Speaker 1: I've been yapping on the radio for years about the
Speaker 1: influence in Fresno City government that is wielded by various
Speaker 1: kinds of left wing nonprofit groups, nonprofit advocacy groups. A
Speaker 1: lot of times it's in the form of bringing their
Speaker 1: beggar's bowl and trying to say, oh, you know, advocating
Speaker 1: for some altruistic liberal problem that they perceive. Oh, it's
Speaker 1: so terrible that we need to defund the police and
Speaker 1: all the historic oppression of police on communities of color,
Speaker 1: and all we need to get police out of the
Speaker 1: president Unified school district, get them out of their contract.
Speaker 1: But but instead, you know what we could do, And
Speaker 1: then the solution is always something that involves the city
Speaker 1: giving a contract to that nonprofit organization. It's not some
Speaker 1: disinterested entity. They are trying to get a big fact contract.
Speaker 1: They're trying to get money. And this happens a lot
Speaker 1: that there are a lot of different initiatives where it's
Speaker 1: under the guise of, oh, some altruistic thing, and then
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, some group gets some big contract,
Speaker 1: another sort of way in which these outside nonprofit groups
Speaker 1: and and it's often they're these nonprofit groups that sort
Speaker 1: of self anoint They anoint themselves as like the representatives
Speaker 1: of the poor and downtrodden of Presdent, even though no
Speaker 1: one's ever elected them. And one of the big things
Speaker 1: they've been doing are filing different kinds of lawsuits against
Speaker 1: different kinds of entities and against the city. They've filed
Speaker 1: lawsuits against community hospitals for what they alleged to be
Speaker 1: the illegal shifting of dollars from you know, medical dollars
Speaker 1: from their downtown Fresno location to their Clovis location, which
Speaker 1: I think is kind of a silly lawsuit. Downtown, you know,
Speaker 1: community is able to move dollars as they wish, and
Speaker 1: the medical funding that community receives is barely covering the
Speaker 1: cost of services. When a hospital gets money from medical,
Speaker 1: what that means is they provide a healthcare service to
Speaker 1: a person that person has medical Medical reimburses them for
Speaker 1: that service. And your medical reimbursement as opposed to a
Speaker 1: private insurance reimbursement, you don't really make much of any
Speaker 1: money at all off of medical. Medical is you know,
Speaker 1: medical may not even be covering the cost. So the idea, oh,
Speaker 1: they got a ton million dollars. If you hear some
Speaker 1: of the whole community hospital gets. I'm just going to
Speaker 1: use some big round number. I'm not sure what the
Speaker 1: actual scale is. Community gets fifty million dollars in medical funding, Well,
Speaker 1: it probably costs community about forty nine million dollars to
Speaker 1: provide that care, right, And it's not like they're making
Speaker 1: out like a bandit or something. Heck, it might even
Speaker 1: cost fifty one million dollars for community to provide that care.
Speaker 1: So it's not like communities making a ton of money
Speaker 1: off medical. But all these lawsuits that are allegedly in
Speaker 1: the service of the poor and downtrodden of Fresno, I
Speaker 1: think several of them wind up directly harming the people
Speaker 1: they purport to help. And this is the case with
Speaker 1: Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability, which has filed this
Speaker 1: massive lawsuit against the City of Fresno for its kind
Speaker 1: of environmental development plan. They use this California law called SEQUA,
Speaker 1: the California Environmental Quality Act. So what was going on
Speaker 1: with SEQUA. One of the things you have to do
Speaker 1: is have some kind When you are a builder and
Speaker 1: you are building a new project, you have to provide
Speaker 1: some kind of environmental impact report. This is a requirement
Speaker 1: of sequa what is going to be the environmental impact
Speaker 1: of you building something, whether it's a housing development, a
Speaker 1: new shopping center, an industrial thing, whatever it is. To
Speaker 1: do your own environmental impact study is often extremely onerous
Speaker 1: and expensive, and it's yet another way that California makes
Speaker 1: it more expensive, more difficult to build and invest and
Speaker 1: develop businesses. The kind of report you have to put
Speaker 1: together is often quite elaborate. So what the City of
Speaker 1: Fresno did to try to help businesses is they put
Speaker 1: together their own kind of city wide environmental impact study
Speaker 1: and plan for Fresno's development. With that, new businesses that
Speaker 1: want to invest and develop and build were to they're
Speaker 1: able to use the city's plan and then kind of
Speaker 1: use that as a springboard for their own particular aspects
Speaker 1: of what they need to provide as far as the
Speaker 1: environmental impact of this project. So the city is trying
Speaker 1: to do what it can to help businesses invest in
Speaker 1: the city. It's a smart move, it's a good thing
Speaker 1: to do. Lots of development projects are in progress based
Speaker 1: on the city's environmental place. However, the Leadership Council for
Speaker 1: Justice and Accountability, this activist nonprofit organization, sued the city
Speaker 1: under sequel for its environmental development plan and got a
Speaker 1: judge to rule that their environmental development plan is inadequate.
