california
- Gavin Newsom
- Cal Dems
- Diabetes research
- University of California regents
- No one organized group
- Main argument: it’s a $5B bond issue we can’t afford right now, even if it’s probably a good thing.
- Everyone
- CA Republicans
- Coalition of industrial property owners
- Cal Dems
- Everyone else
- Cal GOP
- Everyone
- CA Republicans
- Gavin Newson
- CA Dems
- ACLU
- Not really anyone
- Everyone
- ACLU
- CA Republicans
- Police associations
- Albertsons Safeway?
- CA Dems
- ACLU
- Bernie
- Employee unions
- Underlying theme of endorsements: “let cities decide which policies make sense for them at the local level.”
- Gavin Newsom
- Builders unions
- Underlying theme of opposition: “Will reduce incentive to build affordable housing.”
- GOP
- Police unions
- Chambers of commerce
- Everyone else
- Healthcare workers union. This would require clinics to hire more workers. It’s a job handout.
- Cal Dems
- Cal Republicans, oddly enough
- Cal Medical Association. Doctors are saying this isn’t necessary.
- Cal Nurses union
- Some CA Democrats
- CA firefighters union?
- Republicans
- Greens
- CA nurses association
- ACLU
- Everyone
- ACLU doesn’t like the new assessment system, which is a legit concern.
- Aney
- Little
- Williams
- Codiga
- White
California now requires credit card companies to assign a merchant category code to gun stores. Stripe has a list with 294 already used codes including Electric Razor Stores (5997); Glassware, Crystal Stores (5950); Massage Parlors (7297); and Shoe Repair/Hat Cleaning (7251).
Gun advocacy extremists make it sound like credit card companies are trying to do something new and unique to punish gun stores. In reality the law creates 1 more category alongside the few hundred others.
Newsom vetoed self-driving truck bill
California governor Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill that would have required self-driving vehicles to have a human driver.
“Considering the longstanding commitment of my administration to addressing the present and future challenges for work and workers in California, and the existing regulatory framework that presently and sufficiently governs this particular technology, this bill is not needed at this time,” Newsom wrote. “For these reasons, I cannot sign this bill.”"
Good. I don’t see this as a safety issue so much as a make-work law. If a human would have to be in a self-driving truck at all times and ready to assume the controls at a moment’s notice, that’s basically human-driven with extra steps. Either the tech is good enough to be autonomous, or it’s not good enough to replace a human driver in the first place. And as a driver, I don’t think I’d want to be legally responsible for whatever boneheaded move a truck might take in the moments before I could regain control over it. “Hey, I know it was the AI that decided to swerve into the crowd of toddlers, and you only had 300ms to respond, but you were the one sitting in the driver’s seat…”
I’m not thrilled with ending human jobs without giving those people a way to survive. Even if I weren’t sympathetic to those hard-working people who are ready and willing to do the tough jobs that keep society running (and I hope it’s obvious that I am), enlightened self-interest means that I don’t want all of them to be unemployed and hungry. That’s bad for everyone. I also wish we shipped more freight via train, which is cheaper and way more environmentally friendly. Making it easier and cheaper to carry even more via truck is probably the wrong process to optimize.
Still, I think this bill was a well meaning but ultimately wrong solution. Frankly, it seems like it’d be cheaper and more efficient to pay those drivers to stay home than to pay them to perch in a self-driving truck.
California 2022 Midterms Voting Guide
These are my recommendations for the November 8, 2022 midterm election in California.
Propositions
Direct democracy looks like a great idea on paper. In practice, we end up with awful laws like Prop 8. Because it’s so hard to remove bad propositions once they’re approved, it’s better to vote “no” on ballot propositions you’re unsure about. If it’s a great idea — or even a bad one, in the case of Prop 29’s predecessors — the proposers can try again in a later election. You can always choose to approve it next time.
Proposition 1 — Reproductive Freedom
Yes. Explicitly protect abortion rights at the state constitution level.
Proposition 26 — Casino Sports Betting
No. This isn’t so important that we need to write it into law.
Proposition 27 — Online Sports Betting
No. This isn’t so important that we need to write it into law. Note that some advertising makes it sound like you have to pick one of Prop 26 or Prop 27. That’s untrue, and you can vote “no” or “yes” to either, both, or neither, as you wish.
Proposition 28 — School Arts
Yes. California has decent support for STEM education. We should also support creative arts. We have a record budget surplus and should invest in all our students.
Proposition 29 — Dialysis Clinics
No, and stop asking. This terrible idea keeps arising every couple of years. We’ve said repeatedly that we don’t want to enshrine this mistake into the California constitution, and we still don’t.
Proposition 30 — Electric Vehicle Subsidies
No. I’m ambivalent. When in doubt, say “no”.
