California Politics: Madame Senator, this is a morgue

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > California Politics: Madame Senator, this is a morgue

«‹›957 »

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

Sydin posted:

Maybe not riots, but I'm sure a few upper-middle class students in Santa Cruz will find a way to block a freeway or two over it.

You must be really confused if you think the students at Santa Cruz have been protesting over NIMBY issues.

Meanwhile, Santa Cruz is still on mandatory water restrictions, ~7,500 gallons a month per residential home.

# ? Apr 30, 2015 20:50

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 15, 2024 02:17

Sydin: Oct 29, 2011; Another spring commute

Trabisnikof posted:

You must be really confused if you think the students at Santa Cruz have been protesting over NIMBY issues.

I thought we were talking about the drought and water policy? Didn't realize the that was considered a NIMBY issue.

# ? Apr 30, 2015 20:58

Leperflesh: May 17, 2007

It's more of an opposite thing, a WIMBY issue. Water In My Back Yard (and screw everyone else).

# ? Apr 30, 2015 21:02

GenderSelectScreen: Mar 7, 2010; I DON'T KNOW EITHER DON'T ASK ME; College Slice

Kill the watered

# ? Apr 30, 2015 21:08

CPColin: Sep 9, 2003; Big ol' smile.

My landlords are switching us from a year-long lease to a month-to-month lease when the current one is up so they can increase the rent to cover any fines that are imposed due to overuse of water. They pay the water bill and we never see it, so we have no idea how close we are to compliance or noncompliance. There also is only one meter, so the downstairs neighbors washing their cars (still!) counts against us. :waycool:

# ? Apr 30, 2015 21:13

jeeves: May 27, 2001; Deranged Psychopathic
Butler Extraordinaire

Trabisnikof posted:

You must be really confused if you think the students at Santa Cruz have been protesting over NIMBY issues.

Meanwhile, Santa Cruz is still on mandatory water restrictions, ~7,500 gallons a month per residential home.

7500 gallons seems like an insanely large amount, but then I realize just how wasteful most Americans are with water.

We certainly got used to the 20th century being the wettest in recent recorded history real quick!

# ? Apr 30, 2015 21:34

GenderSelectScreen: Mar 7, 2010; I DON'T KNOW EITHER DON'T ASK ME; College Slice

CPColin posted:

My landlords are switching us from a year-long lease to a month-to-month lease when the current one is up so they can increase the rent to cover any fines that are imposed due to overuse of water. They pay the water bill and we never see it, so we have no idea how close we are to compliance or noncompliance. There also is only one meter, so the downstairs neighbors washing their cars (still!) counts against us.

In times like this, you should kill your neighbors to save your family.

EDIT: Wait, in Oregon my landlord had me on a year long lease that still allowed her to raise my rent each month. That's not how it works here?

# ? Apr 30, 2015 22:00

doctorfrog: Mar 14, 2007; Great.

CPColin posted:

My landlords are switching us from a year-long lease to a month-to-month lease when the current one is up so they can increase the rent to cover any fines that are imposed due to overuse of water. They pay the water bill and we never see it, so we have no idea how close we are to compliance or noncompliance. There also is only one meter, so the downstairs neighbors washing their cars (still!) counts against us.

Our landlord switched all our utility billing to a third party "to better serve us," so now we pay an additional fee to those guys just to tab our collective water/garbage/everything bill! And my upstairs neighbor bought a portable clothes washing machine, so I guess I'm paying for a chunk of that electricity/water usage as well. Can't wait to see what'll happen next when everyone's water bill goes up but no one has a self-interested reason to conserve.

# ? Apr 30, 2015 22:07

CPColin: Sep 9, 2003; Big ol' smile.

Hitlers Gay Secret posted:

In times like this, you should kill your neighbors to save your family.

EDIT: Wait, in Oregon my landlord had me on a year long lease that still allowed her to raise my rent each month. That's not how it works here?

