|
The official state voter guide is uh... Quite a thing.
|
#
¿
May 1, 2016 02:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 23:54 |
|
|
Panfilo posted:I enjoy animal style fries but have no illusions that I'm eating a slurry of thousand island dressing, American cheese, grilled onions and the mashed potato remnants of their soggy French fries. I really quite miss living in a state where every bar with food had at least half-decent poutine.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2016 02:22
|
|
|
Progressive JPEG posted:Wouldn't that be a province? Wisconsin and Minnesota have it too.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2016 04:22
|
|
|
Pain of Mind posted:Are the soda and cigarette taxes seen as regressive since those are more common lower income vices, or does the increase in price limit usage enough to make it worthwhile? I am not really sure how to vote for those amendments. They are, but it's one of the cases where a regressive tax makes sense because the goal of the tax is specifically to discourage a behavior.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2016 01:41
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Word on Twitter is that DiFi is thinking of voting Sessions because she's not getting enough phone calls telling her not to. I'm thinking it's more likely because she's awful.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2017 06:16
|
|
|
VikingofRock posted:Why would any Democratic Californian vote for that split? If I'm reading this right, it basically creates a new red state, while not significantly decreasing California's population (which is the source of California's electoral underrepresentation). Plus it's not like the red inland parts of the state are dragging down the rest of CA, since we have a Dem supermajority in both houses. That seems to indicate the split would keep CA in the union but split it into an inland (and presumably conservative) state and (presumably much less) coastal state rather than having it leave, which is an interesting idea insofar as it's never happened before. You'd have to do it proper and go full Russian model though: split cities off as entirely separate federal subjects from the states that surround them. Hell, do it for the whole of the US. If we can wrangle it such that every federal city gets their own two senators, go for it! In a weird way, it's just sort of readjusting the legislature so that it fits the modern version of the original concerns that led to creating the House and Senate as separate bodies in the first place, sort of. But it'd never happen.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2017 06:24
|
|
|
Just like gay marriage and marijuana legalization! Massachusetts and Hawaii suggest that state-level healthcare system laws can work, so what makes single-payer so uniquely impossible?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2017 01:31
|
|
|
CopperHound posted:IANAL but maybe the 14th amendment? Presumably any sane proposal would include provisions for visitors, e.g. like the NHS does in the UK: https://www.hr.admin.cam.ac.uk/hr-services/relocating-uk/living-uk/healthcare/eligibility-nhs-treatment A California ID would grant no-cost access to care: if you do not have one, you pay via some other means. Either your out-of-state insurer has an agreement with the CA system to pay whatever prices CA healthcare has set (sort of the reverse of what Medicare does with hospitals) or you pay a set price up front (single payer should hopefully force more standardized pricing than the current clusterfuck between private insurers and Medicare). Edge cases are unavoidable--emergency care is always a problem but it's not like the current system handles that perfectly for people without insurance either. People moving into the state solely to obtain medical care is something new, but probably more of an edge case than you'd expect.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
LanceHunter posted:In the 2040 dramedy remake of Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, Will has to leave Philadelphia because he has leukemia and stay with Uncle Phil and Aunt Viv to get CA residency and get treatment. And, as we've seen, doctors and hospitals routinely refuse to accept Medicare patients. Oh wait, no, Medicare's coding systems and patient base are a major component of the American healthcare system because Medicare has huge buying power and refusing to accept Medicare patients would spell bankruptcy for any medical provider that's not solely dealing in extremely specialized treatment that can only be afforded by the extremely well-off anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:i was unpleasantly exclusionary to the mormon white supremacists Whoah now they repudiated that doctrine decades ago and the entire congregation has purged all hints of racism from their minds.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2017 10:14
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Smokers are not a "class" of people any more than alcoholics or junkies. Please, continue dehumanizing and othering persons with substance abuse issues. It does so much to ameliorate the issues associated with substance abuse and will definitely help those who have problematic patterns of substance use find ways to improve their life and address their problematic use.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2017 02:02
|
|
|
Admiral Ray posted:Instead of land housing, we should invest in air housing via blimps, to allow people to fly over the inevitably polluted and heavy-metal laden land and blot out the sun. The effects of this are twofold: First: due to an increased albedo caused by the blimps, the Earth will cool, negating global warming. Second: by raising the altitude of our people, we raise their spirits. A rising tide lifts all boats, but a blimp will rise forever. Further, we won't have to deal with current regulations regarding land use. Cities don't yet have zoning rules for the sky, so we can have residential blimps in cheap industrial airspace. We can house workers directly above their workplaces, house students above schools, and house the rich above a bottomless pit. The possibilities are endless. This is about on par with many of the candidate statements in the California voter guide.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2017 06:28
|
|
|
Is the de Leon campaign doing anything? I admit I don't watch TV, which is where I'd expect to see most senate campaigning, but flyers for local poo poo is starting to show up in the mail and I haven't seen so much as a de Leon sign in a window or a bumper sticker.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2018 09:35
|
|
|
Really want to know what that $9 was for. Craptacular! posted:He has the endorsement of the state party, which is worth more votes than anything he can actually do. To get too deep into it would remind Republicans that Feinstein is being attacked from the left, and he got socked for doing that when they made that ad directly linking 1983 Feinstein with 2018 Trump. I loled when the Dem endorsement mailer showed up with the senate race conspicuously absent.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2018 02:39
|
|
|
I figure it's worth trying with a non-RealID license to see if the TSA actually notices.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2019 04:27
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:The Starbucks there is probably the best bet. I'm sure they have some sort of code, but it's busy and you would get in if you just waited for someone to exit the head. Power move: just drop trou and take a poo poo in front of the creamer station.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2019 05:18
|
|
|
How did the legislature pass the worst band-aid on the housing crisis (removing local control over rent control) after rejecting the good one (removing local control over permitting around transit)?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2019 08:33
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Corn is also not the culturally-normal staple food in most of the world, so sending poor countries our corn has the effect of altering local food culture. That seems bad? Nonsense. We bless countries with our joyous corn and it coexists well with the local food culture! Kyrgyzstan is an endless sea of steamed corn stands adjacent the stands selling strange ancient fermented dairy products. 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2019 02:58
|
|
|
ProperGanderPusher posted:I always call myself a San Franciscan abroad, because identifying as a Californian invites lame jokes about how I probably surf to work and go to Disneyland every weekend. I got one guy start earnestly asking how they can get in on some sweet Silicon Valley VC capital for their business idea, but everyone laughed at him for it, including me. the FSB border agent that interrogated me asked me if i knew Arnold Schwarzenegger after he was done with his actual questions he was an okay guy, all said and done.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2020 05:31
|
|
|
OMGVBFLOL posted:to incentivize it, not force it. when people rent bedrooms rather than let them sit empty they are contributing to a public resource. so why not give them a tax break versus people who have four bedrooms for two people? this makes sense only in some theoretical fairyland where tenants occupying bedrooms in something designed as a single family home have no need for other rooms, or where their use of those other rooms somehow does not impact other residents at all. the community land trust or other stuff about de-commodifying housing makes sense, but not this. this is just either inviting more "in-law apartment where you can't have parties ever and can't use the kitchen" bullshit or forcibly creating soviet-style communal apartments (which everyone hates). taxing the poo poo out of bad aspects of the existing system and hoping that the revenue will be used effectively to address the problems of said system AND not produce problematic unexpected side effects seems quite optimistic. using taxation as an incentive to convert private ownership of housing stock to some other system seems reasonable, but you need a framework for that system in place first, at least at some level. use of the tax power to disincentivize lovely stuff is a legitimate and effective tactic, but only if there's some not lovely stuff to redirect that effort to already. without that good alternative, you'll likely just create new, differently lovely poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2020 01:27
|
|
|
ProperGanderPusher posted:I keep hearing reports that millennials actually by and large get sick of city living after they turn 30ish and decide to start a family. Hard to raise a baby in a one bedroom apartment without making your neighbors want to murder you. I’m getting to that point myself on top of wanting less noise and more room for my poo poo. I don't intend to ever have a family, but I am getting a bit tired of the city. Crowded, noisy, expensive, and soot gets on everything if you keep the windows open. I don't go to as many cultural events here as I have in other cities, since here's much more spread out and I don't live in the city proper. Moving into a remote position and getting a house somewhere up in the woods of Norcal seems quite tempting.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2020 03:51
