two hours ago)

yeah, it pretty much is saying, I am fine with charter schools except for the ones that are too incompetent and stupid to fill out the right forms and check the right boxes so that they actually get denied tax-exempt status.

yo bryce, if you are reading this thread, post about this, because it's something you actually deal with irl, and we're just being typical ilxors who are having opinions about things

the problem we have with charters in oakland is that they don't enroll kids with special needs at the rate the district schools do, which leaves the district with higher costs even while they drain its coffers (up to $57M/year lost in oakland). there is little evidence that charters outperform public schools in general, and many locally have serious corruption problems. it's absurd that, per state law, the financial costs of charters can't be considered when deliberating their approval. i understand that thurmond at least backed a temporary halt to charter approvals so the state could properly assess their costs, while tuck did not.

i send my daughter to a public school here, but dealing with ousd administration is an exercise in futility. administrators regularly lie to parents with impunity, and our board member is disengaged with the community. i totally understand why parents would seek other options. that said, the teachers and principals we've dealt with have been fantastic. i agree with silby upthread. we need to properly restore funding to our public schools at all levels.

the nearest charter school to us shut two weeks into the school year.

Uh, so the Democrat who's probably about to win a usually-Republican seat on the California Board of Equalization is a disbarred lawyer and perennial candidate who was previously ordered to stay at least 100 feet away from comedian Brad Garrett. https://t.co/MkrlixLfqF https://t.co/RBGhb1sZ8A

— Josh Barro (@jbarro) November 13, 2018

Meanwhile

In the race for Superintendent of Public Instruction, @TonyThurmond opens up a 67,161 vote lead over @MarshallTuck. The two candidates were two hundredths of a percent apart at the last update. https://t.co/qlv13fzE56

— Rob Pyers (@rpyers) November 14, 2018

BREAKING: Democrat Josh Harder wins U.S. House seat in California farm belt, defeats 4-term Republican Rep. Jeff Denham. https://t.co/YfFnH2YEJH

— The Associated Press (@AP) November 14, 2018

sweet! I donated. time to open the ILX influence-peddling thread.

shakey your thoughts please http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-pge-paradise-fire-destruction-20181114-story.html

PG&E's fire liabilities are going to continue to go through the roof because this kind of thing is likely to keep happening every year. Why? Because maintaining their extensive network of capital assets (the only thing keeping the company afloat, at this point) is way less profitable, more expensive, more time consuming and more dangerous then building new capital assets. Combine that with perpetually dangerous conditions and its likely PG&E will cause more fires as time goes on.

They were just bailed out by the legislature in the previous session over exactly the same issue - if they were held liable for the Carr fire (or was it the Tubbs fire? I forget) they would have been bankrupted and then who knows what would happen. The state would take over, I guess? Frankly as much as I hate PG&E I don't see the state taking any better care of gas lines and electrical lines than PG&E does. Although at least the state wouldn't have a profit motive to *not* take care of their shit.

So - either the legislature bails them out again and holds them non-liable for this kind of thing, or PG&E's finances are going to look increasingly grim until they finally death-spiral out. They have a lot of other pressures on them at the moment - declining customer base/competition from distributed energy resources, competition from CCAs taking their customers (I just signed over to SF's Cleanopower SF), a state mandate to basically not sell gas anymore by 2050, etc.

I have no idea what's going to happen. Maybe they'll go bankrupt and get broken up and taken over by CCAs or POUs (perhaps the ideal situation tbh)

obviously the more people that die the worse it's going to get for the company, all of their money will be tied up in lawsuits and insurance claims and liabilities and their profits will tank

interesting, thanking you

idk if my point was clear about their capital assets, what I was trying to get at is it costs them a lot of money to ensure that all of their existing assets are working safely and properly. Their network is *gigantic* and old and there are all kinds of property/jurisdiction issues involved, it's hard to get qualified crews out to remote areas, etc. None of that stuff turns them a profit.

But if they put in a new substation, or build a bunch of electrical infrastructure to service electric vehicle charging stations, for example - *those* assets go on their books as profitable (because they contribute to increase in generating capacity/serving more customers, which = revenue).

So they have a financial incentive to build stuff, but a financial disincentive to maintain it to ensure that it doesn't blow up houses/burn down entire towns/kill people.

Cool financial model they have there, thx capitalism etc.

obviously the more people that die the worse it's going to get for the company, all of their money will be tied up in lawsuits and insurance claims and liabilities and their profits will tank

― Οὖτις, Wednesday, November 14, 2018 2:20 PM (one hour ago)

Their collapse may precede any financial reporting... 50% loss in 5 days. Massive sell-offs.

https://i.imgur.com/U1U8abt.png

also, w/r/t tuck vs. thurmond upthread, it sounds like all of us (candidates included) are on the same page w/r/t underperforming charter schools in urban areas.

well personally the page i'm on right now (as an immigrant trying to figure the situation out over the next few years, and admittedly not in full possession of the facts) is that the only schools that receive public money should be public schools, and there shouldn't be any charter schools. but yeah, start with the underperforming ones.

9120 votes have been added in CA 39 in OC/SB, republican Young Kim now only ahead over Gil Cisneros by 122 votes, down from 590 votes. still many votes to be counted as far as I can tell

sigh

charter and public are not mutually exclusive categories

some of california’s public charters are among the most progressive schools in the nation

i have worked at three of them. one of which you could fairly call an underperforming urban charter

and one of which is the top performing urban school on the state so

in, not on

i’m going to preemptively excuse myself from this conversation though, i can already feel myself getting irked by the presence of strong opinions absent strong background knowledge of the topic

(voted for tony k thurmond btw because my teachers union said so)

i’m sorry to be snippy, obviously i take broad criticism of “charter schools” much too personally

but i’m just curious like what’s the alternative model to charters that you would follow in order to offer a performing arts school or a project based school or a college prep academy or a hybrid homeschool etc etc and how would you avoid the flaws in that model?

like that’s a question that i’ve spent literally months if not years of my life workshopping and believe me there are a lot of dimensions to that question

i guess you could say like thurmond and tuck i’ve come out neutral on the issue, or, better yet, agnostic on it

i don’t want to be uh pedantic about it though

Plenty of public high schools that are not charter schools in America offering alternative programs

tell me about them. where are they? how are they administered? equitably, i hope

tell me about one

My elementary and middle schools offered Spanish partial immersion. My high school was a science and technology magnet. I had friends who attended an alternative progressive-education-based middle and high school program in my county. All were public, non-charter schools

Spanish immersion I believe was open enrollment. My high school was competitive. The alternative program was by lottery.

where did the money come from? how big was the district?

http://echoices.lausd.net/Magnet/Information

that's is the program for specialized public schooling in LAUSD. it's extremely popular. it's equitable in the sense that it's district-wide (i.e. doesn't consider location, which is a de facto race-based admission in large parts of LA), and provides free transportation.

IMO "public" and "charter" are not mutually exclusive only if you redefine what "public school" means. charter schools that receive public money and are not run for a profit are still not public schools in the usual sense of the word.

From the school district, presumably allocated per student based on the funding model. My high school’s labs were set up with corporate sponsorships for some specialized equipment when they were established but to the best of my knowledge the operating budget was all district funding. Probably a richer PTA than average but they dont pay for teachers. This was Northern Virginia fwiw if that tells you anything.

well shucks that’s only the second largest district in the entire country, no idea why their model wouldn’t be portable to smaller districts, no idea at all

also your complaint sounds more ideological than practical to me, but whatever, i guess i’m just a parasite on the public teat

Public money should pay for public schools operated by public school districts is how I break it down to an extent.

competitive high school admission is a barbaric practice outlawed in the golden state

I mean yeah it’s ideological. I’m not a student teacher or parent I’m just an Internet poster.

well there you go!

in my case two of my chartering bodies were a) the university of calfornia and b) the public library

what do you make of that, hmm? it’s like public teat inception

anyway this dumb. my feelings are hurt. instead of being on the internet, i will just try to hustle as hard as you guys hate.

tlg I’m v much not trying to win an argument and I don’t doubt your bona fides or your superior knowledge of the landscape but “charter school” is synonymous to me with the rapacious and anti-government propaganda of the likes of the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation and Newt Gingrich and you’ll have to forgive me for categorically opposing the use of public money for them. If you work for a Good One I suggest a rebranding exercise

you might want to consider rebranding too, unless being a smug self righteous asshole is your brand

Reports vary but yeah it kinda is

also yr prose is overheated

I’ve heard that before too! I truly do not know another way to be.

