|
Pirate Radar posted:So is yes on 12 yes on cages or is no on 12 yes on cages Yes = no more cages by 2022 No = cages remain. Edit: too slow and a snipe, so I'll add that prop 10 isn't enough, but it's something. Rents in my area have almost doubled in the last five years, and it's weird watching my lovely little apartment building gentrify in real time. Parking spaces that used to contain turn of the century Hondas and Fords now hold fuckin' Mercedes and Lexus (Lexi?). I feel like if you can afford a ~50,000 dollar car, you probably ought to be able to manage more than a one-bedroom apartment, but California! Skippy McPants fucked around with this message at 06:10 on Oct 10, 2018 |
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 06:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 08:34 |
|
|
Skippy McPants posted:Yes = no more cages by 2022 note: the no cages are only for chickens and they would get larger cages for the 2019-2021 period with a yes vote
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 06:07
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:note: the no cages are only for chickens and they would get larger cages for the 2019-2021 period with a yes vote Fair enough, but like prop 10, it's something. The way we treat industrial meat production in this country is ethically repugnant and super unsustainable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 06:11
|
|
|
yeah its just that if i'm going to read the whole text of the bill i'm going to be pedantic about it
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 06:12
|
|
|
If chickens found cages to be terrible, then where are the chicken black markets? Where is the chicken toilet wine and chicken prison violence, chicken reintegration issues, and chicken felony voting penalties? No. Based on the lack of outcry among chickens, the cages seem to be working fine. Chickens have never once staged a violent revolution and don't even organize on the most granular level. I will never stand in a chicken picket line because the chickens won't even put forth the token effort to form their own union. There are no Bawksheviks. As a creature, chickens are anti-worker and anti-socialist and deserve their fates. Vote No on 12 to keep the chickens in their rightful place: The Caged Reeggucation Camp.
Admiral Ray fucked around with this message at 07:09 on Oct 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 07:06
|
|
|
Spoken like a true duck
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 07:56
|
|
|
Okay, thanks for the clarification. Both sides seem to be claiming the other one actually wants cages and I don’t have a chicken available to compare wingspans against cage dimensions
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 08:27
|
|
|
I do have a pro-animal rights acquaintance who’s voting no because the law doesn’t go far enough (she wants mandatory free range). Apparently doing this in increments is insulting and represents the classic tactic of giving radicals half of what they want in order to weaken them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 15:51
|
|
|
Farmer: "Prop 12 has passed. Who would like larger cage." Ten thousand chickens: "MEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEMEME PLSSS" At least one Chicken: "Dear Mr. Farmer I propose that you let me in your farm and I will take a smaller cage" Farmer: "Oh no sir, I could not do that, for it would be illegal!" Chicken: "Ah sir, I understand, how about I move into a larger cage but only occupy part of it, and you use the rest of it to house chickens with more furniture or eggs" Farmer: "Oh goodness, no, I could never do that, for I am an upstanding citizen and that would be wrong, even though I could then house many more chickens in disgustingly small cages without being caught." Chicken: "Well, I guess I was wrong! I thought whenever the government puts artificial limits or regulations on something that people desperately want, black markets inevitably develop, but that requires people to be willing to break the law, especially when it is highly difficult to enforce. I guess on balance it's a good thing we live in a society where people refuse to take part! Good day to you, sir or madam." -fin
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 17:24
|
|
|
The most bizarre takes I've seen on Prop 10 is actual goddamn renters against it with the justification of "Why should the goverment tell my landlord how much he can charge me?"  Talk about Stockholm syndrome.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 17:27
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:The most bizarre takes I've seen on Prop 10 is actual goddamn renters against it with the justification of "Why should the goverment tell my landlord how much he can charge me?" Neg them then tell them to stand up for themselves, then neg them until they grow a spine
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 17:29
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:The most bizarre takes I've seen on Prop 10 is actual goddamn renters against it with the justification of "Why should the goverment tell my landlord how much he can charge me?" Yeah there was some polling on prop 10 in this thread and more renters were against it than homeowners, it was loving wild.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 17:29
|
|
|
ProperGanderPusher posted:I do have a pro-animal rights acquaintance who�s voting no because the law doesn�t go far enough (she wants mandatory free range). Apparently doing this in increments is insulting and represents the classic tactic of giving radicals half of what they want in order to weaken them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 17:31
