3 ms·

Prop 22 was passed by Lyft and Uber blackmailing a whole bunch of people at the height of Covid whose only income at the time was ridesharing. Those people are

by bsder 2y ago

Prop 22 was passed by Lyft and Uber blackmailing a whole bunch of people at the height of Covid whose only income at the time was ridesharing. Those people are now gone, ridesharing is the race to the bottom that everybody predicted, but now we're stuck with a shitty proposition. And what you are quite conveniently omitting is that AB5 was a reaction to a court case (and it wasn't even about ridesharing!) that sent people scrambling. AB5 wasn't great, but it would have been amended and updated because California actually has a functional legislature. Instead, Prop 22 froze the process in amber and now everybody gets the garbage fallout. Blast Prop 22 into atoms, and AB5 can be adjusted properly. In addition, I got tons of political crap pushed to my phone about Prop 22 by the apps and Uber and Lyft should have been fined through the nose for doing so. But, hey, as long as you have a couple billion in cash, you get to make your own laws. Ain't "disruption" grand?

starik36 2y ago
> California actually has a functional legislature You must be new here. There are homeless literally everywhere in LA and somehow "California actually has a functional legislature". A small example of dysfunction. You are living in a fantasy world. AB5 was a massively blunt tool that overreached and messed with businesses and individuals that had zero to do with ride sharing. Prop 22 undid small portion of it, where in reality, the law needs to be repealed in its entirety and rethought with an eye to future and potential unintended fallout.
- badprose 2y ago
  I don't see how having homeless people everywhere in LA and SF is related to whether they have a functional legislature. Is there some law that California could pass to solve homelessness and they're just too dysfunctional to do so?
  - starik36 2y ago
    If the legislature focused on passing thoughtful laws and not feel good nonsense designed to appease their base, we might get somewhere. But specifically to homelessness, obviously no easy solutions since the problem has been allowed to go from bad to worse and more. But how about enforcing existing laws. The governor made a big deal about enforcing the law about clearing out the homeless from under the freeway bridges and some other public places, where it was getting out of hand. The media came, he had his publicity shot, the cops cleared out the homeless. Mission accomplished... and a week later, the homeless are back. This is a specific example of feel good nonsense with zero follow through. But the main problem is the endless funding for the homeless problem. In LA alone, the state has spent $6.5 billion in the last 10 years (number has been increasing over the years). This means, every year there is roughly $650 million to be doled out between businesses, local governments, activists, etc... Given that more homelessness results in more money to all these organizations, you would be hard pressed to ask them to actually solve the problem that feeds them. This problem is on the legislature.
    - consumer451 2y ago
      Can you give an example of a set of laws that would solve homelessness?
      - mullingitover 2y ago
        Short term emergency solution: Take the massive amount money that's being used in a wildly inefficient manner on token permanent supportive housing projects and instead shelter 100% of people on the street. Treat it as an emergency on par with Covid and target 90 days to get everyone off the street. Enforce bans on street camping 100% after shelter is guaranteed statewide. Long term: Amend the state constitution to defang the California Environmental Quality Act and the Coastal Commission with regard to new housing development - Amend the state constitution to punitively remove local zoning privileges for 10 years on the first offense, permanently on the second, for any region that fails to have its housing element plan approved.
      - dfadsadsf 2y ago
        [flagged]
        autoexec 2y ago
        > Make being homeless illegal I'm not sure if stuffing innocent people, including children, into prisons is a great idea. > take people off the streets into shelters (prison-like) with strict policies (no drugs/no alcohol) outside of population centers. What's the point of a no drug/alcohol policy? That violates the rights of Americans and we've already made our stance on prohibition pretty clear. What happens if someone has a glass of wine? Do they get kicked out of their shelter and become homeless again? That's illegal. If you're so keen on taking people's freedom away why not just throw everyone in prison to start with? What does "outside of population centers" mean? That the prison/shelters should be away from where jobs are that would allow people to get back on their feet? That only people outside of population centers should be put in a prison/shelter? > Deport all non-citizens who do not positively prove that they have unsubsidized housing where they can live. Why not just deport all non-citizens who