Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Banned in California

bannedincalifornia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 749 posts

Re: Banned in California

#111

Post by ixtli »

SunshineTheCat wrote: post #44
testbjjl wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know, 39.5m with net growth might disagree with you. Are you living in California at present? If not, do any of the deregulation in laws where you are trouble you. If so, when do you plan on leaving and where to?

California is one of the only states in the union seeing a population decline year over year (while surrounding states are seeing population growth). https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2026/demo/stat... And that doesn't even take in to account the major businesses fleeing the state as well.

Now do economic growth?

Re: Banned in California

#112

Post by warkdarrior »

daedrdev wrote: post #13
beachtaxidriver wrote: post #6

As a resident who likes to breathe clean air and drink clean water, none of that seems all that bad. I guess there should be an ability to do this farther from the population centers though.

Some of these items actually net improve clean air and clean water, but you’re instead happy to export those pollutants to another country to feel better yourself

Export the externalities baby!

Re: Banned in California

#113

Post by overfeed »

beachtaxidriver wrote: post #6

As a resident who likes to breathe clean air and drink clean water, none of that seems all that bad. I guess there should be an ability to do this farther from the population centers though.

> I guess there should be an ability to do this farther from the population centers though.

Maybe Texas is far enough? The [l]one-star state has laissez-faire regulations, and may be more to author's speed.

Re: Banned in California

#114

Post by wiskinator »

The site would be better if it linked to the actual regulation that prohibits each type of business instead of just making the claim “0 new factories of this type have been built”.

Re: Banned in California

#116

Post by dotancohen »

iamnothere wrote: post #71
dotancohen wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, exactly. That's fine - live and let live. If somebody else values their health less - let them have pollution in their own back yard. If enough communities worldwide care about their health, then polluters will have to clean up their processes. But it's not for the residents of California to decide what happens in other jurisdictions.

Do you not think it’s possible that there are many places where people do care about their health, but they are forced to allow pollution because the alternative is grinding poverty and eventual starvation? Do you think the ship breakers in Bangladesh do it for fun? This outsourcing of misery is the absolute worst feature of Western neoliberalism. You get a two for one, dumping misery on other countries because it’s…

  > they are forced to allow pollution because the alternative is grinding poverty and eventual starvation
If these people decide that pollution is preferable to starvation, why shouldn't we let them make that decision? Why should we force them into starvation?

Re: Banned in California

#117

Post by standardUser »

daedrdev wrote: post #38

Listen y’all, it’s not just that we aren't letting companies spew chemicals into the air. The permitting and regulatory process is so extremely hostile that even when you want to and are able to do so safely and without emissions, it’s impossible. Instead you have to ship things from out of state and other countries, which generates emissions and pollution itself that might actually be more than local production. Its…

> The permitting and regulatory process is so extremely hostile that even when you want to and are able to do so safely and without emissions, it’s impossible.

This didn't occur in a vacuum. Business interests and their aligned politicians fought successfully for a century for their freedom to destroy human health and life in pursuit of profit. Many died, many were injured and countless more had their lifespans cut short. There's obviously legitimate concerns about over-regulation, but concerns about corporate abuse of power are just as legitimate if not more so based on the history. And it's not unopposed either, but most of the backlash in California has centered on housing construction and occupational licensing - not the rights of investors to build new industrial facilities in a post-industrial state.

Re: Banned in California

#118

Post by mothballed »

burkaman wrote: post #110
ch4s3 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why would anyone expect that to be the case? Why would you expect it to be impossible?

I wouldn't expect it to be impossible, and it isn't, but I would expect the permits to be different than they were 60 years ago. You can still build a house today, but that doesn't mean you can build one using the same permits you received in 1965. This is true for everything.

Of course. And the goal in part is to enrich prior entrants and also to create massive unearned gains for them by printing a license for something no one else can have. This explains a lot of the housing prices writ large -- boomers and others who own houses that are grandfathered in via various regulations that let them build for cheap but not you, and making a new one has to be done at much higher regulations, basically printing money for those grandfathered in without them having to do anything but add regulations that apply to everyone else but them.

Re: Banned in California

#119

Post by hunterpayne »

ixtli wrote: post #100
dlev_pika wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s ok, Texans don’t mind having to drink bottled water

I lived in Mexico for a while and while I really enjoyed it it’s horrible that you have to fear the tap water. It’s not humane

I agree but I fail to see how bad water infrastructure that allows poop to get into the water supply in Mexico has anything to do with this topic. Nobody is arguing that you should be able to spew cancer causing chemicals into the air. It is possible to do all these industrial processes responsibly. It just costs more to do it. So either you can allow businesses to do these things with reasonable amounts of regulation locally or you can prevent those businesses (what CA does) and import these products made somewhere where they won't follow your regulations. And since pollution notoriously doesn't honor borders, perhaps its best not to use simplistic scarecrow arguments and instead have a nuanced understanding of the topic. But don't let me stop your partisan hackery, I'm sure you enjoy it.

Re: Banned in California

#120

Post by Tyr42 »

blintz wrote: post #53

They are playing a bit fast and loose with the word "banned". > Your smartphone contains materials processed through semiconductor fabrication, chemical etching, metal anodizing, glass tempering, and electroplating — none of which you could start a new facility for in California without years of litigation. I agree that we should make it easier to do things, specifically by decreasing the amount of litigation involve…

Being unable to start a project without doing 5 years of legal wrangling once you put shovel to earth may not be a "ban", but it sure doesn't encourage development.
Post reply on HN