The street drains and culverts in the southwest suck...they don't design them to handle a deluge...sandy soil crumbles pretty easily too
Cool. I'm just speaking from my personal experiences. I've experienced the same thing every time I've experienced rain in Cali, both in the Bay Area and LA. SoCal is far worse than the Bay Area though, I can say.
I think its more they freak out when its raining. People drive slow and stupid when it rains here. They don't pay attention, they don't turn their lights on and are completely oblivious. If anything, they start driving like Oregonians when its dry outside. California drivers are generally a shit ton better than Oregonians who are slow as fuck
Yeah. I see Oregon drivers struggle when we get that first sunshine of the year. Like, it's too bright to drive cuz they've never seen the sun before. Only in Oregon can a freeway backup be caused by sun. As for slow Oregon drivers... Drivers in Cali actually drive slower, but not by choice (traffic). There are two stretches of 5 where people do get to go 85-95, if not even more: northern Cali just across the boarder (you know you've crossed the border from Oregon into Cali when the road instantaneously turns to shit, and then south of Frestucky to the Grapevine). That right there is closest to the autobahn I've experienced in America. My fave Cali driver move is the "one-blink" with the blinker when you're halfway over into the lane already. I've perfected it so they don't know I'm from out-of-state. Like, what's the point of the blinker at that point? Just to create a gray area against a ticket?
always chuckle when summer gets to Oregon and we have the first 85 degree day...people immediately complain about the heat!
It's more of a one-blink-and-swerve-over. People do it to cut in before the other person can speed up to prevent them from changing lanes (which is a thing people do all the time). The reason to use the blinker at all is to at least warn the other person that they're about to get cut off, to reduce the risk of an accident. It's a weird dynamic of aggression to combat aggression.
Yeah. I love that move. People do it all everywhere to an extent, but not with the one blinker Californians have mastered. I fucking hate when someone is cruising along, you go to pass, and they speed up.
People certainly have issues driving in heavy rain in California - at least from my experience - but I would agree with Minstrel - the issue is not that they drive slow, it is that they do not drive slow enough and turn their lights on. Still, I am willing to suffer the occasional rainy day with bad drivers for many sunny days with drivers that actually know how to drive fast when it is an option.
Obviously, anyone who chooses to live in a given city probably likes living there, or at least figures the good outweighs the bad. I am fairly footloose, not married, no children, rent my house, have a pretty portable job. I could go elsewhere. If I live in California and in the East Bay, I guess you could say I am biased. But that does not change the fact that everything I said about California, and Kansas, are factually true. The one I should meet is @Minstrel as it appears we are both Bay Area restaurant aficionados. (would a woman be an aficionada?) Minstrel, at Wayfare Tavern, does one order the famous burger or the equally famous chicken?
My biggest disappointment with the Bay Area is how dirty it's gotten. I get that it's highly-populated, so that comes with the territory. But I've been visiting regularly to attend Giants games and work events since I was high school. I feel like I can't spend half a day in the city without feeling crusty. I'd have loved to seen the Bay Area 40-50 years ago, and SoCal like 60 years ago.
No shit. I never once believed that you were unbiased. You lose, however, when your logic becomes comparing a Plains State to that of the 6th largest economy in the world. There are whole countries that don't have the economy that California does, and yet, you're trying to make some bullshit comparison between KANSAS and California. For Pete's sake. Furthermore, you are also conveniently ignoring the fact that, even though the tax rate is atrocious in California, they still have tons of homelessness, few jobs only in specified sectors which require specific training and/or education to acquire, and much crumbling infrastructure outside of modern sky-rises. Oh yeah. For all their talk of how "Green" that State is, they still have massive amounts of pollution. I still have allergies today that were as a direct result of living in polluted San Jose as a child.
I look forward to going back to NorCal this year. It is much greener this year after this winter. I go to SoCal every February and was shocked at how green it was this year, so NorCal must be nice. I like the more rural country areas there, like around from Shasta down to Napa/Sonoma. Beautiful drive.
The Sierra Nevadas are indeed very beautiful. My extended family lived in Arnold for most of my life. It's my favorite place in California, in fact.
Arnold is a pretty cool spot. That whole area is. Angels Camp, Murphys, etc. We've stayed at the old resort up in Arnold on a golf course. My favorite place is the Glory Hole Center in Angels Camp. There's a great Italian restaurant in Arnold (Sarafina's).
