Professional Soldiers ® - CA; Literally to dumb to insult.

Professional Soldiers ® (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/index.php)

- The Soapbox (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=93)

- - CA; Literally to dumb to insult. (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49344)

CA; Literally to dumb to insult.

I do not even know where to begin on this Senate Bill 350.

http://www.dailyrepublic.com/opinion...255560#respond

"Literally to dumb to insult"

That's funny.:D

LHC

I would say something but since my wife is in view I fear the smack that would follow my California quip.:eek:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Last hard class (Post 590402)

"Literally to dumb to insult"

That's funny.:D

LHC

I got nothing.

I took the time to read and follow some of the comments posted about the article. I truly am amazed at how condescending and elitist that many of the contributors sounded. I guess it's better to be heard than to be understood?

Quote:

Originally Posted by spherojon (Post 590399)

I do not even know where to begin on this Senate Bill 350.

http://www.dailyrepublic.com/opinion...255560#respond

Are you commenting upon an editorial opposed to SB 350 or the text of the proposed bill that is available here?

MOO, Betty Plowman has not read the bill and she is counting on her readers to not do so either.

Quote:

43013. (a) The state board shall adopt and implement motor vehicle emission standards, in-use performance standards, and motor vehicle fuel specifications for the control of air contaminants and sources of air pollution which the state board has found to be necessary, cost effective, and technologically feasible, to carry out the purposes of this division and in furtherance of achieving a reduction in petroleum use in motor vehicles by 50 percent by January 1, 2030, unless preempted by federal law.
(b) The state board shall, consistent with subdivision (a), adopt standards and regulations for light-duty and heavy-duty motor vehicles, medium-duty motor vehicles, as determined and specified by the state board, portable fuel containers and spouts, and off-road or nonvehicle engine categories, including, but not limited to, off-highway motorcycles, off-highway vehicles, construction equipment, farm equipment, utility engines, locomotives, and, to the extent permitted by federal law, marine vessels.
(c) Prior to adopting standards and regulations for farm equipment, the state board shall hold a public hearing and find and determine that the standards and regulations are necessary, cost effective, and technologically feasible. The state board shall also consider the technological effects of emission control standards on the cost, fuel consumption, and performance characteristics of mobile farm equipment.
(d) Notwithstanding subdivision (b), the state board shall not adopt any standard or regulation affecting locomotives until the final study required under Section 5 of Chapter 1326 of the Statutes of 1987 has been completed and submitted to the Governor and Legislature.
(e) Prior to adopting or amending any standard or regulation relating to motor vehicle fuel specifications pursuant to this section, the state board shall, after consultation with public or private entities that would be significantly impacted as described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (f), do both of the following:

(1) Determine the cost-effectiveness of the adoption or amendment of the standard or regulation. The cost-effectiveness shall be compared on an incremental basis with other mobile source control methods and options.
(2) Based on a preponderance of scientific and engineering data in the record, determine the technological feasibility of the adoption or amendment of the standard or regulation. That determination shall include, but is not limited to, the availability, effectiveness, reliability, and safety expected of the proposed technology in an application that is representative of the proposed use.

(f) Prior to adopting or amending any motor vehicle fuel specification pursuant to this section, the state board shall do both of the following:

(1) To the extent feasible, quantitatively document the significant impacts of the proposed standard or specification on affected segments of the state’s economy. The economic analysis shall include, but is not limited to, the significant impacts of any change on motor vehicle fuel efficiency, the existing motor vehicle fuel distribution system, the competitive position of the affected segment relative to border states, and the cost to consumers.
(2) Consult with public or private entities that would be significantly impacted to identify those investigative or preventive actions that may be necessary to ensure consumer acceptance, product availability, acceptable performance, and equipment reliability. The significantly impacted parties shall include, but are not limited to, fuel manufacturers, fuel distributors, independent marketers, vehicle manufacturers, and fuel users.

FWIW, Toyota is already on the way <<LINK>>.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sigaba (Post 590425)

Good find. I have been discussing this with some people, and we believe its a political ruse (as in trick). My first thoughts are on farming equipment. My second thought is on commercial trucking within the state, and out of state compliance vehicles. Not to mention that the Port of LA and the Port of Long Beach import more than $350 Billion Dollars a year (all of which need to be commercially transported through out the state and country). Then there are the diesel trains (commuter and commercial). Top it off, the state is a commuting state with 39 million people. About 60% of the People commute with an average of $11,000 a year per person cost (80 mile round trip with a 5 day work week being about $222 a week). We don't have the infrastructure to support mass commuting. To build said infrastructure would take decades! All that, and we would lose all the taxes that go towards repairing the roads and highways. Then you have to think, what about the planes? What about the military vehicles? What about all the government vehicles (EMS vehicles, Fire, Law Enforcement). The cost of food alone would skyrocket. People wouldn't be able to do business or live in the state. Ya, I'm going to hop on a train for 3 hours to then walk 20 miles to work. The entire state would be 3 weeks late to work! LOL :rolleyes:

Wait, does California plan on giving out free Electric Cars to everyone?