U can blame my public school education I guess.

the rapacious antigovernment likes of bill and melinda gates?

reading lab reports is better than this

the smaller districts in LA country all have significantly better public schools (and much fewer charter schools) than LAUSD. so if you're saying that lessons learned in LAUSD aren't applicable statewide then 1) sure 2) but public schools are _even better_ in the small districts near us and 3) LAUSD is where i live and i care most about it, so that's the way i think about the statewide SPI race.

and yes, i'm starting from an ideological place. my broad criticism of charter schools is that they literally should not exist. source: i come from the UK which, to a great extent, gets by without them (state-funded religious schools notwithstanding, ha!) and gets better, more uniform results than local school districts, states or the country of the USA.

obviously that's a glib and unfair comparison, and i'm still learning though. i assume the fact that california fund its schools less per student than pretty much any other state is part of the deal. that's not an argument for or against charter schools, but it's a confounding variable.

i don't think charter schooling is (always) a parasite motivated by money. (except the for-profit ones. those should get fucked.) but yes. my prior is: public money should go to schools run directly by public agencies. not independent charities or non-profits. anything else diverts resources from the schools we should focus on, and empirically doesn't yield better results on average. if that's ideological i'm fine with that.

as a non-ideological matter though: based on our research (we're ~4 years out from enrolment) LAUSD's magnet schools test better (fwiw) than LAUSD's charter schools. admission is lottery based (with points for siblings, underrepresented races in that school, etc.), except the gifted/highly gifted programs. they also don't shut down a week into the semester (see the "NEWS" section of this school https://www.pucschools.org/iprep/. can you imagine being a parent at that school?!) wasting public money and time and causing huge disruption.

caek when did u reproduce?? Did u post abt it?

Tell us abt your anchor baby is what I’m saying

public schools are not even better in the small communitiies
around you unless you are only talking about LA beach cities

ha! my anchor baby rules. he is 14 months. he has passports for the world's two most insane democracies.

fwiw our list of school districts to move to in LA county if we leave LAUSD for school is 25 long, 8 are beach.

we send our kid to an LAUSD public school which has a lot of extra programs only because it's a school with a fair number of affluent parents and a lot of fundraising going on. they have some excellent programs but it's not perfect. results vary by community w/public schools, South Pasadena's are great and Pasadena's are not, ours is great and one down the road a mile away is not.

we're considering a magnet in the future.

the couples we're closest to send their kids to a) an expensive private school, and b) a charter.

it's very tough, sometimes i kinda envy my parents, they just shoved me out the door to the bus stop and i went to the one option i had in a ten mile radius.

i think one benefit to our school is we live one block away

the story with pasadena's public schools is insane. i asked friends at caltech and jpl and couldn't find anyone who sent their kids there. they all deliberately lived in south pas or la canada, or went private.

It looks like you mean “La Cañada”

si.

charter schools obviously did not cause the situation in pasadena, but afaict they're a big reason it has persisted http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-pasadena-schools-201707-story.html

You mean “sí”

So much fucking pressure around schools these days. My kids go to an SF public school that gets like a 2/10 on greatschools, and guess what? They’re going to be fine (and I love their school, teachers, and administrators!). If you are engaged enough to care about what school they go to, it doesn’t really matter what school they go to.

I’m not reflexively anti-charter. It seems ok to me to try our new ways to teach. Obviously they should be monitored, and if there is shadiness/corruption, they should be shut down.

It does seem that our public schools get saddled with so much. They're ground zero for the culture war as people fight over what gets taught. They're among the first thing to be cut when taxes are cut (CA after prop 13, states like Kansas more recently). It does seem like there's a substantial effort to sabatoge them, so they can no longer serve their original purpose.

Perhaps I do have this all wrong. But I am very skeptical.

I love my kids' SF public school as well.

outic thanks so much for that PG&E breakdown, very relevant to my work

in my case two of my chartering bodies were a) the university of calfornia and b) the public library

what do you make of that, hmm? it’s like public teat inception

― the late great, Wednesday, November 14, 2018 7:31 PM (yesterday)

lol, yeah, it's uh a complex issue, and thanks for calling out the rest of us who are just posting based on our knee-jerk biases. and speaking of knee-jerk biases:

public money should go to schools run directly by public agencies. not independent charities or non-profits

Uh, I disagree. As someone who has dealt with public agencies and worked for independent charities and non-profits, I am biased against a lot of public agencies.

But it's a bit complicated, in that there are plenty of educational programs/services in public schools that are subcontracted to independent charities/non-profits, so one could argue that the charter school is on a continuum as opposed to one side of an either/or

the story with pasadena's public schools is insane. i asked friends at caltech and jpl and couldn't find anyone who sent their kids there. they all deliberately lived in south pas or la canada, or went private.

ha, up here we have "the Piedmont surcharge" -- people will pay at least $100k more for a house in the small town of Piedmont than for the same house blocks away on the Oakland side of the city boundaries. My aunt and uncle did so, at least. It is seen as financially prudent, as you could save money sending the precious offspring to Piedmont public schools vs. paying for private schools and living in Oakland.

right. there are situations like that all over. the weird thing with pasadena though is that it's home to some of the best academic institutions (caltech! jpl!) and the richest white liberals in southern california.
apparently it dates back to supreme-court mandated bussing in the early 1970s. the white people of pasadena responded by withdrawing their kids from public school the following year, and the school district has never recovered from the reputational and financial hit.

Uh, I disagree. As someone who has dealt with public agencies and worked for independent charities and non-profits, I am biased against a lot of public agencies.

― sarahell, Thursday, November 15, 2018 1:45 PM (thirty-one minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

public agencies like school districts would be better if they weren't underfunded in california relative to the rest of the US, which underfunds them relative to the rest of the world. like i get that america has a cultural hostility to the idea that government can be not only competent but optimal, but ... it can be.

the underfunding aspect is probably key to the potential for competence and optimality

back next year:

We’re working hard to re-tool #SB827 - legalizing apartment buildings near public transit - as we approach 2019. Governor-elect @GavinNewsom is a housing champion. I look forward to working with him & my colleagues to create a bright housing future for CA. https://t.co/R7W8edPcAw

— Scott Wiener (@Scott_Wiener) November 15, 2018

cool, I liked that the first time around. It's just so inconvenient that California's transit-rich areas ripe for high-density redevelopment have such incredible historic and cultural value. At least we can mitigate by having licensed anthropologists take photos of the buildings to be demolished, and having our city planners conduct proper AB 52 consultations with tribal governments to discuss how cultural resource monitors will be on-site to dig through any disturbed soil.

caek, I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

In defence of the spirit of that legislation, the goal is make apartment buildings legal near transit, not to make them compulsory.

Why is it…not legal…

Having read the article it seeks to overrule nimby local governments blocking densifcation around transit.

It overrules that, but not the California Coastal Commission, which limits residential structures to a height of something like 50 feet within the "coastal zone," the boundary of which can vary anywhere up to something like 2 miles from the actual coast, depending on how the zone is defined by local municipalities' Local Coastal Programs (which of course have to be approved by the Coastal Commission). But the intent of Wiener's bill would be to leave it up to the state to decide, and limit local control over density in these state-defined high-density areas.

Why is it…not legal…

sheepish ellipses warranted! it's a good question

it's not that multi-family residential is illegal near transit. it's that multi-family residential is illegal (i.e. forbidden by local zoning) almost everywhere.

the argument for 827 goes like this afaict.

1. california is not building enough homes. in raw numbers (population growth vs new homes, affordability of housing relative to cost of living, number of homeless people) the problem is worse here than anywhere else in the US. i think this is pretty uncontroversial.

2. it's important to build homes! 827 argues that it's so important that, in the same way the state regulates education at the city level, it should regulate housing at the city level to provide some baseline level of service.

3. the social, economic and environmental cost of long car commutes is enormous. for this reason, we need to build houses not out in the desert, but near jobs and, failing that, near transit.

827 is kind of a blunt instrument though: i'm sketchy on the details, but the version they tried last year would immediately upzone everywhere within 1/4 mile(ish?) of transit (light rail and express bus, not local bus) to require cities to permit somewhere between 4 and 8 story residential (depending on details of transit, etc.), subject to other zoning restrictions (e.g. the various insane requirements about parking etc. still apply).

i'm very sympathetic to the view that the effect of 827 would have had on south LA (which would pretty much all have been upzoned by this), in combination with the 2028 olympics, would have been catastrophic. these are the poorest people in the city of LA.

i am totally unsympathetic to the protests of cities like berkeley, which refuses to build apartment buildings near their three bar stations, at the same time as building 8 story parking lots https://sf.curbed.com/2018/11/5/18065382/berkeley-new-parking-garage-housing-nimby-cars-homes.

i'm interested to see what carve outs and changes and pork the 2019 attempt has.

three *bart stations

i added this sentence to paul koretz's wikipedia page in a fit of pique btw:

"In 2018 he campaigned successfully against SB 827 with a goal of preventing new development. He stated that the bill would "have a neighborhood with little 1920s, '30s and '40s single-family homes look like Dubai 10 years later".[14] He later revealed that he had not actually read the bill, which sought to place 45-85 feet limits on building height.[15]"

i've linked this before, but it's worth reading

https://www.reddit.com/r/LosAngeles/comments/6lvwh4/im_an_architect_in_la_specializing_in_multifamily/

Yeah, although SB827 upzones almost all of San Francisco (inckuding my little single-family-house neighborhood), I am massively for it. Also my family rarely drives, so I know it can be done.

The California GOP’s collapse in Orange County wasn’t limited to House races. Right now Gavin Newsom is losing the county by 1.2 points, and may end up winning it. Jerry Brown lost it by 11 points. https://t.co/YlrxaMjB1S

— Dave Weigel (@daveweigel) November 17, 2018

It overrules that, but not the California Coastal Commission, which limits residential structures to a height of something like 50 feet within the "coastal zone," the boundary of which can vary anywhere up to something like 2 miles from the actual coast, depending on how the zone is defined by local municipalities' Local Coastal Programs (which of course have to be approved by the Coastal Commission). But the intent of Wiener's bill would be to leave it up to the state to decide, and limit local control over density in these state-defined high-density areas.

