Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Prop 13 still enjoys majority support.People were being taxed out of their homes in a state with liberal wackos who want to redistribute other peoples money they did no earn to pay for social programs that do not work.If it were not for prop 13 I would hate to say what most of our property tax bills would be
you fastfilm are the smartest person on the LA board.Jacksparrow is the dumbest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fastfilm
Forgive my terseness this morning, I only want to get the ball rolling with answers for you from others here as well.
1. Yes. All laws here are eventually changed to give endless loopholes to illegals. Example: Special Order 40 to the L.A.P.D. which prevents deportation of felons; motor vehicle code which precludes unlicensed drivers from automatic culpability in an accident, unlike the other 49 states. The second question: no one can accurately predict the future, so I'm relying upon fanciful prognostication. Amateur Nostradamuses predict here as the flashpoint for another civil war, based upon ferocious opposition to assimilating American laws and resentment of American citizens.
2.Gangs
3. Going. All movement away due to oddly provincial business-unfriendly local taxation.
4. Stay put and you'll be okay there. Don't traverse surroundings.
5. Pick up an "L.A. Weekly" for club scene schedules. (also online.)
6. You are the hardiest and best-suited to live here, in a Darwinian sense.
7. No, the latter actually. There are nothing BUT soccer leagues prevailing.
Hello Everyone,
I may be jumping the gun here or worrying too much however I have a few questions about Southern California. I am interested in working for a company in the Inland Empire. I have had one interview that went well and will hopefully have a second, third and then a job offer. However I have numerous questions about SoCal that I do not want to ask a potential employer. They are as follows:
1.) Is the future political and social stability of SoCal in jeporady with the on going and seemingly worsening (atleast from a mid-western persepective) illegal immigration problem? How bad will it get?
2.) From a preliminary search I have noticed that many of the condos in the IE tend to be in gated communities even though they are not too expensive (180-350K). Why is this so?
3.) What is the business climate like are businesses coming or going?
4.) How bad are gangs in the IE and crime in general? If I got the job I would be in Redlands however it looks like Rancho Cucamonga is a nice place to live.
5.) What is there to do as far as going out to trendy bars and clubs? Any place like Chicago neighborhoods Lincoln Park/WickerPark there? Any suburbs with cool places to go in the IE like Naperville or Schaumburg?
6.) What is it like for young professionals in general there? I am a 20something male.
7.) What are recreational opportunites like? I figure facilities camping/hiking/skiing are available but what about adult sports leagues for soccer or baseball?
That is all I thank you for any input you can give me. I know that I can look alot of this information up but I wanted to get a local perspective on it.
I will try to give you the best perspective of my own that I can on your questions.I am not a big fan of Inland empire because it is so far to drive and burning hot in summer.If you work there you might be ok.
1. Yes it is a big problem and California is controlled by liberal democrats.A group of people who can ruin anything.The past is probably better than the future.States of the future are Nevada,Virginia,Texas,Florida,Georgia,Etc.They have more business coming in and growing.
2 People flee LA because 350 might seem cheap compared to what costs are in LA and ORange county for a place to live
3 Terrible Tax tax tax is the name of the game in California.Nevada is gaining those businesses.The service industry is growing but pay is not very good.Unions drive up costs as well as excess regulation in California.The unemployment rate is growing fast with layoffs in Finance and building industries.
4 Gangs are a major problem everywhere in California,The culture here has basically given up on the problem and accepted it.
5 Inland areas are mostly families with young children who could not afford the better LA county,Orange county or San Diego county
6 You would probably like LA county better as there are more people your age there with lots of clubs and that type of thing.It gets old real fast and by the time your 30 will no longer have any appeal.
7 There are plenty of outdoor sporting activities anywhere in California.If you can keep from gagging from the thick smog that blankets the area in the summer.
Prop 13 still enjoys majority support.People were being taxed out of their homes in a state with liberal wackos who want to redistribute other peoples money they did no earn to pay for social programs that do not work.If it were not for prop 13 I would hate to say what most of our property tax bills would be
Those programs didn't work because they had the plug pulled on them or were reduced to meaninglessness. Without those youth programs and with the cuts in schools (the decline of LAUSD really dates from Prop 13), the gang problem proliferated. Never mind the fact that cops were laid off. Now, the LAPD in the late 1970s was a very bad police department but with fewer cops in an already underpoliced city did anyone think that crime would get better?
All I can say is, you get what you pay for, and LA would be a better city today if not for it (as would SF, OC, SD, etc. etc.etc.)