|
|
|
I don't think SB50 will solve or even necessarily ameliorate the housing crisis, but the way we allocate land in cities in the US is loving stupid. Single-family detached homes don't have a place around major transit infrastructure, and whatever idiots show up at Atherton city council meetings shouldn't have a say otherwise.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2020 07:07
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:I mean I guess giving up and giving in is good too. Uproot everyone and build! It's pretty disingenuous to imply that any increase in density at all would be instantly cage apartments for everyone. It's entirely possible to have more density than we have now, especially in outlying areas, and still have reasonable places to live. This is a random residential street an 8-minute walk from Pittsburgh/Bay Point BART. I think we can all agree that's low-density:  It's in walking distance of a Safeway and a few fast food places, but only because it's right next to BART, which has a small commercial area adjacent. Go a tad bit further out and you're looking at walking a half hour for the same, because the streets meander and have nothing but single-family homes. There's not really any reason to put another grocery near them because there just aren't that many people who'd use it. You can get to downtown SF (Embarcadero station) in about 50 minutes after you board the train. Here's an apartment block at the edge of Moscow proper, about 15 minutes' walk from Khovrino Metro in the northwest. From Khovrino Metro you can get to the center of Moscow in 25 minutes, but realistically you won't go there because you don't work in the Kremlin. If you go instead to, say, Moscow State University, in the southwest of the city, your trip would be about 50 minutes. Ignoring that you'd be stupid for not just living somewhere closest to MSU, we'll call this roughly equivalent to living in Pittsburgh:  This is a SCARY TALL BUILDING. Ignoring that streets in the area have a lot of green space and are generally designed more for pedestrians than cars, let's focus on the building alone and conclude that, because the building is a high-density residential structure, that the interior is nothing but cage apartments. This isn't true though: apartments in the area are fine. A larger, fairly nice apartment looks like https://www.cian.ru/rent/flat/225164737/ Let's say you can't afford that place. 80k RUB/mo is approaching the average salary in Moscow, so it's well out of reach for many if we assume you pay 1/3rd your salary in rent and live alone. The same is very much true of those houses in Pittsburgh, but whatever. Let's assume you get a more reasonable 30k/mo place a few metro stops away, which presumably means a cage apartment: https://www.cian.ru/rent/flat/225064012/ Well, no, that's still fairly reasonable. Not palatial by any means, but entirely livable. Ignoring the odd decor and strange plumbing fixtures (that's Russian apartments for you), it's about on par with studios I've lived in. Let's say this is still too expensive, and too cramped to boot. You'll probably want to look at a traditionally more working-class area, since apartments <20k/mo in the northwest are few and far between and generally tiny. You'll accept having to take a 20-minute bus to the metro, but will still be able to walk to a variety of shops and have an hour commute to MSU: https://balashikha.cian.ru/rent/flat/224924521/ None of these are cage apartments. They're not amazing places, but they're in a country that generally has a lower standard of living than the US, a large amount of terribly-built housing stock (the Soviets were cheap), and has even more income inequality than we do. Having lived in in both the bay area and Moscow though, the latter felt much more like it was designed to be a livable place for a large amount of people concentrated in a small reason. I feel that a large part of that is that Moscow tends to have high-density residential structures throughout that are well-served by basic commercial infrastructure and extensive transit. That sort of urban landscape is incompatible with the detached home in car country we have in much of the region.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2020 07:32
|
|
|
The Wiggly Wizard posted:I hope someone is in the works to primary Kamala Harris in 2022. What a pathetic endorsement after what she brought up in the debates AND the California primary results. Summon Kevin de Leon!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2020 00:45
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:Pick one. like i said: DE. LEON.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2020 06:15
|
|
|
FMguru posted:
Goddamn I want a version of the Russian coat of arms with the California bear now.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2020 05:59
|
|
|
the solution is clear. the partiers will not stop if you approach them. you cannot call the cops because they may overreact. go full beserker mode. rip and tear the party, until it is done 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2020 04:29
|
|
|
