‘Go Back to California’: Wave of Newcomers Fuels Backlash in Boise
latimes.com
latimes.com
Call it survivorship bias or whatever you want but without a stint in California I would have likely never known it was possible to get a job other than working at the lumber mill or driving a log truck.
I’ve since left the Bay Area due to rising costs and landed in a Boise-like city. Costs in Redwood City at the time I left we’re $1-1.3MM for a starter three bed, two bath home at 2k sq ft.
My home was purchased brand new, 25% larger than the Bay Area starters, 40% cheaper, on the best street in the best neighborhood. Why would I not live here?
Quality of life is through the roof, commutes are 10-15 mins at most and everyone is happy and eager to chat about the fun things they do outdoors.
It’s obvious why non-natives want to live here. What’s infuriating is to see how much the town has grown in great ways that are completely ignore by locals.
Yes, rent and housing costs are way up. But so is infrastructure, tourism, amenities, etc but it’s easier to flip off the dude in CA plates instead(which happened to me shortly after moving here)
Also, good for you, I hope more people can make this choice!
I live in a town of 40,000, and you wouldn’t think a city this small would have any major issues. But 1,600sqft condos are selling for $750,000 in downtown. Restaurants (including fast food joints like Taco Johns) are closing can’t afford to employee staff, because their staff needs $40,000 paychecks just to live in the city.
Throw in a car-only commute (a dangerous one some winters), and rising costs in a 30 mile radius of the city, and the influx of cash-flush transplants is causing the city to price itself out of a working class.
The way you describe this definitely makes me sympathize with the locals. What good are "amenities" if you're priced out?
And why the heck can't they drive like normal people?! <grin>
Great thing about America, you don't like where you're at, you can move to someplace else. That goes for Californias and for Coloradans.
The irony is they take their politics and want to impose the same policies and politics in the new states --which if successful would create the same issues they are running away from!
The list of purported reasons could and does go on and on, and everyone on each portion of the political spectrum has their own take on it.
Where on the political spectrum these California expats fall and what (if anything) they think makes Californian politics dysfunctional is anyone's guess, but it's unlikely that they'll deliberately want to recreate any kind of dysfunction. If anything, they'll want to fix what what was broken about the way their state went about things.
I think a problem will always develop at some point when a state becomes "too conservative" or "too liberal". Truly, the tug of war of ideas between the two is essential for good compromises to be worked out and to avoid the excesses of either ideology.
That's an unpopular opinion these days but I think it's the reason for the United States success.
It might come as a surprise to you, but there are conservative Democrats.
There are Green party and Peace and Freedom party (which seems to be a more organized version of the Green party here in California) candidates in California, but they virtually never get in to office. The last time I looked Republicans won something like 40% to 50% of the votes in California (though they didn't win quite as much this last mid-term election, probably due to anti-Trump backlash).
So Democrats might hold the reigns of power for the moment, but Republicans are in second place and had Trump not so soiled his party's image in all but the most conservative strongholds in the nation, they'd be close at the Democrats' heels.
In fact, even in the 2018 election, with Trump at his loudest and most obnoxious, and with nearly the entire Republican party backing him, many Republicans in California still got 40% or more of the votes in California, and some of them even won.[1]
But, whatever the balance of power, the really really progressive or left-wing parties have no share of it in California.
Now let's look at one of the prominent Democrats who got in to office recently: Governor Newsom.
I just searched DDG for "newsom vetoed", and some of the top hits showed that he vetoed:
1 - legislation that would have given Santa Cruz access to $16 million in affordable housing bond funds
2 - two child support reform bills that anti-poverty advocates had hoped would give a boost to low-income families
3 - a bill to give California one of the toughest recycling mandates for plastic bottles in the nation
4 - a bill that would have given teachers six weeks paid leave after giving birth
5 - a bill that would have let state workers bring their babies to work
6 - a bill aimed at stopping the Trump administration from rolling back federal environmental regulations in the state
To me, all of these vetoes (which are anti-worker, pro-corporate, and anti-environment) clearly show that he's, at least arguably, too conservative.
Or take a look at Senator Dianne Feinstein, who voted for the PATRIOT Act and has been one of its most stalwart defenders, and also supported the Iraq war. It's hard to argue that these positions are not "too conservative", at least for California's left-wing reputation.
Not to mention that California has a gigantic prison industry and one of the biggest prison populations in the world, is incredibly pro-corporate and pro-capitalist (else the Bay Area would not be so loved by some of the richest, biggest, and most powerful corporations on the planet). Many of California's corporations, incidentally, support the military, which is not a left-wing position, as the left-wing in the US tends to be anti-war and against the military-industrial complex. So, once again, California scores "too conservative" on this point.
