As always, California is the beachhead of stupid and/or evil ideas regarding your property, lifestyle, and even your life. Hears the latest bad idea that needs to be aggressively fought: Senate Bill 1 would allow counties to set up a Sustainable Communities Investment Authority (SCIA) which would have the power of eminent domain to confiscate private property for “sustainable communities.” The bill passed the California legislature, but was modified before “Moonbeam” Brown could sign it and now must go back through the legislature.
Here’s some of the elements that the law could entail, courtesy of the San Rafael Patch:– A city mayor or county supervisor forms a new joint powers authority called a “Sustainable Communities Investment Authority” (SCIA), they appoint elected officials to serve on the SCIAs board.
– If you live within 1/2 mile of a bus that runs every 15 minutes during peak commutes, or the SMART train or Caltrain in a single family home neighborhood your neighborhood can be targeted by the SCIA as inefficient land use and “blighted” as it is not high density multi-family housing. Almost everyone reading this in Marin (apart from some Steve Kinsey constituents in Western Marin) is therefore affected – I have seen the map with these 1/2 mile radiuses and it covers almost all Marinites.
– The SCIA can then wield the power of eminent domain to purchase unused, for sale or even occupied land in order to build high density multi-family housing – that it deems to be efficient land use.
– The SCIA can then impose local taxes on us to pay not just for the eminent domain purchases but to help the land developer build by subsidizing the building of high density housing.
– In order to meet criteria in SB1 allowing imposition of local taxes the SCIA must impose”a sustainable parking standards ordinance that restricts parking in transit priority project areas to encourage transit use to the greatest extent feasible”. Yes you read that right, “to the greatest extent feasible”. This could mean anything from reducing available parking, to introducing parking permits and parking meters.
Poverty around the world can be linked tightly to several factors, and one is the lack of personal security and negative incentives to work or innovate that come from government theft of property. California is stepping squarely into the Third World with this law, where unless you are part of the well-connected elite, everything you work for is forfeit to the will of a few bureaucrats and their moneyed friends.
This will pass. I have no doubt. And they won’t stop, Californians. Not unless you stop them.
What the fuck is with California? The state is the poster child for everything wrong with the United States — rampant corruption, police malfeasance, statist intrusion into people’s lives — and now there’s this: Manuel Ramos and Jay Cicinelli, former officers with the Fullerton, California police department that viciously beat homeless man Kelly Thomas, were found not guilty of second-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter, respectively. The jury deliberated for less than a day.
Here’s the result of the actions of these grotesque excuses for human beings:
You might remember the case, but if not, here’s the recap.
The coroner’s office determined that Thomas died of brain damage from lack of oxygen caused by chest compression and other injuries sustained during his struggle with police.
Defense attorneys suggested that Thomas’ death could be tied to a diseased heart damaged by previous drug use.
Because banning clothing “associated” with drug use will stop already banned drug use. This is Assemblywoman Fiona Ma (and good job, San Francisco, in electing this congenital idiot) struggling to form a coherent thought:
The kicker for me was her admitting she was trying to ban an event of which she knew nothing. It’s this type of top-shelf leadership that has caused California to have the highest deficit and debt among the states, and a legislative environment that is pushing business, middle-class Californians, and common sense out of the state (where, having metastasized, these cancerously foolish folks start trying to create the same stupid and destructive policies. Looking at you, Colorado.)
Watch her eyes while she tries to squeeze out a thought. That there is a special kind of dumb.
File this under “Slippery slope”:
On May 1st, Governor Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown signed a law that allows the state to confiscate the weapons of anyone with a “criminal conviction or serious mental illness.” $24 million has been set aside to hire new “special agents” to find the 200,000 or so folks qualifying under the new law so the state can steal their property (despite the state being $34 billion in debt…)
Mind you this is not to take away the guns of criminals, but “potentially dangerous individuals…” [Emphasis mine.] So you don’t have to have committed a crime, but just be someone who the state thinks might be a danger to yourself or others (Can we add politicians to that list?) This isn’t the end of the road for the Gilded State — there are at least another 11 gun-related measures being considered as the state exemplifying bad Progressive ideas continues to find ways to steal your money, things, and rights.
And what do Californians do? Lie down and take it.
One of these scumbag politicians, Kevin DeLeon of Los Angeles (This is the same douchebag that wanted you to have to give fingerprints to buy ammo…), wants an annual permit to buy ammunition — what amounts to a user’s fee of your constitutional rights. There’s also the nickel-per-bullet tax that’s been proposed, as well as gun show “loopholes”, etc.
Have no doubt that California is the model for the Democrat’s national efforts to steal you property and rights. Until they can wrest your weaponry from you, they know that there is the risk of the population not only rejecting — but violently so — their “progressive” agenda, to whit — create an aristocratic class of “experts” and politicians that live by a separate code than you do. It’s no wonder that a new Fairleigh Dickinson University poll shows between a quarter and a third of the population believe an “armed revolution” to be necessary to protect their liberties.