Y'all can't the norcal crowd just agree: - The Mission burrito is a culturally significant food. - The fries in a Cali burrito are a far better burrito filler because you can't really make crispy rice. - Senor Sisig makes a bomb-rear end Filipino pork burrito with fries that fits into neither category perfectly yet surpasses both, thus establishing a new burrito tier above all, and socal will fall beneath our might once we push it down there.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2020 07:12
|
|
|
Yes extreme density and extensive, widely-used transit was the downfall of South Korea. Truly a terrible tragedy.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2020 17:54
|
|
|
Who are all you people with these slightly okay landlords. All I've gotten from mine was a slip of paper asking us to please pay rent and consistent banging and grinding noises while I'm trying to work from home, as they've apparently decided this is a good time to perform major renovations. Only upside is that the slip of paper is the first time I've ever seen any sort of internet presence for them, which is of course the personal @pacbell.net email of some random lady I've never heard from before. Landlord is generally impressively incommunicado, to the point that there's no phone you can call in emergencies (love to spend the weekend at a friends with no change of clothes because I lost my keys and the landlord can't be arsed to respond to calls on the weekend) and there's no super in the building (in violation of Oakland's requirements for a building of this size). Someone remind me again why having the government in charge of housing would somehow result in worse service.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2020 00:54
|
|
|
Kenning posted:The thing that drives me crazy about shelter in place was that it was there to buy time for the government to act. But that time was never spent on anything. They didn't set up universal testing, contact tracing, and well-supported quarantines for infected people. They didn't pass any legislation to support people that might lose jobs and businesses that might close. It was just like, we took a pause in March, and then now it's June and nothing has really changed in terms of a large-scale governmental response. Eh, they maybe haven't done as much as they should have, but it'd be disingenuous to say they've done nothing. Alameda county at this point at least has multiple testing sites available if you want to get tested, with no requirements. Contract tracing is kind of in a weird place where I've heard that it's maybe available from Apple and Google (could also be that theirs are still in dev hell), but I've definitely not heard government instruction on it, which is odd. The economic stuff is also kinda weird since that's the one space the feds have addressed, however imperfectly. It's not clear if they'll extend it further, but if so, I can understand the state wanting to reserve those funds for other initiatives in areas the feds aren't doing poo poo (of which there are many).
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2020 17:19
|
|
|
Henrik Zetterberg posted:And every time I’m in a call, I get kids coming in every 14 seconds asking for screen time, whining that they can't hang out with friends even though all of their friends are getting together, or arguing that it’s not their turn to do the dishwasher. idk but what are they doing on the screens? are they socializing? if so, why not just let them do it? we're all sitting here on a goddamn internet forum, and while the onlineness of people in LAN thread varies, we're all at least somewhat online people. personally i grew up online before ****screens**** were really a parenting concern, because my meat world social life was poo poo and i found a lot more comfort in online communities, for better or for worse--some were good and some were bad, but ultimately i feel i came out alright, probably much better than i would have /without/ being really online that whole time. my parents didn't really know what to make of it beyond me staying up all night, but they were too tech-illiterate to stop me really (mom took away the keyboard, but not the mouse for whatever reason, so i used on-screen keyboards a bunch--poo poo, but you deal). coming out of that, as an adult now, im growing on the idea that online socialization is still socialization--it's different, sure, but it's still socialization, and we're a bunch of hypocrites posting here if we say otherwise. people probably should mix online and offline socialization, but given the current state of affairs, allowing more online socialization may not be so bad a thing. if they're just watching youtube or playing games alone sure, that's not great, but if they're talking with people that's probably for the better, and it's not going to destroy their humanity--honestly, it probably helps them develop it: the online world is probably here to stay, and kids should figure out for themselves how to navigate it somewhat, especially if they like it don't let them wild on everything of course--the internet is at once both glorious and a cesspool, but if you talk with the kids about who they meet and it doesn't seem like they're falling down the alt-right or whatever other rabbit hole, it's probably fine.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2020 04:49
|
|
|
Kenning posted:Any theories as to why the Bay Area has overall had such high compliance and relatively little bellyaching about SiP as compared to other regions? Me, confused, every time I step outside and see people casually chillin at a local restaurant with masks around their necks or not covering their nose though. Doubly so on buses, where it's not like you're engaged in physical exertion that would make wearing one particularly unpleasant.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2020 19:02
