I’m a little surprised to be in agreement with this guy, but he’s right on all counts. This is a bad proposition for a lot of reasons. This year California has a number of good ideas up for vote,...
I’m a little surprised to be in agreement with this guy, but he’s right on all counts. This is a bad proposition for a lot of reasons. This year California has a number of good ideas up for vote, but it also has a few bad reactionary ones. Another one is on the ballot basically as revenge against the work done by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation.
That's a weird one. Apparently this foundation, despite its name, invests in real estate and keeps putting rent control measures on the ballot? Confused on Prop 34? It’s about the politics of rent...
That's a weird one. Apparently this foundation, despite its name, invests in real estate and keeps putting rent control measures on the ballot?
In recent years, AHF has spent more than $150 million on ballot initiatives – including rent control measures in 2018 and 2020. The nonprofit’s annual budget is about $2.5 billion. The vast majority of the nonprofit’s revenue comes from its network of 62 pharmacies – largely a result of that 340B drug discount program.
This year, AHF is bankrolling another ballot initiative that is not popular with the California Apartment Association: Prop 33, which would remove state limits on rent control and allow cities and counties more leeway to enact stricter local rent control laws.
The California Apartment Association’s new prop would effectively stop the AIDS Healthcare Foundation from ever backing another one.
...
Backers of Prop 34 argue that AHF’s spending on housing and rent control ballot measures comes at the expense of patient care.
But AHF CEO Michael Weinstein says the nonprofit sees housing as an extension of the organization’s health care mission.
...
Still, many voters wonder about an AIDS group using any percentage of its revenues to push rent control, especially when renters at buildings it operates in LA’s Skid Row routinely complain of squalid conditions.
Many tenants have filed lawsuits against the organization, citing substandard living conditions. Last month, AHF settled a lawsuit with tenants at one of those properties for $575,000.
...
Most of the Skid Row buildings are more than a century old. AHF claims it has spent millions on repairs and that previous owners are partially liable for some of the maintenance problems. They also point out tenants have some of the cheapest rents in town, as low as $400 a month.
Prop 34 spokesman Nathan Click says the California Apartment Association believes AHF is giving landlords a bad name.
“The worst-acting 340B providers have tried to parlay revenue meant for patients into investments in real estate, often times running apartment complexes like slums,” says Click. “Prop 34 is really tackling the worst offenders and ensuring that no 340B provider can do that.”
I mean isn't that the case every year? We get about half good stuff and half shit that's just bought off by corporations and some kind of sneaky bullshit to increase their profits. The sad part is...
This year California has a number of good ideas up for vote, but it also has a few bad reactionary ones. Another one is on the ballot basically as revenge against the work done by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation.
I mean isn't that the case every year? We get about half good stuff and half shit that's just bought off by corporations and some kind of sneaky bullshit to increase their profits. The sad part is a lot of the corpo nonsense makes its way through, because people don't do their research or they buy into the lies they are sold.
Ha, that's true. I can't help but think back to Proposition 8 and how it actually passed. Not to mention hundreds of efforts to eliminate state income tax. Perhaps because the majority of...
Ha, that's true. I can't help but think back to Proposition 8 and how it actually passed. Not to mention hundreds of efforts to eliminate state income tax. Perhaps because the majority of propositions this year seem pretty simple and straightforward, these ones just seemed to be particularly unhinged.
So the drug aspect of this prop always seemed weird to me. It's nice to see some research put into that. I do not think prop 36 will help with our state's drug problems. But I do think, even if...
So the drug aspect of this prop always seemed weird to me. It's nice to see some research put into that. I do not think prop 36 will help with our state's drug problems. But I do think, even if shoplifting is being blown out of proportion, that making 3 repeated shoplifting attempts a felony is reasonable. The time served should be low. That's multiple chances for you to realize you're about to get prison time. You really have quite a lot of warning for something that you shouldn't do even once!
It's a shame that we just let people sell stolen goods in San Francisco on the streets. I guess it's a matter of police priorities and staffing. But I walk past those blankets laid out with assorted goods all the time. You can't just arrest someone for shoplifting because they're selling Tide on the sidewalk. But you could make it illegal to sell things in that way and enforce it.
It is illegal and they will get moved if you call it in. My building has quite a few NIMBYs in it who are obsessed with calling the police over every homeless person and every time anyone sets up...
It's a shame that we just let people sell stolen goods in San Francisco on the streets. I guess it's a matter of police priorities and staffing. But I walk past those blankets laid out with assorted goods all the time. You can't just arrest someone for shoplifting because they're selling Tide on the sidewalk. But you could make it illegal to sell things in that way and enforce it.