If California was really as left-wing as Fox News and right-wing talk radio paints it out to be, you'd have thought that it would have nationalized all corporations or made them worker-owned and outlawed private property. But nothing could be further from the truth. California is in many ways a capitalist paradise, not a Marxist utopia. It's just that, yes, it likes to keep its air and water clean, and has some worker protections, but (as Governor Newsom's vetoes show) not nearly as much as it could have, had it had a more left-leaning Governor, for example.
[1] - https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/sov/2018-general/sov/2018-c...
> One salvo in Richey’s battle against newcomers was his property tax proposal, which he called Proposition Zero One Two Three. His basic tenet: The longer you live here, the less you pay. Sixty-year residents would pay no property taxes, while newcomers would shoulder the burden.
Amusing that the anti-Californian candidate here basically wants to introduce California's Prop 13 property tax rules which have done so much to discourage housing development and drive young people out of California.
My great great grandfather stowed away in a mail bag to get to the US. He homesteaded in Eastern Colorado and carved a living and a life where there was next to nothing.
If you can do the same, I'd say you pulled yourself up by your bootstraps.
The ability to afford a home and a family while doing blue collar work helps a lot too.
My ancestors survived the Oregon Trail, and so what? At some point this degenerates into, say, "spoken like a true toilet-paper user."
When I lived in New York and happened to travel outside the state, I'd regularly get people I ran across telling me how surprised they were to hear that I was from New York, because I was so nice and their impression (despite usually never having set foot in New York) was that New Yorkers were assholes.
I told them that virtually everyone I ran across in New York was nice, but that it was a gigantic city and there were all sorts of people there, and because of that it's really not fair to paint all New Yorkers with such a broad brush.
I'd get similar reactions when I traveled abroad and revealed to people that I was from America. One person even told me that they thought every American carried a gun. I had to tell them that, no, actually no one I knew owned a gun, the majority of Americans nation-wide did not own a gun, and it was a country of 300 million people of all sorts, many from other countries and of many different cultures, different politics, different views of the world. It's really not fair to paint all Americans with one broad brush.
So now I hear that in Idaho simply being from California (a state with a population of 40 million people) could get you painted with a broad brush in Idaho. It just seems so petty, insular, xenophobic, and close minded. Wouldn't the world be better if we welcomed those who are different from us, at least as long as they also wanted to live with us in peace?
Maybe mine's considered a stereotypically Californian attitude that would get me pounded down in Idaho. If so, that's just really sad.
...only if everyone is willing to carry? The lack of understanding here is astounding. The claim of lax gun laws promotes safety has been debunked hundreds of times. The average person does not have to have to carry a firearm in order to be safe, believe it or not.
It's sad, really, how people think owning guns makes them safer or more tough. Statistically the former is 100% not true. Maybe people have this fiction in their heads that they will "save the day" from the bad guy (or government?) Seems childish.
Are you going to politely ask the murderer to wait 5 minutes?
Nice "stats" you have there. http://v6y.net/gun_stats.jpg
Right from your link: "NO STUDIES MET OUR CRITERIA" -> "Defensive Gun Use"
Obviously they need to avoid that given the first thing on the graphic. Even skipping the biggest stat, they honestly admit "limited" and "inconclusive" on the table's 4th row: https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis.html
"increase in violent crime under every analysis"
the table you linked to says "limited", and the criteria for limited is "At least one study meeting our inclusion criteria ".
So by "every analysis" you mean "at least one study".
I'm glad you arent arguing with my analysis of it so far.
Your comment about the graphic is rather pointless, the links are at the bottom.
Specifically, which stat on the graphic are you disagreeing with? The top one?
EDIT: (since comments are limited, I wont be able to post a new one for hours likely). You linked to https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/methodology.html which does _not_ have the underlying data I asked for.
"what analysis"
Really? here I'll re-paste it: So by "every analysis" you mean "at least one study".
"Again, I'm not saying anything about the data."
Ya. I know.
By "time and time again" are you referring to the so far data-less Rand study? Because if so, you now have used "every analysis" and "time and time again" to mean "at least one study".
Gymtime. I'll check back later, maybe you will say something specific.
The paper prominently links to it. https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/methodology.html
> I'm glad you arent arguing with my analysis of it so far.
What analysis?
> Your comment about the graphic is rather pointless, the links are at the bottom.
Single variable analysis without including obvious covariates is about the laziest possible analysis I've seen, which is why it leads to ridiculous results.
> Specifically, which stat on the graphic are you disagreeing with? The top one?
Again, I'm not saying anything about the data. It's the utterly incompetent analysis of the data that I take issue with.
As far as the first one, as a matter of public policy, it doesn't matter what the predominant use is, it matters what the net effect is, which has been shown to be negative time and again.
Response to your response.
> So by "every analysis" you mean "at least one study".
Let me get this straight. Your argument is that because there is at least one methodologically sound analysis of the data that shows concealed carry leads to violent crime at the time of the survey and no analysis otherwise, you remain unconvinced?