|
|
|
In light of the above, my gripe with landlords is that many of them really aren't providing any services at all, or are doing as much as possible to avoid performing the services they're supposed to perform, all the while saying "well, you wouldn't want the government to be your landlord, think of all the good service you'd lose out on in the current arrangement! I'm currently moving out of my old place in a now-gentrifying, formerly very economically depressed area of Oakland, where the landlords are, by and large, perhaps not the most transparent in their dealings or interested in providing stellar service. My interactions with them have been primarily: * Paying rent, through a box, because they don't provide an address or online payment portal. Whatever, that's within their rights, but given the amount you pay for bay area rent and what they're presumably paying in taxes to hold the place (that they've certainly owned it long enough for Prop 13 bullshit to let them set rents based on value well above the taxed value) I'd like some modicum of service beyond "owning a building and letting units in it". Can't really force that though, since your housing is probably the thing you're least able to leave for a competitor easily. * Attempting to call regarding issues. It's a crapshoot if they ever pick up the phone, and they don't return messages/respond to texts ever. I got locked out on a Saturday and they managed to eventually respond and provide a new set of keys on Monday--I can't imagine what they'd do if, say, a pipe burst or the building caught fire. * Not really knowing who to contact, since it wasn't really discussed during move-in--all I have is aforementioned mostly useless phone number. Through discussion with other tenants I've learned that there is some dude that's there as the "on-site manager", but there's no signage about this, and the guy in question apparently speaks virtually no English, only Lithuanian--I think he's the owner's cousin or something and it's more an arrangement to give him free housing in exchange for doing groundswork. That's... kinda in compliance, but I think you could argue that they're not quite fully in compliance with https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/I16BCF570D45311DEB97CF67CD0B99467?contextData=%28sc.Default%29&transitionType=Default * Conducting a wonderful dance to move out with the owner's lackey, who appears to be literally the only person in his employ able to perform inspections on somewhere around 50-100 units (dunno exactly--my building has about 30 and I know that they own multiple medium-size properties, but the ownership records are so obfuscated that it's hard to say). He initially said he'd need me to wait around for a 4-hour window in which he might show up because he's busy doing other inspections, which I challenged, saying I could provide a much shorter window for me to arrive when he's ready. The day of he asked for a specific time, and if I was okay with him conducting the inspection without me present. I responded "lol no", so we arrived at the appointed time, he walked around for like 10 minutes and took pictures, and said he was done. I asked for the itemized inspection report on the spot, but this was apparently impossible because he had to run to other inspections. When pressed on this--as best I understand the requirements, if I'm present for the inspection, the report has to provided at the end, not left for later--he basically panicked and ran the gently caress away. I kinda relented at this point, since I didn't think chasing after him was likely to make him say "oh, no, whoops, I was wrong". * After the aforementioned bullshit, sending an email saying he hadn't performed an inspection for cleanliness because I "hadn't moved out yet" (legally, yes, the lease ends on the 31rst, but I've moved out already, physically, which is readily apparent because there's basically gently caress all in the unit still) and that "the presence of my belongings in the unit" prevented him from conducting a cleanliness inspection (there was like, idk, a trashbag, a roll of TP, a bag with some broken old CO2 detector that I couldn't find the exact model to replace, and a box with a fuse with it, which I'd left because I figured the maintenance people would appreciate the free TP if nothing else, and maybe the next tenant could use the spare fuse). When pressed on the content of https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV§ionNum=1950.5 he basically said that he didn't need to itemize things that needed to be clean before I'd actually vacated and hung up on me--keep in mind he'd had every opportunity to just say "hey you need to move these last items out also before I can complete the inspection", but nope, just ran out the door. * Finding after returning to the apartment to remove those last items (based on his email, I guessed that he wanted me to!) to find that someone had entered the unit (door wasn't locked the same, stuff was moved). The maintenance staff confirmed the lackey had told them to perform an inspection right after I left, and they did, which is kinda odd, since they were definitely there while both I and the lackey were present (I saw them!), and he could have called them up to do it then. Guess that was just toooooooo hard. Keep in mind, I'd