There's no way preferential voting wouldn't be better, but it's preferable to pretending the Republican party has any bearing on Bay Area politics. And vice versa in states that are heavily dominant the opposite way.
This is a load of gooseshit. If there are Republicans in the Bay Area (and there are), then yes, the Republican Party does, in fact, have a role in the politics of the area. By the way, let me remind you that the California "blue wall" is only two decades old at the most - we are talking about the home state of Nixon and Reagan. And as you pointed out I'm currently from Montana, a state people consider to be red - and which currently has a sitting Democratic governor and Democratic Senator.
they're great if your party has a strong majority where you're voting
it's not so great if you're the minority (now you're not even on the ballot at all!) or it's a close split (whoops the ballot has two dudes from the same party on it despite that party only getting 40% of the vote)
Like, you said it's OK if there's more coordination between allies but then the very next sentence you're talking about getting a progressive (as opposed to, I'm assuming, a mainstream democrat). But that progressive is only there because they didn't have to cooperate with their allies.
And if candidates from the same party all do cooperate so you don't field more than one or two candidates then... looks like you're right back to having party primaries except now you don't even get to vote on them it's all done behind the scenes
I've acknowledged that they don't work well in purple areas without lots of coordination. But in areas that are heavily one way or the other, which California has a lot of, they've had the effect of giving a seat at the table to marginalized candidates that would have been forced out by the defacto presence of the Republican party on the ballot.
There's no way preferential voting wouldn't be better, but it's preferable to pretending the Republican party has any bearing on Bay Area politics. And vice versa in states that are heavily dominant the opposite way.
In theory, it actually gives the minority more power to act as a king maker. Since theoretically the votes from the party that had 2 winning candidates would be relatively split, so they'd be able to put their finger on the scale for the more moderate candidate. Whereas a close party primary traditionally rewards being more ideologically extreme.
To pick numbers completely out of a hat, Say that the Rs have like 30% of the vote, which is not enough to get a candidate a win against even a 40%/30%+1 split for the 2 D candidates. It wouldn't even take a majority of the minority votes to push the 2nd place winner, who for the sake of argument lets say is more ideologically conservative, past the one that was more popular among the voters of the other party. In theory.
+4
Options
Giggles_FunsworthBlight on DiscourseBay Area SprawlRegistered Userregular
There's no way preferential voting wouldn't be better, but it's preferable to pretending the Republican party has any bearing on Bay Area politics. And vice versa in states that are heavily dominant the opposite way.
This is a load of gooseshit. If there are Republicans in the Bay Area (and there are), then yes, the Republican Party does, in fact, have a role in the politics of the area. By the way, let me remind you that the California "blue wall" is only two decades old at the most - we are talking about the home state of Nixon and Reagan. And as you pointed out I'm currently from Montana, a state people consider to be red - and which currently has a sitting Democratic governor and Democratic Senator.
We have a more than 70% majority dude. In any sort of multi-party system the area would be represented by a Liberal and Progressive party.
Let us not turn this thread into a general discussion of jungle primaries or voting methods.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Alarmed that California's fledgling legal marijuana industry is being undercut by the black market, a group of lawmakers proposed Thursday to reduce state taxes for three years on growing and selling cannabis to allow licensed sellers to get on their feet.
With many California license holders claiming they can't compete because of high state and local taxes, the new legislation would cut the state excise tax from 15% to 11% and suspend a cultivation tax that charges $148 per pound.
June propositions are set, all of them are from the legislature, there's only 5.
Prop 68 - $4 billion in bonds to parks, environmental restoration, water infrastructure, and flood protection. Assuming 3.5% interest, $6.53 billion paid off over 30 years. 15-20% of the funds, depending on nature of project, has to go to communities whose median income is less than 60% of the statewide average. $725 million would specifically go towards parks in "park-poor neighborhoods." Further breakdown at the link
Prop 69 - Require revenue from the deisel tax be used for transportation purposes. I...don't quite understand why this is necessary yet because of the state Constitution, so I'll look into it in more detail.
