California Doing California Things

[Politesse]

What does that have to do with anything we're discussing in this thread?

As yourself what “the medieval Normans had nothing remotely equivalent to modern property law” means to this thread.

I wasn't the one who brought them up. And they didn't. Our system has very ancient roots, yes, but it is not a feudal monarchy, and the Normans did not vote in Prop 13, dismantle fire insurance coverage for the poor, or sign racialized housing covenants.

Having some differences might be expected after almost a milennium. That doesn’t negate the strong similarities that persist, which is what you denied.
But if it’s not germane to whatever you’re on about now, I’ll just have to stay tuned for the next … uh … revelation?

"Whatever I'm on about now", being... California and its unique issues? The topic of the thread?

 

[TSwizzle]

Former President Obama endorsed California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D) redistricting plan in California on Wednesday, calling it a smart and measured approach.
“Over the long term, we shouldn’t have political gerrymandering in America, just a fair fight between Republicans and Democrats based on who’s got better ideas,” Obama wrote in a post on the social platform X.

News

It’s hilarious watching democrats trying to save democracy. “It’s not fascism when we do it”.

 

[Politesse]

Former President Obama endorsed California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D) redistricting plan in California on Wednesday, calling it a smart and measured approach.
“Over the long term, we shouldn’t have political gerrymandering in America, just a fair fight between Republicans and Democrats based on who’s got better ideas,” Obama wrote in a post on the social platform X.

News

It’s hilarious watching democrats trying to save democracy. “It’s not fascism when we do it”.

You're one to talk!

 

[TSwizzle]

Former President Obama endorsed California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D) redistricting plan in California on Wednesday, calling it a smart and measured approach.
“Over the long term, we shouldn’t have political gerrymandering in America, just a fair fight between Republicans and Democrats based on who’s got better ideas,” Obama wrote in a post on the social platform X.

News

It’s hilarious watching democrats trying to save democracy. “It’s not fascism when we do it”.

You're one to talk!

Ok, I’ll bite. How so?

 

[TV and credit cards]

Former President Obama endorsed California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D) redistricting plan in California on Wednesday, calling it a smart and measured approach.
“Over the long term, we shouldn’t have political gerrymandering in America, just a fair fight between Republicans and Democrats based on who’s got better ideas,” Obama wrote in a post on the social platform X.

"Measured" That's just what the moment calls for. Measured will get them out to vote. Measured action and tempered speech. We'll wipe the floor with those Republicans.

 

[ZiprHead]

Former President Obama endorsed California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D) redistricting plan in California on Wednesday, calling it a smart and measured approach.
“Over the long term, we shouldn’t have political gerrymandering in America, just a fair fight between Republicans and Democrats based on who’s got better ideas,” Obama wrote in a post on the social platform X.

News

It’s hilarious watching democrats trying to save democracy. “It’s not fascism when we do it”.

The Republicans have made cheating the norm. Now you're complaining that the Democrats are leveling the playing field.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

Whatever, dude. California laws hurt the small fish and help the big fish , you happy now? I don’t give a damn about defending Newsom, and none of my posts were meant to. Every one of your replies seems to assume that. Newsom’s laws don’t scare Wall Street, they scare the little guy. And when the little guy sells, who do you think is standing there with cash in hand? That’s the feature of the current market structure I’m talking about. Maybe I wasn’t clear before: politicians tiptoe around the real enemy to affordable housing. They’ll talk about landlords, tenants, and zoning, but they avoid naming Wall Street, which distorts markets by concentrating in certain neighborhoods, buying in bulk, and treating housing as financial assets.

You have not demonstrated that this is in any way a cause, it sounds like more of the rich = automatically evil position.

From what I understand, Wall Street’s role is secondary. The bigger driver of California’s housing crisis is decades of underbuilding, fueled by residents blocking anything but single-family homes in many areas. But I can’t even get to that part of the conversation without first cutting through all the reflexive defenses of Wall Street to get at Newsom. Fuck Newsom.

I agree about the underbuilding, but I do not see how Wall Street is remotely relevant.

A place is desirable, people move there, land is inherently fixed, so the cost to live there goes up. It's inevitable. The taller the building the higher the cost per square foot, you can't solve the problem by building up. Building up happens when the additional cost of building up is less than the cost of being far enough away not to need to build up.

Desirability of location shouldn't be a consideration with respect to low cost housing proposals. It's a They Get What They Get thing. There are tens of millions of acres to build on in California. The high desert in San Bernardino county is a good example. All the infrastructure is there to allow it to happen and there's tons of land owned by private sellers that the state could purchase.

If some of those who need affordable housing don't want it, they don't have to move there.

Another thing is the policing/security that would be required. Idealists can argue against this all they want, but low income areas are rife with crime. There would need to be a selection process that weeds out the law abiding from those with criminal records. There's no sense in spending 10s of billions of dollars to create the American version of Kowloon Walled City.

Housing isn’t like cans of beans though, location matters. People need to live near jobs, schools, transit, and healthcare, not an empty patch of land hours away. And on the crime point, poverty and lack of opportunity drive crime, not affordable housing itself. As for Loren screaming full steam ahead away from my Wall Street argument, dismissing them like they’re irrelevant is silly. They don’t have to own all homes to distort markets. Concentrated buying, bulk purchases, and algorithm-driven rent hikes already raise costs in neighborhoods they target. Pretending that has ZERO effect just because underbuilding exists is like pretending scalpers don’t drive up ticket prices just because a concert was already sold out.

There's already over half a million people that live in the area I used as an example. Every service and a lot of major outlets are already there. An influx of of e.g. 100,000 people would create new businesses, new jobs, etc.

Or they can stay in a crime ridden neighborhood or city with depressed property values, shit schools, and let their kids grow up in an area where crime is simply part of life.

If you want to advocate for low income housing, that's great. But it's not going to happen in low-middle to middle class areas. If one wants to stay in a city like San Bernardino and complain that someone else isn't busy building thirty foot residential towers for them, then they better hope a food truck is on a regular route near them because they're going to be waiting a long damn time.

"Location matters." Whatever you say, Varuca Salt.

 

[Gospel]

Alright, I’ll concede and ease up on Wall Street. Even if investor speculation, Airbnb, and warehousing were banned outright, it wouldn’t solve the bigger issue, which is chronic underbuilding. On top of that, most of those restrictions I'm thinking about would likely be struck down as unconstitutional anyway.

 

[Elixir]

Former President Obama endorsed California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D) redistricting plan in California on Wednesday, calling it a smart and measured approach.
“Over the long term, we shouldn’t have political gerrymandering in America, just a fair fight between Republicans and Democrats based on who’s got better ideas,” Obama wrote in a post on the social platform X.

News

It’s hilarious watching democrats trying to save democracy. “It’s not fascism when we do it”.

Of course it’s fascism when we do it. Just as a firebreak is a fire.
Morons who can’t understand that should not be enfranchised in the first place.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Alright, I’ll concede and ease up on Wall Street. Even if investor speculation, Airbnb, and warehousing were banned outright, it wouldn’t solve the bigger issue, which is chronic underbuilding.

The bigger issue is that life isn't easy* and to have it be fair to most people, would cost a lot of money. Money that people rather spend on themselves. I suppose that'd make the biggest issue, we don't care enough to make it better.

* ease in life varies from person to person or subgroup to subgroup

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Former President Obama endorsed California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D) redistricting plan in California on Wednesday, calling it a smart and measured approach.
“Over the long term, we shouldn’t have political gerrymandering in America, just a fair fight between Republicans and Democrats based on who’s got better ideas,” Obama wrote in a post on the social platform X.

News

It’s hilarious watching democrats trying to save democracy. “It’s not fascism when we do it”.

It is depressing as all fuck. The tit for tat with the GOP is effectively making elections predestined.

Of course, all you do is just piss in the wind when the Democrats do something, giving little care when the conservatives are doing it or were the ones that started the process in the first place, at the call of the President in a desperate attempt to save control of the US House.

 

[Gospel]

Alright, I’ll concede and ease up on Wall Street. Even if investor speculation, Airbnb, and warehousing were banned outright, it wouldn’t solve the bigger issue, which is chronic underbuilding.

The bigger issue is that life isn't easy* and to have it be fair to most people, would cost a lot of money. Money that people rather spend on themselves. I suppose that'd make the biggest issue, we don't care enough to make it better.

* ease in life varies from person to person or subgroup to subgroup

I don’t disagree that apathy and self-interest play a huge role, but that’s exactly why structural fixes matter. If we rely on individuals to ‘care enough’ before acting, nothing changes. The whole point of policy is to correct for the fact that most people won’t sacrifice voluntarily. That’s why we got things like Social Security or Medicare, because without collective solutions, the majority of so called American patriots would just keep spending on themselves while bitching about tent communities in California.

 

[Politesse]

It is depressing as all fuck. The tit for tat with the GOP is effectively making elections predestined.

And eliminating any and all public trust in the myth of democratic rule. They arrange the outcome of elections years before they happen, then wonder why voter participation is declining. Don't the employees want to use the complaint box?

