California is far from being a Red state. Gerrymandering has resulted into a democratic eco-chamber where the options typically are an crazy left v/s ultra left. My current candidate is promising Islam in public schools and legalization of discrimination based on gender and race. This guy a more of a "centrist" in democratic party.
Republicans on other than continue to peddle the same outdated Republican agenda that might fly in Alabama but not in California. Their usual hatred for Spanish speaking population, Asians and Indians shows even when they need these votes to win elections. Going to an area like Fremont where most spoken language might be Telugu and demanding "must speak English in USA" is a political suicide.
Don't know why this is being downvoted. The current Democrat presidential candidate has a history of "tough on crime" legislation and chose a similarly "tough on crime" running mate. AFAIK, neither has he committed to any re-distributive policies like expanding Medicare. In Canada he could be the leader of the Conservative party.
> My current candidate is promising Islam in public schools and legalization of discrimination based on gender and race. This guy a more of a "centrist" in democratic party.
I would love to see sources on these assertions of promising "Islam in public schools" and that this constitutes a centrist position in the democratic party.
I'm guessing you're just complaining about having prayer rooms in schools that students may use? Not, like, actually teaching kids to be Muslims.
Yes - I'd very much like to know more about this. From the other side of the pond I find it bemusing to hear that there's anyone remotely "far left" in mainstream US politics and the gp's comment is lacking in sufficient detail for me to form any kind of judgement about.
> having prayer rooms in schools that students may use
Which is exactly same as Islam in schools. Why should a public school provide "prayer rooms" which is basically a euphemism for Islam rooms. Today it will be prayer rooms tomorrow it will be halal only meat in cafes. This is a tyranny of minority. I am sorry, I do not see any difference.
> Not, like, actually teaching kids to be Muslims.
That would be the logical next step after the prayer rooms.
This is silly. My office in Google Munich has a meditation room used mostly -- though not exclusively -- by Muslims to pray. Is Google trying to get all its employees to be Muslim now?
A prayer/meditation room that's open to both religious and comparable non-religious uses is a modest and reasonable accommodation that doesn't warrant hysterics over public schools "teaching Islam".
That is how colonization works. No one else asked for it, your employer provides it for a specific religion and in order to not sound partisan they give it a generic name.
After they will ask for Halal food. (For a food to be halal it should be certified by certain halal board (which asks for money of course) and the meat must be processed by a muslim (which is religion based hiring))
If your employer providing halal food, it basically is forcing someone down the supply line to hire based on religion.
So it's not even their own campaign, it's what some other people are saying? Seriously, that's your source? You said the candidate was "promising Islam in schools", but this is nothing like that. If this is all you have, then your original statement was a lie.
This honestly kind of looks like a parody image, even. Can't you find anything actually substantive to back up what you said?
Yes, there are certain contradictions between teachings of Islam (misogyny, homophobia, etc.) that might at eventual conflict with the left wing values, I do not how that will play out in future, I guess the stronger faction would win.
Both of the major parties in the US have this issue. They're big tent parties, and the various factions often have conflicting values.
It's probably true that, broadly speaking, Muslims tend to be more socially conservative than other Democrats. But then again, there was a similar issue with black voters and gay rights; black Democrats were less supportive than white Democrats, despite black people voting for Democrats far more than white people, on average.
Easily the biggest cause here is the insane cost of living California has, which is largely a 'self-own': regulations make it hard to build out or up, and with those kinds of constraints on supply, the impact of high demand is predictable.
This isn't a result of the normal partisan political issues, but it's true that there's still a political source: more 'red' metros and states usually at least permit building outwards with suburban sprawl, even if they're hostile to density. Most of coastal California is hostile to both. Even more sympathetic cases like building 100% affordable housing for seniors get pushback from the NIMBY crowd: https://sf.curbed.com/2016/10/6/13189882/1296-shotwell-affor...
Broken down, there's a few different problems that I've read about or seen:
1. Most residential land still has fairly strict limits on density. Even in the bay area, a majority of residential land appears to be reserved exclusively for single family homes. In areas where this isn't quite as much the case, like SF, there are still limits that greatly constrain supply in what is ostensibly a major city.
2. The process of development involves a huge amount of time, money and hurdles. These come in both official ones, like CEQA, which has kind of morphed away from its original intentions, and unofficial ones, like needing to please the local neighbors even if your new building completely fits within existing regulations and codes.
The last bit is particularly problematic: you essentially have the rules that exist on paper, the ones that were democratically discussed and voted and agreed upon in some form. And then you have another set of rules, the ones that exist solely in the minds of the local residents, that nobody ever voted on or transparently discussed, but are nonetheless hurdles that you must pass. And in practice, the power of these rules tends to correlate with how wealthy and entrenched those interests are.
Like, take the example I linked to. If "there's not enough parking" is a real problem, then why isn't it in zoning regulations as is? Why does it come up as a surprise, "Actually jk, you need to do these other things that the law says nothing about"?