Apparently not, unless your lease mentions it:

http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/legal_guides/lt-2.shtml

I'm planning to ask for a year-long lease with a water surcharge clause added, to see if they're putting us on month-to-month for the rent consideration or if maybe they just want us month-to-month so they can kick us out with thirty days' notice. (That'd be a nice notice to get, after eight years of living in my current place!)

# ? Apr 30, 2015 22:13

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

Hitlers Gay Secret posted:

In times like this, you should kill your neighbors to save your family.

EDIT: Wait, in Oregon my landlord had me on a year long lease that still allowed her to raise my rent each month. That's not how it works here?

That kind of removes the point of a year long lease, at least from the perspective of the renter.

# ? Apr 30, 2015 22:30

Leperflesh: May 17, 2007

computer parts posted:

That kind of removes the point of a year long lease, at least from the perspective of the renter.

A year-long lease assures both the owner and the renter that the renter can't/won't leave, or be asked to leave without cause, within the leased period. That's all it means.

If there is provision for unlimited increase in rent, however, that does provide a landlord with the ability to effectively kick out the renter, by raising the rent to an absurd amount... and then, presumably, also penalize the renter for breaking the lease. Since that's blatantly unfair, I suspect most states/locales have laws disallowing that sort of provision. But... a lot of lease agreements have clauses blatantly in contravention of the law.

A lease that says the landlord can raise the rent by up to x%, once per year (or something similar) is still likely permissible, and still provides the renter with the assurance that they won't be asked to leave (without cause) within that period.

# ? Apr 30, 2015 22:44

Slow News Day: Jul 4, 2007

jeeves posted:

7500 gallons seems like an insanely large amount, but then I realize just how wasteful most Americans are with water.

Yeah, that's only 7500 almonds.

# ? Apr 30, 2015 23:46

FCKGW: May 21, 2006

jeeves posted:

7500 gallons seems like an insanely large amount, but then I realize just how wasteful most Americans are with water.

We certainly got used to the 20th century being the wettest in recent recorded history real quick!

per household. A single person or a family with 4 kids both get the same restrictions. It doesn't make sense.

# ? May 1, 2015 00:02

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

enraged_camel posted:

Yeah, that's only 7500 almonds.

Or 4lbs of beef!

# ? May 1, 2015 00:04

GenderSelectScreen: Mar 7, 2010; I DON'T KNOW EITHER DON'T ASK ME; College Slice

Leperflesh posted:

A year-long lease assures both the owner and the renter that the renter can't/won't leave, or be asked to leave without cause, within the leased period. That's all it means.

If there is provision for unlimited increase in rent, however, that does provide a landlord with the ability to effectively kick out the renter, by raising the rent to an absurd amount... and then, presumably, also penalize the renter for breaking the lease. Since that's blatantly unfair, I suspect most states/locales have laws disallowing that sort of provision. But... a lot of lease agreements have clauses blatantly in contravention of the law.

A lease that says the landlord can raise the rent by up to x%, once per year (or something similar) is still likely permissible, and still provides the renter with the assurance that they won't be asked to leave (without cause) within that period.

They just raise the rent until you leave. That's why I'm back in this hellhole of a state.

# ? May 1, 2015 10:40

drilldo squirt: Aug 18, 2006; a beautiful, soft meat sack; Clapping Larry

You're getting screwed over by your landlord.

# ? May 1, 2015 12:20

GenderSelectScreen: Mar 7, 2010; I DON'T KNOW EITHER DON'T ASK ME; College Slice

drilldo squirt posted:

You're getting screwed over by your landlord.

Was. Not anymore. :gbsmith:

# ? May 1, 2015 18:25

Leperflesh: May 17, 2007

Hitlers Gay Secret posted:

They just raise the rent until you leave. That's why I'm back in this hellhole of a state.

Seriously, no, you can have a yearlong lease that allows a specified maximum increase of rent per year. It's not that uncommon. I had one.

