|
The CPUC has rejected the utility company proposals for the new net energy metering rules (NEM 2.0) for residential rooftop solar. This was the preliminary decision and there will be another vote and announcement expected January 28th, but it looks like the NEM 2.0 rules will be mostly identical with a few small changes: NEM customers who install after the NEM 2.0 rules start will have to be on a time of use rate, most solar customers already are but the most solar-friendly time of use rates are being ended. NEM customers will be charged a one-time $100 fee NEM customers will be charged the non-bypassable charges that all customers pay at time of use instead of at their annual true-up, this should amount to about $60 annual increase in charges over NEM 1.0 for most. People who install solar under these rules will be grandfathered in for 20 years and the CPUC will rehear arguments in 2019 for a likely 2020 decision on a third set of rules to apply for people who install after.
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 05:12 |
|
|
FCKGW posted:This would be a pretty big issue for me. I have solar now, and February-May is when I bank a lot of negative credits to use in the summer months. If they switch to a monthly payment then that means that I'll be reimbursed at the wholesale rate in the spring months but then using more electricity in the summer months at the retail rate. As it stands now they just have a running total for the year and you pay the difference once. The non-bypassable charges are small portion of the electricity rates, 2-3 cents/kWh everyone gets charged, which are then used to subsidize the special medical rates and low-income rates. If you're being charged 17 cents/kWh it's actually about 15 cents/kWh plus 2 cents/kWh to subsidize various special needs rates. NEM 1.0 customers are charged 2-3 cents per kWh usage at their annual true up, calculated by their net usage over that year. NEM 2.0 customers will be charged 2-3 cents per kWh at the time of use, still going onto their annual true up bill but calculated whenever they are drawing power from the utility. This difference of calculating that 2-3 cents per kWh at the time they are drawing from the utility instead of looking at net annual draw will, on average, result in $60/year more being charged for those non-bypassable charges for NEM 2.0 customers over NEM 1.0 customers. It's still worse than NEM 1.0 but not as bad as was being predicted before today's announcement. NEM 1.0 customers are grandfathered for 20 years from the date of their Permission To Operate. NEM 2.0 customers will still have an annual bill as well, being credited for generation at the same 1:1 credit that NEM 1.0 customers do, and they will also be grandfathered in for 20 years from the date of their PTO. If the preliminary ruling from today passes the vote next month, there will be a third set of rules, NEM 3.0 which will take effect for people installing after 2020 or for the NEM 1.0 customers who have hit their 20 years.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2015 06:40
|
|
|
The law is clear that the right to petition one’s government for the redress of grievances shouldn't be exercised by marching, especially along public highways. If there was one thing that MLK Jr stood for and which we should respect on MLK Jr day, it is the fundamental right of white Americans to not be inconvenienced through civil disobedience.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2016 08:11
|
|
|
MLK posted:"First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2016 08:58
|
|
|
SousaphoneColossus posted:Maybe I worded my initial post badly, but my real question has always been "what value could they gain from that particular protest rather than any other protest." The protest is against police actions. Blocking traffic is a form of protest that takes an unusually large amount of police presence to deal with.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2016 04:37
|
|
|
Regarding residential solar: NEM 2.0 is pretty OK. The new rules were voted on by the CPUC about 11 hours ago. 1:1 retail credit for what is generated barring non-bypassable charges. The specific non-bypassable charges are: Things like this, the Reliability Services on down. Those get charged instantaneously upon usage instead of only at true-up. There's also going to be a one-time fee of $100 to connect a solar array to the grid. All total should work out to be ~$100 per year plus $100 up front. Slows the return slightly but not too badly. Time of Use rates will be mandatory for all NEM 2.0 customers. TOU rates already are the most common, only starting March 1st the new TOU rate, TOU-A will be a 3pm-9pm peak rate, which is not great since it misses a lot of peak generation time plus it is going to force peak rates after sunset. Anyone who has solar now and is on something other than E-6 or EV-A should switch to E-6 soon so they can stay on E-6 until January 1st, 2023. Edit: the NEM 2.0 Grandfathering under NEM 2.0 rules will be for 20 years from Permission to Operate, but the next rules will not be referred to as NEM 3.0 as previously contemplated but NEM 2.1, totally ruining the naming scheme.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2016 07:23
