California propositions

[billvon 3,131]

California propositions on the ballot (non-Californians feel free to ignore)

I've been researching CA ballot propositions, and I figured I would post my researchings here. Information comes from the League of Women Voters, the voter election guide, direct web research and local word of mouth. (I also did research for the San Diego local propositions but I figure that's pretty useless here; lot more Californians here than san Diegans.)

Disclosure - in general my bias is to vote "no" on everything, on the basis that making a law needs to be a last resort after voluntary/private/market based efforts fail. It has to be a pretty compelling issue to make such a change, since most laws give government more power over people.

Prop 1 - Affordable housing.
This proposition authorizes about $4 billion for affordable housing, including low-income housing, farmworker housing and veteran farm purchase assistance. Affordable housing is a big problem in California because a lot of people want to live here, including rich people. When such people move in they often buy out people living here already, leading to a high priced real estate market and not many options for low income people. This ranges from a non issue in more rural communities (i.e. small towns in the central valley, Chico, Clovis) to insane housing prices that force even middle class people out (i.e. Santa Clara, Los Altos, La Jolla, Cupertino.)

This is indeed a huge problem but I don't think a $4 billion bond is the way to solve it. Too much cost for not enough benefit, and too much market distortion. I'd rather see zoning laws changed to encourage communities that are cheaper, denser and easier for California to support.

Prop 2 - Mental health treatment and housing.
This prop provides up to $2 billion in bonds for medical treatment and care to allow people with mental health issues to remain at home wherever possible, or to be moved to supervised low-income housing if not. This effectively expands a previous measure passed in 2016.

I am not sure on this one. It helps solve a large and growing problem - people with mental health issues that often end up homeless and fall into drug use and crime. That is a big problem that we have to do a better job of solving. And unlike able-minded people looking to buy a house, these are people who often have no other choices. Nor do I see a clear alternative to this. I have to think about this some more.

Prop 3 - Water bond
$8 billion in spending for improving water infrastructure in California, including watershed/fisheries improvements, water transportation and storage, water safety and flood protection.

This is another important issue as water supplies get tighter. However, there is a big flaw here, in that it shifts the costs of water from the people who use it (i.e. the people who should be paying for it) to taxpayers. It is also almost completely devoid of oversight, and thus the chances of it becoming a boondoggle are very high. The right solution here is to increase the price of water sufficiently to cover the expenses incurred with getting that water, and with maintaining and building infrastructure. That way the people using more of it pay for more of it.

Prop 4 - Build more children's hospitals.
Again a good cause. Again unclear as to why funding ($1.5 billion) can't come from the usual places. And this is for private, not public, hospitals. So this one is pretty easy for me. Good idea, we can't afford it.

Prop 5 - Property tax transfers.
This prop allows elderly people who buy new homes to pay less tax. If they are assessed a low property tax on their current property, and buy a new property somewhere else, they don't have to pay the new property tax - they pay their old one.

A strange one. There's not too much need for it (if they can't pay the new property tax, they can simply stay where they are) and it loses CA hundreds of billions of dollars, and all to help a group that doesn't really need much help - the 55 and older crowd who are in the market for new homes. The argument for it is that very old/disabled people who can't get around much any more should be able to move closer to their families, but it's not limited to that. ANY 55 year old can use it, which means it will mostly be used by wealthy retirees who want to get a house in a nicer location without paying more taxes. And wealthy retirees don't really need protecting from taxes.

Prop 6 - gas tax repeal. Constitutional amendment.
It repeals a 2017 law that added excise taxes to road fuel to cover a serious shortfall in monies needed to repair and maintain roads and bridges. It also amends the constitution to require any change to road laws (including driving laws) to be put up for a public vote.

The trend towards "amend the Constitution to get my measure adopted" is a terrible one, and it's why California has an incomprehensible mess of a Constitution. It also removes $5 billion from road and bridge maintenance, and that would result in the sort of disasters we've seen other places. So that's a pretty easy decision for me.

Prop 7 - Allows legislature to abolish time changes.
This one allows the legislature, with a 2/3 vote, to change how daylight savings time is implemented. Eliminating the change, as Arizona and Hawaii have done, not only make sense but has health benefits. A no-brainer. We should have done this a long time ago. Let the Earth set when the Sun rises and sets.

