California Politics: Madame Senator, this is a morgue

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

«‹›958 »

Megaman's Jockstrap: Jul 16, 2000; What a horrible thread to have a post.

Huh for a minute there I almost thought Gavin Newson didn't stink.

https://twitter.com/SophiaBollag/status/1214244398659035137

# ? Jan 6, 2020 19:42

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 5, 2024 13:38

Shear Modulus: Jun 9, 2010

i wonder how much of my tax dollars went to mckinsey to help gavin come up with the idea of fixing pg&e by asking warren buffet to do it

# ? Jan 6, 2020 19:53

Kenning: Jan 11, 2009; I really want to post goatse. Instead I only have these🍄.

CA politicians are so loving awful.

# ? Jan 6, 2020 19:55

Spazzle: Jul 5, 2003

Kenning posted:

CA politicians are so loving awful.

I think one issue the CA GOP is so thoroughly descredited that all the non crazy moderates Republicans have moved to the Democratic party.

# ? Jan 7, 2020 03:09

Xaris: Jul 25, 2006; Lucky there's a family guy
Lucky there's a man who positively can do
All the things that make us
Laugh and cry

Spazzle posted:

I think one issue the CA GOP is so thoroughly descredited that all the non crazy moderates Republicans have moved to the Democratic party.

yeah why run as an (R) and lose, and instead run the same reactionary and nimby policies but put a (D) next to your name and get all the mushybrain boomers voting for whoever sounds white and has a (D) next to their name

also gently caress you Steve Glazer. that piece of poo poo should have been run out along time ago.

# ? Jan 7, 2020 04:12

The Glumslinger: Sep 24, 2008; Coach Nagy, you want me to throw to WHAT side of the field?; Hair Elf

https://twitter.com/sfchronicle/status/1214414547215376384

Looks like they're gonna try to bring back a watered down version of SB50.

quote:

SACRAMENTO � Seeking to revive a fiercely fought bill that would boost construction of apartment buildings and condominiums, state Sen. Scott Wiener introduced changes Monday designed to disarm cities� objections that the measure would remove their control over neighborhood character.

Wiener�s amendments would allow cities to opt out of certain provisions of SB50, his measure to increase housing around public transit and in wealthy suburbs, if they develop their own plans to build as many homes as the law would require. The changes would increase cities� ability to keep some multi-unit housing out of neighborhoods that now consist of single-family homes.

But the key provisions of the bill remain intact: It would raise height limits around transit lines, allow denser development in high-income areas, and effectively open up the entire state to multifamily housing.

quote:

Under the bill, local governments in counties with more than 600,000 people could not block residential buildings of at least four or five stories within half a mile of rail stations and ferry terminals, provided those projects meet other local design standards. In the Bay Area, San Francisco, Alameda, Contra Costa, Santa Clara and San Mateo counties meet that population threshold.

The measure would also remove density limits and reduce parking requirements within a quarter-mile of stops on bus lines with frequent service and in high-income census tracts with lots of jobs and good schools, regardless of their proximity to transit.

In smaller counties, including Marin, Sonoma, Solano and Napa, cities with more than 50,000 people would have to allow up to 15 extra feet of height for buildings within a half-mile of transit stops.

The changes that Wiener unveiled Monday would delay the start of the law until 2023, giving cities two extra years to come up with alternative plans that could accommodate the amount of new housing that SB50 would require. Those that did not would fall under the measure.

Wiener said he adjusted the bill after hearing from local officials who wanted more flexibility to build denser is some parts of their communities than others. But he said any plans they come up with would still have to meet SB50�s climate and fair-housing goals, and be subject to approval by the state housing department. That means they would have to meet targets for reducing car use and could not disproportionately push the new housing into low-income neighborhoods.

quote:

Wiener�s bill has raised fears among affordable-housing and community groups that a building spree could drive vulnerable Californians out of their homes by speeding up gentrification.

The measure gives what Wiener called sensitive communities five years to come up with neighborhood plans that combine the development requirements with anti-displacement protections.

New apartment buildings and condominiums approved under the relaxed standards of SB50 would have to set aside 15% to 25% of their units for low-income families. In a change intended to keep poor residents from being forced out of their neighborhoods, people previously living within a half-mile of new developments would get priority for almost half of those low-income units.

Nearly everywhere in the state would be opened to multifamily housing through a streamlined process to convert vacant plots and existing homes in residential areas to apartment buildings of up to four units. That would essentially eliminate single-family zoning in California, except in small coastal communities and areas at high risk of fire.

Maybe it'll manage to pass?

