… So the primary election is over and it’s Brown vs Whitman and Boxer vs Fiorina. As you may have heard, Meg spent $71 million of her own money and $16 million from Republican donors to win a primary. That’s $87 million, folks. Hate to see what she plans to spend in the fall election. And although Jerry is a savvy politician, I don’t think he’s well liked in the contractor’s world (from some of the grumblings I heard at the AGC spring conference a few weeks ago regarding his previous stint as governor). Anything could happen, though, with the 20% decline-to-state voters in California.
… San Francisco voters approved Proposition B, a $412-million “Earthquake Safety and Emergency Response” bond that will cover the first phase expense of seismically upgrading a number of neighborhood fire stations and construct a new public safety building in Mission Bay. As Lark Hilliard of Hilliard Architects in SF shouted out in a letter to the Chronicle, this project means jobs for small private firms (hopefully) and not “overpaid” city employees.
… Santa Clara voters voted for the new 49ers stadium plan while San Francisco continues planning for a new 49ers stadium in Hunters Point.
… Speaking of Hunters Point, the federal EPA released a report this week saying that the dust from infrastructure construction work going on at the former Naval shipyard is not toxic, as some local residents and activists have claimed. Developer Lennar is still planning to go ahead with new homes and retail and that new 49ers stadium.
… And, finally, speaking of toxins, Forbes Magazine has a new article out about the California Air Resources Board’s proposed diesel regulations. The piece clearly, as the SCCA’s William Davis points out, makes the case that the regulations are based on “flawed science” and will not improve public health in the state. The story, in The Rationalist column by Henry Miller and James Enstrom, starts out beautifully: “If you were strapped for cash and lived in North Dakota, would you spend money on hurricane insurance? That would be no dumber than the regulations of the California Air Resources Board, designed to reduce the form of ‘air pollution’ known as diesel particulate matter. The scientific rationale for these enormously expensive regulations and the process by which they were enacted are dubious, and their costs impose a huge economic burden on the state. And since California is often regarded as a bellwether of environmental regulation, these rules could presage a disturbing national trend.”
… San Francisco voters approved Proposition B, a $412-million “Earthquake Safety and Emergency Response” bond that will cover the first phase expense of seismically upgrading a number of neighborhood fire stations and construct a new public safety building in Mission Bay. As Lark Hilliard of Hilliard Architects in SF shouted out in a letter to the Chronicle, this project means jobs for small private firms (hopefully) and not “overpaid” city employees.
… Santa Clara voters voted for the new 49ers stadium plan while San Francisco continues planning for a new 49ers stadium in Hunters Point.
… Speaking of Hunters Point, the federal EPA released a report this week saying that the dust from infrastructure construction work going on at the former Naval shipyard is not toxic, as some local residents and activists have claimed. Developer Lennar is still planning to go ahead with new homes and retail and that new 49ers stadium.
… And, finally, speaking of toxins, Forbes Magazine has a new article out about the California Air Resources Board’s proposed diesel regulations. The piece clearly, as the SCCA’s William Davis points out, makes the case that the regulations are based on “flawed science” and will not improve public health in the state. The story, in The Rationalist column by Henry Miller and James Enstrom, starts out beautifully: “If you were strapped for cash and lived in North Dakota, would you spend money on hurricane insurance? That would be no dumber than the regulations of the California Air Resources Board, designed to reduce the form of ‘air pollution’ known as diesel particulate matter. The scientific rationale for these enormously expensive regulations and the process by which they were enacted are dubious, and their costs impose a huge economic burden on the state. And since California is often regarded as a bellwether of environmental regulation, these rules could presage a disturbing national trend.”
