how many middle class families are going to register with a government entity, stay under low yearly income limits to 'qualify' for affordable housing? number of kids you have in your family is factored in as well...becoming a metric that factors into your qualification for housing.
seems sort of orwellian to me. we should be creating bills to expedite all housing. not just subsidized housing.
http://sd11.senate.ca.gov/news/20170123-senator-wiener-relea...
UPDATE: sb-827 prevents local governments in california from banning density near public transit. it represents the most radical housing bill in recent california history, because it rebalances control from hyperlocal municipalities to the state level. it could unlock 3m housing units in a state building <100k a year. that's 30 years of pent-up supply, and it could actually affect market prices.
Edited: Nevermind, I see your other posts below.
Original: I'm a urban California resident... (have been for a good chunk of my life). I'm don't see why this is a solution to the problem of why people are leaving the state.
Can you provide your thoughts on why you believe this to be the solution? Or links to material you've found to be compelling?
[0] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
also, i've considered this quite a bit and written on it mediocre-ly: https://medium.com/@justinkrause/how-to-save-san-francisco-8...
Then the thing about SB827 that doesn't make sense to me is why the bonus is only for residential development.
Yes, I understand that residential pricing is the problem. But, we're not just taking transit to our friend's house. We're taking transit to work and services.
Sure, I can see this working in San Francisco given the transit coverage and relatively centralized business core. (Scary though given the quality of service that Muni/BART offers presently.)
But in LA/SD/Greater Bay Area/Sacramento? I think there's a ton of jobs that aren't off transit lines. Doesn't seem to work well there.
Yes, I agree that things probably need to change in California. But SB827 seems to be about stirring the pot.
this wouldn't happen overnight, but it would be the biggest increase in housing supply in recent history. there are quite a few maps you can google to see where the increased density would be likely to go: https://transitrichhousing.org/ (it looks like most of SB will not be affected, because you don't have as much transit as California's other cities)
California’s is a knowledge-based economy—Agriculture contributes but a small percentage to it (about 2%). Why should we restrict the number of productive people who can live in the state in favor of crops?
I thought a key American ideal is freedom. Why would you want to restrict people’s freedom and only give the privilege only to the few who just happen to be born early enough to get property there? (Even some California native sons and daughters cannot afford to buy a home in their own home city.)
By the way, flippant answers are not appreciated. Consider reading more about the topics before giving thoughtful answers?
Water is quite literally the only issue, and it's a very recent one. It's also an easy one to solve: follow Israel's lead and build desalinization plants up the wazoo. That, or pray that we mountain folks keep getting decent winters to sustain the summers. Pushing ranching (which is disproportionately-water-intensive) out-of-state is another option, as is figuring out ways to reduce ranching's water impact.
As for the low proportion of California's economy to which agriculture contributes, it's worth remembering that agriculture doesn't exactly have high margins. California's farms in particular are also heavily staffed with undocumented labor (which I reckon will skew a lot of data in all sorts of crazy directions).
Put simply: crops ain't the problem, and scapegoating the "dumb and dirty" farmers was already a tired trope five years ago, let alone now.
Except recession everything else that is contributing to lower birth rate seems side effect of progress.
I think this might need a rewording to convey whatever idea you were trying to convey, because I have a hunch there weren't many millennials around during the Great Depression. :-)
A named generation is static, based on the birth dates. The "20-35 age range" is dynamic, anchored to the present time.
Also, named generations (like "Millennials", "Gen Y", "Gen X", "Baby Boomers", etc) don't have rigid definitions. Some media groups define it as starting as early as 1976 and others as late as 1984, which is 50% of your "20-35" range.
In the end, the boundaries of named generations are more or less arbitrary unless there is an extremely specific event which defines it (Baby Boomers started with an explosion of birth rates immediately after the end of WW2).
Yes, that's why my phrasing used "at this moment." At this moment, millenials are around an age range of 20-35 years old, give or take a bit depending on the very fact that you point out, there aren't well defined boundaries and the exact age range could vary. I was very careful to include "at this moment" in my phrasing, for the reason that you point out. I didn't bother to hedge about the unclear boundaries of the millenial generation, since that wasn't the topic at hand, but yes, these terms are somewhat vague.
The actual article cited simply discussed the nationwide birthrate at different points in time; it didn't talk about particular generations.
Given that millenials are currently the generation that are of prime child-bearing age, it's pretty clear what the original poster meant "people of child bearing age right now, who happen to be millenials, are having less children than those of child bearing age at any point since the great depression."
The original phrasing was humorously incorrect, I just thought that asking for clarification was a bit much, since it was pretty clear what they meant to say, it was just a funny mistaken phrasing.
It seems like the immigration is mostly the middle and upper middle class, as those terms are most often used [0]. The out-migration looks to be mostly below national median income.
[0] which, sure, is the upper income end of the working class and not the petit bourgeoisie, for the most part, but aside from me, no one seems to use “middle class” to mean that in the US.
But that's not what most of the data shows. The bulk of the data shows lower-income, lower education Californians moving out. The strongest peak is for minimum wage incomes.
While middle class incomes are still shown as leaving CA, it's far less than those at the lower end. For me the starkest and most concerning contrast is not wealthy vs. poor, but young vs. old.
CA has the highest poverty rates in the country, along with the highest taxes. SF is rich as all hell, but can't keep feces and needles from littering the sidewalks or car windows intact. Cupertino had virtue signaling signs up supporting undocumented immigrants and welcoming them to their city - but their housing policy shows only the rich of any race or creed are welcome.
All the while places like Houston are booming, with development happening everywhere, affordable housing, diverse population, and jobs.
By what metric? looking at the census data, it appears the poverty rate of California, while not great, is certainly not the worst.
https://www.census.gov/data-tools/demo/saipe/saipe.html?s_ap...
http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2017/jan/20/...
To me this doesn't make sense. Middle class can't survive in CA because too many people get paid middle class and up in CA. Is it 'anti-people' to pay teachers 70+k? Or is a state like WV more 'pro-people' where teachers are going on strike because they get no raises. There are a lot of wealthy businesses in CA. You have to be richer than in other places to actually feel rich.
truth is, the problem is too much competition and there always has to be somebody at the bottom. Look at the inflow of people. People with high incomes and advanced degrees.