Opinion Piece: The Golden State isn't worth it (Davis, Arnold: neighborhoods, taxes)

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale

I do wish we could combine the fiscal conservatism of Texas with the social liberalism of California. Unfortunately, with our current system, you either get social and fiscal liberalism with Democrats, or social and fiscal conservatism with Republicans. I'm registered as a Democrat because social liberty is more important to me than fiscal liberty. It's sad that I have to make that choice.

I agree with your assessment. I personally hate being forced into one camp or the other. I'm registered Republican because I don't think social liberty matters much if you're in poverty and/or have a financially unstable government/economy.

Republicans haven't been so great on fiscal matters either, but I still think they're clearly the lesser evil as the Texas vs. California model clearly illustrates. Other Republican dominated states are in relatively decent financial shape as well (UT comes to mind).

It seems one of the few Democrat leaning states that isn't a financial basket case would be Minnesota. I don't think Minnesota liberals are as rigid in their views as others. They are more apt to vote out someone who is corrupt, regardless of ideology.

[UB50]

I certainly don't want California to turn into Texas. The transportation comparison is crazy because I don't believe Texas has even a mile of subway. Do they have light rail? And then I think of the pollution/contamination in Texas and, well, I'd rather pay more in taxes.

I do agree that public servants are making too much money in this state, particularly when it comes to pensions. No private company would pay that much.

[BayDude]

Originally Posted by UB50

I certainly don't want California to turn into Texas. The transportation comparison is crazy because I don't believe Texas has even a mile of subway. Do they have light rail? And then I think of the pollution/contamination in Texas and, well, I'd rather pay more in taxes.

Why does texas even need a mile of subway? If there's no need for it why have it when there are cheaper , faster and more convienient options available?

More retarded liberal-esque logic.

[AnUnidentifiedMale]

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

I don't think Minnesota liberals are as rigid in their views as others. They are more apt to vote out someone who is corrupt, regardless of ideology.

Really? I can't think of any examples of that. I lived in Minnesota for eight years - it's a wonderful place - but I can't recall any politicians ever being voted out of office for corruption. If you know of an example, please tell me.

On the other hand, we did have a big recall election for governor a few years ago. I'm not trying to start an argument with you, but I'm sure you'll recall how eager Republicans were to get rid of Gray Davis and how happy they were to have a Republican back as governor. I actually like Arnold Schwarzenegger, but I don't think most Republicans do.

[AnUnidentifiedMale]

Originally Posted by UB50

I certainly don't want California to turn into Texas. The transportation comparison is crazy because I don't believe Texas has even a mile of subway. Do they have light rail?

Subways? Light rail? I know there are many enthusiasts of those things, but I'm not one of them - at least not much of one. I do think that inner-city subways are a good idea, but freeways are at least as important for regional transportation. Unfortunately, L.A. County long ago decided that public transportation would somehow be their savior. It's almost like a sick joke: Look at the difference as you travel on Interstate-5 between L.A. County and Orange County. One county (L.A.) continues to waste millions/billions on public transportation as freeway traffic gets worse every year, while the other (Orange) has wisely invested in freeway expansion, while also maintaining its public transportation infrastructure. The difference between the two counties is stark.

[Ultrarunner]

The Gasoline Tax was initiated for one purpose only... to fund highways... period.

At the time, it was much debated and promises were made that no money would ever be diverted... need I say more.

I've never lived in Texas and the closest I've come to spending anytime there is DFW International.

I have many friends... contemporaries and retired that have made the move and all but one could not be happier... how often do you hear that about other places?

I personally don't like hot weather and have never lived in a home with A/C... so Texas probably isn't in my future... the one person I know with regrets misses her California, Oregon and Washington relatives dearly...

[UB50]

Originally Posted by BayDude

Why does texas even need a mile of subway? If there's no need for it why have it when there are cheaper , faster and more convienient options available?

More retarded liberal-esque logic.

Yeah. That's what the LA area thought back in the 1950s and 1960s when the population was closer to that of Houston and Dallas and everybody wanted to live in the suburbs. What are you going to do when Houston & Dallas have 20+ million living in the metro area? Take helicopters to work?

[AnUnidentifiedMale]

Originally Posted by UB50

What are you going to do when Houston & Dallas have 20+ million living in the metro area? Take helicopters to work?

They've got plenty of room to spread out in Dallas and Houston, and the legislators haven't put in urban growth boundaries the way that California cities have.

[UB50]

Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale

Subways? Light rail? I know there are many enthusiasts of those things, but I'm not one of them - at least not much of one. I do think that inner-city subways are a good idea, but freeways are at least as important for regional transportation. Unfortunately, L.A. County long ago decided that public transportation would somehow be their savior. It's almost like a sick joke: Look at the difference as you travel on Interstate-5 between L.A. County and Orange County. One county (L.A.) continues to waste millions/billions on public transportation as freeway traffic gets worse every year, while the other (Orange) has wisely invested in freeway expansion, while also maintaining its public transportation infrastructure. The difference between the two counties is stark.

What about BART in San Francisco? Or do you have some snappy transportation plan that you think would work better for them?

Seriously, you should dump the car for a day and take Metrolink. You'll be shocked at how fast you can get from point A to point B, and it's nothing like riding the bus. I haven't taken the subway yet but I did find out that you can take the Red line to the Bunker Hill financial district and avoid that super-expensive parking around the Bonaventure, the Watercourt and MOCA. (Parking usually runs us $30 to $40 for a few hours in the lot on Hope St.)

I anticipate gasoline going back up to $5 a gallon in the near future, and I expect, in a few years, we'll be looking at $10 a gallon gas. When that happens, the cities without mass transit are going to be hurting.

[AnUnidentifiedMale]

Originally Posted by UB50

What about BART in San Francisco? Or do you have some snappy transportation plan that you think would work better for them?

I think both rail and freeways are important to build and maintain. Unfortunately, both Los Angeles and San Francisco allowed neighborhood groups to stop freeway systems from being completed, and today, the two cities are #1 and #2 in the country for traffic congestion.

I anticipate gasoline going back up to $5 a gallon in the near future, and I expect, in a few years, we'll be looking at $10 a gallon gas. When that happens, the cities without mass transit are going to be hurting.

We'll see. The government could intervene and subsidize the price of gas. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see that happen. Look at the lengths they've gone to subsidize the housing market.