|
|
|
A CTC is:quote:A charge added to a customer's electrical bill which is intended to help an electric utility pay down stranded costs incurred as a result of transition from a regulated market to a deregulated one. This charge is intended to be a temporary levy which will be discontinued once a regulating authority determines that the affected utility has recovered enough of its stranded costs. These are costs passed onto customers which are intended to be used for long-term investments with low initial return on investment. Privately owned companies are bad at making 10-20+ year long-term investments since performance of stocks is typically done quarterly, so when things were deregulated in 1996, the utility companies were told they will have a separate non-bypassable charge which is to be used on various investments for long-term infrastructural improvements that are not attractive investments. They are forced to do those investments and customers are forced to pay more money to pay for those investments, with the idea that energy prices overall will go down because there was more competition and more profit-motivation when they were deregulated. I imagine you can guess how much energy prices went down when things were deregulated and there was a profit motive.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2016 08:14
|
|
|
PG&E customers have been incorrectly billed since March 1st. Billing is a multi-tier structure where tier 1 is slightly under the utility's cost for generation and transmission, tier 2 is slightly above, and tiers 3 and 4 are aimed at being prohibitively expensive to reduce demand. PG&E is in the process of a multi-year rate-flattening which is designed to increase the cost paid for electricity for the lower 2 tiers and decrease the cost paid for the upper 2 tiers until tiers 2 and 3 are close enough to be combined. After their latest proposed change was rejected by the CPUC as being too fast, it was applied anyway. The CPUC has somewhat unclear guidelines on what the changes to specific tiers can be with no defined limits, but they have outlined that 19% increase is absolutely above that limit within a 12-month period and the March 1st tier 2 increase was 38%. People in PG&E territory since March 1st were therefore overcharged for their tier 2 electrical usage and undercharged for their tier 3 electrical usage. If the electrical portion of your PG&E bill is typically under ~$75/month you were most likely overcharged. If the electrical portion of your PG&E bill is typically over ~$100/month, you were most likely undercharged. When the CPUC formally notified PG&E that they were charging customers rates that did not comply with regulations, they acknowledged but did not comply with a rate change to billing that meets regulations nor did they commence any remedial actions. PG&E is still charging the rejected rates and has no plans to correct its billing system at this time. They now must formally show cause for why they should not be sanctioned and make reparations to overcharged customers at shareholder expense. edit: This is only for the standard tiered rate, not any time of use or electric vehicle rates. fermun fucked around with this message at 06:54 on Mar 15, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2016 06:51
|
|
|
Given inflation, how much would $15/hour in 2022 dollars, when the new minimum wage law gets tied to inflation would it be in today's dollars? $13.50 or so?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2016 06:56
|
|
|
semper wifi posted:250 really is not poo poo in this state, i don't know where you get the idea that someone trying to raise your standard 2 kids family on that salary has some vacation fund you can loot at your convenience. It's progressive, so not for any income on someone making $250k and the additional 1% only applied to the next $1k for someone making $251k (take-home pay reduced by $10/year). Also the brackets are at income over $250,000 for single filers; over $500,000 for joint filers; over $340,000 for heads of household. It'd be income above 340k that this would apply if they were a single parent raising 2 kids, above 500k if they were married.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2016 08:18