Prop 8 - Regulates kidney dialysis.
This was another strange one that puts limits on what dialysis centers can do. I did some research, and this measure is on the ballot primarily because dialysis centers have some labor disputes, and the labor leaders are using this to force the issue. So no on this one; the ballot box is not the place to resolve labor disputes.

Prop 10 - rent control.
This allows more local control in cases of rent control. It repeals an earlier more limited rent control (Costa-Hawkins) and allows cities to regulate more types of housing. I am generally against such controls, but moving the controls to more local governments is a step in the right direction. So not sure yet on this one.

Prop 11 - Requires private ambulance crews to be on-call during breaks.
This is sort of a silly one. A law was recently passed that said that private ambulance crews have to get breaks. This proposition attempts to override that decision.

If it's a big deal, hire more ambulance crews so there's always one that's not on break. More jobs, minor additional cost. Don't need a proposition to fix this.

Prop 12 - animal rights.
This makes moderate changes in the requirements placed on farmers in terms of cage sizes, pen sizes, treatment of animals etc. It's a good cause, but it's poorly written, and it follows closely on the heels of a previous law (prop 2) that, less than 10 years ago, did the same things. I support better treatment of farm animals, but it would have to come from a better written law and would have to give farmers more time to comply.

[rushmc 23]

do you ever get concerned when you, as a moderator, have more thread started on the first page than anybody else for a long period of time?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[yoink 321]

Thanks Bill.

Good info to have to hand. I've misplaced my pamphlet that goes over these.

[BartsDaddy 7]

billvon

California propositions on the ballot (non-Californians feel free to ignore)

I've been researching CA ballot propositions, and I figured I would post my researchings here. Information comes from the League of Women Voters, the voter election guide, direct web research and local word of mouth. (I also did research for the San Diego local propositions but I figure that's pretty useless here; lot more Californians here than san Diegans.)

Disclosure - in general my bias is to vote "no" on everything, on the basis that making a law needs to be a last resort after voluntary/private/market based efforts fail. It has to be a pretty compelling issue to make such a change, since most laws give government more power over people.

Prop 1 - Affordable housing.
This proposition authorizes about $4 billion for affordable housing, including low-income housing, farmworker housing and veteran farm purchase assistance. Affordable housing is a big problem in California because a lot of people want to live here, including rich people. When such people move in they often buy out people living here already, leading to a high priced real estate market and not many options for low income people. This ranges from a non issue in more rural communities (i.e. small towns in the central valley, Chico, Clovis) to insane housing prices that force even middle class people out (i.e. Santa Clara, Los Altos, La Jolla, Cupertino.)

This is indeed a huge problem but I don't think a $4 billion bond is the way to solve it. Too much cost for not enough benefit, and too much market distortion. I'd rather see zoning laws changed to encourage communities that are cheaper, denser and easier for California to support.

Prop 2 - Mental health treatment and housing.
This prop provides up to $2 billion in bonds for medical treatment and care to allow people with mental health issues to remain at home wherever possible, or to be moved to supervised low-income housing if not. This effectively expands a previous measure passed in 2016.

I am not sure on this one. It helps solve a large and growing problem - people with mental health issues that often end up homeless and fall into drug use and crime. That is a big problem that we have to do a better job of solving. And unlike able-minded people looking to buy a house, these are people who often have no other choices. Nor do I see a clear alternative to this. I have to think about this some more.

Prop 3 - Water bond
$8 billion in spending for improving water infrastructure in California, including watershed/fisheries improvements, water transportation and storage, water safety and flood protection.

This is another important issue as water supplies get tighter. However, there is a big flaw here, in that it shifts the costs of water from the people who use it (i.e. the people who should be paying for it) to taxpayers. It is also almost completely devoid of oversight, and thus the chances of it becoming a boondoggle are very high. The right solution here is to increase the price of water sufficiently to cover the expenses incurred with getting that water, and with maintaining and building infrastructure. That way the people using more of it pay for more of it.

Prop 4 - Build more children's hospitals.
Again a good cause. Again unclear as to why funding ($1.5 billion) can't come from the usual places. And this is for private, not public, hospitals. So this one is pretty easy for me. Good idea, we can't afford it.

