Surely the Stanford Profs Jest

[EconProf]

There are three tax raises on the November ballot, so we will all get a chance to have our say about California’s fiscal future. The one pushed by Governor Jerry Brown would raise the top income tax rate to 13.2 percent, which would make it the highest in the nation. Another part of his initiative would raise our sales taxes, which are already the highest in the nation.
Meantime, with 12 percent of the nation’s population, we have one-third of the welfare recipients.
CA has the second-highest unemployment rate in the nation, and our businesses and middle-class taxpayers are heading for the exits, and moving especially to low tax, business-friendly Texas, AZ, and Nevada.
All these and additional facts cited in the article are not new–the authors merely collected and assembled data already out there. But finally the public is getting informed, no thanks to the lame CA big city newspapers, who have largely cheered on the trends of recent years. It’s going to be an interesting election season in CA.

[jstoesz]

The 2010 republican wave did not occur in CA. Quite the opposite in fact, granted Whitman was a loser robot. I just don’t see much appetite for reform among the state at large, too many people benefit from the free stuff to vote for reform of their benefits.

[briansd1]

[quote=pri_dk]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.
[/quote]

Very true. Thank you for pointing it out.

[quote=pri_dk]
But some people think it should have all suddenly stopped as soon as they got theirs.
[/quote]

I think that NIMBYism was invented in California also?

Personally, I don’t understand to desire to live in a static environment, frozen in time. I’m all for change and progress. I like new people coming to California, they bring new blood and diversity.

As sdrealtor said, that’s progress.

[briansd1]

[quote=bearishgurl]
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.
[/quote]

no growth, slow growth is boring and limit opportunities.

I actually think that SD Diego is a big town with a small town mentality.

Beginning in the early 80s with all the maquiladoras, then NAFTA in the 90s, and the talk of a bi-national airport, San Diego could have transformed itself into an international city of stature.

The big opportunity not taken for San Diego was before the manufacturing shift to Asia.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=pri_dk]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….[/quote]

Here you go again, pri_dk …. making “quotes” that aren’t there and putting words in other people’s mouth.

Everyone knows America is a free country. Americans are free to move state to state and always have been. I’m simply stating that persons moving into CA are not entitled to buy or rent “new construction” and never have been.

For example, take CA’s Silicon Valley … or even SF. If a “new hire” or “new retiree” wants to buy or lease an SFR in SV or nearly ANY property in SF, it will NOT be even remotely “new.” Too bad, so sad … if you don’t like it, don’t move there.

As it should be. Infrastructure and public personnel to service “new” construction tracts all over CA only took from cities’ and counties’ ability to maintain their respective urban cores (yes, even with bond $$ to build it – which didn’t pay for servicing it in the long term).

For instance, if the City of SD hadn’t expanded the way it did in the last 30 years, annexing far-flung and disconnected (to themselves) portions of the county, they would have only had the original areas for newcomers to choose to buy and lease in. This didn’t stop newcomers from coming here in the seventies/early eighties. Why would SD be any less desirable because it has less housing areas to choose from? If newcomers don’t like the housing that is on offer in any given place, they are free not to take a position there or retire there. Actually, CA’s existing housing at the time of the passage of the Mello Roos Community Facilities District Act was more than enough to accommodate any newcomers that moved in to accept employment.

Another related subject is, why did CA companies feel they had to recruit out-of-state and out-of-country when CA had over 50 state-run universities at the time and numerous private universities churning out top graduates in every field? In-state college graduates already had family and somewhere to live (or at least to “launch their careers” from). They didn’t need new construction in the stix to flock to.

All the (unnecessary) urban sprawl (esp in the San Joaquin Valley and RIV/SB counties) only attracted (and brought in) multitudes of min-wage and other low-wage earners from neighboring desert states such as AZ and NV and even MX, most of whom don’t pay taxes of any kind. We didn’t need more min-wage households in CA. We have MX for a neighbor, remember?? And there aren’t even enough jobs available for our kids to assist them in getting thru college!

Any and all “bubbles” aside, how much do you think SD County properties built before, say ’87 (the “debut year” of CFD formation in the county) would be worth today if SD County’s elected officials had instead instituted no/low growth initiatives from the get go? And because public funds would have been diverted to the existing infrastructure from then forward, don’t you think SD County’s housing stock, in particular, would be better maintained as would its streets and other infrastructure? Their certainly would have been more incentive for owners to do so, don’t you think?

Likewise, for the schools. Do you actually think “Hoover” and “Crawford” HS’s were ALWAYS “low-performing?” You might be SHOCKED to know how many local officials, philanthropists and “celebrities” graduated from those two schools.

The housing stock around both of those schools is VERY well-built, well-located and even “prestigious.” Ask yourselves how these schools have become what they are now?

Using SD County for an example, how has having a (current) 3M population vs. 1M population (in 1982) made the county’s quality of life “better?” And if you think it IS better now, WHO is it better for?

