Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

California population declines for first time in more than a century

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 543 posts

Re: California population declines for first time in more than a century

#471

Post by TMWNN »

newsclues wrote: post #367
lsiebert wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"But I haven't seen California take meaningful steps to solve any of these" Yeah, the thing is there are political and regulatory efforts to deal with these, but most people don't hear/read about them, unless they are super wonky. So the people who tend to get involved are the wealthy people who benefit financially from the outcome, and the occasional non profit. The latter is where you can actually make an impact fo…

If you rely on nonprofits to solve homelessness, you are essentially allowing a nonprofit homelessness industry to exist and funding it with tax dollars.

Thus the massive rent seeking in San Francisco, for example, where the city spends $852 million a year for 8,000 homeless (https://www.hoover.org/research/only-san-francisco-61000-ten...), funding a massive homeless-industrial complex.

Re: California population declines for first time in more than a century

#472

Post by raldi »

svnt wrote: post #427
raldi wrote: post #18

Paradise on Earth and home to the world’s brightest-future industry; California could easily grow to 100M residents if it simply allowed housing to be built to accommodate all the people who want to live here. And it would be a net win for the climate, because most of them would be coming from much less eco-friendly places.

Right? Libertarian property development has no problems that have been repeatedly demonstrated throughout history! Why didn’t the people who study and work in housing policy just realize that? And you can throw some savior complex in on top — nothing but California housing to save the world from China’s emissions. And sure those less eco-friendly places would cease reproducing to replace their lost members? Utopia is…

If you have a point to make, please come out and make it. Sarcasm is lazy and neither educates nor persuades.

Re: California population declines for first time in more than a century

#473

Post by newsclues »

TMWNN wrote: post #471
newsclues wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you rely on nonprofits to solve homelessness, you are essentially allowing a nonprofit homelessness industry to exist and funding it with tax dollars.

Thus the massive rent seeking in San Francisco, for example, where the city spends $852 million a year for 8,000 homeless ( https://www.hoover.org/research/only-san-francisco-61000-ten... ), funding a massive homeless-industrial complex.

Vancouver has similar issues.

Mental health, housing and drugs.

Up and down the west coast.

Re: California population declines for first time in more than a century

#474

Post by raldi »

rhacker wrote: post #469
raldi wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are always going to be outliers (people in cities who use a lot of water, and people outside who don't), but on average you will always find that city families tend to use less water than non-city families. In other words, public policies that divert people away from cities tend to increase water consumption (and harm the environment by just about any other metric you can name.)

I personally moved from a city to an RV and stay in rural areas. We (wife and myself) use about 60 gallons of water _per week_ right now. We're planning on getting a well on our property soon and even after that we're probably going to use at most 20-40 gallons a day (with a fairly large garden). I don't exactly understand what city people these days (it's been 7 years for me) do but they tend to wash clothes and sho…

I’m not sure either, but data outweighs anecdotes, and the data is clear.

Re: California population declines for first time in more than a century

#475

Post by _vertigo »

pharmakom wrote: post #341
_vertigo wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this really the future you want to live in? I would like there to be a sane tradeoff between density and proximity to the city center. I stayed in an Airbnb in a central neighborhood in Barcelona (l'Eixample IIRC) and I found it to be pretty cramped quarters. I'm not sure how much difference there is between one apartment building and the next, but I have more space living in San Francisco right now and I still wo…

What you want is fundamentally incompatible with city living. The best way to scale up the kind of housing you describe is in the suburbs with high speed rail links to the city center.

Not really. I live in a relatively spacious duplex that shares a terrace in with another house that has a garage facing the street. I live a 20 minute bike ride from downtown. How can it be fundamentally incompatible if the house I share the terrace with pretty much ticks all of my boxes? Hell, where I live does too for the most part.

I don’t want to live in the suburbs. I also don’t want to live in a high rise. I think there is a case for something in between.

Re: California population declines for first time in more than a century

#476

Post by _vertigo »

raldi wrote: post #406
_vertigo wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this really the future you want to live in? I would like there to be a sane tradeoff between density and proximity to the city center. I stayed in an Airbnb in a central neighborhood in Barcelona (l'Eixample IIRC) and I found it to be pretty cramped quarters. I'm not sure how much difference there is between one apartment building and the next, but I have more space living in San Francisco right now and I still wo…

I think your desired living situation should be allowed, but it shouldn't be subsidized by prohibiting more urban ones. There would still be houses with garages and driveways for carwashing in San Francisco, but there would also be car-free four-story, four-unit apartment buildings in every neighborhood.

