Skip to main content

Pew came out with a detailed poll of Californian's attitudes towards, well, just about everything today. (Except, oddly enough, marijuana legalization). They asked forty one different detailed policy questions of 1706 California adults.

Here's the one concerning whether they want to be f****ed:

Do you favor or oppose increased use of fracking, a drilling method that uses high pressure water and chemicals to extract oil and natural gas from underground rock formations?
  Favor: 39%
  Oppose: 47%
  Don't Know: 14%
And here's one on global warming:
Do you think that global warming will pose a serious threat to you or your way of life in your lifetime?
  Yes: 57%
  No: 39%
  Don't Know: 4%
If Californian's aren't in favor of fracking to get at oil and natural gas, and they believe that global warming is a serious, fairly immediate threat, you might think they'd also be opposed to the Keystone pipeline.  And yet
Do you favor or oppose building the Keystone XL pipeline that would transport oil from Canada’s oil sands region through the Midwest to refineries in Texas?
  Favor: 53%
  Oppose: 35%
  Don't Know: 12%
I approach despair: if Bill McKibben has not been able to convince even his own birth state - one which would not benefit economically from the pipeline and is generally considered environmentally savvy - that Keystone XL is bad, what hope is there?

What else do Californians think?

Californians say there are too many initiatives on the ballot (70%-25%), but favor having voters renew initiatives after a certain number of years by voting on them again (64%-29%).

We are massively in favor of background checks prior to gun ownership (89%-10%); only 18% of Californians say there is a gun, rifle or pistol in their home (which would suggest an even small percentage own a weapon -half of them probably live in Oakland...).

Californians are much more likely to be Democrats (44%) than Republicans (29%), and even more likely to think of themselves as closer to the Democratic party (47%) than the Republican party (22%).  So while 29% of Californians are registered Republicans, only 22% think of themselves basically as a Republican! Perhaps the California Republican Party (if it still exists) should think about this.

Californians like them their Proposition 13 (severely limiting increases in real estate taxes) (58%-27%), but - and this may prove to be very important in 2014 or 2016 as a ballot initiative - we also favor taxing commerical properties at their current market value.

Under Proposition 13, residential and commercial property taxes are both strictly limited. What do you think about having commercial properties taxed according to their current market value? Do you favor or oppose this proposal?
  Favor: 58%
  Oppose: 33%
  Don't Know: 9%
By an almost 2:1 margin, Californians think immigrants are a benefit to our state (61%-33%), and even some of those that don't think so think that immigrants currently living in the United States illegally should be given either a path to citizenship or the chance to stay in the country legally (78%-18%). Wow.

Finally, Californians are now overwhelmingly in favor of same-sex marriage (56%-38%) and there is no doubt in my mind we would vote to overturn Proposition 8 were it to come down to that. We're going to know whether that will be necessary in about a month.

Check out the entire survey here (pdf).

Originally posted to jpmassar on Thu May 30, 2013 at 09:21 AM PDT.

Also republished by Kossacks for Marriage Equality, California politics, SFKossacks, and Progressive Policy Zone.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Maybe if the pipeline were coming through (27+ / 0-)

    CA, they would have a different opinion?

    “The future depends entirely on what each of us does every day.” Gloria Steinem

    by ahumbleopinion on Thu May 30, 2013 at 09:28:11 AM PDT

    •  That's possible. (9+ / 0-)

      But if it were it would be marketed as also mean jobs in a state which still has over 9% unemployment.  So not really clear how people's attitudes would shift.

      •  the media coverage (20+ / 0-)

        has been horrendous, and the president hasn't taken a stand, so most people have no idea what actual scientists are saying.

        The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

        by Laurence Lewis on Thu May 30, 2013 at 09:56:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I suspect that if the poll had asked (6+ / 0-)

          where the Keystone Pipeline is proposed (or even what it is), there'd be a strong correlation between voter ignorance and voter support.  (I'd imagine some pro-enviro voters would oppose it on the "pipeline" name alone, but I doubt that'd skew the numbers that much.)

          Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

          by pico on Thu May 30, 2013 at 09:59:25 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  no question (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jpmassar, kimoconnor, zmom, AoT

            on climate issues in general, the media are a firewall from the science.

            The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

            by Laurence Lewis on Thu May 30, 2013 at 10:03:28 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I have a STOP KEYSTONE sign in my front window (15+ / 0-)

            I have had several people ask me what is Keystone?

            I live in a very progressive SF neighborhood. My anecdotal evidence tells me ignorance of this is widespread.

            Where ignorance is our master, there is no possibility of real peace. - Dalai Lama

            by kimoconnor on Thu May 30, 2013 at 10:04:00 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think we can generalize that. (11+ / 0-)
              Ignorance  is widespread.
              •  Silly and Meaningless Comment... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                VClib, jpmassar

                Of course ignorance is widespread.  No one can know everything and therefore everyone is ignorant of something.  In addition, there is only so much one can absorb, so everyone has mental filters in place and also seeks out specific things. Plus, some things are more important than others.  If some one is food insecure their time is (and should be) spent figuring out how to stretch their food stamps and money as far as possible.  Not trying to figure out why Keystone XL is bad or whether whatever wrong headed thing they overhear in the media is wrong.

                I actually have no problem with true ignorance, where is some one where asked what is Keystone XL they said "Never heard of it.".  What is bad is the spreading of ignorance as if it were knowledge.  Thinking you know something when in reality you do not.

                In my opinion that is the biggest media failure.  Although, in the many cases that is by design.

                •  If true ignorance was the problem (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  and a majority or sizable minority had answered that they had no opinion or didn't know then it would be a different situation. As it is a majority say that they support it.

                  If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

                  by AoT on Thu May 30, 2013 at 12:01:38 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Right... (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    AoT, jpmassar

                    I expect we are dealing with misinformation.  And, likely misinformation picked up from whatever part of the global media machine happens to permeate that persons consciousness at any given time.  So, a person ends up thinking they know something about something and don't have time or inclination to try and check that information.  Possibly don't even know where they picked up whatever (mis)information they have until some one asks about that specific topic. So, why would they try and check on it.

                    I think this is the real danger of "fair and balanced" in the news.  It is not the active listener that is being taken in by the side that is not really a side.  But, the casual passerby who happens to only hear that one side.  Assuming both sides are getting equal time and casual catching of that side is pretty much random.  What you end up with is a side no one should believe getting 50% of the casual listener.  ie way more than the 0% it should get.

            •  San Francisco had their own crude oil spill (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              kimoconnor, jpmassar, AoT, praenomen

              a few years ago. That sludge was miserable. We were at the beach and my kids got a few droplets on their feet. It was impossible to remove without dawn dishwashing soap.

              California has had so many environmental disasters, I am shocked that my state is not vehemently opposed to KXL.

              One great thing is with our supermajority in the state legislature we can finally start getting some shit done.

              Since when is the party that embraces all the top tenets of Satan allowed to call the God shots?--wyvern

              by voracious on Thu May 30, 2013 at 10:26:12 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I hope your confidence in the Democrats in (6+ / 0-)

                out legislature is not overconfident.

                Time will tell I suppose.

                Where ignorance is our master, there is no possibility of real peace. - Dalai Lama

                by kimoconnor on Thu May 30, 2013 at 10:32:17 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Time has already told. (5+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  gerrilea, kimoconnor, AoT, KenBee, praenomen

                  They've done absolutely nothing with their supermajority.
                  (I.e., they've not had a vote where 2/3rds was necessary either to pass something or override a veto, that I'm aware of)

                  They can't even yet manage to raise the minimum wage, something that doesn't even require a supermajority (except, perhaps, as a veto override).

                  •  Not to mention Brown's support of fracking (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    KenBee, praenomen, jpmassar, Tonedevil

                    and his talk of seriously reworking our environmental law to be more business friendly. Oh, and the refusal to raise revenues and fix education funding. Why should anyone work toward getting the Dems a majority at any level if they aren't going to do anything with it?

                    It's absolutely pathetic. It's like they're trying to kill the party.

                    If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

                    by AoT on Thu May 30, 2013 at 11:36:57 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  AoT - revenues were very substantially increased (0+ / 0-)

                      through Prop 30 and Brown said if Prop 30 was passed he would not support additional taxes. At the state level we now have the highest income tax rates in the US and one of the highest sales tax rates, so there isn't a lot of other revenue options.

