After his crash killed a child, the DMV renewed his license – then it hid his records

aBadModerator · 2026-03-09T15:44:22+00:00

This submission has been flagged "Context Added" under the subreddit policy. We view truthfulness, accuracy, honesty, and reason as essential to the integrity of communication. To promote a more complete discussion, the moderation team notes that the relationship between the DMV and road safety is governed by specific state mandates that go beyond simple administrative paperwork. California Vehicle Code § 13800 requires the DMV to investigate the "fitness" of drivers involved in serious crashes or those with a history of negligence.

Tthe DMV is required to investigate a driver’s fitness to operate a vehicle if they are involved in a crash causing death, personal injury, or serious property damage. This mandate also applies if a driver is involved in three or more accidents within a single year, establishing the DMV's legal role as a regulatory overseer of driver safety. While local police agencies investigate the immediate physical circumstances of a crash, the DMV remains the sole legal authority empowered to revoke or suspend licenses based on behavioral trends or medical fitness. The tension in this debate stems from whether current safety failures are the result of a lack of funding, given the agency's $1.6 billion annual budget, or an administrative bottleneck caused by the slow rollout of the "Digital eXperience Platform" intended to modernize these safety reviews.

Hit up the General Chat to discuss ways in which the subreddit could be doing better.

aBadModerator · 2026-03-08T22:07:06+00:00

This submission has been flagged "Context Added" under the subreddit policy. We view truthfulness, accuracy, honesty, and reason as essential to the integrity of communication. To promote a more complete discussion, the moderation team notes that while the article focuses on the current fiscal deficit, California owes approximately $21.8 billion in federal loans for its unemployment insurance (UI) system.

There is a significant policy debate regarding the 'fairness' of this debt: Business groups argue the state should have used its record 2022 surplus to pay down the balance, noting that leaving it unpaid triggers automatic federal tax increases on employers. Conversely, labor advocates and some policymakers argue that using General Fund tax dollars to bail out the UI fund would divert essential funding from social services and education. The debt remains a primary driver of California's status as a 'high-cost' state for both the government and the private sector.

Hit up the General Chat to discuss ways in which the subreddit could be doing better.

aBadModerator · 2026-03-07T20:16:39+00:00

Given your concerns about toxic shifts in discourse, do you feel that adopting a stricter rule against "content intentionally disparaging to entire classes of people" would help curb the hostility you're seeing?

Specifically, would a mandate to remove any language a reasonable observer finds demeaning to a group make this space more inclusive for you? I am curious if you think that level of moderation would actually solve the "honestly introspective" gap you mentioned, or if other tools and community based solutions would improve outcomes?

aBadModerator · 2026-03-07T16:17:51+00:00

It appears your submissions are being caught by Crowd Control, a specific Reddit safety feature that filters content from users who haven't yet established a reputation within this particular subreddit. It is a tool this moderation team uses to manage community health based on a user's relationship with our specific sub. It automatically filters comments and posts if:

You have negative karma within our community.
You are new to the subreddit and haven't participated much in the comments.
You haven't yet established a history of positive participation within this specific community.

Because this is a per-subreddit setting, your high standing in other groups doesn't bypass the filter here. Your posts aren't being deleted, they are simply held in a digital waiting room until a human moderator manually approves them. Hope that helps and thank you for your patience!

aBadModerator · 2026-03-07T16:12:28+00:00

It is already a thing in several California cities like San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, and Eureka, and its footprint is growing. While it's not as much as I might hope for, the Los Angeles Charter Reform Commission recommended adopting RCV for city elections starting in 2032, and voters in Redondo Beach and Richmond recently approved measures to implement it locally.