I can think of a number of issues the state should tackle before emissions. Like, I don't know, the drought. Build some damn desalination plants off the coast! (yay we have 1 being built in Carlsbad...one....)

Setting fuel consumption standards for commercial trucks would be counter productive.
The second largest expense for a transportation company is fuel.

They already have every incentive to improve fuel economy.
But, that would be fuel economy relative to goods hauled (gallons per ton-mile).

Increase the standards per truck, and they will just use more, smaller trucks.
This would actually increase total fuel consumption and emissions.

Why don't they just turn up the fuel efficiency to 11?
:rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by spherojon (Post 590519)

Spherojon couldn't have said it:rolleyes: better. I agree! I hope this bill doesn't pass!

IMO, the proposed legislation has the potential to get stakeholders talking about a wide range of issues related to petroleum-fueled vehicles, transportation, and the built environment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spherojon (Post 590519)

By my reading, the text of the proposed legislation exempts rail transportation.

MOO, your comment/calculations for time and cost of commuting to work is better suited to supporting the bill than to opposing its passage -- the projected $222/week hits the employee's bottom line much harder than the employeers'.

Just spit balling here, I think that the costs of improving/expanding the mass transit infrastructure would be manageable if (a) more private developers were offered opportunities to use transportation demand management "strategies" in lieu of building parking facilities to code requirements, (b) drivers received less public subsidies to drive and to park.

IRT to your comment about the bill being a 'trick,' I would say that the time table for the first deliverable might be instructive. The proposed legislation calls for the state's Air Resources Board to deliver by no later than 1 Jan 2017 a "strategy and implementation plan to achieve a reduction in petroleum use in motor vehicles by 50 percent by January 1, 2030, and provide a copy of the strategy and plan to the appropriate policy committees of the Legislature."

Given the organizational complexity of the ARB (see attachment), I don't know if the time table is sustainable unless the strategy has been in the works for some time. If such is the case, I think there may be a politically problematic tension between the rhetoric of the legislation (We're going to make sure we all have a chance to study the issue and to talk about it before making a decision) and potential execution (We're only talking about A, B, and C, as we've determined that D-Z are off the table).

This is to say that I don't mind being invited to a conversation in which participants are well prepared. (The ARB should have well developed ideas on how things should be done.) However, I do mind if the agenda that I've been told is open is actually closed.

YMMV.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sigaba (Post 590676)

IMO, the proposed legislation has the potential to get stakeholders talking about a wide range of issues related to petroleum-fueled vehicles, transportation, and the built environment.By my reading, the text of the proposed legislation exempts rail transportation.

YMMV.

Can't find the article, but a couple days ago I was reading an investment piece, I think in CNBC market watch, on container shipping. In the past this has been very lucrative with high returns.

The gist was the industry as a whole is moving as fast as possible to shift the major traffic to the Golf and East coast.

This would avoid calif unions and their left coast political support.

They would use the current CZ canal until the new canal is complete. At which time the super container ships can be more cost effective over using the RR.

Trying to enact this legislation will not help calif. They are driving business away..

:munchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJ_BPK (Post 590678)

This would avoid calif unions and their left coast political support.

I understand that there's an inclination to view new regulations and standards from a state like California as being anti-business, but could the aim of the proposed legislation be the weakening the political pull of unions based upon the assumption that other industries (tech and new media) are better for the state?

From 2013 article in the on line edition of the Sacramento Bee <<LINK>>

Quote:

Public opinion turns against labor unions in California

Public support for labor unions has plunged in California, with more voters for the first time saying they do more harm than good, according to a new Field Poll.

A plurality of registered voters – 45 percent – now feel that way, compared to 40 percent who say they do more good.

The poll registers a dramatic, 10 percentage point change in public opinion from two years ago, when voters rated labor unions far more positively. The measure follows heated controversies around public pensions, municipal bankruptcies and political campaigns involving organized labor – one of the most influential forces in California’s Democratic politics.

“It seems like they keep winning the battles,” Field Poll director Mark DiCamillo said. “The question becomes, ‘Are they moving the public in the direction where they may lose the war?’”

DiCamillo attributed declining support for labor unions to growing concerns about public pension costs and, in the densely populated San Francisco Bay Area, frustration around recent transit strikes.

“It’s percolating more at the local level,” he said.

Labor unions secured a major victory when voters last year defeated Proposition 32, a measure designed to restrict unions’ ability to raise money for political campaigns. But San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed gained national attention after filing paperwork this fall to place a public pension ballot measure on next November’s ballot, and two Bay Area Rapid Transit District strikes contributed to a proposal by Senate Republican leader Bob Huff, R-Diamond Bar, to strip BART employees of their right to strike.

Californians are divided about whether public transit workers should be allowed to strike, with 47 percent of voters saying they should have this right and 44 percent saying they shouldn’t, according to the poll. Despite the San Francisco Bay Area’s liberal leaning, a majority of voters in the area – 52 percent – say public transit workers should not be allowed to go on strike.