                      It does appear that the state government budget is now in balance, something that has not happened in a decade.

                      "let's talk about that"

                      by VClib on Thu May 30, 2013 at 01:01:29 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Really? (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        AoT, Tonedevil, vigilant meerkat
                        there isn't a lot of other revenue options
                        Raise the gas tax to keep up with inflation, if nothing else.
                        Tax on oil extraction like most other states.
                        Repeal of Prop 13 for commercial property.
                        Tax on high-end services.
                        Carbon tax.
                        Foreclosure tax.
                        •  jpm - that's a good list (0+ / 0-)

                          Some of these have been proposed in propositions that have not been approved by the voters. I think that an extraction tax could be passed, and wouldn't be strongly opposed by oil interests, if the tax could just be passed through to consumers. One of the issues is that California oil wells are old and the production is half what it was 20 years ago. A lot of the producing wells are marginal and a tax may shut them down. Maybe you exclude wells that produce below a certain amount or some other method of determining what wells are marginal producers. The state has very large oil and gas shale deposits, but those require fracking to extract.

                          Repeal of Prop 13 for commercial and industrial properties would take a proposition, but the legislature can put it on the ballot and save the cost of gathering signatures. The issue is who puts up the $25 million to support it? Maybe the state employees. The opposition will invest $50 - 100 million to defeat it.

                          I think the legislature is reluctant to add taxes that hit the low and middle class like a carbon tax or a gas tax, although I personally support them.

                          Brown promised no new taxes without voter approval, but may have only been through the 2012 election. I don't know how long his pledge will last.

                          "let's talk about that"

                          by VClib on Thu May 30, 2013 at 02:44:02 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                      •  Exactly, there's no point to voting in Dems (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        jpmassar, Tonedevil

                        at this point in California. They're not going to fix anything and they're going to act like republican lite when it comes to fiscal policy. And no one seems to give a fuck that young people are hemorrhaging money because of the cost of school while corporations shuffle some paperwork and get billions in tax breaks through property transfers. But hey, this time he has to keep his promise.

                        Not to mention him using Oakland as a stepping stone to the governorship. I don't need to hear about this pragmatic bullshit. Every fucking time there's excuses about how a politician just can't do the right thing. When do the excuses end?

                        If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

                        by AoT on Thu May 30, 2013 at 01:39:05 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Well (4+ / 0-)

                          first he used the Governorship as a stepping stone to become Mayor of Oakland...


                        •  So are you suggesting we not vote in Dems? (0+ / 0-)

                          Because I can't see how voting in Republicans is going to hlep us out a lot.

                          Since when is the party that embraces all the top tenets of Satan allowed to call the God shots?--wyvern

                          by voracious on Thu May 30, 2013 at 10:37:01 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  I sure as hell don't support voting gop (0+ / 0-)

                            But why should I support a party that clearly doesn't work for what it claims towork for. We've got a dem looking to make environmental law more business friendly. What do you suggest we do? Blindly vote for politicians that could give a fuck about us? Newsome will be the next neoliberal golden boy of the party that comes along and fucks us over. But if we don't vote for him then we're horrible people because of the gop. I'm tired of the charade.

                            If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

                            by AoT on Thu May 30, 2013 at 11:12:54 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  Speak of the devil. (0+ / 0-)

                    The Assembly finally got around to passing a (miserably inadequate) minimum wage raising bill.  Now the Senate can fiddle with it for months.

                  •  Well, the Senate managed to do this (0+ / 0-)

                    California Senate Votes to Revoke Boy Scouts Nonprofit Status

                    the California Senate on Wednesday passed a bill that would revoke the organization's nonprofit status because it does not permit the participation of openly gay adults

                    Read more here:

                    Since when is the party that embraces all the top tenets of Satan allowed to call the God shots?--wyvern

                    by voracious on Thu May 30, 2013 at 10:35:51 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

        •  Van Jones has an anti-Keystone video out (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Laurence Lewis, jpmassar, AoT, pat bunny

          now that I think is actually more informative and effective than Raul Grijalva's (though I appreciate Grijalva's effort).
          Let's see if I can embed it:

          “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.”

          by Oaktown Girl on Thu May 30, 2013 at 10:31:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I'm glad the president hasn't taken a stand (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AoT, jpmassar, Laurence Lewis

          Because I'm concerned that his stand would be pro, rather than anti.

