Los Angeles Property Rights This is crazy

We had the same situation with a place we rented out where the renter stayed there for over a year rent free. When we finally got them out, we found out they just moved to another unit to start the process all over again.

a reply to: Degradation33

There is less smog now.

Of course there is. The country adopted severe sulfur restrictions on fuel to combat the mess California made by pushing the catalytic converter. That's what made the difference, not the catalytic converters.

It's also certainly not the trucks. During the height of the Chinese virus lockdowns, the streets in LA were almost deserted of cars, but trucks were running hard. The air was clearer then than many drivers have told me they ever remember seeing it. So let's regulate the trucks more!

This is all CALIFORNIA looks at:

And that's the problem... they don't apparently know how to look at the big picture.

Consider their timber restrictions... At one point, California timber nearly went extinct. In response, California started passing restrictions on logging. That was good, but they couldn't stop there... they kept making it harder and harder to do anything in a wooded area. Now it's literally illegal in most areas to clear undergrowth! So you have plenty of undergrowth, which dies fairly quickly because California is essentially a desert, and so you get all this state-protected kindling brush just waiting for a spark. When that spark comes, what does California do? Declare an emergency and beg the Federal government for more money so they can protect more of the brush that was the cause in the first place.

Oh, and demand that the rest of us "solve" a Global Warming "crisis" that doesn't exist... don't forget about that.

The rest of us know how to manage a forest... I do it all the time. I have just as many, probably more, trees (hardwoods, not just cedar) as there was when I was born. There is just as much, if not more, wildlife. There has not been a wildfire since I was born. And how do I do that? I clear fallen logs and brush, using the logs for firewood; I have loggers who come in every year and take out some mature trees; I allow hunting to keep the deer herd healthy and to put food on my table. Everything California tries to keep people from doing!

And now it's going to try to eliminate diesel trucks all together. Electric everything.

On an electric grid that can't handle the present load, with severe restrictions on any kind of reliable expansions.

Yeah, that's gonna work! I'll be here watching it fall flat on its face like all their other great ideas. In the meantime, I am breathing clean air in a state that doesn't restrict trucks any more than absolutely necessary.

The cancer needs receptive cells in other places of the country to spread. And people that want to reduce smog adopt California emissions.

No, it doesn't. Who told you that? Once cancer begins spreading, it spreads where it will.

Everywhere has people who have no damn clue what they are talking about. Most places have a minority of people like that... only California seems to want everyone to maintain that level of ignorance. So when you guys come here in droves, yes, you can, all by your lonesome, affect the balance of power. It's happening in Texas as we speak... thankfully slowly, but it does seem to be happening. Georgia seems to be moving toward absolute lunacy pretty fast, though.

The very fact that you dismiss my explanations of why your state is so screwed up and has become the butt of so many jokes is only proof that it deserves the treatment it is getting. Clowns get laughed at; that's why they are there. Wake up and smell the coffee.

ETA: I didn't see your edit. Are you really using South Park for your environmental science? Really?

How are others supposed to not laugh at you?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Are you arguing the excess regulations on sulfur content in fuel (to use Catalytic converters) is the true culprit of smog reduction?  And that the introduction of catalytic converters actually did nothing to solve the problem? And the fuel they were forced to burn actually cleaned things up rather than the converters being forced on the country?

Not trying to be dismissive but I thought the reason the sulfur levels were forcibly reduced was to make the converters gunk up less and more efficient at reducing hydrocarbons.

Otherwise it seems like an argument that catalytic converters were a farce just to force fuel refineries to refine more expensive lower S2/S3 content fuel. And real reason is different fuel not a worthless exhaust ornament.

Am I correct in interpreting that argument that way?

There's a red herring fallacy here somewhere.

That raises some questions for me.

Why the catalytic converters to begin with? A step towards understanding what the problem was?    There was no carbon offset narrative in 1975. If the problem is from sulfur emissions then why introduce a meaningless filter?

