[Brendinooo]

"San Francisco, for example, recently decided to not pump oil from land owned by the city in Kern County"

"Chapman University forecaster James Doti notes that, in large part due to regulation, Inland Empire housing prices have jumped 80 percent since 2009 — almost twice the rate for Orange County."

Or did you mean chapter and verse of regulations? If so you are correct, I didn't see anything like that.

[aanm1988]

> "Chapman University forecaster James Doti notes that, in large part due to regulation, Inland Empire housing prices have jumped 80 percent since 2009 — almost twice the rate for Orange County."

That's not citing regulation, that's just blaming regulation. It's exactly hte type of behaviour the parent comment was talking about.

[litany]

Due to regulation housing prices have jumped 80% is a big claim. Where is the mention what that regulation is? It just says "regulation". He says it's all due to Browns climate jihad, does he mean title 24? I have a hard time believing title 24 can cause such a housing price increase because it mostly applies to new construction and the extra initial costs of title 24 aren't that expensive. If not title 24 then what? He doesn't say.

They are claiming San Francisco is driving up oil prices significantly statewide and causing an unnecessary burden to the middle class. That's something that can be investigated and discussed, but on first blush it seems hard to believe.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-bakersfield-oil-201602...

This article claims that the worldwide slump in oil prices has led to a loss of 50k jobs in kern alone. I'm not sure how San Francisco plays into this.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kern_River_Oil_Field Implies that field depletion is reducing output.

http://www.sfexaminer.com/sf-say-farewell-kern-county-oil-fi...

Additionally I'm having a hard time understanding how San Francisco banning something, by not renewing a lease to Chevron of 800 acres that does not expire until 2020 is having such an impact. What is the status of that field anyway? Is it depleted or will it near depletion by 2020? All they say is that oil revenues from the field have been declining sharply.

They also say they are looking to lease it to a solar generation company. It sounds like they might be trying to replace the revenue now that the oil revenue is in decline. That doesn't sound that unreasonable. What was Chevrons offer for the lease renewal anyway? Perhaps it wasn't very good and they spun it to score green brownie points with their voters.

You don't have to cite chapter and verse, but if you just name the regulation we can look further into it to educate ourselves and then inform our representatives of our position and vote accordingly. Simply trying to continue making regulation into a boogeyman helps no one. Blowing things out of proportion also doesn't help.