California doesn’t have a population crisis. Its population is relatively stable due to international immigration and natural population increase (births minus deaths) effectively cancelling out the loss in population due to net domestic migration.
And international immigration would be higher if not for the past 4+ years.
For some companies, having most or all of their presence in California is costing them valuable employees because their employees and potential employees can’t afford to raise a family in the state. The Bay Area is so intolerable that the highly paid employees at Apple corporate are struggling.
I know this intimately to be false about Apple and its "struggling" employees.
Apple is hiring in other cities but that's because they're out of room in Silicon Valley, even with the spaceship now open.
Fundamentally, a crisis of affordability within cities in the state is terrible for productivity. The most productive areas of any state are its cities. And if people can’t afford to live in them, that’s a problem. The crisis of affordability is fixable. However, this is a crisis decades in the making and it will take decades to fix it.
Pretty sure I said the housing market in metro areas and the coast is crazy ridiculous. But considering the most expensive market in the country - San Francisco and the Peninsula - is also the most productive metro area in the country per the Brookings Institute and Milken Institute:
.
However, please, share how to fix it.
My point is that I don’t think there is a more poorly designed metropolitan area in the US than the Los Angeles metropolitan area. Between the traffic, pollution, vast stretches of single use, low-density zoning regulations, and the prevalence of spacial mismatching, it is the poster child of bad urban planning. I find it odd that you would overlook the reality of the present situation in favor of the supposed effectiveness of regulations, and specifically California’s regulations, which are often detrimental to good urban planning and instead serve to inflate housing prices, to the benefit of existing homeowners and the expense of potential Californians.
I never said Los Angeles was a model of urban planning. I said that's what unchecked growth gets you. I remember the air in LA before gasoline emission standards went into effect. It was awful.
It's interesting you think caring about sustainability, density, clean air, preserving natural spaces and species, and the water supply is a detriment to citizens.
Also, are you familiar with the history of urban planning in Florida or how much ideas about urban planning have progressed since most of Los Angeles was constructed? Or that most urban planning regulations are handled at the local level? Or that basically every city in the U.S. has fairly comprehensive land use regulations?
But you say regulations are bad.
Yes, condos on the Florida's Atlantic side demonstrate how rigorously Florida communities take codes and planning.
You realize Disney sold Celebration to a hedge fund in 2004, right?
As a former Californian (left in 2017)
Oooooh, now I understand your posts! Congrats on moving somewhere more your speed.
And yes, affordability and urban planning and local/state/federal government (47% of CA is owned by the federal government, including many of the areas that have seen brush fires recently) and NIMBYism and many other issues are problems in LA and SF - and SD and Silicon Valley. Even Fresno is being hit by high housing prices right now. I'm mostly being flippant. This is a discussion that a WDW message board is perhaps not the most nuanced place to have. In fact, it's not a discusssion I would seriously have with internet randos on any message board. Especially when most of the talking points are cribbed directly from cable network pundits.