It seems that can only work in a world with a massive anti petroleum operation that begin in the 70's.

Actually that kinda makes sense.

a reply to: Degradation33

Are you arguing the excess regulations on sulfur content in fuel (to use Catalytic converters) is the true culprit of smog reduction?

In large part, yes.

And that the introduction of catalytic converters actually did nothing to solve the problem?

Precious little compared to the use of cleaner fuel.

And the fuel they were forced to burn actually cleaned things up rather than the converters being forced on the country?

Cleaned it up? No. Reduced the amount of contaminants to allow nature to clean itself? Yes.

Not trying to be dismissive but I thought the reason the sulfur levels were forcibly reduced was to make the converters gunk up less and more efficient at reducing hydrocarbons.

That was our reasoning at the time, yes, but the catalytic converter actually did very little to combat the smog problem. Look back at historical smog levels in LA: they started improving about the same time acid rain stopped being such a big issue.

Otherwise it seems like an argument that catalytic converters were a farce just to force fuel refineries to refine more expensive lower S2/S3 content fuel. And real reason is different fuel not a worthless exhaust ornament.

Am I correct in interpreting that argument that way?

Pretty much, yes. I don't think it was an intentional farce, but the effect was the same. It was a bonehead idea by California primarily that required the rest of the country to react to fix the problem that bonehead idea created. Yeah, the end result was less sulfur in fuels, a good thing, but it cost much more to accomplish than it needed to and resulted in the needless loss of thousands of acres of pristine forest in the process.

Catalytic converters also are not there to clean up "hydrocarbons." Their primary purpose it to clean nitrates and nitrides (NOx) that form when hydrocarbons are burned. The difference between these and sulfur is that sulfur turns to sulfuric acid under the presence of sunlight, water, and oxygen; Nitric acid turns to NOx in the presence of sunshine. Nature self-regulates NOx pollutants, eventually returning them to the soil where they act as a natural fertilizer, while nature does not self-regulate sulfur.

The hydrocarbons are the stuff you pump into your fuel tank.

Why the catalytic converters to begin with? A step towards understanding what the problem was?

Hahaha! No, more like a step towards making a problem worse by refusing to look at the science.

There was no carbon offset narrative in 1975. If the problem is from sulfur emissions then why introduce a meaningless filter?

Money. Remember Al Gore, Jr.? The guy who "used to be the next President of the United States"? The guy who invented the Internet [sarc]? The son of likely the most corrupt politician known to mankind at that point in time? The producer of the fake-umentary "An Inconvenient Truth"? That Al Gore, Jr.? The second carbon credits are introduced in the USA, he becomes a billionaire. When he produced that comedic excuse for an infomercial, he was heavily invested in carbon credits.

Only two sources originally created the Global Warming carbon dioxide hoax: Al Gore, Jr. and James Hansen of the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change). Everything else has built on propaganda produced by those two.

It seems that can only work in a world with a massive anti petroleum operation that begin in the 70's.

Actually that kinda makes sense.

I do believe I see the spark of comprehension! Please share that with your fellow Californians.

You are being fed lies on a wholesale basis, the biggest of which is that California is doing anything productive to solve anything.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Athetos
Sounds an awful lot like communism.

a reply to: musicismagic

Except in full blown communism, no one would have a choice where they live, and the State owns everything. The Left really sold a bill of goods to the people since the 60’s. And socialism is the bridge to communism. Even Lenin and Marx admitted so.

a reply to: Xtrozero

What if someone dressed in all black with a hoodie kept attacking the squatters randomly at night, you know pounding the walls and doors at random times of the night, a couple of baseball bat blows to the shins. After a while they may think it’s too dangerous to keep squatting there.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Degradation33

It's not political discussion as much as it is an excuse to complain about my state again.

No, it's more than that.