Speaker 1: This is bringing tons of development projects all over the
Speaker 1: city to a grinding halt. Housing industry jobs Now. There's
Speaker 1: a story in GV wire about this organization and what
Speaker 1: it does and how it's funded. Leadership Council for Justice
Speaker 1: and Accountability. In a twenty twenty three video celebrating its
Speaker 1: tenth anniversary, the Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability spoke
Speaker 1: about the need to protect neglected communities. This is a
Speaker 1: by Edward Smith and GV Wire. There's a really deeply
Speaker 1: entrenched culture of decision making that absolutely does not believe
Speaker 1: that advocates that residents, that communities of color deserve a
Speaker 1: seat at the table, get to be at the table.
Speaker 1: So we had to start to enter those spaces and
Speaker 1: say no, we're going to be at the table. We
Speaker 1: deserve to be at the table. We're not taking no
Speaker 1: for an answer, said Ashley Werner, the former directing attorney
Speaker 1: for the group. A year later, Fresno City Hall encountered
Speaker 1: a problem and hadn't recently faced a forty seven million
Speaker 1: dollar budget deficit. Some so forty seven million dollar budget
Speaker 1: deficit this year. Some Fresno leaders blamed environmental policies more
Speaker 1: restrictive than those in other communities. Simply put, they said
Speaker 1: Fresno's hands are tied when it comes to growing jobs
Speaker 1: and developing new projects. City council member Mike Carbasi described
Speaker 1: Fresno as a city sinking in the muck and mire
Speaker 1: of a philosophical crossroads. Carbasi says, the problem is, for years,
Speaker 1: while I'll be frank, the private sector has been very quiet.
Speaker 1: Carbasi said at a September twenty nine City council meeting.
Speaker 1: We've allowed outside dollars and outside interests to try to
Speaker 1: turn us into an economy where it's expected all these
Speaker 1: services and all these public benefits to people, like clean
Speaker 1: parks and roads that are in perfect condition as they
Speaker 1: should be, without having the ability to invest dollars to
Speaker 1: have jobs created here. Now, for the contrary view comes
Speaker 1: from Miguel Arias, a much more liberal member of the
Speaker 1: city council, who says we got here because they were
Speaker 1: shoving one million square foot warehouse distribution centers down the
Speaker 1: throat of South Fresno residents who didn't have legal representation
Speaker 1: at that time, and now they do. Arius said they.
Speaker 1: I guess Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability. They took
Speaker 1: the city to court as they have a right to do,
Speaker 1: and they won. I in case you were in case
Speaker 1: you were wondering, I am leaning more towards CARBASI here
Speaker 1: the I think that the alleged I deeply, deeply suspect
Speaker 1: that the alleged environmental adverse environmental impacts of having a
Speaker 1: one million dollar warehouse one million square foot warehouse distribution
Speaker 1: center in South Presno does not offset the number of
Speaker 1: jobs it would have created, the amount of economic activity
Speaker 1: it would have generated for Fresno, the beneficial impact that
Speaker 1: would have had on the city on for example, the
Speaker 1: city budget, development moratorium, or long needed fix. Leadership Council
Speaker 1: in the South Presno Community Alliance sued the city in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty one for its program Environmental Impact Report, saying
Speaker 1: it did not properly address air quality, water availability, and
Speaker 1: traffic management. Builders rely on these documents to build in
Speaker 1: compliance with SIKUA, the state's landmark environmental law. As I
Speaker 1: was explaining California's fifth the Pellate Court sided with the
Speaker 1: groups on August sixth, dozens of prospective business owners were
Speaker 1: told to halt their projects, including hundreds of new homes.
