Author Topic: 2020 California Propositions  (Read 1017 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline GoatGeneral

  • Tourist
  • *
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 3
  • -Received: 0
  • Posts: 10
Re: 2020 California Propositions
« Reply #15 on: October 10, 2020, 03:58:18 PM »
Prop 14 - No. This is not needed at the State level, it would be a waste of money.
Prop 15 - Yes. Though the $3 million limit seems low. Many small businesses will be hurt. Though Disney will finally pay?
Prop 16 - No. Affirmative action is BS. It is racism against whites and asians and others. This kind of effort would make more sense if done via low socioeconomic status (not race!)
Prop 17 - No. Do your time for the crime and then you can vote.
Prop 18 - No. We are not changing the voting age from 18 to 17.5 or whatever
Prop 19 - No. This one is SUPER SHADY. The good parts are a distraction from the crippling of family inheritance ($1 mil gain is nothing in CA over a decades period). Also, the increased revenues, which apply to the population as a whole, go directed to mainly the Fire Dept. How does that make any sense?? But god forbid anyone question the funding of the fire agencies right now. Smart political play. SUPER SHADY
Prop 20 - Yes. We let all the animals out because of the horrible laws that were passed a few years ago. This helps a little.
Prop 21 - No. Rent Control!?!?! Enough said
Prop 22 - Yes. Don't kill the gig economy because people can't afford healthcare. Fix that shit yourself (yes, seriously!)  instead of forcing Uber/Lyft/etc to do so.
Prop 23 - No. Dialysis centers are not rocket science, don't need to pay a lazy doc to do nothing
Prop 24 - Not sure, something smells fishy, need to dig into it a bit more..
Prop 25 - Yes. Get rid of the BS Bail/Bond scam

Offline spootieho

  • O.C. Resident
  • ***
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 153
  • -Received: 83
  • Posts: 883
  • Somewhere in Irvine
Re: 2020 California Propositions
« Reply #16 on: October 10, 2020, 04:35:28 PM »
If we allow people on parole to vote, then why not also allow all prisoners to vote? 

Offline AW

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 45
  • -Received: 168
  • Posts: 1728
Re: 2020 California Propositions
« Reply #17 on: October 10, 2020, 07:36:26 PM »
Prop 15- Yes. It's not perfect, but most of the BS about costs being passed on is BS. Imagine two stores are next door, a Home Depot and a Lowes. One pays property taxes based on 1980 rates and pays $10,000/yr, the other pays $1,000,000/yr. Right the store with the lower base is just pocketing the profits.

Hmm... I don’t think I like this prop.  I think the $3m may be too low, but even then I’m still against it. 

Given your example, if one bought in 1980, that means they invested in California for decades, and they should reap their reward for investing their time and resources for their business. They’ve provided jobs, paid taxes, etc for decades. 

I see many businesses get shut down from this since they can’t pay the new tax rate, and what will come of this, maybe more dense housing in its place?

Offline spootieho

  • O.C. Resident
  • ***
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 153
  • -Received: 83
  • Posts: 883
  • Somewhere in Irvine
Re: 2020 California Propositions
« Reply #18 on: October 11, 2020, 10:05:55 PM »
Looking at money spent campaigning for and against these measures.  over half a billion was spent.

Prop 22: 195 million (184 million for uber/lift contractors)
Prop 23: 109 million (93 million against dialysis)
Prop 15: 72 million (43 million for commercial property tax)
Prop 19: 81 million (45 million against property tax wildfires)
Prop 21: 65 million (41 million against local rent control)

Offline spootieho

  • O.C. Resident
  • ***
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 153
  • -Received: 83
  • Posts: 883
  • Somewhere in Irvine
Re: 2020 California Propositions
« Reply #19 on: October 11, 2020, 10:15:25 PM »
The bail one (prop 25) is interesting. 

The main arguments against it say that computer algorithms tend to affect certain people more than others.  Basically they say they discriminate.

Really what they want is for judges to discriminate in favor of certain "disadvantaged" groups.  Automation wouldn't allow judges to discriminate.

There isn't an AI/rules system that they haven't found to discriminate.  Maybe it's not discrimination.  Maybe that's just the way things are.  (Not saying that they will use AI.)

The only scary part for me is the Black Mirror stuff. 
 - How does it come to it's decision? 
 - What variables are fed to the algorithm? 
 - Is it smart enough to actually assess the risk?

Offline nosuchreality

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 131
  • -Received: 445
  • Posts: 2116
Re: 2020 California Propositions
« Reply #20 on: October 11, 2020, 10:21:32 PM »
The bail one (prop 25) is interesting. 

The main arguments against it say that computer algorithms tend to affect certain people more than others.  Basically they say they discriminate.

