California Losing Residents via Domestic Migration • Hacker News Board

Re: California Losing Residents via Domestic Migration

#171

Post by DoubleCribble » Wed, Feb 28, 2018, 12:28 AM UTC

pcwalton wrote: post #19

randyrand wrote: post #9

Democratic states moving into California and Californians mostly leaving for conservative states. Interesting. There are multiple ways to interpret though.

The data's pretty mixed on that. For outflow states: Texas (#1): Solid R Arizona (#2): R Nevada (#3): Lean D Oregon, Washington (#4, #5): Solid D Colorado (#6): D Utah, Idaho, Oklahoma (#7, #8, #9): Solid R Georgia (#10): R That's 6 R, 4 D.

Oregon is interesting in that it's D because of Portland. The state is mostly conservative small cities or rural and yet the population of the Portland metro area leans so far left and has such a large population relative to the other parts of the state that it changes the entire state. Remove Portland voters from the polls and Oregon would be R.[0]

[0]http://pamplinmedia.com/pt/9-news/212726-70134-how-liberal-i...

Re: California Losing Residents via Domestic Migration

#172

Post by dcldcl » Wed, Feb 28, 2018, 12:28 AM UTC

krausejj wrote: post #135

dcldcl wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SB-827: Planning and zoning: transit-rich housing bonus [0] Edited: Nevermind, I see your other posts below. Original: I'm a urban California resident... (have been for a good chunk of my life). I'm don't see why this is a solution to the problem of why people are leaving the state. Can you provide your thoughts on why you believe this to be the solution? Or links to material you've found to be compelling? [0] https:…

https://www.vox.com/cities-and-urbanism/2018/2/23/17011154/s... is the best article so far, but the nber introduction from 2002 is a great background piece ( http://www.nber.org/papers/w8835 ) also, i've considered this quite a bit and written on it mediocre-ly: https://medium.com/@justinkrause/how-to-save-san-francisco-8...

If I get the idea behind it, we're going to eliminate/reduce parking requirements and give a density bonus. And the primary way this will be feasible is if (more) people take transit.

Then the thing about SB827 that doesn't make sense to me is why the bonus is only for residential development.

Yes, I understand that residential pricing is the problem. But, we're not just taking transit to our friend's house. We're taking transit to work and services.

Sure, I can see this working in San Francisco given the transit coverage and relatively centralized business core. (Scary though given the quality of service that Muni/BART offers presently.)

But in LA/SD/Greater Bay Area/Sacramento? I think there's a ton of jobs that aren't off transit lines. Doesn't seem to work well there.

Yes, I agree that things probably need to change in California. But SB827 seems to be about stirring the pot.

Re: California Losing Residents via Domestic Migration

#173

Post by hindsightbias » Wed, Feb 28, 2018, 12:30 AM UTC

lern_too_spel wrote: post #101

hindsightbias wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ex-native here. TX isn't anything like what it was before the Bible Belt migrated in and took over the suburbs/electorate. Too bad Texas is too progressive to have a Prop 13 - I can't go back anywhere in TX w/o people whinging about their property taxes or toll road fees.

Prop 13 is what ruined California. Not only did it institute rent control for property owners with all its associated problems, but it also tied the hands of legislators for funding government programs, directly leading to the initiative-based rigid monstrosity of a state budget California suffers from today.

Property owners voted for Prop 13 and knew what they were getting. Few, if any, would change their vote.

I've seen the past and I see Texas' future - they'll either go to an initiative system or income tax. Check back in 10 years.

Re: California Losing Residents via Domestic Migration

#174

Post by tomkarlo » Wed, Feb 28, 2018, 12:35 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #143

tomkarlo wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article seems to ignore a big group: California nets about 100K or more immigrants from outside the US each year, which would cover the gap in recent year. http://www.ppic.org/publication/immigrants-in-california/

> The article seems to ignore a big group: California nets about 100K or more immigrants from outside the US each year, which would cover the gap in recent year. Yes, the article specifically about internal migration doesn't address external migration. > California nets about 100K or more immigrants from outside the US each year, which would cover the gap in recent year. Sure, but it doesn't change it from near balan…

The article's clear, but the headline is misleading, since it's not actually true that "California is losing residents" as an broad statement - it's more narrowly true that CA is seeing more people move to other US states than from other states, but I guess that's less compelling as a headline.

California's population has grown every year since at least 1960, but the headline and article would make you think otherwise.

Re: California Losing Residents via Domestic Migration

#175

Post by prostoalex » Wed, Feb 28, 2018, 12:38 AM UTC

lern_too_spel wrote: post #168

prostoalex wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Economic growth in California happens in places with a lot of new construction and a robust real estate market, where each real estate transaction resets the assessment price. In some areas of California the prices still haven't recovered to the pre-housing crash levels. You'd only get significant advantage from Prop 13 if you bought during the 80s and held. While there are some places like that (Berkeley?) the state…

You ignored the main detrimental effects of Prop 13 I described in my comment and addressed only the rent control aspect.

