California Must Be Doing Something Right Despite Trump hating it so much

[woolfe9998]

I am not challenging that California is doing well economically. I am challenging assertions attributing that success to Sacramento.

Yes, and the OP's article makes exactly that assertion, that policy emanating from Sacramento has caused high growth in the clean energy sector, which in turn is giving a sizable overall boost to the economy. That's why I'm a little confused about you asking that question. The argument is right there in the OP's article. Do you disagree?

 

[woolfe9998]

I’ll never understand the conservative hatred for California other than perhaps they feel threatened by its success. It was interesting to see them claim after the financial crisis that California’s struggles were due to the failure of liberalism. Now that California’s successful do they attribute that to liberalism? Of course not. They come up with excuses. Evidence is irrelevant, it’s all ideology.

Yup, when CA was doing a little worse than the average state in 2009-2010, conservatives blamed it on liberal governance. It shouldn't come as a surprise now that CA is doing better than the average state, liberal policies suddenly have nothing to do with it.

One earlier poster did have a point about boom and bust, however. He's correct that our reliance on high personal income tax and sales taxes is why our revenue stream is so volatile and sensitive to recession. If we got rid of, or modified, the major conservative policy initiative called prop 13 that we've had for decades now, we could lower those other taxes and have a less volatile revenue stream.

 

[fskimospy]

Yup, when CA was doing a little worse than the average state in 2009-2010, conservatives blamed it on liberal governance. It shouldn't come as a surprise now that CA is doing better than the average state, liberal policies suddenly have nothing to do with it.

One earlier poster did have a point about boom and bust, however. He's correct that our reliance on high personal income tax and sales taxes is why our revenue stream is so volatile and sensitive to recession. If we got rid of, or modified, the major conservative policy initiative called prop 13 that we've had for decades now, we could lower those other taxes and have a less volatile revenue stream.

You will be hard pressed to find a bigger hater of prop 13 than me. (Same for its bastard cousin prop 98)

California is an amazing state with one major flaw: insanely shitty housing policy. It’s at the root of so many problems and it crosses ideological boundaries. Not building enough houses causes housing prices to shoot up, making grandma’s property taxes increase. Do we build more houses? No, we cap property taxes, screwing up our revenue stream. If California adopted a saner housing policy and abolished prop 13 you would see its above average growth shoot into the stratosphere.

 

[Moonbeam]

You will be hard pressed to find a bigger hater of prop 13 than me. (Same for its bastard cousin prop 98)

California is an amazing state with one major flaw: insanely shitty housing policy. It’s at the root of so many problems and it crosses ideological boundaries. Not building enough houses causes housing prices to shoot up, making grandma’s property taxes increase. Do we build more houses? No, we cap property taxes, screwing up our revenue stream. If California adopted a saner housing policy and abolished prop 13 you would see its above average growth shoot into the stratosphere.

So true. Imagine the economy California could have if it built housing where people really want to live, on the beach next to the Pacific ocean. We could build massive skyscrapers all along the coast right at the water's edge, enough to house 7 billion people. We could house so many economically disadvantaged people so close by you could probably hire a neighbor to wipe your ass.

 

[woolfe9998]

So true. Imagine the economy California could have if it built housing where people really want to live, on the beach next to the Pacific ocean. We could build massive skyscrapers all along the coast right at the water's edge, enough to house 7 billion people. We could house so many economically disadvantaged people so close by you could probably hire a neighbor to wipe your ass.

There's room for a lot more growth in housing without doing anything remotely resembling that. Every major housing project is opposed by environmental groups and self-interested voters here in the bay area. Housing supply doesn't grow to accommodate population growth and high demand. You literally have to be rich to afford a middling home around here now. He's completely correct - our housing policy is terrible.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Safe injection sites make more sense.

It's working well here in Vancouver. We had the 1st legal site in N. America.

 

[fskimospy]

So true. Imagine the economy California could have if it built housing where people really want to live, on the beach next to the Pacific ocean. We could build massive skyscrapers all along the coast right at the water's edge, enough to house 7 billion people. We could house so many economically disadvantaged people so close by you could probably hire a neighbor to wipe your ass.

I guess it depends on whether you think the purpose of housing policy is to protect nice ocean views or to allow desperately struggling people a decent place to live. Which do you think?

 

[Moonbeam]

There's room for a lot more growth in housing without doing anything remotely resembling that. Every major housing project is opposed by environmental groups and self-interested voters here in the bay area. Housing supply doesn't grow to accommodate population growth and high demand. You literally have to be rich to afford a middling home around here now. He's completely correct - our housing policy is terrible.

