California Exodus: An online industry seizes Covid to sell the Red State Dream
calmatters.org
calmatters.org
Modesto? I get the gripes about Bay Area prices, but that rent is 1/3 of a one bedroom in the Bay Area, and I'm not seeing significantly cheaper apartments in SLC.
[insert some kind of subjective disclaimer about what living in a “nice” ‘hood in a place like that is worth here]
(Also, fixed interest is like below 3% right now.)
San Jose != Peninsula btw.
Well, fair enough, and according to another reply here the mortgage calculator I used was inaccurate. I still feel confident that an $850/mo mortgage is feasible in SLC.
Surprised that I’m getting more flack here for my feelings about debt than the subtle shade I threw the region :)
Where do you draw the line? If someone offered you a 30 year loan at 0% interest, you'd take it, right?
That being said, I wonder if the impacts will be as described in the article. Having lived in MA, NY, TX before moving to California (and having lived in Europe): the people who live in hyper conservative counties in CA are still used to conveniences and government services that don't exist in places like Texas, Utah or Idaho. I suspect they will change their new home states as much as they will relish the new environment.
(and statistically, as I mentioned in another comment: 100K net is about a quarter of a percent of California's population -- hardly a significant number overall).
This is backwards -- perhaps written by an editor rather than the author of the piece. The blue counties gained population from 2018 to 2019:
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-2...
This isn't a result of the normal partisan political issues, but it's true that there's still a political source: more 'red' metros and states usually at least permit building outwards with suburban sprawl, even if they're hostile to density. Most of coastal California is hostile to both. Even more sympathetic cases like building 100% affordable housing for seniors get pushback from the NIMBY crowd: https://sf.curbed.com/2016/10/6/13189882/1296-shotwell-affor...
Broken down, there's a few different problems that I've read about or seen:
1. Most residential land still has fairly strict limits on density. Even in the bay area, a majority of residential land appears to be reserved exclusively for single family homes. In areas where this isn't quite as much the case, like SF, there are still limits that greatly constrain supply in what is ostensibly a major city.
2. The process of development involves a huge amount of time, money and hurdles. These come in both official ones, like CEQA, which has kind of morphed away from its original intentions, and unofficial ones, like needing to please the local neighbors even if your new building completely fits within existing regulations and codes.
The last bit is particularly problematic: you essentially have the rules that exist on paper, the ones that were democratically discussed and voted and agreed upon in some form. And then you have another set of rules, the ones that exist solely in the minds of the local residents, that nobody ever voted on or transparently discussed, but are nonetheless hurdles that you must pass. And in practice, the power of these rules tends to correlate with how wealthy and entrenched those interests are.
Like, take the example I linked to. If "there's not enough parking" is a real problem, then why isn't it in zoning regulations as is? Why does it come up as a surprise, "Actually jk, you need to do these other things that the law says nothing about"?
What causes these issues is that SF agrees in the large that, say, minimum parking requirements are damaging to the urban fabric and bad for the environment, so they or their representatives reduce or get rid of them when it comes time to vote. BUT, then when it comes time to actually have such a development, local NIMBY's cry out that their parking will be impacted, and the process lets them stall or outright block the new building, actual regulations be damned.
A national popular vote would drastically shift the race to the most populous metro markets in the US: NYC (~19M), LA (~13M), Chicago (~9M), Dallas (~8M), Houston (~7M), and DC (~6M). Despite their heavy leanings to Democrats, the raw number of votes in these markets and the cost to reach a voter still makes them competitive areas.
Such a shift in election method would likely move the 'center' of the US presidential political system towards issues that dominate the large metro markets. This further alienates rural voters and less populous states, making Senate policy less representative of the US voter.
However, if dissolution did happen, it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. Most of America's current political strife and dysfunction is caused by incompatible, and increasingly divergent, visions for America's future. Splitting the country is the only way for those two visions to get what they want without persecuting (or killing) large numbers of people.
Thing like drinking age, homeless accommodation or medical services can be perfectly well driven by states.
I was curious about the possible phenomenon of fleeing liberals pushing red states purple, but either that’s not a thing or the author just doesn’t care.
Anecdotally, I think liberals leaving NYC is a very real phenomenon, although I couldn’t guess if the numbers were enough to push the map.
I've also been seeing more and more interviews/commentary as you mentioned. People in Texas concerned folks coming from places like CA are going to try to turn Texas "purple" and make it the same "regulatory mess" which they fled in the first place.