Prop 70 - require a one time 2/3rds vote to use revenues from cap and trade program starting in 2024. Basically locks all this revenue in a fund until a 2/3rds vote succeeds, at which time the funds can be used until the next expiration.
Prop 71 - Changes when ballot propositions go into effect from the day after elections to 5 days after the Secretary of State certifies election results, which has to happen no later than 38 days after the election.
Prop 72 - excludes rainwater capture systems added to properties from 2019 on from counting as "new construction," requiring a new tax assessment on the whole property.
NIMBYs already oppose public transit in general. "I don't oppose housing, I just think we need to wait until we have the transit infrastructure" is a common refrain on 48 Hills, Westside Observer, and other SF NIMBY blogs. Meanwhile the same groups oppose any meaningful attempts to expand transit, or say, basically, "build more transit over there" (peninsula, east bay), or will overtly support transit as long as they don't have to pay for it and will starve transit by opposing any tax or bond measure to fund it.
Ultimately, transit and housing density is a chicken and egg problem for a democracy. Transit is always shittier and more expensive in lower-density neighborhoods, which reduces the support of transit among those residents. If you're doing it right, you're building out both at the same time, but US cities never do it right.
Are there limits to just building out BART (and other supporting transit) farther into the hinterlands, and betting on development following?
I mean, once you get to places like Pittsburg (CA) you're not going to get people who are trying to commute into SF anymore, but you might get people who are commuting in to the places where people commute in to SF.
NIMBYs already oppose public transit in general. "I don't oppose housing, I just think we need to wait until we have the transit infrastructure" is a common refrain on 48 Hills, Westside Observer, and other SF NIMBY blogs. Meanwhile the same groups oppose any meaningful attempts to expand transit, or say, basically, "build more transit over there" (peninsula, east bay), or will overtly support transit as long as they don't have to pay for it and will starve transit by opposing any tax or bond measure to fund it.
Ultimately, transit and housing density is a chicken and egg problem for a democracy. Transit is always shittier and more expensive in lower-density neighborhoods, which reduces the support of transit among those residents. If you're doing it right, you're building out both at the same time, but US cities never do it right.
Are there limits to just building out BART (and other supporting transit) farther into the hinterlands, and betting on development following?
I mean, once you get to places like Pittsburgh (CA) you're not going to get people who are trying to commute into SF anymore, but you might get people who are commuting in to the places where people commute in to SF.
Depends on whether you expect for public transportation to pay for itself, honestly. If there's tax funds available and the general will, then sure - expand away. But people don't want their tax dollars going to subsidize bus programs, etc, as much if they're not going to use them, so the lines wither and die without enough demand.
BART is already way overextended for commuting hours. I don't see how making the lines extend further and further out will help if they simply can't squeeze anymore people through the transbay tube at once than they already are.
There needs to be another way for the trains in and out of the city before you can actually have a higher volume of commuter trains to serve a wider area. And the amount of money and time that would take makes it not a fix that will happen any time soon. And you can't run express lines because all the trains are going down the same exact stretches of track in each direction.
Edit: There are some folks who commute from further out into say Oakland, but the vast majority of the train is packed right up until the first SF stop and then it clears out real quick between that and the next stop.
akajaybay on
0
Options
KasynI'm not saying I don't like our chances.She called me the master.Registered Userregular
Speaking of BART - I ran across one of the new traincars in the wild the other day - same stop, different direction. I then got very excited thinking my car would be new as well, and then another shitty one rolls in. I never really considered the normal trains that awful but boy do they look like shit once you've seen one that's remotely contemporary. Turns out there are only about 10 in service. Very disappointing.
BART is already way overextended for commuting hours. I don't see how making the lines extend further and further out will help if they simply can't squeeze anymore people through the transbay tube at once than they already are.