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:I'm less upset with California trying to tax me than I am with California trying to tax someone making slightly-more-than-half what I make. I can afford to bleed some (though it is dear) but people making less? I want other people to enjoy comfort like I have. Taxing people making less than I do seems needlessly punitive at best, "excessive" if you will. fermun posted:the brackets are at income over $250,000 for single filers; over $500,000 for joint filers; over $340,000 for heads of household. Taxing people who can afford to bleed some serves the purpose of providing public services to those who can not afford to bleed, and those public services are often huge in terms of quality of life improvements, things like public transport which allows people to not own a vehicle, saving them a thousand a year, EBT providing food security, etc. I think that the taxes should be even more progressive, especially with regards to capital gains, but we're talking here about a tax that hits at 1% of income over a comfortable level. As a joint filer, if your household income doubled from 500K to 1M you'd pay a meager $5,000/year in additional tax. If you currently actually make $550k as a household, you're talking $500/year. I am fully comfortable as a member of society adding that tax burden to your current net income. Furthermore, keep in mind that this isn't a tax hike, just a continuation of the tax codes existing since 2012, so if you haven't been scraping by eating cans of cat food for dinner every night the last 4 years, you will probably be OK since you are currently paying the proposed tax rates.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2016 07:46
|
|
|
SlimGoodbody posted:So my girlfriend ABC I were going through the ballot measure booklet that came in the mail today, and I was wondering if you all had any hot takes. There are a few no brainers for me (gently caress the death penalty, leave the porn industry alone cause every sex/porn worker I know hates the prop and the guy behind it has poo poo reasons for proposing it), but there are also a few that are hard to get a read on. Prop 51: School Construction & Repair Bond - haven't decided yet Prop 52: Hospital Medi-Cal Matching Fees - Yes Prop 53: Require Even More Bonds On the Ballot - Nope Prop 54: Publish Bills 72 Hours Before a Vote - Yeah sure Prop 55: Extension of Current Income Tax on the 1% - Yes Yes Yes Prop 56: Tax E-cigs & Bump Up Cigarette Tax - Mostly I think no because it's regressive but can see yes arguments, havent decided yet Prop 57: Parole Reform - Yes Yes Yes Prop 58: Allow Multilingual Education in Public Schools - Yes Prop 59: Citizens United Is Bad - I don't think this does anything, but Citizens United is bad, so hell, why not Prop 60: Require Condoms in Adult Films - No Prop 61: Prescription Drug Pricing Change - No, chief of pharmacy policy says we already pay the same or less Prop 62: Repeal the Death Penalty But Also Some Weird Death Row Inmates Are Now Slaves Stuff - Yeesh, yes. Prop 63: Gavin Newsom’s Vanity Gun Control Prop - fine Prop 64: Marijuana Legalization - Yes Yes Yes Prop 65: Redirect Money from the Disposable Bag Fee - No this is a shameless attempt to confuse voters Prop 66: Kill Everyone Even Faster with the Death Penalty - No! Prop 67: Protect the Plastic Bag Ban - Yes
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2016 06:32
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Welp. I guess the park ranger at the Grand Canyon we talked to last week was full of poo poo. She was talking about condors because they have some there. Thanks for the corrections, though. The evidence is wildly in favor of lead ammo being the source of lead poisoning in condors. Lead poisoning in condors is seasonal and it coincides with deer hunting season. The 8 hunting seasons where lead ammo use was banned in condor range in CA is inconclusive on condors, but shows statistically significant decline of lead poisoning in turkey vultures. It's possible that lack of evidence for effectiveness is due to noise from a species of 268 individuals spread over multiple states (with 167 more in captivity) whereas a more abundant species that fulfills a similar niche like the turkey vulture is actually showing the legislation to ban lead ammo being highly effective.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2016 07:12
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Last election there was a good summary in this thread of what all the propositions on the ballot were about, and the likely outcomes of each one. Has anyone made something similar this year? And maybe one for the San Francisco local measures too? I mostly go off of League of Pissed Off Voters http://www.theleaguesf.org/guide#propa
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2016 04:05
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:This state's absurd hatred with grocery bags astounds me. I'm okay with not having plastic bags, but don't charge me for a paper one. I ride a loving bus everywhere, it's not as easy as throwing poo poo in my trunk (whether it's a reusable bag or a bag-les purchase) because I don't have a trunk. Aside from that reusable bags are by nature less sanitary after many uses. Paper bags aren't really better if you're not reusing them, that's why there's a bag fee. You know that you can get a cloth bag for the cost of a few dozen bag fees? And reusable cloth bags can go in the wash. I also have no car and use bus transit, you just gotta toss your receipts in your bag and not worry about being accused of shoplifting because you aren't going to be carrying so much that it won't be quick and easy to check if you really gotta.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2016 08:45
