. . . In it, they make a startling claim: “From the mid-1980s to 2005, California’s population grew by 10 million . . . “
Which begs the question, How did this happen? How did CA obtain an additional 3.5M+ more housing units over 25 years (to house this “influx” of 10M people)?
Which other states’ elected officials were dumb enough to approve massive residential tract development of this magnitude?
Second question: Did CA really “need” all these additional housing units (built since the “mid-’80’s??”) In other words, were the residents already there to buy them or did they lure more out-of-state residents in (due to their lower asking prices [NOT hidden costs])? If so, was it in CA’s best interest to absorb all these transplants?
Third question: Would CA and its local jurisdictions have been on far more solid financial footing if it wasn’t for the “greed” of its various elected officials at all levels of govm’t voting to permit endless tracts of residential development??
The article mentions “Stockton” as the next city to go “bust.”
Off the top of my head, I’ll add to that list:
* Merced
* Salinas
* Paso Robles
* Fresno
* Elk City
* upper Ventura County jurisdictions
* eastern RIV County jurisdictions (ie Moreno
Valley, Hemet, etc)
* northern SB County jurisdictions (ie Adelanto)
* Tracy and, to a lesser extent Turlock
* Imperial County (+ El Centro and Brawley)
* and, very possibly, City of San Diego
There must be more that I can’t think of right at the moment :=0
CA’s “urban sprawl” is and will prove to be a “crushing burden” for the local governments to service properly, IMO. Those areas turned into “ghost towns” will still have to be “managed properly” in the near and far future or torn down.