aren't here legally no matter what their housing situation is like? Any non-citizens here legally who find themselves homeless should have the same chance as anyone else to get back on their feet. I think a better solution would be to prevent non-US citizens from owning any kind of property used for housing in the state. Ensure that the owners of residential single family homes are actually occupying their property and not just renting it out to tourists. Prevent any corporation from owning a residential home in the state (although they can own apartment complexes). Implement a "use it or lose it" policy where companies who leave their overpriced apartment complexes more than 30% unoccupied lose their entire property to the state who will turn the whole thing into low rent housing. Companies who want to keep their empty apartment complexes will be forced to lower the price of rent until they are filled. Increase the availability of free child care, drug treatment, and mental health care services, as well as job placement, food assistance, and other support for those seeking help so that people get back on their feet more quickly.
  - refurb 2y ago
    CA has a notoriously dysfunctional legislature, doubly so due to the Democratic super majority in place that means any legislature the Democrat party wants would sail through without a hint of opposition. Look at the no fee law that conveniently exempted all restaurants for example. It's abundantly clear the legislature doesn't have the average voter in mind when it comes to the work it does.
vsuperpower2021 2y ago
Who could they possibly have blackmailed? Voters wanted it, because like you said, there were flyers and popups everywhere and people just vote for whatever has the biggest advertising budget. That's democracy for you.
yieldcrv 2y ago
Yes, using push notifications in their own apps to all of California to pass a state statutory initiative was a fascinating and impressive use of power. Low cost for them too. It’s even more fascinating that said amendment only exempted gig economy works, which AB5 was crafted to specifically reign in - whole codifying a surprise 2018 court ruling for easier compliance. Its still worth nothing that the legislature itself has also exempted many other trades since then. And the 9th circuit just ruled that this doesnt violate the 14th amendment to exclude them. So AB5, AB2257, Prop 22 are all constitutional and in force. I would like to see push notifications role in political outcomes more regulated. I would like to see the 2018 case overturned if thats whats necessary to re-evaluate what AB5 aimed. The same simple majority of California citizens can do that.
- diebeforei485 2y ago
  > Yes, using push notifications in their own apps to all of California to pass a state statutory initiative was a fascinating and impressive use of power. Low cost for them too. How is it different from sending texts? Texts are also very cheap: https://aws.amazon.com/sns/sms-pricing/ https://aws.amazon.com/sns/sms-pricing/
  - yieldcrv 2y ago
    Push notifications partially use your own server and apps stand out more than a spammy sms
    - diebeforei485 2y ago
      > partially use your own server I don't see the significance of this, but you can go on Amazon's console and type in a message to send just like with SMS'es. But I don't see how this makes a difference. > and apps stand out more than a spammy sms I'm not sure this is the case. App notifications are typically stacked behind each other under a long list of notifications on the home screen, while SMS's are shown prominently in the same texting app that people use to text their friends and family. Texts are also read out by Siri automatically while using headphones or while connected to a car, which is not true of push notifications.
freeone3000 2y ago
> In addition, I got tons of political crap pushed to my phone about Prop 22 by the apps and Uber and Lyft should have been fined through the nose for doing so. I’m going to strongly disagree here, and say speech about an upcoming ballot proposal is absolutely political speech and enjoys first-amendment protections.
diebeforei485 2y ago
> And what you are quite conveniently omitting is that AB5 was a reaction to a court case (and it wasn't even about ridesharing!) that sent people scrambling. I have never understood this argument. I know it's one of Lorena Gonzalez's talking points, but it makes no sense. The legislature and the judiciary are part of a system of checks and balances. If a court makes a decision we don't like, we pass legislation to change the statute that the court used to make its decision. Case in point: when the courts ruled that UC Berkeley are pollution (due to noise impact), we amended CEQA to say that people shall not be considered pollution: https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1307/id/2814718 https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1307/id/2814718 Instead of changing the statute upon which the court's decision was based on, what AB5 did was make it even worse than what the court ordered. There were all sorts of exemptions as hand-outs to favored political groups.

