I recently moved to California. Before i moved, people asked me "why are you moving there, its so bad?". Now that I'm here, i understand it less. The state is beautiful. There is so much to do.
I know the cost of living is high, and people think the gun control laws are ridiculous (I actually think they are reasonable, for the most part). There is a guy I work with here that says "the policies are dumb" but can't give me a solid answer on what is so bad about it.
So, what is it that California does (policy-wise) that people hate so much?
It absolutely has a lot to do with Right wing/Republican propaganda, California, Chicago, and New York represent everything they hate so they constantly use both states and that city as negative talking points.
One point they constantly make is that New York City is a crime riddled hellhole, meanwhile NYC has one of the lowest crime rates in the entire country, and one of the lowest murder rates, it's just a massive city with a massive population and everyone there has cameras so when stuff happens it goes viral. Also the Red States tend to have much higher crime and murder rates.
All in all this is usual conservative/right wing tactics, they constantly want to isolate and segregate themselves from other ideas, and aren't afraid to take over where other people live to exclude the people already living there. This is why Idaho, Texas, Florida, and Utah have similar campaigns about "don't California my state" and by "California" they mean don't bring your "liberal/socialist/Communist/woke/progressive/democratic" outlook to their states, because they don't want to be responsible for cleaning up the racism and various other problems that the red states seem to have adopted as their identities.
Also I know quite a few conservative Californians and New Yorkers that recently moved to Texas and Florida, and as conservative as they thought they were they actually talk about moving back to where they came from because of how it is in their new states, except for the fact that they moved to the new states because they can afford so much more than what they could in California.
Overall my point is, if you consume right wing media then you are conditioned to hate blue states, and particularly those blue states are Cali, NY, and the city of Chicago as well as DC, I'm not saying these places are without flaws, but I am saying that the propaganda and disinformation about those places has amplified the hate towards those places and their residents.
My conservative family still asks if I'm safe here in Seattle because they "hear so much about it on the news". They still think Seattle is just always being with protests and the libbrerl government is just running the city into the ground.
Which Seattle and most cities have problems, all cities have crime, but no more than usually. It's just that people live in cities. Per Capita crime in a big city can and is around the same of a rural area, but people don't think in terms like per Capita.
But fox news loves to spin that to keep rural people afraid, keep them thankful for their backwards laws and ideas. Because what really happens when you move somewhere like Cali? You meet people from different backgrounds and religions and suddenly your views might be challenged a bit
This is why Idaho, Texas, Florida, and Utah have similar campaigns about “don’t California my state” and by “California” they mean don’t bring your “liberal/socialist/Communist/woke/progressive/democratic” outlook to their states, because they don’t want to be responsible for cleaning up the racism and various other problems that the red states seem to have adopted as their identities.
This also happens to a lesser degree with "the nearest large & fairly progressive city" I grew up in Madison, WI, fell in love with a girl from a small town across the state and we moved in together, got married started a family etc. So the dogwhistling that happens when you talk about the nearest liberal big city is real. I'm selective about who I tell that I grew up in Madison, and I listen for the obvious dogwhistling like "oh I try to avoid Madison as much as possible" "oh I really don't like Madison"
And now that trumpian politics have had a chance to really take hold we're planning on moving to a larger city, in part because we dont want our kids growing up around so much racism. When local online communities, local organizations and local community meeting places (aka the local bars) are riddled with dogwhistley comments because people feel comfortable saying them (which wasn't so bad just a few years ago!) It's just not pleasant
Exactly right! Conservatives will say this about literally any nearby city, the only thing I've been able to come up with is that they're petrified of the city, just pure fear. Even something as small as Madison they'll dogwhistle up and down on because they've never been and they're terrified of it. Anything new or different is bad, of course.
I believe this is true. Progressivism is just one thing I like about the state. It's also gorgeous. Big Sur, San Francisco, Yosemite, sequoias, numerous vineyards, craggy beaches, and scenery that can transition from valley to plains to desert to mountains in just a couple hours' drive.
California gets trotted out in the conservative media sphere as "liberalism run wild", a place where being what they consider to be a "real American" is illegal but crime is subsidized by the state, where everything is expensive and dangerous, and homeless people have gay sex in the street. There's an entire industry focused on filtering for the most extremely awful news they can find in a state of almost 40 million people, packaging that news as though it's the typical experience everyone there goes through, and then blasting that news into the brains of Americans 24/7. That image, carefully crafted to be as extremely negative as possible, is the only experience most people have with California.
I moved from Canada to California a few years ago and spent almost 5 years in the San Jose area. Loved California; the food, the people there, the scenery, definitely the weather. End up hating America though.
I live in the Bay Area and love all the natural beauty in all directions. We can hike a different trail every weekend during the months when it's not unpleasantly warm or chilly and never repeat. The tragedy of it all is that it's attached to the rest of the country, by which I mean red states.
The liberalism run wild concept is kinda what I'm curious about. Like what things? I know California protects abortions and has stronger gun control laws. But is that really it? There's gotta be more actual examples
A lot of social programs, better employee pay and benefits, legal weed. Conservatives are just jealous that their shithole backwater hick towns will never change so they point at the scary liberal boogeyman that is "Commiefornia" in some vain hope they will get noticed.
We have different views on incarceration as well. Ask a conservative what they think about Prop 47, for example. I guarantee you they’ll not only know what it is but they’ll have a very strong opinion as well.
That image, carefully crafted to be as extremely negative as possible, is the only experience most people have with California.
That's the thing. No one I've ever heard who says this kind of shit has ever lived here for any length of time or knows anything about the state beyond what the "news" has told them to believe. There are issues here like there are issues everywhere. So people want to focus on homelessness. Of course we have more homeless people, we have more people. We have two of the largest and most well known metro areas in the nation with an up and coming third.
The bitching takes away (maybe intentionally) from the homeless issue that is rapidly increasing throughout the rest of the country. This is an issue of inflation and greed masquerading as inflation. Of corporate property owners buying up rentals and raising rents. Of workers not being paid a living wage. Of food and essentials becoming increasingly unaffordable by the month. Of course people are losing their homes and stealing from walmart. But this is a national problem. It gets worse all over the country for the same reasons and at the same time that it gets worse in California.
But what I will say is, we do have reproductive rights. Reasonable firearms regulations. More tenant regulations that most places, though still never enough. Some cities have social worker response teams instead of sending cops to kill people having mental health problems. We have homeless outreach and a statewide homeless census. Our schools and colleges still have diversity programs and sex ed. The state provides tuition waivers and grants for low income and marginalized students. We have drag shows and pride parades. And our libraries aren't being purged by fucking nazis. So there's that.
Doesn't matter. Cali and NYC are the epitome of librul chaos and if those places aren't made out to be smoldering shitholes with 2.7 homeless people to every citizen the gullible nitwit voluntarily angry dopes in the party (most of them) might actually vote in their best interests
There’s a large amount of perceived haughtiness from the residents of California. They have a lot to be proud of though - it’s a great state in a lot of regards.
Full disclosure, I’m Canadian but travel to San Diego often for work.
Downtown San Diego is not as I remember it from before the pandemic. It’s quite clear to me that California is struggling with a massive mental health and addiction issue. The cost of living compounds these issues and amplifies the worst in people. Even “normal” working class folk are quick to anger and explode at the slightest inconvenience and people just do not give a shit about each other. I pin it to everyone being stressed out because they live paycheck to paycheck and the future is always uncertain.