    •  We have pipelines . (6+ / 0-)

      As word comes in of the third oil pipeline break this week, this one from a Shell Oil pipeline in Texas, Californians may be wondering whether the same could happen here. Frightening news has unfolded since last Friday of the tarsands oil spill from Exxon's Pegasus pipeline through Mayflower Arkansas, that spill happening mere days after a train derailment spilled 30,000 gallons of tarsands oil in Minnesota. On average, according to federal agencies, 3.5 million gallons of oil spills from aging pipelines each year.

      And as California has its share of oil pipelines, we are indeed vulnerable when they fail. But finding out just whether your home, your workplace, or the school your children attend might be vulnerable to oil spill damage is harder than it should be.

      That's in part by design: oil pipelines are vulnerable targets for terrorist attack. Oil and gas pipelines are regulated by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), a federal agency that's part of the Department of Transportation, and PHMSA doesn't release the precise locations of oil pipelines, which it generally refers to as "hazardous liquid" pipelines.

      Drop the name-calling MB 2/4/11 + Please try to use ratings properly! Kos 9/9/11 + Trusted Users have a responsibility to police the general tenor... Hunter 5/26/06

      by indycam on Thu May 30, 2013 at 09:50:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Do people believe it will create jobs? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jpmassar, wasatch, AoT

      Do they think it will loser gas prices here?

      There must be something they think will happen possibly making this ok.

      Where ignorance is our master, there is no possibility of real peace. - Dalai Lama

      by kimoconnor on Thu May 30, 2013 at 10:02:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Maybe if people understood the carbon output (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kimoconnor, jpmassar, AoT

      If people knew that the fuel derived from tar sands used in a Prius would give that car the same carbon footprint of a Chevy Tahoe running on light crude processed fuel, they might have a different opinion. People need to know the "game over" story for climate change mitigation if tar sands fuel get used.

      i just baptized andrew breitbart into the church of islam, planned parenthood, the girl scouts and three teachers unions. - @blainecapatch

      by bobinson on Thu May 30, 2013 at 10:29:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  NIMBY (7+ / 0-)
    If Californian's aren't in favor of fracking to get at oil and natural gas, and they believe that global warming is a serious, fairly immediate threat, you might think they'd also be opposed to the Keystone pipeline.  And yet
    Its all about NIMBY. It runs the course from left to right, from progressive to fascist. I remember Ted Kennedy opposing wind farms of off Martha's Vineyard. California hates fracking, is concerned about climate change, still wants (cheap) oil, as long as its not in their backyard, oh well.
  •  It is (4+ / 0-)

    kind of funny to me that they asked whether people approve of Brown's budget plan, because I would be willing to bet that 99% of respondents have no idea about what it entails. Even if you read the Capitol page of the Sacramento Bee religiously you aren't going to have very much information about it unless you like to sit around and read the Legislative Analyst's office reports for fun. However, 89% have an opinion on it and 61% approve.

  •  ...thanks jp...always... (3+ / 0-)

    Ignorance is bliss only for the ignorant. The rest of us must suffer the consequences.

    by paradise50 on Thu May 30, 2013 at 09:45:58 AM PDT

  •  Government and Democracy Cannot Address Climate (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jpmassar, kimoconnor

    change adequately, when they are used as designed.

    If climate change is to be addressed, it's got to be done some other way.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Thu May 30, 2013 at 09:47:01 AM PDT

  •  Damnit (4+ / 0-)

    I'm glad they're all not California girls, my love life sucks enough as it is.

    It is better to be making the news than taking it; to be an actor rather than a critic. - WSC

    by Solarian on Thu May 30, 2013 at 09:50:13 AM PDT

  •  Keystone XL should be a lesson learned. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jpmassar, Fishgrease, Sychotic1

    One side talked about "game over" and chained itself to the pipeline. The other side talked about jobs (lied really) and energy independence (suing Canadian tar sands, but oh well).