― del griffith, Friday, November 16, 2018 6:45 PM (yesterday)

I would think that if the party in power/interests of gov't leadership are pro-density, that they will appoint people to the Coastal Commission that share those interests. my grandfather was on the CA Coastal Commission in the 80s/early 90s -- initially a lot of their work/policy (iirc) was about things like preventing offshore oil drilling and corporate luxury hotels and things like preserving public access to the coast (rather than selling it to private interests/investors). At some point their meetings became almost 90% about rich person A wanting a ruling against rich person B adding a story onto their mansion that would reduce rich person A's view of the beach. Then he got unappointed by Willie Brown because he refused to support some corrupt douchebag's re-election campaign in his district.

it's not that multi-family residential is illegal near transit. it's that multi-family residential is illegal (i.e. forbidden by local zoning) almost everywhere.

is your definition of "almost everywhere" based on square footage or ...? because that seems a bit of an exaggeration, but I could, uh, research that.

And zoning in CA isn't that black or white, in practice. There are things that aren't permitted, but you can apply for conditional use permits, which are then subcategorized as minor and major. You can also go for variances, again minor and major. Though, these present a lot of time-consuming and expensive hoops to jump through (time and price vary, obv).

i mean based on sq ft in the state of california, sure MFH is not permitted almost everywhere.

but presumably you mean in urban california.

here's a map of MFH zoning in SF. 26.5%. https://sfzoning.deapthoughts.com/ this is as good as it gets in CA. in LA:

Just under two thirds of land in the city of Los Angeles is now zoned to allow residential construction, according to the Department of City Planning. Of that total, more than 75 percent is reserved for single-family homes or duplexes.

so that's 16.5% of the city of LA zoned for MFH.

the rest of the the bay area, LA county and SD are worse even than this.

so not permitted "almost everywhere" is maybe a bit strong, but not very, given the magnitude of the housing crisis.

as you say though, local variances complicate the picture. but they don't generally complicate that picture in a way that makes it *easier* to build. e.g. SF has hundreds of vacant parcels that are, in principle, zoned for MFH and nothing is getting built on them. clearly simply upzoning is not sufficient. but it's a start.

the reason I brought up variances is that Capital can find a way -- enough political and financial capital, most regulations can be worked around. Of course, that reinforces inequality big time. And SF is great example of using political and financial capital to block construction.

One of the big political issues here, is the conflict between those that support pretty much all housing, and those who want mainly affordable housing. In practice, you get affordable housing advocates siding with the anti-growth people to block high-density market rate projects.

So yeah, I think we agree that it "is not sufficient, but it's a start"

"i am totally unsympathetic to the protests of cities like berkeley, which refuses to build apartment buildings near their three bar stations, at the same time as building 8 story parking lots https://sf.curbed.com/2018/11/5/18065382/berkeley-new-parking-garage-housing-nimby-cars-homes.";

Berkeley is fucking nuts about this shit and I've lived here for over 20 years. I really gets on my fucking nerves. I keep hoping the worst of the people who are like this are going to die off soon but they seem to keep hanging on andmoving slowly through the fucking grocery store with their carts and annoying me.

lol u at Berkeley Bowl?

! Dem hold on CA grows, with potentially big policy effects. GOP ended Dem supermajority in June by recalling a senator over a gas tax hike. But in Nov., voters refused to repeal that hike, and Dems regained all-important supermajority.

It now looks like a 29-11 (+3 Dem) Senate. https://t.co/Y9XrBKBYTt

— Taniel (@Taniel) November 20, 2018

And Dems' majority will likely be even larger in CA's Assembly; it stands at 60-20 (+5 Dem) based on the current leads in each district. (In fact, Dems already picked-up a seat in June when the GOP was shut out of the Top 2 in a GOP-held district.)

— Taniel (@Taniel) November 20, 2018

cautiously excited about this with newsom as gov tbqh

those supermajorities are not even thaaat close, which hopefully minimizes the amount of bullshit/pork/timewasting necessary

we'll see how well Newsom navigates the legislature. Jerry Brown he is not.

That’s what makes me optimistic: he seems like a blank slate. Although admittedly I don’t know whether Sacramento’s equivalent of Chuck Schumer is worth much.

Also one of the reasons the supermajority is a big deal is because the leg can now overrule the gov’s veto. They didn’t do that for brown but newsom just gives off this “overrule me” vibe.

he also gives off this "i will feed a cat into an ATM and stab someone over a business card with superior minimalist design" vibe

heh

Nobody will remember this but Umberg lost to Nguyen about 10 years ago for the OC BoS special election that turned really nasty & toxic. Nice little bit of karma.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/29/california-gov-elect-gavin-newsom-faces-pressure-to-cut-77b-rail-plan.html

"There's no way there's going to be a profit on this thing, so there's not going to be private interest in it," said Baruch Feigenbaum, an assistant director of transportation Policy at Reason Foundation, a libertarian think tank. He believes the project was designed to go through the Central Valley for political reasons and won't be competitive with air travel.

What are the "political reasons" this dude is referring to?

I really want to like this project, but all the fiscal conservatives in my life have left me feeling fairly terrified about it. Should a Californian feel terrified about it?

i mean why would you need to go from SF to LA in one jag in the first place? i feel like HSR from SD->LA or SAC->SF would be more useful? Hell, even Vegas->LA

...and I loves me a train

xp
The "political reason" is that Central Valley people would be pissed if their tax money went to a system that more or less ignores them.

My take: the Central Valley (up until the most recent elections) has leaned right for decades. Part of the reason for high speed rail is to repopulate the Central Valley with silicon valley employees who have been priced out of the Bay Area. By incenting non-aggie voters to recolate to Fresno/Modesto/Bakersfield this could be seen as a gerrymander-ish move by the CA GOP.

(The problem with that take is that silicon valley workers have priced everyone else out of the Bay Area).

trying to picture what silicon valley types would want to live in fresno or a dying town like bakersfield

i mean i understand it takes investment to improve these cities but they have a long way to go before they can attract any of these guys

I am 100% for this project and hate having to travel from SF to LA (and further down to SD) on the regular, like several times a year. The GHG emissions from flying really don't sit well with me, so that means driving is the only option and driving that stretch is just fucking lame, even if you take the 101 over the fairly apocalyptic 5.

certainly there are *tons* of businesses that have offices in both the Bay Area and LA, simple and more efficient travel options are def warranted

my company has people flying back and forth all the time

yeah i feel like the companies with multiple offices would just fly people out back and forth (i know a few companies and people, myself included, where this is the case), and not just sf<>la but all along the west coast

definitely a thing ime

shakey what are the GHG numbers on driving vs flying? i do this from burbank to san jose maybe every 2 months.

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

i have a 2010 civic. it is blue.

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

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.

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

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

most of the current prototypes are built around batteries:

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

bunch a amateur caltrans engineers on here

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

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

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

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

relevant:

https://medium.com/@parismarx/high-speed-rail-from-los-angeles-to-vancouver-f67c81ef9afd

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

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

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

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 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

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.

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+ °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)

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.

i'll be dead by 2050 so really idgaf

^ smoker

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.

SB 827 is back and it's now SB 50

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-housing-transit-bill-20181204-story.html

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 — 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.

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

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

Oof. pic.twitter.com/FFC1Ltg9TI

— 🌹Revolutionary💥Clown🍉 (@RevClown) December 21, 2018

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

— 🎄 Dingnogitude! 🎄 (@VamonosLA) January 2, 2019

PG&E breakup looking increasingly likely

https://www.sfgate.com/california-wildfires/article/PG-E-considering-selling-its-natural-gas-division-13509622.php?t=f8e4a3e331

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. “If you’re not hitting your goals, I don’t know why you should be getting the money.”

— Liam Dillon (@dillonliam) January 10, 2019

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 poverty—we shouldn't forget some of the reasons why California's largest public school district is perpetually underfunded:

— Sam Dean 🦅 (@SamAugustDean) January 14, 2019

so has everybody dumped their PG&E shares yet cuz boy are we in for a rollercoaster

*Nelson laugh*

California GOP lawmaker defects to Democrats in latest blow, blames Trump https://t.co/jglrzkyvCy

— Carla Marinucci (@cmarinucci) January 24, 2019

"Republicans hold just 19 out of 80 seats in the California Assembly. The entire state legislative delegation from San Diego — long a stronghold of conservative politics in California — will be represented in Sacramento by Democrats."https://t.co/s8clk9cX3I

— Alex Burns (@alexburnsNYT) January 24, 2019

I mean the earliest mayor I remember from growing up in San Diego was Pete Wilson. Things have reallllly changed.

Pete Wilson, architect of the CA GOP's destruction

the baddest governor to ever grab a mic and go booom, iirc

Wonderful, now gas lines are erupting into massive walls of flames.

Just when you thought municipal infrastructural fires were limited only to rural windswept canyons or valleys...

whoah holy shit

I blame PG&E cuz why not

what?

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Explosion-in-San-Francisco-causes-fire-injuries-13595313.php

Wonder if the backhoe engulfed in flames had anything to do with it.

ya think

All 8 members of the PG&E crew are accounted for.