explicitly denied permission for inspection without my being present already, and there was no request for a subsequent inspection at an agreed upon time, so this is de jure illegal if they maintain that I haven't moved out--any inspection must be scheduled in agreement by both parties as far as I understand it, until such time that we're in agreement that I've vacated. The maintenance staff were, understandably, confused about this and called the lackey themselves to try and clarify. Upon realizing that I was present, the lackey hung up again, but the maintenance staff were happy to provide a recorded statement about their understanding of the event. It's all a confusing mess of things--hey, I get it, owning and leasing property in America, in the bay area especially, has historically been a good way to build lasting wealth, especially for people who may not have been offered other options. But there seems to be this strange dichotomy where the landlords in question--as best I can tell--aren't exactly the poor downtrodden souls that would need such an out. If they were a black family in Oakland struggling to build generational wealth by any means possible, well, hey, I'd have some sympathy: while I don't think holding property is the most socially useful way to do this, it's what American society offered, and I can't really fault people for taking what they can. You do what's necessary in the environment you live in, and if you're black, well, whether your ancestors were landlords or not doesn't really matter (they probably weren't--I don't think the slave ships were exactly filled with the upper echelons of African society circa 1500, rather the opposite, more likely the not-upper echelon people the upper echelons wanted to be rid of), since your ancestors were forcibly ripped away from their history and society to be enslaved in another. In my case, the landlord appears to be the child of a Lithuanian landlord (by no means low-class--he was a lawyer and served as an officer in the army) who fled Stalin's purges of the kulaks and NEP-men, and his lackey appears to be descended from some high-caste (read: also landlords) people around Mumbai. I don't know as much of the Indian history, but I feel like both would reasonably have a historical understanding of feudalism and its consequences based on their background--India wasn't exactly a socialist egalitarian paradise when the British moved in; there's quite a long and storied history there. It seems neither have learned anything from what happened in their countries, that their takeaway was "welp, guess we can't be landlords in the old country anymore, but by god that was OUR RIGHT, and we're happy to perpetuate our practices in our new country, because all that unrest, all that pain, all that suffering, well, it was just an aberration, a flash in the pan: our profession, the profession of owning property, is just and good, and we are happy to continue it having escaped the reaction to it in the lands our ancestors came from--the lower classes there clamoring to say it wasn't just, they were wrong, their concerns invalid nonsense, and any such concerns in our new country are just as invalid. The small folk are ours to rule, it is our divine right. We seem to have a non-insignificant population of refugees who say "no! the revolt against our system in our ancestral lands was unjust! we desire to continue that system elsewhere in the world, for it is right and good, and nay to any that would challenge that notion!" without any shred of understanding why events in the old world occurred as they did, only the notion that they were not the events that should have occurred, and that they should rightly and justly preserve the old system as best possible outside it, that this time, this time, the people will recognize the landlords' god-given right to extract profit from the land and those who live on it, that nigh re-inventing serfdom, albeit some sort of modernized serfdom, is the best and proper course of action, and that they will build a new landlord paradise where all are happy, at least insofar as "all" is "the landed classes". When I was a child, my teachers told me that America was founded to break free of this, that we welcomed the tired and poor to build a new society different from the old. It seems now that this wasn't true--whatever society we may have strived to build out of whatever people, that we instead have transplanted the same people that created problems in the old world into the new, and that they've done their damndest to just rebuild 18th-century Europe or India as they were then anew in our time. The other thing I was taught, less through teachers than through media, was that government CANNOT provide housing, as it's too incompetent, and the failures of the projects show this. It seems, however, that the capitalists landlords are no less incompetent, or if they are competent, that they twist the competency to their benefit, not to build better housing for all. I am not sure why I should want an incompetent landlord I cannot remove because they are not the government over an incompetent landlord I can vote out, and am rather curious about the whole failure of the projects, which seem now to be more a matter of the people living there having little political power to force good management, less that the management was wholly incapable. It's especially strange having seen places where government housing IS competent--Singapore is quite far from the US in many many ways, but they do seem to have good housing that's government