# ? May 1, 2015 18:45

jeeves: May 27, 2001; Deranged Psychopathic
Butler Extraordinaire

doctorfrog posted:

Our landlord switched all our utility billing to a third party "to better serve us," so now we pay an additional fee to those guys just to tab our collective water/garbage/everything bill! And my upstairs neighbor bought a portable clothes washing machine, so I guess I'm paying for a chunk of that electricity/water usage as well. Can't wait to see what'll happen next when everyone's water bill goes up but no one has a self-interested reason to conserve.

I loving hate places that do collective bills. It's like a prisoner's dilemma of gently caress you to just the be biggest hog of resources since the bill is split evenly.

It's the most wasteful way to do things and so of course people do it and probably love it.

# ? May 1, 2015 19:54

GenderSelectScreen: Mar 7, 2010; I DON'T KNOW EITHER DON'T ASK ME; College Slice

Leperflesh posted:

Seriously, no, you can have a yearlong lease that allows a specified maximum increase of rent per year. It's not that uncommon. I had one.

Well then I guess that's what happened to me. Either way, I had to cancel my lease and drag my poor rear end back to California where I wait for sweet sweet death.

# ? May 1, 2015 20:00

drilldo squirt: Aug 18, 2006; a beautiful, soft meat sack; Clapping Larry

They aren't allowed to raise it month to month if you have a lease, that's illegal.

# ? May 1, 2015 20:54

GenderSelectScreen: Mar 7, 2010; I DON'T KNOW EITHER DON'T ASK ME; College Slice

drilldo squirt posted:

They aren't allowed to raise it month to month if you have a lease, that's illegal.

Well I don't know what the gently caress to tell you other than that's what happened to me so :shrug:

# ? May 1, 2015 20:59

Leperflesh: May 17, 2007

drilldo squirt posted:

They aren't allowed to raise it month to month if you have a lease, that's illegal.

This is for California, but it's generally applicable:
http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/legal_guides/lt-2.shtml

quote:

Some tenants have leases. If you have a lease, your rent cannot be increased during the term of the lease, unless the lease allows rent increases.1

e. Basically, read your loving lease before you sign it, and don't sign a lease that lets the landlord raise the rent more than you're prepared to pay.

Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 21:10 on May 1, 2015

# ? May 1, 2015 21:07

Kobayashi: Aug 13, 2004; by Nyc_Tattoo

I don't doubt they exist, but I've lived all over the country and never heard of something like that. gently caress if I'd sign a "lease" like that.

# ? May 1, 2015 21:29

Shbobdb: Dec 16, 2010; by Reene

It happens all the time. Especially in states with poor tenant's rights. In my experience, the poorer you are the more likely you are to encounter that clause. It's basically a way of loving over the poor.

# ? May 1, 2015 21:39

GenderSelectScreen: Mar 7, 2010; I DON'T KNOW EITHER DON'T ASK ME; College Slice

When you need a place to live right before school starts again and a friend needs a roommate you don't really care what you sign. :smith:

Meh, whatever. I learned from it and it wasn't the end of the world. It was a good 9 months while it lasted. :unsmith:

# ? May 1, 2015 21:42

Kobayashi: Aug 13, 2004; by Nyc_Tattoo

Shbobdb posted:

It happens all the time. Especially in states with poor tenant's rights. In my experience, the poorer you are the more likely you are to encounter that clause. It's basically a way of loving over the poor.

I know I shouldn't be surprised at this point, but it still shocks me just how much this country shits on poor people.

# ? May 1, 2015 21:47

gonger: Apr 25, 2006; Quiet! You vegetable!

A targeted anti-tech protest action (https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2015/04/14/18771083.php) flopped pretty hard today:

quote:

"The sole tech shuttle that showed up at an Oakland protest intended to blockade them rolled away unhindered after picking up a single passenger.

http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/May-Day-rally-fails-to-block-tech-bus-in-Oakland-6236310.php

What's interesting about it is that the bus drivers for most of the major companies that run shuttle programs have unionized in the last year. The union asked the radicals in advance to call off the protest, but they went ahead with it anyway. Have we crossed peak tech bus outrage?