Prop 5 - Property tax transfers.
This prop allows elderly people who buy new homes to pay less tax. If they are assessed a low property tax on their current property, and buy a new property somewhere else, they don't have to pay the new property tax - they pay their old one.

A strange one. There's not too much need for it (if they can't pay the new property tax, they can simply stay where they are) and it loses CA hundreds of billions of dollars, and all to help a group that doesn't really need much help - the 55 and older crowd who are in the market for new homes. The argument for it is that very old/disabled people who can't get around much any more should be able to move closer to their families, but it's not limited to that. ANY 55 year old can use it, which means it will mostly be used by wealthy retirees who want to get a house in a nicer location without paying more taxes. And wealthy retirees don't really need protecting from taxes.

Prop 6 - gas tax repeal. Constitutional amendment.
It repeals a 2017 law that added excise taxes to road fuel to cover a serious shortfall in monies needed to repair and maintain roads and bridges. It also amends the constitution to require any change to road laws (including driving laws) to be put up for a public vote.

The trend towards "amend the Constitution to get my measure adopted" is a terrible one, and it's why California has an incomprehensible mess of a Constitution. It also removes $5 billion from road and bridge maintenance, and that would result in the sort of disasters we've seen other places. So that's a pretty easy decision for me.

Prop 7 - Allows legislature to abolish time changes.
This one allows the legislature, with a 2/3 vote, to change how daylight savings time is implemented. Eliminating the change, as Arizona and Hawaii have done, not only make sense but has health benefits. A no-brainer. We should have done this a long time ago. Let the Earth set when the Sun rises and sets.

Prop 8 - Regulates kidney dialysis.
This was another strange one that puts limits on what dialysis centers can do. I did some research, and this measure is on the ballot primarily because dialysis centers have some labor disputes, and the labor leaders are using this to force the issue. So no on this one; the ballot box is not the place to resolve labor disputes.

Prop 10 - rent control.
This allows more local control in cases of rent control. It repeals an earlier more limited rent control (Costa-Hawkins) and allows cities to regulate more types of housing. I am generally against such controls, but moving the controls to more local governments is a step in the right direction. So not sure yet on this one.

Prop 11 - Requires private ambulance crews to be on-call during breaks.
This is sort of a silly one. A law was recently passed that said that private ambulance crews have to get breaks. This proposition attempts to override that decision.

If it's a big deal, hire more ambulance crews so there's always one that's not on break. More jobs, minor additional cost. Don't need a proposition to fix this.

Prop 12 - animal rights.
This makes moderate changes in the requirements placed on farmers in terms of cage sizes, pen sizes, treatment of animals etc. It's a good cause, but it's poorly written, and it follows closely on the heels of a previous law (prop 2) that, less than 10 years ago, did the same things. I support better treatment of farm animals, but it would have to come from a better written law and would have to give farmers more time to comply.

Thank you. Other than the ones you need to think about more.I agree with mostly, which suprises me. Are you a closet republican? not that there is anything wrong with that.

Handguns are only used to fight your way to a good rifle

[headoverheels 334]

rushmc

do you ever get concerned when you, as a moderator, have more thread started on the first page than anybody else for a long period of time?

There used to be another poster that would post up very insightful posts on the CA propositions and discussion, but she has long moved on. I am grateful for something posted up, even though I may disagree with some of it. Not so much interest for out-of-staters, but there are numerous CA readers here.

[billvon 3,131]

rushmc

do you ever get concerned when you, as a moderator, have more thread started on the first page than anybody else for a long period of time?

"(non-Californians feel free to ignore) "

[billvon 3,131]

Quote

Thank you. Other than the ones you need to think about more.I agree with mostly, which suprises me. Are you a closet republican? not that there is anything wrong with that.

On here I'm considered a liberal. On science forums I'm considered a conservative due to my opinions on minimum wage, nuclear power, governmental power vs private power, use of market incentives vs fiat etc.

[yoink 321]

billvon

Quote

Thank you. Other than the ones you need to think about more.I agree with mostly, which suprises me. Are you a closet republican? not that there is anything wrong with that.

On here I'm considered a liberal. On science forums I'm considered a conservative due to my opinions on minimum wage, nuclear power, governmental power vs private power, use of market incentives vs fiat etc.