Former state Sen. Kevin de León is running to replace Jose Huizar on the Los Angeles City Council, ⁦@DavidZahniser⁩ reports: https://t.co/ttop40wUNw

— Laura J. Nelson 🦅 (@laura_nelson) February 11, 2019

icymi, what seems likely to turn into a huge development corruption scandal involving DTLA, overseas developers and several city hall offices (including garcetti's and herb wesson's, although currently only tangentially) began the morning after the november election when the FBI raided all the jose huizar (my guy!) offices, and carried out boxes of papers labelled "FUNDRAISING", and named his extended family in warrants. huizar is term limited and was hoping to install his wife, but what with the warrants and her particular involvement (apparent grifting on his behalf for his old private school?!), there's a vacancy.

de leon used to rep the state seat that included this council district, so it's not total carpet bagging. the CD now includes most of DTLA, so is perhaps the most influential CD, especially with the olympics coming up. there's a bunch of musical chairs going on in LA politics right now after garcetti announced he's not running for president, so this may complicate things.

'carried out boxes of papers labelled "FUNDRAISING"'

^^^ it seems the new LAT guild has a clause in their contract that they have to mention this in every story they do about huizar btw

there's this more-crucial-than-normal school board election coming up as well, with something like ten candidates on the ballot, all lining up to replace a guy who is gone due to a scandal over campaign contributions. seems like the new board member would be a key swing vote in the whole public schools vs charters thing. We very, very casually know one of the folks running, enough to nod in passing, but we're probably throwing our votes to someone else.

when is that election?

March 5. I'm trying to find out more about Goldberg, she might be good?

Hi Speed Rail DOA'd by slick Gavvy:

https://www.apnews.com/783b336c787a42fd9148986786ee73cf

Stupid move

I was passively listening to the state of the state this morning and thought I heard him say something about how "it would be unwise to back out at this point" and I took that as meaning he was still going forward, but I guess he must've been referring to the Bakersfield to Madera segment specifically. bummer, if the funding's not there, it's just not there, and no amount of optimism can change that. I've helped prepare EIRs for railroad realignment and doubletracking projects that were only 2 or 3 miles long, and the cost and schedule for those always reliably bloomed to at least 200% of the original contract estimate within the first few phases of design. so this is no surprise, but still a bummer.

would love for him to wring out some of that grease from his hair and use it to lube up the political mechanism necessary to repeal prop 13!

^^^^^

I've come to the opinion that the California HSR problems have been caused by poor management rather than poor political decisions or poor vision. Sadly, if Jerry didn't have the appetite for the details, Gavin seems unlikely to have risen to the occasion...

fajita seas, I like your username. I think it's entirely possible that some of the poor management was the result of the manager's poor political decisions and poor visions, but I don't suppose that matters much now. Jerry probably wasn't expected to be responsible for the details, but the buck was supposed to stop with him, and inevitably it now did, but with Gavin now instead. So, what can you do?

shakey: https://laist.com/2019/02/12/la_mayor_wants_to_shut_down_three_power_plants_in_favor_of_clean_energy_alternatives.php

This would have been an amazing line had it been delivered in, I dunno... a State of the State address? https://t.co/BJf2h8EIrW

— Alissa Walker (@awalkerinLA) February 14, 2019

I only learned about this when I was doing my mandatory CPE last year:
https://www.ftb.ca.gov/businesses/Substandard_Housing_Program/state_and_local_agencies.shtml

I feel like more could be done here

this is fucking cool

https://edsource.org/2019/newsom-names-new-head-of-state-board-of-education-in-california

misread as State Board of Equalization, and i thought -1- i dunno anyone else on ilx who would be interested in the head of the State Board of Equalization and -2- they reorganized and now it's the Department of Tax and Fee Administration and they are still having issues w/their website redesign

that's it, SB 50 is going to pass

Lol, Gary Wesley, a niche-famous contrarian who weighs on any ballot measure without a supporter or opponent, is already saying SB 50 is going to pass and that he may need a ballot measure to over turn it. https://t.co/Hkj9WBy5WT

— Louis Mirante (@louismirante) February 24, 2019

restrict new job centers to areas with room for additional nearby housing, such as south Santa Clara County.

and the housing in south Santa Clara County is mostly low density single family homes for people commuting to Gary Wesley-land, so that you get more low density single family homes built in San Benito County ... but that really doesn't address how the low density sprawl of the valley has fucked up the rental housing market in Oakland, Berkeley and San Francisco

Great news! This one bedroom house in Santa Monica is for sale for $5,000,000 and the owners pay taxes on an assessed value of $100,000!

Awesome that local schools are definitely benefitting from those extremely high property taxes! Teachers are so rich already! pic.twitter.com/JDq6soH4wA

— I Crave Star Damage! (@jelenawoehr) March 8, 2019

fkn prop 13

the fact that this applies to commercial property as well really makes me angry. Also, I think property tax amounts in LA County aren't public? If anyone knows how to view property tax history in LA County, I'm serious. Most counties it's easy to find, but LA County, it looks like you have to have a PIN or something ...

BREAKING: @GavinNewsom to sign moratorium on executions in California --
reprieve for hundreds on Death Row https://t.co/i3lHXjdAgf

— Carla Marinucci (@cmarinucci) March 13, 2019

NICE (but not sure how this plays out given the electorate has repeatedly and recently affirmed it's support for the death penalty. maybe we find out how far left we've moved in the past couple of years.)

I think it's a good time to do it, near the start of his term. Will be interested in the impact.

the right thing

12:45pm: The death chamber at San Quentin. Closed. pic.twitter.com/0zK4UUItBG

— Office of the Governor of California (@CAgovernor) March 13, 2019

SB 50 advanced out of committee with changes this week. Here's how it now works:

California's #SB50, the #MoreHomes Act has changed a bit today after merging with SB4 in the Governance & Finance Committee. Here's a flowchart explaining how different places may or may not be affected. Thanks to @dillonliam's excellent reporting & @anniefryman for details! 1/ pic.twitter.com/piEeXp7BKk

— Alfred Twu (@alfred_twu) April 25, 2019

heh

San Diego now down to just two Republicans on its nine-member city council. One of its GOP state legislators flipped to Democrat earlier this year. And so far no major Republicans running for mayor in 2020 to replace the only GOP mayor in a top-10 city in the country. https://t.co/CktnZAgaQn

— Liam Dillon (@dillonliam) April 29, 2019

Gratifying.

RIP SB 50, but i did see kevin de leon on my flight last week. he is much more handsome IRL.

Guess I could post this in he la thread but I think the only person who cares is Shakey: the fbi is raiding ladwp right now.

Are they there to obtain the individual building meter data?

haha waht

Roffle.

this is fucking crazy

it sounds like this may be more jose huizar stuff

Two men and one woman wearing navy blue jackets waiting outside the Guacamole y Mas taco truck parked on Hope Street said they could not discuss what they were doing inside LADWP headquarters, but confirmed that they were with the FBI. 🌮

— Laura J. Nelson 🦅 (@laura_nelson) July 22, 2019

https://laist.com/2019/07/22/ladwp_overbilling_scandal_the_fbi_just_raided_the_utility_and_the_city_attorneys_office.php

the la sherriff's department is also not in good shape

"I was hired in part to tell you if we ever faced a (Paul) Tanaka-level crisis again. We face it now," says LA County Inspector General Max Huntsman at Board of Supervisors meeting now. Strong words referr to fmr Sheriff Dept undersheriff, now in prison, said to rule w/ iron fist

— Maya Lau 🦅 (@mayalau) July 23, 2019

"Tanaka-level" is not good

Check this: There are now officially 9 more registered Republicans in Orange County, CA (home of the Nixon Presidential Library) than Democrats. NINE.

You can count on Democrats taking the lead in voter reg by tomorrow. pic.twitter.com/lxqhnwqNkB

— Jill Replogle (@jillrep) August 6, 2019

man that's crazy. how times have changed.

What percentage of those NPPs are gonna go GOP every time, though?

not enough. GOP was swept out of OC last cycle iirc.

(at least in terms of congressional reps)

yup. OC is done for a while. the current top of the democratic hit list in SC is the *last* republican on the LA county council.

(and then duncan hunter in SD if he doesn't go to jail first)

that trial is such an entertaining shitshow

Never forget this chud:

In December 2018, a month after losing his bid for reelection, Rohrabacher announced that he would be moving to Maine to, among other things, write film scripts.[187] In May 2019 he announced his appointment to the advisory board of BudTrader.com, a company that provides cannabis-related advertising services.[188]

Maine's film industry obviously much more vital than California's

the current top of the democratic hit list in SC is the *last* republican on the LA county council.

*city

this election is today btw. https://www.loraineforla.com/ is running against the chief of staff of the previous guy (a republican), who retired to become a sports lobbyist ($$$$ olympics $$$$). lundquist is probably going to get creamed (turnout will be terrible), but she'll be back for the same seat in 2020.

also the nominally democrat councilmember for silver lake/los feliz/etc. is being primaried from the left, which is great. that primary is next spring iirc.

I'm running for LA City Council in District 4. Here's why.https://t.co/Q9lkhI3koN pic.twitter.com/FHb9Wz3xA0

— Nithya Raman (@nithyavraman) August 7, 2019

Closer than I thought it would be!

https://www.lavote.net/election-results

Still postal votes to count but probably too big a less to overcome

RIP

Loraine Lundquist says she is conceding the #CD12 race after learning that only 3,750 ballots are estimated to be outstanding. "Now that we know how many ballots are left to count, it seems very unlikely that there would be any change to the results," she said.