# ? Jan 7, 2020 06:18

sincx: Jul 13, 2012; furiously masturbating to anime titties

sincx fucked around with this message at 05:49 on Mar 23, 2021

# ? Jan 7, 2020 07:35

Craptacular!: Jul 9, 2001; Fuck the DH

The smaller towns part just seems like a thing that's going to limit transit growth, particularly in areas where public transit is used to facilitate school transporatation in substitute of a school bus contractor. I can see it being based on frequency to encourage development where buses run with regularity or where many routes/agencies connect, to encourage people who want to live without a car to be able to be close to a transit nexus. But not just anywhere there happens to be a bus stop.

# ? Jan 7, 2020 07:40

Centrist Committee: Aug 6, 2019

SB50, but no private ownership allowed

# ? Jan 7, 2020 07:56

Kenning: Jan 11, 2009; I really want to post goatse. Instead I only have these🍄.

I'm still salty about RM3 passing in the Bay Area, which raised all the bridge tolls by $1 in order to fund transit expansion. Like, it was such a transparently regressive tax ("let's charge the people that can't afford to live in the same city they work in") that would primarily be leveraged to increase property values around transit hubs, and so many Bay Area libs were like, "bbbut how else can we fund transit?"

# ? Jan 7, 2020 08:04

WAR CRIME GIGOLO: Oct 3, 2012; The Hague
tryna get me
for these glutes

I have a fasttrak from an old job. It has never been de-activated

:smug:

# ? Jan 7, 2020 08:24

Kenning: Jan 11, 2009; I really want to post goatse. Instead I only have these🍄.

You are living the loving dream.

# ? Jan 7, 2020 08:51

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

Removing parking requirements is a handout to real estate developers that causes the neighborhood a lot of pain. Doing it in CA where everyone has a car is a terrible idea.

Other than that yeah.

# ? Jan 7, 2020 12:01

CopperHound: Feb 14, 2012

FRINGE posted:

Removing parking requirements is a handout to real estate developers that causes the neighborhood a lot of pain. Doing it in CA where everyone has a car is a terrible idea.

Other than that yeah.

I agree that it will suck for people who already live in those areas that rely on street parking, but I also think that option never should have been there/nessesary in the first place.

# ? Jan 7, 2020 15:40

ProperGanderPusher: Jan 13, 2012

You have to make infrastructure especially hostile to cars for Americans to even consider giving them up. SF and NY succeed at this by making parking scarce and expensive as all hell. It�s time other places at least tried to catch up.

# ? Jan 7, 2020 18:16

Jan: Feb 27, 2008; The disruptive powers of excessive national fecundity may have played a greater part in bursting the bonds of convention than either the power of ideas or the errors of autocracy.

ProperGanderPusher posted:

You have to make infrastructure especially hostile to cars for Americans to even consider giving them up. SF and NY succeed at this by making parking scarce and expensive as all hell. It�s time other places at least tried to catch up.

Don't worry, once self-driving cars are a reality, people will work around this by just making their car drive around in circles because gas is cheaper than parking.

# ? Jan 7, 2020 18:30

FilthyImp: Sep 30, 2002; Anime Deviant

There was an instagram/twitter thread last year about two cars in Ktown LA locked in mortal passive aggressive combat for one spot for over an hour.

And that's because a large chunk of older ktown apartments have zero parking because they were designed ages ago.

Losing that requirement is a recipe for crazy mad-max poo poo like using cones and furniture to "reserve" spots.

My parents live down the street from an apartment complex with no parking and it's hilarious to see people use their 1997 Ford Taurus to camp 2 spots and just wait for their husband to drive up with the minivan/duty truck and then vacate the spot.

# ? Jan 7, 2020 18:34

Jaxyon: Mar 7, 2016; I’m just saying I would like to see a man beat a woman in a cage. Just to be sure.

The last time SB50 failed it was not just because of NIMBY's, but also it couldn't even get the support of groups that work with the poor and housing challenged.

Lets hope it's not stupid this time around.

# ? Jan 7, 2020 18:36

Centrist Committee: Aug 6, 2019

Jaxyon posted:

The last time SB50 failed it was not just because of NIMBY's, but also it couldn't even get the support of groups that work with the poor and housing challenged.

Lets hope it's not stupid this time around.

It's the same mandate that cities hand development over to private interests without any state funding, so yeah it's just as stupid.

# ? Jan 7, 2020 18:45

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

ProperGanderPusher posted:

make infrastructure especially hostile

This is a developer-lead gambit that sucks for real people.

This is the same thing that lead to 140 sq ft apartments (smaller than a parking space) in Seattle that became the new price floor.

