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)
 
Old 07-29-2020, 07:31 PM
 
3,347 posts, read 2,310,312 times
Reputation: 2819

Advertisements

Good points, apparently it is lobbyist based not science based. Grocers seem to have strong lobby’s with politicians who bend things their way. As with mandatory fees on permissible bags after the cheap thin ones they use to keep overhead costs at a minimum were banned. I mean Large retail stores such as Macy’s and Nordstrom need to adapt delivery and curbside only but apparently it’s too difficult for grocery stores to do the same even if optional, but yet they will do it for unmasked customers to keep them from entering?

As for the pools it’s not just Public municipal pools that are affected, privately owned pools from aquatic centers, water parks hotel, resorts, campground, country clubs, apartments, and HOAs are also subject to a lot of red tape too if they want their pools open this summer.

I heard some hotels/apartments/associations can only allow ten guests a pool at a time and reservations as well as someone to guard the door. Ever day if feels like even if things reopen they reopened into a new world police state. There is little feel of returning to normalcy despite reopening. Though I am hearing some Salsa/Zumba teachers are now able to move their classes to city parks now that studios and fitness centers remain locked down. I be curious how they keep making money this way.

website examples of Lots of buracracy these days just to go for dip in the city pool:
carlsbadca.gov/services/depts/parks/programs/aquatics/lap_swim___rec_swim___masters_swim___aquafit.asp
cityofmartinez.org/documents/Recreation/Lap%20Swim%20Rules%20and%20Guidelines%202020%20-REVISED.pdf
Even hotel pools, this one may not be in California but you get the picture:
squawpeakhilton.com/activities/river-ranch-water-park

Those days of simply going for a casual swim seems behind us.

Last edited by citizensadvocate; 07-29-2020 at 08:07 PM..

 
Old 07-29-2020, 09:32 PM
 
Location: all over the place (figuratively)
6,616 posts, read 4,882,033 times
Reputation: 3601
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizensadvocate View Post
When question I have is about if CDC says aquatics, water, and swimming pools are safe.
cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/parks-rec/aquatic-venues.html

How come it appears swimming pools are subject to so much red tape these days even ones that are outside exposed to the air. Swimming pools that I experienced in much of the country including in this populated state are hardly crowded most of the time and many times wide open compared to the people enjoying it. Pool complexes that can accommodate 150 people rarely have 50 at best normally averaging no more than 10-20 in a pool at the same time. Olympic sized pools hardly feel crowded at any time particularly if its used for lap swim only normally one to two max a lane but even if its used for recreational swim its hardly at 30% of capacity at best. And aside from the pool ladder and stairs there are almost no contact points for swimmers if there are no tables and chairs around the pool.

Yet they are among the last to get approved to open in many areas if they open at all this summer, and even if opened these days there are subject a ridiculous amount of restrictions for pool keepers and users alike. I.e mandatory reservations, only 45 minutes segments per person a day. no locker or changing room open, showering even outside showers and toilet use severely restricted(In some places users are not even allowed to stop at the shower or toilet when their 45 minute time window is up this is . Pools are shocked three times a day. which results in long down times a day.

Wouldn't having pool chairs removed, jacuzzis drained or only open to families with time slots, moving lockers and changing areas outside with frequently sanitized dividers, and limiting entry to 50% of capacity which is rarely if ever reached on a normal day for a city pool anyways enough? If its ever reached allow one group to leave and another group to enter.
Changing outdoors? Locker rooms and bathrooms are virus-friendly enclosed spaces (except for those with partially open roofs, not something that can just be added with a finger snap).

Quote:
On the flip side grocery stores with so many contact points i.e shopping carts, products, refrigerator handles, checkout machines, etc not to mention having many people indoors thus greater likely hood of exposure it appears many had lifted their entrance capacity restrictions put in place in April, they even lifted the ban on reusable bags and allow charging ordinances to continue again.
Quote:
Good points, apparently it is lobbyist based not science based. Grocers seem to have strong lobby’s with politicians who bend things their way. As with mandatory fees on permissible bags after the cheap thin ones they use to keep overhead costs at a minimum were banned. I mean Large retail stores such as Macy’s and Nordstrom need to adapt delivery and curbside only but apparently it’s too difficult for grocery stores to do the same even if optional, but yet they will do it for unmasked customers to keep them from entering?
Many items are almost unique (different weights and sizes) and there are tons of changing discounts and coupons. Most customers would not be happy with groceries picked for them. Plus, think of the manpower needed for that, considering the large percentage of the population regularly shopping for groceries. Even China let its locked-down residents go get groceries. Improvement is doable in many safety-related aspects of grocery shopping, but don't expect a big benefit to public health.