Things that I think could help: universal healthcare, increased public housing, and the execution of the sackler family.
When I lived in Southern California (which is very different from other parts of the state) in the early 90s it was exactly like that. And when I have visited. I always tell people to watch it because a lot of people are really quick up take offense and anger in public and they never believe me until they see it, which they have on each trip back.
I love other areas of California, it's beautiful, but Southern California always felt like a pressure cooker to me.
San Diego used to be a lot worse in a lot of ways. Honestly people have short memories. Admittedly, downtown is starting to look like 80s-90s downtown again, in a lot of ways though.
I can honestly say that there are a lot of terrible people out there, but in my experience San Diego always manages to come together when it matters. And honestly, in most day to day interactions, the vast majority of people I interact with are pretty nice overall.
It depends entirely on where you visit in the city. Plenty of areas have zero issues. Downtown sucks, though. I'm more surprised you've ever enjoyed it there...
It's a left-leaning, progressive state. Everyone who talks shit about this state in anything other than the cost of living generally doesn't have an answer because their actual reason for disliking the state is that it's not a republican state.
california is the largest "sub-national" economy in the world. if california was a country, it would have the fifth largest economy. bigger than the uk, or bigger than india.
if i had to guess, the answer is "success breeds jealousy"
If anything, it should be California thats pissed off, having all its tax money go to support the failed red states and their failed policies via the federal redistribution.
I think this is mostly due to the highly polarized political climate. California is the most populous state and it's policies frequently end up spreading to other states and therefore is frequently focused on because if it's major influence. This is similar to how Texas and Florida are in the news a lot for their more conservative policies. While there are people out there who take the time to inform themselves and make their own decisions most people are only able to parrot back talking points they hear from the news or their friends. I suspect your coworker is one of those people and probably leans conservative so all he hears all day is how California's policies are making housing too expensive and it's too "woke" etc.
Largest population and a GDP that at last I read was somewhere around 5th GLOBALLY supassing most countries which is no small feat for a single state. So it makes good sense that the rest of the nation takes notice when they enact something. Fortunatly most of the policies they enact tend to be for the benefit of the populous (environmental, gun control, privacy, etc) rather than corporations amd the elite so keep it up I say.
Some say people don't like it due to the cost of living. Property costs are reflective of both the prosperity of a local population and the desire people have to live there, so it's hard to say people don't like it because of the cost of living, if anything I'd see the opposite.
As a very left leaning individual who does not like California my reasons basically come down to all the benign neglect of the homeless (leaving people to rot in the streets with their fentanyl addictions isn't progressive, assholes) the militant oppositions to building housing anywhere (progress is being made but it's like pulling teeth) and the huge focus on performative laws that effect 0 actual change.
... Notably these are all problems in other states too. Most of them just use police to lock them up instead. Not better.
But California rubs me the wrong way because they act smug about it.
California also has more homeless than other states.... Reasonable weather and they don't get thrown in jail? Homeless people migrate here for those reasons.
I also wish we did a better job... It's not that California doesn't spend money on the problem... It's just the money we have spent has been ineffective. If we could get more housing first options maybe it would be better? It sucks though to go downtown sometimes.
California is also the dumping ground for Republican states who ship their homeless and refugees out of state. Every one of them does it so they can claim there is no homeless crisis.
And the problem is y'all refuse to build housing or shelters. 2/3rds of them are unsheltered. Housing costs are why they're homeless.
NYC has the other concentration of the homeless (and a lot of problems with the housing market as well) but at least 90% of the population has shelter.
Funny enough for the right wingers that don't like the gun control in California, it was first brought in because Reagan was fearful of the Black Panthers who were openly carrying fully legal assault rifles and those white politicians couldn't handle that second amendment applying to black gun owners.
It's the network effect. Many industry leaders are already here so everyone else wants to be also.
The real estate / rent prices are so insane that it is already affecting malls and smaller shops but it's still not causing the real estate market to draw down. In fact if anything the continued trend of prices rising higher and higher only attracts more demand.
Same reason people don't like Florida. Lots of targeted negative media coverage. Conservatives think California is a shithole where homeless people are everywhere and people don't get arrested for robbing a store at gunpoint. Non-conservatives think Florida is full of hard-core Trumpers who want to ban all gay people from existing and is like a redneck 1984.
Reality is more nuanced. Both states are very large populations with a diverse makeup. But nuance is hard to convey in headlines. I personally live in Florida and love it, even though I hate DeSantis with a passion. The people here make up for the shitty politics. And the pendulum will inevitably swing back to the other side.
This 100%. I'd also like to bring up that population distribution has a lot to with it. Across America, rural communities tend to agree with each other and urban communities agree with each other. A person living in Miami and someone living in LA would probably agree with each other politically than someone from LA and someone living in a rural community in North California.
The main issue comes from whether or not the majority of the state's people live in cities or the countryside. I live in a mid-size city in TN and almost everyone I know, including our governor mayor and local leaders, are very left-leaning. But because most of the state lives outside the cities, it doesn't really matter.
Sorry, this comment turned into a rant haha 😅
Not this last governor election but the one before it was a close race between DeSantis & Andrew Gillum. Gillum lost by a very small margin although some months after the election he was caught having sex with a male prostitute in a hotel room smoking meth. This was obviously unpopular, especially since he espouses family values and is married with kids.
The next election DeSantis won more or less unopposed and the electoral map of Florida looked like one of Reagan's maps where he painted the whole country red.
DeSantis's popularity seems to be dropping like a rock, however. A) he's trying to challenge Trump, which has been a bad idea for any Republicans who want to be elected in the last few years B) he's engaging very heavily in culture war which is financially hurting Florida and people are starting to see it
He's trying to fight Disney, one of the main reasons Orlando is a major city. He's passing anti-illegal legislation where Florida has some of the highest rates of illegals and Latinos in the country - essentially guaranteeing price increases and inflation for all sorts of manual labor intensive services. Ie construction, landscaping, etc
And of course housing prices are skyrocketing with Florida having the highest inflation in the country, topping 10% last year.
And while Floridians are struggling to pay rent, his messaging is focusing on "anti-wokeness" and he's turning down federal aid money.
Essentially DeSantis had a chance to be relevant nationally and he's throwing it all away while also pissing off his entire base in Florida. He thought he was untouchable and his overconfidence, I think, is backfiring.
So going forward what will happen in Florida? It's hard to say. If there's a good candidate from the Democrat side, they have a chance. However Gillum did stain the Dem reputation for a while in Florida.
Covid brought a lot of "anti-vaxxer / anti-lockdown" migrants so the Republicans have a good ~400k highly politically motivated new voters. However like I said, the Republicans policies are hurting Florida economically and that's never a good way to win elections.
There really isn't a left or centerist champion in Florida right now to my knowledge, but two people to keep an eye on might be the former agriculture commissioner and the new mayor of Duval county.
Went to San Francisco and California in general for the first time this past May. I've grown up in the suburbs on the East Coast with a very conservative family.
They were all losing their minds when I told them I was going to go. They were convinced I was going to get 16 times a day.