Speaker 1: The judge gave the city six points to fix before
Speaker 1: any projects can cite the document and move forward. It's
Speaker 1: essentially a moratorium, said Dirk Pochal, the principle at Land
Speaker 1: Development Services, a consulting company for business owners. But Fresno's
Speaker 1: employers face more than just that decision. Also in dispute
Speaker 1: an ongoing truck route study, decisions about land use in Fresno,
Speaker 1: and a lawsuit against a proposed Highway ninety nine interchange improvement.
Speaker 1: Behind those lawsuits and environmental policies are community groups with
Speaker 1: substantial outside funding. It then goes on to talk about
Speaker 1: Leadership Council for Leadership, Council for Justice and Accountability, how
Speaker 1: they are funded. So it's getting funded in part by
Speaker 1: the Central Valley Community Foundation, who gave them a grant,
Speaker 1: which is led by none other than former Mayor Ashley Sweeringen,
Speaker 1: the great crusader for the high speed rail, flip flopper
Speaker 1: on Conservatives' conservative issues like gay marriage. Extraordinaire unsuccessful candidate
Speaker 1: for what did she run for? She ran for some
Speaker 1: state office and lost. So here we have a local
Speaker 1: San Joaquin Valley entity led by a former allegedly Republican
Speaker 1: mayor giving them money. And then on top of that, though,
Speaker 1: they're getting lots of money from outside groups. The San
Speaker 1: Francisco based Tides Center, for example. The Tides Center has
Speaker 1: over one point one billion dollars in assets and they've
Speaker 1: given quite a bit to all kinds of crazy left
Speaker 1: wing nonprofits, including Leadership Council, Leadership Council for Justice and
Speaker 1: Accountability here in Fresno. And basically the Tide Center is it.
Speaker 1: It's called a dark money entity. I sort of hate
Speaker 1: that term. I think it's kind of silly. But basically
Speaker 1: the idea is donors give to them, and then they
Speaker 1: give to other nonprofits to support other things, So then
Speaker 1: the money becomes sort of anonymized. When donors give to
Speaker 1: nonprofit entities, their donations are not publicly reported. The IRS
Speaker 1: keeps track of top donors, but it's not publicly reported.
Speaker 1: Could get leaked. But then if you give to one
Speaker 1: entity and then that other entity gives again, well you
Speaker 1: can anonymize things. Then all you know is that the
Speaker 1: Tides Foundation gave to you, but you don't know that
Speaker 1: you know, Bob, you know, Nelson Rockefeller or Bob Q.
Speaker 1: Smith gave to you so in addition to some local funding,
Speaker 1: but a lot of their funding is coming from outside.
Speaker 1: This is outside liberals wanting to impose their environmental priorities
Speaker 1: on the city of Fresno in ways that obviously damage
Speaker 1: us economically and have completely hindered us in all kinds
Speaker 1: of ways. We've also got this lawsuit going on about
Speaker 1: truck routes in the city of Fresno, all these different
Speaker 1: ways that we are being hindered from economic development because
Speaker 1: of these various kinds of environmental lawsuits and these environmentalist
Speaker 1: activist groups that are able to sue the city and
Speaker 1: stop all this stuff, just stop it cold in its tracks, Okay,
Speaker 1: And it's this. This is the kind of stuff that
Speaker 1: we're talking about. This is the kind of stuff we
Speaker 1: mean when we say that businesses don't want to invest
Speaker 1: in California. All Right, Fresno, relatively speaking, this isn't the
Speaker 1: Bay Area. This isn't It's not as liberal as the
Speaker 1: Bay Area. It's not as liberal as Sacramento, it's not
Speaker 1: as liberal as Los Angeles. Fresno is still a pretty
Speaker 1: conservative place. Our city council is hardly filled with right
Speaker 1: wingers or anything, but it's a much more moderate city
Speaker 1: government than you're going to find anywhere in the Bay Area.
Speaker 1: And the idea that even here we can't create a
Speaker 1: business environment that is friendly for investment, to help promote
Speaker 1: job creation for poor people, for lower income people in
Speaker 1: South Fresno, that we can't do those things be cause
Speaker 1: a nonprofit organization thinks that the environmental impact is to adverse.
Speaker 1: And I'm willing to look at what the environmental impact is,
Speaker 1: but I feel like it's always on a certain side.
Speaker 1: There's so much concern about environmental impact and no concern
Speaker 1: about like, hey, do you see that this community has
Speaker 1: like twenty five percent of its residents living under the
Speaker 1: federal poverty line. You see how much unemployment there is.
Speaker 1: These people need job. We need to create jobs, stable
Speaker 1: jobs that maybe more jobs that aren't necessarily tied to
Speaker 1: the agriculture, you know, the fluctuations of the agriculture industry.
Speaker 1: Like this is all this. This is a very poor
Speaker 1: region of the country, and we have these people so
Speaker 1: concerned about air quality, which everyone suffers from bad air quality.
Speaker 1: People who live in nice neighborhoods of Clovis and South Presno.
Speaker 1: All everyone suffers from bad air quality, and it has
Speaker 1: to do with living in a bowl. It has to
Speaker 1: do with the fact that it's an egg based economy.
Speaker 1: But the idea that we're going to completely shut down
Speaker 1: the ability of the city to develop jobs and industry, like,
Speaker 1: I don't see how businesses are going to stay here.
Speaker 1: I don't see how the community's going to grow. You
Speaker 1: want city services to be really nice. You're mad about
Speaker 1: the budget deficit, Okay, we got to invest more. We
Speaker 1: have to create jobs when we return. I want to
Speaker 1: talk about the sort of the understated, underappreciated problem, which
Speaker 1: is California's bizarre rules about who is allowed to sue.
Speaker 1: Next on the John Girardi Show, a great piece in
Speaker 1: GV Wire written by Edward Smith, one of their writers,
Speaker 1: there about how Leadership Council for Leadership, Council for Justice
Speaker 1: and Accountability, this left wing nonprofit in Fresno has basically
Speaker 1: shut down almost all housing development, industrial development within the
Speaker 1: city of Fresno through its lawsuits. It's hindering development of
Speaker 1: truck routes, it's hindering construction of homes, hindering construction of
Speaker 1: industrial sites and business development. The one thing though, I
Speaker 1: just want to add, I just want to add to
Speaker 1: his assessment, which I think is really good, is how
Speaker 1: California's law is regarding standing. Get us into this mess?
Speaker 1: So what do I mean by standing? Standing? In the
Speaker 1: context of law, standing is all right, why are you
Speaker 1: here in this courtroom? Do you have the right to
Speaker 1: bring a lawsuit for the claim in what you're bringing it?
Speaker 1: Do you you yourself? Are you implicated in this? The
Speaker 1: example I always give is, you know my buddy Jonathan Keller. Okay,
Speaker 1: if someone crashes a car into Jonathan Keller's house, I
Speaker 1: don't have the right to sue the guy who crashed
Speaker 1: into Jonathan's house. I'll be very upset for my friend.
Speaker 1: I'll feel really bad for him. But if I sue
Speaker 1: the guy and I say, hey, I'm assuing that you
Speaker 1: for negligence, claim negligence for crashing into my friend Jonathan
Speaker 1: Keller's house, the judge would look at me and say,
Speaker 1: why are you here? Why are you suing? I said, well, Judge,
Speaker 1: I'm really upset for my friend. And he's said, well, no,
Speaker 1: you don't have a standing. So standing is basically the
Speaker 1: doctrine that shows you have some kind of nexus, some
Speaker 1: kind of connection to the claim that you're making. Usually
Speaker 1: to have standing, you need to show that you've suffered
Speaker 1: some kind of cognizable harm, economic harm, physical harm, et cetera.