Really what they want is for judges to discriminate in favor of certain "disadvantaged" groups.  Automation wouldn't allow judges to discriminate.

There isn't an AI/rules system that they haven't found to discriminate.  Maybe it's not discrimination.  Maybe that's just the way things are.  (Not saying that they will use AI.)

The only scary part for me is the Black Mirror stuff. 
 - How does it come to it's decision? 
 - What variables are fed to the algorithm? 
 - Is it smart enough to actually assess the risk?


The only ad I've seen for prop 25 is the class warfare Stanford rapist versus the black senior citizen one.

Both examples highlight the problem isn't cash bail, it's a dumbass judge.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2020, 10:26:38 PM by nosuchreality »

Offline spootieho

  • O.C. Resident
  • ***
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 153
  • -Received: 83
  • Posts: 883
  • Somewhere in Irvine
Re: 2020 California Propositions
« Reply #21 on: October 11, 2020, 10:52:46 PM »
Prop 14: No
Prop 15: Yes
  • Though I don't know why we constantly need to find more and more money for Education each election.  Where is it all going?
Prop 16: NO
Prop 17: No
  • If they can't vote when they are in jail, then why should they be allowed to vote while on parole?  Parole is still part of their punishment sentence
Prop 18: No
  • The reason is that a lot of the meat happens in the primaries.  Especially in California.  It is where candidates get weeded out.  It's where you vote for your party's candidate.  We need an age cut off across the board and 18 seems to be the reasonable number.  Often the primaries are more important than the general election because parties normally win the general election regardless of the candidate who is in the party.
  • It is pretty short sighted to think that only the November election has consequences.
Prop 19: Yes
  • It is certainly a cash grab.  It acts like it's just for people affected by disasters.  In reality, it's about getting more property tax from people who inherit property.
  • I am borderline no, just because it is so deceptive. 
Prop 20: Yes
Prop 21: No
  • This creates scenarios where people end up locked to their rentals.  It is also unfair to the homeowners.  It is unfair to people who own older homes.
  • There are better ways to reduce the # of rentals, if that's a problem we are trying to solve.
Prop 22: N/A
  • It's very easy to exploit gig based workers.  Yes, they are free to do what they want, but in plenty of cases that I've seen many make less than min wage. 
  • I don't have a problem with Uber/Lift/Doordash however. 
Prop 23: No
Prop 24: No
  • I am borderline yes, but the thing is 52 pages of regulation.  There is too much in it.
Prop 25: Yes
  • I normally wouldn't vote on something that I am pretty ignorant on.  Oh well.


Feel free to try to change my mind before November. :)

Offline spootieho

  • O.C. Resident
  • ***
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 153
  • -Received: 83
  • Posts: 883
  • Somewhere in Irvine
Re: 2020 California Propositions
« Reply #22 on: October 11, 2020, 11:13:19 PM »
The only ad I've seen for prop 25 is the class warfare Stanford rapist versus the black senior citizen one.

Both examples highlight the problem isn't cash bail, it's a dumbass judge.
Wow, I just watched that commercial.  You are correct.  IMO, it is cringey and uses logical fallacy. 
I also watched another one that says it makes our communities safer.  I don't know about that.  Maybe we are safer from getting stuck with a high bail when we are innocent.  We aren't safer when we release criminals right away, however.  That will happen.
Both those commercials are crap. 

And yet, I tend to lean towards "Yes" on this bill.

I've seen bail get weaponized too many times.  There are plenty of cases where someone gets a million dollar bail and someone else gets a tenth of that for the same crime.  The person with the million dollar bail will often opt to just sit in prison for that time instead.

Also, I feel that bail does restrict our rights, and we do get punished.  Say you are innocent, but now have to pay the interest on the bail.  Say that you get a $100,000 bail.  You are going to pay around $8000 out of your pocket for that if you don't have it.  If you are innocent, you still lose that money.  If you don't have that money then you sit in jail.   

Offline iacrenter

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 425
  • -Received: 629
  • Posts: 3203
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2020 California Propositions
« Reply #23 on: October 12, 2020, 03:28:40 PM »
I'm leaning toward NO on Prop 15. They are attacking Prop 13 one piece at a time. I can seem them coming back next year and redefining "residential property" to carve out another piece to tax. Maybe they will cap the first $1M of assessment at a lower rate or maybe add in income or age cut offs for tax protection. This of course is all done in the good name of "more money for education." I'm tired of this state raising more fees and taxes for education, yet the quality of education hasn't risen at the same rate.

Offline spootieho

  • O.C. Resident
  • ***
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 153
  • -Received: 83
  • Posts: 883
  • Somewhere in Irvine
Re: 2020 California Propositions
« Reply #24 on: October 13, 2020, 12:39:53 AM »
I'm leaning toward NO on Prop 15. They are attacking Prop 13 one piece at a time. I can seem them coming back next year and redefining "residential property" to carve out another piece to tax.