There needs to be another way for the trains in and out of the city before you can actually have a higher volume of commuter trains to serve a wider area. And the amount of money and time that would take makes it not a fix that will happen any time soon. And you can't run express lines because all the trains are going down the same exact stretches of track in each direction.
Edit: There are some folks who commute from further out into say Oakland, but the vast majority of the train is packed right up until the first SF stop and then it clears out real quick between that and the next stop.
100% I'm on the Fremont line and by the time it gets to me in Hayward in the morning it's already standing room only
By the time we get to SF proper it's packed like sardines and feels like a sauna.
Speaking of BART - I ran across one of the new traincars in the wild the other day - same stop, different direction. I then got very excited thinking my car would be new as well, and then another shitty one rolls in. I never really considered the normal trains that awful but boy do they look like shit once you've seen one that's remotely contemporary. Turns out there are only about 10 in service. Very disappointing.
I stumbled on one the other week too. Nice. Still not a lot more room. Better seats at least, and I like the digital maps.
There's no plan, there's no race to be run
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
0
Options
KasynI'm not saying I don't like our chances.She called me the master.Registered Userregular
Yeah apparently it's just on the Richmond/Fremont line, which makes me feel bad because I took that for years and no longer do now that I live in West Oakland rather than Hayward.
June propositions are set, all of them are from the legislature, there's only 5.
Prop 68 - $4 billion in bonds to parks, environmental restoration, water infrastructure, and flood protection. Assuming 3.5% interest, $6.53 billion paid off over 30 years. 15-20% of the funds, depending on nature of project, has to go to communities whose median income is less than 60% of the statewide average. $725 million would specifically go towards parks in "park-poor neighborhoods." Further breakdown at the link
Prop 69 - Require revenue from the deisel tax be used for transportation purposes. I...don't quite understand why this is necessary yet because of the state Constitution, so I'll look into it in more detail.
Prop 70 - require a one time 2/3rds vote to use revenues from cap and trade program starting in 2024. Basically locks all this revenue in a fund until a 2/3rds vote succeeds, at which time the funds can be used until the next expiration.
Prop 71 - Changes when ballot propositions go into effect from the day after elections to 5 days after the Secretary of State certifies election results, which has to happen no later than 38 days after the election.
Prop 72 - excludes rainwater capture systems added to properties from 2019 on from counting as "new construction," requiring a new tax assessment on the whole property.
Re: 69, I'm often hesitant about bond initiatives because I'm accustomed to our state's budget being a clusterfuck, but as far as bond measures go that sounds like a good one.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I hate Prop 69 by virtue of hating taxes that can only be used for one purpose in general.
0
Options
KasynI'm not saying I don't like our chances.She called me the master.Registered Userregular
69 is kind of just getting some ducks in a row on new transportation revenues generated from a gas tax / vehicle fee bill passed last year. For what it's worth, both the Democrats and the Chamber support it, while it's basically just been the Republicans against.
So I've been avoiding posting about it because it was more "local," but it looks like this is getting state-wide now.
There was another "black person killed by police" a few weeks ago in Sacramento. It's led to weeks of protests, including a temporary shutdown of I-5, two Sacramento Kings games where fans were blocked from getting into the game (thus thrusting the whole situation into the national spotlight, where oddly enough the Kings seem to be landing on the protestor side of things, wearing t-shirts on their side, etc), leading to a partnership between BLM and the Kings. They're still ongoing, with a protest planned at the DA's office this afternoon (warning: facebook link). Most recent wrinkle was this past Saturday, a protester was hit by a police vehicle which then drove off. tl;dr - lots of shit happening in Sacramento right now, it's still ongoing. This isn't a police thread, nor a protest thread, nor anything else in the above. But it is a California politics thread.
Three decades ago, two United States Supreme Court cases determined that police can use deadly force if a "reasonable" officer in similar circumstances would have acted the same way.
So what happens when the public disagrees with the police about what might be considered reasonable?
California lawmakers plan to introduce a bill Tuesday that would tighten the state standard for use of lethal force to "necessary" – when there are no alternatives for the officer to consider in that situation. Police would not be justified in killing the suspect if their own actions caused the deadly force to become necessary.
Assemblywoman Shirley Weber, a San Diego Democrat who is carrying the bill, said the current standard is too broad because it legitimizes the fear that sometimes causes officers to act abruptly without first trying to deescalate a confrontation. Police should only use lethal force, she said, when there is an immediate threat to their life or someone else nearby.
Emphasis mine. Obviously haven't seen the text of the bill, but I feel like this is a very good, reasonable restriction to put in place - if the actions of the officer lead to the circumstances where they felt threatened to the point where they needed deadly force, the officer would not be justified.
In gubenatorial race matters, Republican candidate is advocating forced institutionalization of homeless.
Republican gubernatorial candidate Travis Allen says he'd build state-run institutions and force homeless people to live in them against their will, if necessary.
"We need state-run mental institutions where people can actually go, (where) the indigent can go and get the help that they need," Allen said at a housing forum last month. "What we're doing is not working."
Allen, currently in the state Assembly, is pushing the idea as part of his platform in public debates, interviews and newspaper editorial board meetings. On the campaign trail, he's pinning the blame, in part, on Gavin Newsom and Antonio Villaraigosa, both Democrats and former mayors of San Francisco and Los Angeles, respectively.
...
Allen, who represents a conservative Orange County stronghold that includes Huntington Beach, says tackling homelessness is too great a task for cities and counties alone, so the state must intervene — an unusual position for a Republican running on smaller government. Allen insists the plan would not cost taxpayers more — an assertion refuted by experts.
It is based on America's former practice of housing mentally ill patients in state-run institutions, an approach phased out across the U.S. beginning in the 1960s and 70s. Institutions for decades were seen as a drain on public resources and widely viewed as ineffective and inhumane. As the federal government steered states toward community-centered mental health treatment, it also slashed funding for care, which experts say led to an increase of homeless people on the streets with untreated mental illness and substance abuse problems.
Allen says part of the reason California has more homeless people than any other state is because it ended institutionalization. He said he'd bring institutions back with a robust offering of mental health services, substance abuse treatment and job-training.
"If you cannot provide a roof over your head in California, and you're a California citizen, a roof will be provided for you," Allen told The Sacramento Bee Editorial Board last week. "You will no longer be allowed to sleep out on our sidewalks, under our bridges or on the side of our freeways in California."
He said public spaces shouldn't be "littered" with homeless people. He said he'd require law enforcement to aggressively enforce anti-camping and loitering laws characterized by social justice groups as criminalization of homelessness.
A bit more on whether the costs are reasonable or not at the above link.
So I've been avoiding posting about it because it was more "local," but it looks like this is getting state-wide now.
There was another "black person killed by police" a few weeks ago in Sacramento. It's led to weeks of protests, including a temporary shutdown of I-5, two Sacramento Kings games where fans were blocked from getting into the game (thus thrusting the whole situation into the national spotlight, where oddly enough the Kings seem to be landing on the protestor side of things, wearing t-shirts on their side, etc), leading to a partnership between BLM and the Kings. They're still ongoing, with a protest planned at the DA's office this afternoon (warning: facebook link). Most recent wrinkle was this past Saturday, a protester was hit by a police vehicle which then drove off. tl;dr - lots of shit happening in Sacramento right now, it's still ongoing. This isn't a police thread, nor a protest thread, nor anything else in the above. But it is a California politics thread.
Three decades ago, two United States Supreme Court cases determined that police can use deadly force if a "reasonable" officer in similar circumstances would have acted the same way.
So what happens when the public disagrees with the police about what might be considered reasonable?
California lawmakers plan to introduce a bill Tuesday that would tighten the state standard for use of lethal force to "necessary" – when there are no alternatives for the officer to consider in that situation. Police would not be justified in killing the suspect if their own actions caused the deadly force to become necessary.