WHAT WITCHCRAFT IS THIS????



More on topic, the lack of oversight on all these measures concerns me greatly. I'm not voting for more money if I can't be sure of how it's getting spent.

The water issue is a massive one in Southern California. Water rates should be 5 times what they are - literally. And this also feeds into the new housing elements. There isn't the infrastructure to build all of the new affordable housing that these measures are talking about.

No on 1
Yes on 2
Yes on 3 - ideally it would be per user as you suggest, but piss of enough taxpayers and it'll shift that way in future. The infrastructure HAS to be upgraded massively. We live in a desert for fucks sake.
No on 4
No on 5
Absolutely no on 6.
Absolutely Yes on 7. Fuck daylight savings.
No on 8
Yes on 10
No on 11
No on 12


The issues are the easier things for me on the ballot. I've no idea about the positions / people and all the attack adverts make ALL of them seem like complete arseholes.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Not in CA, but it didn't say "have to ignore."

Just out of curiosity, the first 4 cost something like $15 billion. Is there any mechanism in place to pay for that?
Is there any requirement for any of these 'propositions' to pay for themselves? Or say where the money will come from?
I'm not trying to be snarky, just genuinely curious.

I would think it would be more honest and open to say (for example) 'we are going to spend $X million dollars on widgets and pay for it by imposing a 10% tax on dohickeys."

I fully agree that the idea of amending the Constitution by a simple majority in a referendum vote is pretty stupid. It should be hard to change a Constitution (state or national). Super majority in consecutive referendums, along with consecutive super majorities in the state legislature.
There's a reason it's as hard as it is to amend the US Constitution. It helps prevent stupid decisions. Yet we still got the 18th amendment.

Finally, DST is probably fairly silly if you are in the lower 30s for latitude. However, up in the mid 40s, we see a huge swing in daylight hours. Without DST, first light would be well before 4 AM in June & July. With it, sunset goes out to nearly 9 PM. It makes for much better summer evenings. It also saves a fair amount on power (no need to turn on lights). That's why it was put in place to begin with. FWIW, Indiana didn't change their clocks until fairly recently. They ran Eastern DST during the summer and Central Standard time in the winter. Being on the far western end of Eastern time, it made a lot of sense. So, of course, they switched to Eastern time full time (DST & Standard).

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[jakee 1,608]

Quote

Finally, DST is probably fairly silly if you are in the lower 30s for latitude. However, up in the mid 40s, we see a huge swing in daylight hours. Without DST, first light would be well before 4 AM in June & July. With it, sunset goes out to nearly 9 PM. It makes for much better summer evenings.

Of course you could just (crazy I know) do things at a different time in winter vs summer

The need for DST has always amused me. The 24 hour clock was invented to measure and represent the time of day. But now we're so wedded to what the clock says rather than what the day is doing that instead of changing the stated time at which we do things to fit the season, we have to make the clock wrong so we can keep doing things at the same stated time.

In the UK there's growing support for making DST (GMT +1) the time all year round. Making it so that midnight is never midnight and midday is never midday because people can't just decide on their own to go to start an hour earlier and finish an hour later.

There must be a whole branch of sociology dedicated to studying that

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

jakee

Quote

Finally, DST is probably fairly silly if you are in the lower 30s for latitude. However, up in the mid 40s, we see a huge swing in daylight hours. Without DST, first light would be well before 4 AM in June & July. With it, sunset goes out to nearly 9 PM. It makes for much better summer evenings.

Of course you could just (crazy I know) do things at a different time in winter vs summer

The need for DST has always amused me. The 24 hour clock was invented to measure and represent the time of day. But now we're so wedded to what the clock says rather than what the day is doing that instead of changing the stated time at which we do things to fit the season, we have to make the clock wrong so we can keep doing things at the same stated time.

In the UK there's growing support for making DST (GMT +1) the time all year round. Making it so that midnight is never midnight and midday is never midday because people can't just decide on their own to go to start an hour earlier and finish an hour later.

There must be a whole branch of sociology dedicated to studying that

You expect people to do the logical and sensible thing?
You aren't that foolish.

Sociology, psychology, even physiology.

Circadian rhythms are very interesting to study.