Thank you for the compliment LAAngel2008, it's appreciated particularly when those who don't live here whatsoever chime in about persisting L.A. stereotypes being the case, rather than the observations of those who live here. But there's room for JackSparrow, who's useful on entertainment biz stuff, and absolutely everyone but out and out trolls here.
This forum should work like a college course for potential relocators logging on to City-data.com, far more specific than basic. There's an awful lot of info offered. One distills all the opinions offered by experts (locals): when the majority of views offered from real life experiences coincides, that's probably close to the truth of the matter at hand. So we need all the views, distillation of which is a little tough to do here because the forum rules preclude our using copywritten material, hence we tend to offer a lot of first hand observations, which people who don't live here sometimes challenge. The illusions built up about L.A., courtesy of our far-reaching and ever churning entertainment industry machine are ongoing opiates to the masses.
Yes, we have virtually winter-less weather, this is the mecca for entertainment industry production work, and we have that hard to reach through the traffic congestion Pacific Ocean. And a lot of trade-offs for same, such as large portions of the populace who speak little English at all, respiratory problems accompanying those who can't afford to live near beaches due to our incontestable smog problem which is the worst in the nation, the unavoidability of dangerous gang activity affecting all but the richest, the business-unfriendly civic tax codes, horrendous commutes throughout our far-reaching climes, and genuine non-affordability of reasonable middle class lifestyle. Elsewhere in large U.S. cities, with the exception of Manhattan and Oahu, a half million dollars usually doesn't place you in a tiny dwelling in a dangerous slum like it does here.
A cooler head prevailing (was it majoun?) noted a polarity of posters overall: low-to-moderate and middle income workers, and non-rich families live sort of hand to mouth, month to month here in Los Angeles because of our high housing costs, and therefore cannot really take advantage of what's available here- the arts, clubs, events, restaurants, etc.; and the higher incomed, single, richer, young, renting professionals who can afford to take advantage of same. These two different cladistic groups indeed live in two different L.A.'s, so the only question remaining for relocators not forced to move by their employment here is: which group are you?
We've had many posters logging on who claim they bought into the L.A. myths, and are now working to escape. We've had many total sunbird posters who hate winter so much that they're willing to trade anything in their life for sunshine, even peace of mind, or living like a poor student again. We've had many posters who've unanimously backed my observations in the last two years of the existence of this forum but who have been lucky enough to escape to better lives elsewhere, so the backup seems more scarce these days. I've lived here for five decades, I've seen a hell of a lot of the entire L.A. basin due to peripatetic days of photojournalism, I work as a neighborhood activist since we live in a low-to-moderate income area hence I know police statistics about certain areas, and I'm voting with my feet to move to a better life elsewhere (with known trade-offs) the nanosecond my husband retires. I try, both in my observations here and in dealing with life here in the meantime. The thumbs up was welcome. Mine was the very first post here when the forums opened.
Thank you for the compliment LAAngel2008, it's appreciated particularly when those who don't live here whatsoever chime in about persisting L.A. stereotypes being the case, rather than the observations of those who live here. But there's room for JackSparrow, who's useful on entertainment biz stuff, and absolutely everyone but out and out trolls here.
This forum should work like a college course for potential relocators logging on to City-data.com, far more specific than basic. There's a lot of info offered. One distills all the opinions offered by experts (locals): when the majority of views offered from real life experiences coincides, that's probably close to the truth of the matter at hand. So we need all the views, distillation of which is a little tough to do here because the forum rules preclude our using copywritten material, hence we tend to offer a lot of first hand observations, which people who don't live here sometimes challenge. The illusions built up about L.A., courtesy of our far-reaching and ever churning entertainment industry machine are ongoing opiates to the masses. Yes, we have virtually winter-less weather, this is the mecca for entertainment industry production work. and we have that hard to reach through the traffic congestion Pacific Ocean. And a lot of trade-offs for same, such as genuine non-affordability of reasonable middle class lifestyle. Elsewhere in large U.S. cities, with the exception of Manhattan and Oahu, a half million dollars usually doesn't place you in a tiny dwelling in a dangerous slum like it does here.
Don't know much about the Bay Area, I take it. Or Chicago. Or, although it's not in the US, London.
Quote:
A cooler head prevailing (was it majoun?) noted a polarity of posters overall: low-to-moderate and middle income workers, and non-rich families live sort of hand to mouth, month to month here in Los Angeles because of our high housing costs, and therefore cannot really take advantage of what's available here- the arts, clubs, events, restaurants, etc.; and the higher incomed, single, richer, young, renting professionals who can afford to take advantage of same. These two different cladistics indeed live in two different L.A.'s, so the only question remaining for relocators not forced to move by their employment here is: which group are you?