|
|
|
Reminder that on of the biggest funders of the prop is Blackstone who owns more property in Sacramento than the city does, most of it rentals.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 17:35
|
|
|
Admiral Ray posted:Bawksheviks nice
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 17:55
|
|
|
AngryBooch posted:Yeah there was some polling on prop 10 in this thread and more renters were against it than homeowners, it was loving wild. The paranoia seems to be that if their landlord was forced into rent control they would just sell the property and the renters would be forced to move. The idea of a bunch of properties on the market due to this (assuming it worked like this) being suddenly more affordable to buy never occurs to them. Then there's the people that own their house but never have and never will rent it out anyway suddenly having very strong opinions about having to hypothetically restrict how much rent they charge.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 17:55
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:The most bizarre takes I've seen on Prop 10 is actual goddamn renters against it with the justification of "Why should the goverment tell my landlord how much he can charge me?" Renters are just temporarily embarrassed landlords.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 17:56
|
|
|
Yeah most of the anti-prop 10 people I've run into are just deluded dipshits with designs towards becoming landlords themselves some day, and so are afraid of losing their nebulous future gravy train. Never mind that paying less in rent now would help you squirrel away the money required to become a landlord much faster, but 
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 18:20
|
|
|
Admiral Ray posted:Renters are just temporarily embarrassed landlords. “We wanna be able to bleed tenants dry once granny dies and we inherit her house.”
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 20:51
|
|
|
So my question is this (and I think we've circled it a couple of times), how does Prop 10 not become Prop 13 for renters? How does Prop 10 keep us from having a class of "got in early" renters who never move because they know anywhere they go is going to have an astronomical rate hike?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 21:35
|
|
|
RevKrule posted:So my question is this (and I think we've circled it a couple of times), how does Prop 10 not become Prop 13 for renters? How does Prop 10 keep us from having a class of "got in early" renters who never move because they know anywhere they go is going to have an astronomical rate hike? Why would everywhere else have an astronomically high rate if rent control was in effect?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 21:43
|
|
|
I mean in terms of new residents or people who moved (or new adults inside the state). Basically anyone who's never rented before. Wouldn't they end up having to pay a new "market" rate that they'd be locked into for increases? Edit: I could be horribly misunderstanding Prop 10. I'm seriously asking questions here because I'm trying to gauge how best I want to vote. I'm just looking for answers to questions, not philosophical debates to be clear. RevKrule fucked around with this message at 21:51 on Oct 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 21:47
|
|
|
No, what you're describing is current law. Under Costa Hawkins cities can implement rent control but only tied to the occupant. So when a new tenant moves in, the rent control lapses and the landlord can charge new tenants whatever he feels like. Prop 10 would make it so cities could enact rent control that is tied to the unit, so new residents would not be able to be charged 10x what old residents are.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 21:52
|
|
|
RevKrule posted:I mean in terms of new residents or people who moved (or new adults inside the state). Basically anyone who's never rented before. Wouldn't they end up having to pay a new "market" rate that they'd be locked into for increases? Nope, that's part of the problem with Costra-Hawkins. It banned rent control that also controlled prices for new tenants. Prop 10 would allow cities to implement rent control for new tenants as well. Obviously that still has to be paired with more housing to meet demand, but it could bring prices down across the board.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 21:54
|
|
|
Then I have been severely misinformed on this matter and I thank both of you for helping me get correct information.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2018 22:04
|
|
|
Cages for republican chickens
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 01:29
|
|
|
Lmao got three No on 6 mailers today.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 01:48
|
|
|
RevKrule posted:I mean in terms of new residents or people who moved (or new adults inside the state). Basically anyone who's never rented before. Wouldn't they end up having to pay a new "market" rate that they'd be locked into for increases? Kind of. Current law: - Cities may not limit rent increases for existing tenants in single family homes - Cities may not limit rent increases for existing tenants in apartments constructed after 1995 (with some grandfathering for places with existing law) - Cities may not limit the initial rent for any new tenant Prop 10 removes those restrictions and leaves it up to the cities to decide what kind of rent control (if any) they want. A city could do any of these: - Everyone pays market rate. Privileges rich renters. - Existing tenants have rent increases capped, new tenants pay market rate. Privileges existing renters. - Units have rent increases capped regardless of tenant changes. Privileges well-connected renters or any mismash based on building age, tenant income, or whatever You should decide your vote based on: 1) how likely you think cities are to adopt various rules 2) how fair you think each of those rules are at choosing who gets it when demand exceeds supply 3) how you think those rules will impact the rate that new housing is built
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 05:17
|
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:- Units have rent increases capped regardless of tenant changes. Privileges well-connected renters How does capping rent increases paid by all renters benefit only "well-connected" (to whom?) renters?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 07:58
|
|
|
Shear Modulus posted:How does capping rent increases paid by all renters benefit only "well-connected" (to whom?) renters? Two apartments, both in the same building. One has a long-term tenant paying several hundred dollars below market rate, and another that flipped just before a rent control law passed and is set at market rate. If increases are capped across tenants then knowing someone who knows someone with one of those lower capped rents can be a sweet deal if you hear they're about to move. Point being, with a market this crowded none of the prospective changes would do much to help poor people find decent housing, which is sorta true but also not really the point of rent control. Building more housing is the answer to that problem, but rent control still helps people who are cost burdened and close to being priced out of their home.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 09:54
|
|
|
What stops regressive from turbofucking us once 10 is repealed?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 10:28
|
|
|
Turtlicious posted:What stops regressive from turbofucking us once 10 is repealed? Technically nothing, but that's happening right now anyway so... Really, the big difference is that cities tend to have a much higher percentage of renters vs. rural and suburban areas so it's easier for them to win ballot measures than it would be at the county or state level. Skippy McPants fucked around with this message at 12:31 on Oct 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 11:18
|
|
|
Turtlicious posted:What stops regressive from turbofucking us once 10 is repealed? It already is
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 21:25
|
|
|
Skippy McPants posted:Two apartments, both in the same building. One has a long-term tenant paying several hundred dollars below market rate, and another that flipped just before a rent control law passed and is set at market rate. If increases are capped across tenants then knowing someone who knows someone with one of those lower capped rents can be a sweet deal if you hear they're about to move. sure i guess knowing a guy who can hook you up with a sweet deal means you can get a sweeter deal than someone else, but that isnt the fault of rent control, thats going to be the case in any kind of market for anything
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 21:33
|
|
|
The only one I'm not sure on is Prop 8. Is the analysis of less access to dialysis centers if it passes accurate, or just fear mongering?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 23:56
|
|
|
Zuul the Cat posted:The only one I'm not sure on is Prop 8. Is the analysis of less access to dialysis centers if it passes accurate, or just fear mongering? http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/commentary/sd-oe-california-prop8-support-20180725-story.html quote:California’s largest dialysis corporations, DaVita and Fresenius, made nearly $4 billion in profits from their dialysis operations in the United States in 2016, and their profit margin is five times that of hospitals in California.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 00:37
|
|
|
Well yeah, but that doesn't say whether or not there's still going to be dialysis centers. Like, does the 115% cap mean they're going to run a loss because the included costs don't include things like administrative workers? And why are MD groups in opposition to 8?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 01:30
|
|
|
The government pays for dialysis and there's no way they'll just close down all the dialysis centers because welp. Best case scenario would be the huge for-profit pair get run out of the state and replaced by nonprofit centers, but that's not gonna happen because the for-profits have obscenely huge margins, and most likely they'll find or invent ways to work around the new regulations anyway. The idea that they'll somehow not make money after this is entirely invented by their highly-paid advertisers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 01:39
|
|
|
lmao google the groups from those ads. also thank you state healthcare for not letting me die this year. #blessed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 01:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 08:34 |
|
|
you may want to sit down for this op but sometimes people whose obscene profits would be threatened by legislation sometimes make arguments in bad faith
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2018 01:53
|
|