Quote:
I heard some hotels/apartments/associations can only allow ten guests a pool at a time and reservations as well as someone to guard the door. Ever day if feels like even if things reopen they reopened into a new world police state. There is little feel of returning to normalcy despite reopening. Though I am hearing some Salsa/Zumba teachers are now able to move their classes to city parks now that studios and fitness centers remain locked down. I be curious how they keep making money this way.
Because they spend good money to operate in those spaces, whereas parks are free (except maybe for parking). If you think these things through first, you'll have fewer complaints.
 
Old 07-30-2020, 06:33 AM
 
Location: So Ca
26,727 posts, read 26,812,827 times
Reputation: 24790
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizensadvocate View Post
...grocery stores with so many contact points i.e shopping carts, products, refrigerator handles, checkout machines, etc...
We're probably not getting this virus from touching inanimate objects, citizen. Read up.
 
Old 07-30-2020, 09:58 AM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
18,982 posts, read 32,656,174 times
Reputation: 13635
Quote:
Originally Posted by HereOnMars View Post
And that typo error was supposed to read "when they felt it was justified."

There is no justification for strong arming anyone, Tulemutt. Newsom could and should sit down face to face with these city leaders and talk with them, not to them. When a person takes the time to talk earnestly with another about how ignoring safety precautions will only hurt their community, I believe it's possible to convince them. Too often now, our leaders use threats of withholding one thing or another to get their way.

It doesn't matter which side does it because they all do it. No partisan here, just power plays over another. Newsom doing this doesn't make him a bad person, it only makes him look bad when he uses the same tactics that were used on him.
Exactly. Trump felt Sanctuary City policies were dangerous and it's not hard to see why he and his supporters think that; Katie Stienle, Ramos family murders, etc... So he wanted to strong arm cities with withholding federal funds because it felt it was an important issue and endangered people's safety. That's why Telemutt's I found "analogy" was so ridiculously biased/one-sided.

Couldn't ABC, CA Dept of Public Health, etc...go in and fine or shut businesses down rather than withhold badly needed funds from municipalities?
 
Old 07-30-2020, 10:02 AM
 
83 posts, read 32,502 times
Reputation: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
So we should indulge the fantasies of two cities who have decided that they can do whatever they want and the state can be damned? What about the next city or county that decides to do that same thing. We aren't confined to one zip code so no matter how careful the people are where I live we are at the mercy of people in other parts of the state, and both of these cities were approached and asked to comply with the state directives they flat out refused. And letting bars reopen and permitting hundreds of people to cram into a church has nothing to do with common decency, in fact that is the exact opposite.

But you tell me- what is your solution?
I’ve read your posts and you’re very inconsistent. It seems like people with your same political leanings get a pass, but those you disagree with don’t. That’s the whole trouble with this thing, it’s become a political issue.

There are rules and laws regarding immigration. No one is supposed to come in without going through the proper channels. If they do, California decided to defy the feds, declare itself a sanctuary state and works to protect them from federal law. Trump threatens to withhold money and he’s labeled a tyrant. Meanwhile, California is the champion of the poor “immigrant”.

The state imposes restrictions due to the virus. Two cities decide to defy that and declare themselves sanctuary cities for businesses. Newsom decides to withhold money and that’s fine, he’s protecting all of the poor citizens of California from the evil sanctuary cities that push back.

It’s the exact same thing. Here’s a newsflash, they got “sanctuary cities“ from the existing ones that shield illegal aliens. They’re shielding businesses.

You also have a problem with bars, restaurants and churches, but give a pass to protesters. After months of being silent or coming out with an idiotic study that says protests helped stop the virus (please), officials are now admitting it added to it.