It is illegal and they will get moved if you call it in. My building has quite a few NIMBYs in it who are obsessed with calling the police over every homeless person and every time anyone sets up shop selling their goods. The thing is that they don't have the resources to be ticketing them all the time, and I think it's probably a misdemeanor at best. The cops mostly just get them to move, because they if they get called for something important they need to be available. With more staffing they might be able to do something about it, but frankly I'd like to see something more akin to meter maids or something not cop if that's what the city wants to pursue to crack down on this.
the drug aspect
Every time I've seen repeal attempts on 47 it's always included removing the drug parts, which is a major reason behind why I've voted against it every time. Prosecuting for drug possession is not helpful in any way shape or form, and as the article pointed out there isn't enough resources for drug dependencies. The people behind trying to get this repealed have always struck me as big cop supporters, anti-drug, etc. given the multi-pronged approach.
a felony is reasonable
I also really don't like that every time they try to repeal it it's always about making things felonies. What they could do, instead, is to allow charges/consequences to increase with subsequent infractions. So while it might be a small fine and a few days in jail the first time, it's maybe months in jail by the 3rd, years by the 10th. Unfortunately something like that will just end up taxing the prison system, but I feel like it's a better compromise with folks who think this kind of behavior can be controlled via punishment rather than by resources (frankly speaking the only way to reasonably solve this is to give these people a chance at a somewhat comfortable life and minimum wage in SF is not going to get you there, if they're even capable of getting a minimum wage job). I'm generally not a fan of giving people felonies because if the goal is to rehabilitate, slapping a felony on them is basically ensuring they'll never get a job, which means they no longer have an option besides crime to support themselves.
I believe it's already illegal to sell stolen goods, the challenge is proving they were stolen, and the amount of police time needed to prove it. Much like going after street level drug dealers,...
I believe it's already illegal to sell stolen goods, the challenge is proving they were stolen, and the amount of police time needed to prove it. Much like going after street level drug dealers, it's not worth it if you want to fix the problem. You have to go for the people organizing the crimes.
I do wonder if increasing the threshold for grand larceny affected the economics of fencing. Being able to steal $900 of stuff vs $250 might make it more worthwhile to set up these sorts of markets.
I do wonder if increasing the threshold for grand larceny affected the economics of fencing. Being able to steal $900 of stuff vs $250 might make it more worthwhile to set up these sorts of markets.
Maybe, but probably not? Either people will be taking more risks and doing the same thing, or more people will steal less at one time. But practically, petty theft isn't anyone's first choice of...
Maybe, but probably not? Either people will be taking more risks and doing the same thing, or more people will steal less at one time.
But practically, petty theft isn't anyone's first choice of job. If there were more opportunities for these people to live a stable life there'd be fewer people willing to risk jail for a living. But jobs programs, social services, and stable housing are expensive and time consuming, and punishment is easy, while the costs are hidden in high prison expenses and people who can never actually be economically productive members of society.
On that note, I'm really interested in whether CA Prop 6 will pass. It will ban indentured servitude in prisons, limiting how much value they can extract from their captives. If that passes, keeping people in prison makes less economic sense.
Like I said - just make it illegal to sell things in that way. Require a street vendor license to sell mass produced goods. If you make it harder to sell you remove there incentive to steal.
Like I said - just make it illegal to sell things in that way. Require a street vendor license to sell mass produced goods. If you make it harder to sell you remove there incentive to steal.
That would be enough for the street vendors, but they’re just the most flagrant. A lot of the sales are done on Craigslist, Facebook marketplace, and so forth, and it’s a lot harder to ban buying...
That would be enough for the street vendors, but they’re just the most flagrant. A lot of the sales are done on Craigslist, Facebook marketplace, and so forth, and it’s a lot harder to ban buying things from your neighbor.
Sure. But if you get rid of the most obvious sales of stolen goods the city will feel better. That has value. Those blankets are public advertisements that shoplifting is viable. If shoplifting is...
Sure. But if you get rid of the most obvious sales of stolen goods the city will feel better. That has value. Those blankets are public advertisements that shoplifting is viable. If shoplifting is being blown out of proportion then publicly shutting down flagrant sales of stolen goods will get people’s sense of the problem to align with reality.
I get that the police have bigger problems to worry about. But shutting this stuff down would be a very visible improvement. An easy win for the city.
It's a good point. This seems to set us up to repeat the mistakes of deinstitutionalization, where state mental institutions were shuttered and patients were shifted to community care options that...
It creates a new category, the treatment-mandated felony. Judges can tell offenders that their crime could be a felony, but that their sentence will be commuted if they complete a substance abuse or mental health treatment program.
...
