I loved California. I just couldn't afford it anymore.
Also, their power grid has to be the only one worse than Texas. My power was ALWAYS going out there. Last time I visited my parents there, their power was out for 3 of the 7 days I was there.
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
I loved California. I just couldn't afford it anymore.
Also, their power grid has to be the only one worse than Texas. My power was ALWAYS going out there. Last time I visited my parents there, their power was out for 3 of the 7 days I was there.
Which provider did you have? I lose power way way less often than I did on the East Coast. I think a lot of it is specific to the power company.
I think California is an okay place, but there are several things that annoy me about it, and here are some:
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). Additionally, I’ve had more issues interacting with houseless people in CA than in NYC despite having lived in Manhattan many times longer than I’ve spent in CA. My guess is this is due to worse services/mental health services in CA. I would frequently buy food or coffee for houseless individuals in NYC and never had an issue. I once gave a couple of dollars to someone CA for bus money. They yelled at me because they needed a couple more for the bus. Another time I was followed for several blocks.
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.
As a longtime resident of Hawaii, this one just annoys me. California claimed it was the first state to plastic bags. This is false; As of May 11, 2014, they were banned across Hawaii. https://www.surfrider.org/news/hawaii-becomes-the-first-state-in-the-u.s.-to-ban-plastic-bags. This did not stop California from claiming the victory when a law was signed later that year that didn’t go into effect until July 2015. https://www.ca.gov/archive/gov39/2014/09/30/news18742/index.html. California doesn’t just not know what causes cancer, they don’t know how to use google despite it being from their state. I suppose you could argue semantically that Hawaii’s ban was not statewide, as it was technically four bans, one in each of the counties, but that’s splitting hairs.
There we go. This is what I was looking for.
Prop 65 is definitely useless. But I don't see that as a reason to move out of the state.
The whole thing that prompted me to ask was that I was told some people left the state for Montana because of the "policies" but I couldn't get a good answer on which policies they disagreed with.
Homelessness is certainly a problem here that's worse than most places. But it's still a problem everywhere you go.
Yeah, I don’t think anything I said would be a good reason to move away, but then again, CA is probably one of the top 5ish states I would live in.
It's far from useless https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_California_Proposition_65#Accomplishments
It forced companies to reformulate their products to use less harmful chemicals to avoid having to use the label. And it was highly successful at that, not only in California but outside, because businesses don't want the labels on their products. Especially food products or products meant for kids.
What you see is malicious compliance from businesses as there is no penalty for putting the sign if there's no dangerous chemicals. If they put it often enough, then most people think this law is ridiculous. For example. If Disney would get a civil lawsuit (this is how the law is enforced), because for example one their restaurants were using dangerous chemicals, this sign won't protect them. So it serves no other purpose than to make it appear that the law is pointless.
Other ways they fight it is trying to pass federal law banning it, they had several attempts.
They also making strawman lawsuits, even creating companies specially for the lawsuit to show that this law hurts business.
Describe these "people asked me", OP.
I also like the "you get what you vote for" comments about CA. WE voted for the best candidate out there at the time for Gov., we've had both parties in the past and they were a mixed lot...the guy who lost during the last recall election was dragging around a live bear to do press events and didnt have much of a position on anything relevant and he lost...
It's endless soulless suburbia interspersed by twelve-lane traffic jams, what's there to like?
The fucking ridiculous natural beauty everywhere? I live in the most soulless of the soulless suburbs of Los Angeles and if I left my house right now and didn't stop for anything I could be standing beneath the biggest tree in the world in just 4 hours. Or if I want to see the oldest trees in the world I can go roughly the same distance and do that instead. I could be at the trailhead to climb the highest peak in the contiguous US in 3 hours and on my way there I would see an ancient basalt waterfall where obsidian litters the ground, the Grand Canyon of the Mojave where semiprecious gems flow out of the mountains, lakes, rivers, the Sierra Nevadas, Death Valley, it's ridiculous. Every fucking state has traffic and suburbs but I'll go to my grave arguing that we can't be beat for scenery.
So, what is it that California does (policy-wise) that people hate so much?
Consider the possibility that the "hate" is not an opinion being reached in good faith.