How are you voting on Prop 7?

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

Originally Posted by tstieber

In places like San Diego, which is really far East in longitude and really far south in latitude, we already suffer from early sunsets year round and early sunrises year round. Even though we're farther south, our sunsets even in winter are earlier than San Francisco. If we move to permanent Standard Time, then we face 7pm sunset times in summer but sunrises at 4:30. The first light of dawn would be at 4 AM when everyone's trying to sleep but then it would get dark early. Those are weird hours. And the whole state would have early sunrises like that in summer. So I would be thrilled with year round DST instead.

I do think it's funny how people complain so much about the one hour adjustment twice a year, yet they'll get on a plane to Hawaii, the East Coast, or Europe and have to shift three hours or more twice within a week or two for a vacation or business trip. But they can't handle just one hour shift? I think there isn't really a problem here to begin with.

I see your point about the vacations, but I think getting ready for work in the morning is different, especially with kids.

[dvxhd]

Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe

Actually, it looks like that is the real goal. It's expected that Washington DC will say no, if we try to do this. But, the more states that try it, the bigger the momentum will be to go for a national change.

All this proposition does, really, is give the legislature the ability to ask Washington for permission to do it. And they'll probably say no.

It's just really a strategy to get some more states on board to get the nation to get rid of the different time changes.

And there's a risk it could backfire. If it were to go through, it's not the end of the world and wouldn't be chaotic, but people are kidding themselves if they think it'll make everything easier. When other states don't do it, California will have to make adjustments as Arizona and Hawaii would be the only other states to be constant. Some things California was one of the first to do didn't make states suddenly follow suit. For instance, in 1996 California was the first to legalize medical marijuana and over 20 years later most but not all states have done it; in 2016 it was one of the first to legalize it for recreational use, but a lot of states aren't on board with that. Physician-assisted death is also legal here, and California was one of the first to legalize it, though other states aren't following suit. Same-sex marriage was back and forth, and California was among the first to recognize it, but eventually it came down to the Supreme Court; without judicial intervention, most states likely still wouldn't have legalized it.

Don't overestimate states in flyover country to do anything logical, especially if it means change. I could write a dissertation on what I noticed in Oklahoma and Arizona that would've been good for either state, but locals are just adamantly against their leaders doing anything to shake things up, unless an issue hits a crucial point (namely and recently in both states, education).

Those aforementioned examples may be a bit more controversial, but even more trivial things take some time to catch on even if they've gained traction in coastal cities. Getting rid of something they've grown accustomed to will be met with resistance, and they have to be dragged kicking and screaming into a major change. Yes, daylight saving is outdated and trivial, thus it doesn't seem like a massive change, but you're giving people of the interior far too much credit. In my experience, they'd rather complain about things than try something new out of fear of leaving what they know. I would rather Californians push their respective representatives to raise the issue in Congress (despite all the negative news, they still do get some things done), because as difficult as that may seem, it will be even harder to get states to recognize it one-by-one.

[JJonesIII]

I'm voting YES". Assuming I'm reading this correctly, it would be light later into the evening? When I first read this, I thought it was the other way around and was like "hell no". I definitely want to have light later in the evening. I think it help everyones disposition to get a little light on the way home and maybe even get in a little neighborhood walk after dinner. There's also less of a likelihood (IMHO) of having accidents on the afternoon commute and I suspect crimes like mugging would go down from people having to walk in the dark after getting off work. I'm not buying for a second the argument of the kids having to walk to school in the dark. When I was growing up, first class was 830am in grammar school and 750am in high school. I wasn't walking in the dark in either situation.

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

Originally Posted by dvxhd

And there's a risk it could backfire. If it were to go through, it's not the end of the world and wouldn't be chaotic, but people are kidding themselves if they think it'll make everything easier. When other states don't do it, California will have to make adjustments as Arizona and Hawaii would be the only other states to be constant. Some things California was one of the first to do didn't make states suddenly follow suit. For instance, in 1996 California was the first to legalize medical marijuana and over 20 years later most but not all states have done it; in 2016 it was one of the first to legalize it for recreational use, but a lot of states aren't on board with that. Physician-assisted death is also legal here, and California was one of the first to legalize it, though other states aren't following suit. Same-sex marriage was back and forth, and California was among the first to recognize it, but eventually it came down to the Supreme Court; without judicial intervention, most states likely still wouldn't have legalized it.

Don't overestimate states in flyover country to do anything logical, especially if it means change. I could write a dissertation on what I noticed in Oklahoma and Arizona that would've been good for either state, but locals are just adamantly against their leaders doing anything to shake things up, unless an issue hits a crucial point (namely and recently in both states, education).

Those aforementioned examples may be a bit more controversial, but even more trivial things take some time to catch on even if they've gained traction in coastal cities. Getting rid of something they've grown accustomed to will be met with resistance, and they have to be dragged kicking and screaming into a major change. Yes, daylight saving is outdated and trivial, thus it doesn't seem like a massive change, but you're giving people of the interior far too much credit. In my experience, they'd rather complain about things than try something new out of fear of leaving what they know. I would rather Californians push their respective representatives to raise the issue in Congress (despite all the negative news, they still do get some things done), because as difficult as that may seem, it will be even harder to get states to recognize it one-by-one.

I'm not saying California is trying to be some leader. There are other states doing the same thing. We're just looking at joining them, not trying to be the leader.

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

Here are the other states with this issue either already passed or on the ballot, etc., per this Washington Post article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.dfce5da301a9

Arizona
Alaska
Florida
Idaho
Illinois
Michigan
Missouri
New Mexico
Oregon
Texas
Utah
Washington

[ecvMatt]

I think changing the clocks twice a year is silly and archaic, but, it's a good reminder to change the batteries in the smoke/CO detectors.

[SFBayBoomer]

Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe

Here are the other states with this issue either already passed or on the ballot, etc., per this Washington Post article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.dfce5da301a9

Arizona
Alaska
Florida
Idaho
Illinois
Michigan
Missouri
New Mexico
Oregon
Texas
Utah
Washington

That 2015 article has the title "A bunch of states want to get rid of daylight saving time. Is your state one of them?"

My one worry with the proposition before us now is that we might not end up getting Permanent Daylight Savings Time, that most of us want, but that some legislators might do just the opposite and make it Permanent Standard Time. That would be a horrible step backward.

Florida's "Sunshine Protection Act" had the right idea because it did not give any option for anything but Daylight Saving Time.

I want it clear that the move will be to permanent Daylight Saving Time and NOT permanent Standard Time. I am willing to change my clocks twice a year in order to ensure that we get AT LEAST EIGHT MONTHS of Daylight Saving Time, as we do now.

[artillery77]

Voting no....do we really have so few problems that we have to invent one? We don't have to be different in EVERY way...there's nothing wrong with what we have. Let's stay consistent here.