California population declines for first time in more than a century

Post by sagarm » Sat, May 08, 2021, 7:21 AM UTC

nradov wrote: post #240

ohazi wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i.e. the original sin that gave us this problem in the first place. It makes absolutely no sense to have the older, wealthier, luckier, "I got here early, therefore I'm set for life" generation pay $300/year, while the couple in their thirties who moved in two years ago, have a new baby, and can barely afford the mortgage and daycare despite both parents working in tech have to pay nearly $15,000/year. I know the ori…

That was only one of the original arguments for Proposition 13. The main reason it passed was that local governments had been jacking up property taxes and spending it on things that most homeowners didn't particularly want, such as higher wages for unionized government employees. Eventually people got fed up with the waste. Prop 13 was a blunt instrument but at least it finally forced local governments to exercise s…

Post by sagarm » Sat, May 08, 2021, 7:23 AM UTC

medium_burrito wrote: post #210

WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California needs to drastically ramp up water availability from new sources. Otherwise there isn't much point to the rest of this conversation.

Stop growing rice and fucknuts in the fucking desert. That solves the water problem.

Post by mavelikara » Sat, May 08, 2021, 7:25 AM UTC

pbuzbee wrote: post #259

0x000000E2 wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of California's problems go back to lack of housing and opposition to building more. Everyone wants to live in Cali for nice weather and jobs. If you stop people from building more housing your property value just keeps rising. Property costs are high because NIMBY blocking denser housing. Traffic is bad because housing density is too low for the population. Homelessness is bad because houses are too expensive.…

I agree, I do think building more housing would help. However, my point is that I don't see that happening anytime soon. We've only seen light forms of the policy changes this would require, and many haven't even passed. There's a lot of opposition to these policy changes, and they have money on their side. And even when (if) they do change, it will take some time for them to have an effect. My age group is at the ag…

Post by Der_Einzige » Sat, May 08, 2021, 7:26 AM UTC

pbuzbee wrote: post #178

I feel like it's only going to get worse. California has a good number of problems: housing costs, traffic, wildfires, homelessness, ... and the high tax rate you pay for the privilege of enjoying them. But I haven't seen California take meaningful steps to solve any of these. We're still in the stage of "problems are getting worse", and any solutions will take a long time to materialize. I grew up in California. It'…

Post by sagarm » Sat, May 08, 2021, 7:28 AM UTC

clairity wrote: post #89

raldi wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of California, even the densest regions like the city of San Francisco, are covered in a sea of single-family houses. This is primarily because in the 1970's, all other kinds of housing were banned. See, for instance, the map at: http://sfzoning.deapthoughts.com/ If we allowed four-story apartment buildings again like we used to, the state's population could easily double in size without even having to raise a s…

in LA, the limit in the early 1900s was 13 stories/150’ [0], so many of the older tall-ish buildings in downtown and along the wilshire corridor are a uniform height. it’s quite pleasing actually. i’d support a bill allowing all mixed-use buildings to be 13 stories/150’ by default, and taller along transit corridors. and all residential to be 4+1 by right, and bigger within 1/2 mile of a transit corridor. CA politici…