I think we tend to be creatures of habit. To the point that the 'typical' "Start at 9, lunch at noon, quit at 5" workday pattern is so ingrained that if the clock were completely reversed (dark at noon, sun at zenith at midnight) most people would still go to work when the clock read 9.

It's easier to move the clock than to change people.

Even time zones in the US are pretty funky. The thing with Indiana that I noted above is because that state is at the far western end of Eastern time. So they are 'later' than just about anywhere else in the Eastern zone (there's a part of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan that takes Eastern time way west, but the "Yoopers" are really weird anyway )

Same thing with the plains. The Dakotas are mostly Central time zone. I've been places where the sun doesn't set until after 10 PM in high summer.

For Arizona & Indiana, they are on the borders with the next time zone, so what they do doesn't really matter. For California, ditching DST would make Nevada a 'time island' half the year. Not to mention that official stuff would likely not change and (god forbid) it would screw up the TV times.
Start screwing with people's TV watching and you will have a real revolt (only half kidding here).

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[ryoder 1,590]

wolfriverjoe

Start screwing with people's TV watching and you will have a real revolt (only half kidding here).

I grew up in Northern IN in the portion of the state which remained on standard time. Every time the rest of the country went on/off DST, the times of the TV broadcasts shifted by one hour. But somehow we survived.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[wmw999 2,600]

I used to envy you, because Mission Impossible came on at 9:00 in central time, and it was too late for me in NW Ohio

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[JerryBaumchen 1,471]

Hi Robert,

Quote

But somehow we survived.

Yea, but look what it did to you?

I once read that the Soviet Union had 13 time zones, in theory, but everywhere the clocks were exactly the same. I've never been there, anyone know about this?

Jerry Baumchen

[ryoder 1,590]

The entire state of Alaska is on the wrong time zone;
They should be on UTC-10, but are on UTC-9.
I think the problem starts with Canada extending the Pacific timezone all the way up the AK.
The Canadian West coast runs diagonally, (NW<->SE), across what should be two different timezones.
Canada extends the Pacific timezone to AK, so if AK was on the correct time, there would be a 2-hour difference at the AK/Canada border.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[billvon 3,131]

Quote

Just out of curiosity, the first 4 cost something like $15 billion. Is there any mechanism in place to pay for that?

That's one of my big issues with such measures. They are almost all financed by bond sales, and every single one states "THIS WILL NOT RAISE YOUR TAXES" in bold print. But that's stupid; the money will come from somewhere, and bond measures eventually end up raising taxes (because there's only one source of money to pay them back with, and it eventually comes from taxpayers.) I would be MUCH more willing to support a measure saying "this will raise statewide taxes by .2% for 5 years, and then expected revenues will allow a similar reduction." That shows me they thought about the economics of it, rather than just pushing the problem off to the future.

Quote

Finally, DST is probably fairly silly if you are in the lower 30s for latitude. However, up in the mid 40s, we see a huge swing in daylight hours. Without DST, first light would be well before 4 AM in June & July. With it, sunset goes out to nearly 9 PM. It makes for much better summer evenings.

So keep DST all year. It's not the offset, it's the 2 x year change that's the problem. Or keep standard times and have companies let people out an hour earlier in the summer. Or all year long. No need to change every single person's/machine's clock for that.

[jakee 1,608]

ryoder

The entire state of Alaska is on the wrong time zone;
They should be on UTC-10, but are on UTC-9.
I think the problem starts with Canada extending the Pacific timezone all the way up the AK.
The Canadian West coast runs diagonally, (NW<->SE), across what should be two different timezones.
Canada extends the Pacific timezone to AK, so if AK was on the correct time, there would be a 2-hour difference at the AK/Canada border.

When you get to extreme northern latitudes does time zone really matter that much? After all, there's only a small part of the year that will have 'sensible' sunrise and sunset times anyway. (I've never spent much time that far up, so I don't know. )

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[ryoder 1,590]

jakee

When you get to extreme northern latitudes does time zone really matter that much? After all, there's only a small part of the year that will have 'sensible' sunrise and sunset times anyway. (I've never spent much time that far up, so I don't know. )

Now that is a good point: When you are at the North (or South) Pole, which timezone should you use?