The city and state as a whole was absolutely beautiful (visited Yosemite and got engaged). There was so much to do that I had never experienced as someone who grew up in the suburbs. There was only one time we felt a bit uncomfortable but we were aware of the situation and had plans to get out if need be.
We rode public transportation (the horrors!) the whole time without any problem.
I know it's not perfect by any means but to me the problem is fear mongering by the likes of Fox
And that's how you keep rednecks from red states feeling superior... through outright lying.
Back in the Cold War days, Albania was the poorest and most undernourished country in all of Europe, yet the population believed they were the richest.
The method for spreading this type of lie has been adopted and polished by the right-wing propaganda machine.
While traveling in the South I was surprised to hear the exact same conversation in every diner I went into. It was whatever scare point was on the news the previous day. And nobody was debating the merits of the clams they were reciting, they were just agreeing with each other and bringing up the next claim. It was like it was a scripted conversation that they had started every time I walked into a greasy spoon restaurant.
I think it's more important for people to be up on their current talking points than to look at anything critically, especially not look into what their "news" media tells them is happening. And a lot of that seems to revolve around how terrible California is, I'm not sure why besides creating a very "large and powerful, controls Hollywood and the narrative" other for people to be worried about. (Surprisingly the exact same narrative control that dominates the diners in the South)
While there are certainly a fair share of people who say that, the more realistic complaint is that a lot of Californians have used WFH to leave the high COL state and move to cheaper areas, while still retaining their pay, and are pricing out historically poor communities. It's a problem that's upset a lot of people
I’m not sure how this hasn’t been mentioned yet but a lot of the Midwest doesn’t like California because it feels like there’s a migration of californians who have been priced out of California moving into the Midwest who both bring their left leaning policies into right leaning areas and buy up so much property it drives housing even higher.
I dono if its easier, but its much more visable. You dont run into the investment firms at the grocery store, or talk to them at your kids shool or sports events etc.
Midwest checking in - most of the property is being bought up by out-of-state landlords, large real estate companies that are slowly buying up everything. Home ownership is the lowest it's ever been here.
From my small sample size experience as a customer service rep for an internet and cable TV company, California customers are some of the most obnoxious ever. People in LA seem like some of the angriest people ever. The slightest inconvenience and it's like you killed their fucking dog.
Sit in LA traffic for two hours and you'll get it... It's an awful place. The Decemberists described it as "the oceans gargled vomit on the shore." So far, that's the best description I've heard.
LA people are not right in the head. The rest of California is nothing like that place.
As a tourist from Canada, my wife and I drove through parts of the US for about three weeks in 2018, and we absolutely hated California. It was our least favourite part of the trip. It is clear that LA is struggling with massive homelessness. The roads were the worst ones we encountered on our road trip. The beaches were littered with garbage, to an amount that we just found disgusting. They were also incredibly overcrowded, though that is what happens in heavily populated places. We went to Disneyland, and that was nice. However, we did cut our California stay short and moved on.
Now, I don't have many places to compare California to, as we were only in about four states. However, we have travelled extensively in Canada, where we have been to most of the provinces. We enjoyed the states and provinces we have visited. However, California is definitely in our no-no zone for vacations.
Again, this is a tourist perspective. I do not really know what it's like to live there.
Everyone is just bringing up economic reasons, but none of them are really policy directly. The economics are a good reason to hate California, but they dont have policies that really drive this. The real key is that California is a massively desirable place to live. The beaches are only second to Hawaii. The weather is arguably the best in the world. Some of the most beautiful state parks. It's one of the only places you could surf in the morning and snowboard in the afternoon. Supply is limited, and demand is high, so you get high prices.
As for actual policy, California has a progressive mindset. This leads to a lot of progressive policies. The problem tends to be that the policies that get enacted are often designed to sound progressive, but actually just limit the citizens without fixing the problem. Examples:
Coal rolling was bad for the environment. So they outlawed a large amount of car tuning. This causes damage to the car culture and a good hobby for a large number of citizens.
Water, being a limited resource in California, made it finable to water your lawn or wash your car in a drought, even though farming and business use 96% of total water usage. Normal people water usage isn't going to solve the problem
Gun policies that dont allow suppressors, short barrel rifles, etc, but in reality, the vast majority of gun crime and accidents are all based around handguns.
I have oversimplified all of these, but essentially, California is very good at making policies that annoy their citizens, but dont solve the problem just to make it appear like they are doing something.
Coal rolling was bad for the environment. So they outlawed a large amount of car tuning. This causes damage to the car culture and a good hobby for a large number of citizens.
the "downside" you state is actually a benefit to society
Water, being a limited resource in California, made it finable to water your lawn or wash your car in a drought, even though farming and business use 96% of total water usage. Normal people water usage isn’t going to solve the problem
i do agree that agricultural and business uses are a bigger deal than lawns or car washing in terms of water use, and the fact that almonds are farmed in california is a goddamn travesty, to name but one example. however, lawns cause or exacerbate way more problems to a much greater extent than you probably realize, and reducing how many of them we have, ideally in favor of local ecology if not just denser land use patterns, is a much greater benefit than you're giving it credit for. california's zoning codes have also been improving in this regard, though they're still... not great. point is that i do agree with you that that policy doesn't focus where it's really needed, but it's also not as useless as you think.
Gun policies that dont allow suppressors, short barrel rifles, etc, but in reality, the vast majority of gun crime and accidents are all based around handguns.
a fair critique, but also, far fewer californians per capita die to gun violence vs. the national average. i'm sure other factors play into that, but it certainly isn't evidence that the policy hasn't helped.
now, i'll give you two examples of my own. early in governor gavin's term, he was given a bill called "complete streets" that would have dramatically improved pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure throughout the whole state, and he vetoed it. and that sucked major ass. but then he went ahead and signed sb50, which forces all municipalities in the state to build some actual goddamn housing, and specifically dense housing near transit. and i'm a huge fan of that. san jose has really jumped on it with gusto and has actually had their average rent drop somewhat, although the bill is still relatively new and its benefits aren't likely to really be felt for a while yet. my main criticism here is how tons of the cities here are so nimbyed out the ass that it took the state government's intervention to do literally anything about the housing crisis.
there is much to critique about california, but not all california critiques are created equal.
Those are great examples of why I, as a progressive Californian, am often really frustrated by California’s laws.
California is very liberal, but we are also very wealthy. So we get a lot of policies that seem to tick liberal boxes on the surface, but do so in a way that is heavily protective of the interests of the wealthy. We get plenty of laws outlawing plastic straws and bags, but nothing to discourage property investors from making it impossible for families to own a home.
I love my state and I’m really happy here, but I also make enough money to be comfortable here. It’s sad that even someone earning the median wage is effectively locked out of the housing market, and is likely forced to live with roommates.
Also, the gun laws are largely performative garbage. So many things on the books that only serve to be a stick in the eye to people who want to lawfully and safely own firearms. Making it a legal requirement for me to configure my AR 15 in a way that makes it awkward to use doesn’t do anything at all to prevent someone from taking an allan key to theirs and spending 30 seconds to make it an “assault weapon”. I’m all for gun laws that make the world a safer place (for example, mandatory free safety classes and free registration for handgun), so it’s super frustrating to see all of the laws that we have that don’t even seem like they’re intended to make an actual difference.