What causes these issues is that SF agrees in the large that, say, minimum parking requirements are damaging to the urban fabric and bad for the environment, so they or their representatives reduce or get rid of them when it comes time to vote. BUT, then when it comes time to actually have such a development, local NIMBY's cry out that their parking will be impacted, and the process lets them stall or outright block the new building, actual regulations be damned.
Yes, and the problem is significantly worsened by Prop 13, which shields long time homeowners from the normal negative side effect of higher property values: higher property taxes. There's basically no downside to homeowners from property values shooting through the stratosphere.
Yep. For a property that I intend to live in until I die, outside of California I wouldn’t have wanted the property prices to go up too quickly. Here, all appreciation was hated before I bought and loved after I bought.
This article is largely about the phenomenon of alienated conservatives fleeing California, and the cottage industry that cropped up for it; the circumstances of Covid are mostly incidental, and a quick google search for “leaving California” does turn up many articles indicating a conservative exodus back in January.
I was curious about the possible phenomenon of fleeing liberals pushing red states purple, but either that’s not a thing or the author just doesn’t care.
Anecdotally, I think liberals leaving NYC is a very real phenomenon, although I couldn’t guess if the numbers were enough to push the map.
It'll be interesting to see what happens as more valley companies go remote (if they do). The cost of living is still outrageous in CA, even after some areas going down as much as 30%.
I've also been seeing more and more interviews/commentary as you mentioned. People in Texas concerned folks coming from places like CA are going to try to turn Texas "purple" and make it the same "regulatory mess" which they fled in the first place.
> People in Texas concerned folks coming from places like CA
This will be interesting. Almost all of the people I know who have fled California (to TX and AZ) are conservatives. I know a number of liberals who have considered it, but haven't done so (yet?). From my (purely anecdotal experience) I don't think it will turn Texas purple, I think it will make Texas more red and California more blue... further dividing two of our largest states.
That would be unfortunate if it's true because I believe each state is better off when it's purple, when the best ideas from both sides are being fought for. For complex problems, we should not try liberal or conservative proposals, but actually implement both... one of them (randomly), with the agreement that it will be measured and then the other will be tried later to measure the same metrics. Or implement them in two different parts of the state simultaneously and then switch them after a few years. In other words, we should be A/B testing our laws to see which one performs better. It would be challenging to do it scientifically, it won't be perfect, but whatever we do learn is probably better than arguing about ideas for years.
Also, I think both sides knowing that their idea is going to be tried and tested would hopefully chill everyone out a little and help bring some fairness to the process.
I completely agree. We're better off as everyone mixes, otherwise you do end up with the situation like we're talking about "Oh God those blue people from CA are moving here and are coming to change our state".
But, like you said, it's hard to say if "all the people moving" are conservative or liberal leaning.
I'd venture to guess the first people wanting to move are likely conservative, as you say, and the article points out.
I know conservatives and liberals fleeing TX because of property taxes. It’s a conservative, low service state where everything rolls downhill to the counties and cities. Peoples valuations going up 20% a year.
The best thing that could happen for TX is a Prop 13. The state would have to go blue to deal with reality and adopt an income tax.
The median home value in houston and dallas the two largest cities in TX is ~$200k, at 2.5% comes out to $5k in property taxes. The high property tax offsets the lack of state income tax.
The high property tax also incentives local governments to encourage real estate development since that brings in more tax income. That then results in lower housing costs.
Houston for example literally doesn't even have zoning laws. The downside to this is you may have to evacuate your house at 12am when there is an industrial chemical spill at the petro-chemical plant they build 1/2 a mile from your house. The upside is when home values start pricing people out developer will line up around the block to buy out sfh to build affordable mid rise apartment/condo units.
As bay area folks move to Austin Texas they have started bringing bay area social problems with them.They enacted a new 'compassionate' homeless ordinances that legalized homeless camping in public. Which has resulted in the homeless population going from a panhandlers here and there to full blown tent cities on sidewalks and underpasses in only a few years.
Hey, ol' pal! You're welcome down here. I think this article is notable because it's observing a countertrend. Texas is definitely turning purple in part to Californian tech workers coming to the cities, as well as a growing Hispanic population. Too many articles to cite—just search for "Texas purple".
California is a state, and thus dependent on federal budgeting like any other. A huge proportion of tax income goes to the feds, which they then dole out in various forms; California can't magically get around that.
You're getting downvoted for being needlessly snarky and constructing a strawman to insinuate CA is somehow hypocritical.
Which states besides CA would you describe as "autonomous" vs not? A Federation of independent states unified under a federal government is kind of how the whole U.S. thing works, no?
You also seem to be trying to make a political statement. Should a "red" state like TX not request disaster relief funds (say, after a hurricane) if a Democrat is president?
Also, keep in mind that 57% of forests in CA are Federally managed. Only 3% is managed by the state.
> constructing a strawman to insinuate CA is somehow hypocritical.
It is - or at least the leadership is in almost every respect. Politico-turned-economic elites acting as egalitarian champions is par for the last 30 years.
Life-long Californian here.
> Which states besides CA would you describe as "autonomous" vs not?
Massachusetts, for a start, since they don't just talk about what they are going to do. You should visit.
The reality is that the CA representatives routinely declare that they are not going to abide by federal guidelines. Ostensibly, that's the autonomy being referenced.
Totally ignoring the poster's intent and swapping in your own bias as their content is outright trolling. If you don't understand (or can't imagine an interpretation that makes sense) it's rather civil to act in good faith and ask for clarification. SMH
The same thing happened with Obamacare and red states. It basically always happens that states fight the feds at least somewhat when the opposing party is in power.
Roughly 57% of forested lands in Caifornia are federally-managed and as another poster pointed out a significant amount of money is sent to the federal government by California and its residents. You’re getting downvoted because you’re wrongly implying that California is financially insolvent and looking for money it wouldn’t have on its own. The truth is that California and its residents subsidize many other parts of the US.
From my experience, which is a single datum, many people leaving are those in towns with a very small minority population. Northern and rural california towns. Not the urban areas. Residents there feel increasingly threatened by scenes of racial protests in the state, fearing that somehow they'll be subject to oppression. So it's very easy to pack up and leave.
This isn't a new phenomenon, people moved from the south westward after the civil war, the white flight of detroit during the civil rights period, I do believe we are seeing another similar wave in motion now.
And for my own insight on this, people are not usually entirely honest, except when in company of others of similar mindset. Over hearing at a family gathering, I learned that the main reason a relative of mine is leaving california for maine is because "there will be less crime because there are fewer black people", despite living in one of the whitest towns in the state.
> From my experience, which is a single datum, many people leaving are those in towns with a very small minority population. Northern and rural california towns. Not the urban areas.
Rent prices in SF are down like 20-30% compared to last year. That doesn't mean 20-30% of people have left, obviously, I'd probably guess just a few percent have gone, but that's still a good chunk of people for an area that more recently was growing with huge demand.
I live in the valley, we are completely overwhelmed by people moving from the bay to the valley right now. I don't have numbers on how many people leaving SF are moving within state vs out of state but I would not be surprised if it's a large portion.
Pay adjustments aside--and those might absolutely come into play with lower cost areas of CA as well--it's not hard to imagine that: 1.) Some people might want to remain in CA for various reasons and 2.) Pay considerations, there's something to be said for being able to drive to an office now and then rather than having to get on a plane.
If I were to work for a bay area company again, I'd definitely want to be in California. In the rest of the US, I'd be concerned about overreaching non-competes affecting my ability to create side projects and tutorials.
Yeah three of my friends have moved away from the peninsula now that they can work remote. Prior to that three others moved away when they had kids.
The NIMBYs and prop13 are unnecessarily hurting everyone except those that bought property a long time ago and pay relatively no property tax while suppressing any new housing and forcing new buyers to subsidize them.
Median housing price on the peninsula is 3 million, you can get a tiny old condo from the 60s for 1.3M if you can find it.
SF is a little better with some newer apartments available in the 800k - 1.2M range and some older stuff that's cheaper.
It sucks and it's totally unnecessary. Allowing more housing to be built would reduce the cost. NYC does it, Tokyo does it, it's possible and would be better for everyone except the NIMBYs leveraging their luck for their own self-interest.
In the context of historical exclusionary zoning and explicitly racist policy about restricting housing access framing it as 'local control' and 'protecting neighborhood character' is just a way to continue to block people from entering the community to protect a small subset of owner's self-interest that was protected by historically unfair policy.
There's a deep irony seeing 'black lives matter' signs on someone's lawn right next to anti-housing council member election signs.
Rent-Control, 'affordable' housing are bad hacks that make things worse. We need to build more supply of everything and a lot of it.
The current situation also sucks for start-ups where massive costs get eaten up by landlords. Here you've either had one or two successful exits or live with 3 roommates (or your parents are rich, or are locals). It'd be so much less stressful if housing cost was something you didn't have to worry about or it was possible to actually buy something.
What if there was enough supply to buy a place for 400-500k? Maybe then my friends wouldn't have had to leave to start a family live without roommates.
My only hope is something like SB50 eventually passes and takes local control of zoning away from these people:
>many people leaving are those in towns with a very small minority population.
People are fleeing SF proper and Oakland. Those are not towns with very small minority populations. The people who are fleeing are the ones that have the means to, and work remotely.
>Residents there feel increasingly threatened by scenes of racial protests in the state, fearing that somehow they'll be subject to oppression.
Residents in SF, Oakland, etc. are tired of their cities being looted, tired of stepping over feces, urine pools, and needles, tired of being accosted by the aggressive homeless, tired of paying some of the world's highest rent for a city they can no longer enjoy (shut down), tired of being robbed and victimized by "teens", etc.
>And for my own insight on this, people are not usually entirely honest, except when in company of others of similar mindset.