    The dirt energy side always talks in these terms while producing fake scientific looking paper and paying scientific-looking people to lie on request.

    Perhaps it is time to take a different approach than? While the world may indeed be ending, people tune that stuff out especially when the other side is addressing jobs and quality of life. Time to switch up and beat them at their own game as we can talking about real jobs and can be honest about the pains and heavy costs of transitioning to cleaner energy.

    Whatever is next up in terms of extracting even more expensive dirty energy extraction from exotic places/sources, we should be there ready to sell a counter message of jobs and energy security.

    The politicians may be bought, and the system corrupt, but it is our duty to fix these things.

    by sebastianguy99 on Thu May 30, 2013 at 09:55:32 AM PDT

  •  A judge (7+ / 0-)

    just cancelled two BLM land leases for fracking in California.

    Orly, it isn't evidence just because you downloaded it from the internet.

    by 6412093 on Thu May 30, 2013 at 10:22:42 AM PDT

  •  don't call it a "Prop 13 Repeal" (6+ / 0-)

    Regarding Prop 13 and a "split roll" that raises commercial property taxes to market levels (while leaving residential as-is):

    What I learn from that poll is that any proposed Proposition to create the split roll should simply focus on something like (per the poll) "commercial properties shall be taxed at their current market value".  And the advertising for it, also, should not address Prop 13, or "rolling it back" or whatever.

    Certainly the opponents will raise the specter of "destroying Prop 13", but if the public will take the argument on its merits, then no need for split roll proponents to muddy the campaign with rehashing Prop 13.

    •  It should be pushed as (5+ / 0-)

      making prop 13 work as intended. It was pushed as a safe guard to older people so they wouldn't lose their homes to high taxes after they'd lived there a long time. Commercial property should never have been included.

      If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

      by AoT on Thu May 30, 2013 at 11:42:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Absolutely. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AoT, wu ming, SamSinister

        Another way to make it more attractive would be to have the initiative simultaneously reduce other, regressive taxes like sales tax and/or reduce income tax on low-wage earners.

      •  the whole thing should never have been done (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AoT, jpmassar

        i am sick to death of the "old people forced to move from their home" canard, as if there are no old people in the other 49 states who don't have prop 13 property tax systems.

        i understand the importance of wording to help swing a proportion of the electorate that's got theirs but is open to changing other laws as long as they don;t have to pay a goddamn nickel, but it bothers me to no end that this right wing monkeywrench is still treated as legitimate in this state.

        •  That seems to be the current political theme (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wu ming, jpmassar

          doesn't it.

          More and more austerity for the young.

          I'm working with Strike Debt trying to organize a debt strike and debtors' union and it amazes me to hear from the older people involved talk about their debt vs. the debt that those of us recent graduates have. Student debt is orders of magnitude larger now. Of course, the people I am organizing with understand, too many other people just go on and on about how we need to buckle down and work summers and we won't have debt.

          Sigh, you've seen it plenty.

          If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

          by AoT on Thu May 30, 2013 at 12:19:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  i think there are two problems here (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            AoT, jpmassar

            1) older people mostly do not have a clue how badly younger people have been screwed, because of the changes to the system made after said older people graduated from college/got jobs with benefits/bought their house/etc. some do pay attention, and some have had it explained by their kids (it took my sibs and i about a decade to finally break through to my parents), but many just do not get it.

            2) there is a real zero sum game narrative common (but far from ubiquitous) among the older generations who have equity/investments/a house/etc., that was exacerbated by the 07/08 crash, such that they've been convinced that the only way they'll be able to hang onto their financial life preserver is by screwing everybody else, and hard. denigrating younger generations and overlooking the ways that they've been dealt a losing hand is a way of justifying such an attitude to oneself.

            i personally believe that #1 is far more common than #2, but when property tax and prop 13 comes into discussion, it's surprising to see how quickly echoes of #2 come to people's lips.

            ultimately, the only way out of this trap the right has set (and is trying to exacerbate by squeezing everybody and keeping the economy limping) is educating older generations about what has happened to the young'uns, nurturing solidarity between generations, and finding solutions that put our self-interests on the same side.

