[California Politics] America's Hippie Commune

1161718192022»

Posts

  • eMoandereMoander Registered User regular
    Good on Newsom for putting his pride aside and prostrating himself before Trump, which Trump has said many times is the only way he will even take calls from Governors. While some might see it as weakness, I am very happy he did the right thing and put the wellbeing of the people of the state ahead of himself. Newsom is one of my favorite politicians and I eagerly await the day I can vote for him for President.

    And to be clear, FUCK TRUMP for making my state grovel for the aid it fucking deserves. I am literally furious that this was even a goddamn question.

    Xbox: Travesty 0214 Switch: 3304-2356-9421 Genshin Impact: 605683619
    FencingsaxShadowfireMadicanGimIncenjucarnotyaDoodmannSkeithshrykeEddy
  • KasynKasyn Registered User regular
    edited October 17
    Newsom vetoed a recall rights bill our union and others were supporting.

    His office has backed out of every meaningful thing they've promised us related to COVID. He is petrified of anything that might inconvenience a business.

    I disliked him before he was our inevitable governor and I can't wait to vote against him in a Presidential primary.

    Kasyn on
  • MadicanMadican No face Registered User regular
    Gonna need some concrete details because as things stand I think he's doing a pretty good job from direct observation.

    camo_sig2.png
    PSN: AuthorFrost
    mageofstorm.png
    eMoanderOrca
  • KasynKasyn Registered User regular
    edited October 18
    Madican wrote: »
    Gonna need some concrete details because as things stand I think he's doing a pretty good job from direct observation.

    Aside from spiking the recall rights bill I mentioned, very early on we were working with his office on a reopening framework as it related to cleaning and disinfection standards for different types of buildings and industries (important for our membership, with janitorial workers being our largest division), as well as some of the specifics related to the workers who would be charged with enforcement at the buildings (which would oftentimes be security staff - another of our major divisions.) We also had pieces of it that were going to be based on realistic and objectively determined production rates for our workers, to ensure that buildings had adequate staffing in place to achieve the bare minimum cleaning, disinfection, and building control work necessary to actually reopen safely. (That's one of the trickier aspects, since you're getting into something that can be prescriptive from a staffing standpoint, which is obviously a trigger for companies.)

    Newsom's office started out very concerned with protecting essential workers and ensuring that the state's reopening standards adequately protected the public. They'd say they were with us on this part or another of the above, and then then they would drag their heels and finally come back to us with something that was toothless and totally inadequate and wasn't going to do shit to protect our members from much of the horrible conditions that they were facing on the ground during the early months of COVID. We're well aware that there's a balancing act involved, but at every possible juncture where there was an opportunity to side with workers or err on the side of public health vs. even an ounce of concern from business, they would side with business.

    The industry guidance documents the state produced ended up having a lot of input from us and other unions, but it was a lot of the most superficial stuff. None of the enforcement we wanted, weaker assurances on PPE, little to no worker input on the conditions at their worksites, little to no hard requirements for communicating to workers, nothing to ensure that workloads make sense. It just sucks a lot compared to what it could and should have been.

    They know they fucked us and have made promises on a jobs program of ours that's sort of a consolation prize, which is still a developing thing so I can't pass final judgment on THAT yet, but our impression to date is that it's more of the same.

    Even back to his time as mayor in SF, Gavin has always rankled progressives and activists across a number of issues - homelessness, HIV/AIDS, housing, schooling. He's polished, says the right things in public, politically intelligent and has enough surface credibility and charisma to be the type of Democrat that suckers people into buying in as a rising star, but he doesn't actually hold up in my estimation. I was openminded going into his time as governor and have not been happy since. I don't think he's a disaster, but he has been a disappointment.

    Kasyn on
    Dee Kae
  • DoodmannDoodmann Registered User regular
    Voted! A couple of them were a toss up, especially the judges, and the props are all over the place but I hope we're doing the right thing and I'm doing my part...I think.

