Tales & Trails of a Traveling Wiseguy

Yesterday was the first day of spring. It's a pleasant relief to be done with summer and moving into spring. The temperatures in California have dropped noticeably. Locally today the high is 79° F (26° C), quite a relief from the highs around 90 (32C) we had up through Friday. Even so it's still warm for the start of spring.

...Oh, are you wondering "Where TF does spring come after summer?" Yeah. It was crazy hot last week. Summer-y temperatures in winter. The heat broke after Friday. Yesterday and today have been merely pleasantly warm... though still 16° above the average for this time of year here.

And what's this I see at the far end of the 10-day forecast now? A 50% chance of rain on the 31st. I guess when summer becomes spring, it only makes sense for winter to follow.

The unseasonably warm weather from last week has, as forecast, continued into this week. While much of the country has been in the grips of frigid cold weather and seen unusual snow— it legit snowed in Savannah, Georgia, and flurries were seen as far south as Tampa, Florida— out here in the western US we've had sunny days with temperatures well above normal. You could even say, The West is the Best.

Yesterday here in Sunnyvale the weather report says the temperature reached a high of 71° F (almost 22 C). It didn't feel quite that warm when I went out for lunch at 12:15 but I did drive with the top down on the convertible anyway. And today and tomorrow the forecast predicts it'll get a smidge warmer, at 72°F (22C) both days.

Oh, and you think it's warm here? Coastal Southern California is running up to 10 degrees warmer. The forecast in San Diego today is 82°. In the desert southwest it's even warmer. Phoenix, Arizona is forecast to reach 84° today.

Despite the warm weather it's not pool chairs and piña coladas for me. I mean, I've still got to work. And it's cool in the mornings and evenings. Plus, it looks like next week we'll be back to weather closer to seasonal averages with chances of rain in the forecast, too.

I voted today. Yes, it's a day early. Election Day is tomorrow— Tuesday, November 4.  But one of the nice things about California is that the state offers registered voters numerous ways to vote, including dropping off a ballot in a signed, sealed envelope at ballot drop-boxes in convenient places like my local library.



This year's ballot was pretty short. There were only 3 items: a statewide proposition, a county officer race, and a county proposition.

The statewide proposition is Prop 50, The Election Rigging Response Act. It allows a one-time, mid-decade redrawing of Congressional districts and specifies that it will be done by politicians instead of California's non-partisan redistricting commission.

I have always been a big supporter of non-partisan redistricting. I gladly voted for it when California passed it years ago, and I have urged that the practice be adopted elsewhere. But the situation is different in 2025. Whereas gerrymandering used to be something that politicians did but didn't admit to, it's now something that President Trump openly calls for in the national media— and his followers not only don't criticize but eagerly line up to do. If we on the political left want any chance at a majority in Congress— via representation that is commensurate with our popular vote— we must do as the other side is already doing.

One of the simple/simplistic arguments against Prop 50 I've seen is the line, "All it takes to end gerrymandering is for one side to stop doing it first." What a fucking idiot the person who said that is. One side did stop it first. One side did it first, and the other side went the opposite direction and raised their art of electoral manipulation to new heights with modern technology.

So now I'm voting for something that's against my preferences. It's against my preferences but it's still the least bad option. (Also, we're not giving up the preferable option— nonpartisan redistricting— for good. We're just making a one-time exception.)

Speaking of least bad options, the one county-wide race, the one for Tax Assessor, is also one where I picked the least bad option. Not that there was anything actually bad about the candidate I voted for, but the others all did/said things that are disqualifying bad IMO.

It's been odd reading in the news about heat waves gripping the US as here in California it's been a cool summer. It's more than just a "This week it's cool out" phenomenon, though. It's been cooler than normal the past few months here in coastal California. I already knew that from my own gut sense (I notice the weather every day though I don't record it rigorously) but it was interesting to see it confirmed, and explained, in articles I read today when I looked up why it's such a thing that California is cooler than the rest of the US.

First, here's a picture of what I'm talking about:



This is a chart from a week ago. It shows that over a near-term forecast range (6-10 days) coastal California will have lower than average temperatures while much of the rest of the US is above normal.

As a specific example of what "Below" normal means, high temps the past few days around my home have averaged 76° F. That's 5° below the local average for this time of year. That's where my gut sense of it being cool comes from. A difference of a degree or two, I wouldn't notice. But a 5 degree difference, especially persistently, I do notice. And occasionally grouse about here in my blog because I look forward to enjoying summer-y summer weather!

As far as why there's this temperature discrepancy across the US, worsening summer heat waves are part of what's happening with global climate change. What's happening in California is an older, not-man-made pattern. A strong ocean current brings cold water from the Gulf of Alaska down to the Pacific coast of northern California. High pressure zones have been causing us to get winds from across the ocean. The wind cools over the cold water and acts like a natural air conditioner for coastal California. At some point the high pressure nexus will shift and winds will blow offshore.... Then we'll get heated air from the east blowing over us instead of cool ocean air. But for now the high pressure pattern is sticking in "A/C is ON" position.

