|
In the extremely unlikely event Calexit happens, it won't be a force of arms thing. It'll be a combination of Trumpian "Murica, love 'er or leave 'er" tea partiers and movement conservatives letting the possibility of perpetual federal majorities override their better judgement.
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2017 07:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 16:13 |
|
|
 Even with no tech boom, SF would still have a housing crisis. There's not enough housing growth to cover population growth, even ignoring people concentrating in cities and places with good job markets.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2018 06:21
|
|
|
The idea of comparing SF housing to US population is that the only way SF avoids a housing crises at it's historical building levels is by having stagnant growth for the last forty years If you merge San Francisco and San Mateo counties to get the whole peninsula, the '70s are flat, '80s and '90s are +0.75%/year, and the '00s are +0.25%/year. Bay area as a whole (SF+all surrounding counties) are about +1%/year for the whole time. I can't find housing stats for the other counties to look at peninsula and bay area housing growth.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2018 08:29
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:Ok, this one happens in LA a lot. A developer will take an old lot, or a strip mall, or a Burger King, and create Lofts, Luxe Apartments or Condos/Townhomes whose base rent (for like a studio 403sqft) is some ridiculous multiplier of what same rents in the area are. If you're building 400sqft units, you're turning that old lot/strip mall/burger king into super dense housing, which is good and lowers housing prices. If you're offering places far above market, no one will lease them. You only get huge rent discrepancies between equivalent places when rent control comes into play. If a $2650 studio is getting rented out, the $950 one isn't actually available for someone moving into the area or changing apartments. 'Luxury apartment' doesn't really mean anything besides the building being new. Putting modern style interiors in a new apartment building costs the same as older style stuff, and no one is going to purposely choose things that are out of fashion. A luxury apartment today will be a middle-of-the road apartment in 10 years when the finishes are scuffed up and tastes have changed.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2018 05:50
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:
I don't think the development is pricing you out of your 1980's apartment, more people wanting to live in the area than it has capacity is. You can give the existing housing to: - rich people by letting rents go up to market supply vs demand pricing. Everyone else gets pushed out - old residents with rent control. This excludes new people and screws anyone who wants to change apartments and can't find/doesn't want a roommate to piggy-back off of. It also encourages landlords to hate their tenants and do no maintenance to try to get people to leave. - lucky people by allocating units as below-market pricing. Good for them, doesn't help anyone else. You can reduce demand by having the local economy suck, or adding crime, or having a bunch of racism, but those are all bad. Adding capacity is the only long-term solution that doesn't screw some people over. It will 'change the character of the neighborhood', but everything does that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2018 08:51
|
|
|
Sydin posted:I changed jobs early this year and got a COBRA packet for the lull between gigs. It was going to be something insane like $1300 for 4 weeks of COBRA coverage. So my options were: COBRA has a weird retroactive thing. You can opt in up to 60 days after leaving your last job and get retroactive coverage. So if you get hit by a car in your uninsured window, you retroactively enroll, pay the $1300/month back to when you left your job, and are fine. It's dumb and confusing.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2018 04:37
|
|
)
|
San Francisco style rent control (caps annual rent increase at 60% of inflation rate) is effectively Prop 13, just on a different pool of people. - It rewards people who arrived a long time ago over newcomers. - Identical places right next to each other have widely different tax bills/rents. - People who have a locked in below-market property tax rate/rent have enormous financial incentive to never move/sell. - People are decoupled from the housing marked and motivated to preserve neighborhood character/protect views/etc instead of densifying
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2018 06:02
|
|
|
20 years is long enough that building a new building is reasonably likely to earn your investment back. The problem is that rent control creates a large class of people who don't have any reason to care about rental prices anymore, but do want their neighborhoods to stay the same. So they're incentivized to block development. I'm not sure I believe that Prop 13 people generally want housing prices to go up. Yes, it makes their paper net worth go up (which some people care about), but they don't actually get that unless they move. I think they mostly care about keeping everything around them the same (i.e. no transit here (it'll bring the poors), no highrises (it'll block my view), no denser housing (traffic), ...). Ultimately you have more people that want to live somewhere than housing available, so someone loses.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2018 07:35
|
|
|