A lot of people feel that way.  It is certainly something to be concerned about.  I was hesitant at first for that reason.  I don't think that this will take us down that slope, though. 

Maybe they will cap the first $1M of assessment at a lower rate or maybe add in income or age cut offs for tax protection. This of course is all done in the good name of "more money for education." I'm tired of this state raising more fees and taxes for education, yet the quality of education hasn't risen at the same rate.
True

Offline Kenkoko

  • O.C. Resident
  • ***
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 147
  • -Received: 233
  • Posts: 823
Re: 2020 California Propositions
« Reply #25 on: October 13, 2020, 01:59:23 AM »
 

Follow the money  :D

CA realtors dropping $41 million  >:D

The following member(s) thanked this post:


Offline nosuchreality

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 131
  • -Received: 445
  • Posts: 2116
Re: 2020 California Propositions
« Reply #26 on: October 13, 2020, 09:09:53 AM »
So reading through my ballot, I discovered that the Senior Citizen accused of stealing $5 is named in the for arguments of the proposition.

His initial bail was set at $600,000.  Then reduced to $350K, before the CA Supreme Court kicked it out saying it was unconstitutional.

It also appears that there is more to the story and not just $5. 

Quote
Humphrey, 64, is accused of entering his elderly neighbor's home, threatening him and then stealing $5 and a bottle of cologne. He was initially booked into jail last May and charged with burglary, robbery, elder abuse and theft. Humphrey has remained in custody since then.

Even with that, $600K seems gratuitous

Still, reading on in Findlaw, https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1886990.html.

And we blunder into priors (granted more than 14 years ago [assuming that means 15 years ago])

Quote
Petitioner, a retired shipyard laborer, is 63 years of age and a lifelong resident of San Francisco. On May 23, 2017 (all dates are in that year), at approximately 5:43 p.m., San Francisco police officers responded to 1239 Turk Street regarding a robbery. The complaining witness, Elmer J., who was 79 years of age and used a walker, told the officers he was returning to his fourth floor apartment when a man, later identified as petitioner, followed him into his apartment and asked him about money. At one point petitioner told Elmer to get on the bed and threatened to put a pillow case over his head. When Elmer said he had no money, petitioner took Elmer's cell phone and threw it onto the floor. After Elmer gave him $2, petitioner stole $5 and a bottle of cologne and left. Elmer did not know or recognize petitioner. While reviewing the surveillance video with front desk clerks, the officers were informed that the African-American person in the video was petitioner, who lived in an apartment on the third floor of the building. The officers went to petitioner's apartment and arrested him without incident. Petitioner was subsequently charged with first degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211),3 first degree residential burglary (§ 459), inflicting injury (but not great bodily injury) on an elder and dependent adult (§ 368, subd. (c)), and theft from an elder or dependent adult, charged as a misdemeanor. (§ 368, subd. (d).)

The Initial Setting of Bail

At his arraignment on May 31, petitioner sought release on his own recognizance without financial conditions based on his advanced age, his community ties as a lifelong resident of San Francisco and his unemployment and financial condition, as well as the minimal property loss he was charged with having caused, the age of the three alleged priors (the most recent of which was in 1992), the absence of a criminal record of any sort for more than 14 years, and his never previously having failed to appear at a court ordered proceeding. Petitioner also invited the court to impose an appropriate stay-away order regarding the victim who, as noted, lived on a different floor of the same “senior home” in which appellant resided.

The prosecutor did not affirmatively argue for pretrial detention pursuant to article 1, section 12, of the California Constitution, but simply asked the court to “follow the PSA [Public Safety Assessment] recommendation, which is that release is not recommended,” and requested bail in the amount of $600,000, as prescribed by the bail schedule, and a criminal protective order directing petitioner to stay away from the victim.

After indicating it had read the Public Safety Assessment Report on petitioner, the trial court stated as follows: “I appreciate the fact that Mr. Humphrey has had a lengthy history of contact here in the City and County of San Francisco. I also note counsel's argument that many of his convictions are older in nature; however, given the seriousness of this crime, the vulnerability of the victim, as well as the recommendation from pretrial services, I'm not going to grant him OR [release on his own recognizance] or any kind of supervised release at this time. I will set bail in the amount of $600,000 and sign the criminal protective orders to [stay] away from [the victim].”

The following member(s) thanked this post:


Offline spootieho

  • O.C. Resident
  • ***
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 153
  • -Received: 83
  • Posts: 883
  • Somewhere in Irvine
Re: 2020 California Propositions
« Reply #27 on: October 13, 2020, 01:14:27 PM »
So reading through my ballot, I discovered that the Senior Citizen accused of stealing $5 is named in the for arguments of the proposition.

His initial bail was set at $600,000.  Then reduced to $350K, before the CA Supreme Court kicked it out saying it was unconstitutional.

It also appears that there is more to the story and not just $5. 

Quote
Humphrey, 64, is accused of entering his elderly neighbor's home, threatening him and then stealing $5 and a bottle of cologne. He was initially booked into jail last May and charged with burglary, robbery, elder abuse and theft. Humphrey has remained in custody since then.

Even with that, $600K seems gratuitous

Still, reading on in Findlaw, https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1886990.html.

And we blunder into priors (granted more than 14 years ago [assuming that means 15 years ago])

Quote
Petitioner, a retired shipyard laborer, is 63 years of age and a lifelong resident of San Francisco. On May 23, 2017 (all dates are in that year), at approximately 5:43 p.m., San Francisco police officers responded to 1239 Turk Street regarding a robbery. The complaining witness, Elmer J., who was 79 years of age and used a walker, told the officers he was returning to his fourth floor apartment when a man, later identified as petitioner, followed him into his apartment and asked him about money. At one point petitioner told Elmer to get on the bed and threatened to put a pillow case over his head. When Elmer said he had no money, petitioner took Elmer's cell phone and threw it onto the floor. After Elmer gave him $2, petitioner stole $5 and a bottle of cologne and left. Elmer did not know or recognize petitioner. While reviewing the surveillance video with front desk clerks, the officers were informed that the African-American person in the video was petitioner, who lived in an apartment on the third floor of the building. The officers went to petitioner's apartment and arrested him without incident. Petitioner was subsequently charged with first degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211),3 first degree residential burglary (§ 459), inflicting injury (but not great bodily injury) on an elder and dependent adult (§ 368, subd. (c)), and theft from an elder or dependent adult, charged as a misdemeanor. (§ 368, subd. (d).)

The Initial Setting of Bail

At his arraignment on May 31, petitioner sought release on his own recognizance without financial conditions based on his advanced age, his community ties as a lifelong resident of San Francisco and his unemployment and financial condition, as well as the minimal property loss he was charged with having caused, the age of the three alleged priors (the most recent of which was in 1992), the absence of a criminal record of any sort for more than 14 years, and his never previously having failed to appear at a court ordered proceeding. Petitioner also invited the court to impose an appropriate stay-away order regarding the victim who, as noted, lived on a different floor of the same “senior home” in which appellant resided.

The prosecutor did not affirmatively argue for pretrial detention pursuant to article 1, section 12, of the California Constitution, but simply asked the court to “follow the PSA [Public Safety Assessment] recommendation, which is that release is not recommended,” and requested bail in the amount of $600,000, as prescribed by the bail schedule, and a criminal protective order directing petitioner to stay away from the victim.

After indicating it had read the Public Safety Assessment Report on petitioner, the trial court stated as follows: “I appreciate the fact that Mr. Humphrey has had a lengthy history of contact here in the City and County of San Francisco. I also note counsel's argument that many of his convictions are older in nature; however, given the seriousness of this crime, the vulnerability of the victim, as well as the recommendation from pretrial services, I'm not going to grant him OR [release on his own recognizance] or any kind of supervised release at this time. I will set bail in the amount of $600,000 and sign the criminal protective orders to [stay] away from [the victim].”

All people read is the $5 bottle of cologne.  Nevermind all the facts.  That's enough to come up with a short sighted, simple minded, ignorant, logical fallacy conclusion.


Offline irvinehomeowner

  • The Unicorn Hunter
  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 2521
  • -Received: 3867
  • Posts: 22440
  • 3CWG
Re: 2020 California Propositions
« Reply #28 on: October 13, 2020, 02:18:48 PM »
I just need a chart to tell me what the fiscal impact is for each prop. If they spend tax money or require additional funding... NO.
Once you go 3-car garage... your junk can never go back.
3CWG: 3-Car Wide Garage
FCB: Foreign Cash Buyer
I recommend:
www.irvinerealtorsite.com
member: Soylent Green Is People (loans/refis)

Offline nosuchreality

  • Certified Irvine Addict
  • ****
  • Thanks
  • -Given: 131
  • -Received: 445
  • Posts: 2116
Re: 2020 California Propositions
« Reply #29 on: October 13, 2020, 04:10:51 PM »
ROFLMAO, I just saw that Ballotopedia does readability statistics on the Propositions.  The affirmative action one has a grade level of 22 and reading ease of -9, LOL.


 

Talk Irvine Links

[Recent Posts]
[FAQ / Rules]

Site Supporters


Recent Posts

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2020, SimplePortal