This guy sure likes to veto shit.
this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2023
28 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10180 readers
263 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Governor’s statement on why it was vetoed, for those curious: https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/AB-309-Veto.pdf
https://x.com/CACommonGround/status/1710751960381657179?s=20
Common Ground have thoughts on that
"The veto of #AB309 – revenue neutral cost rental social housing on public land which could be built starting next year – while we only commit to study the issue for another 2-3 years is an insult to the millions of housing cost-burdened residents of California."
How is the governor’s office claiming this will cost hundreds of millions while common ground and other proponents describe it as revenue-neutral? Which is it?
Revenue neutral usually means they project it to be neutral over their chosen time and based on their assumptions. It is for sure not free up front and that is money the government has to spend. It MAY eventually be cost neutral, but there is no guarantee it will nor when that will be.
Thanks. With that in mind, while this seems like a great program, I can understand the governor’s perspective. For better or worse CA is required to maintain a balanced budget so these expenses must be considered.
State-owned sites identified as suitable for housing development already are being developed as affordable housing through the State Excess Sites program. This program, instituted through Executive Order (EO) N-06-19 and further codified through AB 2233 (Quirk-Silva, Chapter 438, Statutes of 2022) and SB 56 l [Dodd, Chapter 446, Statutes of 2022), has already awarded state land for 17 residential or mixed-use projects with significant affordable housing components. While I appreciate the author's commitment to build more affordable housing in the state, this bill creates new additional cost pressures and must be considered in the annual budget in the context of all state funding priorities.
Sounds like it already exists via previous legislation