Remix.run Logo
Banned in California(bannedincalifornia.org)
206 points by pie_flavor 14 hours ago | 225 comments
Fischgericht 6 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

There is a reason these kind of things are no longer possible in much of the western world and especially Europe-like US states like California:

After the deindustrialization people started to enjoy healthy air and clear water.

As always when it comes to "the good old times" or "make great again", your brain will remember very selectively.

I used to live next to a large river for about 35 years. As a kid, it was forbidden to swim in it, and if you did, you had weird oily chemicals on your skin that felt unhealthy (burn, itching etc).

Back then we had huge production industries upstream, employing thousands of people.

Today you can swim in the river without any problem at all. But the industry and the jobs have shrunken a lot, because not polluting the air and water simply is expensive.

You can sum this up with: Producing stuff without polluting the environment in most cases is impossible. Reducing the pollution costs a lot of money, and can make your product non-competitive.

This is why you outsource to other countries and let them do it, because you simply do not care about them living in a polluted environment. Poison Outsourcing.

So, if the US wants production industry again, and want it to be competitive, than have a look on how the environment in the countries you will be competing with looks like, and then to an informed decision if you really want that.

I'd pick the clean air and water, and have people poisoned far away that I don't know and can ignore.

What would be your choice?

mparkms 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The creator of the website is the CEO of a battery-powered induction cooktop company. (https://x.com/sdamico)

He clearly has an agenda against what he perceives as onerous environmental regulations: https://x.com/sdamico/status/2026536815902208479 https://x.com/sdamico/status/2026552845294792994

brockers 2 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

ad hominem? Please explain what makes the regulatory burdens onerous instead of impossible.

sqnfxn 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is a non-argument, and it does not even in the slightest counter anything claimed on the site.

stevage 30 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

It isn't claiming to be an argument. It's context.

kgwxd an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

It proves it's pointlessness. CA doesn't want manufacturing like that in their state. Period. They're saying you are not welcome to destroy our environment, go to Texas, they love that shit. States Rights, right?

ineedaj0b an hour ago | parent [-]

You don’t have to destroy the state to produce these things.

With aligned talent you can make the process neutral. I’m assuming lots of ‘eco conscious’ engineers would love to implement better practices and get paid for it.

Noaidi 8 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

There is no such thing as zero externalities in manufacturing. Unless these ‘eco conscious’ engineers ship all the waste to China these chemicals as by products will continue to harm the environment. And guess what, you are part of the environment. You all just want excuses to keep playing with these toys.

I cannot to move to California once all the billionaires move to Texas and Florida.

SecretDreams 29 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> With aligned talent you can make the process neutral. I’m assuming lots of ‘eco conscious’ engineers would love to implement better practices and get paid for it.

I think to be eco neutral, you would be cost prohibitive. Which would be an issue in car manufacturing and phone manufacturing.

Also, the website lumps adjacent tech together and says they're all banned, but they are not. Lumping sheet metal stamping in with gigs casting is plain wrong, and you could make the argument that that's an agenda driven aspect of this website. They're casting a wider net than exists.

Point stands, though. California's policy is "go fuck up some other states environment". This policy might not work forever, but that's their stance.

seb1204 3 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

We live in a throwaway garbage generating society. Many things we use or consume should be costly and prohibitive. E.g. single use coffee cups.

Pointing out that such costs have been externalised for decades should be the starting point to internalise them.

rswail 9 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

> I think to be eco neutral, you would be cost prohibitive. Which would be an issue in car manufacturing and phone manufacturing.

Which just shows that other places are allowing those costs to be externalized to society in general which is classic "privatize profits, socialize costs" that businesses have relied on.

soco 40 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

"you can" is a very different thing from "you do". To do you need to want, to plan, and to execute. To can is just that, something in the clouds. So this is not contradicting the argument it's trying to contradict.

rbliss 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I've been following Sam for awhile, his business model makes heavy use of outsourcing production of components to skilled partners. It's no sweat off him if he makes the Impulse stove in California or not.

His point is that it's impossible to manufacture much of anything in California if you aren't grandfathered in. Seems pretty important for economic and security issues.

The electric induction cooktop he and his team has made is pretty cool! I'd check it out.

mjamil 12 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm not sure I agree.

Unless you believe there needs to be a plan for CA to secede in the future and thus it needs to be self-sufficient, why does manufacturing need to be in CA? As you stated, the Impulse stove makes heavy use of outsourced manufacturing to other parties; as long as those parties are within the US (which I'm not claiming they are, but there are states like TX that are far less concerned about environmental impact than CA is and thus could pick up any such slack), why is there a security concern here?

As for the economic concern, it seems like this is backwards: I'd argue it's the HCOL that drives industry with the need for low-wage labor away to non-CA locations. There's nothing stopping non-polluting corporations from working and hiring large numbers of people in CA.

scoofy 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It makes no sense to say "oh, we need to manufacturer this stuff... just not here." That's basically NIMBYism for electronics.

You either make it doable or you don't.

wongarsu 14 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

But is that really California's stance? Or is it more "if you do it here, do it the right way" and then everyone uses the more polluting production methods in a state that doesn't care

The outcome is the same as long as only California does it, but the ethics of it and the outcome if every state acted like that is vastly different

danlitt 39 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is too strong of a statement. There are perfectly sensible reasons to NIMBY certain activities. For instance, burning wood is probably ok in general, but a horrible idea in heavily populated cities.

Obviously, California is not composed exclusively of heavily populated cities. But it does contain a lot of them! So it is not completely insane that the regulation is skewed in favour of this.

Of course, for things that are equally polluting no matter where you do them (like burning fossil fuels), moving production outside of the location but still buying produced materials is simply passing the buck. But it's not totally clear to me that's what's happening here.

bonsai_spool an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> It makes no sense to say "oh, we need to manufacturer this stuff... just not here." That's basically NIMBYism for electronics.

This statement doesn't acknowledge why NIMBYism is odious. The reason is that we all need housing, but new housing may devalue current housing. While some may wish to protect their housing values/community feel/etc, others wish and may rightly deserve, access to housing at the same levels of access as earlier generations.

The analogy to manufacturing does no exist—to suggest it does ignores the real negative externalities to people who live next to polluting facilities, especially those where the pollutant was not recognized during use.

CalRobert 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Similarly saying “you can’t have slavery but you can buy stuff made by enslaved people abroad” is morally inconsistent. I don’t know the obvious answer to this though.

littlexsparkee 40 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

it's just specialization, in most cases it's not efficient to do locally

Hikikomori an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

So you're fine with having a fab in your backyard?

https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2024/08/28/18869003.php

BoredPositron 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Why? Manufacturing,design and engineering need highly different skill sets it's just not feasible to have both in one location because of the workforce required. It's the same in every other country some parts are industrial hubs and some design/engineering.

trinsic2 an hour ago | parent [-]

If this were really the case, you wouldn't need to ban the practice. You could just offer recommendations

BoredPositron 35 minutes ago | parent [-]

Despite the catchy url none of the examples from the site are bans...

mjamil 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

And, yes, it's a really neat stove... for wealthy people. At an installed cost of ~$8k (more if you're having to replace a standalone oven/cooktop since you need the stand for it), it's competing with lower-end Viking gas ranges that include an oven, and those have an extensive service network that Impulse doesn't (yet) have.

raddan an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I saw this being hyped on YouTube the other day. My main concern is that there is a large lithium ion battery in a machine that is designed to get things hot. You do not want thermal runaway to happen with a battery that large inside your kitchen.