I agree. Liberals and leftists screech about how wonderful diversity is, but always end up fleeing for whiter, more homogeneous cities, states, and countries.
>Over hearing at a family gathering, I learned that the main reason a relative of mine is leaving california for maine is because "there will be less crime because there are fewer black people"
That is an objective fact though, whether you like it or not. The amount of mental gymnastics leftists have to play around that is astounding.
I moved to California in the early 2010s to join a startup. We had a liquidity event a few years later and I used some of those earnings to start a business. We've now raised VC funds and I'm moving the company out of state to grow in a more sane environment. This state is suffocating especially lately. It's not only taxes nor cost of living. As a libertarian, I am not welcome here. I'm constantly bombarded by people who want to control my life and my business. Elon and Thiel were pushed out for similar reasons. From Sacramento, the shutting down small businesses during covid, affirmative action on company boards, making uber drivers employees and more. Then there are all the companies that use their business to push left-wing politics. I'm not going to spend any more energy fighting this. I'm done.
The article’s ‘biggest losers’ map of total population outflow by county is truly awful. With a quarter of the state’s population, LA County would lead pretty much any measure if you don’t scale that measure to population.
The relative outflow is .25% ( quarter of a percent) which is pretty nominal by national levels. In addition if you understand the counties you'll see that some of the story is rather thin (e.g. deeply republican Calaveras county had a net inflow, and is colored blue).
> At first, Stephanie Morris was nervous about leaving Modesto. She’d lived in the Central Valley her whole life, but her family couldn’t keep paying $850-a-month for her sons to share a living room while she, her husband and the baby slept in their apartment’s only bedroom. The anxiety faded by the time her family pulled out in a U-Haul bound for Salt Lake City...
Modesto? I get the gripes about Bay Area prices, but that rent is 1/3 of a one bedroom in the Bay Area, and I'm not seeing significantly cheaper apartments in SLC.
If one was inclined to get a 30 year fixed mortgage (sounds insane, but people do that), $850/mo will get you a house in Cottonwood Heights, not a bad neighborhood at all.
[insert some kind of subjective disclaimer about what living in a “nice” ‘hood in a place like that is worth here]
Where are you from where a 30yr fixed is abnormal? Everyone I know in Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas or Missouri uses 30yr fixed with no prepay penalty. Then you can just toss whatever you want in over the top and pay down your premium when times are good. Then if things get rough you can just slide back to the minimum monthly payment.
(Also, fixed interest is like below 3% right now.)
What’s insane about a 30-year fixed mortgage? That’s literally the most common term for a mortgage in the US and I’m willing to bet many other western nations.
I've checked prices on Zillow for Cottonwood Heights, UT; looks like the lower range is at least $400k, which makes monthly payments above $1900, after 20% downpayment.
I agree it should be substantially cheaper. It's just not that hypertrophic difference. Also on Peninsula one can still find houses under 1.5M, judging by San Jose median of less than 1.1M.
You can find them - but you certainly wouldn't want to live in them. Most homes below $1.5mil in the peninsula have some serious compromises (especially if you are trying to get a home that is above 1200sqft). You're going to have to take a hard hit on the schools and - well - then you're just going to pay for private schools then. What would you rather do? Spend $5,000/month for your two kids to go to some private school or put that $5,000/month into your mortgage instead?
I’m paying 2.5% on a 30 year fixed mortgage with no prepayment penalty. Genuinely curious what about that is insane - just the length? Because it sounds like almost-free money to me.
I guess I just have a personal aversion to debt. I would never have guessed this was normal!
Well, fair enough, and according to another reply here the mortgage calculator I used was inaccurate. I still feel confident that an $850/mo mortgage is feasible in SLC.
Surprised that I’m getting more flack here for my feelings about debt than the subtle shade I threw the region :)
Avoiding debt is very laudable, but home ownership is the place where even avid debt-haters like Dave Ramsey admit a loan is the only way most folks can do it. Nearly everyone who owns a home does it with a mortgage, usually 15/30 years. Fixed rate seems out of fashion these days, but it's far from dead.
Not necessarily, it depends on what the money is meant for. A loan is still a loan, no matter whether interest is charged or not. It creates a liability which can have dire consequences if the conditions are not met. I only ever took out one loan, a partial mortgage for a house I bought in the Netherlands. I sold that house 6 years later for close to double the price, paid off the loan, bought a farm in Sweden cash in hand for the proceedings and never looked back. I never took out a study loan - living cheaply on a farm (I studied at an agricultural university) so I skipped that burden as well. No loan means no liability, clear and simple. I will not take out personal loans, instead I'll postpone the purchase until I can afford it out of hand.
> "I have to keep reminding myself that I’m not moving out of California to a third-world country,” Morris said. “I’m leaving a third-world country to join America."
Ummm... having been to multiple 3rd world countries, this is laughable.
Unless parts of California lack sewage infrastructure, indoor plumbing, and have millions living in homes built from pieces of wood and metal hand-gathered it is definitely not third world or even second world.