# ? May 1, 2015 23:24

Papercut: Aug 24, 2005

Nothing to see here, SAFEST BRIDGE IN CALIFORNIA, etc.

quote:

Caltrans tests indicate that salt water from the bay may be seeping into the foundation of the new Bay Bridge eastern span�s tower, an ominous prospect that raises questions about the long-term viability of hundreds of massive steel rods that anchor the landmark structure.

The state agency has known since late 2014 that many of the 424 rods, each of them 25 feet long and made of hardened steel, were steeping for years in rainwater, the apparent result of a botched grouting and sealing job by bridge contractors. Crews drained the water from the rods� sleeves, but the contractor complained to Caltrans last month that water was regularly reappearing � even when there was no apparent source.

Caltrans was warned of Bay Bridge leaking before span opened. Preliminary tests that Caltrans did last week found that in some of the sleeves, chloride levels were far higher than is typically found in rainwater. Two independent experts say the likely culprit is bay water that is permeating the base of the structure, possibly through gaps or cracks in the concrete.

Caltrans spokeswoman Leah Robinson-Leach said in a statement Tuesday that the chloride levels in a �few locations� were �half ... of what would be expected in salt water.� However, even that is about 50 times higher than the chloride content of rainwater removed from the flooded rod sleeves last year.

�Reaching a conclusion about the reason for chloride at this point would be clearly speculative,� Robinson-Leach said. �We are currently monitoring to thoroughly evaluate the situation. But in the end, what matters is drying the foundation and keeping it dry, which is exactly what we intend to do.�

Signs of damage

Caltrans has already removed two rods that were exposed to freshwater to check for signs of damage, and reported last month that there were rust and tiny cracks � both indications of corrosion. An invasion by salt water would be significantly worse, both because it could accelerate corrosion and because a logical source would be the bay � something an improved grouting job can�t fix.

�It�s bad news,� said Yun Chung, a retired Bechtel engineer who has been critical of Caltrans� use of high-strength steel for the rods, which is more prone to corrosion than regular steel. �We just don�t know how bad because we don�t have the data to show how susceptible they are.�

Chung said saltwater is clearly permeating gaps in the concrete base, posing a continuing threat to the already problematic rods. �Based on what we know, the rods are questionable,� he said. �It�s a big question mark.�
On Monday, after an emergency meeting, the bridge project�s oversight committee voted to test water from 100 flooded rod sleeves at a cost of $400,000.

Earthquake safety

One of the rods� most important functions is to keep the 525-foot-tall tower from heaving up and down in an earthquake. If the rods are steeping in salt water, it could shorten their life span.

Caltrans will have no easy solution if the rods are damaged. They were installed before the bridge tower was put in place in 2011, and there is no longer room to remove a rod without destroying it or to maneuver a replacement into position.

If bay water is seeping into the rod sleeves, one source could be cracks that appeared in the foundation during construction. Officials say crews filled in the cracks, which developed as the concrete set, but it�s possible that some cracks escaped detection.

Dispute with contractor

Until recently, Caltrans blamed the flooding in the steel sleeves on the bridge�s main contractor, a joint venture called American Bridge/Fluor Enterprises, for failing to properly grout and seal them.

In a letter to Caltrans last month, American Bridge/Fluor pointed out that water was continuing to flood the base of the rods even after the sleeves had been drained. The contractor blamed voids in the concrete foundation, which was built by another contractor, Kiewit.

American Bridge/Fluor identified 21 sleeves that filled up on a daily basis with at least 6 inches of water. Removing all the standing water �cannot be achieved,� the contractor told Caltrans.

�What is seemingly obvious,� wrote the contractor�s project director, Brian Petersen, �is there are apparent voids within the T-1 tower foundation that exist which appear to prove a constant and consistent flow of water back into the tower anchor bolt sleeves.�

The sleeves, Petersen said, were not sealed against water at the bottom � making them vulnerable to repeated flooding that he said was not the fault of American Bridge/Fluor.