Surprise, surprise…this is similar to what I’ve been seeing in people I talk to — about a third of the people I’ve spoken to who have purchased weapons recently agreed that the possibility of an armed revolt against more government intrusion was likely, and even necessary. (Admittedly, this is anecdotal, but it has held firm with Republicans and libertarians seeing the writing on the wall, and Democrats refusing to acknowledge that their fellow citizens are well and truly pissed off. And armed.
Remember, only about a third of the population backed the revolution against the British Crown. Something to think about before you keep stepping on your neighbors’ toes.
The kleptocracy in California has been pushing people out of the Gilded State for more than a decade (which means, unfortunately, those emigrants disperse into the rest of the nation, bringing the same terrible ideas that destroyed their state with them.) But Jerry Brown and company aren’t done driving that plane into the ground…
Let’s start with what seems like a relatively minor law, but the aspects of which are very importnat to your rights regarding presumption of innocence, to face your accuser, and to be held responsible for your actions alone. Enter AB666, which eliminates your right to a trial in the event of receiving a red light ticket (yes, you could go in front of an “administrative hearing” run by the company in charge of the red light program and for which you pay the costs of — yeah, you’ll get a fair hearing! — and which makes you responsible for the ticket no matter who was driving the car, be it your wife, kid, or that guy on his way to the chop shop with your ride. The only evidence needed to convict you of the misdemeanor is the ticket itself. Additionally, AB666 allows them to use the camera evidence for more offenses than just running a red light or speeding.
What’s the big deal, jese? It’s just a small…ish fine, and we all want safe streets, que no? You really think, once you allow them to charge you with crimes on what is essentially heresay, once you allow them to deny you a trial (or make the process of gaining a hearing onerous through fees and administrative bullshit), once you accept that you are responsible for the actions of others simply because they occurred with your property, do you really think they’ll stop at traffic offenses?
Once you relinquish your rights (in this case Amendments 4 through 6) they’re nearly impossible to retrieve from the bureaucrats that you gave them up to. So head over to stopab666.org and contact your state representatives and senators (like they’ll listen.)
You can’t give an inch, or they’ll take the whole foot.
Now let’s turn to a bigger, more egregious offense by the California
crime syndicate government: In this one, the state — desperate for more money to waste on high-speed rail boondoggles and lavish lifestyles for the Sacramento gang — “determined that a tax break claimed over the past few years by 2,500 entrepreneurs and stockholders of California-based small businesses is no longer valid…” In other words, they didn’t like that a tax break they gave entrepreneurs — you know, the folks that invent new businesses to hire folks and make new products — was cutting into the state spending spree and decided that it didn’t real count. Oops! Pay us all those back taxes, please; we even included an envelope to make it easier. Just add postage right there in the corner.
Excuse me…isn’t ex post facto law illegal under United States law? Ooooo, I think it is!
So, you obey the law and still get punished because the thieves in your state capital just don’t have enough of your money. Let me suggest you pick up operations and move to North Dakota, Utah or Texas. Oops! That’s already happening! “California’s jobless rate was unchanged at 9.8% in January for the second straight month, and that lack of improvement put the Golden State in a tie with Rhode Island for the worst unemployment in the U.S…”
Awesome job, Progressives! Way to move it forward!
In Los Angeles, California, nine CA Justice Department officers came to the house of a woman who had voluntarily checked herself into a mental facility for two days for evaluation, but they didn’t stop there — they also took the legally-owned weapons of her husband (most likely without appropriate 5th Amendment compensation.) so you don’t have to be ineligible — just someone who lives with you.
“Almost 20,000 gun owners in the state are prohibited from possessing firearms, including convicted felons, those under a domestic violence restraining order or deemed mentally unstable.” Or, apparently, if you live with someone of this status. While it might sound like a good idea at the jump, it deprives the eligible person from their civil right to weapons ownership and by logical extension, self-defense.
Do I lose my all RIGHTS because my child has some mental condition? Why just this one? My right to vote is certainly more dangerous than a handgun. What about my property rights — do I lose my property if my wife committed a crime without my knowledge? (Answer: see “asset forfeiture”.) The government already takes people’s property without just compensation…how long before your First Amendment right to speech is curtailed because “you’re nuts” and your ideas could “harm the community?” It’s already the law in Germany that activities like homeschooling or speech that is offensive because it creates a separate social norm .
Remember that California is held up by the Democrats as the example for where the nation should be legally. You aren’t paranoid when the opposition really is out to get you.
A Reason-Rupe Poll has 2/3rds of folks polled in California showing the opinion that unions are overcompensated on their retirement benefits, vis-a-vis the private sector, and as in Wisconsin, a plurality see the unions as having injured the ability of the state to solve their budget mess. (Well, that and the inability to send recklessly on other stupid programs and run off the middle class with onerous taxes…)
In a shocking moment of lucidity,
…[t]hese shared perceptions of public sector unions may explain why three-fourths of voters in both states favor requiring public employees to contribute more toward their own pensions and health care benefits. Moreover, equal percentages of both states’ voters approve of transitioning new government employees from guaranteed pension payments during retirement to 401(k)-style accounts based on the amount the worker saves for retirement plus investment returns. Half of Wisconsinites and 51 percent of Californians also think the government should not begin disbursing lifetime retirement benefits until government workers turn 65.
Here’s some of the data: