How are you voting on Prop 7? (San Diego, San Francisco: school, quality of life, live)

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

This is the proposition regarding staying in daylight savings time year-round.

I read several arguments and articles and I liked this one best, as it discusses how other states are also considering changing to DST, or those that already have, like Arizona.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/10/...-time-forever/

And here's a one-minute unbiased video on it (scroll down to the video):

https://elections.calmatters.org/201...t-saving-time/

I've decided to vote yes. In my opinion, a yes vote probably won't change things initially, because it will also require the approval of the president, and I agree with opponents that it's entirely possible that Washington DC won't sign off on it, simply because it's from CA.

But, if CA shows that we're on board with this change, it can help a movement across the nation, including organizations apparently waiting to start a real push - if - a certain number of states show support for it. So, right now, it's just part of a movement to change everyone to DST.

I've always thought DST was a PITA. And I disagree with the arguments regarding children having to go to school in the dark as being a strong argument against it - either kids walk to school, or from school in the dark. It's not going to be light on both ends of their day.

But, having more light at the end of the day, in my opinion, provides a better quality of life than having a lighter morning. Families and children activities usually happen after school, not before school. And the transition of the time change is really disruptive as far as sleep deprivation, eating schedules, etc.

So, I'm voting yes. I welcome your opinions.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe

This is the proposition regarding staying in daylight savings time year-round.

I read several arguments and articles and I liked this one best, as it discusses how other states are also considering changing to DST, or those that already have, like Arizona.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/10/...-time-forever/

And here's a one-minute unbiased video on it (scroll down to the video):

https://elections.calmatters.org/201...t-saving-time/

I've decided to vote yes. In my opinion, a yes vote probably won't change things initially, because it will also require the approval of the president, and I agree with opponents that it's entirely possible that Washington DC won't sign off on it, simply because it's from CA.

But, if CA shows that we're on board with this change, it can help a movement across the nation, including organizations apparently waiting to start a real push - if - a certain number of states show support for it. So, right now, it's just part of a movement to change everyone to DST.

I've always thought DST was a PITA. And I disagree with the arguments regarding children having to go to school in the dark as being a strong argument against it - either kids walk to school, or from school in the dark. It's not going to be light on both ends of their day.

But, having more light at the end of the day, in my opinion, provides a better quality of life than having a lighter morning. Families and children activities usually happen after school, not before school. And the transition of the time change is really disruptive as far as sleep deprivation, eating schedules, etc.

So, I'm voting yes. I welcome your opinions.

Nope it would be light in the AM and PM (before 3 is when they leave) so it does help protect them. beyond that the only issue is a non level arrangement across the country. Do it by federal mandate for everywhere or don't.

[payutenyodagimas]

im also on board..but if possible, make it only 30 minutes advance

dont want my body clock adjusting twice a year. as we get older, it takes time to adjust

[JGC97]

This Prop isn't a big issue for me. I don't have to be on the road with the sun in my eyes either in the AM or PM. Those are the folks I feel bad for. I just want the clock to stay the same and stop this silly back and forth every six months. Of course, this won't affect my life either way. I get up when I want, go to bed when I want and, well .. pretty much do what I want. Life is good.

Side note: I've really enjoyed you making threads on each of the Propositions this year, NoMoreSnow. I hope we can do it again.

[Tulemutt]

I’m in for banning time altogether.

[dvxhd]

No, a thousand times over, because people don't consider the broader picture and you won't escape the hassle.

First, I would be in favor of a nationwide revocation of DST, fixing everything to standard time. When it's a state-by-state level, speaking from experience, it can cause unforeseen headaches. I lived and worked in Arizona, and did work at a job that was dependent on multiple US time zones. For many of you, this part isn't directly applicable, but it meant that our schedules would indeed change twice per year anyway. When DST was inactive, it meant New York was two hours ahead of Phoenix, and LA one hour behind, so our "standard" hours would be fixed to that. If we operated at 8 AM EST, that meant someone had to be in at 6 AM Arizona time, and then if we closed at 5 PM PST, it meant someone stayed until 6 PM Arizona time. When DST went to effect, the 8 AM EDT stayed in effect, meaning the person working at 6 AM in Phoenix now had to be in at 5 AM, but the person staying until 5 PM PDT would then leave at 5 PM. To accommodate coverage, everyone's schedules shifted twice per year anyway.

If you work at a job that isn't so dependent on other time zones, you'll notice differences when other people are affected. In Phoenix I had an easier time with traffic, crowding, etc. during standard time than PDT, which I noticed when I worked at a job not dependent on time zones, but my commute was affected when thousands of other people's schedules changed. So, even if you have no change to your work hours, many other local people will, and you may notice differences when they have to change schedules.

Chances are you deal with someone in a different time zone (or in the case of Oregon and Washington, what would effectively be a new time zone), and you'll now need to adjust for that. If you do business with people elsewhere, or have friends or family in other time zones, you'll need to keep up with it regardless.

This would ultimately put California at permanent MST/PDT, like Arizona. In the cooler months it would be the same time here as it is in Denver (though now Vegas would be an hour behind, despite being east of California), and in warmer months it would be the same time as Seattle, as it is now. Look up sunrise/sunset times in California cities after November 3, then add an hour to all of those to see your new permanent fixture. Come late December/early January the sun is set to rise at just before 7 AM PST... which would then mean the sun would rise at about 8 AM in the winter. Likewise, the sun would set close to 6 PM under that change.

I really don't like daylight saving, and again I wish Congress would do away with it across the country, but I don't think this is a good idea. With a state as large as California, I imagine it's not going to be a smooth transition either as aforementioned (and other) related issues pop up. Because the state is so far west, I'd be more in favor of it staying on a permanent PST than MST, but overall I think California would be better off pushing for a change at the federal level for a broader change, as the European Union just did.

[SFBayBoomer]

Not an early bird here, I despise Standard Time with it's early darkness each evening. I want Daylight Savings Time all year long. If that fails, I'm willing to change all our many clocks twice a year, in order to keep EIGHT MONTHS of Daylight Savings time anything to escape the four months of Standard Time.

I don't think most Californians deal much with Arizonans or Hawaiians.

Youth sports leagues that count on long sunny afternoons for weekday practices and games want daylight savings time all year.

If California changes to DST all year, I think that other states will likely follow.

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

Originally Posted by HereOnMars

This Prop isn't a big issue for me. I don't have to be on the road with the sun in my eyes either in the AM or PM. Those are the folks I feel bad for. I just want the clock to stay the same and stop this silly back and forth every six months. Of course, this won't affect my life either way. I get up when I want, go to bed when I want and, well .. pretty much do what I want. Life is good.

Side note: I've really enjoyed you making threads on each of the Propositions this year, NoMoreSnow. I hope we can do it again.

LOL, the annual NoMoreSnowForMe voter guide - I like it.

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

Originally Posted by dvxhd

...but overall I think California would be better off pushing for a change at the federal level for a broader change, as the European Union just did.

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.

[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.