Rent control and massive building/densification would be fine, I just don't see how you can get them together. Take San Francisco for example The western half of the city is all 1 story single family home over garages (pic is a random spot in street view) like these  To improve housing supply, things like this need to be replaced by apartments. Currently those areas are zoned for single unit per lot, not to exceed 40'  All of the light yellow is one unit per lot. Map When people try to get zoning changed, there's lots of opposition from the people who live there already because they don't want the places they live to change and they're insulated from the housing market as long as they don't move, so they aren't forced to care.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2018 01:46
|
|
|
The map link goes to the full size pdf. The yellow tones range from 1-3 units per lot It's not one unit per numbered rectangle on the map, it's one unit per lot (unit of land that can be bought or sold) for the lots in that rectangle. Each rectangles is a block that is zoned as a unit. Everything in that picture up to the next crossstreet is one rectangle on the zoning map.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2018 03:11
|
|
|
Don't need skyscrapers, just 5-6 story buildings replacing 1-2 story ones. Paris's height limit was 120ft in the 70's, recently raised to 590ft. SF is mostly 40ft
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2018 05:00
|
|
|
It is a fair amount of work, but you can go to http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions-slip.htm?Courts=A or http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions-nonpub.htm?Courts=A for the appropriate district and get a listing of cases. Not all judges hear all cases, but you can pretty quickly open the pdf and search for their names to find ones they did rule on. Then you can read it and decide if you think they're being sane. (The one case I found for Richman in 30 secs of checking was him ruling that a trial court judge who improperly prompted the prosecutor to ask about some specific elements of a crime was a harmless error and the conviction should stand. The case was about a guy who rammed his truck into a women who turned him down for a date, then fled the scene and led the police on a chase. The question was about a forward facing red lamp specifically vs generic "lights and siren" for establishing the evading police charge (http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/A152474.PDF). You probably want to find something more controversial to base your opinion on)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2018 04:53
|
|
|
RevKrule posted:I mean in terms of new residents or people who moved (or new adults inside the state). Basically anyone who's never rented before. Wouldn't they end up having to pay a new "market" rate that they'd be locked into for increases? Kind of. Current law: - Cities may not limit rent increases for existing tenants in single family homes - Cities may not limit rent increases for existing tenants in apartments constructed after 1995 (with some grandfathering for places with existing law) - Cities may not limit the initial rent for any new tenant Prop 10 removes those restrictions and leaves it up to the cities to decide what kind of rent control (if any) they want. A city could do any of these: - Everyone pays market rate. Privileges rich renters. - Existing tenants have rent increases capped, new tenants pay market rate. Privileges existing renters. - Units have rent increases capped regardless of tenant changes. Privileges well-connected renters or any mismash based on building age, tenant income, or whatever You should decide your vote based on: 1) how likely you think cities are to adopt various rules 2) how fair you think each of those rules are at choosing who gets it when demand exceeds supply 3) how you think those rules will impact the rate that new housing is built
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2018 05:17
|
|
|
Shear Modulus posted:How does capping rent increases paid by all renters benefit only "well-connected" (to whom?) renters? If you're a landlord in a high demand area and the price you can charge is fixed, you're looking for a tenant whose income is big enough and job is stable (so they'll pay the rent on time), and has decent references/doesn't seem insane. Beyond that, they're all pretty much interchangeable. You can probably find someone during the last tenant's 30 days notice without trying very hard (landlords mostly wait normally because they can get higher rent for someplace that's empty, clean, and can be shown whenever someone wants to come by and it more than compensates for the time it's empty between people). Most cheap places will probably be "the last tenant is still here, we're showing it on date X for an hour or two, someone will have rented it by the end of the day" or skip ads entirely. It's not a horrible outcome or anything, but any system (including free market) is solving how to allocate housing when there's more people who want to live somewhere than places to put them. Someone gets pushed out, so think about who that is and if it's ok. And think about how the system impacts building new supply, since that's going to be what determines housing pressure in the future.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2018 05:04
|
|
|
bitprophet posted:Anyone got useful guidance about which state supreme court justices to vote yea/nay on? I remember hearing that Carol Corrigan is against same-sex marriage but the rest are blank faces to me at the moment (& unsurprisingly, most voting guides like Ballotpedia or CalMatters tend to ignore it entirely). I'll post links to opinions from the ones in my district when I get there, but it'll take me awhile to chew through stuff. None of them have been too bad except for one somewhat dubious judgement about whether a probation restriction is unconstitutionally vague.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2018 23:48
|
|
|
I'm about halfway through digging through cases for div 1 court of appeals. The judges have been surprisingly sane so far. Interesting/Potentially controversial Cases (click to go to opinion): People vs Eric Jones Maria Miller wrote this, James A. Richman concurred. Both are up for approval votes. Another justice who is not up for approval dissented. The defendant was accused of a series of car break ins. The prosecutor asked for and got terrible+confusing jury instructions in the trial that everyone now agrees were improper. The question is whether the jury instructions effectively told the jury to use a lower standard of proof (a structural error so that Jones automatically gets a new trial) or if it's evaluated on whether it reasonably could have changed the outcome (which he probably loses on, there's a whole lot of good evidence against him). Miller and Richman conclude it is not a structural error and did not change the trial outcome, so no new trial People vs James Samuel Bilbry James A. Richman concurred on this. The defendant attacked a guy outside a bar with a knife, blinding/paralyzing part of his face/almost killing him. He was convicted of attempted murder in trial court, and then successfully raised a habeus argument about ineffective assistance of counsel argument. The trial court ordered a new trial. The state appealed the habeus argument, but didn't move for a stay of the motion requiring a new trial and didn't schedule a new trial within 60 days. Bilbry moved to dismiss on speedy trial grounds after 60+ days went by with no trial scheduled and the trial court granted it. The prosecution appealed the dismissal. Richman concludes that the dismissal stands. Essentially the prosecution needs to not gently caress up. People vs Paige Tillie Linville Maria Miller wrote this This one would be an episode of Law and Order if they were still making those. Linville and her boyfriend picked up a homeless woman, drove her to a remote location, then shot and killed her. The morning after, they shot and killed a woman out walking her dog. They had no motive beyond wanting to see what it was like to kill someone. A few days later, Linville drove the car they used to another county and traded it. During the investigation while it was still focused on the boyfriend, Linville plead guilty to being an accessory after the fact for disposing of the car and served 2 years in jail. The boyfriend's murder trial was ongoing. Later, Linville was charged and convicted of murder. CA has a procedural rule that requires all crimes related to one course of conduct be charged in the same trial (i.e. if I break into a building, steal some stuff, and flee the police, the prosecutor can't have separate three separate trials for burglary, theft, and evading the police). Linville argues that the rule bars her murder trial. The prosecutor argues that A. getting rid of the car and the murders are separate enough that they can be separate trials, and alternatively B. they didn't have sufficient evidence at the time of the first trial (this is an exception to the procedural rule). [They evidence they didn't have is mostly Linville bragging in jail about getting away with it and her (ex)boyfriend testifying against her] The court ruled that the two crimes are sufficiently far apart, so they don't need to decide B. *dun dun* People vs LO Alison M. Tucher wrote this, Jon B. Streeter concurred A minor is objecting to terms of his probation after an assault conviction. Most of his objections are lost to procedural things because they weren't brought up in lower court. The surviving ones and the opinion's rulings are: - "the Minor shall obey all rules and regulations of said facilities in which he is placed" is not unconstitutionally vague - "attend school regularly without tardiness or unexcused absence or participate in a vocational training program or seek and maintain full-time employment, and shall behave at all times while in school" is not unconstitutionally vague - "The Minor shall not access or participate in any Social Networking Site, including but not limited to Facebook.com. All internet usage is subject to monitoring by Probation, parents or school officials" is not unconstitutionally vague regarding who is a school official, but is overbroad and gets a "subject to monitoring by Probation, parents or school officials" tacked onto the no facebook part People vs Elio Gutierrez Alison M. Tucher wrote this, Jon B. Streeter concurred This is about DUI and BAC testing. US Supreme Court has held that you don't need a warrant to force brethalyzer tests after arresting someone for a DUI but you do for a blood test. In this case, the defendant was arrested, told he had to do one or the other, he picked the blood test, and one was done without a warrant. Is this admissible? The court says yes, allowing a non-blood test choice nullifies the need for a warrant. People vs Jonathon Jackson Jon B. Streeter concurred This is about a grand jury where the prosecutor dismissed a juror at the beginning for knowing the victim in a kidnapping/rape/murder trial. This is improper. The foreperson of the grand jury is supposed to be the one to do it. The court rejects the argument that this is a sufficient violation of due process to throw out the indictment National Lawyers Guild vs Hayward Peter John Siggins concurred This is about a FOIA request for police bodycam footage at a protest against police violence. It's about whether the city or the requestor pays the cost of reviewing and redacting the footage. It turns on what "extract" means. The appeals court overrules the trial court and allow the city to charge the requester, mostly based on a legislative history argument that seems annoyingly legit. Also the Hayward police apparently use Windows Movie Maker to redact video. People vs Ramin Ahmed Peter John Siggins wrote this This is about a guy who ran a medical pot dispensary