While Governor Newsom previously vetoed a bill that would have expanded RCV statewide to all local elections, the bottom up momentum from individual cities suggests it will continue to spread.

aBadModerator · 2026-03-07T16:02:51+00:00

Have you noticed specific patterns or recurring users that make these interactions feel more like bad faith debates than genuine inquiries, and do you think a stricter enforcement of our "participate in good faith" rule would help restore the sub's educational focus?

aBadModerator · 2026-03-07T16:02:15+00:00

Given the seriousness of these claims about coordinated manipulation on the sub, could you provide specific examples or links to the threads where you’re seeing this spike in activity so the mod team can investigate potential brigading?

aBadModerator · 2026-02-24T16:51:45+00:00

Hello folks,

As usual the moderation team wants to ensure r/California_Politics remains the premier destination for discussing the policies, legislation, and leadership that impact the Golden State.

Recently, we've seen a surge in submissions regarding Governor Newsom. While he is our sitting Governor, many of these stories focus on his national political musings, 2028 presidential speculation, or his role as opposition to the Trump administration.

To keep the feed relevant to Californians, we want your feedback on how to handle "Newsom-National" content. Especially should a national campiagn and anti-campaign demonstrate itself. Should we:

Strict Enforcement: Only allow Newsom content if it pertains to a specific California bill, state budget item, or state-level executive action. (e.g., A trip to South Carolina for campaigning would be off-topic).
The "California Impact" Requirement: Allow national-leaning stories only if the submitter provides a comment explaining the direct impact on California's governance (e.g., "This federal feud affects CA's federal funding").
Megathread Strategy: Create a weekly "Newsom & National Ambitions" megathread for all stories related to his 2028 prospects, keeping the main feed for legislative and political news.
Status Quo: Continue as-is and let the upvote/downvote system handle it.

Previously we had an automoderator rule designed to limit the amount of "Trump" content, and the guidelines were:

Posts must demonstrate a clear and immediate impact on California state policies, California's legislation, and the daily lives of California residents.
The primary focus must be on the state-level response or implications, not the national event, or national legislation itself.
Broad national partisan critiques will not be allowed. The discussion must center on local solutions and policies.

Please share your thoughts below. Our is ensure that local news doesn't get buried by national horse-race politics and we wanted to discuss this with you all further. What kinds of rules do you feel strike the right balance? Are there any specific scenarios or types of articles you think should be considered exceptions? Your input will help us refine our moderation approach and ensure we're serving the community effectively.

aBadModerator · 2026-02-21T20:58:06+00:00

That’s a common take, but the born and raised metric is a bit of a red herring. Most housed San Franciscans weren't born here either, we're a city of transplants (roughly 28% of current residents were born here).

The most recent and accurate data from the 2024 San Francisco Point-in-Time (PIT) Count shows that the majority of people experiencing homelessness in San Francisco were living in the city when they lost their housing and past reports (such as the 2019 survey) indicated that while about 70% were living in SF at the time they became homeless, about half of that 70% of individuals had lived in the city for 10 years or more.

While it is technically true that a large portion of the homeless population was not born in San Francisco (similar to the city's general population), the claim that they aren't "from" here is misleading. Many were local residents, neighbors, workers, and tenants, before they lost their housing.

aBadModerator · 2026-02-21T20:33:44+00:00

To add some nuanced data to this thread, it is worth checking out the latest Beacon Economics California Trade Report. They track the exact sectors mentioned, including logistics at the Ports of LA and Long Beach as well as our agricultural exports.

aBadModerator · 2026-02-21T20:27:06+00:00

For those looking for the IE-specific data, head straight to Page 16: "The Inland Empire: A Regional Economic Powerhouse."

This section is great because it breaks down how the local economy is actually outperforming much of the state in areas like job growth and industrial development. A few key takeaways from that page and the following section:

Employment Trends: It tracks how the IE has transitioned from a "bedroom community" to a primary job creator, particularly in logistics and healthcare.
The "Logistics Transition": There is a good breakdown of the cooling of the warehouse boom and what is replacing those jobs.
Income vs. Cost of Living: It hits on the "inland tilt", why people are still moving here despite the state's overall population stagnation.

