Surely the Stanford Profs Jest

[no_such_reality]

Two Stanford professors wrote an opinion piece in the WSJ today on California.

In it, they make a startling claim:
” From the mid-1980s to 2005, California’s population grew by 10 million, while Medicaid recipients soared by seven million; tax filers paying income taxes rose by just 150,000; and the prison population swelled by 115,000.”

Now I get that a ‘tax filer’ is typically a household. But really, only 150,000 more tax filers with 10 million in population growth?

[bearishgurl]

It could be partly due to the population aging. Seniors on fixed incomes often get to a point where filing an income tax return is not required.

[NotCranky]

It notes tax filers who actually pay income tax. Many more new filers, but they don’t pay anything?

[bearishgurl]

Folks on “Medicaid,” (Medi-Cal) in CA, are usually indigent (or close to it). Most of them are on SSD, SSI or TANF. When an individual is collecting SSD, I don’t believe they are allowed to have W-2 income. If they do, they can lose their SSD benefit. Thus, the majority of people on Medi-Cal are NOT required to file an income-tax return.

Persons incarcerated in state or Federal prison do not typically have income and thus would not be required to file an income tax return. This doesn’t preclude their non-incarcerated spouse to file one, however, but it likely wouldn’t be a “joint-return.”

[bearishgurl]

. . . 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.

[Anonymous]

Amazing how people cannot see the bigotry and ignorance in their own words:

“They should have stopped letting people in right after I arrived.”

“They should have stopped building houses right after my neighborhood was built.”

[bearishgurl]

[quote=pri_dk]Amazing how people cannot see the bigotry and ignorance in their own words:

“They should have stopped letting people in right after I arrived.”

“They should have stopped building houses right after my neighborhood was built.”[/quote]

If you are referring here to me, pri_dk, then there (should) have been no new development in the last 65 years, lol….

In case I haven’t made myself clear here, I am against the massive urban sprawl that has occurred in CA chiefly and only because of the ability of local government (whilst sharing sleeping quarters with Big Developers) to be financially able to annex-in large portions of former wasteland to themselves to form massive CFD’s. This enabled Big Developers to promote (and successfully sell) the following to unwary and uneducated buyers (mostly “transplants”):

* oversized “mcmansions” on <=5000 sf lots * 400+ unit cardboard condo complexes in the stix * low-quality "starter homes" in the middle of nowhere and situated on minuscule lots * "planned communities" in which each of the properties which lie within are encumbered by two or more HOAs These are but just a few of the allowed projects which we know today caused (and will cause) repeated distress among their individual owners and consequently to the governments of the jurisdictions they are situated in. Accepting these "bribes" and later mismanaging the responsibility associated with acceptance of these "bribes" is and will continue to be THE major cause of city/county insolvency in this state, IMO.

[briansd1]

[quote=bearishgurl]

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.[/quote]

BG, the urban sprawl is due to the zoning restrictions and community activism that prevent higher density in the urban centers.

It’s either urban sprawl or more density in existing areas. Take your pick.

We can’t control population growth, but you can plan for it.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=bearishgurl]Which other states’ elected officials were dumb enough to approve massive residential tract development of this magnitude?[/quote]

Why should elected officials decide how many houses get built ? Is this the land of Big Brother or something?

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sdduuuude]Why should elected officials decide how many houses get built ?…[/quote]

It is their job to vote in the formation of the CFD’s so that the Big Developer has somewhere to build. And they did in many CA jurisdictions … en masse.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=briansd1]BG, the urban sprawl is due to the zoning restrictions and community activism that prevent higher density in the urban centers.

It’s either urban sprawl or more density in existing areas. Take your pick.

We can’t control population growth, but you can plan for it.[/quote]

Wrong, brian. Our elected officials had control over all of it and chose to sell out to the Big Developer “bribes.”

For instance, take a look at population centers in the State of Washington which is well-known for passing no-growth and low-growth initiatives.

Look at the difference of there and here (as it applies to urban sprawl). Do you know if any of these jurisdictions are experiencing financial problems today?

[no_such_reality]

Both Washington and Oregon have budget problems On par with California

Oregon, home of Portland’s low growth paradise has a projected 24% gap for next year

Cali is more like 9.8%

Portland also has been having budget woes

[sdduuuude]

Let’s try this new feature:

BG, I believe you are misunderstanding the point of the post.

[The number of permits issued by the CA government.] is not actually germane to the topic, which is – why are there so many new people and not so many new taxpayers ?

[sdrealtor]

[quote=pri_dk]Amazing how people cannot see the bigotry and ignorance in their own words:

“They should have stopped letting people in right after I arrived.”

“They should have stopped building houses right after my neighborhood was built.”[/quote]

I used to work in what was and still is one of the biggest/highest producing RE offices in the SD county. There were a bunch of old timers who used to sit around and complain about the loss of the way things used to be. I would ask them how do liked the great new restaurants and stores we have around and they would say they loved them. I would ask them how they liked that their homes had risen hundreds of thousands in value and they loved than too. I would ask them how they liked the rising rents on their investment properties and they loved that too. I would ask them how they liked bigger commissions on more expensive homes and they loved that too. Then I would say…how do you think all that happened? Its called progress. They would grumble and say you just dont understand to which I would smile and reply no I understand perfectly.

[Anonymous]

The history of California is the very definition of urban sprawl. The housing development, the planned community, the suburban neighborhood with two-car garages were essentially invented here. One of the icons of California, Hollywood, was a real-estate development.

It all started before any of us were even born.

But some people think it should have all suddenly stopped as soon as they got theirs.

As for the OP, I really don’t even have a guess. I don’t think old people and/or illegal immigrant populations can explain those extreme numbers.

[Author]

Posts