> Ya. I know.
Then why did you bring it up? It seems obvious to me that you didn't know.
> By "time and time [sic] again" are you referring to the so far data-less Rand study?
As I said, the Rand paper is a survey. Check the bibliography for the data. As far as "at least one," for one thing, you only need one, and for another, the other relaxed gun laws have even more methodologically sound analyses showing negative effects. That's what I meant by "time and again."
"even more methodologically sound analyses"
Link please.
Why having access to the underlying data is not optional: https://crimeresearch.org/2018/08/new-cprc-research-how-a-bo...
Sorry about the misquote.
Why should I? The survey authors are professional econometricians who know what they're doing referring to peer-reviewed research. Meanwhile, you don't have any studies at all to back your side. You're like a creationist who wants to see specific papers, not understanding that the proper venue for correcting papers is through the journals. Just like a creationist, you discard the scientific process when its conclusions don't fit your worldview.
> Link please.
I linked to the survey paper. As I said, it has a bibliography. Do you need me to explain how to use it?
Anticipating your no-data repoinse is why I linked to the crimeresearch.org study, if you cant check the data then the study is meaningless, and you are not doing science.
Odd that you deflect to creationism since you admit relying on a Rand faith-based argument while I am asking for the data and willing to discuss it in depth.
You keep referring to the biblography: https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/references...
as if it has the data on what studies were included and (critically) excluded to generate row 4 column 8 at https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis.html
obviously it does not, which is why you are unable to even name the (possibly single) unread study you are basing your faith on.
Science is fundamentally not faith-based. You can verify it yourself, as I have repeatedly invited you to do. You are making the argument that the current scientific consensus is wrong. If so, publish.
Saying that your argument is not scientific is not a personal attack. It is simply a statement of fact.
Which papers to look up in the bibliography is in the Rand study.
https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/concealed-...
is "LIMITED". Rand was specific in their labels, and Rand does not assert "MODERATE" or let alone "SUPPORTIVE". So while you pretend to have a "consensus", the meta-analysis you hold in high regard does not say that. In fact it's 2 levels below "SUPPORTIVE". I.e. not "SUPPORTIVE".
Since you linked to the unintended injuries section, I'll point out the same thing, Rand's own conclusions dont rise to the level of "SUPPORTIVE", again, it's 2 levels below that at "LIMITED".
-----------------------------------
For anyone else catching this thread:
Updated stats for the graphic I originally posted with hyperlinks to sources at the bottom: https://americangunfacts.com
Justice Scalia gave a fascinating overview of the history of American gun law in Heller vs. DC (2008): https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/...
Yep that's a multitool: https://i.imgur.com/1JIRitz.png
You continue to report "stats" like they're something that a journal would publish. We've already gone over that as well. You have a long way to go before you understand the scientific process.
You are _literally_ making stuff when you pretend it's a consensus. "Every single one" than Rand included.
Odd how "consensus" and "every analysis" about "concealed carry" (your words) actually means "a single study" (or is it 2?).
The meta-analysis you hold in high regard disagrees with your conclusion. Your first comment is would be more accurate if you had said:
"They simply noted that relaxing gun laws like allowing concealed carry leads to an increase in violent crime under a single analysis that Rand picked." (it could be 2, but I'm still holding out hope that you will list them:)
Anyone can look up violent crime stats in "gun free" zones like the UK or Mexico (UK link: https://americangunfacts.com)
It makes sense though, since you admit relying on a faith in Rand. You could buy the book and hold it high.
And what's the end game here? Once everyone gets guns, the criminals start using nerve gas? Would you suggest a single mother start keeping nerve gas in her home?
Roughly 50% of US households have a firearm. If someone can break that out to single mothers that would be great, but as I said, it's not your choice to make.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/...
Anyone moving to Boise from another part of Idaho is still saddled with the same bottom-of-the-barrel minimum wage, an anemic $7.25 an hour. So it’s most likely not the Idahoans who are driving up home prices and filling up rental properties, because they can’t afford to.
Then Californians arrive, raise prices in ways the locals can't compete against, and vote the same policies they enacted in California, which they don't recognize (due to some cognitive bias) as the same ones that caused them to leave.
That's depressing. Specially to locals. They're powerless as they see their way of life challenged.
And then you call them insular, xenophonic, and close minded.
Wouldn't the world be better if we welcomed those who are different from us, at least as long as they also wanted to live with us in peace?
FTFA
“I’m not here to be a Californian,” she said. “I’m here to be a community member and contribute.”
I'm pretty sure if you're moving to adapt, to become one of them, to respect the locals and their ways, you're going to be welcome. Probably, and this is MHO, better than in NY or California.
edit: formatting
[1] - https://www.amazon.com/Cows-Freaky-When-They-Look/dp/0922820...
That's just going to make the Californians feel right at home.