— Emily Alpert Reyes (@AlpertReyes) August 14, 2019

New: Uber & Lyft commit $60 million to fund a state-wide ballot initiative to keep treating their workers as contractors. This announcement comes a day after execs from both cos met w/ Gov. Newsom in part to discuss what they’re proposing as an alternative https://t.co/7AHIJpl3bb

— Johana Bhuiyan (@JMBooyah) August 29, 2019

Should say if there's not a deal this or *next session*. But this is crucial context from @dillonliam. Using a ballot initiative as leverage is increasingly common. Tony West told us he didn't expect any ballot measure to be as "progressive" as what they're offering now. pic.twitter.com/ETtpXUR56C

— Johana Bhuiyan (@JMBooyah) August 29, 2019

very cool way of making laws folks

statewide rent control maybe coming despite pretty hard ballot measure failure last year

THREAD: Late Friday, Gov. @GavinNewsom announced a deal with legislative leadership to cap annual rent hikes in California for a decade at 5% + inflation alongside anti-eviction protections. This is a big deal, but it’s far from assured it will pass https://t.co/x8TIp1GqmZ (1/10)

— Liam Dillon (@dillonliam) September 3, 2019

this is statewide rent control for non-vacant units, right? interesting.

yes but there are exclusions based on the building age and a sunset clause. it's still fairly aggressive.

Uber & Lyft commit $60 million to fund a state-wide ballot initiative

Since they probably haven't spent even 2% of that amount pursuing that initiative so far, they could as easily have said $300 million as $60 million and presumably frightened lawmakers into submission even more effectively.

they should just suck it up and pay the payroll taxes and workers comp insurance like normal employers ... also they are seriously responsible for making traffic suck in the Bay Area (idk about LA).

^^^

they have made driving in SF so much worse

it's like all roads and lanes on city streets are subdivided into "thru traffic" and "double parked uber/lyft drivers"

https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-09-03/hiltzik-uber-lyft-90-million-to-save-employment-costs

Uber says its goal is to place “drivers’ unique needs first and foremost, and provide leadership with a new model for workers.” Is this plausible?

Just consider that the top named officer of the campaign entity to which Uber and Lyft have given their $60 million in funding, Californians for Innovation and Opportunity, is Thomas W. Hiltachk. He’s the go-to lawyer for Republican and conservative initiative campaigns, including Proposition 32 of 2012, which was a thinly-disguised attack on unions and their members. Here’s a rule of thumb: If Hiltachk is on your team, you may not have workers’ best interests at heart.

it's like all roads and lanes on city streets are subdivided into "thru traffic" and "double parked uber/lyft drivers"

not only that, they've literally put *more* cars on the streets. Instead of yr usual drivers + taxi fleets, you have people bringing their cars in from out of town to make $$$

https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Uber-Lyft-cars-have-heavy-impact-on-SF-streets-11214835.php

just take the fucking bus ya idjits

I have some mixed feelings about the Dynamex decision and it being applied super strictly, though the fact that these companies have managed to not run afoul of the EDD regulations about employee vs. contractor is ridiculous to me. Also, another ridiculous thing is the fact that these companies claim to be innovative but really, outside of the technology, their model feels very 19th Century to me -- this is off the cuff, tho, I want to research it further -- in terms of treatment of travelling salespeople, which predated the tax code, and thus have certain special rules.

not only that, they've literally put *more* cars on the streets. Instead of yr usual drivers + taxi fleets, you have people bringing their cars in from out of town to make $$$

Totally true -- it's not just SF, but Oakland, too ...

Way to go California !

Today we made HISTORY!!!
Just now, the CA legislature passed the Tenant Protection Act of 2019 and is on its way to @GavinNewsom desk to be signed! #AB1482 expands protections to 7 million tenants, covering more renters than any single tenant protection bill in recent US history! pic.twitter.com/tgzyUMXnsJ

— ACCE (@CalOrganize) September 11, 2019

legislature has banned private prisons and ICE facilities in CA. Newsom expected to sign bill.

Also rent cap

Jfc

1/2 A few minutes ago, the anti-vaxxer stalkers - who’ve engaged in a harassment campaign all week - dropped a red substance onto the Senate floor from the elevated public gallery, dousing several of my colleagues. The person who committed this assault screamed it was baby blood.

— Scott Wiener (@Scott_Wiener) September 14, 2019

when you realize the protestor was referring to 'baby rats' it kinds of changes the message

PG&E ?!

Yay I mean uh

San Francisco and what to do in it (in the dark)

Power is shutting off at midnight where my folks are (Sonoma/Mendocino line).

Oh, you’re going to hold us liable for billions in wildfire damages? Let’s see how 800,000 of you like being without electricity for five days.

— Derek Lindner (@mantella) October 9, 2019

PGE recently spent $79 million on lobbying, got $1 billion in tax rebates, made a profit of $4.8 billion and hiked executive pay 94% https://t.co/ELHZLLlKn2

— reclaim UC (@reclaimuc) October 9, 2019

San Francisco is not gonna have its power shut off according to the maps, neither is most of Oakland or south/west Berkeley

I was listening to Angel Haze's "Echelon (It's My Way)" on the way to work this morning--there's a lyric in there that pretty much anticipates the whole Trudeau scandal. You'll have to look it up yourself.

Oops! Thought this was the Canadian politics thread...

TWO STATES

Tbf they should turn the power off more often imo

#BreakingNews Due to the "PG&E Power Shut Off", the lights are **out** in the Robin Williams Tunnel. Its pretty dark, so drive with caution. @kron4news pic.twitter.com/IX3I96VAQ0

— Robin Winston (@RobinWinstonTV) October 9, 2019

"86 die in tunnel pile-up!"

#BREAKING PG&E worker reportedly shot at in Sierra Foothills https://t.co/7ViSAdFRZ5 pic.twitter.com/S1WnlTWGhM

— KTVU (@KTVU) October 9, 2019

PG&E put up barricades at SF HQ. pic.twitter.com/MLGVVJ0QmI

— Christien Kafton (@CKaftonKTVU) October 9, 2019

dang

Those barricades are there fairly often, i walk by that building every day

High winds ahead where recent major fires were:

WIND FORECAST: Here's an hour-by-hour look at when the gustiest winds develop. Watch out between late tonight-early tomorrow AM! #SanFrancisco #BayArea pic.twitter.com/VdU1BVjWH6

— Sandhya Patel (@SandhyaABC7) October 9, 2019

A family member had their power turned off today at ~10:30am without any telephone/email/mail notice (although it is possible that SCE sent a text to their landline). After a phone call, SCE assured them that the power would be back on by 3pm... It's now nearly 6pm. The winds are 4 (four) mph.

how did they choose the locations that would lose power?

just read this:

"As of late Wednesday afternoon, PG&E spokesman Jeff Smith could not confirm whether any Bay area hospitals would lose power during the second phase of planned shut-offs, which are expected to take place Wednesday evening.

“There may be some hospitals that are in the footprint, but we won’t know for sure,” Mr. Smith said. “We’re working extensively with locations like hospitals to ensure that they have an emergency plan.”

Friend is just had surgery and was given this note when he woke up

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EGeohO9UwAAHCvH?format=jpg&name=small

how did they choose the locations that would lose power?

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.

right but my point is not all developers can go larger. you need huge amounts of capital to build a four floor apartment building.

(i'm also 100% fine with exclusively mid-rise apartment buildings getting built and no bungalow courts getting built, but i don't think that's what would happen)

Seems like the property owners would not settle for the price a small scale development would get, and would be willing to hold out for a price that only a large development would justify. But who knows, maybe if enough building was allowed the price would drop. Or maybe people would develop decent-sized single family house properties into 2-4 bungalows.

They should build as many market rate apartments and condos near Orinda BART as they are/have in my neighborhood in Oakland.

Ned posted this in the Oakland thread -- but it is actually state legislation, so it can go here too!

https://www.kqed.org/arts/13874382/state-senator-introduces-legislation-to-protect-live-work-and-warehouse-residences

thread from the state assemblywoman who lead AB5 about follow-up legislation

Based on dozens of meetings with freelance journalists & photographers, we have submitted language to legislative counsel that we hope to have available next week to put into AB1850 which will cut out the 35 submission cap & instead more clearly define freelancer journalism 2/

— Lorena (@LorenaSGonzalez) February 6, 2020

(AB5 aside, watch her. she'll be a senator in DC soon.)

she moves fast and breaks things, but she hears you and she'll do better

I wonder how this proposed fund to assist arts nonprofits would work. ... it seems like a well-meaning idea that will create more problems for people

Referred to here:

https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/AB5-to-ease-caps-for-writers-photographers-more-15036406.php

does it mention any remedies for gig musicians?

Meanwhile, AB-5 has forced the local playhouse here in Sierra Madre to cancel a show:

https://abc7.com/business/local-theater-struggles-under-ca-law-restricting-independent-contractor-designation/5899734/

Every new project in Pasadena is at least three stories, most are 4-6.