        •  Have you seen Old Economy Steve? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          trumpeter, jpmassar

          I think you'd appreciate it.

          If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

          by AoT on Thu May 30, 2013 at 12:20:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  wu ming - Prop 13 was self inflicted (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          California went through one if it's many housing price bubbles and we did have fixed income seniors losing their homes because they could not pay the very rapidly rising property taxes. The legislature could have solved that problem, like many states have done, with something tailored specifically to seniors such as deferring the property taxes until the property was sold. However, the legislature was completely unresponsive even as the Prop 13 supporters started gathering signatures. The legislature could have taken the wind out of Prop 13's sails right up to election day, but refused to act. The big supporters were Paul Gann's apartment owners group so they included all real estate, not just homes for senior citizens.

          I do think there is support for removing commercial and industrial property from Prop 13 if someone would put it on the ballot and have at least $25 million to support it. The commercial and industrial property owners will raise at least $50 million to keep those property taxes low.  

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Thu May 30, 2013 at 01:26:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  funny, i don't ever recall hearing people complain (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            about all the equity they got from those housing bubbles. just about paying taxes on the decades of unearned asset inflation.

            •  Asset inflation (0+ / 0-)

              is meaningless until you sell the asset - and the asset is your primary residence it's meaningless until you both sell the asset and move to a cheaper city. Few people leave where they live and go someplace else just to cash out the equity in their houses - and often when they do it's because they're forced to, because they can't afford to stay where they are. Meanwhile, you need cold hard cash to pay property taxes every year, which bear absolutely no relationship to your ability to pay them.

              Your scapegoating all homeowners as well-off and conflating well-off, old and home-owning is pretty ridiculous, especially now that huge numbers of people have negative equity in their houses and couldn't even sell them to pay the taxes if they tried to. Haven't you read the papers? Aren't you aware that all sorts of people have houses, even poor people?

              And by the way, state taxes aren't low in California - they're quite high. We have high income taxes in lieu of the lost property tax. I think that's much fairer.

              We decided to move the center farther to the right by starting the whole debate from a far-right position to begin with. - Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay

              by denise b on Fri May 31, 2013 at 01:17:27 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  um (0+ / 0-)

                "Few people leave where they live and go someplace else just to cash out the equity in their houses"

                are you kidding me? this is exactly what generations of californian homeowners with huge amounts of inflated real estate equity have been doing for decades on end. it's a very common retirement strategy, and has fueled population flows both internally from coastal to inland california and externally throughout the western states for decades. people born at the right time, who bought at the right time, got an enormous windfall over the years that younger generations simply did not get, and that windfall came directly out of local funding for public services and especially education over the same period. the young and poor subsidized the old and rich, in this state, for decades. and because the state sort of used general funds to backfill a portion of the deep hole blown in education, it left schools vulnerable to the GOP budget hostage games, year after year after year.

                yes, homeowners, especially younger homeowners (who are disproportionately immigrant and nonwhite, compared to the older generations of homeowners), got hit brutally hard from the bubble finally bursting. i live in the central valley, i saw it happen firsthand. people who bought their houses back in the 70s, 80s, even 90s, OTOH, were not hit nearly as hard.

                as for old people getting taxed out of their homes, it's a howard jarvis talking point and it's bullshit. old people live in homes all over the country, without prop 13 style tax machinations.

  •  earthquakes and fracking (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jpmassar, Catte Nappe

    I think a couple of things are going on here regarding Keystone:

    1) plain, old-fashioned NIMBYism

    2) lack of knowledge about what Keystone actually IS

    3) I think that those who do know something about fracking know it is bad because it causes earthquakes. I suspect that some of the fear here is that we have enough earthquakes and we're not a geologically-stable enough landmass to support fracking. Therefore, it's "ok" for fracking to occur elsewhere, since the landmass won't be affected as much.

    There's been little information out there about how tar sands oil affects the environment in other ways

  •  In other words, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jpmassar, pat bunny

    Californians give a frack.

    -4.75, -5.33 Cheney 10/05/04: "I have not suggested there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11."

    by sunbro on Thu May 30, 2013 at 10:57:31 AM PDT

  •  I am not for... (3+ / 0-)

    ...Frack but I am for his brother Frick.