# ? Jan 7, 2020 18:53

DeadlyMuffin: Jul 3, 2007

ProperGanderPusher posted:

SF and NY succeed at this by making parking scarce and expensive as all hell.

Most people in SF still drive though, and compared to NY, SF's public transportation sucks. I get your point, but holding up SF as success feels like setting the bar so low.

# ? Jan 7, 2020 18:55

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

DeadlyMuffin posted:

Most people in SF still drive though, and compared to NY, SF's public transportation sucks. I get your point, but holding up SF as success feels like setting the bar so low.

Based on Seattle there is a rabid "anti-car" crowd that also uses Uber, Lyft, taxis, Uber Eats, Amazon Delivery, and every other possible servant-class car service system and feels very good about it.

They just dont want people that have to drive their own cars near them. Because those people are lesser people.

# ? Jan 7, 2020 19:03

Sydin: Oct 29, 2011; Another spring commute

Kenning posted:

I'm still salty about RM3 passing in the Bay Area, which raised all the bridge tolls by $1 in order to fund transit expansion. Like, it was such a transparently regressive tax ("let's charge the people that can't afford to live in the same city they work in") that would primarily be leveraged to increase property values around transit hubs, and so many Bay Area libs were like, "bbbut how else can we fund transit?"

Regressive tax is poo poo but Bay Area transit is hosed and there are limited funding sources to try and chip away and required improvements. The money in the area is also controlled by smug techbros who honestly think Elon is going to fix traffic forever with self-driving cars and ~the loop~ so the will to actually invest in public transit is also hard to find. Not to mention that what little will there is to be found is being squandered via poo poo like the absolute boondoggle that is the BART extension to the South Bay, we can't even get the loving Berryessa station up in time so lol if the planned subway extension to downtown is finished within the decade.

Meanwhile there are way too many cars on the road trying to drive way too far, so it's seen as an easy target to scrape together some transit dollars. Yes I realize the reason there are so many cars on the road is that public transit between the south and north bay is garbage and a lot of people don't have a choice in the matter, we are all in a death spiral. But don't expect it to stop any time soon because nobody is actually turning a profit on fares, so the only way to inject cash into the system is to drum up new taxes and we couldn't possibly create a tax that targets the rich because

# ? Jan 7, 2020 19:28

Jan: Feb 27, 2008; The disruptive powers of excessive national fecundity may have played a greater part in bursting the bonds of convention than either the power of ideas or the errors of autocracy.

FRINGE posted:

Based on Seattle there is a rabid "anti-car" crowd that also uses Uber, Lyft, taxis, Uber Eats, Amazon Delivery, and every other possible servant-class car service system and feels very good about it.

What's the alternative? Personal car ownership and drive to the same places yourself? Maybe the car is required because the infrastructure to do otherwise just isn't there?

really makes u think

# ? Jan 7, 2020 19:49

Centrist Committee: Aug 6, 2019

OP: Help my city is a nightmare to navigate
Goons: Build infrastructure
OP: I�m thinking more cars... more cars right?

Etc etc

# ? Jan 7, 2020 19:54

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

Jan posted:

What's the alternative? Personal car ownership and drive to the same places yourself? Maybe the car is required because the infrastructure to do otherwise just isn't there?

really makes u think

The people are not going to take a bus to go get their own food, they just dont want cars parked in front of their flowers, and the developers dont want to lose income-per-sqft so they lobby to remove parking.

If anyone is the real victim of dirty car owners its the poor real estate developers and the banks that have become landlords. :qq:

# ? Jan 7, 2020 19:55

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

Centrist Committee posted:

OP: Help my city is a nightmare to navigate
Goons: Build infrastructure
OP: I�m thinking more cars... more cars right?

Etc etc

Build transit, but dont block individual car ownership from people that are living in the smaller places. "If you want to keep your transportation well then buy a big house" is a lovely take.

# ? Jan 7, 2020 19:56

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

Speaking of development and limited parking, this billboard is getting roundly mocked:

Only registered members can see post attachments!

# ? Jan 7, 2020 20:03

ProperGanderPusher: Jan 13, 2012

I just can�t help but chuckle when I see housing in SLO approaching Bay Area prices. My parents looked down their noses at that place as a cow college town surrounded by sleepy hick villages for the longest time growing up (my mom grew up in AG and promptly got the hell out after high school). Life comes at ya fast.

# ? Jan 7, 2020 22:30

DeadlyMuffin: Jul 3, 2007

ProperGanderPusher posted:

I just can’t help but chuckle when I see housing in SLO approaching Bay Area prices. My parents looked down their noses at that place as a cow college town surrounded by sleepy hick villages for the longest time growing up (my mom grew up in AG and promptly got the hell out after high school). Life comes at ya fast.

