T O P
raymonst

how about using some of that money to fund transit...


surfkw

On a train in Switzerland today thinking to myself why can't we have nice things like this in CA? So quiet and fast!


uski

Because decentralization. Since every little neighborhood has its say, it is impossible to get everyone on board since you always get a city or county that doesn't want it


SDAMan2V1

Many large cities are opposed to regional transit systems are they worry it will encourage people to live away from their city and take transit to it for work and such, and not live In the city it self.


uski

Yes. Me myself and I. Typically American. Don't get me wrong, it has positives, it worked well in some respects. But it's terrible in others (transit... healthcare insurance...). It prevents localized sacrifices (or the perception of a possible sacrifice) for the common good.


trackdaybruh

Because of NIMBY movement. They don’t want that


kejartho

It's so funny in hindsight, right? Why can't we expand public transit and remove a lot of the red tape in order to build out our infrastructure? Well, you see these wealthy and/or old people in California don't want it. It messes up their backyard view. So now you get to suffer while they can completely ignore the problems.


destronger

stevens creek blvd would be a great spot for transit. san thomas expw too.


gandhiissquidward

Imagine living in a city where you don't need a car. For anything. Too bad we're apparently not worth it.


NapalmCheese

> Imagine living in a city where you don't need a car. For anything. Gross.


gandhiissquidward

Why?


djhimeh

Cart before the horse. Invest in the power grid and secure inexpensive electrical power first.


BadTiger85

Get out of here with your sound logic and common sense!!!


Ganlemans

> Newsom is hoping to make EVs more accessible by putting aside $256 million for low-income consumer EV purchases  Maaaaan I'm solidly middle class. Didn't get the golden state stimulus and I guess I'm not getting this neither.


raven00x

if they don't revise the definition of "low income" in this state, nobody who qualifies will be able to get it either.


Hard_WorkingMan2

Nope... that means you're paying for it


ArtfulLying

Reading your comments makes me think you don't know how taxes actually work.


Hard_WorkingMan2

Maybe you're right. How many 5 or more figure checks have you written out of your checking account to pay taxes? Do you file corporate taxes also? At the end of a tax year, do you get a refund or a bill? I'm listening.


BanzaiTree

Everything done to support EVs is yet another gift to property owners. If you rent, EVs are not a reasonable option because it’s a lot less likely to have overnight access to charging, especially if you have street parking. Nothing to address that in this plan or anything from the federal government either. This is just a perpetuation of America’s habit giving as much handout money as possible to property owners, even though they are now the main privileged group going forward. Whenever you hear anything about the government promoting EVs, what is actually happening is that the property owning class is using the government to fund their lifestyles at the non-property owning class’s expense. EV policy is just addressing downstream consequences of the intentional housing shortage created by property owners.


ManofaCertainRage

I was really hoping this plan would include subsidies or other incentives for landlords to provide charging infrastructure for renters, for exactly those reasons. I don’t see anything about that explicitly on the article or linked proposal, but I’m hoping that’s included in the component aimed to support development of charging infrastructure for low income communities.


poundsofmuffins

This will be needed if we want more adoption of EV by 2030 or whenever they made their deadline. What we really need is massive lithium, battery and chip manufacturing here in the US in order to secure EV production. That way there are less hurtles to making an economy EV car like a Corolla.


[deleted]

We don’t don’t do dangerous and polluting mining here. All the dirty work gets pushed off the China and Africa for lithium, cobalt, rare earth metals, etc. with child labor to support things we need, like battery materials for electric cars.


poundsofmuffins

Nevada and California have some of the most plentiful lithium mines in the world. We could be a world leader in lithium if we want. They are about to destroy a mountain pass in Nevada right now for a future open pit mine.


[deleted]

We could destroy russias economy by further oil exploration and drilling. It would bolster American workers and companies and reduce prices for consumers as well. Instead we keep policies that benefit our advisories and make no difference in actual climate change (drilling here vs drilling in ME and Russia) all to make us feel like we are doing “something”


BanzaiTree

What we need is more transit options and less cars.


Jam_jams

Yes ,if we can provide incentives for them to bring those manufacturing here to the US-california, that would help immensely.


uski

It is counterproductive to only direct incentives at low income communities. Cars pollute exactly the same, no matter the income of the person driving it.


ManofaCertainRage

I don’t understand your argument. Higher income communities can afford to buy new cars more regularly, and seem to be doing just fine at adopting EVs. Count how many Teslas you see on any given block of Palo Alto. The state and federal governments have been subsidizing purchases of new EVs via tax credits for years now. You know who can afford to buy new cars, even with subsidies? Higher income households. Lower income communities will have a greater proportion of older cars, and will tend to buy used cars. There are far fewer used EVs available than ICE cars. Homeowners (who, in most of CA’s most populous areas, tend to be wealthier) can install chargers if they want; that option isn’t available to most renters. If you can’t charge at home or nearby reliably and conveniently, that’s a major barrier to adoption. So if the goal is to reduce tailpipe emissions, providing support for lower-income communities to adopt EVs seems highly productive.


uski

The argument is that even "wealthier" people are price sensitive and will keep buying ICE cars unless they get proper incentives to get an EV. It's not about who is able to buy an EV, it's about making EVs accessible for everyone because like I said, cars don't care the income of their driver when emitting pollution. There is a certain percentage of the population that wants an EV. Since EVs are more expensive, that's why you see them in higher income neighborhoods for now. But the rest of the population may keep buying ICE cars for years, and that does not depend of their income. Some will ask, why should I pay 50k for an EV when an ICE car comes out at 25k? It's not because you earn a million a year that you will ignore 25k! Additionally... Higher income folks are already taxed so much more. There is no rationale in systematically excluding them from all policies.


BadTiger85

Unless you're going to build charging stations at my condo complex or make charging as fast and easy as going to the gas station then its going to be a hard sell for many people in California not just me


Suchafatfatcat

There are so many things that could be done with that much investment- better schools, mass transit, desalination plants, etc. This seems like a payoff to EV manufacturers (donors) at the expense of California taxpayers. We foot the bill but get nothing for it.


kejartho

It's clear that by pushing this kind of agenda he is hoping to get good PR in a push for the presidential bill at some point.


seriouslyjan

I really appreciate that these articles NEVER state where these millions and billions of $$$ are coming from. I love how the Government takes your $$$ and gives you back cents and you think you are fortunate. The Government doesn't make any money, they take your money in the form of taxes and disperses it how they determine how to spend your money. What is going to happen to all the gas vehicles? Landfills? What happens to all those batteries that are toxic when they are burnt out? Landfills? So many questions and so few answers.


kejartho

The article nor does the official government announcement link to taxes or how they will pay for it but the funding is coming from the surplus in the general fund. Basically because of inflation and federal assistance during the Pandemic, California has a much higher surplus of funds than normal and so Newsome is pushing hard to implement a bunch of government spending packages because of the recent increase in available general fund. https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/4472 > The Government doesn't make any money, they take your money in the form of taxes and disperses it how they determine how to spend your money. I get your point but the government isn't designed to make money - it's supposed to be more of a service to the people than a money making organization. > What is going to happen to all the gas vehicles? Landfills? > > What happens to all those batteries that are toxic when they are burnt out? Landfills? > > So many questions and so few answers. You do have a good point and I agree that they should have a lot of that figured out before hand. I do, however, think they want to focus on the first issues before moving on to the next. Meaning that the long term sustainability of gas vehicles are going to have to be phased out as some point and that by adopting these electric vehicles they can slowly transition people. I don't think they intend to just dump all of the gas vehicles into landfills but instead probably just not allow for new gas vehicle purchases after a certain point. Dealerships would definitely migrate car stock toward other states at that point or before then to be ready for it. Definitely still agree about the toxicity of batteries and landfill use, though that was already an issue before and I can still see it being an issue no one wants to tackle for a while.


TheReelYukon

Sounds like you should make some call or get involved!


gandhiissquidward

> What is going to happen to all the gas vehicles? Landfills? There's a hell of a lot of steel and aluminum to get out of those gas vehicles. Hopefully they get recycled.


sequoia_driftwood

So my taxes are going to buy poor people electric cars while I cannot afford one?


AstorianDruid

If you can't afford an EV, aren't you one of those people?


sequoia_driftwood

No. I’m everyone else in between.


SarcasticTrauma

maybe get rid of the high registration fees for EVs. I was looking at EVs but then talked to a few people who owned them and one of the biggest complaints was how much it costs to register every year


[deleted]

That was just put in place because EV drivers were not paying gas tax to use the roads. Plus you have one of the highest car registration costs nation wide in California to start with.


katakura_silky

i live in a brand-spanking-new luxury apartment in san diego. there is no solar here. my electric bill (for myself only), hovers around $200/month. the parking garage has about 5% electric vehicle hookups (all used too). there are electric charging spots in the streets near me as well. energy needs to be more economical for everyone in california in order to encourage adoption for those of us that haven't switched over yet, and even if we wanted to - there are still the challenges I've mentioned above. we have a long way to go.


StillSilentMajority7

If consumers wanted electric vehicles, the market would develop on its own. Democrats can't resist the lure of industrial policy - making choices on behalf of the market. It almost never works.


Sir_Justin

I think a lot of consumers would not mind switching to an EV, but the cost is quite prohibitive to many families.


StillSilentMajority7

There's plenty of cheap EV's out there. But if there's something that needs to be produced more cheaply, a well functioning market is the best way to do it. Interference by the state won't solve any issues.


Sir_Justin

The cheapest EV in the US right now is 30k. That's expensive for a lot of families.


StillSilentMajority7

There are a lot of things that are expensive. It doesn't mean the state should buy it for you.


zmamo2

You could say the same about fossil fuel subsidies, or farm subsidies, or subsidies/contracts to defense contractors,or ….


StillSilentMajority7

People would still farm if they didn't get federal subsidies. If you don't like defense contractors, stop voting for people who spend your money on defense projects.


trossi

The market is there, the infrastructure is not. I would love to buy an EV but have no way to charge it. I rely on street parking at home and have never seen any of the charging spots at work available in the couple years I've been there.


StillSilentMajority7

Then let the market solve that issue. Private charging, cars with longer batteries. There are barely any examples of states spending billions to interfere in a market, and it working well. This is welfare for the rich. Poor people aren't driving teslas


TheFiniteThrowAway

12 years from now, gasoline vehicle sale is prohibited. If the gov doesn't start the investment now, no company will foot the bill in the future to serve low income communities - they must be deliberately protected. The right thing to do isn't always maximize shareholder value. Investment in low income areas aren't lost dollars - they are investments in people.


StillSilentMajority7

In other words, the state passed a law banning something, which necessitates more spending as compensation? To fix their screw up? Put another way, had they let the market work it's magic, none of this would be a problem. You're proving my point that industrial policy almost never works.


[deleted]

Just like how the government built all those gas stations years ago, otherwise no one was going to buy cars.


Hard_WorkingMan2

Yep... the people who barely pay taxes or pay none at all are the first ones to tour "investments in people " with other people's money.


minion531

EV adoption can't happen until they solve the Apartment problem. Right now, if one lives in an apartment, there is no way to charge your vehicle. In metropolitan areas, lots of people live in apartments. As an apartment dweller in California, EVs are off the table. Can't even consider it because of the charging problem.