Their website says

> We’re designing and manufacturing the stovetop, battery pack, and key internal components to comply with all relevant UL standards and other applicable compliance requirements.

but this device appears to be for sale, right now. Either it is designed for safety already or it isn’t. WHICH UL safety standards? Is there an emergency shutoff? A regular old fire extinguisher probably is not going to cut it.

aldonius 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I mean, that's pretty normal right. The product starts out as a bit niche and expensive, and then as it scales in manufactured volume, variants & competitors become available at lower price points.

dangus 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I am sure the 5th largest economy in the world is truly suffering under their draconian regulations. Everyone in California making the 5th highest median income in the country wishes they were working at a local oil refinery.

To your last point, I am somewhat doubtful that this website is being honest about automotive paint shops being banned in California. Am I to believe that the 3,000 auto body shops in Southern California sit on their hands all day? Was West Coast Customs just a fake TV show filmed in Texas?

https://www.autobodynews.com/news/new-paint-voc-regulations-...

If this website’s author is correct I’m supposed to believe that no paint gets applied to cars in Canada.

As another nitpick, let’s also not forget that nobody else is building oil refineries in the US. The newest one in the entire country was built in 1976. Oil demand in the US is relatively flat since decades ago; there isn’t a pressing need for new refineries.

I also think that readers in this thread should remember that California has strict air quality regulations because its geography especially in Southern California lends itself to bad air quality. These regulations are very much written in blood. Globally, almost 7 million people die prematurely every year due to air pollution.

vampirical 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

To me at least this appears to be a smoking gun for the creator not being able to function in good faith. Whether that's intentional or self delusion, who knows.

From the page itself, "A modern auto paint shop emits volatile organic compounds (VOCs) during primer, base coat, and clear coat application. The Bay Area AQMD makes permitting a new paint shop nearly impossible. This is THE classic example of what you can't do in CA." This point is trotted out and reframed multiple times on the page but it's literally self contradictory. It's not something you can't do in California, it's something you can't do without approval in the Bay Area Air District.

It's not a good place to be doing such an activity, as the area already can't successfully keep the air healthy enough to stay within federal limits due to environmental factors that trap particulate low to the ground. If you're at all familiar with the area you know concerns about air quality are not overblown and. Go further away from people or meet strict VOC regulations if you absolutely need to be doing that kind of work in the area, seems completely reasonable to me.

CamperBob2 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If this website’s author is correct I’m supposed to believe that no paint gets applied to cars in Canada.

Existing shops get grandfathered.

tietjens 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That’s good to know, but it’s still interesting information.

richwater 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> has an agenda

Everyone has an agenda. Is anything on this site false? Is it incorrect information?

burkaman 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Really difficult to say because it doesn't make many concrete claims. It doesn't mention any regulations or say what chemicals or processes are actually banned. These are not easy things to look up. I can tell you that at least the semiconductor fabrication stuff is false, there are many fabs in California and here's a new one as of a few days ago: https://www.mercurynews.com/2026/02/19/san-jose-tech-nokia-i....

I realize it isn't completed yet but I don't think anyone is buying sites for something that's impossible to build.

Here's another one: https://www.bosch-semiconductors.com/roseville/

creddit 12 hours ago | parent [-]

I can tell you that your two articles that intended to refute the semiconductor fabrication stuff fail to do so. Both sites were existing facilities and would therefore fall under the granfathered in point in the site.

burkaman 11 hours ago | parent [-]

That's true they are not new buildings. Here's one that is: https://www.appliedmaterials.com/us/en/semiconductor/epic-pl...

The Infinera one is described as a "new fab" though (https://www.nist.gov/chips/infinera-california-san-jose) and the Bosch one is adding a new type of fabrication to an existing site. If you can do all that without getting new permits then that makes California sound like a pretty lenient place to do business. I'm assuming they did have to get new permits though.

creddit 9 hours ago | parent [-]

> Here's one that is: https://www.appliedmaterials.com/us/en/semiconductor/epic-pl...

This might be a refutation but it's not super clear. It's definitely not a commercial semiconductor fab but it might do all of or some subset of what a commercial fab does at R&D scale. Hard to know for sure how this jives with the claim in the main website.

> If you can do all that without getting new permits then that makes California sound like a pretty lenient place to do business.

Being able to retool under original zoning/permitting is specifically lenient? That's extremely basic. If you're a co-Californian with me, though, it does help to understand that many people think that anyone doing anything without a permit is "lenient".

> I'm assuming they did have to get new permits though.

Well, that makes it really easy to be "right". I should try this more.

no-dr-onboard 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Maybe reworded as “He has skin in the game”

> so obviously his point can’t be true > so obviously he’s biased and we can’t do the mental work of sifting > so obviously I can dismiss this as teleologically false.

Please don’t be so lazy you guys. There is something to be gained here.

vampirical 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Why do you think there's something to be gained here? There are a lot of cheap and easy checks this content fails that it represents a well formed argument based on reality.

kortilla 34 minutes ago | parent [-]

Post these “checks” that failed. Don’t hide behind some bullshit about the author being motivated

autoexec 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> so obviously he’s biased and we can’t do the mental work of sifting

This guy, with an obvious bias, created a website that misrepresents the situation in California (by implying things are banned or "nearly impossible" when in actuality they just take time/effort), while also failing to show the specific regulations or requirements for any of it. Without supplying that kind of information this website is little better than "It's banned. trust me bro". It's not our responsibility to try to dig up evidence to support or verify this guys claims just because he can't be bothered to do it.

His motivations, his framing of the problem, and his failure to back up his own statements makes the site pretty damn easy to dismiss and I don't even doubt that there might be instances where bad regulation exists, especially regulation that protects the profits of established players in certain industries by keeping out competition. I'm entirely sympathetic to the idea that it might be happening, but if there is something to be gained you aren't going to find it on this guys website. Serious coverage on this topic would include actionable information we can use to identify and solve specific problems. This is just anti-regulation propaganda.

zdp7 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don't know. He didn't provide anything to backup his claims. Without data that site is worthless.

matthewmacleod 24 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It isn't even information – it's noise.

I'm actually quite surprised by the number of people who have fallen for this. There aren't even any concrete claims here – just the vague assertion that some things are "impossible".

SecretDreams 28 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yes. They lump in sheet metal stamping with giga casting. They are completely different techs with different energy footprints. Banning aluminum casting does not implicitly ban stamping.

thephyber 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Lies can be either by commission or omission.

teaearlgraycold 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I don't think it makes a good case for itself. No automotive paint shops sounds kind of ridiculous. I don't know anything about that industry but there has to be a way to paint cars in a safe way, right??

But lumping that in with semiconductor fabs, which are extremely toxic, makes me wonder how many of these banned industries I don't want in my state. I think if we want to build them in the US maybe don't build them in the most agriculturally productive and highest population state. Or first figure out how to do it without turning the US into China with its "cancer villages" from poisoned river water.

I'm not defending the dysfunctional CA bureaucracy, but the site should probably focus on specific cases of government-produced insanity than a general complaint that certain industries are banned from operation.

MikeTheGreat 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> No automotive paint shops

Wait, hold on - I watched all the seasons of "Rust To Riches" on Netflix, about a small shop that flips cars.

They routinely painted cars.

They'd paint in this sealed-up room/garage thingee, the guy would wear and industrial-grade mask, and the camera would slide past as he expertly painted the car. The 30 second montages looked awesome!