Right, and the answer to that is to eliminate prop 13 so that all the poorer people who live in the bay area now will lose their affordable housing, lose their social roots and integration, doctors, life routines, etc. When did reason lead to such cruelty. Come on, are you afraid just to recommend the application of eminent domain. Clear massive areas for affordable housing, or confiscatory taxation of the rich to pay for it? Why not just identify all prop 13 owned housing and shoot the owners. After all, our housing policy is terrible. Never mind then how you fix it right?

 

[Moonbeam]

I guess it depends on whether you think the purpose of housing policy is to protect nice ocean views or to allow desperately struggling people a decent place to live. Which do you think?

I'm suggesting I'm the one who is thinking, but with my heart engaged in the process.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm suggesting I'm the one who is thinking, but with my heart engaged in the process.

It’s odd that your heart prizes ocean views over desperately poor people being able to live.

 

[Starbuck1975]

But we do know how conservative policies made states like Kansas not so great

Yes and we also know that liberal policies have done wonders for Detroit, New Haven, New Orleans, Oakland, shall I continue?

It’s as if places with geographic advantages and the luck of history and federal investment are able to now reap the benefits of those things.

 

[Starbuck1975]

"Enabling" obviously isn't a correct term, either.

Tell you what- let's build a homeless shelter in your neighborhood. If you build it they will come, obviously.

A developer wanted to but then the town fought it...shhh, the people in the town aren’t conservatives.

 

[fskimospy]

Right, and the answer to that is to eliminate prop 13 so that all the poorer people who live in the bay area now will lose their affordable housing, lose their social roots and integration, doctors, life routines, etc. When did reason lead to such cruelty. Come on, are you afraid just to recommend the application of eminent domain. Clear massive areas for affordable housing, or confiscatory taxation of the rich to pay for it? Why not just identify all prop 13 owned housing and shoot the owners. After all, our housing policy is terrible. Never mind then how you fix it right?

It’s really strange how you see the pain that might be inflicted by eliminating prop 13 but don’t see the pain that prop 13 inflicts on vastly, vastly more people. Prop 13 fundamentally gives money to rich people and screws over poor people.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Yes, and the OP's article makes exactly that assertion, that policy emanating from Sacramento has caused high growth in the clean energy sector, which in turn is giving a sizable overall boost to the economy. That's why I'm a little confused about you asking that question. The argument is right there in the OP's article. Do you disagree?

I also previously said that Jerry Brown is very atypical for Sacramento in that he has a singular and strong vision for the state.

Yes the article does state that solar panel companies anticipate a boost because the state is mandating solar panels. An increase in demand will always cause an immediate benefit, but as is oft the case, the long term benefits are hard to determine.

For the environment and achieving economies of scale through demand for clean tech, this is great.

The impact on new housing starts, which correlates to a dwindling middle class, is another feedback loop worth watching.

 

[Moonbeam]

It’s odd that your heart prizes ocean views over desperately poor people being able to live.

No, I thought you would be in favor of all people having them. I just wanted to flesh out
one way that would look like. I mean, you don't seem too interested really, in the down sides. We could make it legal for the homeless to camp anywhere they like. That might work too. Remove the concept of locks and fences. I used to sleep on the beach. There's nothing on earth like making love to your girl and getting washed over by a freak wave. Trust me.

 

[Moonbeam]

It’s really strange how you see the pain that might be inflicted by eliminating prop 13 but don’t see the pain that prop 13 inflicts on vastly, vastly more people. Prop 13 fundamentally gives money to rich people and screws over poor people.

I think I can see both. I just happen to also think that eliminating Prop 13 is of itself not the an answer that properly fixes either issue.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yes and we also know that liberal policies have done wonders for Detroit, New Haven, New Orleans, Oakland, shall I continue?

It’s as if places with geographic advantages and the luck of history and federal investment are able to now reap the benefits of those things.

That's ridiculous. The reason big cities trend liberal is because conservative ideology doesn't work well in such situations. If it did, more large cities would trend conservative, but they don't.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...the-most-liberal-and-conservative-big-cities/

 

[woolfe9998]

Right, and the answer to that is to eliminate prop 13 so that all the poorer people who live in the bay area now will lose their affordable housing, lose their social roots and integration, doctors, life routines, etc. When did reason lead to such cruelty. Come on, are you afraid just to recommend the application of eminent domain. Clear massive areas for affordable housing, or confiscatory taxation of the rich to pay for it? Why not just identify all prop 13 owned housing and shoot the owners. After all, our housing policy is terrible. Never mind then how you fix it right?

Why don't you just state what policies you favor instead and cut the sarcastic nonsense? You can start by telling me why you think prop 13 is good for the poor. I'm really keen to hear it. Then you can tell me what, if anything, you want to do about a housing market which prices out everyone who isn't a multi-millionaire.

 

[fskimospy]

I think I can see both. I just happen to also think that eliminating Prop 13 is of itself not the an answer that properly fixes either issue.

It would help the poor a whole lot. While building more housing would help the most, killing prop 13 would help so many people currently being hurt by it.

If you are using your brain and your heart the answer is clear.

 

[sportage]

Our nature is to continually move forward and continually improve life for everyone.
Naturally, in this era of fast advancing technology, our moving forward is the natural course.
We move forward into wind energy, into solar energy, nuclear energy, even better and bigger battery technology.

It would be unnatural to even consider returning back to coal and outdated energy sources.
Except... for someone like a Donald Trump.
In Trump world those people have no imagination what so ever.
Nor can Trump envision a future better than the past thru technology and human equality (as a people).

F##K Donald Trump!!!!
Trump can do no harm to the good old state of CA.
And they would never pick a republican as governor. Not a second time around.

Donald Trump will be short lived.
His kind will be short lived.
We have suffered thru this type of craziness before throughout history. The world has suffered.
Yet.... moving forward and advancement ALWAYS wins out in the end.
ALWAYS!

Remember when the TV was invented?
Many people thought that to be only a gimmick. And look at today.
Even our phones have a TV screen.
The TV didn't go away, it simply got better. Much better.
And even some refrigerators have one on the door. The touch screen.

Take the automobile.
Plenty of folks back in the 1800's would have preferred the horse and buggy as their source of transportation.
People with the mindset of the Donald Trump's wanted to squash the automobile. Stay with the horse and buggy. Deny the promise of technology.
How many people of today would ever consider trading their Mazda for a wagon with four wooden wheels? A buggy pulled by something that eats hay? And poops?
Donald Trump might. Especially if the buggy appealed to his base.
Trump would preach on bringing the buggy back to make America great again, then Donald would jump on his private plane and jet off into Trumpland.

Besides, it's hard to install a good sound system in a buggy.
The speakers and battery alone would take up most of the room.
And what about the security system? Live rattle snakes?

California isn't no Alabama. Never will be.
And that pisses of Trump people to no end.
Good ole CA may stutter from time to time, but it is in their nature to move forward, never backwards.
Texans only wish they could have it so good.....

 

[Greenman]

I'm not sure "astonishing" is the proper term. The alternative to needle programs is more blood borne disease so tell us which way you want it.

That was another point made in the discussion I listened to. The program was originally needle exchange, you traded in your used needle for a new one. Somewhere along the line it turned into a needle giveaway. The only solution offered was to get the addicts into treatment so they wouldn't be tossing used needles. The problem with that is California decriminalized drug addiction and made it into a health issue so those folks could get treatment instead of going to jail. The next problem is that treatment can't be forced on them, it has to be voluntary, and the vast majority say "no thanks". The city of San Francisco has decided to spend $700k on needle picker uppers. So I guess that's the answer.

 

[K1052]

That was another point made in the discussion I listened to. The program was originally needle exchange, you traded in your used needle for a new one. Somewhere along the line it turned into a needle giveaway. The only solution offered was to get the addicts into treatment so they wouldn't be tossing used needles. The problem with that is California decriminalized drug addiction and made it into a health issue so those folks could get treatment instead of going to jail. The next problem is that treatment can't be forced on them, it has to be voluntary, and the vast majority say "no thanks". The city of San Francisco has decided to spend $700k on needle picker uppers. So I guess that's the answer.

Having a huge homeless population because you intentionally under built housing for decades has unexpected consequences.

 

[Greenman]

It would help the poor a whole lot. While building more housing would help the most, killing prop 13 would help so many people currently being hurt by it.

If you are using your brain and your heart the answer is clear.

I know a whole bunch of people that would be forced to sell their homes if prop 13 is revoked. These are middle class working people, not wealthy, not on their way to early retirement, folks that drive 6 year old Fords, and worry about paying for their kids braces. I guess we just tell them all "tough shit, poor people need your money"? Talk about the disappearing middle class.

 

[Greenman]

Having a huge homeless population because you intentionally under built housing for decades has unexpected consequences.

I don't know anything about that. Personally, I've built quite a few houses.

 

[Jhhnn]

That was another point made in the discussion I listened to. The program was originally needle exchange, you traded in your used needle for a new one. Somewhere along the line it turned into a needle giveaway. The only solution offered was to get the addicts into treatment so they wouldn't be tossing used needles. The problem with that is California decriminalized drug addiction and made it into a health issue so those folks could get treatment instead of going to jail. The next problem is that treatment can't be forced on them, it has to be voluntary, and the vast majority say "no thanks". The city of San Francisco has decided to spend $700k on needle picker uppers. So I guess that's the answer.

Highly inaccurate. Possession of injectable drugs is illegal in CA. It's not illegal to be an addict anywhere in the US.

https://statelaws.findlaw.com/california-law/california-drug-possession-laws.html

San Francisco has a certain allure & mystique for drug users. It's been that way since the 60's. They're from all over America.