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Cross posting from TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP  Looks like a couple of her friends got pepper sprayed as well.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2017 06:21
|
|
|
They are pro-Trump libertarian bitcoiners who went to an antifascist rally to support the fascist being protested and they mixed it up in the crowd. It's totally possible they were actually pepper sprayed. http://archive.is/iM7S4 edit: http://archive.is/abA1N fermun fucked around with this message at 09:39 on Feb 2, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2017 09:33
|
|
|
  This is the planned speech, it wasn't going to be a dialogue, it was going to be a speech to target immigrant students and spread racist garbage. The protest was effective at stopping it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
Leperflesh, would you accept the establishment of a student Neo-Nazi group? Would you endorse their ability to invite speakers who are likely to incite violence against minorities unless protested effectively? A College Republican group invited a Neo-Nazi to speak, who planned to incite violence against minorities, the college administration failed to protect their students to this point. You also conflate everything after the event was cancelled with strategies pre-event. The building is large with numerous entrances and the police had effectively established barricades which would make passive resistance extremely difficult to allow Milo to hold his white supremacist rally during which he would have targeted vulnerable students. The tactic which won the day, which you are against, is the destruction of barricades and breaking of windows that made the police feel it would be too difficult to keep the Neo-Nazi Safe. Regardless of what a small minority of protesters did in celebration, in the end black bloc tactics were required to stop a fascist from holding a rally to organize the local Neo-Nazis around a target.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2017 08:38
|
|
|
http://abc7news.com/news/milo-yiannopoulos-coming-back-to-berkeley/1737801/ Milo says he wants to go another round soon.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2017 08:20
|
|
|
Aeka 2.0 posted:How does ending prop 13 not push working class out of their homes and not push them further away from where they work just because they are a filthy home owner. Owning a home for me is cheaper than renting by miles and I can see how this could be difficult for many people and possibly myself if home values just keep getting even more ridiculous. Or do we need to just rip off the band-aid and it should stabilize the market? I really don't know enough about it. Either way, there isn't enough inventory, eat the rich, many regular home owning schlubs aren't rich at all. Help me understand it, I assume tax collection has had to change. Schools are still funded by property tax, and in reality they shouldn't and should be equally funded. But that's a different discussion. Most people who want to end prop 13 want to end prop 13 for Commercial properties. That's a bigger deal than the cost of lost property taxes on your house. Edit: I suppose many want it ended for all properties, but still, commercial first.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2017 06:21
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:They are criminals, and their presence is the fruit of a criminal act. They have no legitimate claim to the benefits our society created for lawful citizens, irrespective of their compliance with our tax laws. A person should not be able to buy citizenship. They've violated no California laws by being an undocumented immigrant and 45% of undocumented immigrants have only made a civil federal offense by immigrating without authorization, not a criminal federal offense.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2017 04:52
|
|
|
coronaball posted:Ballotpedia says this guy has the most cash on hand by a wide margin. I don't know a thing about him, other than he looks like he's fifteen years old. He's a guy that grew up in Modesto before becoming a Silicon Valley venture capitalist. He's got a lot of money because he can hit up his former coworker millionaires.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2018 09:28
|
|
|
Keep in mind that the delays on this project are because the owner wants to build 89% luxury and 11% affordable using a state exemption around local ordinances, not the 18% affordable the city requires.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2018 08:54
|
|
|
In the last month, something like 2,000 formerly illegal AirBNB units in SF hit the rental market after 3,688 illegal AirBNB units were permanently delisted in January
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2018 09:52
|
|
|
I really like that the state rankings dings California both for taxing high earners and having too high income inequality so should be taxing high earners more.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2018 06:59
|
|
|
 We honestly could use with some loving Soviet apartment blocks instead of these loving poo poo rear end modernist piece of poo poo luxury apartments that keep being built and displacing everyone within a block when their landlords realize that their unit is now capable of being gentrified.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2018 08:45
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Somebody please explain to me the stance of opposing more housing because it puts money in the pockets of developers, while also espousing that we need more housing. I uh... don't think you can have one without the other? A few cities, including Seattle as a specific example have had building booms which resulted in more affordable housing at the 150%+ area median income level, but which developers stopped the pipeline for new projects once the luxury market was full, so the top end saw a 3-5% decline in rents but the rest of the market was unaffected. CA DSA chapters feel that without changes to SB827, we're going to just see a luxury housing boom that doesn't have any effect on the low and moderate income rents. The common argument by YIMBYs is that current luxury housing will become affordable at a moderate income in 30 years, DSA says, hey, 30 years is plenty of time to change policies and get poo poo built that is affordable sooner. There's specific policy changes that they suggest at the end of the article that would make them support SB827. quote:-Add measures to ensure that new development occurs in affluent single-family neighborhoods and not exclusively in low-income communities with a history of racialized divestment. edit: full disclosure, I'm a SF DSA member. I am not on the housing committee that discussed this with other CA DSA chapters though. fermun fucked around with this message at 06:49 on Mar 23, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2018 06:46
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:https://twitter.com/tdfischer_/status/976948110290124800 Ah yes, simultaneously criticizing someone for standing up to a caricature of YIMBYs while also creating a caricature of DSA, when the first bullet point in what changes would be needed to make DSA support an amended SB827 is to stop this from happening, which this same person acknowledges later. East Bay YIMBYs are the one YIMBY group that's not hardcore right wing libertarian, as I understand it, so I wish that she'd actually argue in good faith.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2018 06:54
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:But also complaining how those low-income communities wouldn't benefit from this because they lack the required public transit infrastructure. Cup Runneth Over posted:How exactly does this mesh with the first point? Do they really expect affluent single-family neighborhoods to accept a ton of new extremely-to-moderately low-income housing? Cup Runneth Over posted:Sure. Worth boycotting it over? Nah. Cup Runneth Over posted:If you are going to go all-in on the ideology, then demand rent control, not a "temporary rent freeze."  Obviously you haven't read the article. Cup Runneth Over posted:This makes this read more like a list of demands than a list of suggested improvements. This has nothing to do with the bill, only the DSA SF's policy wishlist. Cup Runneth Over posted:This also contradicts the very first suggestion. Also contradicts this: Cup Runneth Over posted:This is not a caricature of DSA SF, this announcement is extremely FYGM hardline ideology. The co-chair of DSA SF spends a lot of her time on Twitter grinding axes against "YIMBYs" and you are doing the exact same thing in this post, basically proving Victoria's point. It's not a surprise to me if there is no good faith argument between these two groups if DSA SF is so overtly hostile towards the movement supporting 827.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2018 08:10
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:That's all of Cali, I'm curious as to whether the data for specifically LA and SF area are the same, or there's a bunch of empty luxury units in Santa Barbara being counted. SF has ~18,000 vacant luxury units. Also, if you do very very open zoning, other areas that have done so have experienced a boom in luxury units trying to cater to the overpriced rents and then moving on to other areas once the luxury demand has been met. Capital is international, if you want to have more affordable housing investment locally, you need to either have it done by public funding or force the issue through regulations.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2018 07:24
|
|
|
Cicero posted:This is utter bullshit. California YIMBYs if anything tend to be center-left. That they're in favor of reducing regulations in this one area doesn't mean they're "hardcore right wing libertarians", unless you think the same label applies to Paul Krugman, the Obama administration, and the California Legislative Analyst's Office. Trickle down economics doesn't work, even in housing, and it's a right-wing ideology. Libertarians are generally left of center on social issues and have a hardcore right wing belief in markets to fix things on economic issues, like YIMBYs do.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2018 07:31