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

ryoder

***
When you get to extreme northern latitudes does time zone really matter that much? After all, there's only a small part of the year that will have 'sensible' sunrise and sunset times anyway. (I've never spent much time that far up, so I don't know. )

Now that is a good point: When you are at the North (or South) Pole, which timezone should you use?

Whatever my iPhone tells me to.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

billvon

Quote

Just out of curiosity, the first 4 cost something like $15 billion. Is there any mechanism in place to pay for that?

That's one of my big issues with such measures. They are almost all financed by bond sales, and every single one states "THIS WILL NOT RAISE YOUR TAXES" in bold print. But that's stupid; the money will come from somewhere, and bond measures eventually end up raising taxes (because there's only one source of money to pay them back with, and it eventually comes from taxpayers.) I would be MUCH more willing to support a measure saying "this will raise statewide taxes by .2% for 5 years, and then expected revenues will allow a similar reduction." That shows me they thought about the economics of it, rather than just pushing the problem off to the future.

Somehow, that is what I expected.

"Yes, we're going to spend all this money, but we won't raise taxes."

Please. That's garbage and everyone should know it. But it seems that far, far too many people fall for it.

Quote

***Finally, DST is probably fairly silly if you are in the lower 30s for latitude. However, up in the mid 40s, we see a huge swing in daylight hours. Without DST, first light would be well before 4 AM in June & July. With it, sunset goes out to nearly 9 PM. It makes for much better summer evenings.

So keep DST all year. It's not the offset, it's the 2 x year change that's the problem. Or keep standard times and have companies let people out an hour earlier in the summer. Or all year long. No need to change every single person's/machine's clock for that.

The issue with that is that in the winter, the sun doesn't rise until well after 7. If DST was in effect all year long, that would be after 8.
And kids going to school would be doing so in the dark.

"THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!"
I wish I was making this up. This was one of the bigger arguments for Indiana not changing how they did their clocks back when they changed to DST/Standard time.

OTOH, I was in the Washington DC area a few years back in the fall when the time changed. And the first evening commute of the year was an absolute nightmare. Apparently everyone forgot how to drive in the dark, the same way they forget to drive in the snow for the first snowfall of the year.

And I don't see it as that big of a deal to change all the clocks. 4 in the house, 3 cars, a couple wrist watches (yes, I still wear them).
Phone & computer change themselves.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[BIGUN 1,500]

Quote

Disclosure - in general my bias is to vote "no" on everything, on the basis that making a law needs to be a last resort after voluntary/private/market based efforts fail.

This reminded me of one of my own election phrases when asked who I'm voting for... "The one who promises not to make any new laws."

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[BIGUN 1,500]

Quote

do you ever get concerned when you, as a moderator, have more thread started on the first page than anybody else for a long period of time?

Bill has the same rights as you on this forum. Personally, I find his threads informative and when they turn sideways; I have the same rights as you - to not participate.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[yoink 321]

wolfriverjoe

The issue with that is that in the winter, the sun doesn't rise until well after 7. If DST was in effect all year long, that would be after 8.
And kids going to school would be doing so in the dark.

"THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!"
I wish I was making this up. This was one of the bigger arguments for Indiana not changing how they did their clocks back when they changed to DST/Standard time.

I lived in Edinburgh for a few years growing up. Sunrise wasn't until well after 8am in the depths of it. And then you had to go out and de-ice the car before you could go anywhere. I was IN school before it was light.

One of the large reasons I accepted a move to San Diego was because I was tired of not seeing daylight for months on end. Get up in the dark, go to work and if you're in an interior office you don't get a window, then drive home in the dark. And the rain.
It's a wonder anyone is still sane there.

[wmw999 2,600]

In about 1974 during the gas crisis, there was a short-lived permanent DST in January or so. After a couple of kids got hit by cars in the country, that sure ended.

Specific hours are an overlay over actual day and night. Ain’t alwayS going to work.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[mistercwood 287]

BIGUN

Quote

do you ever get concerned when you, as a moderator, have more thread started on the first page than anybody else for a long period of time?

Bill has the same rights as you on this forum. Personally, I find his threads informative and when they turn sideways; I have the same rights as you - to not participate.

Please don't ever leave. I frequently disagree with your positions, but I never doubt that they've come from considered reasoning. You're one of the few remaining conservative viewpoints in this place that hasn't become a total caricature...

You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.