That's not exactly what I said. I said that the divide was between people without kids (such as JackSparrow and myself, even though his income is higher than mine) and people with kids AND people who live in the hood such as yourself. I'm actually in the "middle income worker" category and I'm overall positive (albeit with caveats) about L.A., and will regret leaving- and I know many others who feel the same way. I'm certainly not as nihilistic as you are, although if I lived in your neighborhood I'd have a far more negative opinion for sure. I have friends who do live in your neighborhood, and I know what it is like.
Quote:
We've had many posters logging on who claim they bought into the L.A. myths, and are now working to escape. We've had many total sunbird posters who hate winter so much that they're willing to trade anything in their life for sunshine, even peace of mind, or living like a poor student again. We've had many posters who've unanimously backed my observations in the last two years of the existence of this forum but who have been lucky enough to escape to better lives elsewhere, so the backup seems more scarce these days. I've lived here for five decades, I've seen a hell of a lot of the entire L.A. basin due to peripatetic days of photojournalism, I work as a neighborhood activist since we live in a low-to-moderate income area hence I know police statistics about certain areas.
I've posted some.
Quote:
and I'm voting with my feet to move to a better life elsewhere with known trade-offs the nanosecond my husband retires. I try, both in my observations here and in dealing with life here in the meantime. The thumbs up was welcome.
I'll regret leaving (it's not by choice for me ; if I had my choice I'd stay). Not that I'll be going to a bad place, but I recognize that there are no utopias. Not here, not anywhere. Every place has trade offs, and places change. There are even problems in the cities considered to have the highest quality of life, like Portland (where the crime rate isn't that much lower than L.A.'s) or Vancouver BC (beware the Downtown Eastside!) The problem with flight is that when the same problems tend to occur elsewhere, are you going to keep being on the run? What if certain problems associated with LA spread to where you are going?
Proof positive that there is no Utopia is the living arrangement of the wealthiest sectors of society: they have multiple homes in multiple locales for multiple reasons. But many believe that Los Angeles is becoming the harbinger of dystopia in the U.S., a megopolis that persists without its unlying problems being solved or even addressed. Can one? Yes, to wit New York City. I'm told as many of its problems have been addressed and solved as the ones that inevitably persist. The last occasion I was in Times Square was 1973, and everyone says I would have a little trouble recognizing the place now insofar as its tenor has so changed for the better.
I want all new problems in our moving trade-off. The unchanging juggernaut of L.A.'s ever-worsening ones for our low-to-mod household truly are grinding us down, whereas new problems are, well, new problems with fresher challenges. Our neighborhood was considered classic, diverse, good for families, mod-to-middle/working class until an earthquake and Los Angeles' own civic policies changed it into a mecca for illegals and attendant slum crimes. I'm curious how you would answer the OP about question #1 of theirs.
Proof positive that there is no Utopia is the living arrangement of the wealthiest sectors of society: they have multiple homes in multiple locales for multiple reasons. But many believe that Los Angeles is becoming the harbinger of dystopia in the U.S., a megopolis that persists without its unlying problems being solved or even addressed.
That was more true in the 90s than today. Mike Davis' view of LA isn't too popular anymore. (Not that his books aren't worth reading, as he does talk about some pretty interesting subjects, but he is one sided ; I assume the "many" you believe refers to Davis and his followers.) The early 90s were a worse period in LA's history than the present is. As far as problems being addressed: I think that is finally starting to happen to a small extent although I remain skeptical as to how much can be done. Now, if the LAPD expands to 20,000 officers, a good deal of LA's problems would minimize. The problem is that the voters don't want to pay for a safer LA. Furthermore, if the LAUSD as we know it is done away with (either through mayoral takeover, some sort of voucher program, etc.) then LA will become more attractive for people with kids. The problem is entrenched bureaucracies. I was all for Mayor Tony's attempted takeover ; school boards only mean more bureaucracy and less money for actual education even in the best of cases. Bloomberg wouldn't have been able to improve NYC's schools without a direct mayoral takeover.
You'd have a hard time arguing that public transport has gotten worse in LA in the last 20 years, btw.
As for the harbinger of dystopia in the US: I think Detroit has that pretty sewn up with competition from Cleveland, Gary,Flint, St. Louis, etc. (There's a reason why according to the LA Times the Midwest is the only part of the US that is still sending more people to California than it is recieving Californians). Not to mention New Orleans. Even Philly is closer to being a "harbinger of dystopia" than LA is - it has just as many murders with half the population (and that's not even including Camden). Even in California, I'd say Oakland is more of a harbinger of dystopia.