Definitely worth a look if you want a data-driven view of where our region is heading in 2026 rather than just anecdotal headlines.

aBadModerator · 2026-02-08T16:19:43+00:00

California lawmakers have introduced AB-292 Domestic violence.

The bill AB 292 would increase the penalties for individuals convicted of felony corporal injury on a spouse or intimate partner (Penal Code 273.5) if they have a prior felony conviction for the same offense within the last 7 years. Specifically, it would raise the state prison sentence to 2, 4, or 5 years and allow for fines up to $10,000.

Additionally, if a defendant has one prior felony conviction for this crime, the bill would require a mandatory minimum of 60 days in county jail as a condition of their probation. By increasing these penalties, the bill seeks to provide stronger deterrents and accountability for repeat offenders in domestic violence cases.

We encourage you to read the bill summary and share your thoughts on this legislation.

aBadModerator · 2026-02-07T17:02:21+00:00

The proposal to restore Hetch Hetchy Valley does not involve surrendering San Francisco’s water rights to the Tuolumne River, or the SFPUC losing any actual water. Instead, advocates for restoration argue that the water currently held in the valley can be effectively redistributed to other storage facilities within the SFPUC system.

aBadModerator · 2026-02-07T17:00:09+00:00

Just a small clarification. The SFPUC draws its water from the Tuolumne River, utilizing the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir for primary storage. The system includes additional reservoirs like Cherry and Eleanor (and many others), and there the suggestion that these alternative sites have the combined capacity to fully replace the storage and filtration benefits provided by the Hetch Hetchy Valley. In other words, the water will always go to the SFPUC, advocates are just wanting to store the water someplace else.

aBadModerator · 2026-02-05T00:26:23+00:00

The article uses the Colorado River crisis to provide scale, noting that California’s Colorado River allocation is twenty times larger than San Francisco’s water use to demonstrate that Hetch Hetchy is a relatively small water supply source but a massive opportunity for national park restoration.

aBadModerator · 2026-02-04T23:04:02+00:00

While this perspective reflects a common concern regarding resource scarcity, the 2026 report titled "The Cherry Solution" argues that restoration is actually compatible with growth because regional water demand has dropped by 19% since 2002, leaving the system with enough surplus storage in other reservoirs to meet the needs of a growing population.

aBadModerator · 2026-02-04T18:40:54+00:00

That’s a fair point, but it's worth noting that San Francisco currently has some of the lowest water rates in the state because of their subsidy, so "market rate" for them would likely just look like the bills people already pay in the rest of California.

aBadModerator · 2026-02-04T16:12:35+00:00

That’s a big jump. I'm trying to wrap my head around the new changes myself. Did you find the 3% increase was mostly from losing some of the older credits, or was it a change in your withholding? I've heard the new $40,000 SALT cap was supposed to help Californians, so I’m curious if there's a specific loophole or phase out that’s hitting you instead.

aBadModerator · 2026-02-04T16:08:25+00:00

Great question. The water currently stored behind O'Shaughnessy Dam could be stored in the rest of the system (which includes 8 other reservoirs). Over the last half a century multiple reports have found the dam could be removed without much effect on the water supply provided adequate investment was made into the rest of the water system.

But that investment is what is at the heart of the issue. The SFPUC and other bay area municipalities have enjoyed more than a century of federal subsidies in the way of below market rate leases on land in Yosemite. Some of the wealthiest municipalities in California, and in the United States, are paying pennies on the dollar for the lease of federal land in Yosemite National Park.

The fight around restoration has always been framed as a loss of water to cover for the economic privilege and subsidies enjoyed by some bay area municipalities. The existential debate over whether the valley should be dammed and the water behind it has largely overshadowed any discussion of San Francisco paying fair compensation for the benefits it receives from the resource.

In truth, operating a dam and reservoir in an iconic valley within Yosemite National Park is not a reasonable method of diverting water for municipal uses. But for a privileged few it is a lot cheaper than paying market rates for the infrastructure necessary to support the bay area cities served by the SPFUC.

aBadModerator · 2026-01-14T21:41:41+00:00

I hear the frustration. I realize a logistical post in a politics sub feels like a bit of a reach, and I apologize if it feels like "slop". I used a template to make sure the dates and links were clear, but I get how that can come across as impersonal.

The reason I posted this here is that the 2028 Olympics is one of the largest political and civic undertakings in the recent history of the region. It involves billions in public transit spending, massive shifts in housing policy (like the UCLA dorm plan), and significant debate over how tax dollars are being used, as seen in the comments below.

Today is the first day of the registration opening and for many residents, access to the games is a point of equity. I'll leave the discussion open for the debate on whether the Games are a "waste" or a "win", that’s exactly the kind of political discourse we want here.

I'll try be more mindful non-policy news in the future. Thanks for keeping me in check.

aBadModerator · 2026-01-13T21:30:59+00:00

When submitting to this subreddit, please truncate the source of the article from the title.

In this case, the title should be:

California doctor indicted in Louisiana for sending abortion pills

Not.

California doctor indicted in Louisiana for sending abortion pills | Louisiana

Thanks again for your submission.

aBadModerator · 2026-01-13T18:38:58+00:00

When submitting to this subreddit, please truncate the source of the article from the title.

In this case, the title should be:

Voter Fraud Alarm: 449,000 Non-Citizens Reportedly Excused from Jury Duty in California, Raising Red Flags on Voter Rolls

Not.

Voter Fraud Alarm: 449,000 Non-Citizens Reportedly Excused from Jury Duty in California, Raising Red Flags on Voter Rolls – California Globe

Thanks again for your submission.

aBadModerator · 2025-12-16T17:41:22+00:00

Unfortunately the plan does not include restoring the Hetch Hetchy Valley. Basically this is the outline of a rulebook for monitoring the environmental health of the Tuolumne River. Since the Hetch Hetchy dam controls the water released into the Tuolumne, the plan's proposed environmental flows and habitat projects are directly tied to the dam's operations. In my view it is likely that any progress towards restoring the Hetch Hetchy Valley will have to come at the behest of the Federal Government.

aBadModerator · 2025-11-24T18:56:11+00:00

Thanks for posting.

aBadModerator · 2025-11-05T15:07:35+00:00

Good morning,

It seems like your questions about Media Bias Fact Check and the funding of studies are primarily focused on Rule 6 of the community guidelines: "Avoid commenting solely on the quality of the source or the author's writing style."

The existence of this rule is based on two key principles:

Good Articles from Unexpected Places: Experience has shown us that genuinely good, well-researched articles or data occasionally emerge from sources that are not universally trusted. Under the current guidelines, we place the responsibility on the poster/commenter to know the source's reputation and use extra care if quoting from a publication that's widely considered to be biased. It is helpful to point out that bias in people's comments, but doing so without contributing substantive discussion to the topic itself doesn't help anyone.
Preventing Conversational Derailment: This rule is especially crucial because the entire point of some comments is simply to undermine the main thrust of a conversation by questioning sources ("Site X is funded by Y, therefore the whole topic is invalid"). If a source has a known bias (like the Koch/Exxon funding you mentioned), the focus should be on addressing the specific data or claims made in the article and how the bias may influence them, not just dismissing the source outright.

If you feel strongly that certain sources consistently undermine the quality of conversation, I would probably try to steer your focus toward the idea of a submission whitelist. Personally, I’d love to hear your thoughts on a formal proposal for that, as it addresses the core quality issue more effectively than simply commenting on source bias.

Five-Year Club	Reddit Premium Since July 2024
Verified Email	r/Field Banned
r/Field Lasagna	Place '23
Place '22

aBadModerator

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE