People aren’t leaving CA in droves… at least according to the United Van Lines survey

[SK in CV]

Let’s look at some real numbers:

http://trends.truliablog.com/2013/02/why-do-people-leave-california/

Here are the basic facts. In 2011, 562,000 people left California, and 468,000 came, according to the Census’s American Community Survey. That means 120 people moved out of California for every 100 people who moved in. Out-migration reached its peak in 2005, when 160 people moved out of California for every 100 people who moved in. The California exodus rose with the housing bubble and subsided in the recession.

Who leads the charge out of California? Even though California’s richer residents face high tax rates, lower-income households are more likely to leave. From 2005 to 2011, California lost 158 people with household incomes under $20,000 for every 100 who arrived, and 165 for every 100 people with household incomes between $20,000 and $40,000. In contrast, just slightly more people with household incomes in the $100,000-$200,000 range left than came to California (103 out per 100 in), and California actually gained a hair more people in the $200,000+ range than it lost (99 out per 100 in). The rich aren’t leaving California, but the poor and the middle class are.

(emphasis added)

There’s some interesting graphs and charts, so that link is worth a look. The conclusion, at least based on statistical evidence is that people move mostly because of high real estate prices, not jobs and not taxes.

[The-Shoveler]

250K From December 2012

That is still almost TWO Temecula valleys.

California’s population grew to 37.8 million—a quarter of a million more people than the year before. That’s based on official population projections out Thursday from the state’s Department of Finance. The gain of less than one percent gainrepresents modest growth for a state that was growing at more than 1 percent a year—before the recession.

Los Angeles, Orange and Riverside were among the counties that gained the greatest number of people.

Los Angeles—home to more than a quarter of Californians—added another 50,000 people to top out at 9.9 million people. Orange added 24,0000 and Riverside gained 23,000.

Most of the growth in the counties and throughout the state results from more people being born here than dying here. That’s been the trend for the last decade.

The Department of Finance’s John Malson says the recession’s driven birth rates lower now than they were 5 years ago, almost exclusively among Hispanics. Malson says the sluggish economy also deterred migration to the state. In the last year, 14,000 more people left California than moved here.

Orange and Riverside resisted that trend. Each gained more people from other states and countries.

Riverside was the fastest growing county in Southern California—and the 4th fastest growing in the state. Most counties in that category were coastal areas, including a number of Silicon Valley and San Francisco Bay Area counties where economic growth outpaces the rest of California.

[The-Shoveler]

To sum it up,

THERE IS NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE LEAVING!!!
You PEOPLE GO AREADY !!!

[Coronita]

[quote=The-Shoveler]To sum it up,

THERE IS NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE LEAVING!!!
You PEOPLE GO AREADY !!![/quote]

The way to get people to leave is to keep jacking up home prices and rent prices to the point that some people can no longer afford to live here….Then again, the people that end up leaving I hope it doesn’t end up being yourself…

[bearishgurl]

[quote=The-Shoveler] . . . If and when the home building starts to get going in earnest in SoCal I think you will see the net inflow go up quite dramatically. . . . [/quote]

Finally, someone other than me addressed this “elephant in the room” on this forum :=0

Frankly, most CA coastal counties with a population of over 1M have already run out of land for tract building. And some inland counties have as well (or are coming very close to it).

As far as I am concerned, the state or existing residents are not obligated to provide these “newcomers” with new construction to live in.

They can buy or rent resale and if they don’t like what’s on offer for the price, then not accept a job here. It’s that simple.

Native Californians and other longtime residents are sick of hearing the, “If we build, they will come” mantra. We have the longest post-office lines in the nation, even with more post offices than any other state in the nation :=0

Many of our streets are full of potholes and it now takes over 45 minutes for a 20-mile commute during rush hour for many, many workers.

CA doesn’t “need” any more people. We no longer have the amount of state and local government and court system workers to serve the residents we have in a timely manner. Not even in the rural areas. Rampant tract construction over the last ~20 years has ruined CA’s environment and destroyed our watershed.

If the greedy leaders of CA’s counties and cities haven’t learned their lesson yet about approving new CFD’s with abandon and handing out mass subdivision permits, they should carefully examine how Vallejo, Stockton and San Bernardino got into the financial messes they’re in before deciding to roll in the sheets with another Big Developer. These environment-rapists can take their biz elsewhere. How about trying to get the gubment folks in Montana or Idaho to let them build in the middle of all their flora and fauna :=D.

CA is done. In spite of the “dearth of (listed) inventory” to buy, it is there.

Buy it, rent it or move on . . . .

[The-Shoveler]

Sprawl, it’s unavoidable,

[bearishgurl]

[quote=SK in CV]Let’s look at some real numbers:

http://trends.truliablog.com/2013/02/why-do-people-leave-california/

Here are the basic facts. In 2011, 562,000 people left California, and 468,000 came, according to the Census’s American Community Survey. That means 120 people moved out of California for every 100 people who moved in. Out-migration reached its peak in 2005, when 160 people moved out of California for every 100 people who moved in. The California exodus rose with the housing bubble and subsided in the recession.

Who leads the charge out of California? Even though California’s richer residents face high tax rates, lower-income households are more likely to leave. From 2005 to 2011, California lost 158 people with household incomes under $20,000 for every 100 who arrived, and 165 for every 100 people with household incomes between $20,000 and $40,000. In contrast, just slightly more people with household incomes in the $100,000-$200,000 range left than came to California (103 out per 100 in), and California actually gained a hair more people in the $200,000+ range than it lost (99 out per 100 in). The rich aren’t leaving California, but the poor and the middle class are.