Reflooded sleeves

In its reply, Caltrans blamed American Bridge/Fluor for the renewed presence of water, saying the contractor chose for unexplained reasons to reflood the drained rod sleeves on March 4. Caltrans said �unexpected and unauthorized� water was simply trickling down to the base of the sleeves over time. The discovery of apparent salt water suggests that the contractor may be right, and that bay water is invading via gaps or cracks in the concrete structure.

�Chlorides are like the icing on the cake,� said Lisa Fulton, a corrosion expert in Berkeley who has studied the project and who did testing that confirmed corrosion on vital components.

�There is no magic number, but the basic thing is the higher the chloride level, the more accelerated the corrosion,� Fulton said, adding that the most likely source is bay water infiltrating the base.

�Once the chlorides come into contact with the steel rods, they stay put and become concentrated,� Fulton said. �They initiate corrosion and accelerate the corrosion rate by orders of magnitude.�

Charles McMahon, a materials science professor emeritus at the University of Pennsylvania, said chloride interferes with �the development of a protective oxide film� that would otherwise guard the steel. The fact that the water has half as much chloride as sea water is not much consolation, he said, given that the high-strength steel being used is already overly susceptible to corrosion.

�Chloride ions are bad news,� he said. �It�s really sad � maybe when this is all said and done, engineers will decide they�d better consult somebody about the materials they are going to use.�

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Ominous-signs-of-problems-with-new-Bay-Bridge-s-6244776.php

# ? May 6, 2015 08:15

cheese: Jan 7, 2004; Shop around for doctors! Always fucking shop for doctors. Doctors are stupid assholes. And they get by because people are cowed by their mystical bullshit quality of being able to maintain a 3.0 GPA at some Guatemalan medical college for 3 semesters. Find one that makes sense.

gonger posted:

A targeted anti-tech protest action (https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2015/04/14/18771083.php) flopped pretty hard today:

What's interesting about it is that the bus drivers for most of the major companies that run shuttle programs have unionized in the last year. The union asked the radicals in advance to call off the protest, but they went ahead with it anyway. Have we crossed peak tech bus outrage?

"People trying to get to work in the morning" isn't a great target for otherwise completely justifiable outrage at the social and economic effects that the expanding tech industry is having on the Bay Area.

# ? May 7, 2015 00:31

etalian: Mar 20, 2006

Papercut posted:

Nothing to see here, SAFEST BRIDGE IN CALIFORNIA, etc.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Ominous-signs-of-problems-with-new-Bay-Bridge-s-6244776.php

BART is still my favorite masterpiece of superior californian engineering.

Let's use non-standard rail gauge for North America and also cloth seats in mass transit.

# ? May 7, 2015 01:00

FRINGE: May 23, 2003; title stolen for lf posting

quote:

a botched grouting and sealing job by bridge contractors

How could this be?! The free market would have prevented it!

# ? May 7, 2015 05:25

etalian: Mar 20, 2006

Well at least the salt water will crash the bridge before the shoddy chinese provided steel assemblies break.

# ? May 7, 2015 05:37

TACD: Oct 27, 2000

etalian posted:

...cloth seats in mass transit.

What's wrong with this? All the mass transit I'm aware of in the UK (including the London Underground) has proper padded seating.

# ? May 7, 2015 07:33

FRINGE: May 23, 2003; title stolen for lf posting

TACD posted:

What's wrong with this? All the mass transit I'm aware of in the UK (including the London Underground) has proper padded seating.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/06/us/06bcseats.html
https://www.baycitizen.org/news/transportation/bart-seats-bacteria-blossom/

quote:

Riders on the Bay Area Rapid Transit system have long complained about germs in the hard-to-clean cloth seats. As Bob Franklin, the BART board president, acknowledged, �People don�t know what�s in there.�

Now they do.

The Bay Citizen commissioned Darleen Franklin, a supervisor at San Francisco State University�s biology lab, to analyze the bacterial content of a random BART seat. The results may make you want to stand during your trip.