They're called Five-Over-Ones, One-Plus-Fives, etc. but the construction is the same: five floors of residential wood construction on top of a concrete box retail floor. A vast chunk of American civic land is zoned to prohibit construction over 65 feet, which makes it just right for these five or six story boxes. They're cheap as hell to build and taller/denser construction would run up against different standards for fire regulation, parking, etc. etc. The architecture derives from being the minimal legal hassle to maximize as much possible profit.

More:
http://archplanbaltimore.blogspot.com/2015/03/how-one-plus-five-is-shaping-american_27.html
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-02-13/why-america-s-new-apartment-buildings-all-look-the-same

oooooh! thank you!

Five-Over-Ones, One-Plus-Fives,
No one here gets out alive.

also interesting along these lines

https://www.curbed.com/2019/1/16/18184194/mcmansion-hell-kate-wagner-modern-building-materials
https://whyy.org/segments/we-dont-build-them-like-we-use-to-why-new-houses-arent-made-of-brick/

Didn’t read but isn’t the short answer seismic safety — unreinforced masonry

Lol ok I read it and it is about Philly. But changes to building codes and the ability to use alternative methods is a relevant issue.

as a Seattle resident there's far too much unreinforced masonry still standing for my nerves

There are ways to legally and safely reinforce the unreinforced masonry, but not cheaply

Yeah and it’s not blanket-required “lol”

what a mess

https://www.patreon.com/posts/34027460

law is totally gonna get amended/re-written. not a bad thing imo. still hope it puts uber etc out of business.

anyone in LA CD12? apparently this flyer is supposed to make you not want to vote for lundquist?!

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EQxZyzHU0AEKvmQ?format=jpg&name=medium

she's got a good shot. she lost to lee (a republican) by a small amount in a very low turnout special election last year. she'll benefit from increased democrat turnout in march and lee knows this (he's running as an indpendent) if she gets more than 50% in the primary she wins right away.

what a mess

https://www.patreon.com/posts/34027460

― 𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Friday, February 14, 2020 2:47 PM (four hours ago)

What's even messier is how the people who have legal expertise in these industries (publishing, media, art, theater, music, etc.) don't even seem to understand the law -- or at least are giving sloppy advice to freelancers. Like, the forming an LLC is so not gonna qualify. I am glad the author of this article didn't do it and have to spend $800 (at least) per year for something legally useless for AB5 issues. It's possible that one could get away with forming an S-Corp where you pay yourself as an employee, and the client pays your S-Corp, though CA Lawyers for the Arts said in their toolkit they just put out that that was a bit dicey and that would fall under a "loan out" provision that is considered non-exempt from AB5.

AB5 is also interesting in relation to the Federal TCJA provisions from last year that eliminated deductions for unreimbursed employee business expenses. Like, in one way it is regressive and shitty, because it tends to affect people like teachers and non-profit staff that have underfunded workplaces, as well as people who are dues-paying members of unions (teachers again, nurses, etc.). However, one could argue, that it gives employees more impetus to get their employers to pay for things rather than expecting the employees to pay for stuff out of pocket because they care about their work.

Basically, if I were involved in unionization type work, I would be like, "this is our moment" and would be in manic activist mode right now.

california

Ladies and gentlemen, the best Palo Alto Online post of all time pic.twitter.com/wmp5kDym7y

— Mark Mollineaux 🦀🔰🕊🌹🌐 (@bufordsharkley) February 22, 2020

commute from Salinas isn't that bad tbh

It’s an hour and 20 minutes without traffic from Salinas to my office in PA and the planet is dying.

It's way longer from Tracy tho

the idea of commuting from Tracy to Palo Alto is the stuff of nightmares

I commuted for years, anything over an hour in the end is brutal

My endorsements

LA ballot measure R: yes (sheriff sucks)
State ballot measure 13: yes
CD 10: aura vasquez (ie not mark Ridley Thomas)
County 2: holly Mitchell (ie not Herb Wesson)
LA DA: Gascon (I prefer Rossi but Gascon has a better shot at Lacey in the general)
Cd 12: lundquist (climate, housing, phd astrophysicist, not a republican, might get over 50% in the primary)
Cd 4: nithya Raman (she rules and she’s not this guy https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-ryu-attempted-rape-charge-dismissed-20150420-story.html)

I commuted for years, anything over an hour in the end is brutal

― Dan S, Saturday, February 22, 2020 6:24 PM (yesterday)

I did the same -- for me, it depended on the difference between how long it would take without traffic vs. actual commute duration.

The LA DA race is heating up!

#BREAKING This morning Los Angeles District Attorney Jackie Lacey’s husband pulled a gun out on Black Lives Matter activists who protested his wife in front of their house. @BLMLA pic.twitter.com/wnCFMMvaWV

— Jasmyne Cannick (@Jasmyne) March 2, 2020

Any good voting guides for SF specifically / CA generally?

there are LA guides but they cover some CA races

https://tjr.xxx/content/home/california-cheat-sheet-feb-2020-front-and-back-3.pdf

https://thelapod.com/posts/la-podcast-2020-voter-guide-primary-edition/

https://www.dsa-la.org/2020_primary_voter_guide

This looks lefty: http://www.theleaguesf.org/about

ha

Text from a Lacey supporter in regards to, again can't believe I'm typing this, her husband pointing a gun at demonstrators -- "This may be the all time stupidest pre-Election Day F*** up."

— James Queally (@JamesQueallyLAT) March 2, 2020

This looks lefty: http://www.theleaguesf.org/about

― Feminism-Appropriating Regressive Transphobe (Leee), Monday, March 2, 2020 10:25 AM (yesterday)

yep.

here's another one

http://spacecats.org/

Hahah amazing!

my Glendale-resident sister reports that all her local candidates promise to do something about "traffic", which she compared to student body president candidates promising longer recess.

measure R (sheriff's oversight passed in a landslide). looks like the spending measures will pass.

jackie lacey the terrible DA with the gun-wielding husband is on 50.6%. she needs over 50% to avoid a runoff in the fall. gascon (ex-SF DA) is in second place. late reporting votes tend to move things left in LA, so she's in trouble.

on the council: david ryu will need a runoff against the nithya raman (yay). looks like john lee (the republican who switched to no registration) beat the (excellent) democrat by enough to hold even with the swing left in late count :-(

herb wesson (one half of bullshit corrupt seat swap) needs a runoff against holly mitchell and looks to be in trouble when that happens. mark ridley thomas (the other half of the bullshit corrupt seat swap) will also need a run off but is probably in less trouble.

Measure Q only got a majority and not the 2/3 needed to pass. There was a lot of anti-Q campaigning done by pro-corporate landlord PAC(s)

geez I'm surprised honestly, I thought it had a lot of goodwill. Since I've become a homeowner in the last decade I've paid a lot more attention to parcel tax increases, but I don't think there's a single one I've not supported.

While I was pro Measure Q on principle, I was sympathetic to the anti-Q people who were arguing that the City of Oakland is incompetent when it comes to managing money (e.g. the soda tax, the affordable housing impact fees) so why give them more money? I was not sympathetic to the people opposed to it because they were against the Tenants Opportunity to Purchase Act part of the measure because they somehow believed it would mean their property would be seized (?) ....

reminder

Ok, it is incredibly early, and we will know more in the coming days, but two things we can say about the outstanding votes in California (with gifs).

— CA120 (@CA_120) March 4, 2020

First: There are massive numbers of ballots to be counted in CA. This will be a record. More than 4 million. Could reach 5 million (with 1.2 million in LA County alone).

Put another way, we may only be half way there. pic.twitter.com/tLp3Sp2GJu

— CA120 (@CA_120) March 4, 2020

Uncounted votes aren’t from old white homeowner Reps, they mostly voted early and they are over represented in the current tabulations.

Uncounted will skew young, Latino, Dem. For candidate races and ballot measures this means the votes will go in one direction: to the left. pic.twitter.com/tXmQqjVNDv

— CA120 (@CA_120) March 4, 2020

Nice

LOS ANGELES updates: with 112K ballots counted today, DA Jackie Lacey drops from 50.69% to 50.14%.

She received 45% of the vote in this batch.

I'd expect hundreds of thousands of more ballot, & for them to be also much less favorable to her than earliest mail-ins (55%).

— Taniel (@Taniel) March 5, 2020

our experience here in Seattle is that the T+2 days ballot drop will see the biggest bolus of progressive votes in this kind of race

Who got the biggest bolus
I got the biggest bolus

i know silby likes this account

If you’re voting this weekend, don’t forget to vote for Nithya Raman for City Council!

The Americana: The Galleria: pic.twitter.com/3lBHCl9Ox5

— Americana at Brand Memes (@americanamemes) February 29, 2020

ryu now well under 50%, runoff time!

jackie lacey at 50.3% for DA, clinging on :(

lundquist catching up to john lee (47/53) and refusing to concede, but that's a big lift.

If you really want to go crazy, find out how many ballots are left to count and the absolute vote spread and start calculating the vote ratio necessary in uncounted ballots to make up the leads

💥 Los Angeles DA Jackie Lacey is below 50% threshold for the first time... at 49.999%.

She dipped from 50.29% to that based on ≈150K new ballots. But that's out of 800K+ remaining this am; so a long way to go!