But I'm sure she's just being purposefully hyperbolic.
I invite her to spend a day in rural Mississippi if she thinks California is anything resembling a third world country. And to your point, even THAT is a far cry from the likes of Haiti.
It’s pretty obviously a dig, likely referencing the homeless situation in SF. Someone visiting the city for the first time could be excused for wondering if sewage is, in fact, widely available.
I visited the city for the first time last year and noticed some issues, but my main thought was wondering if affordable housing is widely available, not sewage transport/treatment.
(Knowing, of course, that affordable housing is not available. Public defecation is just one of many symptoms, that have root causes in the lack of societal support for universal housing and mental health care)
I've read some stories about juvenile justice in Texas, you know, when a seriously underage - like, 10 yo - has to answer to a judge. No links now, sorry, but it left me wondering how different societies can be structured - and so in places where you don't always expect them initially.
To compare California and Texas, one would need to look at a range of factors, not just house prices or even BOTE cost of living estimates.
I think the argument here is that yes, people in the Bay Area don’t have power some days. AC often isn’t available in their buildings. Drink water at your own risk due to earth quakes, etc etc. air quality is notoriously poor in LA and recent fires have made the whole state have poor air quality.
While it’s fair to say it’s not “3rd world” it’s fast approaching.
These points are badly oversold. Power is out for hours every few years for most people. Anyone who doesn't have AC is choosing not to pay for a portable unit. Drinking water is absolutely not at risk in the bay area. Air quality is bad in LA but it's so much better these days because of improvements (low-smog gas formulations) that's it's mostly pollution from abroad now.
The fires were especially bad this year, but "fast approaching 3rd world" is strictly hyperbole.
> But I'm sure she's just being purposefully hyperbolic.
To be fair, the HQ address Calmatters.org provides is a parking garage. Searching the names and images used in the article returns many other publications which similarly have no masthead, don't credit authors, and either provide no physical address or a junk address. Calmatters' staff photo is recycled on other astroturf publications. Anyway, I guess the point is that good propaganda should be hyperbolic.
If republicans and democrats are going to sort themselves into their own states, what does this mean for the future of the US federal government? Are we going to end up with the democrat and republican states forming two separate countries?
Don't have to imagine. We're already there in large part, so that national candidates just have to appeal to a handful of voters in a handful of swing states. This is a good reason to abolish the Electoral College. There are millions of conservative Californians whose votes don't count under the current system. https://equalvotes.us
To point this out a bit better: There are likely to be more votes for Donny in California this year than the raw populations of Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana combined.
A national popular vote would drastically shift the race to the most populous metro markets in the US: NYC (~19M), LA (~13M), Chicago (~9M), Dallas (~8M), Houston (~7M), and DC (~6M). Despite their heavy leanings to Democrats, the raw number of votes in these markets and the cost to reach a voter still makes them competitive areas.
Such a shift in election method would likely move the 'center' of the US presidential political system towards issues that dominate the large metro markets. This further alienates rural voters and less populous states, making Senate policy less representative of the US voter.
Dissolution of the US into Red and Blue sovereign countries isn't likely to happen in the foreseeable future. The blue and red portions of the US are too economically interdependent for dissolution to be readily feasible absent a catastrophic political crisis, such as a military coup or a Republican president declaring himself dictator for life.
However, if dissolution did happen, it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. Most of America's current political strife and dysfunction is caused by incompatible, and increasingly divergent, visions for America's future. Splitting the country is the only way for those two visions to get what they want without persecuting (or killing) large numbers of people.
Net domestic migration is the change in population attributable to people moving to/from another State. The blue counties had net negative domestic migration, which means more people moved out to other States than moved in from other States. In other words, the article's description is correct.
I am glad people are comfortable moving around -- that helps the economy balance and is one of the advantages for the US economy over, say, Europe's.
That being said, I wonder if the impacts will be as described in the article. Having lived in MA, NY, TX before moving to California (and having lived in Europe): the people who live in hyper conservative counties in CA are still used to conveniences and government services that don't exist in places like Texas, Utah or Idaho. I suspect they will change their new home states as much as they will relish the new environment.
(and statistically, as I mentioned in another comment: 100K net is about a quarter of a percent of California's population -- hardly a significant number overall).
Seriously. My buildings elevator started acting weird to the point that I didn’t feel comfortable bringing my son on it. Building was completely unresponsive to complaints. I called the state elevator inspection board and the guy was there TWO HOURS later, the elevator was immediately closed off, repairmen were there for a whole week and when they were done it worked perfectly. Nothing like a credible threat from The State to light a fire under a capitalist’s bottom.
No, but California state government is by far the most responsive to single individuals. Sometimes this sucks when one NIMBY can block a major project by filing some bureaucratic objection or invoking a rare salamander. Sometimes it’s awesome when you have a problem and nobody will listen. In Utah will the state elevator guy be there in two hours? Will he shut down the elevator even though you can’t provide a consistent repro? If so that’s awesome but this kind of thing is common in California.
Do what makes ya happy — as a homeowner in a safe town with a good school district I ain’t gonna worry but I don’t begrudge you seeking your best life.
I didn't know it was so wide spread. I thought myself a fringe californian who wishes to move out of this hell hole. Seeing I am not a minority is actually a breath of fresh air. Can't wait until the day I say adios commiefornia.
104 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 154 ms ] threadRepublicans on other than continue to peddle the same outdated Republican agenda that might fly in Alabama but not in California. Their usual hatred for Spanish speaking population, Asians and Indians shows even when they need these votes to win elections. Going to an area like Fremont where most spoken language might be Telugu and demanding "must speak English in USA" is a political suicide.
Of course, and the article says nothing to the contrary.
Look at the CPUSA or PSL if you wish to see actual left.
I would love to see sources on these assertions of promising "Islam in public schools" and that this constitutes a centrist position in the democratic party.
I'm guessing you're just complaining about having prayer rooms in schools that students may use? Not, like, actually teaching kids to be Muslims.
Which is exactly same as Islam in schools. Why should a public school provide "prayer rooms" which is basically a euphemism for Islam rooms. Today it will be prayer rooms tomorrow it will be halal only meat in cafes. This is a tyranny of minority. I am sorry, I do not see any difference.
> Not, like, actually teaching kids to be Muslims.
That would be the logical next step after the prayer rooms.
This is silly. My office in Google Munich has a meditation room used mostly -- though not exclusively -- by Muslims to pray. Is Google trying to get all its employees to be Muslim now?
A prayer/meditation room that's open to both religious and comparable non-religious uses is a modest and reasonable accommodation that doesn't warrant hysterics over public schools "teaching Islam".
After they will ask for Halal food. (For a food to be halal it should be certified by certain halal board (which asks for money of course) and the meat must be processed by a muslim (which is religion based hiring))
If your employer providing halal food, it basically is forcing someone down the supply line to hire based on religion.
Slippery slope.
I would expect the muslim campaigners to have a better understanding of Prop 16's implications and what it means to them than outsiders.
This honestly kind of looks like a parody image, even. Can't you find anything actually substantive to back up what you said?
Americans and their politics, I swear…
Does that candidate understand that Islam is against many of the (far) leftist agendas that they're trying to push? Source: I'm Muslim.
It's probably true that, broadly speaking, Muslims tend to be more socially conservative than other Democrats. But then again, there was a similar issue with black voters and gay rights; black Democrats were less supportive than white Democrats, despite black people voting for Democrats far more than white people, on average.
This isn't a result of the normal partisan political issues, but it's true that there's still a political source: more 'red' metros and states usually at least permit building outwards with suburban sprawl, even if they're hostile to density. Most of coastal California is hostile to both. Even more sympathetic cases like building 100% affordable housing for seniors get pushback from the NIMBY crowd: https://sf.curbed.com/2016/10/6/13189882/1296-shotwell-affor...
Broken down, there's a few different problems that I've read about or seen:
1. Most residential land still has fairly strict limits on density. Even in the bay area, a majority of residential land appears to be reserved exclusively for single family homes. In areas where this isn't quite as much the case, like SF, there are still limits that greatly constrain supply in what is ostensibly a major city.
2. The process of development involves a huge amount of time, money and hurdles. These come in both official ones, like CEQA, which has kind of morphed away from its original intentions, and unofficial ones, like needing to please the local neighbors even if your new building completely fits within existing regulations and codes.
The last bit is particularly problematic: you essentially have the rules that exist on paper, the ones that were democratically discussed and voted and agreed upon in some form. And then you have another set of rules, the ones that exist solely in the minds of the local residents, that nobody ever voted on or transparently discussed, but are nonetheless hurdles that you must pass. And in practice, the power of these rules tends to correlate with how wealthy and entrenched those interests are.
Like, take the example I linked to. If "there's not enough parking" is a real problem, then why isn't it in zoning regulations as is? Why does it come up as a surprise, "Actually jk, you need to do these other things that the law says nothing about"?
What causes these issues is that SF agrees in the large that, say, minimum parking requirements are damaging to the urban fabric and bad for the environment, so they or their representatives reduce or get rid of them when it comes time to vote. BUT, then when it comes time to actually have such a development, local NIMBY's cry out that their parking will be impacted, and the process lets them stall or outright block the new building, actual regulations be damned.
I was curious about the possible phenomenon of fleeing liberals pushing red states purple, but either that’s not a thing or the author just doesn’t care.
Anecdotally, I think liberals leaving NYC is a very real phenomenon, although I couldn’t guess if the numbers were enough to push the map.
I've also been seeing more and more interviews/commentary as you mentioned. People in Texas concerned folks coming from places like CA are going to try to turn Texas "purple" and make it the same "regulatory mess" which they fled in the first place.
This will be interesting. Almost all of the people I know who have fled California (to TX and AZ) are conservatives. I know a number of liberals who have considered it, but haven't done so (yet?). From my (purely anecdotal experience) I don't think it will turn Texas purple, I think it will make Texas more red and California more blue... further dividing two of our largest states.