by bsder 2y ago

starik36 2y ago

> California actually has a functional legislature You must be new here. There are homeless literally everywhere in LA and somehow "California actually has a functional legislature". A small example of dysfunction. You are living in a fantasy world. AB5 was a massively blunt tool that overreached and messed with businesses and individuals that had zero to do with ride sharing. Prop 22 undid small portion of it, where in reality, the law needs to be repealed in its entirety and rethought with an eye to future and potential unintended fallout.

badprose 2y ago
I don't see how having homeless people everywhere in LA and SF is related to whether they have a functional legislature. Is there some law that California could pass to solve homelessness and they're just too dysfunctional to do so?
- starik36 2y ago
  If the legislature focused on passing thoughtful laws and not feel good nonsense designed to appease their base, we might get somewhere. But specifically to homelessness, obviously no easy solutions since the problem has been allowed to go from bad to worse and more. But how about enforcing existing laws. The governor made a big deal about enforcing the law about clearing out the homeless from under the freeway bridges and some other public places, where it was getting out of hand. The media came, he had his publicity shot, the cops cleared out the homeless. Mission accomplished... and a week later, the homeless are back. This is a specific example of feel good nonsense with zero follow through. But the main problem is the endless funding for the homeless problem. In LA alone, the state has spent $6.5 billion in the last 10 years (number has been increasing over the years). This means, every year there is roughly $650 million to be doled out between businesses, local governments, activists, etc... Given that more homelessness results in more money to all these organizations, you would be hard pressed to ask them to actually solve the problem that feeds them. This problem is on the legislature.
  - consumer451 2y ago
    Can you give an example of a set of laws that would solve homelessness?
    - mullingitover 2y ago
      Short term emergency solution: Take the massive amount money that's being used in a wildly inefficient manner on token permanent supportive housing projects and instead shelter 100% of people on the street. Treat it as an emergency on par with Covid and target 90 days to get everyone off the street. Enforce bans on street camping 100% after shelter is guaranteed statewide. Long term: Amend the state constitution to defang the California Environmental Quality Act and the Coastal Commission with regard to new housing development - Amend the state constitution to punitively remove local zoning privileges for 10 years on the first offense, permanently on the second, for any region that fails to have its housing element plan approved.
    - dfadsadsf 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - autoexec 2y ago
        > Make being homeless illegal I'm not sure if stuffing innocent people, including children, into prisons is a great idea. > take people off the streets into shelters (prison-like) with strict policies (no drugs/no alcohol) outside of population centers. What's the point of a no drug/alcohol policy? That violates the rights of Americans and we've already made our stance on prohibition pretty clear. What happens if someone has a glass of wine? Do they get kicked out of their shelter and become homeless again? That's illegal. If you're so keen on taking people's freedom away why not just throw everyone in prison to start with? What does "outside of population centers" mean? That the prison/shelters should be away from where jobs are that would allow people to get back on their feet? That only people outside of population centers should be put in a prison/shelter? > Deport all non-citizens who do not positively prove that they have unsubsidized housing where they can live. Why not just deport all non-citizens who aren't here legally no matter what their housing situation is like? Any non-citizens here legally who find themselves homeless should have the same chance as anyone else to get back on their feet. I think a better solution would be to prevent non-US citizens from owning any kind of property used for housing in the state. Ensure that the owners of residential single family homes are actually occupying their property and not just renting it out to tourists. Prevent any corporation from owning a residential home in the state (although they can own apartment complexes). Implement a "use it or lose it" policy where companies who leave their overpriced apartment complexes more than 30% unoccupied lose their entire property to the state who will turn the whole thing into low rent housing. Companies who want to keep their empty apartment complexes will be forced to lower the price of rent until they are filled. Increase the availability of free child care, drug treatment, and mental health care services, as well as job placement, food assistance, and other support for those seeking help so that people get back on their feet more quickly.
- refurb 2y ago
  CA has a notoriously dysfunctional legislature, doubly so due to the Democratic super majority in place that means any legislature the Democrat party wants would sail through without a hint of opposition. Look at the no fee law that conveniently exempted all restaurants for example. It's abundantly clear the legislature doesn't have the average voter in mind when it comes to the work it does.

vsuperpower2021 2y ago

Who could they possibly have blackmailed? Voters wanted it, because like you said, there were flyers and popups everywhere and people just vote for whatever has the biggest advertising budget. That's democracy for you.

yieldcrv 2y ago

Yes, using push notifications in their own apps to all of California to pass a state statutory initiative was a fascinating and impressive use of power. Low cost for them too. It’s even more fascinating that said amendment only exempted gig economy works, which AB5 was crafted to specifically reign in - whole codifying a surprise 2018 court ruling for easier compliance. Its still worth nothing that the legislature itself has also exempted many other trades since then. And the 9th circuit just ruled that this doesnt violate the 14th amendment to exclude them. So AB5, AB2257, Prop 22 are all constitutional and in force. I would like to see push notifications role in political outcomes more regulated. I would like to see the 2018 case overturned if thats whats necessary to re-evaluate what AB5 aimed. The same simple majority of California citizens can do that.

diebeforei485 2y ago
> Yes, using push notifications in their own apps to all of California to pass a state statutory initiative was a fascinating and impressive use of power. Low cost for them too. How is it different from sending texts? Texts are also very cheap: https://aws.amazon.com/sns/sms-pricing/ https://aws.amazon.com/sns/sms-pricing/
- yieldcrv 2y ago
  Push notifications partially use your own server and apps stand out more than a spammy sms
  - diebeforei485 2y ago
    > partially use your own server I don't see the significance of this, but you can go on Amazon's console and type in a message to send just like with SMS'es. But I don't see how this makes a difference. > and apps stand out more than a spammy sms I'm not sure this is the case. App notifications are typically stacked behind each other under a long list of notifications on the home screen, while SMS's are shown prominently in the same texting app that people use to text their friends and family. Texts are also read out by Siri automatically while using headphones or while connected to a car, which is not true of push notifications.

freeone3000 2y ago

> In addition, I got tons of political crap pushed to my phone about Prop 22 by the apps and Uber and Lyft should have been fined through the nose for doing so. I’m going to strongly disagree here, and say speech about an upcoming ballot proposal is absolutely political speech and enjoys first-amendment protections.

diebeforei485 2y ago

> And what you are quite conveniently omitting is that AB5 was a reaction to a court case (and it wasn't even about ridesharing!) that sent people scrambling. I have never understood this argument. I know it's one of Lorena Gonzalez's talking points, but it makes no sense. The legislature and the judiciary are part of a system of checks and balances. If a court makes a decision we don't like, we pass legislation to change the statute that the court used to make its decision. Case in point: when the courts ruled that UC Berkeley are pollution (due to noise impact), we amended CEQA to say that people shall not be considered pollution: https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1307/id/2814718 https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1307/id/2814718 Instead of changing the statute upon which the court's decision was based on, what AB5 did was make it even worse than what the court ordered. There were all sorts of exemptions as hand-outs to favored political groups.