My compliments! You know that place very well! My aunt and uncle had a house on that golf course. My uncle was the baptist minister of the church for Arnold, until my aunt and him retired to Berkeley about 3 years ago or so. My aunt was a teacher (Kindergarden or 4th Grade...can't remember which). I really liked Angels Camp. Pretty much all of that area was beautiful. Calaveras Big Trees State Park was my absolute favorite place to visit. I also had family that lived in Ukiah. Wanna talk about a barren place; Jesus Almighty. My late aunt and my uncle (still alive) had a place out there that was absolutely dead. They had 2 neighbors; one of whom moved away. And their house backed up to a massive old orchard that stretched for miles across nothingness. It was always barren and dry there, but the stars were incredible at night. I remember driving on the Willits Road during the summer time was absolute hell, because my mother's Ford Escort didn't have any A/C. Good times. Hmm...perhaps I miss parts of California more than I realize....
The reason the California and Kansas comparison is made is because they went the opposite ways on tax cuts at the same time (2012) - with results that contradict the trickle-down economy theory. One state had an economic boom, the other bust. If you do not want to compare California and Kansas directly - compare Kansas and Nebraska - during that period Nebraska's economy growth was 10 times larger (percentage wise) than Kansas. Missouri's growth was 5 times larger than Nebraska. No one is ignoring the fact that there is no perfect solution - but California is in a much better place to continue to tackle it's problems than states that ignore the basic ideas of how to run a budget... Well, Duh - when you have a massive urban area like Los Angeles that has for years expanded horizontally instead of vertically while also being enclosed in a mountain range which traps the pollution - of course it is a problem. But all the things that CARB made California adopt have shown huge decrease in pollution despite a big population growth. Between 1970 to 2006 carbon monoxide emissions fell from 197 million tons to 89 million tons nitrogen oxide emissions fell from 27 million tons to 19 million tons sulfur dioxide emissions fell from 31 million tons to 15 million tons particulate emissions fell by 80% lead emissions fell by more than 98% Add the fact that California produces 23% of the agriculture product of the whole country - and agriculture is a huge pollution source - and of course there are issues with pollution in California. I can assure you that cutting taxes, breaking the budget and eliminating CARB will not make California's pollution better. I know that people love to blame the UGB for Portland's real-estate prices, but it also helps keep pollution down by requiring vertical building...
That's a good answer, thank you. I guess it just baffles me when the Liberal elites get all self-righteous with their "we're cutting tax breaks for the rich" nonsense, and then I look around at the crumbling infrastructure and ask myself "well, if they're cutting tax breaks for the rich, and making them 'pay their fair share', then where the hell is that money going?"
Like everyone else, I wish I could pay less tax - but I think that there is a reasonable place where tax need to be to balance the free economy and the good of society. Unfortunately, it seems that people believe in binary solutions - and as I gave an example with water when answering MarAzul - it is never all in or all out. Just like there is a section of the left that wants to socialize everything and raise taxes for the rich to great levels - there is a large portion of the right that believes in trickle down economics where it does not make sense (See Kansas). The reality is that you need some social services paid by government if you want the economy to thrive - if you assume that people are the most important asset of an economic engine - you want to attract people - if you can not get people to work for you - you can not run great companies. So, health-care is a good economic investment imho - you need your work-force to be healthy to be able, to, you know, work. Cutting education is a bad long-term economic decision - people will move away from bad school districts and move to good school districts for their kids. If you can not attract good people to work for you - your economy is not going to thrive. Infrastructure is another good example - if the people can not get to their work... well... So, once we establish that there are social services that it makes sense for the government to provide, you need to fund it, which pretty much means tax. You can not tax the poor simply because they do not have money to tax. If you look at this country at large, 85% of the wealth is owned by 20% of the people. Unfortunately, that means these are the people that you have to tax. It is really simple math. Now, a lot of these people are upset that they are taxed at a higher rate than the poor, understandably, but in reality, without society - they would not have this wealth - so - what can be done? If you want good schools, healthy population and modern infrastructure - you need to fund it. To fund it, you need taxes, and given the way wealth is distributed in this country, it unfortunately means the wealthy. Just to be clear, I do not believe in crazy amounts of taxes, If we go to the Federal level - we had examples of too mach tax in the Jimmy Carter days, the right amount of tax in the Reagan, Clinton and Obama presidencies (all ended with better economy than what they got on the way in) and what to me seems like too low (First and 2nd Bush presidents, both of which ended with economic down turn at the ends of their presidencies). Likewise, the Arny era in California was probably not enough tax - which lead to huge budget issues. The extra taxes we pay now are not fun - but I appreciate that we live in an area with great education and much better air quality than it was even 10 years ago.