That show took place in Temecula, California. So there's no way that site is accurate.

And, more to the point, if they want to show that they are accurate they should be linking to the rules & regulations that actually prohibit these things instead of just making a claim & calling it a day.

chipsa 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It’s not claiming: you can’t have an automotive paint shop. It’s claiming you can’t start a new paint shop. Specifically, if you don’t have one for your car manufacturing line already, you can’t set one up. Wikipedia shows 13 pages for auto plants in CA. Most of them have the verb “was” in the opening sentence. There are two current plants: Tesla Fremont and Toyota California. Both of these plants are over 50 years old, and only one of them produces actual cars instead of parts.

inigyou an hour ago | parent [-]

It's claiming you can't get a permit to release VOCs into the air, but the GP comment describes a setup that apparently is designed to paint cars while preventing VOCs getting released into the air, so that you can still paint cars in California.

creddit 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The website is extremely clear about this being about _new_ automotive paint shops, so nothing you said here refutes the website.

cucumber3732842 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

They're likely falling under some "we aren't selling car painting as a service or main part of our business, we're painting our own cars as a small ancillary part of our real business" exemption.

mothballed 11 hours ago | parent [-]

Sounds like the "llantera" model you see out west. There's about 10x the number of them that would actually be needed just to change tires.

ashdksnndck 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I assume you use semiconductors yourself, since you are posting here. But you want their manufacture to be banned in your state.

So the right thing is to outsource the dirty jobs to countries that can’t afford to be picky?

Wouldn’t it be better for the world if we used our wealth to develop methods of safe semiconductor manufacturing with low environmental impact, and proudly built those facilities in California?

WD-42 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Well that's the whole problem isn't it?

It's not like the laws are simply "you can't make semiconductors here". The laws ban the harmful externalities of the process. The companies that want to make semiconductors don't want to find a way to make the processes less harmful: it's cheaper and easier to just go somewhere where they can pollute instead.

ashdksnndck 12 hours ago | parent [-]

In many cases, California’s environmental regulations don’t make an earnest attempt to permit safe ways to do things.

WD-42 12 hours ago | parent [-]

And in all cases, those industries make no earnest attempt to develop safe ways to do things instead of simply doing it where it doesn't matter.

CamperBob2 10 hours ago | parent [-]

[Citation needed]

_DeadFred_ 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

When an industry leaves this many superfund sites in an area, that industry can expect some regulatory blowback from that area.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Superfund_sites_in_Cal...

https://www.epa.gov/superfund/search-superfund-sites-where-y...

ixtli 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It actually makes me wanna move to CA.

chrismcb 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

California, by density, is that highly populated. I didn't really like the idea is "hey we need to build something that uses a toxic process, by just don't build it here. Build it somewhere else." Unless that somewhere else is in outer space.

amluto 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I would imagine a paint booth with negative pressure and particle and carbon filters on the exhaust would work fine.

I go by a paint shop every now and then. It’s not nearly as smelly as a quite of a few of the nearby restaurants.

bsder 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> I don't know anything about that industry but there has to be a way to paint cars in a safe way, right??

There are. They just cost more and take more time.

> But lumping that in with semiconductor fabs, which are extremely toxic

People say this all the time, but semiconductor fabs simply aren't very toxic compared to just about every other industrial manufacturing process. Mostly this is because everything is sealed and sealed and sealed some more.

Yes, they handle stuff like arsenic gas (arsine AsH3), but they really try to reclaim it all. The semiconductor waste stream is often purer than most industrial inputs. Yeah, old plants would just dump crap into the environment. However, for modern semiconductor facilities, it is generally more economic to reprocess your waste than try to purify from primary sources.

Now, PCB manufacturing, on the other hand, is quite terrible or at least it used to be. I don't know if people have sealed and automated that yet.

encoderer 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I’m happy this is coming from a real person with skin in the game and not just a veiled PAC with murky intentions.

daedrdev 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Listen y’all, it’s not just that we aren't letting companies spew chemicals into the air. The permitting and regulatory process is so extremely hostile that even when you want to and are able to do so safely and without emissions, it’s impossible.

Instead you have to ship things from out of state and other countries, which generates emissions and pollution itself that might actually be more than local production.

Its the same issue as housing. Endless rules and regulations, many of which make no attempt at doing anything but block, cause the wealth of socirty to be siphoned away. An apartment project in LA with permits complete is worth twice as much as one without. How do we see this and expect our economy to do anything except drown in bureaucracy?

My advice is dont ever manufacturing anything in CA. They will try and kill your business for simply existing no matter how perfect you are.

culi 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Here's a map of superfund sites in the US. https://hub.arcgis.com/datasets/EPA::superfund-national-prio...

Using this I see that within 10 miles of me are

- a microprocessor testing facility that contaminated soil and groundwater with 1,1,1-trichloroethane, trichloroethylene, Freon 113, 1,1-dichloroethane, and tetrachloroethane which affects 300k nearby residents

- a semiconductor manufacturer that led to "trichloroethylene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, trichlorofluoroethane, and 1,1-dichloroethylene, in soils on the site and in ground water on and off the site."

- a 5-acre drum recycling plant that contaminated wells within 3 miles with trichloroethane, trichloroethylene, 1,1-dichloroethylene, and tetrachloroethylene. Affecting the drinking water of 250k residents.

- about 10-15 other sites I'm not gonna cover in detail but the contaminants include asbestos-laden dust, PCBs, dichlorobenzene, trichloroethylene, trichloroethane, chloroform, vinyl chloride, xylene, and many many more

less_less 10 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Yeah. It's especially relevant for the author's focus on shipbuilding. The old shipyard at Hunter's Point in San Francisco is horribly polluted, and they've been working to decontaminate it for more than three decades in order to reclaim the land for other uses (in particular, housing). Treasure Island and Yerba Buena Island also have a lot of pollution from the former naval base there. There is a cost to overregulation, and there is a cost to underregulation.

And OK, sure, there's a lot of industry that ought to happen somewhere. Someone has to build ships and electronics and whatever, and if California's code is too strict then it just becomes NIMBYism. But if some company moves their gigafactory to Reno for easier permitting, I don't whether (or more likely by how much) CA is too strict, or NV is too lax. And I know that CA has NIMBYish and overregulatory tendencies, but given the clear bullshit on this website, I'm not inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt either.

I'm especially doubtful when it says "THE classic example of what you can't do in CA" is auto paint shops ("Impossible"!) ... but then the detail it gives is that they're "effectively impossible" to permit in the Bay Area AQMD, that being only one of the state's 35 AQMDs (albeit one of the larger ones).

the-grump 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That's the first thing that came to mind when I saw this website. The Bay Area is famous for its numerous superfund sites (among many other things, thankfully).

kortilla 24 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Non sequitur. Superfund sites come from poor industrial process byproduct controls. They can still happen from highly regulated industries that are approved.

Posting a list of them as a justification for red tape that blocks industries does not make sense.

standardUser 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> The permitting and regulatory process is so extremely hostile that even when you want to and are able to do so safely and without emissions, it’s impossible.