That would be unfortunate if it's true because I believe each state is better off when it's purple, when the best ideas from both sides are being fought for. For complex problems, we should not try liberal or conservative proposals, but actually implement both... one of them (randomly), with the agreement that it will be measured and then the other will be tried later to measure the same metrics. Or implement them in two different parts of the state simultaneously and then switch them after a few years. In other words, we should be A/B testing our laws to see which one performs better. It would be challenging to do it scientifically, it won't be perfect, but whatever we do learn is probably better than arguing about ideas for years.
Also, I think both sides knowing that their idea is going to be tried and tested would hopefully chill everyone out a little and help bring some fairness to the process.
But, like you said, it's hard to say if "all the people moving" are conservative or liberal leaning.
I'd venture to guess the first people wanting to move are likely conservative, as you say, and the article points out.
But those two terms are also quite relative. A conservative in California might actually be liberal for Texas, and vice versa.
The best thing that could happen for TX is a Prop 13. The state would have to go blue to deal with reality and adopt an income tax.
The high property tax also incentives local governments to encourage real estate development since that brings in more tax income. That then results in lower housing costs.
Houston for example literally doesn't even have zoning laws. The downside to this is you may have to evacuate your house at 12am when there is an industrial chemical spill at the petro-chemical plant they build 1/2 a mile from your house. The upside is when home values start pricing people out developer will line up around the block to buy out sfh to build affordable mid rise apartment/condo units.
I'd argue the citizenry is a very blue shade of purple, but elections lag that because we're No. 1 in voter suppression. https://www.texasobserver.org/the-long-tail-of-voter-suppres...
Edit:
Getting pretty heavily downvoted. It’s literally what Newsom said he did on Twitter.
https://twitter.com/GavinNewsom/status/1317197526529830912
For what it's worth, California gets less back from the federal government than most states, compared to what it sends in federally: https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/California-no-l...
Which states besides CA would you describe as "autonomous" vs not? A Federation of independent states unified under a federal government is kind of how the whole U.S. thing works, no?
You also seem to be trying to make a political statement. Should a "red" state like TX not request disaster relief funds (say, after a hurricane) if a Democrat is president?
Also, keep in mind that 57% of forests in CA are Federally managed. Only 3% is managed by the state.
It is - or at least the leadership is in almost every respect. Politico-turned-economic elites acting as egalitarian champions is par for the last 30 years.
Life-long Californian here.
> Which states besides CA would you describe as "autonomous" vs not?
Massachusetts, for a start, since they don't just talk about what they are going to do. You should visit.
The reality is that the CA representatives routinely declare that they are not going to abide by federal guidelines. Ostensibly, that's the autonomy being referenced.
Totally ignoring the poster's intent and swapping in your own bias as their content is outright trolling. If you don't understand (or can't imagine an interpretation that makes sense) it's rather civil to act in good faith and ask for clarification. SMH
Disclaimer: I don’t live in California.
There are 33 million acres of forest(ed) lands in California.
Federal ownership is 19 million acres = 57%
State and local agencies (including land trusts) own 3%
Privately owned forest lands are 13.3 million acres = 40%
Industrial private owners are 4.7 million acres = 14%
Non-industrial privately owned forest lands are 9 million acres = 26%
Non-corporate private forest lands are 7.9 million acres
REITs and other investment devices are 344,000 acres
https://www.forestunlimited.org/resources/california-forest-...
This isn't a new phenomenon, people moved from the south westward after the civil war, the white flight of detroit during the civil rights period, I do believe we are seeing another similar wave in motion now.
And for my own insight on this, people are not usually entirely honest, except when in company of others of similar mindset. Over hearing at a family gathering, I learned that the main reason a relative of mine is leaving california for maine is because "there will be less crime because there are fewer black people", despite living in one of the whitest towns in the state.
Rent prices in SF are down like 20-30% compared to last year. That doesn't mean 20-30% of people have left, obviously, I'd probably guess just a few percent have gone, but that's still a good chunk of people for an area that more recently was growing with huge demand.
The NIMBYs and prop13 are unnecessarily hurting everyone except those that bought property a long time ago and pay relatively no property tax while suppressing any new housing and forcing new buyers to subsidize them.
Median housing price on the peninsula is 3 million, you can get a tiny old condo from the 60s for 1.3M if you can find it.
SF is a little better with some newer apartments available in the 800k - 1.2M range and some older stuff that's cheaper.
It sucks and it's totally unnecessary. Allowing more housing to be built would reduce the cost. NYC does it, Tokyo does it, it's possible and would be better for everyone except the NIMBYs leveraging their luck for their own self-interest.
In the context of historical exclusionary zoning and explicitly racist policy about restricting housing access framing it as 'local control' and 'protecting neighborhood character' is just a way to continue to block people from entering the community to protect a small subset of owner's self-interest that was protected by historically unfair policy.