Assemblywoman Shirley Weber, a San Diego Democrat who is carrying the bill, said the current standard is too broad because it legitimizes the fear that sometimes causes officers to act abruptly without first trying to deescalate a confrontation. Police should only use lethal force, she said, when there is an immediate threat to their life or someone else nearby.
Emphasis mine. Obviously haven't seen the text of the bill, but I feel like this is a very good, reasonable restriction to put in place - if the actions of the officer lead to the circumstances where they felt threatened to the point where they needed deadly force, the officer would not be justified.
Yes yes yes
In gubenatorial race matters, Republican candidate is advocating forced institutionalization of homeless.
Republican gubernatorial candidate Travis Allen says he'd build state-run institutions and force homeless people to live in them against their will, if necessary.
"We need state-run mental institutions where people can actually go, (where) the indigent can go and get the help that they need," Allen said at a housing forum last month. "What we're doing is not working."
Allen, currently in the state Assembly, is pushing the idea as part of his platform in public debates, interviews and newspaper editorial board meetings. On the campaign trail, he's pinning the blame, in part, on Gavin Newsom and Antonio Villaraigosa, both Democrats and former mayors of San Francisco and Los Angeles, respectively.
...
Allen, who represents a conservative Orange County stronghold that includes Huntington Beach, says tackling homelessness is too great a task for cities and counties alone, so the state must intervene — an unusual position for a Republican running on smaller government. Allen insists the plan would not cost taxpayers more — an assertion refuted by experts.
It is based on America's former practice of housing mentally ill patients in state-run institutions, an approach phased out across the U.S. beginning in the 1960s and 70s. Institutions for decades were seen as a drain on public resources and widely viewed as ineffective and inhumane. As the federal government steered states toward community-centered mental health treatment, it also slashed funding for care, which experts say led to an increase of homeless people on the streets with untreated mental illness and substance abuse problems.
Allen says part of the reason California has more homeless people than any other state is because it ended institutionalization. He said he'd bring institutions back with a robust offering of mental health services, substance abuse treatment and job-training.
"If you cannot provide a roof over your head in California, and you're a California citizen, a roof will be provided for you," Allen told The Sacramento Bee Editorial Board last week. "You will no longer be allowed to sleep out on our sidewalks, under our bridges or on the side of our freeways in California."
He said public spaces shouldn't be "littered" with homeless people. He said he'd require law enforcement to aggressively enforce anti-camping and loitering laws characterized by social justice groups as criminalization of homelessness.
I think we do need to re-introduce state run mental hospitals, but it has to be care and rehabilitation not just another way to destroy peoples civil rights, because our current safety net for the mentally ill is roughly "fuck you good luck"
But it's not directly the solution to the homeless (although it would help) and I certainly I don't trust that guy to do it right at all.
I'm pretty sure that institute idea is unconstitutional but I wouldn't put it past the this court.
And yes rules around police and deadly force need to be more strict. The shooting in question was ridiculous; the officers left hard cover to attack instead of yelling instructions.
I think we do need to re-introduce state run mental hospitals, but it has to be care and rehabilitation not just another way to destroy peoples civil rights, because our current safety net for the mentally ill is roughly "fuck you good luck"
But it's not directly the solution to the homeless (although it would help) and I certainly I don't trust that guy to do it right at all.
The issue with mental institutions, at their core, is that you can't detain people without their permission, which means it's impossible to hold people with legitimate mental illness who refuse to acknowledge they have such an illness. And unfortunately, those are most often the people who you most want off the streets.
I don't know how to resolve that conundrum, though
He's out and safe and sound like Vadim is, but he does report passing "blood drips" on the floor and stairs on the way out. Hopefully it's someone who accidentally gave themselves a minor injury in the scramble to evacuate rather than anything serious.