Speaker 1: You've lost money, you've you've had your rights curtailed in
Speaker 1: some way, et cetera. With environmental claims that all you know,
Speaker 1: so and so is doing something that's harming the environment,
Speaker 1: that was always a little more dicey. Who exactly is
Speaker 1: allowed to sue on behalf of the birds in the
Speaker 1: trees and the fishies and so. California decided for that
Speaker 1: thorny problem to say anyone, basically anyone when California wrote SIQUEA,
Speaker 1: the California Environmental Quality Act, which is the basis for
Speaker 1: all these lawsuits that Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability
Speaker 1: has used to kind of more or less put a
Speaker 1: total moratorium on development in the city of Fresno. Basically
Speaker 1: with SEQUA, they said, anybody can sue under SEQUA to
Speaker 1: stop a construction project they don't like, anyone can sue
Speaker 1: under SEQUA to say that such and such as not
Speaker 1: living up to its environmental requirements. And SEQUA has been
Speaker 1: used to stop construction projects, development projects by all kinds
Speaker 1: of people who don't actually really give a damn about
Speaker 1: the environment. Competing real estate developers have stopped their competitors
Speaker 1: on the ground's law or you're not following environmental law.
Speaker 1: People who don't want multi unit housing near them because
Speaker 1: they think it's going to lower the value of their
Speaker 1: own homes than not in my backyard crowd have used
Speaker 1: it to stop the development of more housing, which we
Speaker 1: desperately need in California. Lots of different people have used
Speaker 1: SEQUA for reasons that it don't have anything to do
Speaker 1: with the environment. Why, because everyone has standing. The sequel
Speaker 1: was written to say pretty much anyone can bring a
Speaker 1: claim under sequel without having to show that you have
Speaker 1: suffered some you have or will suffer some kind of
Speaker 1: tangible direct harm, an economic harm, a personal harm, whatever.
Speaker 1: So that's a huge problem with all of this. You
Speaker 1: have these nonprofit groups that are able to pool enough
Speaker 1: money from donors, donors giving tax deductible money for a
Speaker 1: lawsuit that you know, lawsuits cost a lot of money,
Speaker 1: but they cost less if they're funded with a tax
Speaker 1: deductible donation. So they file this tax deductible lawsuit basically
Speaker 1: to accomplish the kind of public policy goals that these
Speaker 1: liberals like, that, these ultra rich liberals who at their
Speaker 1: cocktail parties want to talk about how wonderful they are
Speaker 1: for saving the environment. So that is a major problem
Speaker 1: in all of this, the ways in which California has
Speaker 1: so massively expanded standing. And it leads me to this.
Speaker 1: For all the talk, there's tons of talking California about nimbism,
Speaker 1: Nimbism is a problem. Local government's doing too much to
Speaker 1: stop multi unit dwelling housing from being built. Oh, that's
Speaker 1: so bad. The problem in California is not nimbiism. Is
Speaker 1: that a contributing factor maybe, But you know what happens
Speaker 1: in red states. Red states just don't have this kind
Speaker 1: of environmental red tape. They just let you build. They
Speaker 1: let you build, and builders want to build. And builders
Speaker 1: can build lower income housing and middle class housing and
Speaker 1: housing for rich people, and they can make money off
Speaker 1: all of it because it's not so crazy expensive to
Speaker 1: build because you don't have the layers and layers and
Speaker 1: layers of environmental regulation. They are just allowed to build.
Speaker 1: And so they build and they build, and they build
Speaker 1: and they build and they don't have a housing shortage.
Speaker 1: Why because they're just allowed to build and you don't
Speaker 1: have to worry about nimbiism or whatever because builders can build.
Speaker 1: So you have all these red states that just don't
Speaker 1: have the homeless problems that we have in California. They
Speaker 1: don't have the housing shortage problems that we have in California.
Speaker 1: Here we are in California's just scratching. Why why, Oh
Speaker 1: it's rich nimbi's who live in fancy communities in Beverly
Speaker 1: Hills not wanting lower income housing. That's not the reason why.
Speaker 1: The reason why is because builders don't want to build here.
Speaker 1: And it's completely understandable when some nonprofit jerks with blue
Speaker 1: hair can fly in from the outside and say, well,
Speaker 1: act selling your environmental impact study is not compliance. We
Speaker 1: have California at laws, and some stupid judge appointed by
Speaker 1: Jerry Brown will be like, oh, yes, thank God's true.
Speaker 1: That's why we don't have enough housing. It's not rocket science.
