av Steven Lee 4 år siden
395
Mer som dette
Need Citation
response: it's about the severity of the crime
can't we tax other things?
the taxes are too high, this will stifle competition, hurt businesses, raise rents, make it harder to do business
https://www.lincolninst.edu/sites/default/files/pubfiles/50-state-property-tax-comparison-for-2017-full_1.pdf CA is indeed on the lower end of tax rates in the nation - though the amount of tax
think of the children, think of the roads
Tax revenue must be increased to provide
CA lowest ratio of teacher to class size, etc
current law disincentives the proper sale of comm + ind property because people don't want to be reassessed; this measure would do away with that perverse incentive, and allow the free market to work more efficiently
Folks are using current rules to their advantage, this law would change it
it should exempt 5 mil or less! (arguing that it 3 mil is still too small...)
exempts small businesses $3million
apparently : 80% of current benefits apply to just 8% of property holders
Rebuttal: People are dying due to the 'bad drivers - people who were only minding their own business. This is unfair and every life lost is an injustice that should not exist in a civilized society.
Questions for further research: What is the ratio of property owners to renters who drive?
Citation needed
there is no
there really isn't a problem in the dialysis clinics - no one has gotten hurt yet, this is not worth the cost and burden
how many
response: the whole idea is to prevent the preventable problems that will happen when the nurses need a doc and they can't find one - people are going to ask, why wasn't it required in the first place?
this will prevent malpractice and mistakes
they are mislead and being exploited
80% of drivers want to remain independent contractors
rebuttal: guy on voter guide says 70%+ drive more than 30 hrs a week
Requiring 87.5% of legislature and governor's signature to make changes to prop 22
clearly an over reach, req
Concessions to Workers
it's clear to everyone that this is simply an industry that knew it was exploiting drivers, and only when caught do they give some freebies. Of course they would rather you pick their self written regulatons - it'll do less against the bottom line. But it doesn't go far enough in protecting workers. Sure, uber and lyft haven't turned a profit yet, but they have huge revenues and invesstment capital that should be spent on full workers's rights
This shows that uber lyft, etc care about their workers when they are introducing all sorts of things in this bill including some health care, some minimum earnings, etc. Thus a vote for this bill is not a vote against increasing some quality of life for drivers
Paid by Uber, Lyft - to Exempts App Based Transport from Employee minimums - $182 Million
we should not allow corporations to write our laws, we should instead listen to the politician's recommendation, as they have more to worry about than the bottom line of the businesses.
the merits of the arguments and policy speak for themselves, no matter who paid for this proposition
Appears to be a lack of logical consistency. why would the proponents only exempt certain jobs but not other ones?
Effect on Pricing/Business Model
driver flexiblity will not see great harm; itll just cost more to uber.lyft.
If these companies can't afford to pay a decent wage to its employees, they should not be operating! employees are not an area they should be able to cut costs on
Uber is doing great things for society - including self driving trucks, etc, we shouldn't push them out of business and impose this regulatory burden on them
this will keep the costs of rides and deliveries relatively stagnant, while also providing some benefit to drivers.
employment/contracting status
contracting is meant to describe a relationship where a person performs a service for a company that is outside of the normal operations of that company. hard to make that argument for ridesharing apps.
tech companies have been exploiting workers (but it's nice to have convenience
response: a better way to achieve greater wealth equality is not to reclass workers, but to tax the companies and redistribute that money in meaningful programs like healthcare or basic income.
the people driving these apps want steady employment. steady employment is the key to economic stability. they should be treated better.
people have a choice to be contractors or employees at other companies; why does the state have to dictate the relationship between two parties that independently want to do business together?
it's a rough world out there, especially for the lower classes. if a person wants to work to earn health care, a living wage etc, and they can only find a certain type of work, isn't it better for the billion dollar companies to take this cost? of course? Or perhaps someone can simply say 'no one owes you healthcare'
response: the working class does not have choice or freedom, they have coercion. It is near impossible for the vast majority of the population to consider taking a leave of abscence to think about what career or profession they want to pursue next... it is ridiculous to pretend that the working class is as free an actor as their employer.
gig work is the future economy. we should not keep people in 9-5 jobs, with their livelihood and medical care tied into their employers. we want freer societies where people can work on a whim, and we don't have to depend on employers
response: yes, but in the meantime, we need employers to take care of their own. while people can work toward a society that doesn't depend on employers to provide healthcare, etc, that day hasn't yet come - it doesn't make sense to shake off the yoke if you don't have a plan for freedom. employment is the current method for securing life,liberty, etc,
what Employeeship means for employers, employees, customers
they have the capital to treat their workers more. Those that need to work full time will be treated better. Those that already have jobs and just need extra cash will have to find something else. seems fair
it's impossible to figure out how to schedule part time drivers; rideshare companies will have to leave the state
it's not impossible; yall just don't want to do it
AB5 will slow down service due to less drivers
response They will pay the drivers more if they need more drivers
many current contractors are going to lose a significant income stream, as well as flexibility which is super important for certain workers
Uber, Lyft may leave CA due to cost
response: there are other companies ready to swoop in to the market; the market is too big, they won't leave
This prop provides no real protections for seniors and veterans. No provisions for lowered rents.
Seniors and Veterans are able to spend more on other things such as health care and sustinence
Keeping homes in the hands of the poor when there are other families that could afford to live there
Families will not have to be displaced from their homes and kids will not be evicted from local schools
Landlords/tenants will have to pay more out of pocket for repairs and such
Homelessness costs taxpayers $35,000 - $45,000 per homeless person, annually.
Fewer people becoming homeless lowers overall tax costs
Citation: https://www.zillow.com/research/highlights-rent-homelessness-16131/
Good for the local economy if tenants are able to spend more in their local communities
Lowers the values of the homes, leading to less houses being built
Provides no plan for how to solve overall housing shortage
Worsens the housing crisis because no reason for building new houses if values aren't worth
People will be able to live in their homes and not live with the fear of being evicted
Doesn't allow for homeowners to match market price even after tenants move out, places unnaturally restrictive regulations on landlords
Stifles maximum profit making for the landlords due to unnatural and artificial prices
Mom-and-pop landlords can more easily find tenants and are able to make a profit
Many smaller misdemeanors (theft) could be labeled as felonies, imprisoning a disproportionate number of black and brown teens
There are many crimes that are currently non-violent that should be, such as child trafficking
more people moving around means more homes available
for homes of wildfire victims, this is a moot point because those homes are either destroyed or undesirable location. for others, it would mean more homes available, but lower property taxes in the new market
im not a huge fan of earmarked dollars; i generally like to see flexibility in budgeting; would not want future generations to be tied to bloated fire protection funding, resulting in mismanaged funds
respnose: of course, future generations can always change it
families need tools to ensure their children do okay
response: children need to be functioning adults in the society
big tax bill increase for many properties, families can't afford it,
response: if your family has multiple properties and can't afford the tax bill. you're mismanaging your equity. property should not simply be held, it should be used in the economy, in order to prevent a stagnation of the economy. masses of unused land ownership should be discouraged to ensure a more dynamic economy.
prevents rich people from taking advantage of tax savings on rentals and vacation homes - those homes should be taxed fully upon inheritance. if child does not move in to a property in the year following inheritance, property will be reassessed
seems to be a restricting of the rules, which is good for tax rolls, and limits the loopholes that wealthier families have,
, cheating that locality out of tax money; the person should just move into different county or a property closer in value to prior one...
response: situations where the person has to move into that one market - proximity to family, healthcare?
need to see the reasoning for this... why is it necessary - to offset the difference in market prices? need a concrete example
300k house; 5k property tax - move to 600k house, 5k property tax?
i like the idea of policies allowing people more movement over geographic areas, as opposed to somehow limiting people to one small area.
should allow people to move out of fire prone areas - this makes sense because we don't want people to keep moving back into fire prone areas, costing state money to rebuild and fight fires/evacuate, etc. same argument against rebuilding in flood areas, etc
government shouldn't interfere with the transfer of wealth from family to family - i made it and earned it, no one should tell me how much i can give to my family
slows down some accumulation of wealth; healthy for society, prevents lazy entitled spoiled children, encourages work and industrialism of young people
i will pay any price to improve our democracy and get closer to encouraging democratic ideals
making the case for intellect of youth
the demarcation is there for a reason.
people that will be 18 at the time of election should have a say in that election. the primaries are extremely important
Unnecessary spending by the government could lead to inflation
Stimulates Economic Activity
This is a premature action with consequences, for example what if we spend all this money to get the their right to vote only to go back to jail
We should be actively trying to include ostracized members of society and this is a good chance to perhaps prevent them from going back to a life of crime
These are criminals that this prop wishes to give the right to vote, something they have lost due to their own devices
It's good for society if we are able to include marginalized groups
This creates disdain between racial groups, if we all sign up to believe that we all have equal chances to succeed, we can start acting like a post-racial society.
response: problem with this is that certain groups are stuck in vicious cycles that must be broken with decisive action, to prevent real pain. Speaking from a privileged group, it's easy to argue to ignore or dismiss inequities. Demanding equality always feel oppression to privileged groups...
the bigger issue is the competition for prestigious schools. the premises are that better schools = better quality education and/or better paychecks.
Better paychecks
honestly if you're smart enough to compete for ivy league schools, you're going to be okay getting your education from another institution - go to another school, be successful, contribute to create more quality institutions so there isn't this bottleneck
More research on academia/education policy needed
Better quality education
try to bring up the quality of other institutions - perhaps the government can incentivize faculty and professors from top ivy leagues to other universities - double their salaries; it should be worth for the big boost in the quality of education and students across the nation
have we ever tried asking racists to not be racist?
response: in light of people's moral shortcomings, we have to consider the environments that create and encourage or discourage certain opinions - We can and should worry about the perceptions that people have of policies... we can't depend on or expect people to change their ways. we should look for policies that aren't divisive...
we must look to the better and rational angels of our nature in realizing that the reconciliation of generational injustice is what will result in real steps toward equity between races. Equality (or at least no more significantly handicap) in wealth and representation is the surest step to removing the racial divide.
the state has a compelling interest in infringing upon some named rights; the state must show that the policy is narrowly tailored to achieve certain objectives
it's clear that the inequities of society is an objective that must be rectified. the numbers are too plain and the history too clear to deny
Race as a small factor, but not as a defining factor
Not allowing race to determine acceptance or rejection, but as a factor was ruled ok cuz "The Court held that this plan is narrowly tailored enough to satisfy strict scrutiny because the "program is flexible enough to ensure that each applicant is evaluated as an individual and not in a way that makes race or ethnicity the defining feature of the application . . ."
Allowing less 'capable' students and workers results in worse results for academia, medicine, law, etc. The quality of work will be decreased; lower standards, etc
Rebuttal: it's just for admission, not for the tests; does not reduce the rigor of the programs
rebuttal: black communities feel better with black doctors, better healthcare results, despite the doctor's potentially lower MCAT score
we should not seek to redistribute wealth under any circumstances
This would boost communities that have traditionally been underrepresented, hopefully starting a virtuous cycle that will result in more equitable wealth across society
Allowing the government to discriminate based on race, etc, is an affront to equal oppurtunity, as it skews the competition in favor of those less qualified, and against those more qualified but part of a certain ethnic group. To be specific - asians and whites and males are being discrimated upon because they are not a 'preferred race'
Equality does not mean Equity: The competition for college admissions, contracts, jobs, are not equal for different population groups. Certain groups have it much harder - lack of resources growing up, etc. Equity, on the other hand, is leveling the playing field and accounting for differences to bring about a more equal result: For instance, if you have a seeing student and a blind student, equality is giving them both regular textbooks. Obviously the blind student cannot read the text. Equity is giving the seeing student a standard textbook and the blind student a braille textbook.
Need stats on gender gap
Women are underrepresented in business - this would allow the state to award contracts to women run organizations and businesses
Why can't we all move on as a society. We all know slavery was wrong, but now anyone who puts their mind to it can achieve what they want.
Anyone that has studied the injustices that certain populations have undergone by governments, and has been able to get a glimpse of the terror inflicted must believe that such actions cannot be swept under the rug, as people suggest. And short of a discussion on reparations, we have to address the effects that the injustice has caused. I can offer a crappy analogy: your elder brother has beat up this kid and the kid is still bleeding. Even before talking about bringing your brother to justice, we should take care of the victim's wounds, instead of leaving them to suffer. So the idea that society owes these groups something is a conversation we've not yet considered. We're merely discussing how to stem the bleeding.
Diversity should not be a goal. We should be color blind - and treat everyone on their merits. Over time, things will sort themselves out if we simply treat each individual with respect and as we would treat them any one else.
Rebuttal: This does not take into account the past treatment of underrepresented populations - justice demands that an wrong be made right by actions. To ignore the generational disadvantages is
The notion that if a heterogeneous(multi ethnic) society were equal, you would find a equal distribution of races across wealth groups, professions, neighborhoods, etc. It doesn't take million dollar studies to tell us that this is not the case. All someone has to know is that in the case of black people, their ancestry can be traced from the violent subjugation of africans to be used as property, to know that this population and the generations to follow is probably not as well off as the white folks. The same can be said for all ethnic groups who did not have the generational benefit of inheriting previous wealth, in addition to the hoops that the dominating class put up in order to further secure their wealth. Indeed, all one has to think of is their racist parents or grandparents to know that people sucked, and these tribal notions probably had some consequences.
Rebuttal: This artificial equality is ridiculous - diversity should not be a goal of government - government should only do minimal things, not try to correct some aspect of the past.
There are other methods to increase diversity - targeted geographical neighborhood recruitment, etc; they shouldn't use quota systems
Step 1 is to allow to account for race- the goal is equality of opportunity, and equity. The methods used are mainly identifiers in applications and probably a quota-like system for underrepresented populations.
quotas are still going to be prohibited
This is an injustice to asian and white communities who work hard to study and do extracurricular activities and try their best to be good smart capable citizens in their communities. THeir parents as well, sacrifice a lot for them to be able to go to the good schools and reap the benefits. As we know, some parents sacrifice literally everything. Not all whites and asians are wealthy; their families can benefit from their children succeeding at the more competitive universities and landing the better jobs.
The beneficiaries are those groups that are underrepresented in higher education, etc.
Rushes the process without regards to the stakeholders and community members
Will help during the pandemic when time is of the essence
residents that don't want more activities or want more say in those activities should be considered more carefully
response: NIMBYISM!!
allowing businesses to easier expand operations to streets will mean they can be operational sooner
in a dense and vibrant city, we should invite more activity and not restrict it; if you want a dead quiet town, you should go elsewhere
response: this will result in chaos!
The proceeds would be deposited in the City’s General Fund
how will it increase tax revenue but also provide tax relief for businesses?
those places will get their funds regardless. I think the homelessness one is already settled, and it's just a matter of time for the childcare one.
those are important things that the city needs to star spending on immediately
makes it easier or cheaper to hire, removes cost for having people on payroll
against
the department of public works already exists.
for
More taxes on property owners??!?!?
response - landlords may pass %50 through to tenants
Aginst
the government is ruining everything, this should be left to charity!
I have trust in government, if we don't like the people, we cam always vote in a new mayor
City has lost a lot of revenue due to covid. we can't afford it
Subtopic
Sup 11
Sup 9
Sup 7
Sup 5
Dean Preston
Sup 3
Daniel Sauter
Sup 1
Marjan Philhour
Veronica Shinzato
Andrew Majalya
Jeanette Quick
Against
For
Her main priority is stabilizing City College's finance
Her background and experience supports her goal: - She was in the US Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs for 5 years. - She has a certified Fraud Examiner. - She has industry experience as Head of Compliance and Public Policy. - She's involved in politics (ie. Political partner at Truman National Security Project) - She studied politics, economics, and has a law degree.
End the decades of financial mismanagement of City College Stabilize funding by increasing private and public sources of capital Hire a new Chancellor with expertise in balancing budgets and strategic execution Demand accountability from administrators and publish progress reports on the path to accreditation stability Work closely with the faculty unions and student representatives
Geramye Teeter
Han Zou
Alan Wong
Shanell Williams
Tom Temprano
Aliyah
Matt Alexander
Paul Kangas
Jenny Lam
Mark Sanchez
Andrew Alston
9
David Wei Wen Young
Michael Petrelis
Bevan Dufty
Prior President
7
Lateefah Simon
Sharon Kidd
Jackie Felder
Scott Weiner
Bhattar
Pelosi
Trump/Pence
Biden/ Harris
