The town is likely to lose several million dollars in state money
This may actually be the salient point. Here, it isn't a matter of losing state money (which may be earmarked for stuff they aren't enthusiastic about anyway). Instead, it's fines charged to the town. New Expenses!
The dollar amount may be a wash. But the difference in perception between "stop giving us money (with strings)" and "charge us money" is apparently quite significant.
2025-08-18 11:35:05
A number of communities affected by the law refused to comply.
There were some minor rumblings here like that. They went nowhere because the Town Council basically said "We don't have funds to pay the fines for non-compliance." Which amount to $1 million -- the number that sticks in my head is per day, but it might have been per month. Anyway, enough that nobody was jumping up volunteering to personally donate the cash to cover it.
2025-08-18 11:08:17
Maybe you're having a (perfectly understandable) inflammatory reaction to the state of the nation, too. I figure that's a factor in my long (for me) comments.
2025-08-17 23:37:12
They do not prompt wealthy college-educated folks living in islands of privilege to welcome cops, welders, nurses, and carpenters into their neighborhoods. They certainly and absolutely *DO NOT* prompt those people to do anything that would make lower-income housing more available in their communities, because that would put the assessed values of their own lovely homes at risk. And if the schools in their areas are not up to snuff, they quite often respond by sending their kids to private school, rather than take whatever steps would be needed to improve the local public schools.
Without going into the gory details of my own situation, I can tell you that I live this stuff. Live around it, live with it.
I have the recurring feeling that I am living in a different universe. This town is chock full of highly educated people. Has been since I was growing up here in the 1950s. (The town was a twentieth the size then, but its character hasn't changed much.) A lot of my neighbors are college educated; a couple used to teach college.
But my next door neighbor is a cop. (Not sure where. San Francisco maybe?) The guy a couple doors down is a farrier. (Yes really.) Great folks, not particularly well educated; one says he still marvels that he managed to graduate high school. In short, nothing like the class segregation described.
The town is mostly single family houses; archetypal suburbia. But there are also apartment buildings. No more houses being built the last decade or two; we ran out of space. But new apartment buildings are still going up. Afordable ones; at least what passes for affordable for California.
Like I say, a different universe. Not that I doubt for a minute that the problem exists. Just that it's outside my lived experience.
2025-08-17 18:53:52
I'd like to hear what nous and wj have to say about Newsom's counter-gerrymander initiative.
I strongly supported the initiative that set up our nonpartisan redistricting commission. I really, really hate to see anything that weakens it.
That said, like nous I will vote for this one-time, Congressional districts only, change. It's tragic that it has come to this. But the world is how it is, and the alternatives are worse. As long as nobody tries to make it a permanent change, or extends it to state legislative districts, I expect it to pass.
2025-08-17 18:45:14
It seems to me that the Mets hat thing is a way of trying to experience goodwill and a human connection between groups who may not have many other interests or passions in common.
For the first 3/4 or more of the 20th century, baseball was one of the things that bound people together in this country. Rich or poor, black or white, city or country -- people, whether they followed the game closely or not, were sufficiently aware to be able to talk about it. Their favorite team might not be the local one, but nobody got too exercised about that.
I think two things happened. One was technological: television. Baseball games can be readily followed on radio (presuming good broadcasters, which most were). But football is a TV game. You can't really appreciate what is happening without seeing things unfold. Somehow, football seems much more divisive than baseball.
The other was cultural. It became de rigueur for the upper classes to look down on the game. One could be interested, and many were. But showing interest was not the done thing. If you must talk about sports, talk about something lacrosse, which the lower classes don't do.
What that Mets hat does is show an interest in breaking down that barrier. And a refusal to sneer at the people he's talking to.
2025-08-17 10:47:30
Isn't what you are describing fallout from Prop 13, which capped property taxes, which was the mechanism that funded education?
Prop 13 contributed, certainly. But, as nous notes, it's far from the whole story.
Property taxes are a big part of funding primary and secondary education. But they aren't the only source. Also, the problem of reduced results has occurred even in places where there is relatively rapid turnover of home ownership. (Taxes weren't capped by Prop 13. It just froze assessments of property values, on which taxes are based, until the property changes hands.)
Funding for the University of California, and for the state university system, is totally unrelated to property taxes. It comes directly from the state budget, and from whatever tuition gets charged to make up the shortfalls. We could provide more funding from the state budget, and so reduce tuition. We chose, and continue to choose, not to.
2025-08-17 00:20:41
educational outcomes are not an especially blue state / red state thing. California doesn't do very well, Utah does.
I wouldn't be surprised if a big part of that is California getting worse. I grew up when we made big investments in education. Not just university education (where tuition was minimal) but at every level. We stopped.
Now, you can build up a couple of decades worth of debt even at a state college. And the quality of primary and secondary education (just in public schools, not even looking at private ones, where available) varies dramatically, depending on where you live.
We didn't have to do that. We chose to do that. The state government manages to find big bucks for projects with marginal benefits. (See the high speed rail boondoggle. It's a nice idea in theory. In reality? No.) But serious money for the basics? Not really. And it's not like Republican reactionaries and radical libertarians have any clout around here. These are the priorities of politicians on the left.
I can hope for an equivalent to the Michigan "Fix the damn roads!" campaign. But I sure don't see any politician who seem interested.
2025-08-16 01:33:52
I'm actually pleasantly surprised at the outcome. Far less bad than I had expected. Far less.
