RE: RE: Is it truly "progressive" when the negative things are simply pushed into ghettos and ignored while virtue signalling about other things?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

RE: Is it truly "progressive" when the negative things are simply pushed into ghettos and ignored while virtue signalling about other things?

RE: Is it truly "progressive" when the negative things are simply pushed into ghettos and ignored while virtue signalling about other things?

We do have an obscene problem with a shortage of housing here in California, which also causes a large homeless population, but it's not because of taxes or illegal immigration exactly. Property taxes are actually pretty low on average here. The illegal immigrants make their own density by piling up in single family homes with like 20 people, so I doubt they have much effect on the price of real estate here.

It's mostly because of failed government interference in markets, that of zoning restrictions and open space easements. Zoning restrictions are generally very restrictive on official population density in California. In addition, most places have height restrictions on buildings, so even if you could legally make it more dense it wouldn't be possible anyway, all in the name of saving the "natural" views. They've resorted to allowing people to build "granny flats" in their back yards because the problem has gotten so bad lately. They're basically sheds with power and plumbing and people are going to start paying rent to live in them. Any newcomers (illegal or otherwise) would easily be absorbed if these restrictions were lifted.

Open space easements are another wonderful gift from the government here. They restrict certain private property from being developed, so there's basically just a bunch of vacant unusable land laying around that's a useless fire hazard. It occasionally gets snatched up by some connected individual who buys it for pennies on the dollar and uses his political connections to lift the easement and develop it, but us mere mortals would be prohibited from doing so. Regardless of that, I still think it's a net positive when it happens, but most of it is just wasted as vacant land.

This is not to mention the unusual amount of city, state and federal government owned land here that is also laying vacant (also a fire hazard where most of the fires start or grow out of control). At least in NY I could hunt on state land. I think it's a felony to even carry a slingshot on state land here. They've banned shooting on BLM and National Forest land due to "fire danger from shooting" and it's illegal to discharge firearms within city limits, so forget about it there. it doesn't please the crown that we should take his game. Some people camp and hike in these places, but even that is pretty limited. It's just waste in my opinion.

That said, having moved here from NY, I'd say NY is still more locked down socialist than CA, although CA's been catching up since I moved here. At least I still don't get pulled over for no good reason every couple of months here like I did in NY. The damn speed trap racket they run there almost bankrupted me several times.

Oh, just thought of another thing about San Fran. I think they have rent controls up there like in NYC. They're trying to do that in San Diego right now in some of the high end beach areas. It's a disaster when they do it. It drives out all of the builders and everybody has to fight over the scraps that are left over.

H2
H3
H4
3 columns
2 columns
1 column
Join the conversation now
Logo
Center