XPost: alt.hbo, rec.arts.tv
From: no_offline_contact@example.com
On 2025-01-17 1:41 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Jan 17, 2025 at 1:30:45 AM PST, "Ubiquitous" wrote:
>
>> Comedian and HBO host Bill Maher laid into Governor Gavin Newsom during a
>> recent TMZ interview, arguing that if California leadership could cut
through
>>
>> oppressive regulations and “red tape,” they should have done so before
the
>> southern part of the state had burned to the ground.
>>
>> Maher argued that it wasn’t really a Left or Right issue, but one of
>> accountability, telling TMZ hosts Harvey Levin and Charles Latibeaudiere
that
>>
>> he’d had previous run-ins with California’s extensive building
regulations
>> when he had tried to install a shed and some solar panels on his own
>> property.
>>
>> “I always think there’s a middle of the road, actual practical solution
to
>> everything and for this I would say, was California’s uber progressive
>> politics the cause of this fire? Of course not. Did it impede them to some
>> degree? Absolutely. That’s the margin of error that I’m saying we
can’t abide
>>
>> by anymore,” Maher explained.
>>
>> WATCH:
>> https://youtu.be/fUBeo3CQ70A
>>
>> The comedian, who had previously detailed his own difficulties with the
>> state’s excessive red tape on his own show — HBO’s “Real Time”
— said that he
>>
>> was in favor of holding all government officials accountable.
>>
>> “Now, as far as the red tape, I see that they’re all — Newsom, Bass
— they’re
>>
>> all saying, we’re going to cut red tape, as if they’re doing us a
favor,”
>> Maher continued. “My question is, well, if you can do it now, why
didn’t you
>> always do it? Obviously, it can be done. It’s not a favor to us to cut the
>> red tape. Why do we live in this state, in this red tape nightmare the other
>> times of the year when we’re not on fire?”
>
> This is always the question. Whenever something catastrophic happens, they
> always give us a 'break' on all the bullshit they heap on us during times of
> tranquility, which begs the question as to why all this crap was necessary in
> the first place.
>
> My garage door broke. You'd think all you would have to do is call a garage
> door company, buy a new one, and have them come install it. And that's they
> way it would happen in 49 out of the 50 states. But here in California, I had
> to have the city come and inspect it, then the county had to sign off on it,
> then I had to get a permit from the *state* to replace my garage door. There
> is no conceivable reason why the State of California had to be involved in
any
> way, shape, or form in me replacing a broken garage door.
>
> If I had to go through all that bullshit just to fix a door, imagine what
> these people on the West Side will be facing trying to rebuild their entire
> homes.
>
> The Democrats here are rushing to try to clear away all this red tape because
> they're terrified that once tens of thousands of people run full tilt in the
> wall of impenetrable bureaucracy that exists here, it will, at long last, be
> the tipping point that motivates them to all start voting Republican.
>
>> Newsom announced that he would slash red tape for residents who chose to
>> rebuild in the aftermath of the devastating fires, and also promised to
>> prosecute any developers who attempted to sweep in and buy up the land.
>
> How can you prosecute someone for just offering money to buy property?
>
> It's not illegal to offer to buy someone's land from them.
>
>> Toward that end, the Democrat governor signed an executive order on Tuesday
>> "barring opportunist and predatory investors from making unsolicited
>> undervalue offers to families impacted by the firestorms to buy their land,
>> taking advantage by offering fast cash for destroyed property."
>
> Why does Newsom think he has the authority to do this? This is literally
> writing new law. Only the state legislature has the authority to amend or add
> to the California Property Code.
>
> And what's the legal definition of "undervalue"? A piece of property's value
> is whatever the market says it is. If people can't sell their burned out lots
> for what they were worth pre-fire because no one is willing to pay that
price,
> then someone offering a lower price isn't making an "undervalue" offer.
>
Your libertarian inclinations are clear from this paragraph ;-) You
believe in the Market. But Newsom and his crew don't. They think it is
government's job to set the value of everything and they'll do that on
whatever arbitrary basis they think they can get away. You can bet he's
going to base "undervalue" on something like what similar properties in
the same area sold for before the fire, completely ignoring the fact
that the value of the property is considerably less now throughout that
area.
> At least Newsom isn't being as oppressive as the Hawaiian governor was after
> the Lahaina fire. He didn't bar people from making offers, he banned the
> *owners* of the properties from selling their land to anyone in the aftermath
> of the fire, which seems like a bright-line violation of the 5th Amendment to
> me.
>
>
Did anyone challenge the Hawaii governor in court over his lunatic
regulation? If unchallenged, even the most preposterous of laws tends to
remain in force. Ditto for Newsom's attempt to preclude "undervalue"
offers.
--
Rhino
--- SoupGate-DOS v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
