steve841
Active Member
Logical fallacy ... apparently, you have missed our government working toward controlling every aspect of our lives over the past several years....
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Logical fallacy ... apparently, you have missed our government working toward controlling every aspect of our lives over the past several years....
Forcing a landlord to be somewhat permitting of an EVSE install isn't what I would call controlling someone life. Not to mention they have near zero cost involved.
Considering they are imposing almost entirely on companies, not individuals, I would call this decent regulation of an industry.
That's just me.
Everything in this bill calls for reasonableness. If the going rate for a spot in the neighborhood is $100/mo, they cannot charge $250, let alone $10,000.
The way I see this, the law is to make sure that large landlords respond to reasonable requests, and don't have to incur any costs. I don't see this as a losing proposition for landlords at all, and again, I am very pro landlords rights, as the tenants are traditionally given extraordinary power in this state.
See, this is why I should read things before I comment on them. From the bill:
That's completely reasonable! I take back what I previously said.
- - - Updated - - -
<sarcasm>
This is how I know Tesla is a NSA Funded puppet corporation. The Government wants us all in fully electric cars that can track us and lock us inside! Sounds legit.
//Also, side note, the NSA is run by the lizard people. Who in turn are being manipulated with mind rays from the Illuminati. Which are sent from their underground base built by the Free Masons.
</sarcasm>
steve841
Active Member
I'm no legal scholar, but I seem to recall the Supreme Court deciding corporations were individuals.
While I'll never win the battle here with most folks skewed toward EVs, the Libertarian in me wins out saying it's not governments role to dictate anything along these lines to what is essentially private property. If a landlord decides it benefits his property fine. If they choose to live in the 90s, it's their right.
Since we're sticking to principles, how about this principle: you cannot do harm to others. Corollary: no toxic emissions are allowed from anything, anywhere.
Not quite. Just that corporations enjoy (some, mostly 1st amendment) rights given to individuals. They can't vote. They can't be jailed. They aren't individuals. They can't drink, or be forbidden from drinking. They can't run for federal office. They don't count towards electoral college votes (sorry Delaware).
Well allow the property owner to pick the electrician or approve of one of three choices submitted by the resident. Of course you run the risk of them trying to find the most expensive one to talk the resident out of doing the installation. What happens if a gas car catches fire in the parking deck? There are always risks. This bill is a good thing. Details to make it fair for all parties can be worked out.
artsci
Sponsor
steve841
Active Member
Give the government an inch, they take a mile. Offer a dollar, they tax ten.
Mandate allowing the installation of charging hookup could lead to mandated charging hookups for homes. Maybe then new building code requirements for all structures. Who knows?
Few here will think about the bigger picture because the blinders are on, but I simply take note of the blind willingness of people to give open ended support to corrupt, self serving power mongers in government if it furthers their cause. And that's right or left.
Feel free all to attack ... I can take it.
Go Libertarians!
But, as an individual I have the God given right to breathe the air and to charge my car. No one should be able to prevent me from installing an EVSE because they are afraid of electricity or any other reason. :tongue:
GSP
But, as an individual I have the God given right to breathe the air and to charge my car. No one should be able to prevent me from installing an EVSE because they are afraid of electricity or any other reason. :tongue:
GSP
Counterproductive comment. At best it's humor. At absolute best.
And it's already gone away from best and we're only on page 4.
You're not alone, Steve, FWIW.
I didn't read the bill, but I have questions. Who pays for the electricity to charge the car, landlord or tenant? What happens when the tenant leaves? Do they take the charging device with them or do they leave it behind for the landlord's use? Does this charging infrastructure become part of the building, where any other tenant can now use it or is it solely for the person who installed it?
IMHO it doesn't matter if the tenant has to do all the work, restore to previous conditions, etc. the government should not be interfering with personal property. If and when a landlord decides they want to add EV charging facilities should be up to the landlord, not the government.
artsci
Sponsor
And whether the leaseholds have water and sanitary facilities should be up to the landlord as well.
GlennAlanBerry
Member
I think it is telling that the most concerned commenters have admitted that they have not even read the bill in question, yet they seem pretty eager to jump to negative conclusions about it.
I am also pretty surprised that nobody has brought up UN Agenda 21. A law like this must be related to that, right?
http://www.theatlantic.com/national...ike-paths-to-achieve-world-domination/252572/
- - - Updated - - -
And whether their rental properties meet building codes or are properly maintained should also be up to the landlord, correct? If the renter does not like it, they should just move somewhere else.
I am also pretty surprised that nobody has brought up UN Agenda 21. A law like this must be related to that, right?
http://www.theatlantic.com/national...ike-paths-to-achieve-world-domination/252572/
- - - Updated - - -
And whether their rental properties meet building codes or are properly maintained should also be up to the landlord, correct? If the renter does not like it, they should just move somewhere else.
So there should be no building and safety codes and property owners should be allowed to build whatever they want without any restrictions at all?
Real life is composed of shades of grey, not simple black and white conclusions. Some level of government regulation is clearly necessary and reasonable. The level of regulation and the benefit to society as a whole, balanced with the rights of the individual, is what should be debated.
In this case the CA state legislature felt that the right of the individual tenant to be able charge their EV at their rental residence was sufficiently important that the landlord should allow it if the tenant paid for the installation of the charging infrastructure and it was done according to code in a reasonable manner and the tenant would be responsible for removing it when they vacated the premises of the landlord wanted them to remove it.
Seems reasonable to me. Of course reasonable people may disagree, but they should use a stronger, more nuanced argument than "the government should not be interfering with personal property" if they want to convince me.
Last edited:
The government is not interfering with personal property. It's setting rules for commercial property to promote the general welfare.
Cars are toxic.
People end up renting because land is privately held.
In order to resolve the first problem, electrification could be an excellent solution but it depends on the ability to charge ones car, and that depends on being able to charge at home. This law is simply a pragmatic measure to ensure that the need to rent doesn't get in the way of improving air quality.
Similar threads