 

[Gospel]

Another thing is the policing/security that would be required. Idealists can argue against this all they want, but low income areas are rife with crime. There would need to be a selection process that weeds out the law abiding from those with criminal records. There's no sense in spending 10s of billions of dollars to create the American version of Kowloon Walled City.

And as soon as you attempt to do this you'll have the discrimination warriors all over you. Because that criminality has to be just due to more policing. You must ignore anything that is not under the control of the powerful.

I know you enjoy taking jabs at liberals, or more specifically, at what you imagine is ‘Black culture’ and this idea that Black people don’t recognize or try to address problems in our communities. But in reality, public housing screenings in blue cities already run background checks and bar applicants with recent serious criminal convictions. The irony is that most public housing still gets concentrated in high-crime neighborhoods, which undercuts the very purpose.

Edit: On the policing point, how do you explain why even white people have higher arrest rates in urban areas compared to rural ones? Surely that’s not just because there are more cops around.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Alright, I’ll concede and ease up on Wall Street. Even if investor speculation, Airbnb, and warehousing were banned outright, it wouldn’t solve the bigger issue, which is chronic underbuilding.

The bigger issue is that life isn't easy* and to have it be fair to most people, would cost a lot of money. Money that people rather spend on themselves. I suppose that'd make the biggest issue, we don't care enough to make it better.

* ease in life varies from person to person or subgroup to subgroup

I don’t disagree that apathy and self-interest play a huge role, but that’s exactly why structural fixes matter. If we rely on individuals to ‘care enough’ before acting, nothing changes. The whole point of policy is to correct for the fact that most people won’t sacrifice voluntarily. That’s why we got things like Social Security or Medicare, because without collective solutions, the majority of so called American patriots would just keep spending on themselves while bitching about tent communities in California.

I agree completely. And Social Security might become a "had" thing as well.

But the trouble is, people are more self-interested and won't support candidates to push through such stuff. Look at women in 2024, many who supported pro-choice... voted for Donald Trump. Why? Money.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

I'm telling y'all right now if y'all are going to be pushing Newsom for challenging the Trump regime, you're picking a non-starter.

Walz would be a good pick, or AOC, or any of a number of senators, but Newsom has too much clear corporate baggage and trying to ram him down the electorate's throats even if a lot of people are holding their mouths open wide is a classic Democrat "Defeat From The Jaws of Victory" energy right there.

This is a perfect example of why the Democratic party is so thoroughly unpopular and can manage to lose to a grease painted, monkey brained circus act not once, but twice.

Walz?

AOC?

Delusion often accompanies self-sabotage, so let's double down and run them as POTUS and VP candidates. If we're gonna lose, then let's go all out to break Mondale's record. He only won one more state than I did, so let's do better. Let's shoot for historical precedent and aim for clean 0.

That'll show The Corporations.

In the meantime, women have lost clearly identifiable rights in many red states and there may be a national ban coming. Obergefell is already being targeted and it's reasonable to speculate that it's going to be up for review within the next 12-18 months, which means that same sex marriage is going to be rescinded.

But hey, we can run AOC because she's beloved within the Democratic party's cast iron bubble from which no air can get in nor any CO2 escape.

Sounds like a plan.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

Another thing is the policing/security that would be required. Idealists can argue against this all they want, but low income areas are rife with crime. There would need to be a selection process that weeds out the law abiding from those with criminal records. There's no sense in spending 10s of billions of dollars to create the American version of Kowloon Walled City.

And as soon as you attempt to do this you'll have the discrimination warriors all over you. Because that criminality has to be just due to more policing. You must ignore anything that is not under the control of the powerful.

I know you enjoy taking jabs at liberals, or more specifically, at what you imagine is ‘Black culture’ and this idea that Black people don’t recognize or try to address problems in our communities. But in reality, public housing screenings in blue cities already run background checks and bar applicants with recent serious criminal convictions. The irony is that most public housing still gets concentrated in high-crime neighborhoods, which undercuts the very purpose.

Edit: On the policing point, how do you explain why even white people have higher arrest rates in urban areas compared to rural ones? Surely that’s not just because there are more cops around.

See page 10. I thought p. 9 was interesting too, but not relevant to the converstation.

https://courts.ca.gov/sites/default/files/courts/default/2024-12/lr-2019-jc-disposition-of-criminal-cases-race-ethnicity-pc1170_45.pdf

 

[Gospel]

Another thing is the policing/security that would be required. Idealists can argue against this all they want, but low income areas are rife with crime. There would need to be a selection process that weeds out the law abiding from those with criminal records. There's no sense in spending 10s of billions of dollars to create the American version of Kowloon Walled City.

And as soon as you attempt to do this you'll have the discrimination warriors all over you. Because that criminality has to be just due to more policing. You must ignore anything that is not under the control of the powerful.

I know you enjoy taking jabs at liberals, or more specifically, at what you imagine is ‘Black culture’ and this idea that Black people don’t recognize or try to address problems in our communities. But in reality, public housing screenings in blue cities already run background checks and bar applicants with recent serious criminal convictions. The irony is that most public housing still gets concentrated in high-crime neighborhoods, which undercuts the very purpose.

Edit: On the policing point, how do you explain why even white people have higher arrest rates in urban areas compared to rural ones? Surely that’s not just because there are more cops around.

See page 10. I thought p. 9 was interesting too, but not relevant to the converstation.

https://courts.ca.gov/sites/default/files/courts/default/2024-12/lr-2019-jc-disposition-of-criminal-cases-race-ethnicity-pc1170_45.pdf

Look, I get that there really is no data for me to draw from that can prove my statement, so I'll admit that. But you should find more than page 10 & 9 interesting or relevant to the conversation. That same report says disparities persist even after controlling for prior records (p. 6). In other words, the system itself is producing unequal outcomes at every stage, arrest, charge, plea, and sentencing (p. 7). Page 10 is an example of disparity, not the explanation for it. The Judicial Council literally says the justice system itself contributes to the gaps.

Also, nothing I’ve just said in this very post or any post I've ever submitted on the entire internet has anything to do with denying ‘criminality.’ I honestly don’t even know what Loren means by that, other than it sounding like a white supremacist dog whistle.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm telling y'all right now if y'all are going to be pushing Newsom for challenging the Trump regime, you're picking a non-starter.

Walz would be a good pick, or AOC, or any of a number of senators, but Newsom has too much clear corporate baggage and trying to ram him down the electorate's throats even if a lot of people are holding their mouths open wide is a classic Democrat "Defeat From The Jaws of Victory" energy right there.

This is a perfect example of why the Democratic party is so thoroughly unpopular and can manage to lose to a grease painted, monkey brained circus act not once, but twice.

Walz?

AOC?

Delusion often accompanies self-sabotage, so let's double down and run them as POTUS and VP candidates. If we're gonna lose, then let's go all out to break Mondale's record. He only won one more state than I did, so let's do better. Let's shoot for historical precedent and aim for clean 0.

That'll show The Corporations.

In the meantime, women have lost clearly identifiable rights in many red states and there may be a national ban coming. Obergefell is already being targeted and it's reasonable to speculate that it's going to be up for review within the next 12-18 months, which means that same sex marriage is going to be rescinded.

While I agree that Walz isn't primetime for the White House and AOC likely will be limited to being a US Senator... a gentle reminder, W beat a moderate Al Gore (with even right leaning moderate Lieberman as VP) and a liberal John Kerry (with conservative/lady's man Edwards as VP). while Trump beat moderate Hillary Clinton (with moderate white bread as her VP). And even with a sluggish economy, 9/11, and Iraq kind of turning sour, the US re-elected those boobs. Get a bit of inflation and the nation rebels against the Democrats in the White House.

These three losses (only one against an actual liberal) resulted in 5 seats being swapped for conservative to very conservative justices, one of which was stolen from Obama. So while nominating too far to the left or lacking in enough charisma likely won't help in 2028, the people of this country have fucked it pretty badly with the '00, '04, and '16 elections (and '24). The Democrats keep needing to go further to the right, further to right. Obama wasn't very liberal. Neither was Clinton (Bubba). Gore and Clinton (the Hillary one) hardly that liberal either.

The GOP just sells their fraud of "balancing the budget" while "cutting taxes" so very well.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Former President Obama endorsed California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D) redistricting plan in California on Wednesday, calling it a smart and measured approach.
“Over the long term, we shouldn’t have political gerrymandering in America, just a fair fight between Republicans and Democrats based on who’s got better ideas,” Obama wrote in a post on the social platform X.

News

It’s hilarious watching democrats trying to save democracy. “It’s not fascism when we do it”.

It is depressing as all fuck. The tit for tat with the GOP is effectively making elections predestined.

Of course, all you do is just piss in the wind when the Democrats do something, giving little care when the conservatives are doing it or were the ones that started the process in the first place, at the call of the President in a desperate attempt to save control of the US House.

Now Missouri wants to get in on the fun. Appreciate the partisan greenlight the assholes on the SCOTUS bench gave to this.