Prop 36 doesn’t set aside any funding for new mental health and substance treatment beds. This might make sense if California was full of empty treatment centers waiting for addicts to fill them. But in fact, the state desperately lacks treatment beds.
It's a good point. This seems to set us up to repeat the mistakes of deinstitutionalization, where state mental institutions were shuttered and patients were shifted to community care options that didn't exist.
Overall, I do feel that California is too slow in increasing penalties for dealing opioids, especially fentanyl. Simultaneously California is reluctant to remove protections and loopholes for them. This year AB 2209 failed to pass: it would've excepted fentanyl dealers from sanctuary laws. There was controversy about the possibility of how some undocumented immigrants can't work legal jobs so they turn to dealing fentanyl to feed their families.
Del Seymour, an advocate in the Tenderloin who used to be homeless and deal drugs, slammed the idea, saying that this is “not a way to handle the problem.” He said that the root of the issue is that undocumented immigrants cannot legally work in the country and some are then left with no other choice but to hawk drugs to feed their families. Seymour argued that the city should focus on creating more job opportunities for this population instead of looking to deport them.
Which I find morally reprehensible and totally dishonorable, and I absolutely do not want these people to ever become fellow citizens. If I were trafficked to another country and asked to murder people, I would resist to the absolute degree — yet that's what these people are doing: they're directly responsible for the daily murder of 2~3 San Franciscans and the immiseration of many more.
Also, there are plenty of other under-the-table jobs and even less-morally-reprehensible crime. Like, go steal bicycles or scam tourists instead — don't spread literal poison.
That seems hyperbolic to me. There is a difference between murder and selling something that people willingly buy. If there is fraud or coercion involved then that crosses a moral line for me. but...
they're directly responsible for the daily murder of 2~3 San Franciscans and the immiseration of many more.
That seems hyperbolic to me. There is a difference between murder and selling something that people willingly buy. If there is fraud or coercion involved then that crosses a moral line for me. but I don't think that is always the case in selling drugs.
More than 100k people a year die from alcohol disease related deaths in the US. There is a whole industry of people making, selling, and distributing alcohol. It is even worse than illegal drugs because they have huge marketing budgets that could be seen as a mild form of fraud or coercion. But I don't consider all bartenders murderers.
People die from car accidents, people commit suicide using tools others sold to them. All our actions have ripple effects and unwanted consequences that are difficult to account for, especially when we are panicked and just trying to survive.
I feel it would work better if we used the government to focus on helping everyone be safe and financially secure by providing goods and services funded by tax dollars. Rather than using the government to punish whoever we think is at fault.
I’m a little surprised to be in agreement with this guy, but he’s right on all counts. This is a bad proposition for a lot of reasons. This year California has a number of good ideas up for vote, but it also has a few bad reactionary ones. Another one is on the ballot basically as revenge against the work done by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation.
That's a weird one. Apparently this foundation, despite its name, invests in real estate and keeps putting rent control measures on the ballot?
Confused on Prop 34? It’s about the politics of rent control
...
...
...
I mean isn't that the case every year? We get about half good stuff and half shit that's just bought off by corporations and some kind of sneaky bullshit to increase their profits. The sad part is a lot of the corpo nonsense makes its way through, because people don't do their research or they buy into the lies they are sold.
Ha, that's true. I can't help but think back to Proposition 8 and how it actually passed. Not to mention hundreds of efforts to eliminate state income tax. Perhaps because the majority of propositions this year seem pretty simple and straightforward, these ones just seemed to be particularly unhinged.
So the drug aspect of this prop always seemed weird to me. It's nice to see some research put into that. I do not think prop 36 will help with our state's drug problems. But I do think, even if shoplifting is being blown out of proportion, that making 3 repeated shoplifting attempts a felony is reasonable. The time served should be low. That's multiple chances for you to realize you're about to get prison time. You really have quite a lot of warning for something that you shouldn't do even once!
It's a shame that we just let people sell stolen goods in San Francisco on the streets. I guess it's a matter of police priorities and staffing. But I walk past those blankets laid out with assorted goods all the time. You can't just arrest someone for shoplifting because they're selling Tide on the sidewalk. But you could make it illegal to sell things in that way and enforce it.
It is illegal and they will get moved if you call it in. My building has quite a few NIMBYs in it who are obsessed with calling the police over every homeless person and every time anyone sets up shop selling their goods. The thing is that they don't have the resources to be ticketing them all the time, and I think it's probably a misdemeanor at best. The cops mostly just get them to move, because they if they get called for something important they need to be available. With more staffing they might be able to do something about it, but frankly I'd like to see something more akin to meter maids or something not cop if that's what the city wants to pursue to crack down on this.