Fecal and skin-borne bacteria resistant to antibiotics were found in a seat on a train headed from Daly City to Dublin/Pleasanton. Further testing on the skin-borne bacteria showed characteristics of methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA, the drug-resistant bacterium that causes potentially lethal infections, although Ms. Franklin cautioned that the MRSA findings were preliminary.
...

Ms. Franklin tested the BART seat at the back of a Dublin/Pleasanton-bound train in the midafternoon. A swab taken from the seat cushion and headrest produced a veritable forest of mold and colorful bacteria.

In two separate tests, Ms. Franklin identified characteristics of the MRSA bacteria growing in the seat. The first test confirmed the presence of staphylococcus aureus, the skin-borne bacteria. A second confirmed that the bacteria, like MRSA, was resistant to the antibiotics methicillin and penicillin. But a third test intended to isolate the MRSA bacteria was negative.

MRSA is known as the �superbug� because it is resistant to antibiotics. It infects people through open wounds, attacking the immune system; 19,000 deaths each year are related to MRSA infections, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

�There�s a probability that it is MRSA, but more tests would need to be done,� Ms. Franklin said. �Somebody probably was wearing shorts and had an infection, and there you go. It is concerning.�

quote:

Allison encouraged riders to wash their hands and use hand sanitizers available at BART stations.

Hygiene has emerged as a key issue as BART officials determine what kind of seats to install for a new fleet of cars in 2017. In January, system employees were invited to test a variety of seat models at a Hayward warehouse. One employee, Melissa Jordan, filed a report on BART�s website about the trade-offs in selecting the new seats.

�Can I live with some type of seat that�s less cushiony � maybe padded vinyl instead of fabric � if it�s easier to keep clean?� Jordan wrote.

Franklin�s analysis also revealed that Muni, which uses acrylic plastic seats, appears to be more sanitary.

She tested a seat on the No. 28 bus, a route frequented by college students traveling from San Francisco State to Daly City. Two benign bacteria colonies were found. Unlike the BART seat analysis, Franklin�s test of the Muni seat after cleaning it with an alcohol wipe detected no bacteria.

# ? May 7, 2015 08:28

Slow News Day: Jul 4, 2007

quote:

Fecal and skin-borne bacteria resistant to antibiotics were found in a seat on a train headed from Daly City to Dublin/Pleasanton. Further testing on the skin-borne bacteria showed characteristics of methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA, the drug-resistant bacterium that causes potentially lethal infections, although Ms. Franklin cautioned that the MRSA findings were preliminary.

And then people wonder why public transportation isn't popular...

# ? May 7, 2015 15:22

ComradeCosmobot: Dec 4, 2004; USPOL July

Santa Clara County has halted its acquisition of a stingray.

# ? May 7, 2015 15:35

etalian: Mar 20, 2006

TACD posted:

What's wrong with this? All the mass transit I'm aware of in the UK (including the London Underground) has proper padded seating.

It creates a surface which is heaven for bacteria and also impossible to sanitize.

# ? May 7, 2015 22:56

withak: Jan 15, 2003; Fun Shoe

Wasn't there an article a while back where someone did similar testing on a selection of couches in people homes and found an equally-horrifying array of microorganisms?

# ? May 7, 2015 23:00

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 15, 2024 02:17

Leperflesh: May 17, 2007

Yeah the real problem with cloth-covered padded seats isn't the bacteria (which coat everything you touch everywhere, LOL your bathroom is probably the cleanest room in your house) but the difficulty in cleaning off the hobo slime and drunkard vomit.

You can make padded seats that have a non-pourous cover. Of course, they get slashed, but no more often than the cloth-covered seats. These are the middle ground.

The hardcore all-plastic seating with no fabric anywhere solution gives you a train car you can steam-clean from top to bottom, bleach, etc. Maximum "cleanliness" (until anyone has entered the train and the entire place is again contaminated), minimum comfort.

# ? May 7, 2015 23:05

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > California Politics: Madame Senator, this is a morgue

«‹›957 »