Proposition 31 — Enforce the Flavored Tobacco Bans
Yes. The tobacco industry worked to block enacting a widely supported law that would make it harder for them to market “fun” vape flavors to kids. California has already chosen this legislation. Now let’s defeat Tobacco’s efforts to stop it.
November 2020 Voting Guide
These are the notes I collected to determine how I’m going to vote on November 3, 2020. I’m posting this not to tell you how you should vote, but to share my reasons for why I’m voting this way.
United States
President
Biden is the only serious candidate.
Congress
U.S. House California District 13
Barbara Lee (D, Incumbent)
California
State Assembly District 18
Rob Bonta (D, Incumbent)
State Senate District 9
Nancy Skinner (D, Incumbent)
Ballot measures
Prop 14: Stem Cell Research Institute Bond Initiative
Slightly oppose: It’s a good thing to research and support in general, but this isn’t a good time to incur more public debt.
For
Against
Prop 15: Tax on Commercial and Industrial Properties for Education and Local Government Funding Initiative
Support. Raises taxes on large companies while specifically exempting houses, farms, and small businesses.
For
Against
Prop 16: Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment
Support. Prop 209 ended affirmative action. This doesn’t bring it back, but allows it to be considered when it makes sense.
For
Against
Prop 17: Voting Rights Restoration for Persons on Parole Amendment
Support. If someone’s done their time, then they should be able to participate in society again.
For
Against
Prop 18: Primary Voting for 17-Year-Olds Amendment
Mildly support. It seems goofy to allow a 17 year old to vote in the primary for someone they can’t vote for in the actual election, but it’s probably not the end of the world
First time we have a record turnout because a YouTuber urges everyone to support Deez Nuts for the CA Democrat nomination, I’ll protest this with a pitchfork.
For
Against
Prop 19: Property Tax Transfers, Exemptions, and Revenue for Wildfire Agencies and Counties Amendment
Oppose. This is charity for the rich. You can sell your house and transfer the low tax basis to a new, more expensive house three times? No way. It has some good ideas but we should weigh them in a standalone proposition, or better, a state bill.
For
Against
Prop 20: Criminal Sentencing, Parole, and DNA Collection Initiative
Oppose. This is a charity to the prison systems. Collecting DNA on shoplifters and drug possessors? WTF.
For
Against
Prop 21: Local Rent Control Initiative
Support. It makes sense to let cities experiment. If it doesn’t work locally, change it. What’s good in Oakland may suck in San Diego and vice versa.
For
Against
Prop 22: App-Based Drivers as Contractors and Labor Policies Initiative
Oppose: This is some bullshit charity for Uber, Lyft, and Door Dash.
Everything about this seems to be a lie. For example, it provides a good minimum wage, but only while the drive is actively on a run, not when they’re between runs.
For
Against
Prop 23: Dialysis Clinic Requirements Initiative
Oppose: No, and stop asking. No one wants this. As a prop, it’s super hard to get rid of if it turns out to be a horrible idea.
For
Against
Prop 24: Consumer Personal Information Law and Agency Initiative
Oppose. I generally support privacy laws, but this has issues. The EFF described Proposition 24 as “a mixed bag of partial steps backwards and forwards.” I’m very skeptical of a privacy bill that the EFF doesn’t actively endorse.
Come back next election with a better version and I’ll totally back it.
For
Against
Prop 25: Replace Cash Bail with Risk Assessments Referendum
Support. End the cash bail system. Don’t let “perfect” be the enemy of “good”. This is a good idea.
For
Against
Alameda County
AC Transit District
Director At-large
Peeples (Endorsed by papers. Opponents aren’t bad, but Peeples is more experienced and seems to be pretty good at this.)
Peralta Community College District Trustee
Heyman (Incumbent; opponent doesn’t have much reason to vote for him.)
Superior Court
Condes (Supported by majority of progressive groups. Opponent isn’t awful, though.)
Measure V: Sales Tax
Support. Extends the existing sales tax.
Measure W: Sales Tax
Lightly oppose. Good to fund housing and services, but we’re already slammed with super high sales taxes and that feels regressive.
City of Alameda
Auditor
Kearney (unopposed)
AUSD board
(Best profiles, and endorsed by groups that seemed relevant.)
City Council
(By ruling out other candidates, not as an endorsement of these)
Measure AA
Mildly support. It’s goofy that voters are being asked to rule on this petty internal bickering, but here we are.
Measure Z
Mildly oppose. Allows altering existing 3-bedroom homes into 2 1-bedroom. Parking and traffic are already bad. We couldn’t live in Alameda if we couldn’t find 3-bedroom housing.
Treasurer
Kennedy (unopposed)