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:Quite right. Why should developers, at least from their perspective, settle for lower-priced housing when there's plenty of other markets where there are not yet enough luxury units to meet the demand? Especially when development is apparently such a nightmare to get done, and such an enormous investment of money. Cup Runneth Over posted:I don't think you really understand what trickle-down economics is. And from what I've seen of the bill it is not even close to an "invisible hand will fix it" solution. SB827 as it stands now will make housing more affordable for those who can afford luxury housing, and it will do nothing for anyone of low or moderate income, other than let the invisible hand displace them. edit: have you read the DSA statement that you've been arguing against for a day now yet? fermun fucked around with this message at 07:53 on Mar 24, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2018 07:47
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:Have you read my posts on the DSA statement? Seems like you haven't. This is your most recent statement regarding it: Cup Runneth Over posted:You posted the list of suggestions. I reviewed the list of suggestions. If I have to read the article to actually get the real list of suggestions, then make a new list of suggestions.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2018 09:17
|
|
|
CPColin posted:Combine that with a state-wide, public bank providing the loans and let's go! DSA and Berniecrats helped get a CA public bank added to the CA Dem party platform a month or two ago.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2018 06:39
|
|
|
acksplode posted:I feel like I'm without a country when it comes to CA housing policy. There's a capitalist neoliberal element in YIMBYism that grosses me out, but the DSA doesn't seem to acknowledge the urgency in building that's demanded by the housing crisis. I found the Chapo episode really disappointing. They mock the straightforward logic of building more housing to accommodate pent-up demand (what the gently caress else are you going to do?), and Shanti's calls to action at the end of the episode were to get involved with tenant rights organizations -- hardly a bad thing to get involved with, but all the eviction protections in the world aren't going to solve the housing crisis. I'd really like them to acknowledge that the only lasting solution is more housing, and then get into the more worthwhile debate of where that housing gets built, how it gets funded, and who owns it. acksplode posted:I guess Matt Bruenig heard my prayer. His think tank just published a paper today that's provoking a lot of conversation on Twitter: A Plan to Solve the Housing Crisis Through Social Housing  This is part of the DSA CA joint statement on SB 827 summary from March. You are not on your own in DSA in thinking that we need a lot more housing. Cicero rightly acknowledges that the 1960s urban renewal attempts at public housing were horrifically broken, but that is a uniquely American experience in public housing and other countries have done it successfully.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2018 06:58
|
|
|
Weembles posted:fermun, what sort of timeline do you believe is realistic for the construction of public housing in California? it'll take less time than doing it through market-based trickle-down solutions aimed at easing up regulations for building luxury housing. as a state, we're only looking at solutions that will eliminate some of the hurdles for building housing but without real affordability controls so will, even according to supporters, lower the costs for the rich and doing nothing right now for the vulnerable or even middle-income. the common argument is that much of this housing will, in 30 years or so, have deteriorated to be affordable to middle-incomes, and i say gently caress to that especially with regards to waiting 30 loving years. building the amount of housing california needs takes a massive investment on the order of public infrastructure, we should be treating it as a public infrastructure project. the free market is not providing, we need to push for it as a government program. other areas, such as seattle, which gave in to developer demands, saw massive construction increases in housing development which then totally dried up once the luxury housing rents started dropping as they were given market indicators that need had been met so the capital interests moved to other, more profitable areas, so all they got was slightly more affordable luxury housing which was still unaffordable and didn't reduce rents to people below 150% median area income and still resulted in displacement of the vulnerable. realistically, it will take probably 5 years to shift the ca democratic party, the grassroots is way more radical than you'd think given we have people like feinstein as senator, but the state democratic party refused to endorse feinstein for reelection, added a ca public bank to the party platform, as well as adding a public bank as a policy position. a consistent socialist housing policy pressure group could quite easily shift the state democratic party in favor faster than you'd think, imo.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2018 06:36