Well, yeah. That’s kind of what I mean. There are many kinds of housing options besides single-family home that meet my criteria. My point is that we shouldn’t just ban the single-family home, and arguing that we should seriously jeopardizes the cause of increasing density because it’s a really unpopular proposal.

Re: California population declines for first time in more than a century

#477

Post by epistasis »

baby wrote: post #180
epistasis wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish that we had a tenth of the contempt for the landlords and homeowners that causes this as we do for the tech bros who are the symptom of the artificial scarcity. The tech bros were not the ones displacing people, it was entirely the fault of landlords who raised rents, and the homeowners who are selling for record profits. It is this landed class that has turned what should have been a boon for everyone into a…

Law makers are the ones who should be blamed.

After trying to get a bit more involved with local politics, I've come to the conclusion that we have the politicians we deserve, unfortunately.

The only solution I can think of is very time consuming: start talking to lots of people, start thorough education of people about the consequences of our current course and the alternatives build coalitions, and build organic change.

When it comes to national level change, Californians are typically very progressive. But when it's local change, they are the most conservative and reactionary crew I have ever encountered. Which only locks in our current course of increasing wealth inequality, increasingly unaffordable housing, and increasing homelessness right next to excessive wealth.

Re: California population declines for first time in more than a century

#478

Post by epistasis »

herbst wrote: post #336
epistasis wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California is paradise, still, except for the exclusion which leads to high prices, and the car-dependent city design which leads to traffic and misery. There's one trick to solve both these at once, while simultaneously helping the environment: more mixed-use walkable housing close to job centers.

How is it paradise then? When I think paradise I don't see homeless and traffic issues normally.

Amazing people, amazing environment, amazing opportunity to contribute to the world. I am fortunate enough to be able to live close to work, and I usually bike otherwise, so traffic is only a problem if there's an emergency. So I'm lucky, I guess, it really is my paradise. I'm not upset by homeless people when I see them, I am upset by the choices of some selfish wealthy people.

Homelessness and traffic are policy choices that we've made because the last generation, the one in power that refuses to see the errors of their philosophy and refuses to budge an inch, consciously made the decision that after a population boom, they wanted to keep people out. Which results in the long commutes, which causes even more traffic.

Re: California population declines for first time in more than a century

#479

Post by epistasis »

throwaway316943 wrote: post #360
AdrianB1 wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you considered that it is not "good riddance", but an observation that as the population declines the housing problem is decreasing until it will go away? Population growth is a real problem, we are living in an finite system called planet Earth. With 1/4 of the world population everyone would live better - less pollution, 4 times more resources per capita, etc. Imagine California with 10-15 million inhabitants,…

The problem isn’t total population, its population density. Too much is bad and too little is bad. You could change the total all you want but if everyone decides to live in the same place then you’re stuck with the same problems.

I would say the reverse: low population rural areas are great, and high density cities are great, but suburban mid-density is the absolute worst of all worlds. It creates massive traffic, consumes unbelievable amounts of land with roads and environmentally destructive lawns, is super high-carbon per person with no way to add effective transit or amenities. It leaves people trapped in homes that they can't leave for any daily errand or commute without hopping in a car, which is terrible for people's health, and as we age it leaves us even more stranded because cars are not good for accessibility. Kids can't play outside on their own because of constant fear of cars, and as they grow the need constant taxiing around town to do any sort of activity or get to and from school. Schools themselves become enormous parking lots twice a day as kids are dropped off and picked up in what has to be the most ridiculous form of transit every conceived: massive SUVs weighing tons, spewing brake dust and exhaust into the lungs of the tiny princes and princesses being chauffeured one by one to their schools.

There is no redeeming the car-dependent suburban style of city planning. Commuter rail suburbs are better, rural life is better small towns are better, urban life is better. But our cars are killing us and we need to look beyond them for a sustainable and healthy future. We will not and do not need to eliminate these places, but we do need to allow transformation.

Re: California population declines for first time in more than a century

#480

Post by mdhen »

KirillPanov wrote: post #351
aphextron wrote: post #120

California is just at saturation level. There's just too many people for the small strip of coastal land that is inhabitable. All I could think while living there for 5 years was how damn cool it must have been in the 60's/70's with literally half as many people. The traffic, the crowds everywhere at all times, it's all just too much at this point. It's still an amazing paradise playground if you're a millionaire. Bu…

> All I could think while living there for 5 years was how damn cool it must have been in the 60's/70's with literally half as many people. There are places that are, today, what California was in the 60's/70's. It's springtime, get out there and look for them. I found one and I love it here. Just don't waste your time asking the urbanist hipsters for directions... back in the 1970s they would've been trying to convi…

and where is the one you've found?
Post reply on HN