This will be interesting. Almost all of the people I know who have fled California (to TX and AZ) are conservatives. I know a number of liberals who have considered it, but haven't done so (yet?). From my (purely anecdotal experience) I don't think it will turn Texas purple, I think it will make Texas more red and California more blue... further dividing two of our largest states.
That would be unfortunate if it's true because I believe each state is better off when it's purple, when the best ideas from both sides are being fought for. For complex problems, we should not try liberal or conservative proposals, but actually implement both... one of them (randomly), with the agreement that it will be measured and then the other will be tried later to measure the same metrics. Or implement them in two different parts of the state simultaneously and then switch them after a few years. In other words, we should be A/B testing our laws to see which one performs better. It would be challenging to do it scientifically, it won't be perfect, but whatever we do learn is probably better than arguing about ideas for years.
Also, I think both sides knowing that their idea is going to be tried and tested would hopefully chill everyone out a little and help bring some fairness to the process.
But, like you said, it's hard to say if "all the people moving" are conservative or liberal leaning.
I'd venture to guess the first people wanting to move are likely conservative, as you say, and the article points out.
But those two terms are also quite relative. A conservative in California might actually be liberal for Texas, and vice versa.
The best thing that could happen for TX is a Prop 13. The state would have to go blue to deal with reality and adopt an income tax.
The high property tax also incentives local governments to encourage real estate development since that brings in more tax income. That then results in lower housing costs.
Houston for example literally doesn't even have zoning laws. The downside to this is you may have to evacuate your house at 12am when there is an industrial chemical spill at the petro-chemical plant they build 1/2 a mile from your house. The upside is when home values start pricing people out developer will line up around the block to buy out sfh to build affordable mid rise apartment/condo units.
I'd argue the citizenry is a very blue shade of purple, but elections lag that because we're No. 1 in voter suppression. https://www.texasobserver.org/the-long-tail-of-voter-suppres...
Ummm... having been to multiple 3rd world countries, this is laughable.
Unless parts of California lack sewage infrastructure, indoor plumbing, and have millions living in homes built from pieces of wood and metal hand-gathered it is definitely not third world or even second world.
But I'm sure she's just being purposefully hyperbolic.
(Knowing, of course, that affordable housing is not available. Public defecation is just one of many symptoms, that have root causes in the lack of societal support for universal housing and mental health care)
To compare California and Texas, one would need to look at a range of factors, not just house prices or even BOTE cost of living estimates.
While it’s fair to say it’s not “3rd world” it’s fast approaching.
The fires were especially bad this year, but "fast approaching 3rd world" is strictly hyperbole.
To be fair, the HQ address Calmatters.org provides is a parking garage. Searching the names and images used in the article returns many other publications which similarly have no masthead, don't credit authors, and either provide no physical address or a junk address. Calmatters' staff photo is recycled on other astroturf publications. Anyway, I guess the point is that good propaganda should be hyperbolic.
CA has 130000 people living in the streets so sadly not too far off on that front.
Edit:
Getting pretty heavily downvoted. It’s literally what Newsom said he did on Twitter.
For what it's worth, California gets less back from the federal government than most states, compared to what it sends in federally: https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/California-no-l...
Which states besides CA would you describe as "autonomous" vs not? A Federation of independent states unified under a federal government is kind of how the whole U.S. thing works, no?
You also seem to be trying to make a political statement. Should a "red" state like TX not request disaster relief funds (say, after a hurricane) if a Democrat is president?
Also, keep in mind that 57% of forests in CA are Federally managed. Only 3% is managed by the state.
It is - or at least the leadership is in almost every respect. Politico-turned-economic elites acting as egalitarian champions is par for the last 30 years.
Life-long Californian here.
> Which states besides CA would you describe as "autonomous" vs not?
Massachusetts, for a start, since they don't just talk about what they are going to do. You should visit.
The reality is that the CA representatives routinely declare that they are not going to abide by federal guidelines. Ostensibly, that's the autonomy being referenced.
Totally ignoring the poster's intent and swapping in your own bias as their content is outright trolling. If you don't understand (or can't imagine an interpretation that makes sense) it's rather civil to act in good faith and ask for clarification. SMH
Disclaimer: I don’t live in California.
There are 33 million acres of forest(ed) lands in California.
Federal ownership is 19 million acres = 57%
State and local agencies (including land trusts) own 3%
Privately owned forest lands are 13.3 million acres = 40%
Industrial private owners are 4.7 million acres = 14%
Non-industrial privately owned forest lands are 9 million acres = 26%
Non-corporate private forest lands are 7.9 million acres
REITs and other investment devices are 344,000 acres
https://www.forestunlimited.org/resources/california-forest-...
