Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-03-2018, 02:48 AM
 
32,812 posts, read 12,091,603 times
Reputation: 14628

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe View Post
I voted for Antonio, so no guilt here.

But, one of the reasons we have Trump in office, is because the Democratic/Green party vote got split.

I'd much rather have Chiang in office than Gruesome, but we can't afford the luxury of splitting the vote.

I hate it, but that's reality. If you vote for Chiang, you might be electing Cox. Scary thought.
LOL.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-03-2018, 01:04 PM
 
2,830 posts, read 2,488,168 times
Reputation: 2737
Quote:
Originally Posted by V8 Vega View Post
You think we have high taxes now, they will skyrocket if Newsom gets in, he scares me to death.
They will skyrocket, and more importantly, the majority of Californians won't notice any difference in the quality or quantity of tax-funded services received.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2018, 04:00 PM
 
Location: NNV
3,433 posts, read 3,685,434 times
Reputation: 6732
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFBayBoomer View Post
John Cox is not the lesser evil, not since he went over to the dark side and now says he supports the single most evil politician ever...Trump.
Like I said, the electorate and the state senate will keep from pursuing a overly conservative agenda. There is very little to stop Newsom. That is scarier.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-03-2018, 05:19 PM
 
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
7,665 posts, read 5,375,177 times
Reputation: 16096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic Romano View Post
Like I said, the electorate and the state senate will keep from pursuing a overly conservative agenda. There is very little to stop Newsom. That is scarier.
Gavin Newsom will not get to appoint Supreme Court Justices of the U.S.A., so no, that is not scarier than what is going on at the national level. Governors don't wield as much power, even if they are in charge of one of the world's top economies like we have in California.

Anyone who doesn't have the guts to reject Trump—and Cox finally jumped on the Trump wagon—will not be given the honor of governing our beautiful state.

Cox wants to do away with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which requires developers to get projects assessed for their environmental impact. That is just BAD.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2018, 09:33 PM
 
Location: Sylmar, a part of Los Angeles
8,241 posts, read 6,295,177 times
Reputation: 17233
16,000 feces complaint in one week in San Francisco. Newsom was mayor of Frisco. His liberal policies are why this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2018, 10:53 PM
 
Location: Tujunga, Ca
176 posts, read 175,386 times
Reputation: 370
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFBayBoomer View Post
Gavin Newsom will not get to appoint Supreme Court Justices of the U.S.A., so no, that is not scarier than what is going on at the national level. Governors don't wield as much power, even if they are in charge of one of the world's top economies like we have in California.

Anyone who doesn't have the guts to reject Trump—and Cox finally jumped on the Trump wagon—will not be given the honor of governing our beautiful state.

Cox wants to do away with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which requires developers to get projects assessed for their environmental impact. That is just BAD.

that's your opinion. eliminate ceqa and there will be more building. more building means cheaper housing.. isn't that what all you liberals want anyway or you just closet NIMBYs
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2018, 11:04 PM
 
Location: Silicon Valley
18,812 posts, read 32,253,997 times
Reputation: 38559
Quote:
Originally Posted by anrev View Post
that's your opinion. eliminate ceqa and there will be more building. more building means cheaper housing.. isn't that what all you liberals want anyway or you just closet NIMBYs
More building actually does not mean cheaper housing. That's a PR stunt that only really helps developers. If you look at the percentage of units for any new supposedly affordable housing development, it's usually pitifully small - 10% if you're lucky. The rest are rented at market rent.

And in this market, they can't build enough new units to cause any kind of price wars with landlords, so it's all just a joke, really.

But anytime anyone groups people into a box, such as "all you liberals," it usually shows a lack of understanding of the complexities of any situation or argument. That's too easy. You're probably really smarter than that. Or at least, I hope so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-05-2018, 11:30 PM
 
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
7,665 posts, read 5,375,177 times
Reputation: 16096
I am pro-environment, and against unchecked growth. Therefore, I am not fond of either of these two politician's policies. They both want to build too much and too quickly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2018, 12:03 AM
 
Location: Silicon Valley
18,812 posts, read 32,253,997 times
Reputation: 38559
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFBayBoomer View Post
I am pro-environment, and against unchecked growth. Therefore, I am not fond of either of these two politician's policies. They both want to build too much and too quickly.
Yep. Probably both taking donations from developers, and they'll spin it as if they are doing something regarding affordable housing, and it will take a while before the voters realize it was all a big smoke screen. I sure wish we had better candidates to choose between.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-06-2018, 01:29 AM
 
381 posts, read 341,044 times
Reputation: 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe View Post
More building actually does not mean cheaper housing. That's a PR stunt that only really helps developers. If you look at the percentage of units for any new supposedly affordable housing development, it's usually pitifully small - 10% if you're lucky. The rest are rented at market rent.

And in this market, they can't build enough new units to cause any kind of price wars with landlords, so it's all just a joke, really.
Oh my goodness, only 90% of new developments are “market rate housing “. We’d better have the government build and manage 100% of housing. Maybe Gavin Newsom can erect Soviet style apartment blocks run by the government once he is elected by the critical thinkers in California.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
View detailed profiles of:

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top