in Livermore. Livermore bans dispensaries by ordinance. The trial court barred him from raising a medical pot defense to the drug posession/transport/money laundering charges based on dispensaries being forbidden in Livermore. The appeals court overrules that essentially saying that Livermore's ordinance is irrelevant in criminal cases. He can be fined for violating the ordinance, but it is a valid defense criminally. Other random cases that seemed reasonably settled to me: - Indian tribe that signed a contract with a construction firm can be forced into arbitration. The arbitration clause they signed waives their soverign immunity. Also, the firm doesn't have to exhaust tribal court remedies first because no tribal court existed when they filed suit [also it is six years later, the tribal court still does not exist] (Richman) - If your parents take out a loan they know they can't repay and spend it on tuition, the creditor can't use fraudulent transfer law to say that the student is liable for it. (Margulies) - If you are convicted of "damaging a telephone line or mechanical equipment connected to the line" (which is apparently a particular crime) being too drunk to know better is not a defense, even though the statue says 'maliciously' (Humes)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2018 07:34
|
|
|
bumming your scene posted:So just every person that runs for judge gets to be judge I guess When there is a judge vacancy, the governor nominates someone, they serve until the next general election. Then the voters approve/disapprove. If approved, they serve a 12 year term. If disapproved, there is a new judge vacancy and the governor nominates someone else.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2018 05:24
|
|
|
The precincts that have reported are not representative; current results have Cox beating Newsom by +2. They're useful for seeing that if a conservative prop has failed already, it's probably going to fail harder once liberal areas report, but conservative things that are winning now may/will flip.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2018 05:33
|
|
|
I think 11's actual effect is pretty much limited to whether ambulance companies are liable for their past labor violations. (And that bit still may get thrown out of Prop 11 by the courts regardless). As far as I understand it, the change to labor law going forward is basically the same as the law changes the union and companies compromised on last year, but that bill died in the state senate after passing the house with disagreement about whether it would be retroactive. So it's a money transfer from EMTs to the companies, but doesn't have public safety impacts. 3 failing is the one I'm surprised at. I would have thought "Water Infrastructure! (but mostly agriculture handouts)" would have picked up enough low-information liberal voters + high-information central valley voters to sneak through.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2018 08:30
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:Did the good school guy or bad school guy win? Tuck or something? Bad school guy is winning by 140kvotes
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2018 10:06
|
|
|
life is a joke posted:Or hopefully unionize They already did. The whole reason prop 11 exists is because the union and AMR didn't agree about whether their deal for how to handle being on call during breaks would be retroactive. AMR basically took the deal they had with the union, added "it's retroactive", and submitted it as a prop, figuring that the cost of doing that * the chance of it passing and surviving court challenge was cheaper than settling the existing lawsuits
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2018 17:42
|
|
|
In practice, we don't elect judges. The governor appoints them and the vote rubber-stamps them. They don't bother to campaign and aren't ever rejt
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2018 18:13
|
|
|
In the short term, there are more people that want to live in SF than there are places to put them. Rent control/lack of rent control allocates those houses to current residents/rich people which screwing over people who want to move/poor people. Choosing to favor current residents isn't a terrible answer to a crappy situation. In the long term, housing only gets better if supply goes up or demand goes down. Making demand go down is undesirable. For making supply go up, denser housing gets built by the private sector if it's (1) long-term profitable, (2) capital is available to build, and (3) zoning allows it. In SF, (1) and (2) are true and the main obstacle is (3). Publicly owned housing would also be an option, but would be ludicrously expensive and won't happen politically. Attempts to upzone get met with community opposition from people that own and people with rent control. They reasonably don't want their neighborhoods to change and the housing crises doesn't impact them personally (rent control for the renters, prop 13 for the owners). Local officials respond to pressure from current residents, not hypothetical future residents, and keep zoning restrictions. It's also hard to demolish anything because renters can unilaterally renew their leases and rent increases are pegged to below inflation, so voluntarily moving is a horrible idea unless you're leaving the area. If I were god emperor of housing policy I would: - Extend rent control to all housing - Tie rates to units instead of occupant - Upzone everything with no community input - Raise the max rent increase to inflation+2% so increasing rents hurt everyone - Allow landlords to not renew leases if they have permits filed for demolishing and replacing with something 50% denser. If plans fall through and they re-rent the same unit, cap its new rent at previous rent - 10% But if Prop 10 had passed, what I think SF actually would have done is extend rent control to all housing at its current rates and nothing else. Which would be a short-term relief and make the long-term situation worse. The status quo at least eventually fixes things, it just unnecessarily grinds out a lot of people first.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2018 09:58
|
|
|
GATOS Y VATOS posted:Paris-style 6 story buildings. Lots of new housing, and it would still have decent views. They're also way cheaper. 6 story mid rises can be built with wood framing instead of steel.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2018 04:58
|
|
|
Sydin posted:So I just got a postcard in the mail and apparently San Jose is switching residents over to a new energy provider. It's not complete freedom from PG&E: sounds like they still own the infrastructure and I'm still billed through them, but the bulk of my power is going to be purchased by the city and from at least 45% renewables, with an option for purchasing 100% renewable. Also it's supposed to be cheaper but that sounds like veering into loving magic territory so I'll have to wait to see my first couple bills after the switch over in the next month. Seems like a good thing though? SF has had a similar thing for a few years. Service/outages are identical to PG&E since they run the distribution network, the municipal part just does generation. Costwise, the prices go PG&E 33% renewables < municipal 40% renewables < municipal 100% renewables < PG&E 100% renewables So cheaper if you want to buy renewables, more expensive if you're fine with gas/coal
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2019 05:43
|
|
|
The Supremacy Clause is a thing. This is not exotic or unsettled law. If California passed a law criminalizing ICE enforcement and arrested an federal ICE agent, the conviction would be overturned almost immediately. California can't nullify federal immigration law any more than Arkansas could nullify federal civil rights law (they tried). California can't be compelled to help enforce immigration, but can't block the federal government spending their own resources on it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2019 08:21
|
|
|
Admiral Ray posted:I can't quite understand that last bit about when assistance would be triggered. Is that stating that relocation assistance would be triggered when evicting due to a failure to pay rent or breaking the lease agreement? It's a really strong renter protection if so. Text of thing going into effect August 1 unless amended (which it sounds like they've put off doing) The way I read it: - If evicted for nonpayment of rent or breaking lease, no payment required - If rent on offered renewal of lease goes up by 10%/year, tenant can say nope and get (payment - any delinquent rent). - If lease has an early terminate for renovations clause and landlord uses it, tenant gets (payment - any delinquent rent). - If tenant has been there a year, is current on rent, hasn't damaged stuff, and hasn't harassed people in the building + landlord doesn't offer a renewal, tenant gets payment. If tenant got a payment but didn't actually leave on time, they owe the payment back + whatever other penalties are in the lease and don't get anything when they do leave. Exceptions: - If landlord or family member moving into unit - Building is being condemned after natural disaster - Unit has rent control - Landlord lives in same building - Landlord owns exactly building in Long Beach and that building has exactly 4 units (not two, not three, exactly four only  )- Unit built after Feb 1 1995 No idea why people want to except condos that wouldn't be covered by the self occupy or a less stupidly worded low unit number exception besides sucking up to condo owners
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2019 04:39
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:Did they have like several small lakes available? Because that pyre was like 3/4 as tall as the skyscraper across from it. It scorched freeway signs across the damned 110, and melted the glass on the nearest office building. It may not have made any difference to the outcome, but that shouldn't be an excuse to dodge the fine for violating an OSHA rule for fire safety on the jobsite. They would pay that if they got caught even without any fire.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2019 23:20
|
|
|
This isn't from that; UCSC grad students are part of UAW 2865, which is a NRLB recognized union. Essentially, the UCSC students think the contract UAW 2865 negotiated (and was ratified in a vote across UC grad students in 2018) sucks and want to try to renegotiate it, UAW 2865 leadership doesn't want to/can't legally do that. NLRB rules doesn't allow employees to drop out of an existing union and form a new one in the middle of an existing contract (+/- a bunch of exceptions that don't apply). The existing contract essentially says "in exchange for this wage scale/benefits, the union won't call a strike+no protections for anyone who does strike". The law allows trading away freedom to call a strike for benefits, and the current union did so, so UCSC students don't have any legal leg to stand on till the contract runs out in 2022. They're trying to get concessions via wildcat strike, but they won't get any legal protections or support from the union. In happier news, turns out voting works. After electing a better DA, San Francisco prosecutors office has new policies: - Decline to file charges for anything found during a pretextual traffic stop. If the police pull someone over for a bullshit reason, no charges for anything they find when searching a card - Recommended sentences will ignore 3 strikes law - Recommended sentences will ignore 'gang association' enhancement (Police union is predictably being whiny babies about it)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2020 23:50