I read some griping about Putin being "honored" by being welcomed on US soil. Putin may feel honored (fat chance!). But will anyone else be impressed? Will anyone change their opinion of Putin? No and No.
The town is likely to lose several million dollars in state money
This may actually be the salient point. Here, it isn't a matter of losing state money (which may be earmarked for stuff they aren't enthusiastic about anyway). Instead, it's fines charged to the town. New Expenses!
The dollar amount may be a wash. But the difference in perception between "stop giving us money (with strings)" and "charge us money" is apparently quite significant.
A number of communities affected by the law refused to comply.
There were some minor rumblings here like that. They went nowhere because the Town Council basically said "We don't have funds to pay the fines for non-compliance." Which amount to $1 million -- the number that sticks in my head is per day, but it might have been per month. Anyway, enough that nobody was jumping up volunteering to personally donate the cash to cover it.
Maybe you're having a (perfectly understandable) inflammatory reaction to the state of the nation, too. I figure that's a factor in my long (for me) comments.
They do not prompt wealthy college-educated folks living in islands of privilege to welcome cops, welders, nurses, and carpenters into their neighborhoods. They certainly and absolutely *DO NOT* prompt those people to do anything that would make lower-income housing more available in their communities, because that would put the assessed values of their own lovely homes at risk. And if the schools in their areas are not up to snuff, they quite often respond by sending their kids to private school, rather than take whatever steps would be needed to improve the local public schools.
Without going into the gory details of my own situation, I can tell you that I live this stuff. Live around it, live with it.
I have the recurring feeling that I am living in a different universe. This town is chock full of highly educated people. Has been since I was growing up here in the 1950s. (The town was a twentieth the size then, but its character hasn't changed much.) A lot of my neighbors are college educated; a couple used to teach college.
But my next door neighbor is a cop. (Not sure where. San Francisco maybe?) The guy a couple doors down is a farrier. (Yes really.) Great folks, not particularly well educated; one says he still marvels that he managed to graduate high school. In short, nothing like the class segregation described.
The town is mostly single family houses; archetypal suburbia. But there are also apartment buildings. No more houses being built the last decade or two; we ran out of space. But new apartment buildings are still going up. Afordable ones; at least what passes for affordable for California.
Like I say, a different universe. Not that I doubt for a minute that the problem exists. Just that it's outside my lived experience.
I'd like to hear what nous and wj have to say about Newsom's counter-gerrymander initiative.
I strongly supported the initiative that set up our nonpartisan redistricting commission. I really, really hate to see anything that weakens it.
That said, like nous I will vote for this one-time, Congressional districts only, change. It's tragic that it has come to this. But the world is how it is, and the alternatives are worse. As long as nobody tries to make it a permanent change, or extends it to state legislative districts, I expect it to pass.
It seems to me that the Mets hat thing is a way of trying to experience goodwill and a human connection between groups who may not have many other interests or passions in common.
For the first 3/4 or more of the 20th century, baseball was one of the things that bound people together in this country. Rich or poor, black or white, city or country -- people, whether they followed the game closely or not, were sufficiently aware to be able to talk about it. Their favorite team might not be the local one, but nobody got too exercised about that.
I think two things happened. One was technological: television. Baseball games can be readily followed on radio (presuming good broadcasters, which most were). But football is a TV game. You can't really appreciate what is happening without seeing things unfold. Somehow, football seems much more divisive than baseball.
The other was cultural. It became de rigueur for the upper classes to look down on the game. One could be interested, and many were. But showing interest was not the done thing. If you must talk about sports, talk about something lacrosse, which the lower classes don't do.
What that Mets hat does is show an interest in breaking down that barrier. And a refusal to sneer at the people he's talking to.
Isn't what you are describing fallout from Prop 13, which capped property taxes, which was the mechanism that funded education?
Prop 13 contributed, certainly. But, as nous notes, it's far from the whole story.
Property taxes are a big part of funding primary and secondary education. But they aren't the only source. Also, the problem of reduced results has occurred even in places where there is relatively rapid turnover of home ownership. (Taxes weren't capped by Prop 13. It just froze assessments of property values, on which taxes are based, until the property changes hands.)
Funding for the University of California, and for the state university system, is totally unrelated to property taxes. It comes directly from the state budget, and from whatever tuition gets charged to make up the shortfalls. We could provide more funding from the state budget, and so reduce tuition. We chose, and continue to choose, not to.
educational outcomes are not an especially blue state / red state thing. California doesn't do very well, Utah does.
I wouldn't be surprised if a big part of that is California getting worse. I grew up when we made big investments in education. Not just university education (where tuition was minimal) but at every level. We stopped.
Now, you can build up a couple of decades worth of debt even at a state college. And the quality of primary and secondary education (just in public schools, not even looking at private ones, where available) varies dramatically, depending on where you live.
We didn't have to do that. We chose to do that. The state government manages to find big bucks for projects with marginal benefits. (See the high speed rail boondoggle. It's a nice idea in theory. In reality? No.) But serious money for the basics? Not really. And it's not like Republican reactionaries and radical libertarians have any clout around here. These are the priorities of politicians on the left.
I can hope for an equivalent to the Michigan "Fix the damn roads!" campaign. But I sure don't see any politician who seem interested.
I'm actually pleasantly surprised at the outcome. Far less bad than I had expected. Far less.
I read some griping about Putin being "honored" by being welcomed on US soil. Putin may feel honored (fat chance!). But will anyone else be impressed? Will anyone change their opinion of Putin? No and No.