Your positions are obviously political. If thousands can protest without issues, I can go to a bar, restaurant or church.

If California can shield illegal immigrants, cities can shield businesses. If Newsom is right to withhold money from those cities, Trump is right to withhold money from California. If Trump is tyrant, so is Newsom.
 
Old 07-30-2020, 10:02 AM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
18,982 posts, read 32,656,174 times
Reputation: 13635
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
Probably because the Mercury News brought it up to everyone's attention finally: Coronavirus: Why is San Mateo the only Bay Area county not on state watchlist?

No way the Chronicle/SF Gate was going to.
 
Old 07-30-2020, 10:29 AM
 
3,155 posts, read 2,700,812 times
Reputation: 11985
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizensadvocate View Post
Good points, apparently it is lobbyist based not science based. Grocers seem to have strong lobby’s with politicians who bend things their way. As with mandatory fees on permissible bags after the cheap thin ones they use to keep overhead costs at a minimum were banned. I mean Large retail stores such as Macy’s and Nordstrom need to adapt delivery and curbside only but apparently it’s too difficult for grocery stores to do the same even if optional, but yet they will do it for unmasked customers to keep them from entering?
Well, in truth, you'll be less confused and annoyed if you just accept that the plan is not to prevent the spread of the virus, but just to mitigate it. With no guarantee of a speedy vaccine in March, and a collapsing economy in April, the powers that be decided that they would try to shepherd the population toward herd immunity as slowly as possible. This is a blended approach that requires shuttering some things while leaving others open. Now that a vaccine is looking more likely, it seems the European/Asian model of total shutdown followed by track-and-trace was the right call. Of course, it is questionable if Americans could have managed it, especially with a CINC who politicized the virus response.

Of course, the situation we are now in is ripe for picking "winners" and "losers." The state is trying to make the "winners" economically-essential institutions and the "losers" the ones that will cause the least economic pain. That's fine, except that they insist that their approach is "science-based" leading us to assume that they mean the science of the disease. In fact, it is the science of economics. Those who expect actions aimed at minimizing the death rate are going to be disappointed. Those of us who like to enjoy free/inexpensive public spaces are likewise going to be disappointed.

Of course opening pools further will spread the virus. So will opening schools, parks, beaches, and playgrounds. It will just not spread it as much as opening indoor shopping, outdoor dining, non-essential surgeries, indoor workplaces, etc. etc, already has. But that is the price of less-fettered Capitalism and a weak social fabric. If you don't like it, either (try to) change it or find somewhere that you like better.
 
Old 07-30-2020, 11:16 AM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
42,850 posts, read 26,275,432 times
Reputation: 34058
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boggers View Post
I’ve read your posts and you’re very inconsistent. It seems like people with your same political leanings get a pass, but those you disagree with don’t. That’s the whole trouble with this thing, it’s become a political issue.

There are rules and laws regarding immigration. No one is supposed to come in without going through the proper channels. If they do, California decided to defy the feds, declare itself a sanctuary state and works to protect them from federal law. Trump threatens to withhold money and he’s labeled a tyrant. Meanwhile, California is the champion of the poor “immigrant”.

The state imposes restrictions due to the virus. Two cities decide to defy that and declare themselves sanctuary cities for businesses. Newsom decides to withhold money and that’s fine, he’s protecting all of the poor citizens of California from the evil sanctuary cities that push back.

It’s the exact same thing. Here’s a newsflash, they got “sanctuary cities“ from the existing ones that shield illegal aliens. They’re shielding businesses.

You also have a problem with bars, restaurants and churches, but give a pass to protesters. After months of being silent or coming out with an idiotic study that says protests helped stop the virus (please), officials are now admitting it added to it.

Your positions are obviously political. If thousands can protest without issues, I can go to a bar, restaurant or church.

If California can shield illegal immigrants, cities can shield businesses. If Newsom is right to withhold money from those cities, Trump is right to withhold money from California. If Trump is tyrant, so is Newsom.
Hot Damn! For a guy who joined the forum today you sure seem to know a lot about me, I'm impressed! It's been my experience that when a brand new member person posts things about another member an hour after they join City-Data they are usually a new sockpuppet account of a member or a reincarnation of a banned member. So assuming you're neither I am impressed!