(emphasis added)

There’s some interesting graphs and charts, so that link is worth a look. The conclusion, at least based on statistical evidence is that people move mostly because of high real estate prices, not jobs and not taxes.[/quote]

The “under $40K family crowd” (and they ARE a “crowd”) are the very residents using up our scant public services. Most of these programs have been cut to the bone in recent years.

If these families can’t even afford to live in Fresno, then obviously, they should leave the state after finding work elsewhere.

Believe it or not, a family can still rent a double-wide mobile home in excellent condition in many “flyover” small cities in this country for $250 – $400 per month (incl water and trash pickup).

If this population is defecting from CA, that will be to the state’s betterment, IMHO. Then maybe some of our tax-money can be used for infrastructure instead of “services for the poor” due to “unfunded mandates.”

This “crowd” never paid any state tax, or Federal tax, for that matter. Instead, most of them no doubt qualified for the EIC.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=The-Shoveler]Sprawl, it’s unavoidable,[/quote]

That’s BS. With strong leadership who cares about its constituents’ environment (like that of Marin and San Mateo Counties, for example), it is completely avoidable.

[spdrun]

What about encouraging developers to build denser infill in desirable areas, rather than sprawling out into Lizardia? 4-6 story multi, not NYC type highrises! Might even be able to sell people on the views.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=The-Shoveler]

….Riverside was the fastest growing county in Southern California—and the 4th fastest growing in the state….

[/quote]

This is all due to rampant CFD formation, approved by its short-sighted, greedy and incompetent leaders mostly in the last decade. RIV Co has turned from an agriculture and military-based county (self-sustaining) into a megalopolis bedroom community with few jobs which pay enough for rent/mortgage.

The average commute to a decent-paying job from most of those *newish* communities is likely 50-60 miles one way.

I understand that no one could effect the Air Force’s decisions to close March AFB and downgrade operations of Norton AFB. However, the only entity that came out ahead in building up every square mile of land there with cheap McHomes was Big Development. Of course, by the time nearly all of them were “in distress,” Big D had moved on to TX, to build among the tumbleweeds.

Why should the national builders care about what happens to CA? They made their initial profits, left the state in search of new land to rape and and let the local gubments here deal with the aftermath :=0

[The-Shoveler]

[quote=spdrun]What about encouraging developers to build denser infill in desirable areas, rather than sprawling out into Lizardia? 4-6 story multi, not NYC type highrises! Might even be able to sell people on the views.[/quote]

Not in the SoCal DNA,

Next you will be suggesting we build a good mass-transit system.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=spdrun]What about encouraging developers to build denser infill in desirable areas, rather than sprawling out into Lizardia? 4-6 story multi, not NYC type highrises! Might even be able to sell people on the views.[/quote]

spdrun, this has already been done in dtn SD (92101), Mission Valley SD (92108) and the Golden Triangle SD (92121). Dtn SD was the newest area to be built up in this way and only in the last few months have nearly all these new residential units been absorbed. Hundreds of them sat empty for YEARS.

We have PLENTY of low-rise condo housing with views in SD!

[desmond]

Yes, everybody lives by the sea in San Diego, a sea of rooftops. Too bad most of you never got to enjoy San Diego the way I did and even if you didn’t it is still a great place. Who cares? Are you offended if people you don’t know move to another area or stay? A real tired subject.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=desmond]Yes, everybody lives by the sea in San Diego, a sea of rooftops. Too bad most of you never got to enjoy San Diego the way I did and even if you didn’t it is still a great place. Who cares? Are you offended if people you don’t know move to another area or stay? A real tired subject.[/quote]

Desmond, I got to enjoy it. I got to waterski in SD every weekend for six months per year on SD Bay, below the Coronado bridge where we anchored our boat on the inner beach of the strand. It was the same people every year who skied in a “football field” fashion and watched each other’s skiers down, kids and dogs left playing on the beach and shared each other’s bonfires and BBQ.

We even took off on our ski directly from the strand 🙂

Of course, that’s all closed off now because the Navy decided to build a HUGE complex on the beach for their E-3 and up families and put up chain-link fence. Apparently, they thought lower-enlisted personnel “deserved” to live right on the sand :=0

I’m beyond disgusted that it now takes 20-25 minutes to go six miles on “H” Street and 35 minutes to go six miles on “L” St/Telegraph Cyn Rd in Chula Vista, no less!

And don’t even ask me about Orange/Olympic View Pkwy because I purposely stay off of it during its 3-hr long “rush hours.” It’s a ridiculous moving parking lot.

Very few of those over-encumbered residents in Chula V’s lizardland are using that (expensive) SR-125 toll road out there, which was developed expressly for their use. Instead, they are snaking the 8-12 miles into town in long, long lines to use the “free” highways.

Why is this not surprising??

All those hills used to be “4-wheeling meccas” on the weekends.

ChulaV has grown from a population of 52K in 1986 to 277K now.

Ask yourselves how that happened.

And these are just very few of the changes for the worse in the last ~20 years in my little neck of the woods.

[ctr70]

These statistics on who’s leaving what states are somewhat misleading. Everyone knows people are leaving the Northeast and Midwest U.S., it’s been happening for 60 years. What would be more instructive is to look where CA ranks with the high growth sunbelt and western states (FL, TX, NM, AZ, NC, GA, TN, WA, OR, ID, CO, NV, UT, OK). I would bet it’s towards the bottom of that pack.

Also you have to look at who is leaving and who is coming in in terms of demographics (income level, educational level, etc…)

[Author]

Posts