Spite posted:

Repealing it would completely gently caress over the Bay Area. Currently the only way to afford a home in the Bay Area is to 1a) be rich 1b) make a bunch of money in tech or 2) have bought it 30 years ago. Suddenly making property taxes adjust would kick a huge portion of the populace out of their homes. And rent is already sky high.

It's a completely hosed situation all around. The best solution I can think of is to repeal it for businesses but not private homeowners, but that's not very realistic.

GrumpyDoctor posted:

For their children. Still lovely though.

quote:

Arran Phipps is one of those parents who is facing a difficult situation. Some Obamacare plans don't work for his family because Finnegan's diabetes supplies run up a big tab. After doing some research, Phipps discovered that his children didn't qualify for a subsidized insurance plan. They'd have to rely on Medi-Cal or private insurance, which could mean paying thousands of dollars more a year in premiums or switching Finnegan's doctors. Phipps is hoping that Cal's physics department will offer some assistance to offset the higher costs.

Boot and Rally posted:

Do you have more information on this? I thought GSRs didn't unionize because they have no leverage. Or, at the very least, their leverage is "we don't work on your grant programs but we also don't graduate", which is not a problem TAs have.

Megaman's Jockstrap posted:

Yes, I know, but:

1) You're asking every homeowner to vote against their own short-term interest.
2) I live in Riverside which is a pressure valve for OC and LA exburbia housing and believe me it didn't solve anyone's problems. You need the right kind of housing.

BTW I do agree their needs to be some pain, I'm just saying I would have had a VERY hard time with doubled property tax payments (an additional 400 dollars a month, to put this in hard numbers) that were unsustainable and happened purely due to a market bubble. A 15% cap on residential would be so, so helpful.

And as everyone else has been saying, you gotta do something about the optics of pricing grandma out of her home.

Willa Rogers posted:

Leperflesh posted:

property values couldn't have skyrocketed like that, if tax burdens skyrocketed along with them. People would have been forced to sell, dumping inventory onto the market, reducing prices, reducing the pressure to sell.

Willa Rogers posted:

I don't understand why it's "lovely" given that the families will go on Medi-Cal or Obamacare exchange plans. For example, this quote:


baffles me, given that under Medi-Cal the child's supplies and doctor visits will be covered at 100 percent, requiring no deductibles or copays. So the family might have to change doctors? Cry me a river, given that that's what ACA's "insurance reform" has led to for tens of millions of families across the country.

At least the family won't be paying the massive deductibles/copays that those with crappy private subsidized insurance now have to meet each year. It seems that grad students' earning the allowable multiplier of the FPL to qualify for Medi-Cal should be the issue, rather than the fact they have to doctor-shop like, perhaps, everyfuckingone else beholden to the new narrow networks that are pro-forma under the industry-written "reform."

H.P. Hovercraft posted:

Retroactive tax recapture upon sale would be a good band-aid, especially if it included other transfers of ownership and was limited in terms of inheritance (say, an exemption equivalent to the estate tax exclusion).

But yeah, that's pretty unrealistic for the 2016 ballot.

Lunitica posted:

Before moving to California, I was used to the municipality/state setting a budget and then calculating the mill rate = budget/total assessments. Year over year my p-taxes increased roughly with inflation and the municipality could afford to provide services without going crazy with user pay (building permits are crazy expensive here).

Having purchased in the bay area, P13 meant buying a heap and fixing it up myself to keep the p-taxes lower over the lifetime of my ownership as well probably passing the property onto any children so they can keep the benefits of lower property taxes indefinitely.

I am doing well under P13 even as a recent transplant but I still think it is stupid, and would vote to get rid of it having experienced a different p-tax regime. In addition, I would personally rather have higher property taxes and lower sales taxes, as sales taxes are the most regressive for low income families.

Leperflesh posted:

Funding local government from local property taxes is itself dumb: it ensures poor areas stay underserved while rich areas get the best services.

Klaus88 posted:

Working as intended then.

Boot and Rally posted:

Do you have more information on this? I thought GSRs didn't unionize because they have no leverage. Or, at the very least, their leverage is "we don't work on your grant programs but we also don't graduate", which is not a problem TAs have.

ComradeCosmobot posted:

"gently caress you bicyclists obey the law and stop at every stop sign" --San Franciscans to bicyclists

nm posted:

Idaho stops are a good idea.
Also, the people who get all made about bikes braking the law never seem to get up in arms about violations of cvc 21760 or california stops not involving bikes.

