Everything you need to know about California’s SB 79

Post by dcrazy » Mon, Oct 13, 2025, 2:11 AM UTC

mothballed wrote: post #66

dcrazy wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please stop repeating this intentionally ridiculous misinterpretation all over this thread.

Please read it. I'm 100% right. As used in Section 33700, “firearm barrel” means the tube, usually metal and cylindrical, through which a projectile or shot charge is fired. A firearm barrel includes any forging, casting, printing, extrusion, machined body, or similar article that has reached a stage in manufacture where it may readily be completed, assembled, or converted to be used as a firearm barrel, or that is m…

Post by mothballed » Mon, Oct 13, 2025, 2:13 AM UTC

dcrazy wrote: post #71

mothballed wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please read it. I'm 100% right. As used in Section 33700, “firearm barrel” means the tube, usually metal and cylindrical, through which a projectile or shot charge is fired. A firearm barrel includes any forging, casting, printing, extrusion, machined body, or similar article that has reached a stage in manufacture where it may readily be completed, assembled, or converted to be used as a firearm barrel, or that is m…

Your farcical take is predicated on an interpretation of the above paragraph in which the bill claims anything from which a projectile may be expelled is a firearm barrel. That is clearly not what the bill says, nor can it even be tortuously misconstrued as such.

   A firearm barrel includes any forging, casting, printing, extrusion, machined body, or similar article that has reached a stage in manufacture where it may readily be completed, assembled, or converted to be used as a firearm barrel

  “firearm barrel” means the tube, usually metal and cylindrical, through which a projectile or shot charge is fired

Post by potato3732842 » Mon, Oct 13, 2025, 2:17 AM UTC

dcrazy wrote: post #69

potato3732842 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a sort of "you are why the world is the way it is" irony in your comment. Development costs spiral once you cross the 1ac threshold because them you have to do stormwater permitting (which is federal in some cases) and that adds a ton of cost and wastes developable land. And then the scrutiny this brings can cause you problems on other axis. This is why newly built houses in the middle of nowhere on a bunch o…

I’m not sure how you intended your post to be to interpreted. To me, the relevant point is that infrastructure is an expensive fixed cost and we should increase density where we’ve already made that investment.

Post by doctorpangloss » Mon, Oct 13, 2025, 2:21 AM UTC

harmmonica wrote: post #49

jamestimmins wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with the sentiment, but sadly even in its watered down form, SB79 was the result of a brutal legislative battle over the course of years, and even then it barely passed. Getting Prop 13 overturned is about as likely as California seceding from the US. Actually, it might even be less likely than that.

I think getting Prop 13 repealed along the lines of Prop 15 (basically for investment property) may actually happen. I think the pro group is much more organized today than they were in 2020 and so it will stand a much better chance of succeeding. That said, I fully agree with you that Prop 13 repeal for homeowners will "never" happen. The backlash would obviously be massive. But if they could keep it for homeowners…

Post by Supermancho » Mon, Oct 13, 2025, 2:22 AM UTC

epistasis wrote: post #44

mothballed wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even as measured by pollutants per breath inhaled?

That would be a health metric, not an environmental one. While brake dust is a major contributor to this, a suburb next to a freeway is going to be pretty damn bad too.