This is not a California issue. This is a SF issue. California has a positive growth (more people move into California than leave). How do people live here? Great actually, but it is not cheap, the salaries do reflect this however (in some places better than others). I lived in Portland for a long time, in Marin county (North of the GG bridge) and now in San Diego county. I loved Portland and always will, but I also love California and can not see myself leaving. Like everywhere else - it has it's good and bad portions - but overall, California is an amazing place to live.
Well, of course. The entire area is populated and in many places it is the terrain that restricts it. Lived in Marin county for a while - beautiful place, but the terrain limits you pretty much as well. SF specifically however is certainly an issue with zoning regulations.
California economy has been on a roll for about 5 years now - out-performing just about every other state in the union. Given that for every dollar spent in federal taxes California sees about 0.9 coming back - California is actually bailing out the rest of the country, not the other way around. I know it is easy to say things like "California is stupid" and "Taxed to death" - but the reality is that it actually works very well for California, better than most other places in the nation. No need to get facts get in the way of the self righteousness however...
I used to live right on the edge of the UGB - it was wonderful, 1/2 a mile from my house had open agricultural spaces. While it certainly causes the prices to go up - the alternative are giant concrete jungles like Dallas or LA - a lot of the charm of Portland is a result of the UGB.
Facts are never debatable. They are binary. They are either true or not. This is why they are facts. The state's GDP growth has out-stripped just about any other state in the country. It is a fact. The deficit that was inherited from the Arnold area has mostly been eliminated (from over 20B in '11-'12 to actually being in the black in the last 3 years, although they are estimating a deficit in the upcoming year without some budget changes (nowhere near as bad as it was in the Arnold time). You can argue that the financial stability California had in the last years will not continue - this is an argument that can be made, but facts are facts.
Believe me, I know all about Sessions and how much he values civil rights. I think it's fair to say that you and he have similar respect for civil rights. So we are definitely in agreement!
The American economy has improved only built on the Federal Reserve's stimulus program. Its not real, the economy is totally dependent on the FED. As the state with the largest economy in the US, California bears the most of this imaginary success.
And yet, when I retire, hopefully in a couple of years, I will either stay in the East Bay or go to Portland. I know I could live cheaper many other places, but would I want to?
So, you are telling me that in order to have a healthy business model someone had to invest money... When you can show me a business or country that can have a positive cash-flow without investment - we can talk. I never believed in the model that you need to let it all burn to the ground so it will restart new and fresh - the Japanese tried this approach in their economic recovery at the end of the 80s and it took them 20 years to regain their footing. Is there going to be a downturn at some point, certainly - things can not go on all roses for ever. Is California going to bear the most of this crash? It depends where the crash comes. California's biggest industry is finance, real-estate, insurance and rental. It will certainly hurt if this is the cause of the downturn - but I believe New York has a bigger portion of this industry than California. If there is a tech crash - it can certainly hurt California, but it is only the 5th largest sector of the California GDP - so it is not like the entire state is dependent on it. Manufacturing is California's 4th largest sector - if there is a crash because of trade that hurts manufacturing - I suspect there are states that are a lot more reliant on manufacturing than California. But "it is the biggest and will thus bear most of it" is a nonsense argument. This basically suggest that it is best to be a super-poor state - because when the downturn comes - there is little to be lost. The reality is that California's success in the recent years was because it has high taxes, has a positive cash flow and properly invests this income. It is certainly a lot better than states like Kansas that lowered taxes to stimulate the economy and saw it fall to pieces.
Thank you! Like a great man said, we are all endowed by our creator. So who could argue with that truth?
I understand why they built in ports....I was a sailor, but now I'm seeing that it's a high risk place to live. ..I read that the original settlers were suffering from malaria from mosquitos in Jamestown and the locals warned them, they shouldn't live there...just go there to fish. Live above sealevel...as I've traveled and watched....natural disasters do frequent those watershed areas and sea level developments....New Orleans is a good example. Terrible place to build a city. Now they are starting to build them on the ocean...man made islands. The original settlers for the most part also didn't realize sewage needs to leech...they contaminated their own pottable water....which also baffled the natives
You got that right. What is screwed up though, since many know the truth you just spoke, is, Why the hell we continue to spend money on the hole in the river known as New Orleans? We even know the sea is still rising! Another man made madness venture. They want the Economic zone around the island they own. 200 mile diameter circle, probably full of oil as well as fish. The last treaty of the sea created this worm.
20-30 years ago is when that crap really started pushing out the Natives, and it displaced a much older, deeper and more genuine culture. Now it resembles Oakland more than SF. Gang-infested, politically corrupt, and heading for bankruptcy while flipping the bird to Democracy itself.
Seems like you may have been studying, biology maybe. Anyway you are spot on! But we were discussing rights, and you know I am sure, that neither member of the pair of progenitors gave the child any rights. I am sure you know this. There is a clue though, of where to look, do you know where that might be? Perhaps you have read it.
Yet actually Portland was born from a gangster culture way back long before the roaring 20's...Portland has a pretty corrupt political history...I think at one time I read that in the 30s maybe? the mayor owned most of the strip joints. also a pretty seedy red light district history. Was a wild place in my father's day. I don't think modern day Portland is anything like Oakland or SF. Seems to me to be turning more and more into Seattle