DeadlyMuffin posted:

I'd be thrilled to see California stops by bicyclists rather than blowing completely through stop signs.

I bike, I get that stopping at stop signs costs you momentum, but it's a safety thing.

Edit: The Wigg guy came across like he thought all drivers are murderous psychopaths out for bicyclist blood

AngryBooch posted:

Most bikes I see completely ignore the basic rule of first to stop first to go at stop signs, nobody gives a poo poo if they're not actually coming to a full stop.

Bast Relief posted:

I bike and it just seems stupid to stop at a stop sign so that somebody in a car can then wait as I slowly, excruciatingly, build up momentum and get out of their way.

DeadlyMuffin posted:

This doesn't make sense. If the car was already there you should be stopping, even under the Idaho stop you have to yield.

Trabisnikof posted:

Just don't be like a guy I know and end up in San Quintin because you don't stop on your bike at the bottom of a hill and killed a dude.

Zesty Mordant posted:

Unless you're in like 7th grade and have a fixie, I guess.

TildeATH posted:

I was going full speed down the hill toward Castro/Market. There was an old lady in a PT Cruiser who was sure I was going to zip right in front of her, so she hadn't accelerated even though she had a green light. Because I'm not suicidal, braked at the end. Then I smiled at the little old lady in her goofy old lady car.

Then she flipped me off.

Can't win for losing.

Spite posted:

Repealing it would completely gently caress over the Bay Area. Currently the only way to afford a home in the Bay Area is to 1a) be rich 1b) make a bunch of money in tech or 2) have bought it 30 years ago. Suddenly making property taxes adjust would kick a huge portion of the populace out of their homes. And rent is already sky high.

It's a completely hosed situation all around. The best solution I can think of is to repeal it for businesses but not private homeowners, but that's not very realistic.

H.P. Hovercraft posted:

One of the major issues with allowing cyclists to treat stop signs as yields is that this creates uncertainty for other roadway users.

Bicycles cannot quickly accelerate or decelerate, nor can they swerve to avoid obstructions and maintain the same trajectory. Where collisions occur within an intersection are called "conflict points" in traffic engineering (where movement paths cross), and bicycles are particularly in danger here precisely because they have difficulty avoiding these conflict points or adjusting their path of travel if conditions suddenly change or the other roadway users don't behave as expected in the intersection.

This makes it even more important for cyclists to treat the stop as a stop. By behaving in a predictable way at a stop-controlled intersection, other roadway users can more easily anticipate the cyclist's movements and take them safely into account and the intersection can operate in a more smooth manner.


Bicycle-related traffic enforcement is typically woefully underserved, and in so doing tends to create resentment against the cyclist community, so this is a much-needed campaign that I hope brings better compliance long-term.

Bip Roberts posted:

Except this has been shown to be untrue.

Papercut posted:

The main thing cyclists do that annoys me is going the wrong way down one-way streets. There's a one-way up a steep hill by my gym, it's super narrow and already has a bike lane on one side so there's tons of uphill bike traffic, and loving idiots come bombing down that hill on bikes. I honk at them and the reaction is pretty much always to give me the finger.

H.P. Hovercraft posted:

One of the major issues with allowing cyclists to treat stop signs as yields is that this creates uncertainty for other roadway users.

Bicycles cannot quickly accelerate or decelerate, nor can they swerve to avoid obstructions and maintain the same trajectory. Where collisions occur within an intersection are called "conflict points" in traffic engineering (where movement paths cross), and bicycles are particularly in danger here precisely because they have difficulty avoiding these conflict points or adjusting their path of travel if conditions suddenly change or the other roadway users don't behave as expected in the intersection.

This makes it even more important for cyclists to treat the stop as a stop. By behaving in a predictable way at a stop-controlled intersection, other roadway users can more easily anticipate the cyclist's movements and take them safely into account and the intersection can operate in a more smooth manner.


Bicycle-related traffic enforcement is typically woefully underserved, and in so doing tends to create resentment against the cyclist community, so this is a much-needed campaign that I hope brings better compliance long-term.

bartlebyshop posted:

This should be a very focused target for enforcement, along with people riding bikes through crosswalks (and pedestrians) because they're too afraid to turn left. It is so, so dangerous and it makes people justifiably angry at cyclists.