You see, the rest of us have watched most of our lives while California messed in their own bed. And hey, that's fine as long as it's your bed. But Californians have demonstrated this crazy tendency to mess in our bed as well. That's not fine.

Let's talk supply chain issues... that's not just California. That is affecting everyone. But where is the real problem coming from? California. You see Los Angeles is the major shipping hub for freight coming in from overseas, especially from Asia where most of our imports are coming from. That freight needs trucks to deliver it to the rest of the country. But California does not like trucks! California worked tirelessly to turn all semis into private little energy factories using the DEF system now on all diesel vehicles. It's only required in California, but freight lines go to California... so that restriction means a driver must either give up those California routes and pay big bucks to have that DEF system removed from their trucks, or they get to go to California on the rare instances where the damn thing doesn't break down!

Get caught driving a truck in California without DEF working, and the truck is impounded until it can be repaired by a California repair shop... it cannot even be towed to another state! Thousands of drivers have lost their truck, which is their livelihood itself, to California because they didn't want to sit in a cold motel room for months at a time a few times a year waiting on road repairs.

And of course, the parts needed to keep those DEF systems in repair are becoming scarce... there's plenty of them, but they're sitting in containers in Los Angeles waiting on trucks to deliver them... trucks which cannot operate without them in the first place.

Let's go back a little farther with the eco-idiocy. Remember acid rain? Know where it came from? California pioneered development of the catalytic converter. One of its purposes is to remove sulfur from the exhaust. Before the new (higher-priced) low-sulfur fuels came out, the catalytic converters would fill up with sulfur and start pumping large quantities into the air because they were full. That's sulfur dioxide, not sulfuric acid, but guess what it takes to turn sulfur dioxide into sulfuric acid? Water, oxygen, and energy (like sunlight). Guess where all those things exist in abundance? The atmosphere! So now we get sulfuric acid dissolved in rain water, aka "acid rain," mandated by law that California helped pass for the entire nation. And that air over LA that was now acidic? Guess what: it's not your air! It moves over other states as well! Thank you, California, for destroying vast stretches of virgin forest while trying to "save" it.

Oh, and let's talk about driver safety since we're talking transportation... I've been to California many times in a truck. I hated it! Why? Because I was miserable most of the time I was there! You see, California has a "no-idle" policy for trucks... which equates to a "no heat, no cooling, no power" policy for truckers. We get to camp out, literally Neanderthal style, when we're supposed to be getting rest so we can drive those 40-ton bullets safely tomorrow. But no... California can't allow that! Ever tried to sleep in an enclosed box when the temperature is in the 90s? Here's a hint: one wakes up, drenched in sweat, dehydrated, fatigued, and now gets to operate heavy equipment. What could go wrong?

Oh, and let's talk about your speed limits... 55 mph for trucks, but 70 mph for everyone else! Sure, what could go wrong? Let's tick off all the bad drivers by making the professional drivers drive way slower than them... what could possibly go wrong with that? Just the four-wheelers getting overly aggressive and trying to drive under my wheels, that's what.

Let's not even get into the time when California tried to outlaw CB radios... the devices the terminals use to tell us where to go and when the load is ready.

But hey, even Californians get fed up with all the BS out there... and when they do, they move! OK, no problem... don't blame them. But when they move, they first drive real estate prices through the roof because they cannot comprehend that $200,000,000,000 is too much to pay for a house that actually costs $60,000 elsewhere. Now the indigenous people who live where the Californians moved to can't afford to buy a home in their own area anymore.

Then they set about busily admonishing everyone in sight for not doing things the "California way." They want all those backfiring, insanity-driven rules and restrictions that caused them to leave in the first place implemented in their new home. Soon enough, they've turned nice, peaceful places into more of the cesspool they escaped from.

And I've just gotten started. How about your generous gift of the drunken lush sitting two heartbeats away from the US Presidency?

California is not a scapegoat. California is a CANCER! If you want people to stop talking bad about California, stop messing across the entire nation.