Speaker 1: Democrats all know it, and they refuse to reform SEQUA
Speaker 1: because their donors like it. When we return more problems
Speaker 1: that everyone understands and no one wants to fix. Next
Speaker 1: on the John Girardi Show. I get more and more
Speaker 1: depressed about California politics the more I think about it.
Speaker 1: And one of the various ways in which I get
Speaker 1: depressed about California politics is something I touched on at
Speaker 1: the very end of the last segment. You know, I'm
Speaker 1: talking about SEQUA, and I'm talking about how it is
Speaker 1: obviously the thing that makes building, especially building housing difficult,
Speaker 1: damn near impossible in California. There are layers and layers
Speaker 1: and layers and layers of environmental regulation that just make
Speaker 1: it more and more and more difficult, more and more
Speaker 1: and more expensive to build. It's not rocket science. If
Speaker 1: a real estate developer has a requirement every house has
Speaker 1: to start out with its own solar panel on the top,
Speaker 1: that was a requirement that we have. If every house
Speaker 1: has to be built with a solar panel on the
Speaker 1: top of it, well, that's an extra I don't know
Speaker 1: what it is. Let's say an extra fifteen thousand dollars costs.
Speaker 1: That's going to add fifteen thousand dollars to the cost
Speaker 1: of every new home. If every real estate developer has
Speaker 1: to factor in the possibility that their whole project could
Speaker 1: grind to a halt with one lawsuit from one green
Speaker 1: haired environmental millennial environmental lawyer from a nonprofit organization saying
Speaker 1: that you know your environmental impact report under SEQUA isn't sufficient.
Speaker 1: One lawsuit like that can grind your entire you know,
Speaker 1: forty million dollar housing project to a halt. Well, you
Speaker 1: factor that into the cost. You have to factor that in.
Speaker 1: That's a risk. It's either a risk you have to
Speaker 1: be willing to run, or you have to plan on
Speaker 1: the idea of it being held up for litigation. If
Speaker 1: a construction project like that is held up, that costs
Speaker 1: you money. We all know why it's hard to build
Speaker 1: in California. Everyone understands why. Everyone understands the problem. Democrats
Speaker 1: understand the problem. Republicans understand the problem. We can look
Speaker 1: at a red state and we can see they don't
Speaker 1: have SEQUA. Their builders can just build. And then their
Speaker 1: builders do build, and their housing prices are a lot lower,
Speaker 1: and they don't have as many homeless people. They just
Speaker 1: don't have the problems that we have. And yet the
Speaker 1: obvious solutions to this overturning SEQUA, you know, outlaw SEQUA,
Speaker 1: passing a law to say we're not gonna abide by
Speaker 1: sequa's requirements anymore. We're going to massively restrict who has
Speaker 1: standing to sue. We're gonna get rid of all these
Speaker 1: different onerous requirements for all the different kinds of environmental
Speaker 1: impacts soy or massively restrict the kinds of projects that
Speaker 1: are subject to it, or blah blah blah blahlah blah
Speaker 1: blah blah blah. If we just got rid of these things,
Speaker 1: these things that Red States don't have, then it would
Speaker 1: be massively more realistic for builders to build. But we
Speaker 1: don't do it. We don't do it because why well,
Speaker 1: big time liberal Democrat donors back these crazy environmental groups.
Speaker 1: They like them, and Democrats are just never going to
Speaker 1: cross those super wealthy donors. That's the thing. Environmental advocacy
Speaker 1: groups like the Sierra Clubs, et cetera. It's not that
Speaker 1: they are so powerful in and of themselves. Okay, they
Speaker 1: give money to politicians here and there. It's but you know,
Speaker 1: it's not like that much money. It's not that they
Speaker 1: are powerful in themselves. They are powerful because of the
Speaker 1: massive donors who are behind them. Democrats don't want to
Speaker 1: tick those people off. That's why they are powerful. It's
Speaker 1: the same thing with gas and energy energy prices. Everyone
Speaker 1: from Gavin Newsome on down, everyone understands why gas is
Speaker 1: expensive in California. No one is ignorant of why. We
Speaker 1: all understand why is gas more expensive in Califorifornia then
Speaker 1: in Hawaii, which which makes no sense whatsoever. Everyone understands why.