Quote:
Can one? Yes, to wit New York City. I'm told as many of its problems have been addressed and solved as the ones that inevitably persist.
Manhattan and Brooklyn, yes. The Bronx is a different story. It continues to go down the tubes as the rest of the city has improved. Most likely because certain people pushed out of certain neighborhoods in Manhattan and Brooklyn can only afford to go there if they want to remain in NYC.
Quote:
The last occasion I was in Times Square was 1973, and everyone says I would have a little trouble recognizing the place now insofar as its tenor has so changed for the better.
OTOH, the tenor of a certain area in Lower Manhattan changed dramatically for the worse in the fall of 2001. ):
Quote:
I want all new problems in our moving trade-off. The unchanging juggernaut of L.A.'s ever-worsening ones
The problem with that statement is that LA's problems are not continually getting worse, there are up periods and down periods. Now, compared to the pre-Prop 13 era, yes, things have gotten clearly worse. But if one looks at the last 20 years, there are cycles of things getting worse and things getting better etc. Your views are shaped by living in the hood, and LA has no monopoly on hood areas. EVERY city has them.
Quote:
for our low-to-mod household truly are grinding us down, whereas new problems are, well, new problems with fresher challenges. Our neighborhood was considered classic, diverse, good for families,
So the quake and the plant closures caused your neighborhood to become part of LAUSD? I don't think the Northeast SFV ever had its own school district. LAUSD is a major factor in making LA undesirable for families, and is one of the major factors causing families of all ethnic backgrounds and citizenship statuses and most economic backgrounds to leave. As said in previous posts, I've even observed this trend of "family flight" in non-LAUSD areas like Culver City and Beverly Hills, and to a lesser extent Santa Monica.
Quote:
mod-to-middle/working class until an earthquake and Los Angeles' own civic policies changed it into a mecca for illegals and attendant slum crimes. I'm curious how you would answer the OP about question #1 of theirs.
Those same problems could occur where you're going. The California DOJ even mentioned how so many gangbangers are going to exurbs and small towns.
As for your neighborhood: at the time you moved there you could have afforded plenty of places in the west side which are now very pricey. Not to mention you could've afforded Silver Lake at the time, which is now quite pricey.
I admit your area was a functional working class area when GM was still cranking out Camaros off the assembly line nearby and the quake hadn't happened yet, and it's now a ghetto. The changing patterns of desirability in LA brought upon by high fuel prices and improvements in public transportation mean that your area is unlikely ever to be gentrified. Sorry that you had to live through all that, though, but crap happens. (Ironically, you probably would've regarded Echo Park as out of the question when you bought property, but nowadays its a nicer neighborhood than yours.)
As for the answer to question 1: nobody really knows the answer to that one. I think something needs to be done about illegal immigration for a variety of reasons. But this problem is no longer confined to Southern California ; many parts of the US are now having to deal with it. Again, however, note the lack of law enforcement manpower - there are only 12,000 ICE agents in the entire interior of the US (away from the border areas) and the combined number of ICE agents is 27,000. With more officers, far more could be done. The problem is that people want to have their cake and eat it too ; they want safer communities, more secure borders, better schools, etc. but don't want to pay the taxes for them, and the current gang in the White House has "other" priorities.
Prop 13 still enjoys majority support.People were being taxed out of their homes in a state with liberal wackos who want to redistribute other peoples money they did no earn to pay for social programs that do not work.If it were not for prop 13 I would hate to say what most of our property tax bills would be
If it were not for Prop 13, fees of all types - including those which small businesses would have to deal with - would not be as high, nor would fines, nor would local taxes, and California would be on a sounder financial footing instead of always lurking from one fiscal crisis to another. California's schools would still be in the top 10 of the US, gang problems would be considerably less, there would be more police on the street, and there would be more money to solve the state's problems.
Everything the opponents of Prop 13 predicted would come true if it passed did.
BTW, where did you get your cite saying it still has majority support? I can't recall any polls on that subject in recent times. I know Arnold retracted a quip he made about repealing it due to political pressure - is it really something that enjoys majority support or is it merely politically correct to support Prop 13?
Prop 13 still enjoys majority support.People were being taxed out of their homes in a state with liberal wackos who want to redistribute other peoples money they did no earn to pay for social programs that do not work.
Maybe our prop taxes would be as high as in liberal whacko states like Texas, Iowa and Kansas.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
he is right