I think we do need to re-introduce state run mental hospitals, but it has to be care and rehabilitation not just another way to destroy peoples civil rights, because our current safety net for the mentally ill is roughly "fuck you good luck"
But it's not directly the solution to the homeless (although it would help) and I certainly I don't trust that guy to do it right at all.
The issue with mental institutions, at their core, is that you can't detain people without their permission, which means it's impossible to hold people with legitimate mental illness who refuse to acknowledge they have such an illness. And unfortunately, those are most often the people who you most want off the streets.
I don't know how to resolve that conundrum, though
The thing is most of these people are getting institutionalized at some point or another. It starts as an option instead of prison, like hey you did this but because of your history here is an alternative where you can do your time but hopefully get help to lower your recidivism likelihood. And you're also able to stay voluntarily after that time period if you and your doctors agree its good idea (with a lawyer to verify its all above board). At least that's how I see it starting.
It's always going to be a grey area, because we as a society value individual sovereignty which is important, but almost anything would be better than the current system.
Any other issues with such institutionalization aside, I'm not sure I trust something as large as a state run organization to be nimble enough to handle a community based issue like mental illness when basic civil liberties are on the line. Certainly not given the pathetic amount of funding it would certainly be given.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
The couple people I know are safe. We're talking about it down the peninsula and there's really no where to hide in most modern tech offices.
YouTube is Google owned, and I know when I worked at Google's European HQ in Dublin the place was 90% open plan. That was sort of the point of the place.
Posts
This is a load of gooseshit. If there are Republicans in the Bay Area (and there are), then yes, the Republican Party does, in fact, have a role in the politics of the area. By the way, let me remind you that the California "blue wall" is only two decades old at the most - we are talking about the home state of Nixon and Reagan. And as you pointed out I'm currently from Montana, a state people consider to be red - and which currently has a sitting Democratic governor and Democratic Senator.
In theory, it actually gives the minority more power to act as a king maker. Since theoretically the votes from the party that had 2 winning candidates would be relatively split, so they'd be able to put their finger on the scale for the more moderate candidate. Whereas a close party primary traditionally rewards being more ideologically extreme.
To pick numbers completely out of a hat, Say that the Rs have like 30% of the vote, which is not enough to get a candidate a win against even a 40%/30%+1 split for the 2 D candidates. It wouldn't even take a majority of the minority votes to push the 2nd place winner, who for the sake of argument lets say is more ideologically conservative, past the one that was more popular among the voters of the other party. In theory.
We have a more than 70% majority dude. In any sort of multi-party system the area would be represented by a Liberal and Progressive party.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-pot-tax-reduction-california-legislature-20180315-story.html
Sacramento Bee's editorial staff already has their OpEd on them up, basically saying "hell no to 70, yes to everything else."
Are there limits to just building out BART (and other supporting transit) farther into the hinterlands, and betting on development following?
I mean, once you get to places like Pittsburg (CA) you're not going to get people who are trying to commute into SF anymore, but you might get people who are commuting in to the places where people commute in to SF.
edit: Pittsburgh-based name shame
Depends on whether you expect for public transportation to pay for itself, honestly. If there's tax funds available and the general will, then sure - expand away. But people don't want their tax dollars going to subsidize bus programs, etc, as much if they're not going to use them, so the lines wither and die without enough demand.
Also, fyi, CA's is Pittsburg without an h
It'd be nice to see them put a Bart line in Vallejo, there are bunch of commuters there too.
There needs to be another way for the trains in and out of the city before you can actually have a higher volume of commuter trains to serve a wider area. And the amount of money and time that would take makes it not a fix that will happen any time soon. And you can't run express lines because all the trains are going down the same exact stretches of track in each direction.
Edit: There are some folks who commute from further out into say Oakland, but the vast majority of the train is packed right up until the first SF stop and then it clears out real quick between that and the next stop.
Please save us from Mayors Ledford and Parris.