This didn't occur in a vacuum. Business interests and their aligned politicians fought successfully for a century for their freedom to destroy human health and life in pursuit of profit. Many died, many were injured and countless more had their lifespans cut short. There's obviously legitimate concerns about over-regulation, but concerns about corporate abuse of power are just as legitimate if not more so based on the history. And it's not unopposed either, but most of the backlash in California has centered on housing construction and occupational licensing - not the rights of investors to build new industrial facilities in a post-industrial state.

burkaman 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The Grandfatherd-in section is incredibly misleading. Look at the Semiconductor Fabrication section, for example. The implication is that these are the only fabs in the state, they wouldn't be able to get new permits today, and the red dots indicate that it would be "effectively impossible" to open any other ones. In fact (according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_semiconductor_fabricat...) there are at least 18 fabs in California, and these are just two random examples of particularly old ones. Obviously they couldn't reopen under the same permits they got in the 60s, why would anyone expect that to be the case?

no-dr-onboard 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

A lot of these are actually grandfathered in. Vulcanization, electrolysis, auto painting, etc. I think the emphasis is that CA has effectively made it difficult to get regulatory authorities to agree to issue new permits. That was the part that stood out to me.

ch4s3 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> why would anyone expect that to be the case?

Why would you expect it to be impossible?

burkaman 13 hours ago | parent [-]

I wouldn't expect it to be impossible, and it isn't, but I would expect the permits to be different than they were 60 years ago. You can still build a house today, but that doesn't mean you can build one using the same permits you received in 1965. This is true for everything.

mothballed 13 hours ago | parent [-]

Of course. And the goal in part is to enrich prior entrants and also to create massive unearned gains for them by printing a license for something no one else can have. This explains a lot of the housing prices writ large -- boomers and others who own houses that are grandfathered in via various regulations that let them build for cheap but not you, and making a new one has to be done at much higher regulations, basically printing money for those grandfathered in without them having to do anything but add regulations that apply to everyone else but them.

mint5 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Oh I didn’t realize pineapple farms were banned in California and Alaska.

I thought they hadn’t been built for other reasons over the last decade. But according to this, not being built means banned. TIL!

Started reading this site but the massive gaps in logic and reasoning are like nails on a chalkboard.

No new fabs being built in CA means fabs are banned?!

Okay well fabs are banned in pretty much the whole country then, so why call out California?

Just because something isn’t done doesn’t mean it’s banned. Neither is it necessarily bad. There’s a lot of reasons why not to build certain things certain areas - labor cost, earthquake risk, land is more desired leading to higher cost, blah blah blah

That doesn’t mean something is banned. Maybe we should look at making some things easier but this website is just a hit piece and has a clear motivation rather than being a trustworthy evaluation.

It’s like those cringy billboards on highway 5 about Gavin newsom and water.

Edit —— Complaining that large factories can’t easily be built in dense population centers like the Bay Area means things are banned is weird - who in the right mind thinks a sprawling factory with emissions should go smack dab in the middle of population centers? Why can’t we build a new nuclear plant in Manhattan or maybe an oil refinery on wall street!? Waah waah so outrageous! None were built in the last decade so it’s the outrageous regulations fault! I want my lead battery smelter in downtown Portland but Oregon banned it! Waah waah!

Aside that, this site is mostly blaming California regulations for the nationwide manufacturing issues driven heavily by free trade

ineedaj0b an hour ago | parent | next [-]

California is mismanaged and you don’t need to vote Red to fix it. We can do better as Blue State. Wake up. We’re losing to ourselves like an obese patient anemic to a diet.

kortilla 20 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Your comment was better without that edit.

It’s an appeal to absurdity that falls flat because nuclear plants and oil refineries have been built near population centers in the US (including in California) without problem.

California had had more issues from under investment in industry (see it’s ancient electrical infra that lit the state on fire) than from collocation of industry and people.

Both of the largest ports are right in SoCal and that’s going pretty well. Building another one would never make it past the permitting stage in today’s California.

blintz 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They are playing a bit fast and loose with the word "banned".

> Your smartphone contains materials processed through semiconductor fabrication, chemical etching, metal anodizing, glass tempering, and electroplating — none of which you could start a new facility for in California without years of litigation.

I agree that we should make it easier to do things, specifically by decreasing the amount of litigation involved in doing stuff. But the risk of a bunch of litigation isn't a ban, right? I get that it's trying to be attention-grabbing, but calling it a ban when it's not just sort of confuses the issue.

Tyr42 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Being unable to start a project without doing 5 years of legal wrangling once you put shovel to earth may not be a "ban", but it sure doesn't encourage development.

jbellis 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

He's talking about taking the government to court to force it to follow the law, not "maybe we'll get sued later."

protimewaster 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> But the risk of a bunch of litigation isn't a ban, right?

Funny enough, I've known some people over the years who have explicitly viewed litigation as a reasonable alternative to regulation. Their logic was that we should just let people and companies do whatever they want. Then, if it turns out a company is dumping mercury in the river or whatever, you litigate based on the damages. Better than regulation, they assured me.

computerdork 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Agreed, words matter. There are a lot of smart people out there, and the writer of this site makes me skeptical when he/she exaggerates, omits or spins info. Tell us all the facts at least, so we can trust you.

mothballed 13 hours ago | parent [-]

I actually find it exceedingly boring if someone doesn't push the envelope with facts a little bit. Defending something colored well within the lines is just sleep inducing. Make a statement that is just barely defensible, and now we are talking, and it gets interesting.

inigyou an hour ago | parent [-]

It's not a good way to get to the truth. If your aim is to spread truth then you should be able to back up everything you say.

beachtaxidriver 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

As a resident who likes to breathe clean air and drink clean water, none of that seems all that bad.

I guess there should be an ability to do this farther from the population centers though.

crawshaw 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

But you also want smart phones, electric cars, and a navy. There needs to be a path towards doing things other than foisting them on people who are out of sight.

WD-42 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Texans seem more than happy to host these industries. Let them, they have no public land left to protect anyway. The environment is arguably California’s most valuable asset. May as well preserve it so people continue to want to actually live here.

autoexec 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Texans often try to regulate these industries at the local level. The state government has tried to put a stop to most of that by passing the Texas Regulatory Consistency Act which took away the ability of local communities to protect themselves. The state has ruled that Texans will be exploited by industry in order to protect profits and the citizens aren't allowed to vote to save themselves.

charlie90 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Who votes for the state government?

ZeroGravitas an hour ago | parent [-]

Some guy called Gerry Mander aparrently.

https://lwvtexas.org/content.aspx?page_id=5&club_id=979482&i...

encoderer 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This is a self fulfilling profecy.

For a long time, it was jobs and the promise of a better future for your family. By killing that all we have is weather.

WD-42 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

All we have is the weather? California is the largest agricultural producer of any state, and it's not even close. Plants like growing here for the same reason people do.

CamperBob2 10 hours ago | parent [-]

Because they get all the water that can possibly be piped in from somewhere else.

inigyou an hour ago | parent [-]

Good? If it's the best place for producing a product, but requires an input from somewhere else, that's how businesses work.

mh- 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

And if the last several years are indicative of the trend, wildfire season is now a substantial part of the year.

thephyber 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You act as though California is no longer one of the largest populations or one of the largest economies.

The “snowball fallacy” is a fallacy because there is no reason California s can’t swing the regulatory pendulum back the other direction if there is too much economy / freedom impacted.

jjmarr 13 hours ago | parent [-]

When I took a machining course, the instructor sat in the corner and showed us YouTube videos in Mandarin with English subtitles to teach us the equipment.

We are never going to catch up.

themaninthedark 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

What a myopic attitude.

3 to 4 decades ago anything from China was poor quality and US manufacturing was tight tolerance.

When we outsourced, we did the training to get them where they are today and stopped investing in our skills at home.