|
|
|
slicing up eyeballs posted:uaw2865 repeatedly submitted requests to bargain with UC over cola. uc ignored these requests, instead trying to (illegally) meet with the strikers. if the union were to support the wildcat strikes otherwise they'd probably be sued into oblivion. union members can individually support them/attend rallies on personal time etc though, and many do, especially after the firings. uaw5810, a sister academic union, has drafted/submitted a letter of support for 2865's requests to bargain. would also add that no strike clauses are bullshit but they're also extremely common in union contracts, my history isn't great but I thought that convention came in around the same time as single union shops etc Existing contract explicitly says neither side has any obligation to consider renegotiating terms. Legally, the strikers aren't a union, they're individual employees acting for themselves (which is why UC's NRLB complaint against UAW 2865 is also going to fail). No-strike clauses are just the flip side of management not being able to unilaterally cancel the contract either. If you're negotiating a fixed term agreement, both sides are bound by it. If you're negotiating something open ended, either side can cancel at will. You could change the law so a union isn't allowed to give up strike ability, but offering predictability is worth a lot in negotiations. I can't think of what a good process would be for recovering a situation like this one where one side commits to something stupid and untenable. The business half could do chapter 11 bankruptcy to force renegotiation, but I don't think there's a mirror process for labor (and especially not here where it's only a subgroup of the bigger union)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2020 05:33
|
|
|
San Francisco elects two public defenders and a tenant's rights lawyer to superior court judge  . Also vacancy tax on commercial storefronts passes.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2020 10:11
|
|
|
Here's hoping all wrong thinking politicians have a scary, but ultimately harmless brush with coronavirus and emerge with a newfound appreciation for public health and the importance of universal healthcare?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2020 03:53
|
|
|
Sundae posted:I know a ton of people who are wearing masks thinking it protects them, not others. I had to explain that to literally all my operators when they started grabbing N95 masks out of our storage room to protect themselves. Surgical masks contain droplets from the person wearing them. Properly worn N95 respirators block droplets from coming in (and if they have exhalation valves, don't block going out)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2020 08:25
|
|
|
Rodenthar Drothman posted:Southern Californian spotted. This is the California thread, not the Pacific Northwest thread 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2020 23:59
|
|
|
Driving for Uber and Lyft simultaneously is the thing that's most likely to mess up employee claims. That does legitimately not look like a normal employer-employee relationship.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2020 00:13
|
|
|
It's weird for figuring out hours. If I'm sitting waiting for a fare with both Uber and Lyft apps open: - who pays me minimum wage for that time? - does it count against both for overtime? - when do I become a full-time employee?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2020 01:06
|
|
|
Aeka 2.0 posted:Just saw that she has to test in her own county. Rapid tests aren't covered by insurance and are "too much" as she put it. So loving now what? Assume she has it, quarantine until symptoms gone for 2 weeks, go to ER if having difficulty getting enough oxygen. If she has a job that forces her to work unless she has a positive test, Testing for non-severe cases is for getting people to actually quarantine and epidemiology, it doesn't change how they are treated.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2020 22:42
|
|
|
I don't think anyone is arguing they're less resistant to new housing, just that for every landlord there's 1000 homeowners. So in terms of voting for local elections/showing up to whine at planning meetings, most of the no-housing voices are homeowners.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2020 20:32
|
|
|
It's plausible to me that bureaucrats on a planning commission actually do listen mostly to a bunch of current residents complaining during the community input meeting part of a project. They're not usually elected, plus property developers will have just as many lobbying dollars as existing landlords. I think the best solution would be to do zoning and planning on a regional basis and just ignore local community concerns. It's a lot easier to get people to agree to something like "the bay area needs more housing" than "building a 5-story apartment complex in my neighborhood is fine". You would need careful rules to not just dump all building disruption onto poor areas, but (1) that's happening now anyway and it's easier to assign fair development quotas to areas at a regional level, and (2) building nothing is just screwing the poor in slow motion.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2020 21:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 16:13 |
|
|
DeadFatDuckFat posted:Just the worst (California) weather in the bay area right now. Hot dry thunderstorm, windy as gently caress all night, humidity up. Its only going to get hotter too. Expectin more blackouts San Francisco at least is supposed to drop back down to mid 70's according to what I've seen. Oakland/San Jose look like they're supposed to peak tomorrow then get better
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2020 20:17
|
|