The public’s view of labor unions overall is highly partisan, with a majority of Democrats supportive of organized labor and a majority of Republicans opposed.

But labor unions have lost support they once enjoyed among independent voters. While 48 percent of independent voters said in 2011 that labor unions do more good than harm, just 39 percent say so today. Among independent voters, a plurality – 44 percent – say labor unions do more harm.

“All they really care about is getting their dues,” said Thomas O’Ferrall, a 55-year-old heavy equipment operator and Republican from Ione. “When unions started it was a good thing. It was about people and rights and protecting the people. But it’s so far away from that anymore.”

Labor unions continue to register support among Latinos and voters under 30, while whites and older voters rate unions more negatively.

Californians’ view of public employee unions, in particular, is similar to their assessment of labor unions overall, according to the poll. By a 44 percent to 39 percent margin, voters say public employee unions do more harm than good.

Over the last 30 years, the percentage of California workers represented by a union has steadily declined. In 1983, more than a quarter of employees worked under a collectively bargained contract, according to federal labor data compiled by the unionstats.com website. Last year fewer than one in five workers statewide were represented by a union.

“I just don’t see the need for unions as great now as it was years ago,” said Glen Lyons, a libertarian from Diamond Springs.

Lyons, a human resources manager, said labor unions burden businesses with increased costs, hindering their ability to compete. The 42-year-old said people doing some hazardous jobs, such as mining, might still require union protection, but for others the need to organize is outdated.

Patricia Grady, a 58-year-old Democrat from Crescent City, feared people no longer appreciate the significance the labor movement had for child labor laws, the 40-hour workweek and other workplace protections.

“I think most of us have forgotten the history of work in this country and why people fought so hard for the unions, and how bad conditions were,” the retired graphic designer and nursing assistant said. “I really feel whatever vestiges of unions are left need to remain. ... The deck is kind of weighted against the average working person.”

The poll follows a relatively successful year for organized labor at the state Capitol, where lawmakers and Gov. Jerry Brown approved a bill to raise California’s minimum wage to $10 an hour by 2016.

Todd Dewett, a retired professor of management at Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio, said the shift in public opinion against labor unions may only be a temporary product of a weak economy – and of a feeling of inequity among nonunion workers.

“When you see general economic woes increase, that makes it more difficult to say, ‘Hey, good for the unions,’” he said. “I would bet that the numbers, if the overall economy took a serious step forward, would go back to the more positive.”

My broader point is that Republicans may be turning their backs on opportunities to participate in important policy debates, and even win some political points, by reflexively rejecting proposed legislation because of its origin and the political party of its authors.

My $0.02.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sigaba (Post 590676)

MOO, your comment/calculations for time and cost of commuting to work is better suited to supporting the bill than to opposing its passage -- the projected $222/week hits the employee's bottom line much harder than the employeers'.

Just spit balling here, I think that the costs of improving/expanding the mass transit infrastructure would be manageable if (a) more private developers were offered opportunities to use transportation demand management "strategies" in lieu of building parking facilities to code requirements, (b) drivers received less public subsidies to drive and to park.

There are better options, for instance, San Diego has a great program called Vanpool. http://www.icommutesd.com/vanpool/vanpool

Quote:

IRT to your comment about the bill being a 'trick,' I would say that the time table for the first deliverable might be instructive. The proposed legislation calls for the state's Air Resources Board to deliver by no later than 1 Jan 2017 a "strategy and implementation plan to achieve a reduction in petroleum use in motor vehicles by 50 percent by January 1, 2030, and provide a copy of the strategy and plan to the appropriate policy committees of the Legislature."

Dont get me wrong, I'm glad they started the conversation. However, I think its poor timing.

Quote:

Given the organizational complexity of the ARB (see attachment), I don't know if the time table is sustainable unless the strategy has been in the works for some time. If such is the case, I think there may be a politically problematic tension between the rhetoric of the legislation (We're going to make sure we all have a chance to study the issue and to talk about it before making a decision) and potential execution (We're only talking about A, B, and C, as we've determined that D-Z are off the table).

This is to say that I don't mind being invited to a conversation in which participants are well prepared. (The ARB should have well developed ideas on how things should be done.) However, I do mind if the agenda that I've been told is open is actually closed.

YMMV.

Wait, you think the California legislature is organized and spends time properly researching? The general public here...how do I explain this...they rather keep up with the kardasians than give two shits about anything else outside their bubble. If it doesn't directly affect them within the next 20 minuets, they don't care. I can't even explain how frustrating it is...

In the end, the morons here in the state win (yay for bullet buttons, "gun free zones," High Speed Rails, and plastic shade balls!)

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJ_BPK (Post 590678)

I wonder if the people at those California Labor Unions realize that they just voted themselves out of a job. I actually want to be there to see their faces when those ports shut down in LA and Long Beach. Hopefully I will be out of state, because it will be like Detroit 2.0