There are still skilled people here who can train and the knowledge is not some sort of eldritch incantation.

The main issues with learning is lack of jobs and lack of opportunity to apply skills if you have them.

jjmarr 9 hours ago | parent [-]

I had to pay an instructor to show me YouTube videos because the college wouldn't admit to being unable to find domestic talent.

> There are still skilled people here who can train

If you don't acknowledge you're losing the race, you will never catch up.

ozlikethewizard 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Most of the comp sci videos on youtube are indian, but is India the cutting edge producing of comp sci innovations?

culi 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Most of the complaints from this website aren't about things being outright banned. It's mostly stuff where the regulation is so strict that's it's "nearly impossible". But the regulation seems fair to me wrt what's actually required to keep TCE, asbestos, Freon, chloroform, etc out of our soil and water.

Companies that are complaining are complaining that they can't treat the environment as an economic externality anymore in California. Therefore the price of all of these goods are being subsidized with our health and our ecosystems' health.

I hope more of the world follows California's lead and we eventually have a price of these goods that represents what it actually takes to manufacture them in a fair way

thephyber 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Maps of California are dotted with SuperFund sites where these companies left the taxpayers with the bill to clean up their toxic messes. We don’t “foist” these externalities on other people; they choose to hold lower value on a clean environment than regions which regulate pollutants and other negative externalities.

paxys 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Plenty of states and countries are okay with having this stuff in their backyard. Most of them encourage it. Let them build it.

georgemcbay 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> But you also want smart phones, electric cars, and a navy.

I would like far less of all of these to exist than we currently produce (I use a 5 year old phone, an 11 year old car, and think the US Navy could function just fine with a lot less budget and warships).

bilbo0s 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

But you also want smart phones, electric cars, and a navy

This is kind of disingenuous.

I mean, not everything used in California, needs to be manufactured in California. Why not manufacture it in New Mexico? Or Arkansas for that matter?

What you're implying, is that Wisconsin, Nebraska, Maine, Florida, etc, etc, etc, should all build out the manufacturing base to manufacture things that are used in those states. That's not really how a healthy economy should work.

I guess what I'm pointing out is that, we don't need to manufacture smartphones in South Dakota. It's perfectly acceptable to manufacture them in, say, New Jersey, and then ship them to South Dakota. Similarly, we don't need to manufacture everything in California.

nailer 13 hours ago | parent [-]

> I mean, not everything used in California, needs to be manufactured in California.

Not the parent but nobody is implying that. Just that most Californians consume or want these things and thus expect other states to build them.

bilbo0s 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Which is no different than any other state.

Ifkaluva 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What if, hear me out, what if we did these things… in space?!

bruce343434 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Assemble a navy in space then just airdrop it through the atmosphere?

nailer 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

To be fair there is quite a bit of space there.

dlev_pika 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That’s ok, Texans don’t mind having to drink bottled water

ixtli 13 hours ago | parent [-]

I lived in Mexico for a while and while I really enjoyed it it’s horrible that you have to fear the tap water. It’s not humane

hunterpayne 13 hours ago | parent [-]

I agree but I fail to see how bad water infrastructure that allows poop to get into the water supply in Mexico has anything to do with this topic. Nobody is arguing that you should be able to spew cancer causing chemicals into the air. It is possible to do all these industrial processes responsibly. It just costs more to do it. So either you can allow businesses to do these things with reasonable amounts of regulation locally or you can prevent those businesses (what CA does) and import these products made somewhere where they won't follow your regulations. And since pollution notoriously doesn't honor borders, perhaps its best not to use simplistic scarecrow arguments and instead have a nuanced understanding of the topic. But don't let me stop your partisan hackery, I'm sure you enjoy it.

inigyou an hour ago | parent [-]

> Nobody is arguing that you should be able to spew cancer causing chemicals into the air.

TFA appears to be arguing just that. It lists a prohibition on spewing cancer-causing chemicals into the air, as a ban which needs to be lifted.

parhamn 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm not from California but this to me seems like a great case to move to California. Why not ship your externality creating activities elsewhere? Its not like they pay more for the iPhone.

jameson 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Consider housing price and state tax as well

georgeecollins 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

And don't forget the strict laws that prevent people from leaving and require them to complain instead.

kg an hour ago | parent [-]

As someone who moved out of California a few years ago I assure you that it is exceedingly easy to move to a different state, assuming you have the money to move at all.

Take8435 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Sure. A state where housing is dirt cheap and no taxes is great, but if something happens to you, good luck finding a hospital or municipal services. Job prospects are also something to consider.

Just because houses cost more and there's a state tax, doesn't mean it's _bad_.

reliabilityguy 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Why not ship your externality creating activities elsewhere?

Like where?

runjake 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Like the places where people welcome deregulation and jobs?

Not trying to sound like a jerk but there’s plenty of places in the US where people welcome stuff like coal mines and polluting factories.

If the factories have to be somewhere and they consent, then why not there?

culi 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

corporations taking hold of small local governments and passing laws that benefit them, unbeknownst to the locals living there, is hardly "consent"

tolerance 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Can’t help but feel like you’re overestimating the competency of the average voter in these effected areas; a breath after yours—though not necessarily your own—may condemn these people for being undereducated, out of touch with culture or subject to corporate grifters.

anon-3988 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There's this country called China that you guys been offshoring manufacturing to...

reliabilityguy 13 hours ago | parent [-]

Unless you are from China, your jurisdiction offshores to China as well.

tokenless 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Well the attitude that puts a full stop (well a question mark) after "NIMBY" says implicity "where the poors live".

reliabilityguy 13 hours ago | parent [-]

Well, I find it a bit hypocritical: if those things are so bad, why to forbid manufacturing and not consumption? Otherwise you just pollute a place where people that have no say live.

daedrdev 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Some of these items actually net improve clean air and clean water, but you’re instead happy to export those pollutants to another country to feel better yourself

thousand_nights 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

the plurality of this website are californians so this whole discourse is about as predictable as can be

warkdarrior 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Export the externalities baby!

overfeed 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> I guess there should be an ability to do this farther from the population centers though.

Maybe Texas is far enough? The [l]one-star state has laissez-faire regulations, and may be more to author's speed.

autoexec 12 hours ago | parent [-]

It's always hilarious when a bunch of people in Texas who hate government and government regulations get screwed so hard by the corporations that move in that they start incorporating to form governments so that they can pass government regulation to stop those corporations. See for example Webberville or the efforts to create Mitchell Bend in Hood County. Some people have to learn the hard way. Some never do.

Texas got so sick of Texans trying to protect themselves by creating regulations that they created the Texas Regulatory Consistency Act. It took away the ability of local communities to protect themselves and instead protected the profits of some the state's biggest industry buddies.

thousand_nights 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

lol. yeah there is but instead of "farther from the population centers" it is "farther from YOUR population centers"

dotancohen 13 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes, exactly. That's fine - live and let live.

If somebody else values their health less - let them have pollution in their own back yard. If enough communities worldwide care about their health, then polluters will have to clean up their processes. But it's not for the residents of California to decide what happens in other jurisdictions.

jjmarr 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The reason those countries take the "burden" on is because the USA became a global superpower by developing more industrial capacity than literally every other country in the decades prior to the World Wars.

They want to duplicate this success and displace the West, similar to how the USA displaced Europe during and after World War 2.

iamnothere 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Do you not think it’s possible that there are many places where people do care about their health, but they are forced to allow pollution because the alternative is grinding poverty and eventual starvation?

