I don’t find it that strange. Lyft requires drivers to be in relatively new cars. Further, electric vehicles benefit Lyft drivers because they cut down on the cost of operating as a Lyft driver. However, electric vehicles are relatively expensive, creating a high barrier to entry.
From Lyft’s perspective, if someone else’s money can be used to make a higher proportion of California’s working class families have electric vehicles, this makes Lyft more attractive to those drivers.
In essence, any potential Lyft driver who switches from an ICE to an electric car is getting a raise in their effective salary at no cost to Lyft. If that means they score some employees who would otherwise have gotten a traditional job or a gig that doesn’t require them to drive as much, without having to raise what they pay their drivers - that’s a win for Lyft.
$35,000,000 sounds like a lot of money, but Lyft had 300,000 drivers in California in 2019; that’s a bit over $100 per driver. If some proportion of that number - let’s say 1 in 10 - is able to get into an electric car thanks this bill, then they are effectively giving 30,000 of their drivers a raise that costs Lyft $1,200 but benefits the driver by much more. The more money the drivers make, the more likely they are to keep working for Lyft. Win-win-win.
There could be a more sinister reason why Lyft supports this bill, of course; and there could be other valud points against it, such as the article that was quoted earlier that states that California already has plenty of money earmarked for supporting electric cars; but I don’t find Lyft’s support particularly ominous.
Yeah, support from Lyft doesn’t bother me–it’s obviously in their interests to have cars with low marginal operating costs. That’s a good reason to want to see more electric cars. Which means I don’t really worry about some nefarious interest.
The opinion piece quoted by @hajario is persuasive. It’s a great point. But, the 2035 electric car rules is coming fast and there’s a lot of infrastructure to build out still. I’d rather spend too much and meet it, than spend too little and be late. Climate change is too important for penny pinching.
My wife is a (former) teacher. My brother-in-law is a teacher. My cousin is a teacher. Plus lots of friends. So we usually follow the CTA recommendations to the letter.
I hear you. Both my parents were teachers, and both my sisters are. (None in California, though.) I always side with teachers and their unions about things directly related to schools and education. But their argument here is too removed–opposition to funding something because they hope education might get that funding later.
Weird. The MAGA Morons are pushing hard for NO on 31!!!
Yeah, but their reasoning is weird then. “We do not know if we will need more money for EVs, charging stations and etc, so don’t tax the rich.” Besides- CA does need the extra firefighters.
That’s either because they see it as another “nanny-state” measure, or because Michael Bloomberg (who is not on their team) is funding the Yes on 31 camp. Or both.
No real surprises except maybe the millionaire tax to fund e-vehicles.
I knew they would fail but holy shit did the gambling ones get crushed. They really fucked up. The tribes and the internet sites should compromise on some sort of joint initiative next time.
Good. I hope it costs some people at those companies their jobs, and I hope the backers of those props vow to never flush their money in California again. 83% means it was a bipartisan ass-kicking.
I think 27 was structured that way, tho, that out-of-state interests had to partner with one of the Indian gaming tribes to operate the online sports betting in the state. And 26 was the tribes saying “nope” to that so they would operate the online sports betting in CA with no outside interests.
But I agree those two propositions were utterly destroyed by voters. Both sides are probably privately claiming victory that the other did not get what they wanted. I suspect neither of the two opposing parties will stay away long, and online sports betting will be on the ballot again next time in a different form. Sort of like the ever-present Dialysis propositions.
Illegal except for here. You can scroll down here for a map of “Indian Gaming Casinos”. I’d have to drive to the next county to reach one, but there are a dozen or more that are closer than Nevada.