    "No more hurting people. Peace." -- Martin Richard (2005-2008)

    by cooper888 on Thu May 30, 2013 at 11:25:30 AM PDT

  •  Yikes! The comment on gun ownership in Oakland (0+ / 0-)

    seems to be a glib generalization, at best:

    "We are massively in favor of background checks prior to gun ownership (89%-10%); only 18% of Californians say there is a gun, rifle or pistol in their home (which would suggest an even small percentage own a weapon -half of them probably live in Oakland...).

    Perhaps consider revising this sentence?

    If you don't have anything nice to say about anyone, come and sit by me -- Alice Roosevelt

    by djsands on Thu May 30, 2013 at 11:38:57 AM PDT

  •  Wouldn't it be cheaper (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jpmassar, pat bunny

    to build refining capacity near the stuff that needs refining?

    The cost of a couple refineries is surely less than the lobbying, building the pipeline (over-budget? shocking), and cleanup/lawsuits when the pipeline breaks.

    The Great Lakes offer access to the world. And we could use the refined stuff closer to where it's refined, without having to truck it back.

    •  Refineries (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AoT, pat bunny, jpmassar

      There already exists 8 refineries in Alberta.
       Strathcona Refinery, Edmonton, (Imperial Oil), 187,000 bbl/d (29,700 m3/d)
      Scotford Refinery, Scotford, (Shell Canada), 100,000 bbl/d (16,000 m3/d)
      Edmonton, (Suncor Energy), 135,000 bbl/d (21,500 m3/d). Formerly Petro-Canada (before Aug 2009).
      Bitumen Upgraders (turn bitumen into synthetic crude, which then must be further refined)

      Scotford Upgrader, Scotford, (AOSP - Shell Canada 60%, Chevron Corporation 20%, Marathon Oil 20%), 250,000 bbl/d (40,000 m3/d) (located next to Shell Refinery) raw bitumen
      Horizon Oil Sands, Fort McMurray, (Canadian Natural Resources Limited), 110,000 bbl/d (17,000 m3/d) raw bitumen
      Long Lake, Fort McMurray, (OPTI Canada Inc. 35% and Nexen Inc. 65%), 70,000 bbl/d (11,000 m3/d) raw bitumen
      Syncrude, Fort McMurray, (Canadian Oil Sands Trust, Imperial Oil, Suncor, Nexen, Conoco Phillips, Mocal Energy and Murphy Oil), 350,000 bbl/d (56,000 m3/d) raw bitumen
      Suncor, Fort McMurray, (Suncor), 350,000 bbl/d (56,000 m3/d) raw bitumen.
       They could be converted but they won't be. The Canadian government would rather ship that crap to us to deal with instead of polluting their own country.

    •  The tar sands sour crude isn't for us to use. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AoT, jpmassar, Tonedevil

      It's going out to the world market. The pipeline, the refineries, and all the equipment used to process this shit are a complete investment strategy--oil companies own refineries and are major shareholders of equipment makers. It's very expensive to extract this oil from the sand. So, oil prices need to rise to make it profitable. In addition, much of our natural gas liquids--60% of total dry production is from fracking--is going to be piped UP to Canada to dilute the bitumen that will be sent back DOWN to Texas and OUT to world markets.
      It's not our oil. And they need our gas.

      -4.38, -7.64 Voyager 1: proof that what goes up never comes down.

      by pat bunny on Thu May 30, 2013 at 12:20:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's very hard to permit and build refineries (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jpmassar, pat bunny

      in the US, I don't know about Canada. There has not been a new refinery build in the US in 30 years. The process to permit and build them is so expensive it doesn't make economic sense.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Thu May 30, 2013 at 01:30:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  it's a pity they didn't ask about the (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AoT, jpmassar, pat bunny

    peripheral canal and delta water tunnels, in concert with fracking in CA. it would be fascinating to see how people responded to those two things linked together.

    keystone XL is a long ways away. fracking california and stealing water to do it would be more likely to get a response beyond "ok, whatever."

  •  All things considered (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    trumpeter, jpmassar

    I'm glad I live in California. let's hope that "as California goes, so goes the nation" continues.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site