How did it tie the hands of the legislators?

Re: California Losing Residents via Domestic Migration

#176

Post by gamblor956 » Wed, Feb 28, 2018, 12:38 AM UTC

all_blue_chucks wrote: post #85

California is also losing residents by discouraging migration via high taxes. For example, I had two job offers: one in California and one in Washington. Since this was a $200k+ job, that income tax in CA would have cost me $40 grand per year. Suffice it to say I now live in Washington.

You appear to be quite bad at math, as other comments have demonstrated, so it's probably better for California that you now live in Washington.

Snark aside, CA taxes do pay for a significant amount of government services. It may not always seem like it, but CA is the third largest state by area and the largest by population.

Re: California Losing Residents via Domestic Migration

#177

Post by seanmcdirmid » Wed, Feb 28, 2018, 12:47 AM UTC

adamrezich wrote: post #161

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The threshold from red to blue corosses at 800ppl/sqm: https://www.citylab.com/equity/2012/11/what-republicans-are-... The definition of "urban" according to the USA census department have cores of 1000ppl/sqm and are surrounding by areas of 500ppl/sqm. So if you have a density of 1,300, then there is a higher chance the area went blue. Of course, there can be lots of exceptions, and 1,300 is rather close to the cros…

It would be interesting to see those 2012 calculations updated, especially with regards to the results of the 2016 Presidential election; judging by the resulting red-or-blue-by-county political map, things have changed since then.

I didn't find a nice graph, but the rural-urban divide actually increased for the 2016 election. See:

https://www.npr.org/2016/11/14/501737150/rural-voters-played...

> Here's another divide that started to get more attention this election: the rural-urban gap. Rural voters vote more Republican, while urban voters vote more Democratic, and that divide grew this year from where it was in 2012 and 2008. It's a nuanced divide, too; strikingly, as counties get progressively more rural, they more or less steadily grow more Republican. And it's possible that living in a rural area caused people to vote more Republican this election.

> Exit polls show that the rural-urban divide grew from 2008 to 2012, and again this election. What's particularly interesting is that the rural vote seems to have moved more than the urban or suburban votes.

Re: California Losing Residents via Domestic Migration

#178

Post by triviatise » Wed, Feb 28, 2018, 12:57 AM UTC

rootw0rm wrote: post #3

Texas and Oregon are starting to look pretty nice. Too bad about the cannabis laws in Texas, though. As soon as I persuade the court to terminate my probation I'll consider selling a few properties and getting out of here, too.

Just be aware we are awash in guns. We have open carry, suppressors, full auto, no magazine capacity limits. There are AR15s everywhere.

The state has overridden cities' ability to regulate shooting on large properties (over 10 acres). If you are anti gun you definitely wont like it.

Re: California Losing Residents via Domestic Migration

#179

Post by cobookman » Wed, Feb 28, 2018, 1:06 AM UTC

capkutay wrote: post #92

pascalxus wrote: post #13

The middle class can no longer afford to remain in CA. A combination of egregious housing policies and other anti-bussines/anti-people regulations stifle the economic well being of it's inhabitants. It's sad to see people having to leave behind their friends and families, for all this. Not only are people leaving, but the birth rate for millineials in CA hasn't been this low since the great depression: http://www.lat…

I'm surprised this isn't covered more, but this talk of boosting 'affordable', actually government subsidized housing as a solution doesn't seem like an actual solution to me either. how many middle class families are going to register with a government entity, stay under low yearly income limits to 'qualify' for affordable housing? number of kids you have in your family is factored in as well...becoming a metric tha…

For SF you don't need To stay under the limit. Technically you could apply as a college student, buy a BMR condo, then start your 6 figure job while keeping the place.

Re: California Losing Residents via Domestic Migration

#180

Post by nopinsight » Wed, Feb 28, 2018, 1:10 AM UTC

vondur wrote: post #150

krausejj wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a solution is on the table— sb-827. please research it. californians (and i am one too) need to stop complaining and start fixing things. this bill fixes things. it needs our attention and support. UPDATE: sb-827 prevents local governments in california from banning density near public transit. it represents the most radical housing bill in recent california history, because it rebalances control from hyperlocal muni…

Here in Southern California, we are running out of room for housing. You can basically drive all the way from San Diego to Santa Barbara, or from the coast to about a 100 miles inland and it's all city. Unless you are going to tear down existing housing and rebuild with more high density housing which is just cost prohibitive. I figure at some point availability of water will become the limiting factor.

Since agriculture uses the bulk of water, it is a matter of allocation and proper pricing.

California’s is a knowledge-based economy—Agriculture contributes but a small percentage to it (about 2%). Why should we restrict the number of productive people who can live in the state in favor of crops?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_California