    Whippy wrote: »
    nope nope nope nope abort abort talk about anime
    Torchlight | Steam | ART
    Jragghen
  • dlinfinitidlinfiniti Registered User regular
    Doodmann wrote: »
    Voted! A couple of them were a toss up, especially the judges, and the props are all over the place but I hope we're doing the right thing and I'm doing my part...I think.

    you voted wrong
    go back and do it again

    AAAAA!!! PLAAAYGUUU!!!!
    DoodmannHahnsoo1
  • MadicanMadican No face Registered User regular
    Jragghen wrote: »

    This doesn't look like backing down. They got the GOP to agree (however much that's worth) to not place them outside, leave them unattended, or label them as official. They're going to be at local party offices instead and monitored by staff or volunteers, which was the linchpin of the whole case against them by the ballot collection law in that the GOP was designating the boxes as people to try and loophole the law. They're also saying they'll continue to monitor GOP actions to ensure they stick to those terms.

    camo_sig2.png
    PSN: AuthorFrost
    mageofstorm.png
    emp123SpoitFencingsax
  • CarpyCarpy Registered User regular
    edited October 20
    How is 19 a potential increase of 10's - 100's of millions of dollars to local governments?

    Edit: it's just limiting tax increases on certain real estate, yeah?

    Carpy on
  • MrMonroeMrMonroe Registered User regular
    Carpy wrote: »
    How is 19 a potential increase of 10's - 100's of millions of dollars to local governments?

    Edit: it's just limiting tax increases on certain real estate, yeah?

    It eliminates the current exemption for people who inherit second and third homes from their rich parents; they will no longer be able to keep the decedent's original property tax rates meaning the property will be reassessed and they'll pay the full current rate based on the current property value. (As opposed to the current rate on the value of the property dozens of years ago when the decedent originally bought it)

    It also sinks the hooks of Prop 13 even deeper: it makes it so you can now change homes three times and keep your property taxes from the original home, forces reciprocity on all counties in CA, (right now it's up to the county whether they'll grant a prop 13 exemption to someone moving from another county) and it makes it so you can now keep your original property tax value even if you move into a more expensive home than the one you are vacating which you currently cannot do.

    Winners: rich boomers
    Losers: wealthy inheritors, everyone else

    TuminDoodmannCarpy
  • JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    PPIC poll results, LV only:
    Newsom approval - 57-39 (this is a smidge down, I think)
    CA legislature approval - 45-42
    CA direction (right-wrong) - 50-46
    CA divided into economic have/havnots - 67-30
    (self selected into have/havenots) - 55-32 (ie, 55% of people would put themselves in the "have")

    proposition polling
    15 (split roll): 49-45-6
    16 (affirmative action): 37-50-12

    A bunch of questions on policy and opinions of prop process and stuff, too - https://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/crosstabs-likely-voters-1020.pdf

    Link is a PDF

  • StraygatsbyStraygatsby Registered User regular
    It felt weird to go online and verify my ballot landed and was approved/received, but it also felt kind of good - like a small invisible weight off my shoulders.


    JraggheneMoanderIncenjucar
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Jesus christ I'm about to flip a coin on 25.

    I mean I hate cash bail.

    But I hate the idea of an algorithm denying bail altogether as well.

    I mean usually I can look at the organizations and individuals on the for/against endorsements to tip the scale...but when I see the Republican Party, Orange County Board of Supervisors, and the state's bail bondsmen sitting next to...the ACLU? I AM CONFUSED.

    My first temptation is to vote yes, because cash bail is still an atrocity and a bad algorithm can at least be fixed. But...man, I dunno.

  • JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article246316845.html
    Huffman is correct that Proposition 25 ends bail in the state of California, but is misleading when she says that it replaces bail with a computer algorithm.

    While the pre-trial risk assessment model that weighs whether a person is at risk to re-offend or fail to appear before the court does use computer algorithms, “judicial officers remain the final authority in making pretrial release or detention decisions,” according to the Judicial Branch of California.

    That means that while judges may rely on algorithm-assisted risk assessment models and recommendations, they have the power to override those recommendations.

    It's judges deciding, just like anywhere else that does away with bail

    Doodmann
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Jragghen wrote: »
    https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article246316845.html
    Huffman is correct that Proposition 25 ends bail in the state of California, but is misleading when she says that it replaces bail with a computer algorithm.

    While the pre-trial risk assessment model that weighs whether a person is at risk to re-offend or fail to appear before the court does use computer algorithms, “judicial officers remain the final authority in making pretrial release or detention decisions,” according to the Judicial Branch of California.

    That means that while judges may rely on algorithm-assisted risk assessment models and recommendations, they have the power to override those recommendations.

    It's judges deciding, just like anywhere else that does away with bail

    That helps, though I guess it comes down to whether I trust judges to break with the algorithm as appropriate. Thanks for the link!

    Jragghen
  • JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    Another article: https://calmatters.org/politics/california-election-2020/2020/10/cash-bail-justice-algorithm-risk-assessment-prop-25/


    With that caveat, a study released this week by the California Policy Lab at the University of California, Berkeley found that in Sonoma and San Francisco counties, the implementation of an algorithm to assist with pretrial release decisions would have led to more releases and less time spent in jail for people arrested in 2017-2018, the period of the study.

    Ultimately, proponents of an algorithm for bail decisions say the computer assist will act as a kind of scorecard. The public will be able to see which judges adhere to the algorithm’s suggestions and which judges go their own way.

    “People are missing the fact that judges are already using their discretion,” said John Bauters of the Yes on 25 campaign, “they’re just hiding behind a cash bail schedule to do it.”

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    “People are missing the fact that judges are already using their discretion,” said John Bauters of the Yes on 25 campaign, “they’re just hiding behind a cash bail schedule to do it.”

    This is a good point. Young me once stood in front of a judge accused of a crime, and had bail set. Luckily my judge did his best for me, basically asking "how much can you afford?" And my answer was "nothing," because I was broke and functionally homeless. His response...apparently unwilling to go straight OR...was to ask whether given the rest of the day I'd be able to "find a money tree" and somehow come up with $50. I said yes, probably, and that's how my bail was set at $50.

    On the one hand I do kinda wonder why he insisted on the $50, instead of just going straight OR, but I don't know how things work behind the curtain. I do wonder if it would have gone lower had I said that I could probably only come up with $25...he really did seem like he was doing everything he could to work with me. And my trial date was months away.

    Jragghen
  • JragghenJragghen Registered User regular
    OK, back at the computer and can actually type now. I absolutely get where you're coming from - algorithms can be biased in a bad way (looking at YOU facebook, or even at historical things like redlining). But "algorithm" is just being used as a scary word here - it's just a decision making process. "Don't let anyone out of jail" and "let everyone out of jail" are both algorithms. "Let only white people out" is an algorithm. "Let the judges do whatever the hell they want" is an algorithm. It is literally impossible to do this issue - with or without bail - without having some sort of algorithm. So I look at it as bail is a system that inherently favors the privileged and wealthy in a very concrete way - replacing that with a system without bail is an improvement, even if there is some mechanism by which the choice of release or not is dictated. What is important is that said choice is open, and scrutinized, and that humans are kept in the process as a fail-safe. So long as those criteria are met, I definitely feel it's a net gain, but that's just me :)

    DoodmanneMoanderSpoit
  • DoodmannDoodmann Registered User regular
    literally anything is better than being forced to go to jail because you're poor...which is the current system.

    Whippy wrote: »
    nope nope nope nope abort abort talk about anime
    Torchlight | Steam | ART
  • notyanotya Registered User regular
    ACLU is very against getting rid of cash bail, so that might help your decision making.

  • OrcaOrca Registered User regular
    notya wrote: »
    ACLU is very against getting rid of cash bail, so that might help your decision making.

    What? Why?

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    notya wrote: »
    ACLU is very against getting rid of cash bail, so that might help your decision making.

    I believe you, but don’t get that at all reading, say, this:

    https://www.aclu.org/issues/smart-justice/bail-reform

    Or skimming the headlines here:

    https://www.aclu.org/news/by-issue/bail-reform/

    That’s the national org not the Southern California chapter. Still. They definitely seem to have issues with the traditional cash bail system. I guess I can see concerns with specific reform implementations. For me it just definitely gives me pause if the ACLU opposes something. They’re hardly infallible as an organization, but I don’t often find myself breaking with them.

    Phoenix-D
  • mrondeaumrondeau Montréal, CanadaRegistered User regular
    The problem is not using a procedure, the problem is the "risk assessment system". Depending on how much weight it's given in the decision process, it could actually be worse than the status quo.

    In general, those kind of systems will encode and amplify existing biases in the data (i.e. it will somehow be more racist and classist). If the judge just ignore it, not a problem. If the judge trust it, it can make things worse.
    I don't know what the status quo is, so I can't say how bad it is. Given that the proposal does not seem to be "blindly follow the risk assessment", then it will depend on the judges, and how much bias there's already in the existing system.

    Kasyn
Sign In or Register to comment.