Speaker 1: It's because California insists upon its own unique blend of
Speaker 1: gas to meet its own unique emission standards. This creates
Speaker 1: basically a gas island for California. We are in isolated
Speaker 1: market for gas. Gas companies, if they want to sell
Speaker 1: in California have to set up separate refinery systems, refineries,
Speaker 1: et cetera. Just to sell to the California market. They
Speaker 1: have to set up this whole different system separate from
Speaker 1: the gas that they sell at the pomp in Texas
Speaker 1: and Oklahoma and you know, Oregon and all the rest
Speaker 1: of the New York York and North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota,
Speaker 1: all the rest of the country. So we are on
Speaker 1: this little gas island where we are dependent on our
Speaker 1: own refineries, on the gas company's goodwill to have specific
Speaker 1: refineries just for us and the gas companies they want
Speaker 1: the California market. So they go along, but we're not
Speaker 1: making it easy for them. We make it more and
Speaker 1: more onerous and difficult. That's why California gas is expensive.
Speaker 1: That plus fifty cents on every dollar is gasoline tax.
Speaker 1: We have some of the highest gas taxes in the country.
Speaker 1: So it's the combo of those two things. That's why
Speaker 1: gas is expensive here. It's not rocket science. Everyone knows it.
Speaker 1: Everyone understands the ways to fix it. Even if you look.
Speaker 1: If you say, look, our gas taxes help us pay
Speaker 1: for our roads. It's a source of revenue that's really
Speaker 1: important for paying for roads. Okay, fine, do you want
Speaker 1: to keep the gas taxes, that's great, but change the
Speaker 1: regulations around the kind of gas we can sell here.
Speaker 1: Just take the environmental hit. Look, the electrical car revolution
Speaker 1: is coming. We are having fewer Whether the Biden plan
Speaker 1: of fifty percent of all vehicles will be electric vehicles
Speaker 1: by twenty whatever or you know, some slower plant, we
Speaker 1: are eventually going to get there with electric vehicles. The
Speaker 1: market is going to do this. Okay, this is clearly
Speaker 1: the direction in the country is going in. Given that
Speaker 1: that's the case, maybe ease up on the requirement that
Speaker 1: gas has to meet the specific California mission standards. Get
Speaker 1: us out of this gas island we're in where the
Speaker 1: only gas we can use of the pump in California,
Speaker 1: we have this special, our special blend that's different from
Speaker 1: again Arizona, Nevada and Oregon and Washington and in Texas
Speaker 1: and New Mexico and all the other states. Let us
Speaker 1: just use the same gas all the rest of the
Speaker 1: country uses. It'll make it a lot cheaper. Overnight, It'll
Speaker 1: make it cheaper. Maybe not overnight. I'm guessing there's probably
Speaker 1: more complication than I don't realize, given that we have
Speaker 1: the existing refinery system. Blah blah blah blah blah. Nonetheless,
Speaker 1: that is the thing that makes gas more expensive. Everyone
Speaker 1: knows it, and yet Gavin Newsom can blithely go up
Speaker 1: call for a special session of the legislature just to
Speaker 1: screw things up more and yell that, oh, it's because
Speaker 1: of gas. Companies are price gouging us. That's why gas
Speaker 1: is expensive. Notice, how when when you know, all of
Speaker 1: a sudden, during a Democrat administration, there's widespread national inflation
Speaker 1: for all kinds of products and services. The only thing
Speaker 1: Democrats can say Oh, it's price gouging. It's super The
Speaker 1: reason your food is expensive is because evil grocery stores
Speaker 1: are price gouging you. Not like this is a reaction
Speaker 1: to economic realities. The value of the dollar is less.
Speaker 1: We have to charge more. All of our expenses have
Speaker 1: gone up. We have to charge more. It's incredible to me. How, Oh,
Speaker 1: it's always price gouging is always the move the Democrats
Speaker 1: go to. When you know, no one price gouges when
Speaker 1: a Republican is president. It's just the Republican has ruined
Speaker 1: the country, and blah blah blah blah blah. It's and
Speaker 1: it's amazing how gas companies weren't price gouging us before,
Speaker 1: but now they are that they've all of a sudden
Speaker 1: become more greedy. So Newsom passes with the with the
Speaker 1: gas companies telling him we will remove investment in California.
