Asklemmy

I wonder the same thing, especially since we managed to buy a house close enough to the shore for a breeze. Not too close, but while everyone complains about 100 degree temps, we've capped at 82. People are friendly, I can eat just about any type of food in the world, and the government keeps giving us tax breaks and helps with utility costs since there was a price hike this year (which supposedly the state is investigating), especially since we make below average wage. We literally paid no taxes last year!

That said, this is considered a ghetto neighborhood. Years of poor urban planning (and honestly, white flight, racist redlining, and manufacturing leaving in the 60s/70s) have made our neighborhood pretty neglected over the last half decade. And yet, our schools in the area, despite being 90% free lunch status (i.e. poverty) they are rated 8 and 9 out of 10 by most reviewers; the violent crime rate about the same as most parts of LA, and businesses are coming back--- albeit hopefully not replacing locals with gentrification. If all you see is Compton at it's worst, I understand the concerns, but they're unfounded.

I guess there's still homelessness to figure out... And I suppose property value, although again, kind of a boon for us. So yeah, tl;dr, I'm with you on this confusion!

California is an absolutely beautiful state. Its natural beauty and geography are spectacular.

But it's crazy expensive, Californians are annoying and elitist, and has big social problems in its cities.

The houseless problem seems extremely poorly managed. I lived in NYC for six years and have visited California a few times. From my experiences, both SF and LA appear to have much larger populations living outdoors (I checked and this is true, 75% of LA’s population vs 6% in NYC, and the cities are comparable in both population and houseless population).

I would imagine it has most to do that those people world have extremely hard time surviving winter outside in NYC.

California as a state and population seems to be at least as much bluster as action. I don’t want to detract from some real actions, like car electrification requirements, but for example, prop 65, the “known to the state of California to cause cancer” labels. A) California seems to “know” many things that science does not. B) no one pays any attention to these labels, but they sure cost a lot to produce C) if anything, this will cause people to ignore future warnings for real things or even current ones like on cigarettes.

The proposition 65 aka The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, actually is much more successful at reducing harmful toxic chemicals and affects other states too. Businesses are encouraged to change formulations so they don't have to use the label.

Here's list of chemicals that require such label: https://www.p65warnings.ca.gov/chemicals

What you saw, likely was businesses trying to fight it, by being to opaque about it, and make it ridiculous (since there's no penalty for overusing it, and they are doing which results as you pointed out that waters it down) for example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_California_Proposition_65#/media/File%3ADisneyland_Prop_65_Warning_crop.jpg

Although since enforcement is done via civil lawsuits. If they served food or something that did contain these chemicals, a sign like this won't be a good defense that they complied and warned their patrons.

They also trying different ways, like introducing bills on federal level to block it for example https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/6022/text

They are trying also via lawsuits, which meant are filled on behalf of strawman. Many businesses were created just for the purpose of filing prop 65 lawsuits.

Though probably biggest issue is that the prop 65 is being used for frivolous lawsuits (as anyone can sue for not informing and get a settlement because no one wants a trial). So now AG needs to approve such settlements to reduce it. There were attempts to reform it.

So yeah frivolous lawsuits are the biggest issue that needs addressing, but other than that the law actually helped reduce exposure to those chemicals not only for Californians but also people from other states.

You know why you never see elephants hiding in trees? Cause they're so fucking good.

Extreme cost of living.

Whatever else is good or bad about the place doesn't matter very much if you can't afford to live there.

It depends on your stage of life, financial situation, priorities, politics, etc. CA does have more laws than most places. Whether any of those really affect you is up to you to determine. Recommend looking at the CA constitution and frankly just seeing what comes up. Pertinent laws will tend to find you. If you really want talk to others that live nearby you as they likely represent your demographic and may be aware of things likely to impact you.

Pretty broadly speaking, it's a population center and they'll always have a problem with those. There's more to it than that, but fact of the matter is even if the shit they tend to latch on to wasn't a thing they'd just find something else.

I love California but I dislike LA.

I dislike California because their life revolves around freeways and traffic. I also dislike the aggressive homeless population. I’m in nyc and everyone takes the train/ no need to be in traffic, and while there is homelessness they don’t bother you/follow you.

Someone who lives in California not originally from here chiming in. For me personally, I hate it because of the weather. I live in SoCal, which people claim to have good weather, but to me it’s hell. It never rains, the sun is always shining, and it’s always hot while most apartments don’t have AC. This may sound lovely to you, in which case more power to you. I’m the kind of person where the sun saps all energy out of my body and I prefer being cold to warm, so this sucks. Other main downside is housing cost. My 650 square foot one bed apartment in suburban LA costs over $2000 a month and it’s cheap for the size and area. Maybe Northern California is nicer, but SoCal ain’t it

As a mortgage lender that helps clients relocate out of California, you cannot blanket statement the entire state this way.

You can live in the slums, rampant homelessness or live in paradise. You can live in suburban desert hellscape or on an absolutely gorgeous vineyard.

People relocate out of there all the time but some do move back, realizing they hated the area of California but not the entire state.

I think it's just all politics at this point, that and prob the cost of living being so high too.

But from what I can tell it's a great place to be. Not without flaws but just like any other state

California is a garden of Eden
A paradise to live in or see
But believe it or not, you won't find it so hot
If you ain't got the do re mi

Woody Guthrie, “Do Re Mi”

Taxes are super high. I'd be big mad if I was Californian, they get very little investment back from federal taxes (they are effectively subsidizing the poorly run states) and have to make up the shortfall at the state level.

There's a shitty part of California that runs from SoCal upward through the Central Valley toward the Bay Area. While the lattermost seems nicer the former parts are just the same with less surveillance tech and with the masks off.