TheRedneck

Absolutely correct!
And WTF! Only 2 stars!
Must be a lot of blue balls here. Well, they're going to have to re-read your post.

originally posted by: 38181

What if someone dressed in all black with a hoodie kept attacking the squatters randomly at night, you know pounding the walls and doors at random times of the night, a couple of baseball bat blows to the shins. After a while they may think it’s too dangerous to keep squatting there.

I wonder since they have no lease if the owner can do house repairs and physically remove electrical, gas and water hookups and just say I'm going to be working on my property.

There is no law saying that you cannot break in and squat your house back. Walk in there like you do own the place because you do! What are they going to do call the police? Hire security and be sure to file that the security are going to be operating on that property. Tell them they are trespassing and watch the police and security drag their ass right on out of there by their hair. That is how you fast track right on through them red tape laws. Give them their free room and board in jail and they will quickly come around. In fact you could become your own security officer and you got the law backing you up.

a reply to: Xtrozero

More than one way to skin a cat. I just takes effort for someone that wants results.

I’d myself cut water. Then cut the junction box for electricity.

It’s cheaper to repair what I cut vs the income I’d be missing out drawing from rent.

Baseball bats are cheap too.

originally posted by: musicismagic
In Los Angeles, property rights don't exist.
Wow! They ( the landlords ) better take take this to the Supreme court real fast. This is just a tad bit of the article.

A motion approved by the county’s Board of Supervisors last week prohibits the eviction of low-income delinquent tenants through the end of January 2023, as long as they claim some hardship related to COVID-19, respiratory syncytial virus, or the flu. Under the motion, landlords are also prohibited from evicting tenants for causing nuisances or having unauthorized pets. In other words, landlords are being forced to give up the rights to their property and allow renters who won’t respect or pay for it to live there permanently.

And I lived in Los Angeles years ago. I guess the city should be called " Lost Angels"

www.msn.com... a19

They did this in Portland beginning with Covid - the non-eviction order expired recently . All those people that couldn't pay still can't pay and now they are homeless/couch surfing/living with family.

a reply to: vampira309

And?

originally posted by: chris_stibrany
Look what happened with the Gavin Newsome recall....

a reply to: nugget1

it was a cheat fest. he won by outlandish numbers.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I think Skeptical science is owned by the IPCC guy.

Priceless, LOL.

originally posted by: shaemac
I no longer feel sorry for people living in a communist state.
I also am no longer shocked at the stuff happening in them.
Betcha those home owners voted for the POS who are making these decisions.
Oh well. 49 other states to move to. Figure it out.

And the people who voted for it, move to your state and vote for the same crap, only in your backyard.

No! Enough. They stay in the hellhole they helped make, and they fix it or they wallow in it.

a reply to: TheRedneck

California is also partially to blame for egg prices.

They passed legislation mandating larger cages for laying hens, and anyone wanting to sell eggs to California had to keep hens in the newer size cages which happened to be slightly larger than the standard for the entire country. So everyone else in the country had to lay out the money to upgrade their entire operation or simply not sell to California which, of course, represents a substantial market to lose, even as compared to the rest of the nation.

This all happened a while ago.

And how many things do you buy that have special warnings on the package just for the state of California? More examples of how the tail wags the dog. Special treatment for one state.

a reply to: ketsuko

I will say this to that:

If I were selling a product nationally and any state decided they were going to put superfluous requirements for me to sell there, I would simply refuse to ship to that state. I also understand that the US government could get involved because they could claim I was "discriminating" against California... oh, well, that means I shut down all sales to the USA, and if that means I close the company, so be it.

But if that were to happen, I would be on every web blog and news program I could beg my way into stating exactly why all my employees are now out of work. It's going to take people knowing why all this is happening to stop it from happening.

I simply will not allow anyone to tell me how to run my company. Period.

TheRedneck