How are you voting on Prop 6? (San Francisco: crime, house, law)

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

Originally Posted by SportyandMisty

Yes, you can get around that. Public works projects including roads, by statute, are not staffed at labor rates determined by the market wage. In practice California's "prevailing wage" law requires contractors to pay the maximum wage found and prevents contractors from using even moderately priced labor let alone low-cost labor.

If California scrapped its stupid prevailing wage law, then it would cost less to build & repair roads.

A better proposition would be one that requires an INCREASED allocation of EXISTING tax revenue to road repair. It should be prioritized above the mindless bureaucracy of state government. The first dollars into the state coffers should go to road repair.

Well, if there was enough money, I really think the roads would have been fixed.

I learned this year when my transmission died right after driving over a pot hole from hell in San Jose, that there are actually departments at the local and state governments - specifically for dealing with a process to get the local and state governments to pay for damage to your vehicle because of pot holes and damaged roads.

This must cost some money. After reviewing how to file claims with the local and/or state for the transmission damage, the transmission guy said that my tranny was stripped and about to die anyway, so he couldn't back me up that the damage was done by the bad road. But, I learned about this possibility from an acquaintance where I volunteer, who said she was reimbursed by the state for damage done to her vehicle because of a pot hole on a state highway.

So, logically, if there was enough money to just fix the roads, it would seem more cost-effective to fix the roads than pay for legal departments and administrative staff, etc., to process damage claims.

If you take money from here to move it there - you end up with a hole that needs funding.

And, I'm not going to vote to allow slave labor to bring down the cost of road construction. I'd rather pay a tax and pay them a decent wage.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by SportyandMisty

Yes, you can get around that. Public works projects including roads, by statute, are not staffed at labor rates determined by the market wage. In practice California's "prevailing wage" law requires contractors to pay the maximum wage found and prevents contractors from using even moderately priced labor let alone low-cost labor.
If California scrapped its stupid prevailing wage law, then it would cost less to build & repair roads.
A better proposition would be one that requires an INCREASED allocation of EXISTING tax revenue to road repair. It should be prioritized above the mindless bureaucracy of state government. The first dollars into the state coffers should go to road repair.

No, it's not the maximum wage.

A1. The prevailing wage rate is the basic hourly rate paid on public works projects to a majority of workers engaged in a particular craft, classification or type of work within the locality and in the nearest labor market area (if a majority of such workers are paid at a single rate). If there is no single rate paid to a majority, then the single or modal rate being paid to the greater number of workers is prevailing.

But sure we can ditch prevailing wage and hire contractors who pick up illegals outside home depot and pay them minimum wage, that sounds like a plan, huh?

[SportyandMisty]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

No, it's not the maximum wage.

You will see I said "in practice." In practice, the way that statute is implemented in California guarantees it is the maximum.

There are many instances where the implementation of a statute is very, very different from the statute itself.

[SportyandMisty]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

But sure we can ditch prevailing wage and hire contractors who pick up illegals outside home depot and pay them minimum wage, that sounds like a plan, huh?

Wait. There are illegals outside Home Depot? Why aren't the police arresting them? After all, there's a statute for that, right?

[JJonesIII]

Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe

Well, if there was enough money, I really think the roads would have been fixed.

I learned this year when my transmission died right after driving over a pot hole from hell in San Jose, that there are actually departments at the local and state governments - specifically for dealing with a process to get the local and state governments to pay for damage to your vehicle because of pot holes and damaged roads.

This must cost some money. After reviewing how to file claims with the local and/or state for the transmission damage, the transmission guy said that my tranny was stripped and about to die anyway, so he couldn't back me up that the damage was done by the bad road. But, I learned about this possibility from an acquaintance where I volunteer, who said she was reimbursed by the state for damage done to her vehicle because of a pot hole on a state highway.

So, logically, if there was enough money to just fix the roads, it would seem more cost-effective to fix the roads than pay for legal departments and administrative staff, etc., to process damage claims.

If you take money from here to move it there - you end up with a hole that needs funding.

And, I'm not going to vote to allow slave labor to bring down the cost of road construction. I'd rather pay a tax and pay them a decent wage.

Ultimately, very little is paid out for claims of this sort (it's chump change in the grand scheme of things). They only pay 1 in 10 and let's be honest, most people won't even put in for something like this (or simply don't know the process or that it exists). It really isn't that strong of an argument to say this would have some impact on fixing the roads.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2016/03/...othole-claims/

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Originally Posted by JJonesIII

Ultimately, very little is paid out for claims of this sort (it's chump change in the grand scheme of things). They only pay 1 in 10 and let's be honest, most people won't even put in for something like this (or simply don't know the process or that it exists). It really isn't that strong of an argument to say this would have some impact on fixing the roads.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2016/03/...othole-claims/

I've put in claims for years for my expensive bicycle tires getting shredded and I've never been successful getting the city to pay for them. Never had a problem with a truck or car tire but bike tires are thin.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe

Well, if there was enough money, I really think the roads would have been fixed.

I learned this year when my transmission died right after driving over a pot hole from hell in San Jose, that there are actually departments at the local and state governments - specifically for dealing with a process to get the local and state governments to pay for damage to your vehicle because of pot holes and damaged roads.

This must cost some money. After reviewing how to file claims with the local and/or state for the transmission damage, the transmission guy said that my tranny was stripped and about to die anyway, so he couldn't back me up that the damage was done by the bad road. But, I learned about this possibility from an acquaintance where I volunteer, who said she was reimbursed by the state for damage done to her vehicle because of a pot hole on a state highway.

So, logically, if there was enough money to just fix the roads, it would seem more cost-effective to fix the roads than pay for legal departments and administrative staff, etc., to process damage claims.

If you take money from here to move it there - you end up with a hole that needs funding.

And, I'm not going to vote to allow slave labor to bring down the cost of road construction. I'd rather pay a tax and pay them a decent wage.

If all the money actually went for road repair they would be in good shape. The spending is lousy.

[BB_210]

Originally Posted by SportyandMisty

Wait. There are illegals outside Home Depot? Why aren't the police arresting them? After all, there's a statute for that, right?

They can arrest them for loitering or something but no way should they be notifying ICE that they are holding on to some illegals, that just crosses the line! How are other illegals being arrested supposed to gain trust of the police?

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by SportyandMisty

Wait. There are illegals outside Home Depot? Why aren't the police arresting them? After all, there's a statute for that, right?

Local police can't investigate and arrest people for federal civil immigration violations unless the agency has a 287g agreement and the Officer is trained in federal immigration law.

[TCROX]

Wonder why that firefighter is on that flyer we got in the mail? NOT because he cares about popped tires or people dodging potholes... did you look up how much that CHP guy makes ?

L.A. County firefighters earn massive overtime pay, busting budgets and raising questions - Los Angeles Times
YES on prop 6 ! Time to get OUR money back and demand some restructuring of how OUR money is spent!