There's a deep irony seeing 'black lives matter' signs on someone's lawn right next to anti-housing council member election signs.
Rent-Control, 'affordable' housing are bad hacks that make things worse. We need to build more supply of everything and a lot of it.
The current situation also sucks for start-ups where massive costs get eaten up by landlords. Here you've either had one or two successful exits or live with 3 roommates (or your parents are rich, or are locals). It'd be so much less stressful if housing cost was something you didn't have to worry about or it was possible to actually buy something.
What if there was enough supply to buy a place for 400-500k? Maybe then my friends wouldn't have had to leave to start a family live without roommates.
My only hope is something like SB50 eventually passes and takes local control of zoning away from these people:
- https://www.sanjoseinside.com/the-fly/cupertino-council-cont...
- https://twitter.com/lydia_kou/status/857012783895912450?s=20
People are fleeing SF proper and Oakland. Those are not towns with very small minority populations. The people who are fleeing are the ones that have the means to, and work remotely.
>Residents there feel increasingly threatened by scenes of racial protests in the state, fearing that somehow they'll be subject to oppression.
Residents in SF, Oakland, etc. are tired of their cities being looted, tired of stepping over feces, urine pools, and needles, tired of being accosted by the aggressive homeless, tired of paying some of the world's highest rent for a city they can no longer enjoy (shut down), tired of being robbed and victimized by "teens", etc.
>And for my own insight on this, people are not usually entirely honest, except when in company of others of similar mindset.
I agree. Liberals and leftists screech about how wonderful diversity is, but always end up fleeing for whiter, more homogeneous cities, states, and countries.
>Over hearing at a family gathering, I learned that the main reason a relative of mine is leaving california for maine is because "there will be less crime because there are fewer black people"
That is an objective fact though, whether you like it or not. The amount of mental gymnastics leftists have to play around that is astounding.
Modesto? I get the gripes about Bay Area prices, but that rent is 1/3 of a one bedroom in the Bay Area, and I'm not seeing significantly cheaper apartments in SLC.
[insert some kind of subjective disclaimer about what living in a “nice” ‘hood in a place like that is worth here]
(Also, fixed interest is like below 3% right now.)
San Jose != Peninsula btw.
Well, fair enough, and according to another reply here the mortgage calculator I used was inaccurate. I still feel confident that an $850/mo mortgage is feasible in SLC.
Surprised that I’m getting more flack here for my feelings about debt than the subtle shade I threw the region :)
Where do you draw the line? If someone offered you a 30 year loan at 0% interest, you'd take it, right?
Ummm... having been to multiple 3rd world countries, this is laughable.
Unless parts of California lack sewage infrastructure, indoor plumbing, and have millions living in homes built from pieces of wood and metal hand-gathered it is definitely not third world or even second world.
But I'm sure she's just being purposefully hyperbolic.
(Knowing, of course, that affordable housing is not available. Public defecation is just one of many symptoms, that have root causes in the lack of societal support for universal housing and mental health care)
To compare California and Texas, one would need to look at a range of factors, not just house prices or even BOTE cost of living estimates.
While it’s fair to say it’s not “3rd world” it’s fast approaching.
The fires were especially bad this year, but "fast approaching 3rd world" is strictly hyperbole.
To be fair, the HQ address Calmatters.org provides is a parking garage. Searching the names and images used in the article returns many other publications which similarly have no masthead, don't credit authors, and either provide no physical address or a junk address. Calmatters' staff photo is recycled on other astroturf publications. Anyway, I guess the point is that good propaganda should be hyperbolic.
CA has 130000 people living in the streets so sadly not too far off on that front.
A national popular vote would drastically shift the race to the most populous metro markets in the US: NYC (~19M), LA (~13M), Chicago (~9M), Dallas (~8M), Houston (~7M), and DC (~6M). Despite their heavy leanings to Democrats, the raw number of votes in these markets and the cost to reach a voter still makes them competitive areas.
Such a shift in election method would likely move the 'center' of the US presidential political system towards issues that dominate the large metro markets. This further alienates rural voters and less populous states, making Senate policy less representative of the US voter.
However, if dissolution did happen, it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. Most of America's current political strife and dysfunction is caused by incompatible, and increasingly divergent, visions for America's future. Splitting the country is the only way for those two visions to get what they want without persecuting (or killing) large numbers of people.
Thing like drinking age, homeless accommodation or medical services can be perfectly well driven by states.
This is backwards -- perhaps written by an editor rather than the author of the piece. The blue counties gained population from 2018 to 2019:
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-2...
That being said, I wonder if the impacts will be as described in the article. Having lived in MA, NY, TX before moving to California (and having lived in Europe): the people who live in hyper conservative counties in CA are still used to conveniences and government services that don't exist in places like Texas, Utah or Idaho. I suspect they will change their new home states as much as they will relish the new environment.
(and statistically, as I mentioned in another comment: 100K net is about a quarter of a percent of California's population -- hardly a significant number overall).