Bummer. SLO was on my list of places to look when I'm retiring and getting the hell out of the bay area

# ? Jan 7, 2020 22:39

Leperflesh: May 17, 2007

The Glumslinger posted:

https://twitter.com/sfchronicle/status/1214414547215376384

quote:
New apartment buildings and condominiums approved under the relaxed standards of SB50 would have to set aside 15% to 25% of their units for low-income families. In a change intended to keep poor residents from being forced out of their neighborhoods, people previously living within a half-mile of new developments would get priority for almost half of those low-income units.

So, local poor people can get "almost half" of as little as 15% of units in the new development. E.g. 7 units in a 100-unit building that replaces an entire block of two-unit buildings, that sort of thing? And of course, "low income" always seems to be based on the local median income, which always works out to being far more income than actual poor people are making.

I'm strongly in favor of redevelopment and densification near our transit corridors and I don't really care if they are forced to have parking garages or not but this feels like a totally inadequate provision that won't actually do much of anything to prevent ongoing displacement of vulnerable people from neighborhoods being redeveloped (gentrified).

# ? Jan 7, 2020 22:52

Shear Modulus: Jun 9, 2010

the developers and politicians dont want to actually make affordable housing because that might make property values not go up as fast. so they have a longstanding compromise with each other where they say they going to do it but then dont

# ? Jan 7, 2020 23:07

Leperflesh: May 17, 2007

Leperflesh's revision of Shear Modulus posted:

the ~~developers and politicians~~ white suburban voters dont want to actually make affordable housing because that might make property values not go up as fast. so they have a longstanding compromise with each other where they say they going to do it but then dont

They're just responding to what the voters vote for, which is NIMBYism, zoning for dollars, gentrification, and tax laws that punish and push out the poor. That we have politicians even making limp gestures towards forcing cities to do infill, densification, and create affordable housing is, sadly, an improvement.

# ? Jan 7, 2020 23:12

Megaman's Jockstrap: Jul 16, 2000; What a horrible thread to have a post.

DeadlyMuffin posted:

Bummer. SLO was on my list of places to look when I'm retiring and getting the hell out of the bay area

My wife group up in Morro Bay and she would flat out say that the entire SLO area was a great place to visit but a terrible place to live, so you're not missing much.

Also the whole property values thing has occurred because the super-hot market due to Prop 13 and total lack of any other ways to earn real wealth has made people that bought property into rabid defenders of their "investment".

# ? Jan 8, 2020 00:42

Craptacular!: Jul 9, 2001; Fuck the DH

FRINGE posted:

Removing parking requirements is a handout to real estate developers that causes the neighborhood a lot of pain. Doing it in CA where everyone has a car is a terrible idea.

Other than that yeah.

We need to inflict minor pain on people who have cars by making them have to hunt for spots more frequently if we want transit to mean anything.

As someone who depends on transit in a sprawling hellscape, I sometimes choose not to go somewhere because of the quarter mile of parking lot between the sidewalk where the bus lets you off and the doors of wherever you want to go.

Yes, even poor people with cars are �the enemy� in this regard, but once we stop catering to drivers the poor will usually be the first to stop driving.

# ? Jan 8, 2020 00:51

The Glumslinger: Sep 24, 2008; Coach Nagy, you want me to throw to WHAT side of the field?; Hair Elf

GavBot good?

https://mobile.twitter.com/MelodyGutierrez/status/1215276635085144064

Let's go make some cheap Bear Flag insulin and epi-pens

# ? Jan 9, 2020 17:34

WAR CRIME GIGOLO: Oct 3, 2012; The Hague
tryna get me
for these glutes

The Glumslinger posted:

GavBot good?

https://mobile.twitter.com/MelodyGutierrez/status/1215276635085144064

Let's go make some cheap Bear Flag insulin and epi-pens

Gvot a neutral socialist capitalist network of interconnected ideas and theories culming to create the governaught

# ? Jan 9, 2020 17:53

FilthyImp: Sep 30, 2002; Anime Deviant

Gentlemen! Gavbot will work tirelessly to maximize corporate growth and profits!

:mitt:

beep boop the CA Gov is the supreme corporation, all growth must benefit the state

:stonk:

# ? Jan 9, 2020 17:55

Megaman's Jockstrap: Jul 16, 2000; What a horrible thread to have a post.

LMAO I love this.

# ? Jan 9, 2020 18:13

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 5, 2024 13:38

Kenning: Jan 11, 2009; I really want to post goatse. Instead I only have these🍄.

Don't tell him we need strawberries.

# ? Jan 9, 2020 18:13

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

«‹›958 »