For starters, the officials running the counties of Marin, Contra Costa (most cities), San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara (most cities), El Dorado, Mendocino and the cities within them had it right all along in imposing their no/low growth initiatives early on. Just compare the quality of life in these counties to the quality of life in CA counties whose officials have been “rolling in the sheets” with Big Development for the last 30 years. There lies your answer.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jstoesz]The 2010 republican wave did not occur in CA. Quite the opposite in fact, granted Whitman was a loser robot. I just don’t see much appetite for reform among the state at large, too many people benefit from the free stuff to vote for reform of their benefits.[/quote]

jstoesz, if you are referring to “reform” as cutting public pensions and health benefits that were already promised to existing retirees, near (deferred) retirees and soon-to-be-retirees, this will never happen. There are too many voters in CA who have already served their time (many thousands for well over 30 years) and thus, devoted all their working lives to providing the services we all count on and use.

I’m noticing the main “public pension reform” advocates here on this forum have not and will never be in a position to become “vested” into a public pension plan themselves. The reason? All these jobs look “easy” and “cushy” from the outside looking in … that is, until one actually shows up to work and starts serving their “probationary period,” lol. Actually, a career “bureaucrat” serves multiple “probationary periods” in their “career.” Deep down, most “public-pension-reform-advocate Piggs” know this. It’s easier to sit at your computer/tablet/smartphone on the clock at your “civilian job” and blog about how “unfair” it all is.

[Anonymous]

The ‘ignore user’ feature is nice, but it still doesn’t completely prevent clutter caused by excessive posting.

There is one user on this thread that has 8 of the 20 or so total posts. Even when ‘ignored’ they still manage to find a way to pollute.

[SD Realtor]

How about an auto_reject… If you are the author of a thread, you can specify users that get rejected if they respond to a thread.

[bearishgurl]

Actually, in case you haven’t noticed, I love this state. The “whys” and “wherefores” of CA’s “impending Greek Tragedy” and the antithesis of this thread is one of my favorite areas of (civil) discourse and is a subject of which I am passionate about, that is … low and no-growth legislation :=]

I feel it’s never too late to become involved until a CFD formation is being considered for the shores (and islands) of Mono Lake, lol!

Instead of making snide remarks that serve no purpose, pri_dk, why don’t you instead change your tune and actually add something of value to the thread? If not just for the rest of us to understand why you feel as you do.

For starters, why don’t you tell us if YOU or any member of your immediate family has personally received any *free* or *low-cost* services from departments or agencies of this great state of ours (or its “subdivisions”) that would not have been available to you as a resident of other states?

And if you have, do you think the public employees who provided those services to you are undeserving of being able to “retire” after 30 years of service?

[sdrealtor]

Some people are rather adept at arguing with themselves even when no one else is paying attention to them.

Wait for it….

[bearishgurl]

[quote=SD Realtor]How about an auto_reject… If you are the author of a thread, you can specify users that get rejected if they respond to a thread.[/quote]

SDR, why don’t you create your own thread discussing your FAV subjects of the current price of food and commodities and how expensive tract homes are in your far-flung area of choice (that you haven’t purchased in yet).

You could always ask for “special permission” to bump any contributions I might choose to make :=]

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sdrealtor]Some people are rather adept at arguing with themselves even when no one else is paying attention to them.[/quote]

SOME people CLAIM they are IGNORING me but really can’t help themselves, lol.

…wait for it.

[briansd1]

BG, it’s not a question of old or new, the number of housing units needs to grow in proportion to the population.

[quote=bearishgurl]
Using SD County for an example, how has having a (current) 3M population vs. 1M population (in 1982) made the county’s quality of life “better?” And if you think it IS better now, WHO is it better for?
[/quote]

Better choices of restaurants.

[no_such_reality]

So our California department of finance publishes some interesting stats:

Current 2010 Census population shows only 4.2 million people age 65+

California government stats also show legal immigration to be 5.58 million from 1984 to 2010.

Nearly half immigrated to Los Angeles county, 2.044 million.

Over the last ten years, we’ve seen a marked increase in the population under 18. From 25% to 27.5%.

http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/state_census_data_center/census_2010/documents/2010Census_DemoProfile1.xls

http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/documents/Immigration_1984-2010.xls

On a side note, I don’t believe any place else in the US refers to California housing as cheap, except maybe people in Romney’s income range.

While homes in podunk Cali seem cheap to us, to people living in elsewhere, they’re still more expensive compartively with cheaper alternative locally in podunk-USA.

[Anonymous]

[quote=SD Realtor]How about an auto_reject… If you are the author of a thread, you can specify users that get rejected if they respond to a thread.[/quote]

Good idea, but of course it’s not worth Rich’s time.

Seven more posts on this thread since my last count. Three from the same user.

[Author]

Posts