— Taniel (@Taniel) March 7, 2020

Yep she’ll keep going lower. The “late liberal” (sic) phenomenon in mail-in votes is extreme

on the other hand 100% of ppl I have polled IRL blew their primary vote on Warren, ten days before polls close

lundquist catching up to john lee (47/53) and refusing to concede, but that's a big lift.

now 48/52

sic they should still be able to spoil their WA ballots if they want to vote for someone else I think.

Nithya is pretty impressive -- met her a couple times recently and she seems like the real deal. Levy was based on what i know also a good candidate...didn't hear anything negative about her.

Yeah legitimately excited about nithya

looooooool

Ex-L.A. Councilman Mitchell Englander surrenders in federal probe -- more details to come https://t.co/wlbrWLZlWk

— Emily Alpert Reyes (@AlpertReyes) March 9, 2020

(i know this stuff is boring for the non-LA people, but LA council people are incredibly corrupt and have had a totally free hand for a long time, and it does feel like things are getting kind of interesting electorally right when they're all going to jail)

New details: Englander faces criminal charges that he obstructed an investigation into him accepting cash, female escort services, hotel rooms and expensive meals from a businessman during trips to Las Vegas and Palm Springs, then lying to the FBI about his conduct.

— Emily Alpert Reyes (@AlpertReyes) March 9, 2020

The indictment says that an Englander staffer accompanied him on the Las Vegas trip, describing him as "a high-ranking staff member ... until approximately June 2017." I've asked John Lee, who left as Englander's chief of staff in June 2017, if he went on the trip.

— Emily Alpert Reyes (@AlpertReyes) March 9, 2020

(john lee currently up 52/48 in the count for CD12, englander's old seat)

it's not boring to me! ... besides, I post a bunch of Oakland content that I'm sure isn't all that interesting to, even the handful of Oakland people on here

https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/ex-los-angeles-city-councilman-surrenders-face-federal-charges-obstructing-public

"On February 12, 2018, Englander allegedly met Businessperson A in Englander’s car and, after Englander turned up the car stereo music to a loud volume to obstruct possible listening devices, Englander again repeatedly instructed Businessperson A to lie to the FBI while driving in a circle around the block to conceal their meeting."

is that bad?

depends, what was he playing?

the Eagles

nicely done

So ... martial law, Gavin, really?

I'm not seeing anything? Source?

Something about activating 500 National Guardsmen as a backup for food distribution, allegedly.

SF feels like a ghost town, it's surreal

We’ve been in a quieter part of town anyway but when the nearby bar closed, it definitely got quiet.

I have never seen as many people on my block in Oakland as I have today

I remember everyone in my neighborhood coming out of their houses after the 89 Loma Prieta earthquake

Truly sobering story about the state of California's budget — even with a record $20 billion-plus in reserves https://t.co/C0V72BtLme

— Liam Dillon (@dillonliam) March 25, 2020

Just a reminder that California's state budget is super reliant on rich people and when rich people lose money the state as a whole suffers — via @melmason https://t.co/x7koQOiJja

— Liam Dillon (@dillonliam) March 25, 2020

honestly I feel like California isn't going to be as fucked by this as some other states.

And idk how "sobering" the fact that this huge crisis would wipe out our reserves is, really ... I remember the CA economy after the dot-com crash / 9-11 ...I feel like then we were super fucked as a state.

he's right tho that state revenue in any given year is more tied to individual income than it would be elsewhere (bc prop 13 yay!)

definitely more tied to individual income than in states with no income tax! ... what about the states that rely on sales tax for more of their budget?

lol hi

sure you're fucked if you rely on sales tax and there's a once in a century quarantine (hi WA). but CA fucked every time there's a stock market correction if you rely on income tax that is dominated by residents who receive stock compensation.

I don't know if it's actually "dominated" by that? I would be curious to see the statistical data.

"we're unusually sensitive to the stock market (especially tech IPOs etc.)" is the premise of the article in the second tweet i posted https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-pol-ca-next-california-economy/. there's plenty of numbers in there. but fair enough, if "dominated" means > 50% of the revenue, then probably not.

income tax is 70% of the revenue, that's fine -- but that doesn't really show that the income tax revenue is dominated by the tax on stock compensation? ... even if it's saying that a lot comes from capital gains, not all capital gains are coming from stock compensation. You also get capital gains from buying and selling real estate.

i know you work in this area so maybe you already know this? but i'm not sure if people outside tech realize that a typical tech worker's W2 is usually at least 20% stock comp, and closer to 80% or more at the better paid end, see https://www.levels.fyi. or at least it is, until the market crashes and then the highest paid people in the state get a huge pay cut.

granted, the *seriously* rich are getting their income from capital gains, not on a W2. and granted tech people aren't the only people in CA. but it's not a coincidence that the top 4 zip codes for CA income tax are in PA, Burlingame and Menlo Park. and in the context of a budget without a lot of wiggle room, an unanticipated pay cut on the W2 income of the highest paid "regular" W2 employees in the state is a big deal! and it happens every time there's a stock market correction.

note i'm not saying CA should take care of its tech workers better. fuck those guys myself included. i'm saying we (and washington) should move more revenue to property tax (and wealth tax more generally). it would be fairer and it would make CA revenue more predictable.

I was actually thinking about this last night -- because I'm hearing from various people that with the stock market correction, housing prices will go down, because some of the pricing is based on the people with tech money, so a fair amount of capital gains from real estate is connected to the capital gains from stock.

But are you saying that income tax _isn't_ a wealth tax? Or just that the different forms of wealth should be taxed equally? The fact that capital gains tax rates are lower than those on income people actually work for is one of those things that I find fundamentally wrong with our system. And some of it comes down to old money vs. new money, too. For example, I am interested to see what the aggregate income and tax data are for "older money" zip codes in places like Monterey and Carmel and Marin County. I feel like they have had time to shelter their income and perhaps pay less tax than the tech people who are "new money" ... idk.

I had a tax client for a while that had a modest income -- that consisted of like $5k from music gigs, another couple thousand from dividends, and about $60k in tax-exempt bond interest. He paid 0 tax.

If I have 100 and earn 10, and the 10 is taxed, that’s an income tax. If the 100 is taxed that’s a wealth tax. Property tax is an example of a wealth tax.

Wealth taxes tend to affect older people more than income taxes because older people often have little or no income but have accrued more wealth because they’ve lived longer. But they also affect the super rich, who find it easier to disguise income as wealth and avoid income taxes. Aside from property tax, wealth taxes are pretty rare. Elizabeth Warren famously wants a wealth tax on all wealth (not just real property) above a certain amount.

Wealth tax is a tax on savings, which is, like caek said, pretty hard to propose in the USA without people freaking out. Good idea though. Keeps people from hoarding money.

It’s desirable for all sorts of reasons but it’s particularly desirable in CA because real property is incredibly valuable so taxing it good for state revenue, and normal income is unusually volatile in this state because of the tech stocks while wealth is pretty stable or at least varies differently than income so the volatility is reduced.

Here's the other side of the argument:

the thing is, it isn't that real property isn't being taxed based on its value -- it's that people have locked in rates based on how long they have held the property. It's basically rent control for property owners. Should the state abolish rent control for tenants?

And, another thing is, real property values are also volatile in CA (some areas less so than others). So, the technical issue would be, to be equitable, property values would need to be regularly reassessed, and how would this be done? Taxing income and investments held in cash (or cash equivalents) is fairly simple to quantify -- you already have a dollar value. But buildings and land?

Then, you have the issue of double taxation (this also comes up if you are proposing to tax accrued income) -- if someone has made improvements to their real property, in many areas, they are paying permit fees to local agencies based on the estimated value of those improvements -- so now, they are gonna be taxed by the state on the improvements they were already taxed by their city/county on, and they paid to make them! "No wonder everything here is so fucking expensive! Why would anyone in their right mind want to build anything here?!"

idk could always try abolishing private property entirely

though what you could do -- seriously, I no longer have a social life, so discussing and formulating a progressive and practical taxation / economic policy is a great use of my time rn -- what you could do is greatly increase the homeowner's exemption for property tax. (as in, if it's your house and you live in it vs. you own the property and it's only a rental) Right now it's $7000 (maybe that's just Alameda County?) -- as in only $7000 of your property value is not taxable.

Another option would be increasing cash assistance benefits to the poor such that fixed income grandma could afford the increased property taxes on her house. Fixed income grandma was the imperiled heroine in the Prop 13 issue back in the 70s. Today's fixed income grandma (at least in gentrifying cities like Oakland) is a non-white grandma who owns her house in a rapidly gentrifying neighborhood, such that, if property taxes were assessed at current value, she would possibly have to sell her house, and the neighborhood would become whiter. In other words, there is a racial component to this issue (on the side of not repealing Prop 13) that wasn't there back in the 70s

I think any removal of Prop 13 would need to be phased in over >20 years.

there would definitely need to be a phase in for residential (and probably a lot of commercial property too)

Here's the other side of the argument:

the thing is, it isn't that real property isn't being taxed based on its value -- it's that people have locked in rates based on how long they have held the property. It's basically rent control for property owners. Should the state abolish rent control for tenants?

And, another thing is, real property values are also volatile in CA (some areas less so than others). So, the technical issue would be, to be equitable, property values would need to be regularly reassessed, and how would this be done? Taxing income and investments held in cash (or cash equivalents) is fairly simple to quantify -- you already have a dollar value. But buildings and land?