But the only newsflash here is that you are wrong about sanctuary laws. Sanctuary laws don't "shield" anything. California's sanctuary law simply affirms that the state will not use state resources to enforce federal immigration law but it also permits federal law enforcement officers to enforce those laws within the state. The "business sanctuary" resolutions of Atwater and Coalinga are unlawful proclamations that state that they will not follow state public health directives, something that the legislature ruled would result in the loss of Covid relief money. They were asked nicely to revoke the resolutions and follow the health department directives, they refused. As a result, pursuant to the guidelines set by the California legislature they aren't getting the first tranche of money. If they decide to play by the rules they will be eligible for the next four distributions of funds.
 
Old 07-30-2020, 11:37 AM
 
83 posts, read 32,502 times
Reputation: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
Hot Damn! For a guy who joined the forum today you sure seem to know a lot about me, I'm impressed! It's been my experience that when a brand new member person posts things about another member an hour after they join City-Data they are usually a new sockpuppet account of a member or a reincarnation of a banned member. So assuming you're neither I am impressed!

But the only newsflash here is that you are wrong about sanctuary laws. Sanctuary laws don't "shield" anything. California's sanctuary law simply affirms that the state will not use state resources to enforce federal immigration law but it also permits federal law enforcement officers to enforce those laws within the state. The "business sanctuary" resolutions of Atwater and Coalinga are unlawful proclamations that state that they will not follow state public health directives, something that the legislature ruled would result in the loss of Covid relief money. They were asked nicely to revoke the resolutions and follow the health department directives, they refused. As a result, pursuant to the guidelines set by the California legislature they aren't getting the first tranche of money. If they decide to play by the rules they will be eligible for the next four distributions of funds.
I’ve been reading and resisting the urge to jump in, but your posts encouraged me to break my lurker status.

Interesting but completely wrong analysis of sanctuary cities/states. You are incorrect that it’s simply a matter of not using state resources to enforce federal immigration. It’s actively blocking any enforcement efforts by immigration. Hold orders are ignored. It’s also helping illegal immigration felons avoid deportation.

Whether you want to admit it or not, it’s the same. Last time I looked, California was part of the USA and has an obligation to abide by its laws. You expect cities to do something California is not. Hopefully the cities stand their ground. Speaking of sock puppets, you make an admirable effort for the left.

I also see you ignored the protest/bar/restaurant/church issue. You must not be able to rationalize that.
 
Old 07-30-2020, 11:59 AM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
42,850 posts, read 26,275,432 times
Reputation: 34058
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boggers View Post
I’ve been reading and resisting the urge to jump in, but your posts encouraged me to break my lurker status.

Interesting but completely wrong analysis of sanctuary cities/states. You are incorrect that it’s simply a matter of not using state resources to enforce federal immigration. It’s actively blocking any enforcement efforts by immigration. Hold orders are ignored. It’s also helping illegal immigration felons avoid deportation.

Whether you want to admit it or not, it’s the same. Last time I looked, California was part of the USA and has an obligation to abide by its laws. You expect cities to do something California is not. Hopefully the cities stand their ground. Speaking of sock puppets, you make an admirable effort for the left.

I also see you ignored the protest/bar/restaurant/church issue. You must not be able to rationalize that.
I dunno where you looked but no the state does not have to enforce federal immigration law, and the state does not block the federal enforcement of immigration law. There is no such thing as a "hold order" They are requests to detain, they are not an arrest warrant, if they were a judicial warrant they would be honored.
In 2018 DOJ filed suit against California for it's sanctuary laws, in 2020 the Supreme Court refused to hear the case and allowed the sanctuary provisions to stay in place. https://www.latimes.com/politics/sto...-sanctuary-law

I'm not sure what particular post you are referring to about the "protest/bar/restaurant/church issue" but since you are a newb I will explain something to you, I don't respond to every post and I don't need to explain why I choose to respond to some posts and not others.
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.


Closed Thread


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

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