managed and home to people of many ethnicities and varying political power. Such doesn't seem so impossible as it has been portrayed. tl;dr: gently caress landlords, they're a bunch of people that are sad they got kicked out of their country as the populace revolted against feudalism, and decided to relocate somewhere else that wasn't in a state of revolt against it yet to reestablish the same system as best they could, perhaps more slyly, to try and avoid the catalysts towards revolt that led them to leave. they don't do anything useful, and they don't want to do anything useful, they just want to extract rents, and will probably try to do the same if we don't die in climateapocalypes and manage to work our way into space (The Expanse is speculative fiction, but with what Musk and Bezos are trying for, it probably ain't that far off the mark!). Do your part and vote to end Prop 13 for commercial owners, and canvas to convince others to vote the same way you can. You can either vote for slow reform now or expect  later, and while the latter may sound appealing, it does kinda suck at the time of all told, with the historical record considered.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2020 04:39
|
|
|
pentyne posted:Uber and Lyft raised a fuss about this, but this must backfire immensely, CA has to be a massive portion of their US business. otoh, it means they'll lose less money this way. lol 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2020 18:25
|
|
|
sincx posted:Lol, East Bay Parks updated their list of parks to indicate which ones are currently on fire if they all catch fire does the risk go back down to low 🤔
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2020 01:44
|
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:If I were supreme dictator of California, I would set up a Army Reserve-esque program but for wildfire control. I expect you could get a decent size volunteer force to call up for digging. My understanding is that it isn't technically difficult, just labor intensive and hard work. Basically the same as the current prison labor way, but pulled from general population instead. You want to be able to surge a big labor force with modest preexisting training, but mostly they can be doing other stuff. Good news! We have one! You even get paid (poorly)! https://ccc.ca.gov/ Yes, "HARD WORK, LOW PAY, MISERABLE CONDITIONS, AND MORE!" is the official website slogan. There's even an old GiP thread about it! https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3813346
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2020 21:47
|
|
|
BeAuMaN posted:This is correct. Keep in mind that California has the highest annual LLC fee in the nation (at least if the table on this site is to be believed; someone say otherwise if it's incorrect); the next highest is Massachusetts at $500/year and the average annual fee between the 50 states is $89/year. Is there a reason the fee needs to be that high? Is there a reason it's flat and not scaling? gently caress knows. it's in https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=RTC§ionNum=23153 California Revenue and Taxation Code posted:ARTICLE 2. Tax on General Corporations [23151 - 23156] ( Article 2 added by Stats. 1949, Ch. 557. ) i go look up Stats. 1949, Ch. 557 and it says the minimum is $25, so presumably something amended it since. annotations on the state code site don't go that deep. there are probably more detailed resources elsewhere, but i assume they require subscriptions to legal tools and such. even then that would leave out a lot of legislative history. can't imagine it's something that business interests would particularly want, so i'll hazard a guess and say "lol california revenue, blame prop 13".
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2020 08:33
|
|
|
Punkin Spunkin posted:Do we kinda sorta have a thread consensus on the props? There are some maybe good things (the law is maybe kinda toothless when enforced by the AG), some "eh" things (a lot of the provisions around the actual requirements seem more or less the same as the existing law, or are otherwise nothingburgers), and has some things that seem really questionable (making penalties immediate seems overly harsh--the current 45-day period with one extension is fine--and the carve-outs that exempt a bunch of classes of info are just wat). It seems to have a lot of agreeable not-astroturf opposition (ACLU, Color of Change), no EFF position either way, and little support (Andrew Yang and whatever "Common Sense" is), so I'm leaning "not worth baking into the constitution via a prop". The stuff it does could go through the legislature as needed.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2020 05:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 23:54 |
|
|
i chose a good weekend to go camping in the desert. wasn't much hotter than anywhere else was! re the affirmative action/prop 16 thing, as someone mentioned, this repeals a ban; it does not establish or enforce a quota. i don't think the UC Regents or w/e are perfect, but they're probably reasonably capable of choosing whether to implement such a program, and how, at least as much as any of the rest of us are. you could make a argument about wanting to address broader class issues, sure, but as the ban in question concerns persons historically de facto relegated to a lower class, i can't really immediately disagree with something that closes off one avenue towards greater social equality entirely.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2020 04:06
|
|