Then, you have the issue of double taxation (this also comes up if you are proposing to tax accrued income) -- if someone has made improvements to their real property, in many areas, they are paying permit fees to local agencies based on the estimated value of those improvements -- so now, they are gonna be taxed by the state on the improvements they were already taxed by their city/county on, and they paid to make them! "No wonder everything here is so fucking expensive! Why would anyone in their right mind want to build anything here?!"

No, but thanks to Costa-Hawkins we currently have very little rent control at the state level anyway. And the topic of rent control is a total non-sequitur.

not really a non-sequitur -- if a tenant in a rental property has rent control, and the property is reassessed at a much higher tax rate, could the owner pass that on to the tenants?

There's a lot more rent control in northern CA cities btw

if a tenant in a rental property has rent control, and the property is reassessed at a much higher tax rate, could the owner pass that on to the tenants?

so... apply rent control so that doesn't happen? i don't get what you're saying here. are you saying that eliminating prop 13 would be hard or that it would be unfair? or something else?

I am basically reiterating arguments that I hear from other people.

Here's one example:
A rental property that is subject to rent control provisions and is the primary income stream for "fixed income grandma." Grandma has owned this property for 40 years. The property taxes are low because of Prop 13. Grandma's tenants have been there a long time, too, and are also low income. If Prop 13 is eliminated and her rental property is reassessed at a much higher rate, what should she do?

1. eat dog food because she now has to pay a lot more in property taxes
2. pass the property tax onto the tenants (which is legal in many jurisdictions) so the tenants end up homeless and/or eating dog food

eliminating proposition 13 does not equate to increasing property taxes. it means you introduce reassessment on some reasonable frequency (year, decade, whatever) and you remove the hard upper limit of 1% or whatever it is. you could (and we should!) repeal prop 13 and at the same time reduce the rate such that the state revenue is unchanged (something like a state 0.1% rate would do this, given how much values have gone up since prop 13 passed). if you do this then, by definition, the average property owner's bill would not change (and about half of bills would go down!)

the goal of repealing prop 13 is not to increase total revenue. it's to allow us to get a bigger fraction of revenue from incredibly wealthy people who are literal millionaires, and less of it from incredibly poor people via the current flat state income tax. you can quibble about the proportions here, but even the principle of *attempting* to do this is *illegal* right now because of prop 13.

the people whose bills would go up to unnafordable levels if you eliminate prop 13 while reducing the state property tax to keep income constant are *incredibly wealthy*! if "grandma" owns a $2m bay area home that she is renting (i.e. she is a millionaire running a dang business!), and the property tax is high, she can sell up and get out of the business! the state does not owe millionaires a tax code that makes running a profitable business easy. now she has $2m in her savings account. she can live of the interest for the rest of her life. a 25 year old can live of the interest from that for the rest of their life, for that matter!

obviously if grandma *lives* in the house, that's a different issue (solved very easily by, for example, grandfathering (ha!) all property tax to be limited by prop 13 for current residents in their current home, or any one of dozens of other ways, e.g. incremental increase, age limits, etc., etc.)

it's to allow us to get a bigger fraction of revenue from incredibly wealthy people who are literal millionaires, and less of it from incredibly poor people via the current flat state income tax.

flat in what sense? CA state income tax is not a flat tax, it is a progressive tax.

obviously if grandma *lives* in the house, that's a different issue (solved very easily by, for example, grandfathering (ha!) all property tax to be limited by prop 13 for current residents in their current home, or any one of dozens of other ways, e.g. incremental increase, age limits, etc., etc.)

Yeah, that is along the lines of what I would argue against the Pro-Prop 13-ers I encounter. Even something as simple as a larger homeowner exemption for the property. Instead of $7000, you can say $100,000 and potentially increase that based on years owned/lived in -- like an extra $100k for each 10 years.

So that -- let's say grandma has had her house for 40 years. Let's say she bought it for $50k and it is now worth $750k. And let's say that the taxable assessed value is $67k.

So: currently -- her tax is based on $67,000 - $7,000 = $60,000

With my proposal of $100k base exemption with an extra $10k exemption for each year owned, she would have: $750,000 - $400,000 = $350,000 -- which would be an increase, but her taxes would be way lower than Jerry Gentrifier who paid $750,000 for a similar house across the street last year.

Jerry Gentrifier, if he and his family lived in their house, would be taxed on $750,000 - $100,000 = $650,000, whereas Greedy Speculators Investment Trust who also bought a house in the neighborhood last year for $750,000 and operates it as a rental (or is holding it vacant) would pay tax on the entire $750k

/it's to allow us to get a bigger fraction of revenue from incredibly wealthy people who are literal millionaires, and less of it from incredibly poor people via the current flat state income tax./

flat in what sense? CA state income tax is not a flat tax, it is a progressive tax.

A wealth tax is de facto progressive in that the tax bill of people who earn more tends to be a larger proportion of their income (possibly more than 100% for the idle rich).

why does being younger than your grandmother make jerry a gentrifier?

"I've not sourced [Nunes] for advice on pretty much any issue — I say that as respectfully as I can — but particularly on public health issues," Newsom said. "He's made some statements in the past that were not consistent with the advice from the experts. We’ll continue to listen to the experts, try to avoid some elected officials that frankly may not have the benefit of the insight many of us do here."

Newsom added that at the Emergency Operations Center, he and the state's health officials are constantly getting new information from around the world and anticipating trend lines.

"Not everyone has that benefit," Newsome continued, "so I’ll forgive him."

https://www.sfgate.com/coronavirus/article/newsom-the-view-nunes-coronavirus-schools-15177436.php

Still not a wholehearted fan of Newsom but this is a pretty great takedown of an ignorant clod.

did they really misspell his name like that in the article?

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-04-09/california-declares-independence-from-trump-s-coronavirus-plans

this is one of the simpler financial jobs in CA local government, and this guy is tapping out before it gets real. this is going to be a bad year ...

This is a very tough news. One of the very best people in California local government says it's too tough under these circumstances. https://t.co/yvliw2qkaZ

— Joe Mathews (@joemmathews) April 19, 2020

This is fine

Oh my god. This is horrifying. The US HUD affordable housing income limits for San Francisco County shot up $10,000 in ONE YEAR. According to the federal government, a low-income family of four in San Francisco is now any such family making $140,000 per year. pic.twitter.com/7Pt9OQVwdb

— Louis Mirante (@louismirante) April 23, 2020

wait, so it was $130K before? equally as horrifying.

yup. fucked up.

it means that they can charge higher rents on "affordable housing" and price out even lower income people

-- Athletics
-- Badminton (singles)
-- Throwing a baseball or softball
-- BMX biking
-- Canoeing (singles)
-- Crabbing
-- Cycling
-- Exploring rock pools
-- Gardening (not in groups)
-- Golf (singles, walking – no cart)
-- Hiking (on trails and paths allowing distancing)
-- Horseback riding (singles)
-- Jogging and running
-- Kite boarding and kitesurfing
-- Meditation
-- Outdoor photography
-- Picnics (with your stay-home household members only)
-- Quad Biking
-- Rock Climbing
-- Roller Skating and Roller Blading
-- Rowing (singles)
-- Scootering (not in groups)
-- Skateboarding (not in groups)
-- Soft martial arts – Tai Chi, Chi Kung (not in groups)
-- Table tennis (singles)
-- Throw and catch an American mini football, Frisbee or Frisbee golf (not in groups)
-- Trail running
-- Trampolining
-- Tree climbing
-- Volleyball (singles)
-- Walk the dog
-- Wash the car
-- Watch the sunrise or sunset
-- Yoga

lol

That CA 25th special election has gotten me down. wtf is wrong with democratic voters? I thought everyone was sent an absentee ballot. How hard is it to connect the two sides of ONE arrow with a pen and walk it to a mailbox?

Is that the district that will be re-run in 6 months?

I wouldn't put too much stock into it, esp. considering that's prime Rodney-King-juror country. There's always a bigger turnout in tandem with the Presidential election.

democrats outnumber republicans in that district. I guess I can’t get over how much democratic voters really don’t give a shit. it doesn’t bode well for november imo

"Democrat" seems to be the default now (slowly being overtaken by "Independent"). When you register Republican in California you are a true believer.

by all means worry about november, but until 2018 that district has been republican since 1993. katie hill probably won thanks to state races on the ballot to pull in low information voters. and obviously the "scandal" was bullshit, but it didn't exactly tee the next democrat running for that seat up for success. democrats lose in CA plenty despite their registration advantage.

you want to be depressed, be depressed about lundquist losing the council seat up there back in march (also with a registration advantage). an LA council member has way more power than a freshman congressman (and represents more people iirc!) and the republican was credibly implicated in bribery days before the election. people don't vote!

Simi Valley aside (only 17.6% of the district) this was a 21 point republican shift from Katie Hill’s win in 2018, in a swing district where registered democrats outnumber republicans and where the election was considered a toss-up

the republican share of the vote increased by about 10 points, not 21 (which is the change in margin, and not the right way to think about it imo)

And it won’t be 10 points when the vote is in. It might be as small as 5.

And turnout was so low that Katie hill got like 100,000 more votes than García.

It sucks the democrat lost but it doesn’t mean anything apart from that people don’t vote in special elections.