@Oilfield_Rando Marked SFT “Safe from Testosterone” or NTD “No Testosterone Detected” - take your pick.
In fact, I think my testosterone dropped reading that paragraph 😆😆 What say you @IfindRetards ?
p.s. normal women have small amounts of testosterone.
@Martina Too are an inspiration to a lot of people regardless of political affiliation. Please start comparing new sources because you’re regurgitating left/race-baiting talking points. Do some research.
Feminists who chose childlessness be outraged when you tell them they probably made the right choice.
Why so mad? You have my full support. I think we can all agree you are not mommy material. Thank you for volunteering to exit the gene pool. 👋
The thing I also mention people who don’t live in California is do you know how much our electricity costs?? If you plug in at home you usually need some sort of charger, and then if you get storage batteries, etc, the cost adds up.
Yes there are tax breaks for THAT year of purchase, but it’s not 100% and is diminished if you have higher income.
I guess they think once you buy the car it runs on magic and happy thoughts 🤡 🌎
p.s. I know this has been repeated ad nauseam, but what do people think fuels the industry that makes electric cars?
@nithyavraman It’s so pathetic you’re using lame talking points from an irrelevant late-night show to bolster your opinion.
Makes me want to support @spencerpratt even more!
🚨Newsom’s Sneaky $324,000 Housing Tax: How California’s Governor Is Making the American Dream Unaffordable
Gavin Newsom has quietly imposed one of the largest hidden taxes in California history — slipped into a bill marketed as “housing reform” while the public’s attention was elsewhere.
In June 2025, Newsom signed AB 130. Buried on page 137, Section 58 quietly gives local governments the green light to impose Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) mitigation fees on new housing developments under CEQA. If a proposed home or apartment is projected to generate “too much” driving — according to government climate models — developers must pay steep fees to “offset” the impact by funding transit projects or low-VMT housing elsewhere.
Those costs don’t disappear. They get passed directly to homebuyers and renters in the form of higher prices and rents. According to the CARE About Housing coalition, the added burden can reach $324,000 per unit over 20 years — roughly $16,200 per year, or $1,350 extra per month. That $600,000 starter home? Now closer to $924,000. That $2,500 monthly apartment rent? Closer to $3,850.
What makes this especially punishing: the fee is based on the location of the home, not how much you actually drive. It applies regardless of whether you carpool, own an EV, bike, or work from home. The policy effectively penalizes suburban and family-oriented neighborhoods farther from dense transit corridors, while steering development toward high-rise urban projects favored by Sacramento planners.
This isn’t housing reform — it’s social engineering disguised as environmental policy. It makes single-family homes and the kinds of neighborhoods where most families want to live even more expensive, while adding yet another layer of costs and uncertainty for builders already struggling with California’s regulatory maze.
Newsom frequently touts his commitment to abundance and solving the housing crisis. Yet this bill does the opposite: it inflates the price of every new home, discourages construction outside preferred “smart growth” zones, and shifts the burden onto working families who simply want a decent place to live without government micromanaging their commute.
This is textbook big-government failure — taxing the aspiration of homeownership, driving up costs, and labeling it “progress.” As more Californians leave the state for more affordable places, Newsom continues to push policies that treat owning a home as a luxury reserved for the well-connected rather than a realistic goal for everyday families.
I like your idea in theory, however, how could the contracts be fairly awarded? For a place like LAX, would the savings be passed on to passengers or LA County taxpayers? I’m joking about the savings, of course.
I can envision how long and how much money it would take to implement at LAX - the renovations might be done before a decision is made.
Perhaps @spencerpratt has some thoughts on this?