Every time I've seen repeal attempts on 47 it's always included removing the drug parts, which is a major reason behind why I've voted against it every time. Prosecuting for drug possession is not helpful in any way shape or form, and as the article pointed out there isn't enough resources for drug dependencies. The people behind trying to get this repealed have always struck me as big cop supporters, anti-drug, etc. given the multi-pronged approach.
I also really don't like that every time they try to repeal it it's always about making things felonies. What they could do, instead, is to allow charges/consequences to increase with subsequent infractions. So while it might be a small fine and a few days in jail the first time, it's maybe months in jail by the 3rd, years by the 10th. Unfortunately something like that will just end up taxing the prison system, but I feel like it's a better compromise with folks who think this kind of behavior can be controlled via punishment rather than by resources (frankly speaking the only way to reasonably solve this is to give these people a chance at a somewhat comfortable life and minimum wage in SF is not going to get you there, if they're even capable of getting a minimum wage job). I'm generally not a fan of giving people felonies because if the goal is to rehabilitate, slapping a felony on them is basically ensuring they'll never get a job, which means they no longer have an option besides crime to support themselves.
I believe it's already illegal to sell stolen goods, the challenge is proving they were stolen, and the amount of police time needed to prove it. Much like going after street level drug dealers, it's not worth it if you want to fix the problem. You have to go for the people organizing the crimes.
I do wonder if increasing the threshold for grand larceny affected the economics of fencing. Being able to steal $900 of stuff vs $250 might make it more worthwhile to set up these sorts of markets.
Maybe, but probably not? Either people will be taking more risks and doing the same thing, or more people will steal less at one time.
But practically, petty theft isn't anyone's first choice of job. If there were more opportunities for these people to live a stable life there'd be fewer people willing to risk jail for a living. But jobs programs, social services, and stable housing are expensive and time consuming, and punishment is easy, while the costs are hidden in high prison expenses and people who can never actually be economically productive members of society.
On that note, I'm really interested in whether CA Prop 6 will pass. It will ban indentured servitude in prisons, limiting how much value they can extract from their captives. If that passes, keeping people in prison makes less economic sense.
I did vote to abolish the last place where slavery is legal. Hopefully they can sensibly prioritize who gets released.
Like I said - just make it illegal to sell things in that way. Require a street vendor license to sell mass produced goods. If you make it harder to sell you remove there incentive to steal.
That would be enough for the street vendors, but they’re just the most flagrant. A lot of the sales are done on Craigslist, Facebook marketplace, and so forth, and it’s a lot harder to ban buying things from your neighbor.
Sure. But if you get rid of the most obvious sales of stolen goods the city will feel better. That has value. Those blankets are public advertisements that shoplifting is viable. If shoplifting is being blown out of proportion then publicly shutting down flagrant sales of stolen goods will get people’s sense of the problem to align with reality.
I get that the police have bigger problems to worry about. But shutting this stuff down would be a very visible improvement. An easy win for the city.
It's a good point. This seems to set us up to repeat the mistakes of deinstitutionalization, where state mental institutions were shuttered and patients were shifted to community care options that didn't exist.
Overall, I do feel that California is too slow in increasing penalties for dealing opioids, especially fentanyl. Simultaneously California is reluctant to remove protections and loopholes for them. This year AB 2209 failed to pass: it would've excepted fentanyl dealers from sanctuary laws. There was controversy about the possibility of how some undocumented immigrants can't work legal jobs so they turn to dealing fentanyl to feed their families.
Which I find morally reprehensible and totally dishonorable, and I absolutely do not want these people to ever become fellow citizens. If I were trafficked to another country and asked to murder people, I would resist to the absolute degree — yet that's what these people are doing: they're directly responsible for the daily murder of 2~3 San Franciscans and the immiseration of many more.
Also, there are plenty of other under-the-table jobs and even less-morally-reprehensible crime. Like, go steal bicycles or scam tourists instead — don't spread literal poison.
That seems hyperbolic to me. There is a difference between murder and selling something that people willingly buy. If there is fraud or coercion involved then that crosses a moral line for me. but I don't think that is always the case in selling drugs.
More than 100k people a year die from alcohol disease related deaths in the US. There is a whole industry of people making, selling, and distributing alcohol. It is even worse than illegal drugs because they have huge marketing budgets that could be seen as a mild form of fraud or coercion. But I don't consider all bartenders murderers.
People die from car accidents, people commit suicide using tools others sold to them. All our actions have ripple effects and unwanted consequences that are difficult to account for, especially when we are panicked and just trying to survive.
I feel it would work better if we used the government to focus on helping everyone be safe and financially secure by providing goods and services funded by tax dollars. Rather than using the government to punish whoever we think is at fault.