Eh, using a prop 13 argument to try to say no on 10 just really illustrates the divide on this issue quite clearly.
Eh, using a prop 13 argument to try to say no on 10 just really illustrates the divide on this issue quite clearly.
Despite the crowing of many people in this thread, the case is not clearly 100 percent for or against rent control. There's a lot of nuance to the issue. From KQED with bolds on my emphasis:
So, in the end, vote your conscience and your interests. Don't listen to anybody saying the case is closed in one direction or the other. Full article here: https://www.kqed.org/news/11677380/is-rent-control-working-and-should-we-have-more-or-less-of-it
Prop 13 is one of the most racist pieces of referendum on the planet, given how it adversely impacts people of color and disproportionately benefits white people.Prop 13 is literally rent control for homeowners. And yeah, I'm aware that prop 13 has kept some homeowners from raising their rents. But that's an anomaly -- most people are perfectly fine with raising rents regardless of how much they are saving on taxes because of 13.
Prop 13 is one of the most racist pieces of referendum on the planet, given how it adversely impacts people of color and disproportionately benefits white people.
I don't know if it's racist. But I do know that the same people whining about 10 (not the people in this thread, mind you, but in general in California) generally align with the folks that benefited greatly and still benefit from 13. So, to cite 13 to counter 10 is like smashing egg in your face to make coconut creme pie -- the logic doesn't work.
White people in California have a far lower property tax burden than minorities because of prop 13, while obviously having far more of the wealth.
John Oliver did a takedown of DaVita, the dialyisis company that is largely behind "No on 8," last year.
And the LA Times has more, directly related to Prop 8: http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-dialysis-20180720-story.html
That all has me leaning yes on 8
I couldn't find a comprehensive guide for judges but there's a republican site with recommendations for all judges running. You can just vote opposite to their recommendations.Thank you. I was really unsure of Prop 8. This helps a lot.
The only other one I'm unsure about is the emergency crews taking breaks one. Some info/context would help.
Also, I have no idea how I would vote for the 10+ judicial positions on my ballot. Is there any website that offers insight into the judicial nominations?
That one really is as simple as it sounds. Yes means they need to be on call, always. No protects their break times.The only other one I'm unsure about is the emergency crews taking breaks one. Some info/context would help.
If it's that simple, I would pick No. They should get breaks. There is no one on duty during the breaks?That one really is as simple as it sounds. Yes means they need to be on call, always. No protects their break times.
This helps. Thank you.I couldn't find a comprehensive guide for judges but there's a republican site with recommendations for all judges running. You can just vote opposite to their recommendations.
https://judgevoterguide.com/
The only reason prop 11 is on the ballot is cause the ambulance corporation is getting sued for unpaid breaks. Right now if there's a call during an emts break they have to go if they're the closest one available and their break is supposed to be rescheduled for later during the day. A recent ruling regarding private security guards ended similar on call breaks for them so emts are suing the ambulance corporation for unpaid wages from interrupted breaks. So the ambulance corporation, literally 1 company, decided to make a prop and dump 20 million in advertising it so they can kill the 100 million lawsuit they're facing. If they're so worried about slower response times they can hire more emts or compensate the ones they have for interrupting their breaks, they shouldn't be allowed to bypass the courts with a prop made solely to benefit them and screw their employees.If it's that simple, I would pick No. They should get breaks. There is no one on duty during the breaks?
I don't know any EMTs to get first hand insight. :/
Edit:
This helps. Thank you.
Keep in mind that prop 10 doesn't make rent control happenIf Prop 10 does pass, and rent control goes statewide, I suspect you'll see the following:
A rise in evictions as independent owners exit the market with the intention of selling.
A short term drop in property values as single investors sell.
A forced change in the makeup of the SF Bay Area as former renters leave and are replaced by homeowners.
Prop 10 passing will very likely be the best chance for individuals to buy property (at a discount) in the Bay Area since the recession of 2009-10.
Correct but don't pretend that local Democratic parties won't be stumbling over themselves to show how progressive they are. Rent control is the Democratic equivalent of GOP tax policy "it did not work the last time because we did not go far enough!"
Yeah that's wack but I'm pro rent control and I think there can be ways to implement it with out the hiccups you're mentioning.Correct but don't pretend that local Democratic parties won't be stumbling over themselves to show how progressive they are. Rent control is the Democratic equivalent of GOP tax policy "it did not work the last time because we did not go far enough!"
Existing renters who win that lottery love it.
Single family home owners love it because all that new comer demand has even less choice.
And it absolutely removes a huge amount of political pressure for building more housing supply, so it is not going to solve or even mitigate homelessness.
Yeah that's wack but I'm pro rent control and I think there can be ways to implement it with out the hiccups you're mentioning.
Things that are harmful to the environment shouldn't go to vote by the electorate. People just want cheap gas. They won't care about road quality and climate change. You need to creative incentives or disincentives to bring about change.I'm surprised the no vote on prop 6 is so prevalent.
SB-1 barely passed, and only with a chunk of the money going towards the areas with swing votes. This would repeal it and let the electorate vote on increases to the gas tax.
Putting aside where the money is going, whether you think high speed rail should be funded, etc., it doesn't seem like a bad thing to put it in the hands of the voters. Also, if the argument against is that more republicans will come out to vote when it's on the ballot, well, I realize people on this forum especially have a hatred for republicans but more voter turnout overall isn't necessarily a bad thing in general.
The other argument I saw in that voter's guide that was linked earlier was that the gas tax in general is a good thing to dissuade drivers.
I'm surprised the no vote on prop 6 is so prevalent.
SB-1 barely passed, and only with a chunk of the money going towards the areas with swing votes. This would repeal it and let the electorate vote on increases to the gas tax.
Putting aside where the money is going, whether you think high speed rail should be funded, etc., it doesn't seem like a bad thing to put it in the hands of the voters. Also, if the argument against is that more republicans will come out to vote when it's on the ballot, well, I realize people on this forum especially have a hatred for republicans but more voter turnout overall isn't necessarily a bad thing in general.
The other argument I saw in that voter's guide that was linked earlier was that the gas tax in general is a good thing to dissuade drivers.
Yeah I think you get me but I'm for the slow decommodification of housing overall. Right now zoning laws are a problem and impedes on new housing being built but simply building more housing doesn't protect lower income residents from being displaced.You may be honestly for it as a way to help those in need, but the masses in SF couldn't get two shits about need.
Every single time the idea of means testing has been proposed, it's been shot down hard by the pro-tenant majority.
Not surprising, given that the last estimate (City can't do an actual survey) puts a majority of RC units in the hands of people making a comfortable six figures.
I'll happily support subsidized rent for those who need it to survive. I have no sympathy for those who are well off and simply won the rent lottery in college.
Yeah I think you get me but I'm for the slow decommodification of housing overall. Right now zoning laws are a problem and impedes on new housing being built but simply building more housing doesn't protect lower income residents from being displaced.
I would propose banning of rental property (outside of zoned hotels) as a way to address the housing issue in the SF Bay Area.
It's a massive shift from what we have now, but it would remove investors from the picture.
Basically, if you own a house, you can either live in it, or maintain it (and pay taxes), but you can't use it for profit.
Don't want to cover the carrying costs on something you're not using? Put it up for sale so someone else can buy it.
Force more liquidity into the market and eliminate housing as a for-profit investment.
Of course not but we all know how this will end up. Giving more power of zoning controls to local municipalities will almost always result in more restrictions.
Voters will almost always vote no on tax increases even if you tell them it's good for them in the long run. It's the job of the representatives to, you know, vote for the interest of thier constituents even if they don't want to swallow the bitter pill. They also see the inner workings of the government and can see that the gas tax is definitely needed.I'm surprised the no vote on prop 6 is so prevalent.
SB-1 barely passed, and only with a chunk of the money going towards the areas with swing votes. This would repeal it and let the electorate vote on increases to the gas tax.
Putting aside where the money is going, whether you think high speed rail should be funded, etc., it doesn't seem like a bad thing to put it in the hands of the voters. Also, if the argument against is that more republicans will come out to vote when it's on the ballot, well, I realize people on this forum especially have a hatred for republicans but more voter turnout overall isn't necessarily a bad thing in general.
The other argument I saw in that voter's guide that was linked earlier was that the gas tax in general is a good thing to dissuade drivers.
I'm trying to get myself informed for voting tomorrow. I'm taking a look at ballotready and votesaveamerica, but are there any other sites that people here might recommend?
DaVita is sponsoring it so that should be a hard nohttps://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_8,_Limits_on_Dialysis_Clinics'_Revenue_and_Required_Refunds_Initiative_(2018) That is interesting that the GOP is against it and the Democrats are sponsoring it.
I would propose banning of rental property (outside of zoned hotels) as a way to address the housing issue in the SF Bay Area.
It's a massive shift from what we have now, but it would remove investors from the picture.
Basically, if you own a house, you can either live in it, or maintain it (and pay taxes), but you can't use it for profit.
Don't want to cover the carrying costs on something you're not using? Put it up for sale so someone else can buy it.
Force more liquidity into the market and eliminate housing as a for-profit investment.
Vote Yes, Dialysis is commonly a medical procedure being intentionally farmed for profits, the patients aren't treated well and many of them are kept on Dialysis just to keep milking them and the entire for-profit Healthcare complex of America. I work in a nursing home and care for multiple dialysis patients daily, their healthcare needs aren't being met at Dialysis clinics, and rarely at the Nursing home either for that fact, they are being farmed for money on both sides, either through Medicaid or Medicare. The entire paradigm of healthcare management vis a vis for-profit companies needs to be reset, this is a small step in the right direction.I've been torn on Prop 8, and until the last minute was going to vote yes out of sheer hatred for DaVita. However, I'll be voting no tomorrow. I don't want to feel responsible for even 1 person not having access to a dialysis clinic that gets closed due to this prop.
Was it one of the lieutenant governors or senators? Because that'd be kind of amusing to gloat about!One of my family just texted me to tell me which Democrat he didn't vote for.
But he did vote almost purely Democrat. Which is.... goddamn amazing for him.
I would propose banning of rental property (outside of zoned hotels) as a way to address the housing issue in the SF Bay Area.
It's a massive shift from what we have now, but it would remove investors from the picture.
Basically, if you own a house, you can either live in it, or maintain it (and pay taxes), but you can't use it for profit.
Don't want to cover the carrying costs on something you're not using? Put it up for sale so someone else can buy it.
Force more liquidity into the market and eliminate housing as a for-profit investment.
After waking up this morning and and reading your post, I'm back to undecided lol. I agree with your argument, which is why I was yes for the most part. I'm going to need all day to think about it some more.Vote Yes, Dialysis is commonly a medical procedure being intentionally farmed for profits, the patients aren't treated well and many of them are kept on Dialysis just to keep milking them and the entire for-profit Healthcare complex of America. I work in a nursing home and care for multiple dialysis patients daily, their healthcare needs aren't being met at Dialysis clinics, and rarely at the Nursing home either for that fact, they are being farmed for money on both sides, either through Medicaid or Medicare. The entire paradigm of healthcare management vis a vis for-profit companies needs to be reset, this is a small step in the right direction.
It's capitalist profit off of socialist healthcare programs, it's a broken system that needs to be chipped away at.
I'm worried that a good portion of you are voting yes on prop 8. It is not good for people on dialysis. All it does is help insurance companies.
Vote Yes, Dialysis is commonly a medical procedure being intentionally farmed for profits, the patients aren't treated well and many of them are kept on Dialysis just to keep milking them and the entire for-profit Healthcare complex of America. I work in a nursing home and care for multiple dialysis patients daily, their healthcare needs aren't being met at Dialysis clinics, and rarely at the Nursing home either for that fact, they are being farmed for money on both sides, either through Medicaid or Medicare. The entire paradigm of healthcare management vis a vis for-profit companies needs to be reset, this is a small step in the right direction.
It's capitalist profit off of socialist healthcare programs, it's a broken system that needs to be chipped away at.