Granted i only spent 10 days there in March last year (our air bnb was in Silverlake), but I fuckin loved it. Not so much Downtown, didn't spend any time in Hollywood either.
We moved to California from across the pond and love it. Socal weather can't be beat. Great food, great outdoor exercise and playtime options. The people are nice. Yeah theres issues but all told we really like it. I don't get the hate from other states and seems to be simply sour grapes
Never been to California, don't hate it, but don't exactly have a super high opinion of it as an outsider either. My personal reasons are
Much of the state has had a water crisis to one degree or another for most of the last century. That seems like a pretty clear sign that the environment can't really sustain the amount of people and industry it has, and yet we keep at it.
A lot of the state is prone to earthquakes, wildfires, mudslides, and other crazy shit. Again, seems like a less than ideal place to live.
The climate really isn't for me, I personally like cold winters with snow, that's not really a thing in a lot of California.
I'm from the northeast, I happen to like the overall vibe of people from this part of the country, west coasters have a different vibe, not necessarily a bad one, but it's not one I want to surround myself with full-time. Some (but not all) people get really snooty about the East vs West Coast thing, and while it definitely goes both ways, and I'm certainly biased because my experience is pretty much entirely from the east coast perspective. It seems to me like when that happens west coasters activity dislike the east, whereas the east is more indifferent towards the west.
Politically I overall tend to agree with the trends in CA in broad strokes, but it feels like they go weirdly overboard in some things (like the prop 65 warnings) and take weird half-measures in other. That's not a unique California problem, but because they're such a political and economic powerhouse their missteps have bigger ripple effects than most other states. I think overall most of the country could stand for our laws and policies to be more California-like, but we shouldn't be holding California up as some sort of gold standard to copy exactly, and I think that's a distinction that is lost on some people.
Yeah good fucking god it bothers me how people just think California is just Palm Springs and LA. It's has the most micro-climates in America and the Sierras get shit tons of snow.
Okay, let's start with the environment: most of California doesn't have enough water, and they're not doing anything to directly remediate that. Environmentally, a lot of the farming is going to be a disaster when the consequences of climate change really set in. Most of SoCal is a desert, but you wouldn't know it from the expanses of lawns that you see in wealthy enclaves. (...But you'll figure it out really fast when you try to go mountain biking without puncture-resistant tires.)
The gun control policy is awful, and likely illegal in light of the last few SCOTUS rulings. But here's the kicker: California has a Democratic supermajority, and they could do things about the underlying conditions that lead to violence in general, and don't. They've consistently failed to seriously address the economic issues that are closely tied to violent crime, things like economic inequality and poverty, criminal justice reform, systemic racism, and so on and so forth. Instead they've opted for policies that make wealthy white people happy without fixing the issues.
Housing; this is where wealthy "liberals" are directly to blame. Dems say that they believe in housing that's affordable, but wealthy elites--which are overwhelmingly Democratic in California--oppose zoning changes that would allow for high density, affordable housing. The result is shithole houses that can cost over a million dollars, studio apartments in sketchy parts of town (see point #2, above) are thousands of dollars a month, an exploding homeless population, and fuckin' awful sprawl.
Taxation: California has long had the chance to show that it's progressive with taxation, and to institute wealth taxes. They don't.
Education: California still relies on funding largely through property taxes, which ensures that school districts with a poorer tax base will have less funding. Again, this is the product of wealth elites--who are overwhelmingly Democratic in California--working to oppose funding changes that would have the effect of making schools in super-rich neighborhoods less desirable, but would also improve schools everywhere else.
Public transit: California barely has it, and it's consistently underfunded. Combined with point #3, it leads to traffic gridlock that's famously awful in major metro areas.
Most of these problems can be solved. The problem is that Dems are being hypocritical; they have a NIMBY attitude that means that, even though they say the right things, they don't do shit.
Housing; this is where wealthy "liberals" are directly to blame. Dems say that they believe in housing that's affordable, but wealthy elites--which are overwhelmingly Democratic in California--oppose zoning changes that would allow for high density, affordable housing.
It's not so much wealthy elites that are the problem here as everyday homeowners.
Because of the zoning ladder-pull people started decades ago, there's a lot of older middle class homeowners that bought an affordable house that's now worth millions. They're incredibly afraid of their house losing its value because it's probably the single largest part of their net worth, so they have a ton of cognitive dissonance over affordable housing.
They want affordable housing in the abstract, but they're 100% opposed to anything they think might lower the value of their house. And you can't really make housing more affordable without lowering the value of houses; they're kinda synonymous. So they come up with all kinds of bullshit special pleading to justify NIMBY policies.
It’s not so much wealthy elites that are the problem here as everyday homeowners.
The problem is that in most of the neighborhoods that are consistently rejecting plans to build high density housing, the 'everyday homeowners' are the wealthy elites. As you note, they're people that bought houses when they were affordable in an area, and their home has appreciated in value to the point of being worth millions; that does make them millionaires in the classic sense (e.g., assets worth more than a million dollars on paper).
My town recently closed down a homeless shelter because they were afraid it was 'attracting' homeless people and would lead to drug problems. Which, yeah, that's true; it was pulling them into the homeless shelter instead of them living int he woods, out of sight. The homeless people are already here, and the drug problems (meth and opiates) are there too, they just can't see them. Opening a homeless shelter? Try that in a small town, amirite?
There's a lot of truth to this, however for public transport, there were plans to modernize the public transport until Musk derailed those plans with a failed hyperloop
The people that were elected could have entirely ignored Musk; they always had that power.
I've seen opposition to expanding public transport near me; Atlanta was trying to expand MARTA north (into Fulton county, IIRC), and the measure was overwhelmingly rejected by people in Fulton because it would have made it easier for "those" people from Cobb county (Atlanta proper) to move to Fulton. Certain wealthy people view public transport as something that only the poors use--rather than as a benefit to the entire public--and oppose it because of fears that it will devalue their property.
I haven't been to California, but I can tell you I'd rather pee my pants than stop for a bathroom break in the rural southern US. I can't think California would be that way.
I'm a brown guy with long hair and a beard and I'd do the same. When I do my quarterly drive on I-10 through Alabama and Mississippi I make sure to refuel and take a bathroom break in Pensacola Florida or the eastern-most rest area in Louisiana to avoid stopping in those states.
There are so many more non-whites in the South than you realize, people that live happy lives without bother. Lots of those gas stations you passed probably didn't have one single white person in them lol I can't count how many times I've seen this in rural/suburban areas.
And if there are white people there, they're likely not what you imagine them to be. It's wild how such a prejudice usually comes from the people that claim to be so open and accepting.
In other words, nobody cares that you're brown. Just get some gas, grab a snickers, piss, and move on. This isn't the 1940s.
Basically right winger media likes to paint California as the enemy (the right wing puppet masters currently hate the governor to really explain it), and the right wing muppets will not realize when they are out of their echo chamber and they will make some comment about commie Cali and your just supposed to agree and be mad. If you ask them to explain why they hate an entire state, the inability to actually explain why "California bad" is a sign that they don't really know and are victims to the right wing propaganda industrial complex
I live in Colorado and there's a lot of California hate here. I don't feel this way but I know some is directed at the real estate investors who have been buying up homes and making the Denver housing market even worse. During the pandemic so many people lost out on houses to cash deals so they started working with these shady companies that would front you a cash offer for a % of the sale, then you'd just get a loan.
I don’t live in California but visit the bay area frequently for business. Here’s a typical experience:
Depending on travel budget, I’ll either stay at a motel for $400/night, or a regular hotel for around $800/night. It’s not my money, but it’s still ridiculous to need to file a budget exception to stay at a Motel 8.
When I arrive in the evening, I try to watch Netflix but the cellular bandwidth is so shitty I can’t even watch at the lowest resolution, and the hotel wifi isn’t much better. I boot up a wifi scanner and find nearly a hundred different base stations in range all stomping on the spectrum, so I just play Switch for a while and go to bed. When I get up in the morning, I go down to the free breakfast which is plastered with Prop 65 signs indicating the food served at the establishment is known to the state to cause cancer.
On the walk to the convention center, I have to sidestep multiple people strung out on who knows what. A person riding by on a bike yells “FUCK YOU” to all passers-by, including myself. Multiple vans with oversized LCD screens advertise a variety of AI and Blockchain startup “solutions”. One company has set up a 20-foot display on a parked “van” opposite the convention center to advertise to conference-goers despite being unaffiliated with the conference. Conference staff call the police but apparently the van has a permit, and it’s public parking so there’s nothing they can do.
When I arrive, I’m stopped by staff because I’m carrying my own demo machine. They tell me their union contract requires that all hardware setup must be handled by contracted staff. I leave my machine in the area they designate, and fill out the form indicating it must be ready in room 1005 by 2pm for my presentation.
After attending several morning sessions, I walk to find lunch. A local sandwich shop doesn’t sell Diet Coke or Doritos, but they do have cucumber water for $8. I decide to go to CVS for my Diet Coke fix, but almost every product is locked behind a door. Overhead speakers announce “Security, walk the floor” as several people enter the store, casually stuff their pockets full of M&Ms, and walk out without paying. Nobody stops them, including the security guard who just watches them until they leave. I decide to skip the soda.
When I return to the conference center to prepare for my presentation, my demo machine is there but is not connected to any of the room equipment. The contractors who plug in the machines are apparently different than the ones who move the machines, and they are on strike.
On the way back to my hotel, someone asks me for money for a bus ride. I ignore them, but they begin following me. I tell them no but they follow me back all the way to my hotel, where a security guard turns them away.
I get my bags and head to the airport. My driver thinks he’s in the Indy 500 despite being in stop and go traffic. It’s about 78 degrees and humid inside the terminal - The AC is off because PG&E is having capacity issues due to wildfires, which were incidentally caused by downed lines (owned and poorly maintained by PG&E).
Finally, I board my plane and relax, glad to be able to leave again. California - or at least the bay area - is always an exhausting experience. I can’t imagine wanting to live there.
The company I work for is based out of San Diego (I'm from the deep south) and they fly me out there occasionally for work. I also lived there for about a year a little over 10 years ago. Downtown San Diego is somewhat similar to what you mentioned but the rest of it is basically paradise. Granted, I couldn't afford to live there (especially the paradise parts) but none of the stuff you mentioned has been a problem to me as an out-of-towner.
I rented a car so I can't comment on taxis, but I'm willing to bet that's not a California specific thing. In fact, if you've ever been to Seoul or Busan you would probably wish you had a California driver. The nice hotel I stayed at was around $250 a night I believe and it was around some nice shops that I visited for food. Never saw anyone steal anything and don't recall seeing stuff locked up (at least not nearly as much as I do where I'm from in the south).
I went to Pacific beach, didn't see anyone (noticeably) on drugs and ate a wonderful dinner and ran around on the beach at night with some coworkers. We also went to a Padres game (they lost) and had a blast. Parking sucked and was expensive. There were a good bit of homeless people packed downtown and it wasn't nearly as nice as it was 10 years ago. The worst thing about it is it's super expensive and things are really far a part and car centric, but I don't know any place in the US that's not really like that.
However, I absolutely believe every thing you said. I don't doubt any of it. In fact it sound vaguely similar to my experience in San Fransisco many years ago. California is a massive state, like, super duper big. Some parts are better than others but overall I think it's a pretty sweet place if you could afford it. There are definitely places I'd choose to live over California but it wouldn't be too far down the list.
The bay area has degraded significantly in the last ten years. There are ardent defenders claiming it's not that bad, but it's one of the few places in the US that you can regularly see human shit on the sidewalks.
You sound like you are reviewing all of california like its a hotel/motel. I just would like to say that i work San Fransisco, and you are correct. it sucks. I drive 120 miles away past sacramento every weekend to escape that place. but smaller cities and towns in california can be very nice.
I don't know that California is super disliked (maybe politically if you're conservative?) - I think its among the great states in the US and while I may have some political disagreements with what California has done (Prop 13 for one has distorted the housing market despite good intentions) and it has awful mass transit and zoning, its the vast majority of the US west coast. It's got amazing scenery, food, people, and its an economic powerhouse. I am from NY, and love NYC, but its not nearly as important to the country as California and the economic disparity between urban and rural isn't nearly as bad as in NY state.
It's more that a lot of people move out from California and trash-talk it to anyone who will listen. This happens with everywhere, but because CA is so populous it has more people doing this than other places.
That's such a nonsensical statement to make about a state the size of California. Just the 3 main coastal cities have vastly different climates, and that's not even getting into the highly varied ecosystems found inland. Are you thinking specifically about the weather in the LA area?
The weather is one of the largest reasons people migrate to california.
Even if your homeless, its of the few states where you could be outside year round and not die due to the more extreme points of weather that you would experience in mamy other states
the weather where? it's a big state, with quite a lot of variation. there's a huge difference between san francisco, bakersfield, and truckee. i think most people could find some local weather to hate, but i suspect most people can also find somewhere to appreciate. unless you just want tropics or arctics or something similarly extreme i guess.
California has progressive taxes. That means the wealthy pay a higher tax rate than the middle class. The wealthy have gotten taxes raised on the middle class and lowered on the wealthy in most red states. So they continue to pay for a disinformation campaign that rails on California taxes.
But CA continues to carry the US in GDP. It has a tropical weather, that allows outdoor activities nearly year round, not found anywhere else in the US. It also has a lot of support for lower and middle class (this shows up in places like infant mortality rates).
But like almost everywhere else in the world, except countries like Japan and China that have addressed planning at a federal level, they have not built houses near fast enough to keep up with demand. So the cost of living is high (They have changed laws recently to try to partially address it). But if you make enough to live there it is a wonderful place to live.
It has a tropical weather, that allows outdoor activities nearly year round, not found anywhere else in the US.
The winter months are too cool for tropical, they are below 18°C average. Most of the parts that aren't desert or mountain actually fall into the Mediterranean classification.
California has a multitude of climates. You can take a tram from Palm Springs desert to Idyllwild and play in the snow. Or drive from the beach through the farmlands and wine region to the Sequoias. What we don't have is reliable rainfall, especially in the regions that need it most. There are very few years when we get the "average annual precipitation," instead it's either drought or flood. Some of the worst corruption historically has been about managing floods or stealing water. Very recently we have started trying to do a better job of capturing and storing it for later use and replenishing the groundwater.
Politics wise, it is seen as a hub of liberals. That means you have conservatives doing their best to knock California down the same way that liberals will do the same for Texas and Florida.
That said, there is a cost of living crisis that is caused a lot in part by the wealthy blocking increased density while locking in low property taxes due to date of purchase. So, a lot of coverage gets portrayed as rich liberals say they want these things, except near them.
It is also easier to film homeless in California since the weather makes it easier for them to live outside and the state is failing bad at providing housing for them.
I lived there and made $90k a year. Lived like 50 minutes from work, still paid $2.5k per month for a 500sqft studio and qualified as low income for the area. If people making that much are considered low income, something has failed.
I wonder the same thing, especially since we managed to buy a house close enough to the shore for a breeze. Not too close, but while everyone complains about 100 degree temps, we've capped at 82. People are friendly, I can eat just about any type of food in the world, and the government keeps giving us tax breaks and helps with utility costs since there was a price hike this year (which supposedly the state is investigating), especially since we make below average wage. We literally paid no taxes last year!
That said, this is considered a ghetto neighborhood. Years of poor urban planning (and honestly, white flight, racist redlining, and manufacturing leaving in the 60s/70s) have made our neighborhood pretty neglected over the last half decade. And yet, our schools in the area, despite being 90% free lunch status (i.e. poverty) they are rated 8 and 9 out of 10 by most reviewers; the violent crime rate about the same as most parts of LA, and businesses are coming back--- albeit hopefully not replacing locals with gentrification. If all you see is Compton at it's worst, I understand the concerns, but they're unfounded.
I guess there's still homelessness to figure out... And I suppose property value, although again, kind of a boon for us. So yeah, tl;dr, I'm with you on this confusion!
It depends on your stage of life, financial situation, priorities, politics, etc.
CA does have more laws than most places. Whether any of those really affect you is up to you to determine. Recommend looking at the CA constitution and frankly just seeing what comes up. Pertinent laws will tend to find you. If you really want talk to others that live nearby you as they likely represent your demographic and may be aware of things likely to impact you.
I think California is an okay place, but there are several things that annoy me about it, and here are some:
The houseless problem seems extremely poorly managed. I lived in NYC for six years and have visited California a few times. From my experiences, both SF and LA appear to have much larger populations living outdoors (I checked and this is true, 75% of LA’s population vs 6% in NYC, and the cities are comparable in both population and houseless population). Additionally, I’ve had more issues interacting with houseless people in CA than in NYC despite having lived in Manhattan many times longer than I’ve spent in CA. My guess is this is due to worse services/mental health services in CA. I would frequently buy food or coffee for houseless individuals in NYC and never had an issue. I once gave a couple of dollars to someone CA for bus money. They yelled at me because they needed a couple more for the bus. Another time I was followed for several blocks.
California as a state and population seems to be at least as much bluster as action. I don’t want to detract from some real actions, like car electrification requirements, but for example, prop 65, the “known to the state of California to cause cancer” labels. A) California seems to “know” many things that science does not. B) no one pays any attention to these labels, but they sure cost a lot to produce C) if anything, this will cause people to ignore future warnings for real things or even current ones like on cigarettes.
As a longtime resident of Hawaii, this one just annoys me. California claimed it was the first state to plastic bags. This is false; As of May 11, 2014, they were banned across Hawaii. https://www.surfrider.org/news/hawaii-becomes-the-first-state-in-the-u.s.-to-ban-plastic-bags. This did not stop California from claiming the victory when a law was signed later that year that didn’t go into effect until July 2015. https://www.ca.gov/archive/gov39/2014/09/30/news18742/index.html. California doesn’t just not know what causes cancer, they don’t know how to use google despite it being from their state. I suppose you could argue semantically that Hawaii’s ban was not statewide, as it was technically four bans, one in each of the counties, but that’s splitting hairs.
The biggest issue with Prop 65 is that the lost of chemicals includes things that cause cancer under specific conditions that consumers aren't likely to encounter and chemicals only known to cause cancer in animals. Ceramic fiber is a listed chemical, which means you need a Prop 65 label on ceramic mugs, even though ceramic fiber exposure would only occur upon breaking the mug and the effects would be negligible unless you're crushing mugs up into powder and railing the lines like Tony Montana.
Yes, this is essentially what I mean about the difference between science and california’s knowledge. The warning labels are
directed at humans using the products, so one would hope that the warnings would be for things that would have some reasonable chance of causing cancer to humans using the product but that’s usually not true.
So either these companies are violation of the law or (more likely) their product to comply.
Also keep in mind that prop 65's name is: The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986
One of the main goals is to protect our water from pollution, which even if the cups aren't carcinogenic when aren't broken the use of the chemical to produce it will likely end up in water due to production process. Also the chemical will be exposed to the environment once the cup is tossed away (especially after it breaks)
I've lived outside NYC and in SoCal. I don't think fair to only consider the total numbers (especially "living outdoors") when one place is freezing and inhospitable for a few months every year while the other is relativity (and in some parts, actually) a tropical paradise. People are going to migrate from all around the country to the most comfortable places to live outside. Not to mention cities literally bussing their homeless out- NYC was actually the first and still has the largest program:
New York appears to have been the first major city to begin a relocation program for homeless people, back in 1987. After the current iteration of the program was relaunched during the tenure of mayor Michael Bloomberg, it ballooned, and its relocation scheme is now far larger than any other in the nation. The city homelessness department budgets $500,000 for it annually.
Prop 65 is definitely useless. But I don't see that as a reason to move out of the state.
The whole thing that prompted me to ask was that I was told some people left the state for Montana because of the "policies" but I couldn't get a good answer on which policies they disagreed with.
Homelessness is certainly a problem here that's worse than most places. But it's still a problem everywhere you go.
It forced companies to reformulate their products to use less harmful chemicals to avoid having to use the label. And it was highly successful at that, not only in California but outside, because businesses don't want the labels on their products. Especially food products or products meant for kids.
What you see is malicious compliance from businesses as there is no penalty for putting the sign if there's no dangerous chemicals. If they put it often enough, then most people think this law is ridiculous. For example. If Disney would get a civil lawsuit (this is how the law is enforced), because for example one their restaurants were using dangerous chemicals, this sign won't protect them. So it serves no other purpose than to make it appear that the law is pointless.
Other ways they fight it is trying to pass federal law banning it, they had several attempts.
They also making strawman lawsuits, even creating companies specially for the lawsuit to show that this law hurts business.
I dislike California because their life revolves around freeways and traffic. I also dislike the aggressive homeless population. I’m in nyc and everyone takes the train/ no need to be in traffic, and while there is homelessness they don’t bother you/follow you.
Someone who lives in California not originally from here chiming in. For me personally, I hate it because of the weather. I live in SoCal, which people claim to have good weather, but to me it’s hell. It never rains, the sun is always shining, and it’s always hot while most apartments don’t have AC. This may sound lovely to you, in which case more power to you. I’m the kind of person where the sun saps all energy out of my body and I prefer being cold to warm, so this sucks. Other main downside is housing cost. My 650 square foot one bed apartment in suburban LA costs over $2000 a month and it’s cheap for the size and area. Maybe Northern California is nicer, but SoCal ain’t it
Put it in a code block (it's in a quote block now, use ``` on both ends instead) to preserve newlines or add at least 4 spaces at the end of the line to force a newline.
They're jealous because they're too poor to live in CA. They believe everything they hear on the news and don't realize that there's more to the state than wildfires and homeless people. They aren't cultured enough to appreciate theater, fine cuisine, fine wine. They're too fat to surf.
The houseless problem seems extremely poorly managed. I lived in NYC for six years and have visited California a few times. From my experiences, both SF and LA appear to have much larger populations living outdoors (I checked and this is true, 75% of LA’s population vs 6% in NYC, and the cities are comparable in both population and houseless population).
I would imagine it has most to do that those people world have extremely hard time surviving winter outside in NYC.
California as a state and population seems to be at least as much bluster as action. I don’t want to detract from some real actions, like car electrification requirements, but for example, prop 65, the “known to the state of California to cause cancer” labels. A) California seems to “know” many things that science does not. B) no one pays any attention to these labels, but they sure cost a lot to produce C) if anything, this will cause people to ignore future warnings for real things or even current ones like on cigarettes.
The proposition 65 aka The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, actually is much more successful at reducing harmful toxic chemicals and affects other states too. Businesses are encouraged to change formulations so they don't have to use the label.
Although since enforcement is done via civil lawsuits. If they served food or something that did contain these chemicals, a sign like this won't be a good defense that they complied and warned their patrons.
They are trying also via lawsuits, which meant are filled on behalf of strawman. Many businesses were created just for the purpose of filing prop 65 lawsuits.
Though probably biggest issue is that the prop 65 is being used for frivolous lawsuits (as anyone can sue for not informing and get a settlement because no one wants a trial). So now AG needs to approve such settlements to reduce it. There were attempts to reform it.
So yeah frivolous lawsuits are the biggest issue that needs addressing, but other than that the law actually helped reduce exposure to those chemicals not only for Californians but also people from other states.
Sorry I didn't really pay attention to the numbers, but willing to believe CA would have it higher than NY just purely, because of the weather. Yeah, it is ridiculous.
Californians are annoying and elitist: well, a disproportionate number of annoying and elitist rich people live here, but I think they give the rest of us an undeserved bad name. That is my personal opinion and not a definitive, objective statement of fact, but I feel like I have a decent read on it as a lifelong Californian.
Has big social problems in cities: name me one state that doesn't.
Well from my perspective it's not that people hate California it's that they hate the influx of Californians in their state. Tons of tech people moved from San Francisco to Austin and now it's near unrecognizable. Austin a long time ago used to be a small city with a lot of charm now it's the tenth largest city in the US. It's not just Californians moving their but they are the biggest group and they are pretty loud about where they come from.
Everything gets more expensive, they bring some of their failed policies with them, and there are a lot of weird ideas that come out of California. I don't mean your generic lefty policies that may upset some old timers in Texas but like the weird transhumanism shit that tech people are obsessed with. It feels like a cult, another thing California is known for, and it's basically the opposite vibe of what Austin used to be. I personally have met a lot of Californians I really like but it's not hard to see the culture clash. Also when I say California I really mean San Francisco and LA, not like Sacramento or the other parts of California. It's the tech people, the Hollywood people, and the groupies they aquire. They leave California due to costs and it's somewhat chaotic nature but then start to transform their new home into California.
If you've ever met old timers in Texas you know great don't like change. They talk about building an overpass as a sign of the apocalypse. So that's where I assume most of the hate comes from.
And a lot of the folks that moved there did so for the same conservative leaning reasons tech companies did, like less taxes. Feels like a lot of selection bias going on.
And many of the people moving from California aren't California natives. Some dude who moves from Ohio to California for a year and then moves to Texas is going to be lumped into this group.
I've met people from California who now live in Texas and are right leaning and typically they are very right wing. More so than your average Texan. Most older people in Texas don't like change and are Christian conservatives. The right wingers from California feel different to me. I'll use the term neo reactionary to describe them, but they are the no regulations, meritocracy, pro eugenics types. You can't use the old school stuff like "what would Jesus do" which would occasionally work on getting the most stubborn conservative Texan on a neo reactionary as they typically don't believe in God.
I'll be honest I've heard some of their ideas and they frighten me. They imagine a antidemocratic world controlled by AI and tech executives. It's very different from the conservative Texan ideas I'm used to seeing. The classic Texan conservative wants prayer in school and the freedom to not wear a seatbelt. They can be stubborn and annoying at times but I'm used to it and I think they mean well. I don't feel the same way about neo reactionaries.
For better or worse California is a forward thinking place but also an exclusive one. It's also very expensive to live there. The price to live in Austin has gotten crazy high and now there is a much larger homeless population. Austin's solution to this now mimics San Francisco which is to pretend it's not happening.
Also California loves regulations for some but not others. For every smart regulation they have some "futuristic" new thing that annoys people. Silicon Valley is basically exempt from regulation at all.
For a recent example the Waymo driverless taxis that break down in the road and cause traffic jams. They are only in 4 cities; LA and San Francisco of course, but now because of the influx of tech workers they are in Austin and Phoenix. Used to be that only San Francisco would be a guinea pig for tech and social experiments but now it's spreading to where they moved to.
True. Dallas and Houston have a lot of tech too, but Austin has become San Francisco 2 fairly recently. Dell was the big home grown tech company a lot of these other companies and start ups are from California. Nobody would accuse Dallas of being like San Francisco because it's more traditional corporate tech. I think sxsw attracted a lot of people from California.
I can’t speak for the entire state, but I’ve visited San Francisco many times (never lived there). It was one of the dirtiest, most disgusting cities I’ve ever visited, and I’ve visited Mumbai. I would leave conferences after speaking to people worth hundreds of millions of dollars, to be greeted by a sea of homeless people shooting up drugs, vomiting, and shitting in the streets. I’ve witnessed multiple crimes in the short trips I’ve taken, including mugging, theft, and assault. I’ve no doubt the city once held cultural cache and beauty, but it’s hard to find now. It’s hidden under a layer of crime, trash, boarded up stores, and graffiti.
Sadly my trips to Los Angeles were not much better. I am told other Californian cities are much nicer. It’s just such a shame to see what they have allowed to happen to such once beautiful cities.
Fwiw (being a nonnative Californian) we have so many homeless because nobody else will even try to care for them.
Other states seem content to just let em die, ideally after shopping them to us with a free bus ticket.
We could do that too.. But I'm glad we're trying out here. They can be a bit gross, but they don't seem to bother the locals. Some have interesting stories.
Success with this pernicious problem doesn't seem guaranteed, but it never was against what's usually a mental issue.
There must be a better way than leaving them on the streets. That’s not a compassionate way to treat people. I know that addicts often resist help, but that’s a good argument for the Dutch model. When an addict appears before a judge they are given two options: prison or mandatory rehab. Unsurprisingly, Holland has much higher levels of rehab completion and very few addicts in the streets. They also spend much less per homeless person than San Francisco.
I don’t think this is about compassion. I think it’s about failed policies. What they keep doing isn’t working. It’s time to do something which is proven to work.
I think one reason is the news portrayal like others mentioned—though this often goes two-ways—ask a native Californian what they think the South or Midwest are like and you’ll often get some crazy off base responses.
I think another big piece is that CA policies have a disproportionately large impact on everyone else’s policies (they share this characteristic with NY to some extent). CA has the 3rd largest economy in the world and therefore companies often have to adhere to CA policies in order to keep from losing an extremely significant market share. For example, CA committing to no more gas cars by X date immediately made gas vehicles an obsolete product for the manufacturers’ bottom line.
Taxes are super high. I'd be big mad if I was Californian, they get very little investment back from federal taxes (they are effectively subsidizing the poorly run states) and have to make up the shortfall at the state level.
Instead of helping Britney Spears, guardianships increased without a fiduciary duty lawyer for "gravely disabled" or predicted to get worse. Homeless people need shelter, not chemical restraint.
I loved California. I just couldn't afford it anymore.
Also, their power grid has to be the only one worse than Texas. My power was ALWAYS going out there. Last time I visited my parents there, their power was out for 3 of the 7 days I was there.
I had PG&E. They were the only power company when I lived there. Not sure if things changed, but we didn't have a choice. PG&E was sued a few years earlier from a fire that was started due to high winds knocking down power lines, so as a "fuck you" they decided to shut down power any time the wind was blowing, which was all the damn time.
I appreciate it's a big state but unless you're within a couple of miles from the coast in Northern California it is unreasonably hot for a significant portion of the year
I also like the "you get what you vote for" comments about CA. WE voted for the best candidate out there at the time for Gov., we've had both parties in the past and they were a mixed lot...the guy who lost during the last recall election was dragging around a live bear to do press events and didnt have much of a position on anything relevant and he lost...
I've only visited San Francisco once, and I loved it, I'd gladly move back if it were affordable.
But from the outside, California can feel like a bit of a nanny state. The perception is that the legislature passes a large bill to fix a problem, but the bill is poorly crafted and causes two more problem, then the bills to fix those cause 4 more problems.
I feel like one of the problems with California is the Proposition system. Anyone can introduce a proposition to be put on the general ballot with enough signatures. Most of the far-reaching laws in California were put in place by propositions including Prop 65 warning labels and Prop 13 property tax caps. They generally have provisions that make them very hard to repeal by the state legislature.
With the rise of political ads and social media, it allows special interests and corporations to pass favorable laws. For example, Uber and Lyft put up Prop 22 to classify rideshare drivers as independent contractors and poured a ton of money into ads to convince voters to pass it. It needs a 7/8 majority in the legislature to repeal it. For context, the California legislature had previously passed a bill to regulate rideshare drivers as regular employees, requiring the companies to provide benefits.
It sort of depends on where you are, but in San Francisco and Los Angeles, the homeless problem is noticeably worse than almost anywhere else in America. It’s bad.
An ex of mine lives in a pretty posh part of LA (Crestview). She works constantly and really hard to afford to live there. Now there are people literally shooting heroin on the street outside her home and to take her toddler to play at the park, they’re basically walking around the bodies of people high/sleeping.
I mean, I’m as anti-drug war as they come, but that’s no way to live and the police really should clear it out. Even in the poorer parts of most other cities, that’s not something you see.
As far as I understand, the problem stems from the fact that places like skid row provide infrastructure to help homeless people, so more homeless move there to get at least basic healthcare, food etc.
If all larger cities did that instead of repressive measures, the problem should spread among them, making single places less problematic.
Well, that's always been the case with Skid Row, though it might be debatable which came first -- the homeless encampments or the aid agencies. And for that matter, there were Hoovervilles in the Great Depression. In any city in America, there are transients milling around the shelters, which is why there's so much NIMBYism over developing new shelters.
But what's going on in California probably has more to do with the fact that LA and San Francisco tend to be very tolerant of the homeless encampments and provide generous aid, thus inducing demand. The homeless population is soaring across America for various reasons, but California is a desirable place to be homeless: better aid, better climate, softer police, etc.
Maybe California's big cities really are more humane and generous, but at this point it's to the detriment of livability in those places.
Car-centric, sprawling concrete jungles define most of California. I hate those things thus I hate California. Additionally their water management policies are using a resource that should be reserved for the citizens of the state are instead diverted to grow non-native crops for a handful of rich fuckers.
California is what late-stage Capitalism looks like.
You're selling sexism
You're selling racism
You're selling anything you get your fucking hands on
An understanding, you got a plan in a
Presentation to advertisers who demand it
When you plan that
Your antennas are pointed in the right direction
You make a deal in any situation
So with no evacuation
Let California fall into the fucking ocean
Oh they talk to ya, oh your the town man
High profile Hollywood scum-bag
It's a done deal, signed and sealed
Deal makers making it all happen
When you plan that
Your antennas are pointed in the right direction
You make a dead in any situation
So with no evacuation
Let California fall into the fucking ocean
Let California fall into the fucking ocean!
Let California fall into the fucking ocean!
Let California fall into the fucking ocean!!!
The problem with California is that it's in the USA. A country with many problems. Compared to other developed countries, anywhere inside the USA is bad.
California is disliked by other US states for the same reason other countries might not like the US. It gets a disproportionate level of exposure and then you go there and it becomes a "don't meet your heroes" type of situation.
I'm sure different people will have their own reasons. But for the most part, I know it's a cultural intrusion thing. Very few countries have a majority of people saying they like the American media and American style of democracy being coaxed on them.
Yeah but in the end I still have to go back to suburbia.
Granted pretty much the same applies to the whole of the US and Canada, either you're in the wilderness or suburbia but CA is especially egregious because you'd think with that kind of density they would've thought about building, you know, a couple of four-storey apartment blocks or something somewhere. The kind of density that enables public transport to work.
I can go surfing in the morning, hike beautiful mountains in the evening, and experience the TJ nightlife, all in a single day. The next day I can go offroading in ocotillo or take a stroll through a park bigger than NY's Central Park. idk, my section of California is heaven.
Just one example: the state made sale of new internal combustion cars illegal at a certain point in the future, at a time when the electrical grid is unreliable.
This is a way of trying to use government power to fight global warming.
But it hurts people. It’s a state where the general philosophy of “sacrifice poor people to save the planet” is being enacted in government policy.
Are the poor buying new cars? With a greater supply of evs, the poor will buy used evs which require less maintenance, other than new batteries that can be financed.
EDIT: to be fair, you used to be able to buy a used foreign car for $500 (foreign for reliability) and even the cheapest ev (with actual usable range) costs 10 times as much, mostly because of the battery. The fuel costs are lower but the up front costs are higher.
I agree with your edit. Those below the poverty line shouldn't/can't finance an EV battery. Combustion cars can be purchased for ~$500 and are usually fixable for only a few hundred dollars with enough time and tools. Most engine problems are more expensive in labor than in parts, so almost anyone can fix for cheap with YouTube tutorials. If all else fails, junk yards are full of parts, including engines and transmissions.
Even if EVs may have better reliability, when it comes time to sell it, someone in poverty can't afford to buy and fix it. The raw materials in the battery are worth too much, and the batteries don't last forever.
People may not have (or have access to) banking, financing, etc and shouldn't need to finance everything in their life. Financing is like a tax on the poor.
Hopefully these things change in the future, public transit improves, we make combustion cars cleaner, or batteries get cheaper, but right now it's the poorest that will be paying most for this environmental crisis.