Speaker 1: If you do this, you will make gas more expensive
Speaker 1: by passing this legislation. Don't do this, you may make
Speaker 1: it difficult for us to invest here. Stop passing these laws.
Speaker 1: And Newsom says, no, we're going to pass this law anyway.
Speaker 1: So Newsom passes this law. Thing it's a problem that
Speaker 1: gas prices spike in the summer, you know, because demand
Speaker 1: goes up, and therefore what needs to happen is oil
Speaker 1: refineries need to keep a supply and artificially high supply
Speaker 1: of gas on hand at all times. Gas that they're
Speaker 1: just holding on to, that's not going to pumps, just
Speaker 1: holding on to for a rainy day. Well, as the
Speaker 1: gas companies say, to do that requires costs, So you're
Speaker 1: just going to add more costs on that. We you know,
Speaker 1: we have to maintain profit margins for investment, et cetera.
Speaker 1: So uh, we'll just that's just going to lead to
Speaker 1: higher costs all year round. But Newsom says, well, who cares?
Speaker 1: And that's the depressing thing. Everyone he knows why gas
Speaker 1: prices are high, and the party that has sixty percent
Speaker 1: of our votes and eighty percent of the legislature just
Speaker 1: lives in a la la land, pretending like they don't
Speaker 1: understand why, and refuses to do the policy things that
Speaker 1: would fix it. Everyone understands the problem. Everyone, everyone understands
Speaker 1: what the problem is. No one wants to fix it
Speaker 1: because they're afraid of the Democrat donor class that really
Speaker 1: likes those things. That's it. That's the beginning, middle, and
Speaker 1: end of it. And it makes me wonder why groups
Speaker 1: like Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, whatever, how do we I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm very glad we've got the Ballid Initiative Prop thirty
Speaker 1: six for beefing up criminal punishment and reforming you know,
Speaker 1: Prop forty seven. I mean, I think that's good. But
Speaker 1: I wonder where groups like Howard Jarvis taxpay Associated why
Speaker 1: not use the Ballad initiative process to try to ban,
Speaker 1: to try to abolish or massively reform sequa. Why not
Speaker 1: why not try to use the Ballid Initiative process to say,
Speaker 1: California's emission standards for gasoline are going to be the
Speaker 1: same as the rest of the country. We could fix
Speaker 1: these things. I think they would be popular, But no,
Speaker 1: we waste money on useless recalls of Gavin Newsom when
Speaker 1: we return. The real reason I'm hoping Kamala loses not
Speaker 1: just because she'd be a bad president, just because of
Speaker 1: the finger pointing next on the John Girardi Show. Granted,
Speaker 1: there are a lot of reasons to hope that Kamala
Speaker 1: Harris loses the election, and a lot of reasons to
Speaker 1: expect that she will in fact, lose it. The reason,
Speaker 1: one of the reasons though, that I really want her
Speaker 1: to lose is first to remember this reality that all
Speaker 1: these people hate each other. So in the four nodes
Speaker 1: of power, Obama, Biden, Hillary, Harris, Harris hates Biden for
Speaker 1: being dumb. Biden hates Harris for being dumb. Biden hates
Speaker 1: Obama for not wanting him to run in twenty sixteen.
Speaker 1: Obama hates Biden for being dumb. Obama hates Hillary, and
Speaker 1: Hillary hate Obama for twenty sixteen and never trusting each other.
Speaker 1: Does Hillary hate Biden? Not sure? Does Hillary hate Kamala?
Speaker 1: Not sure? Not sure either way, it's a bit of snakes.
Speaker 1: These people hate each other more. And the hatred levels
Speaker 1: of those people that I just described, it's more than
Speaker 1: you've ever hated anybody. Probably, Oh, they hate each other.
Speaker 1: And if Kamala loses, oh my gosh, the hatred and
Speaker 1: finger pointing from Biden can Obama. Because Obama was briefly like,
Speaker 1: I think there should be a contested primary, and then
Speaker 1: he gave up on that idea when it was clear
Speaker 1: Harris was getting it. The finger pointing and recriminations are
Speaker 1: just going to be a delight to watch pop some
Speaker 1: popcorn for that. That'll do it. John Girardi Show, See
Speaker 1: you next time on Power Talk