This isn't a new phenomenon, people moved from the south westward after the civil war, the white flight of detroit during the civil rights period, I do believe we are seeing another similar wave in motion now.
And for my own insight on this, people are not usually entirely honest, except when in company of others of similar mindset. Over hearing at a family gathering, I learned that the main reason a relative of mine is leaving california for maine is because "there will be less crime because there are fewer black people", despite living in one of the whitest towns in the state.
Rent prices in SF are down like 20-30% compared to last year. That doesn't mean 20-30% of people have left, obviously, I'd probably guess just a few percent have gone, but that's still a good chunk of people for an area that more recently was growing with huge demand.
The NIMBYs and prop13 are unnecessarily hurting everyone except those that bought property a long time ago and pay relatively no property tax while suppressing any new housing and forcing new buyers to subsidize them.
Median housing price on the peninsula is 3 million, you can get a tiny old condo from the 60s for 1.3M if you can find it.
SF is a little better with some newer apartments available in the 800k - 1.2M range and some older stuff that's cheaper.
It sucks and it's totally unnecessary. Allowing more housing to be built would reduce the cost. NYC does it, Tokyo does it, it's possible and would be better for everyone except the NIMBYs leveraging their luck for their own self-interest.
In the context of historical exclusionary zoning and explicitly racist policy about restricting housing access framing it as 'local control' and 'protecting neighborhood character' is just a way to continue to block people from entering the community to protect a small subset of owner's self-interest that was protected by historically unfair policy.
There's a deep irony seeing 'black lives matter' signs on someone's lawn right next to anti-housing council member election signs.
Rent-Control, 'affordable' housing are bad hacks that make things worse. We need to build more supply of everything and a lot of it.
The current situation also sucks for start-ups where massive costs get eaten up by landlords. Here you've either had one or two successful exits or live with 3 roommates (or your parents are rich, or are locals). It'd be so much less stressful if housing cost was something you didn't have to worry about or it was possible to actually buy something.
What if there was enough supply to buy a place for 400-500k? Maybe then my friends wouldn't have had to leave to start a family live without roommates.
My only hope is something like SB50 eventually passes and takes local control of zoning away from these people:
- https://www.sanjoseinside.com/the-fly/cupertino-council-cont...
- https://twitter.com/lydia_kou/status/857012783895912450?s=20
Republicans on other than continue to peddle the same outdated Republican agenda that might fly in Alabama but not in California. Their usual hatred for Spanish speaking population, Asians and Indians shows even when they need these votes to win elections. Going to an area like Fremont where most spoken language might be Telugu and demanding "must speak English in USA" is a political suicide.
Of course, and the article says nothing to the contrary.
Look at the CPUSA or PSL if you wish to see actual left.
I would love to see sources on these assertions of promising "Islam in public schools" and that this constitutes a centrist position in the democratic party.
I'm guessing you're just complaining about having prayer rooms in schools that students may use? Not, like, actually teaching kids to be Muslims.
Which is exactly same as Islam in schools. Why should a public school provide "prayer rooms" which is basically a euphemism for Islam rooms. Today it will be prayer rooms tomorrow it will be halal only meat in cafes. This is a tyranny of minority. I am sorry, I do not see any difference.
> Not, like, actually teaching kids to be Muslims.
That would be the logical next step after the prayer rooms.
This is silly. My office in Google Munich has a meditation room used mostly -- though not exclusively -- by Muslims to pray. Is Google trying to get all its employees to be Muslim now?
A prayer/meditation room that's open to both religious and comparable non-religious uses is a modest and reasonable accommodation that doesn't warrant hysterics over public schools "teaching Islam".
After they will ask for Halal food. (For a food to be halal it should be certified by certain halal board (which asks for money of course) and the meat must be processed by a muslim (which is religion based hiring))
If your employer providing halal food, it basically is forcing someone down the supply line to hire based on religion.
Slippery slope.
I would expect the muslim campaigners to have a better understanding of Prop 16's implications and what it means to them than outsiders.
This honestly kind of looks like a parody image, even. Can't you find anything actually substantive to back up what you said?
Americans and their politics, I swear…
Does that candidate understand that Islam is against many of the (far) leftist agendas that they're trying to push? Source: I'm Muslim.
It's probably true that, broadly speaking, Muslims tend to be more socially conservative than other Democrats. But then again, there was a similar issue with black voters and gay rights; black Democrats were less supportive than white Democrats, despite black people voting for Democrats far more than white people, on average.