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 11 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 2 hours 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 3 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 2 hours 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 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> 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.

▲

devmor 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲

old_bayes 14 hours ago | parent | next [-]

When you read a paragraph you have to read all the sentences in that paragraph.

	▲	devmor 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The rest of the paragraph doesn’t say anything useful either. It’s the inane ramblings of someone who’s describing an imaginary scenario because they haven’t a clue what they’re actually talking about other than the woes of businesses that weren’t allowed to profit by destroying the local ecosystem.

▲

no-dr-onboard 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

“Yes you can” misses the point.

But you’ll incur heavy taxes, huge COB increases, tightening regulatory scrutiny and all for nothing compared to being just one or two states over. It’s has been one economically and morally disadvantageous to do manufacturing in California due to hypernanny regulation. What’s worse is that generational and heritage firms that have lived in California for 50+ years are effectively put out of business because of these policies… and that’s just at the national level. No one has even mentioned how CA based businesses can’t compete with China.

I get what you’re protective over though. We all like clean air and streams. No one is voting for more superfund sites. We can agree on that.

Your response seems to either woefully uninformed or bad faith. I’m assuming the former.

▲

daedrdev 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I obviously mean that you can filter out and properly dispose of and neutralize what would be emissions, so that they are not emitted. I cant see your comment as anything but bad faith, why are you responding like this?

	▲	autoexec 14 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Can you give us a couple of examples of a company that was stopped by the state of California because they weren't producing any harmful emissions whatsoever and/or were disposing their waste in ways that were not harmful? It would be interesting to see exactly what they were doing in violation of the regulations, what regulations they ran into, and where those rules came from.
	▲	greesil 14 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Sir, this is a hive of pedants. They live for this. Just accept it and move on.
	▲	devmor 9 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I have no idea what you obviously meant because what you’re describing doesn’t actually exist for anything on that page. I’m not privvy to whichever science fiction you’ve applied here, so it all sounds like rambling to me.