Sorry, only political connection I've got down there is friends of the kid of one of Orange County's city council members :P
100% I'm on the Fremont line and by the time it gets to me in Hayward in the morning it's already standing room only
By the time we get to SF proper it's packed like sardines and feels like a sauna.
I stumbled on one the other week too. Nice. Still not a lot more room. Better seats at least, and I like the digital maps.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
70 sounds like a bag full of stupid.
Re: 69, I'm often hesitant about bond initiatives because I'm accustomed to our state's budget being a clusterfuck, but as far as bond measures go that sounds like a good one.
Still in committee, but looking to have accounts that are bots to have that clearly labeled.
There was another "black person killed by police" a few weeks ago in Sacramento. It's led to weeks of protests, including a temporary shutdown of I-5, two Sacramento Kings games where fans were blocked from getting into the game (thus thrusting the whole situation into the national spotlight, where oddly enough the Kings seem to be landing on the protestor side of things, wearing t-shirts on their side, etc), leading to a partnership between BLM and the Kings. They're still ongoing, with a protest planned at the DA's office this afternoon (warning: facebook link). Most recent wrinkle was this past Saturday, a protester was hit by a police vehicle which then drove off. tl;dr - lots of shit happening in Sacramento right now, it's still ongoing. This isn't a police thread, nor a protest thread, nor anything else in the above. But it is a California politics thread.
http://www.sacbee.com/site-services/newsletters/capitol-alert-newsletter/article207741689.html
Emphasis mine. Obviously haven't seen the text of the bill, but I feel like this is a very good, reasonable restriction to put in place - if the actions of the officer lead to the circumstances where they felt threatened to the point where they needed deadly force, the officer would not be justified.
In gubenatorial race matters, Republican candidate is advocating forced institutionalization of homeless.
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article207220764.html
A bit more on whether the costs are reasonable or not at the above link.
*edit* OH SHIT! This guy works there! Founder of Frisbeechat. He's been evacuated now.
Yes yes yes
Fuck you fuck you fuck you
But it's not directly the solution to the homeless (although it would help) and I certainly I don't trust that guy to do it right at all.
And yes rules around police and deadly force need to be more strict. The shooting in question was ridiculous; the officers left hard cover to attack instead of yelling instructions.
http://www.capradio.org/articles/2018/04/03/sacramento-sheriff-scott-jones-suggests-paid-protesters-agitated-deputy-before-his-suv-hit-stephon-clark-demonstrator/
Yeah - he ran for Congress in 2016 and lost. I am very much not a fan of Scott Jones.
Oh wow, I used to live half a block from there. It's also about half a mile-ish from where the gas pipeline exploded back in... 2009ish?
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
The issue with mental institutions, at their core, is that you can't detain people without their permission, which means it's impossible to hold people with legitimate mental illness who refuse to acknowledge they have such an illness. And unfortunately, those are most often the people who you most want off the streets.
I don't know how to resolve that conundrum, though
Hopefully it's a false alarm, though it seems something happened. This tweet is from another employee there.
He's out and safe and sound like Vadim is, but he does report passing "blood drips" on the floor and stairs on the way out. Hopefully it's someone who accidentally gave themselves a minor injury in the scramble to evacuate rather than anything serious.
The thing is most of these people are getting institutionalized at some point or another. It starts as an option instead of prison, like hey you did this but because of your history here is an alternative where you can do your time but hopefully get help to lower your recidivism likelihood. And you're also able to stay voluntarily after that time period if you and your doctors agree its good idea (with a lawyer to verify its all above board). At least that's how I see it starting.
It's always going to be a grey area, because we as a society value individual sovereignty which is important, but almost anything would be better than the current system.
I'll admit my brain jumped to the reactions to youtube removing videos of people who plan on selling their guns, though.
http://abcnews.go.com/Live
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
YouTube is Google owned, and I know when I worked at Google's European HQ in Dublin the place was 90% open plan. That was sort of the point of the place.