Do you think the ship breakers in Bangladesh do it for fun?

This outsourcing of misery is the absolute worst feature of Western neoliberalism. You get a two for one, dumping misery on other countries because it’s cheaper, while outsourcing strategic concerns because they are “too dirty.” It’s NIMBYism taken to its logical conclusion.

dotancohen 13 hours ago | parent [-]

  > they are forced to allow pollution because the alternative is grinding poverty and eventual starvation
If these people decide that pollution is preferable to starvation, why shouldn't we let them make that decision? Why should we force them into starvation?
iamnothere 12 hours ago | parent [-]

The answer is to spread out all forms of production globally, so nations don’t lose their smaller local industries that may be less efficient than foreign alternatives. Foreign trade should fill gaps in local production, not kill local industry.

The mechanisms by which this can be accomplished are antitrust and careful application of trade barriers. The obsession with “free trade” has done damage to countries all across the world in order to benefit a small class connected to multinational industry. The short lived benefits came at a huge cost and countries are only just now seeing this.

Free trade/open borders libertarians have lost influence to nationalists because the former position is antithetical to maintaining a functional society. It’s possible to build “libertarianism in one country,” and the sooner that people wake up to that, the better. The alternative is some form of left or right despotism.

yellow_lead an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> A modern auto paint shop emits volatile organic compounds (VOCs) during primer, base coat, and clear coat application. The Bay Area AQMD makes permitting a new paint shop nearly impossible. This is THE classic example of what you can't do in CA.

Banned in California.. wait, I meant the Bay Area.

yardie 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Interesting website.

"Semiconductor Fabrication (7nm/5nm)

The main processor requires ultra-clean rooms, toxic gases (arsine, phosphine), and chemical etching. No new fabs have been built in CA in over a decade. Intel, TSMC, and Samsung all build elsewhere."

Phosphine is pretty nasty stuff. California was full of EPA Superfund sites when the government got stuck with cleaning up all the toxic waste. Politicians and voters went, "Eff that!" after manufacturers left the state, but left their barrels of shit behind.

becurious 13 hours ago | parent [-]

And there’s still mercury contamination from the gold rush in San Jose.

a3w 20 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I claim BS: labs can operate with these and more dangerous chemicals.

Top of the list is "sulfuric acid baths". The correct disposal of sulfuric acid is "dilute with water", or if about metal dissolved in it, yeah treat as waste to be cleaned up or compacted and stored into eternity at a cost. So even after skimming, this seems agenda driven, not a fact sheet.

This seems like a "we cannot do it cost efficiently, so we claim it is impossible since China underbids us"

edgarvaldes 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Let's be honest: People have no problem polluting elsewhere as long as they can consume the final product without suffering the consequences. TFA isn't important to the people of California.

kylecazar 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's interesting, but is there some conflation of regional restrictions with the state of California?

Example: cites automotive paint shop restrictions as the quintessential example of what you can't do in CA, and qualifies it with a specific Bay Area regulation.

wiskinator 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The site would be better if it linked to the actual regulation that prohibits each type of business instead of just making the claim “0 new factories of this type have been built”.

wewtyflakes 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

So no new car paint shops or oil refineries? I'm okay with that.

DannyBee an hour ago | parent | next [-]

They are wrong about paint shops.or at least the reason.

They are all using voc compliant paints these days, even outside California.

I have no idea how hard permitting is mind you, but the claimed thing here is that they can't be voc compliant and that's just totally wrong.

arjie 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Oil refineries in particular are interesting because the sources for the blend of gasoline California requires[0] are either in CA itself or are few and far away. This means that gasoline prices are susceptible to greater supply shocks and so on. Many US regulations follow from California exercising its large market to induce companies to change their policies (electronic one-click cancel, CCPA, No Surprises in healthcare billing) but this one hasn't quite had the same effect.

One can hope that most Californians switch to BEVs from ICE vehicles before this becomes more of a constraint.

Gasoline usage externalities are poorly priced-in so the resulting increase in cost of gasoline here is probably overall a good thing. If we had appropriate carbon/sulphur/etc pricing on the outputs, I think it would be less justifiable since then the externalities would be priced in.

0: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=65184

ryanobjc 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Paint VOCs sounds fine, until it's done at industrial scale, and it's also your neighbor, and also all the children in the neighborhood have asthma, and also healthcare is a lot more expensive...

This list isn't things you "cant do in california" but "polluting things you can't do in highly populated cities".

I'm not sure what the conclusion here is other than health is not important.

Gigachad 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Most of this stuff could be done in compliance with the laws but it’s just cheaper to do it somewhere else where you allowed to vent poison in the air rather than having to filter it out.

DannyBee an hour ago | parent [-]

This place you speak of doesn't exist.

First, manufacturers don't really make non voc compliant auto paints. The market is too small. They may make 550 and 275 variants but most don't.

Second, even like Texas has voc regulations on paints and also requires filtering and enclosed spray booths and gun cleaners and ....

And like I said, nobody is selling non compliant coatings because the market is zero.

bmelton 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Are they only banned in the cities, or are they banned in the state, which -- even in California, should have rural areas far enough away from cities to be tenable?

It's an interesting conundrum though, because in many cases, the cities could not exist without the things that are being banned in the cities. It's a curious goal of populations to centralize, then ostracize all the things that enabled that centralization

WD-42 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Everywhere in California that isn't a giant population center is growing food for the rest of the country, or is a mountain where these things can't be built anyway.

cucumber3732842 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

They're probably "not banned" only in the "basically lying" sense that they per rule won't approve you in certain cities and if you do happen to be rural the process is hostile and expensive enough that it's not worth it for the value such a facility would generate. That's how that sort of stuff is in my state.

ryanobjc 13 hours ago | parent [-]

That's the thing, often when people say stuff like "its banned" what they really mean is:

- the cost of mitigating the human health risk is too high - competitors in low-environmental regulation places don't pay for those costs - ongoing verification is expensive

I mean, let's face it, "self-regulation" of industries isn't really working that great. And for things that are health hazards that are basically borne by someone else, why should a local government make it easy to cheat and lie about this stuff?

The people arguing against this seem to assume that their right to have a business, make a profit, whatever, is a self-evident Good Thing, and rarely provide any additional arguments beyond "but the jobs". If they were at the VERY LEAST saying "we can make X safe" then maybe it'd be interesting. But as it is, the argument is basically asking us to mortgage the health and safety.

cucumber3732842 2 hours ago | parent [-]

You know what the V in VOC stands for right?

Hint: It doesn't stand for "there forever"

Nobody here wants to just let big business do whatever and turn the rivers weird colors again or go back to smog but it's very clear that the current regulatory system is not suitable and is hurting us.

It boggles the mind that someone could honestly (by which I mean dishonestly and malice are far simpler explanations) step into this conversation and be like "no, this is all fine and well, god forbid someone start spraying cars in a shop in the desert without jumping through all most of the same expensive hoops that make it not worth it down town (and would make it doubly not worth it out in the desert).

And it's not just autobody work. There's all manner of necessary economic activity that's being kept out or made artificially expensive in this manner.

inigyou 44 minutes ago | parent [-]

The V in VOC stands for "evaporates at room temperature" which means that if you use it, people breathe it in.

akoboldfrying 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Are you okay with not using products that have an oil refinery in their supply chain?

wewtyflakes 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I do not care to try to make things ethically fair for oil refineries. Call me a hypocrite, I do not care, as these companies similarly do not care. "Ya got me!", yup, moving on, I am still glad oil refineries are effectively banned.

akoboldfrying 10 hours ago | parent [-]

My point wasn't about fairness towards oil refinery companies, it was that supporting a ban on refineries in your local area while still benefiting from the downstream outputs of oil refineries is hypocritical nimbyism.

If oil refineries are bad in California, they're bad everywhere, and if they're bad everywhere, we ought to stop using them altogether, which will make for some unwelcome lifestyle changes.

inigyou 43 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Would it be hypocritical nimbyism if I wanted to use semiconductors containing arsenic, but didn't want my living room to be an arsenic warehouse? Or how far away does the arsenic warehouse have to be before it starts being hypocritical nimbyism for me to not like it there?

wewtyflakes 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I'm fine if other states want to ban them too. I'm also fine if ultimately running oil refineries is uneconomical. I do not care if this is nimbyism; other communities are free to set their own rules.

akoboldfrying 4 hours ago | parent [-]

So you're okay with no refineries after all.

So, no combustion-based private or public transportation, no detergents, no aspirin, paracetamol or ibuprofen.

It would still be possible to drive an EV, though. You could keep it lubricated with whale oil.

testbjjl 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I think if we consolidate those operations the better, and then we can improve an regulate legislative or as a market more easily than if everyone is spread all over.

cucumber3732842 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If we consolidate them you wind up with the same situation we have for everything already. The big megacorps who's paid for experts and lawyers (and ability to donate to politics) to tell you why the river glowing is safe get to do what they want and the upstart who may challenge that bigCo to do better never gets off the ground. But I guess if the goal is simply to declare everything "fixed" because the government has agreed it's compliant then consolidation is fine.

trklausss 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yeah I agree. Since Russia is mostly empty and they have a lot of oil, let's put all refineries there! (/s)

This is to show that there is more geopolitically than meets the eye.

jey 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I wonder if there's a law+econ analysis of comparing the current framework (regulations and upfront permitting) vs having the regulations but then enforcement via combination of randomized gov't inspections and private lawsuits. The motivation would be to allow things to move faster while also requiring the same degree of compliance, but without the massive red tape upfront with administrators having no real incentive to approve projects or move fast. One obvious downside is that it effectively creates an economic incentive to try and skirt the law and/or find loopholes, but that arguably exists to the same degree in the existing system.

ortusdux 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They lost me at "vacuum deposition - impossible" without justification. As far as processes go it's one of the safest (everything happens in a sealed vacuum chamber). Maybe the solvents used to clean prior to coating?

Gracana 32 minutes ago | parent [-]

Yeah, it’s the solvents used for cleaning the chambers and parts. Very nasty stuff, and it’s probably the biggest concern for this type of facility anywhere, not just in California.

culi 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Now compared that to this map of superfund sites and the pollutants they've left in our soils and groundwater. Statistically speaking, an average American lives within 10 miles of one of these sites

all sites: https://hub.arcgis.com/datasets/EPA::epa-facility-registry-s...

npl sites: https://epa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=...

Also funnily enough, the first place I checked from this site's list of facilities that have been grandfathered in led to this finding

> Lehigh Hanson's Permanente cement plant in Cupertino, CA, is permanently closing following thousands of environmental violations and over 80 years of operation. The plant was a major source of air pollution and discharged toxic selenium into Permanente Creek.

Not being able to build a destroyer in California seems like a small price to pay for an ecosystem not poisoned

rising-sky 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Probably helpful to add why, otherwise this is just seems intended to trigger biases

daneel_w an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

At least the New Republic is clean and healthy... on paper...

phyzix5761 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"Grandfathered in"? Isn't that how you create monopolies?

fhd2 2 hours ago | parent [-]

If geographic location is a serious advantage, then yes, kind of. Competitors would have an uphill battle against the grandfathered incumbents.

I doubt it is though, in these cases. Was probably just to make the measures more popular, as in not destroying existing investments / jobs.

raziel2701 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Are other states building all this manufacturing/semiconductor capacity? I think it's an overall USA thing, we just don't do manufacturing anymore because it's cheaper to do it in another country.

Not sure what the point of the website is. To me it looks like a bad faith argument. The secular trend in the US has been to increase margins by moving manufacturing to other countries.

The tariffs are certainly not making it easier to manufacture domestically.

renjimen 13 hours ago | parent [-]

> Not sure what the point of the website is

I think it's just informative. I found it interesting at least. I formed my own conclusions from it.

mint5 12 hours ago | parent [-]

Really? Since it’s lacking any comparison to other states and because many of these complaints single out metropolitan areas comparison to nationwide census of metro areas, what actual conclusions are you drawing that are valid?

Context matters a lot. We haven’t built a lot of mercury based hat felting shops lately in California. What conclusion do you draw from that?

renjimen 12 hours ago | parent [-]

I assume you're being a little obtuse. The comparison to wherever manufacturers phones and EVs is implicit. They are manufactured somewhere with looser environmental regulation than California, where they are purchased en masse. You can draw your own conclusions from that.

mint5 12 hours ago | parent [-]

I saw complaints that amounted to “it’s more expensive to build out large industrial facilities in bay area than in Reno”

okay what’s different in Reno hmmm I could be like the website and try to imply it’s only environmental regulations… or I could acknowledge that land price and availability is drastically different and also labor costs…. But then that wouldn’t help my contrived argument that it’s all the pesky regulations.

Again, without apples to apples comparisons to other areas, wha are you actually able to conclude from the website other than stoking confirmation bias?

renjimen 7 hours ago | parent [-]

It's providing a single geographic data point to you, for free. You're welcome to do your own research if you want a complete picture.

jrflowers 26 minutes ago | parent [-]

I like that your vague response to the question is either “this provides no value without context” or “the value it provides without context is a secret that only I know” but phrased in a silly way

inigyou an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

So most of these are just saying "you can't do this because they won't let you dump your waste in the river" and some are just "nobody's doing this in California yet"

What if you ... don't dump your waste in the river? Is it legal if you dispose of your waste properly?

ixtli 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This kinda makes me wanna move to CA. someone should take these list items and make a map of those fabs in the US so we can avoid moving near them.

paxys 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Half the states in the country are actively deregulating all of this stuff. Why not take your factories there? California is anyways too expensive.

taeric 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I confess I don't know what to make of this. Without seeing the reasons why these are banned, what is the point? Would be like lamenting how you can't use asbestos. Sure, but is that necessarily a bad thing?

hnav 13 hours ago | parent [-]

apparently you can use asbestos and they have been and will continue until 2030-ish. It's now in the wild in all kinds of unexpected places.

taeric 13 hours ago | parent [-]

Yeah, I don't think that is generally viewed as a good thing, though? And I would not be surprised to learn California has some stricter rules on it. (Would honestly not be surprised to find out some of these "banned" items are due to asbestos level concerns.)

seb1204 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Is this a lobbying initiative?

Surely the answer is not let's just allow to pillage, pollute and extort again to build a car, ship or phone.

I like clean air, and rivers. They are good for every being.

CodinM 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The author equates "you need a permit, which you obtain by making proof you follow the law and best practices re: handling dangerous substances" with "BANNED!!!!!!".

I dislike how misleading and emotionally targeted this is and I understand the hate we get as tech people if this is the best we can do.

jameson 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don't want to make a mess in my yard but I don't care if your yard is a mess and I'll buy it

Why not invest in ways to make these processes more eco friendly?

chung8123 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

My favorite banned in CA is the "off roster" handguns that the police can buy and sell to the people of CA at a markup.

bigyabai 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> California has outsourced its industrial base while still consuming the products.

America did that. If it was just California then they could import iPhone parts from Alabama, but they don't do that do they?

garciasn 13 hours ago | parent [-]

This site is limiting its focus to environmental permitting concerns, it seems. The problem is that one of the biggest barriers to manufacturing in the US is labor: cost and protections of various sorts.

Don't need to worry about those pesky people and their rights in other countries where people are in desperate need for, or are coerced into, working in these industries.

givemeethekeys 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

How do the new manufacturing startups in the Bay Area and El Segundo deal with these limitations?

parl_match 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

A lot of these are stretches or remove nuance. I get the point they are trying to make, but it's a lot weaker than they think and undermined by their own "hero" example: painting cars in California

> A modern auto paint shop emits volatile organic compounds (VOCs) during primer, base coat, and clear coat application. The Bay Area AQMD makes permitting a new paint shop nearly impossible. This is THE classic example of what you can't do in CA.

Ah yes, the Bay Area, famously "all of California". And on top of that, the restrictions are mostly in highly populated areas.

DannyBee an hour ago | parent [-]

Oh it's worse bullshit. Modern paint shops don't emit meaningful VOCs. Even in Texas, for example. Nobody's even making non voc compliant auto paint anymore because there is no market for it.

I can't speak to permitting but the coating and coating voc stuff I know quite well and what they state is simply bullshit.

I can also say I know of a bunch of auto paint places that opened in the mountain view surrounding area alone in the 10 years I lived there.

So I suspect it's all bullshit

01100011 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

CA is currently importing gas from Bermuda via the Panama Canal:

https://www.mercurynews.com/2026/02/16/gasoline-starved-cali...

I appreciate some of the arguments here about pushing pollution outside the state, but this is madness.

Take8435 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What about "Things banned in Texas"? or "Idaho"?

This has 70 upvotes within 30 minutes. This feels like an astroturf.

ixtli 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Ya a lot of people on this site are ideologically positioned in a way that required demonizing CA. I don’t have any skin in that game but it seems pretty clearly A Thing to me from the other side of the country.

hunterpayne 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

A lot of people on this site do or used to live in CA. It is especially galling to have people who have never lived there tell those that have what it is like there. Especially people who have tried to build or run a business in CA.

overfeed 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The Silicon Valley founderati is chock-full of (right wing) libertarians. I can't tell if they were always that way, or are increasingly disgruntled by state-taxes the wealthier they get.

georgemcbay 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> This has 70 upvotes within 30 minutes. This feels like an astroturf.

Not really surprising given the audience, HN has an awful lot of neo-Technolibertarian types.

The kind who used to complain about government regulation of free speech, and now complain about anything that gets in the way of amassing massive amounts of capital at any social/environmental/political cost.

Take8435 13 hours ago | parent [-]

It's unfortunate that folks who complain incessantly about "facts not feelings" don't appear to be using their critical thinking skills here. But I guess it's not too surprising.

mark242 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I love that "The Grandfathered In" section. Here's just one sample of a place that presumably this stupid website wants to keep up and running:

https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2025-10-04/chevron...

The guy who made this site is selling a $7k stove? Good luck with that, my dude.

bitwize 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Got a new one. In California—the only place that matters in tech—all operating systems must implement age verification by Jan 1, 2027. Which means this is coming to a computer near you, worldwide.

cmxch 13 hours ago | parent [-]

Not in the free states they won’t.

201984 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

But don't you get it? We're moving up the value chain to things only WE can do.

crawshaw 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Lot of things could be added to this list. Good luck getting permission to start a hospital, or permission to mine/refine anything with a slightly messy process (e.g. rare earth metals). You can't build a new port. The California Coastal Commission won't let you open a new hotel anywhere on the water. You can't even keep a bar open late in San Francisco.

jasongill 13 hours ago | parent [-]

I just searched "new hospital opened in CA" on Google and see that there were two new hospitals opened in Irvine in December, half of a new hospital complex in Santa Clara opened in October, more being built and slated to open this year or next...

hunterpayne 13 hours ago | parent [-]

Now look up when those projects were started...I will wait.

OkayPhysicist 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The claim that aluminum anodizing is "banned in California" because of the sulfuric acid waste it produces is patently absurd. There are no shortage of labs, factories, and more in California that use sulfuric acid, and they all figure out how to dispose of their waste without going "fuck it, YOLO it into the river".

thereisnospork 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

A lot of people on this site clearly have never tried doing anything in California that involves more infrastructure than a laptop. Can easily be 18 months or more to get a permit to 'do things the right way'. If they'll even deign to give you one.

goodluckchuck 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

California can do a lot to private companies, but the supremacy clause allows the federal government to do what it wants. If a business wants to engage in these illegal-in-California practices, they could partner with the federal government.

Edit: Now that I’m doing the research a partnership isn’t even needed, just a contract. Which makes sense, the feds cannot hire a private individual to do what would be illegal for them to do themselves… conversely, a company who is contracted to do federal business also enjoys supremacy by virtue of acting for the feds.

nphardon 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

honestly, you couldn't even build your own house.

themafia 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The newest thing I've seen:

"compostable - except in CA"

tokenless 13 hours ago | parent [-]

Why? The microbes don't get along with sourdough starter bacteria?

inigyou 39 minutes ago | parent [-]

It's because CA has stricter regulations about what can be labeled compostable. Whatever had this label was never compostable to begin with, but called itself that on a technicality.

ranger_danger 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Guess we can add free (from age verification) operating systems to that list now as well.

georgemcbay 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

As a Californian:

1) They forgot to list Kid Rock (https://x.com/GovPressOffice/status/1969256868364095868)

2) Good, I'm glad this toxic shit is banned.

3) I wish people that constantly complained about California's regulations/taxes/politics would just quietly see their way out rather than obsessively whine about it. Enjoy Texas/Florida/wherever you go. We'll be ok without you.

SunshineTheCat 13 hours ago | parent [-]

They are: https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2026/demo/stat...

mrbluecoat 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Is hosting a website in California banned? /s

https://check-host.net/ip-info?host=bannedincalifornia.org

observationist 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

They just really, really want to be European.

Just look at what they've done about rebuilding the Palisades, and the nonsense they've perpetrated, allowing people to live and build in places that are completely impossible to make safe to live because of incredibly stupid bureacratic policy conflicts. And then the staggering mismanagement of water resources, allowing huge tax breaks and claims on water rights to giant corporations, then completely taxing and running out farmers and landowners with legacy rights, making it impossible for them to live there.

At least if they drive everyone productive out of the state, the environment will be pristine.

It's like some insanely scaled up version of gentrification, but in the most aggressively, offensively stupid way possible. California is a tasteless joke.

mmanfrin 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> At least if they drive everyone productive out of the state, the environment will be pristine.

Most of what you said has been going on for >100 years. That's sure driven people out!

testbjjl 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I don’t know, 39.5m with net growth might disagree with you. Are you living in California at present? If not, do any of the deregulation in laws where you are trouble you. If so, when do you plan on leaving and where to?

SunshineTheCat 13 hours ago | parent [-]

California is one of the only states in the union seeing a population decline year over year (while surrounding states are seeing population growth).

https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/2026/demo/stat...

And that doesn't even take in to account the major businesses fleeing the state as well.

ixtli 13 hours ago | parent [-]

Now do economic growth?