|
|
|
HelloSailorSign posted:Is Valley Clean Energy (valleycleanenergy.org) a good or bad thing? I just heard about it today and it seems odd... anybody have other info other than what’s on their website? It sounds like a CCA. CCAs are Community Choice Aggregation, they are a nonprofit set up at the municipal, county, or regional level. They pool all of the investor-owned utility accounts for their region then negotiate power purchasing from power plants, wind farms, etc. directly, the deals are passed on to the utility who continue to deliver your electricity. Because it's a nonprofit government agency, they aren't making any kind of markup on the generation side so there's a savings there, plus the utilities are generally locked into pretty long contracts for a good portion of their power and the reduction in electricity rates for green energy sources over the last decade or so mean that utilities are actually paying above the current market rate on a lot of old wind and solar etc. contracts. Generally it's about 3 cents/kWh savings that the CCAs are making. The utilities convinced the CPUC that they have a right to the profit they had expected to make off of their monopoly status, so some of the savings is lost to that, the rest of the savings is spent on increasing the % green energy that you're receiving. So far they are all set up in this manner where you pay the exact same rates in the end and the utility makes the same profit they had been planning on making, but the total energy mix delivered is slightly more green. CCAs currently exist in Humbolt, Mendocino, Placer, Sonoma, Napa, Marin, Contra Costa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, San Benito, Monterey, and Los Angeles counties and a bunch more are in the process of setting them up. edit: they get more complicated if you have solar. Edit 2: also, because they are set up by your local government, they are almost always opt out instead of opt in, so you will get switched over at some point unless you opt out in advance fermun fucked around with this message at 22:03 on Apr 13, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2018 21:53
|
|
|
Colin Mockery posted:Well, some people I know are trying this: https://www.sfcommunityhousingact.com but I don’t know enough to know what’s wrong with it, if there’s anything specifically wrong with it that isn’t just the general “people hate socialism” stuff. The SF Berniecrats are the majority behind this one, and it's for the November ballot, which I imagine will be a wave election here in SF which should give it a real shot. It is more than just housing which is good, it also funds public child care near the affordable housing units, public restrooms near the affordable housing units, community buildings, and increased bus budget for lines near the affordable housing units. Those activists I've seen that are skeptical are skeptical because SF Berniecrats didn't ask for help getting signatures and this is their first ballot measure so a lot of people fear they are overestimating themselves or underestimating the work-hours needed to gather the signatures. If this does get on the ballot and passes though, it puts 1,500 affordable housing units in the city each year for the next 20 years and requires that they be spread equally among supervisor districts, so by colocating some services, adding additional transit, and spreading it out equally among supervisor districts, it should be inherently resistant to some of the problems of public housing in the past. Hopefully Berniecrats reach out to other advocacy groups if they aren't hitting signature goals. There's another ballot measure in SF also for the November ballot specifically addressing homeless housing which is being filed tomorrow, the Our City Our Home measure, which adds a 0.5% corporate income tax on revenues above $50,000,000 to fund 4,000 additional supportive housing units for people that are currently homeless and 1,000 additional shelter/navigation center beds. It also adds funds to some of the existing homelessness prevention programs such as temporary rent subsidies and legal assistance. That one is being driven primarily by the Coalition on Homelessness, but it has been developed in collaboration with Glide, St. Anthony’s, Dolores Street Community Services, Community Housing Partnership, CCDC, TNDC, Hospitality House, SOMCan, and DSA SF, and all those groups will be signature gathering so it should most likely make it onto the ballot.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2018 05:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 05:12 |
|
|
I'm getting 2 or so texts a week, but I voted by mail the day I received my ballot and whenever I get a text, I respond to say that I have already voted and how I voted.VikingofRock posted:Prop 71: No. Why limit the flexibility of the implementation dates of the ballot system?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2018 19:53
|
|