A Cool Summer in Parts of California Doesn't "Disprove" Climate Change

It's sad I have to point this out, but I do. Beause there are climate idiots (not just skeptics but fools) out there who sneer when there's a cold week, "So much for ‘‘Global Warming’’!"

The existence of this cooling pattern in California does not contradict the existence or impact of human-caused Global Warming. As a recent blog on Weather West argues, 100 years ago this cool summer weather wouldn't have been unusual in California. The significant global warming of the last 50 years ago puts it at contrast with the new normal. And yes, there always will be "cold snaps" even in a world of global warming. There will always be winter blizzards, too, in Minneapolis and Buffalo. Global Warming is about the averages shifting in significant ways. Summers, in general, are getting more intense, and days of sub-zero winter weather in the snow belt are getting fewer.

It actually rained a bit today. On that one hand it's odd to say actually because we're in the middle of what's supposed to be our rainy season here in California. On the other hand, it's been a ridiculously dry January. The tenth of an inch, a drizzle really, we got locally may be the first precipitation we've had all month.

We're in a La Niña weather pattern this winter. That means drier than average weather south of us and wetter than average to the north. What about here? We're kind of on the dividing line where it can shift either way. After a decent cumulative rainfall in November and December that had us about at average for the season to date we've now dropped to about half the normal-to-date average here in Central (yes, Central) California.

The northern third of the state is at average-plus, which is great for filling major reservoirs such as Shasta and Oroville, but Southern California is at a quarter or less of normal rainfall so far. You see one of the consequences of that dryness in the terrible fires that have burned in and around Los Angeles. Another consequence we might see in a few months is drought.

Meanwhile we're swinging back to wetter weather here in the SF Bay area. After the bit of rain today we'll have more tomorrow, then there's rain in the forecast on and off through the following weekend. It's kind of a bummer that I missed January's clear weather while staying inside the past few weeks. My mood was dreary even as the weather was not. Now the weather turns to dreary just as I'm hoping to snap out of it. Well, we need the rain. I'll take solace in that.

After Wednesday's bomb cyclone failed to deliver locally the violent weather its name suggests (though it did pack a wallop in Oregon and Washington) today a steady, soaking rain has set in. A look at the forecast shows that it's likely to rain here for the next four days. We could get several inches of rain over that time. The Sierra Nevada mountains on the eastern side of the state will likely get a lot of snow. Both are a good start to our winter rainy season.

The start of winter? Yes, by my observational standard, it is. Autumn around here begins when it gets cool enough to wear long pants and I need to turn on the heat in the house. Winter begins when it starts to rain regularly. The latter works because of the Mediterranean climate pattern we have in California. We have long, dry summers and mild, wet winters. Virtually all of our annual rainfall comes in a 4 month stretch from generally around mid-November to March. Thus why it's good to get the season started with a good soaker of a rainfall. We need to refill our reservoirs, snowpack, and groundwater tables so they can last us through the 8 dry months that follow the rainy season.

I'm going through the ballot propositions on the ballot here in the 2024 general election. See part 1 of this series for a few links on how props work and my thoughts about Props 2 & 3; and part 2 of this series for Props 4, 5, and 6. Here are my thoughts on the next few.

Prop 32: Raise the Minimum Wage: Weak No.

Prop 32 is the first measure on this ballot that's a citizen initiative— meaning it was written and qualified for the ballot by private citizens, as opposed to bond measures and constitutional amendments which are approved by the legislature first then must be put to voters for final approval. Citizen led initiatives often have problems. I'll address that in a moment.

Prop 32 would raise the minimum wage state-wide in California. Employers with 26+ employees would have to pay a minimum of $17 starting immediately and $18 on January 1, 2025. For employers with 25 or fewer employees, a minimum of $17 applies starting January 1, 2025, rising to $18 on January 1, 2026.

I've blogged many times about minimum wage and how it's generally too low. From reading my past thoughts you might be surprised that I'm leaning against Prop 32. This has to do with the weaknesses of citizen led initiatives. Often they embody a worthy idea but with a flawed implementation.

This raise to $17-18 is not huge. While you might be thinking about the federal minimum wage, which has been unchanged at $7.25/hr for 15 years, California's minwage is already much higher. Currently the statewide minimum is $16, which took effect January 1, 2024. For fast-food workers a higher rate of $20 took effect April 1. Source: State of California Department of Industrial Relations.

While the statewide minwage is already high compared to the (outdated) federal minimum, cities and counties are free to require higher wages. In my city of Sunnyvale it rose to $18.55 at the start of the year. In neighboring Mountain View it's $18.75 this year, rising to $19.20 on January 1, 2025.

To me the flaw in raising the statewide rate again is that it's not necessarily appropriate everywhere in the state. Sunnyvale and Mountain View are high-cost areas. Many businesses were already having to pay nearly as much due to labor market conditions. But what about areas where costs of living are much less expensive? $17-18 might be too expensive for employers in such areas and unnecessary for employees. I prefer to see statewide laws developed through the legislature's deliberative process, informed by professional input from government agencies such as the Department of Industrial Relations, with cities and counties able to adjust as necessary for local conditions. That's a better way to legislate labor policy that's fair for all stakeholders than asking the broad electorate to make a strict yea-or-nay vote on an overly simple solution to complex policy.

Prop 33: Allow Localities to Expand Rent Control: Yes.

Rent control can be a divisive issue. Some localities in California have rent control. Whether to have rent control, and the specifics of the limits it entails, are decided at the local level. I.e., your city decides if, and how, there's rent control in your city. This measure does not change that fundamental fact. It does not enact rent control anywhere; it only changes the laws that limit what cities are able to do.

A key rent-control law, the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, was passed in 1995. It placed significant restrictions on which properties local governments can even subject to rent control. One key restriction is that no building built after February, 1995 can be rent-controlled. Nor can any single-family home. And no limit can be placed on the rent increase when a new tenant signs. (Allegedly landlords try to drive out older tenants of rent-controlled properties so they can reprice at market rates.) That 1995 date was not set to be indexed... so today, all condos built within the past 29.75 years are exempt from rent control. That's ridiculous. Prop 33 repeals Costa-Hawkins so local governments have more latitude to enact modern policies that serve their residents.

Prop 34: Slap Punitive Restrictions on the AIDS Healthcare Foundation: HELL NO.

The official title of this proposition is "RESTRICTS SPENDING OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG REVENUES BY CERTAIN HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS." It would required these "CERTAIN HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS" to spend 98% of their revenues from a federal discount prescription drug program on direct patient care. Putting governance on healthcare providers to ensure they spend most of their money on caring for patients seems like a worthy cause, doesn't it? Don't be fooled.

This bill defines "CERTAIN HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS" so that it includes exactly one provider. One. It's the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. It's not any insurance company. The ACA required insurance companies only spend 80% of their revenues on patient care. The people who wrote this measure know damn well who they targeted. Prop 34 is a punitive attack from opponents of Prop 33 to punish an organization, AHF, that was a big supporter of Prop 33. Regardless of what you think of Prop 33, this kind of retaliation through the ballot box is an example of the worst kind of use of California's ballot proposition system. Just say NO. Vote NO.

I'm starting a short series of blog posts about the ballot propositions on my ballot this year. "Props", as we call them for short, are often thought of as a California thing, though they're part of the process in a number of other states as well. It's worth taking a close look at props each cycle because they can be complex; more complex, say, than choosing whether to vote for Candidate A or Candidate B.

How are propositions complex? I mean, you just vote yes or no, right? For one, there are 3 types of ballot propositions with different rules and different impacts. Two, propositions may be poorly written or purposefully deceptive, among other problems. By the way, you can't let this complexity cause you to throw your hands up in disgust and vow to vote "No" on all of them. Due to the way the different types of props work, some of them will actually block or even reverse an act of the legislature if a majority of the people vote No,

This year there are a whopping 10 statewide ballot props plus several local props in my area. I'll start with the statewide props in numerical order, outlining a few per blog.This will take several days, so it's good I'm starting now! By the way, this isn't just altruistic. This is me doing my own research and me articulating my argument for or against to be confident my reasoning is sound.

Prop 2: Bond for Public School & Community College Facilities: Yes.

For this prop as with all the others the first source of information I'm checking is the California Secretary of State's Voter Information Guide | Propositions. This measure "Authorizes $10 billion in general obligation bonds for repair, upgrade, and construction of facilities at K-12 public schools (including charter schools), community colleges, and career technical education programs, including for improvement of health and safety conditions and classroom upgrades."

Years ago, when I was younger and less sophisticated in my understand of political economics, I looked at measures like this and scoffed, "Why does the state just pay for needed work? It seems like every year there's more bonds, extending payments out 30+ years. Why not just pay today for the stuff we need, today?"

Alas, that's not the reality of how the state's budget works. It would be nice if it were, but it's not. The only choice we have is pay this way, or let our schools continue to fall apart, worse.

I like to invest in our schools. Schools are an investment in our shared future. Schools educate the next generation, who'll help support us and help govern us in the future. Schools are also an investment in our economy. Good schools equal good local economies because people and companies want to locate here.

Another thing younger-me would've scoffed at is the fact that this measure is Put on the Ballot by the Legislature, as the voter information guide notes in bold and italic. "Why didn't the legislature just... y'know... legislate... this instead of sending it to us?" younger-me sneered. And that's why it's important to understand How California Ballot Propositions Work. This bond measure had to be approved by a super-majority of the legislature first, then it also has to be approved by the voters.

You can thank the anti-tax zealots for that process, BTW. And incidentally, those same anti-tax zealots also construct the deliberately false arguments yammering about, "Why didn't the legislature just... y'know... legislate... this instead of sending it to us?" that younger-me fell for years ago.

Prop 3: Constitutional Right to Marriage: Yes.

This proposition reverses 2008's Proposition 8, which defined marriage as only being between a man and a woman. It replaces that state constitutional amendment with a new amendment permitting marriage between any two adults, regardless of race or gender.

"How is this necessary?" critics of the measure ask. "Federal courts ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional in 2013." Yes, but consider what happened in 2022 with the US Supreme Court's Dobbs decision overturning nearly 50 years of jurisprudence under Roe v. Wade. We're just one case away from the far-right supermajority overturning the previous court's ruling and restoring California's ridiculous Prop 8. Our constitutional rights cannot be trusted to the interpretation of reactionary ideologues. We need to protect our liberties by putting them in plain text.

Note that this initiative is also tagged Put on the Ballot by the Legislature. Again, that is not an indication that the legislature is passing the buck. This is a Legislative Constitutional Amendment. It's already gone through the full process of being written and approved by both the Assembly and the state senate, and now it must be approved by a majority of the voters, too.

Edited to add: The list starts at 2 because that's the first prop this year.

Edit 2: Read about Props 4, 5, and 6 in my next blog.

The Park Fire continues to burn in northern California, north of Chico and east of Red Bluff. As of Sunday evening it has burned 386,000 acres. That's over 600 square miles. It is now the 5th largest fire in modern California history.

Here's a map of the fire as of this evening from CalFire (click on image for link to source page):



The CalFire incident page for the Park Fire notes that there are over 5,700 personnel fighting this one fire. Firefighters are being pulled in from all over the state. When we were in Redding on Sunday afternoon, stopping for lunch while driving through, we chatted with a fire crew who'd just driven up from near where we live.

The size of the fire, at 386,000 acres as of this evening, hasn't grown much in the past 48 hours. Authorities say that's because the hot weather in the area that last through Friday broke on Saturday. With cooler temperatures and more humidity in the air, the fire has spread more slowly. This has also enabled crews to start containing it— though as of this evening it's still only 18% contained.

Miraculously there are no deaths reported from this fire. Thousands of people have had to evacuate homes, though. To their credit, and to the credit of authorities managing the situation, people were moved to safety quickly. I'm sure plenty of people in the areas impacted remember the tragedy of the 2018 fire that burned the town of Paradise. There, even a half day of "The fire can't possibly spread over here that fast!" meant that when evacuations orders did come, there was pandemonium and dozens of people died.

On Sunday Hawk and I had a sad surprise. One of our favorite local casual restaurants, Rubio's, had closed. We found out as we walked up to the door, intending to enjoy lunch there, and saw a sign in the window that they had closed permanently.



"When did this happen?!" we both wondered. We'd eaten there just a week earlier, and there was no sign of anything other than business as usual.

We checked online and found a handful of business articles about the closure. It's not just our restaurant in Sunnyvale. Rubio's, officially called Rubio's Coastal Grill, is a chain of around 130— well, now about 86— fast-casual restaurants in California, Nevada, and Arizona. Effective May 31 the chain made the decision to close 48 "underperforming" California restaurants due to "[T]he rising costs of business in the state." Example coverage: ABC10 (Sacramento) article, NBC San Diego article.

At least one of the news articles I linked above, plus several others I browsed but did not link here, cite California's new $20 fast food minimum wage law as a contributing factor. I note that that was not said by a company spokesperson but by uninvolved "experts" invited to comment for the news article. And here I'm being a bit snide by quoting the term experts because as I noted in my own analysis of the $20 min wage, $20 is little if any increase over what fast food restaurants in many California markets— including my own city— are already having to offer employees. Moreover, it's also worth noting that Rubio's troubles did not suddenly appear in the 2 months since the new minimum wage law took effect. The chain went through bankruptcy in late 2020 due to the Coronavirus pandemic.

Well, this closure has us bummed. Rubio's has been a favorite of ours for many years, a place we've eaten at at least once a week. Things we liked:

• It's California-Mexican food. We like that cuisine.
• It's way better quality than fast-food restaurants.
• Lots of dishes taste great.
• The store in Sunnyvale has a nice, airy indoor dining room and a great, sunny patio outdoors. That outdoor patio helped make it one of the places we returned to earliest and most frequently after the depths of the Covid pandemic.