446
submitted 1 year ago by arcrust@lemmy.ml to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

I recently moved to California. Before i moved, people asked me "why are you moving there, its so bad?". Now that I'm here, i understand it less. The state is beautiful. There is so much to do.

I know the cost of living is high, and people think the gun control laws are ridiculous (I actually think they are reasonable, for the most part). There is a guy I work with here that says "the policies are dumb" but can't give me a solid answer on what is so bad about it.

So, what is it that California does (policy-wise) that people hate so much?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] UPGRAYEDD@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago

Everyone is just bringing up economic reasons, but none of them are really policy directly. The economics are a good reason to hate California, but they dont have policies that really drive this. The real key is that California is a massively desirable place to live. The beaches are only second to Hawaii. The weather is arguably the best in the world. Some of the most beautiful state parks. It's one of the only places you could surf in the morning and snowboard in the afternoon. Supply is limited, and demand is high, so you get high prices.

As for actual policy, California has a progressive mindset. This leads to a lot of progressive policies. The problem tends to be that the policies that get enacted are often designed to sound progressive, but actually just limit the citizens without fixing the problem. Examples:

  1. Coal rolling was bad for the environment. So they outlawed a large amount of car tuning. This causes damage to the car culture and a good hobby for a large number of citizens.

  2. Water, being a limited resource in California, made it finable to water your lawn or wash your car in a drought, even though farming and business use 96% of total water usage. Normal people water usage isn't going to solve the problem

  3. Gun policies that dont allow suppressors, short barrel rifles, etc, but in reality, the vast majority of gun crime and accidents are all based around handguns.

I have oversimplified all of these, but essentially, California is very good at making policies that annoy their citizens, but dont solve the problem just to make it appear like they are doing something.

[-] teuast@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 year ago

Coal rolling was bad for the environment. So they outlawed a large amount of car tuning. This causes damage to the car culture and a good hobby for a large number of citizens.

the "downside" you state is actually a benefit to society

Water, being a limited resource in California, made it finable to water your lawn or wash your car in a drought, even though farming and business use 96% of total water usage. Normal people water usage isn’t going to solve the problem

i do agree that agricultural and business uses are a bigger deal than lawns or car washing in terms of water use, and the fact that almonds are farmed in california is a goddamn travesty, to name but one example. however, lawns cause or exacerbate way more problems to a much greater extent than you probably realize, and reducing how many of them we have, ideally in favor of local ecology if not just denser land use patterns, is a much greater benefit than you're giving it credit for. california's zoning codes have also been improving in this regard, though they're still... not great. point is that i do agree with you that that policy doesn't focus where it's really needed, but it's also not as useless as you think.

Gun policies that dont allow suppressors, short barrel rifles, etc, but in reality, the vast majority of gun crime and accidents are all based around handguns.

a fair critique, but also, far fewer californians per capita die to gun violence vs. the national average. i'm sure other factors play into that, but it certainly isn't evidence that the policy hasn't helped.

now, i'll give you two examples of my own. early in governor gavin's term, he was given a bill called "complete streets" that would have dramatically improved pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure throughout the whole state, and he vetoed it. and that sucked major ass. but then he went ahead and signed sb50, which forces all municipalities in the state to build some actual goddamn housing, and specifically dense housing near transit. and i'm a huge fan of that. san jose has really jumped on it with gusto and has actually had their average rent drop somewhat, although the bill is still relatively new and its benefits aren't likely to really be felt for a while yet. my main criticism here is how tons of the cities here are so nimbyed out the ass that it took the state government's intervention to do literally anything about the housing crisis.

there is much to critique about california, but not all california critiques are created equal.

[-] Mr_Blott@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

California sounds like if you bought a European Union from wish.com

[-] JungleJim@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

I can't afford a real EU, but I'd gladly move my poor southern self to California if I could. Wish.com is good enough for me.

[-] jemorgan@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

Those are great examples of why I, as a progressive Californian, am often really frustrated by California’s laws.

California is very liberal, but we are also very wealthy. So we get a lot of policies that seem to tick liberal boxes on the surface, but do so in a way that is heavily protective of the interests of the wealthy. We get plenty of laws outlawing plastic straws and bags, but nothing to discourage property investors from making it impossible for families to own a home.

I love my state and I’m really happy here, but I also make enough money to be comfortable here. It’s sad that even someone earning the median wage is effectively locked out of the housing market, and is likely forced to live with roommates.

Also, the gun laws are largely performative garbage. So many things on the books that only serve to be a stick in the eye to people who want to lawfully and safely own firearms. Making it a legal requirement for me to configure my AR 15 in a way that makes it awkward to use doesn’t do anything at all to prevent someone from taking an allan key to theirs and spending 30 seconds to make it an “assault weapon”. I’m all for gun laws that make the world a safer place (for example, mandatory free safety classes and free registration for handgun), so it’s super frustrating to see all of the laws that we have that don’t even seem like they’re intended to make an actual difference.

this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2023
446 points (93.1% liked)

Asklemmy

44148 readers
1265 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS