Is Boston having the same problems with "crime" as many blue cities like SF, LA, NYC, Portland, Chicago, etc.

[bostongymjunkie]

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

Per the report the other user linked to, the cause of the negative net migration figure is high housing costs.

Which link says something as simple and straight forward as that? I missed that.

[PureBoston]

Originally Posted by msRB311

I would say that's a big part of it. A lot of it comes down to people not wanting to pay 1M for a 3 bedroom starter home. Maybe they don't have the money or maybe they do, but want something better.

You make it seems like MA is this superior state that only the wealthy can afford. This may be the case for the nicer towns around greater Boston but that's about it. There is a lot to dislike about MA - commuting, traffic, poor housing stock, the weather, lack of winter activities (if you don't ski and cant take off up north to another state).

There's a major distinction to drawn between desirability for the wealthy and desirability for the rest of us. It's simply lost on some. Like we'd all live in Dover because of its "raw desirability"....if only we could afford it.

[Wittgenstein's Ghost]

Originally Posted by msRB311

You make it seems like MA is this superior state that only the wealthy can afford. This may be the case for the nicer towns around greater Boston but that's about it. There is a lot to dislike about MA - commuting, traffic, poor housing stock, the weather, lack of winter activities (if you don't ski and cant take off up north to another state).

I didn't say anything about MA, so I have no idea how I made it seem like anything.

[Wittgenstein's Ghost]

Originally Posted by PureBoston

There's a major distinction to drawn between desirability for the wealthy and desirability for the rest of us. It's simply lost on some. Like we'd all live in Dover because of its "raw desirability"....if only we could afford it.

Then you agree with me. Stop acting like you disagree. Places can be desirable, but people can still leave because they can't afford it or their money goes further elsewhere. That doesn't mean no one wants to live in that place....it just means the practical constraints make them choose elsewhere. I've laid this out multiple times...not sure how you're still missing it.

[Wittgenstein's Ghost]

Originally Posted by bostongymjunkie

Which link says something as simple and straight forward as that? I missed that.

Sorry, he actually didn't provide a link. I had to find the report he was referencing myself: https://www.ppic.org/publication/wha...hy-it-matters/

[Wittgenstein's Ghost]

Originally Posted by PureBoston

Liberal and conservative media have both been reporting it for years. Because......it's a fact? And unbiased? Your every post is a rant against the "right wing".

Per your own link, California didn't have negative net migration until a few years ago. It had grown for thirty years prior to that. And the whole "Everyone's leaving California" story has largely been told my conservative outlets.

I've only mentioned rightwing media, not "the right wing." It is indisputable that rightwing media wants to portray liberal places as experiencing an exodus of people. No one on either side of the aisle can deny that, and pointing it out doesn't make me biased.

[msRB311]

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

Then you agree with me. Stop acting like you disagree. Places can be desirable, but people can still leave because they can't afford it or their money goes further elsewhere. That doesn't mean no one wants to live in that place....it just means the practical constraints make them choose elsewhere. I've laid this out multiple times...not sure how you're still missing it.

so if money were no object you think everyone would want to live in MA?

[Wittgenstein's Ghost]

Originally Posted by msRB311

so if money were no object you think everyone would want to live in MA?

I have no idea how you gathered that from anything I said. I didn't even mention MA, and at no point did I imply that everyone would want to live any specific place if money were no object. This is such a wild interpretation of my comment that I'm questioning the usefulness of this conversation.

[bostongymjunkie]

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

Sorry, he actually didn't provide a link. I had to find the report he was referencing myself: https://www.ppic.org/publication/wha...hy-it-matters/

Ah, interesting. But I don't see where it says "the cause of the negative net migration figure is high housing cost."

[Wittgenstein's Ghost]

Originally Posted by bostongymjunkie

Ah, interesting. But I don't see where it says "the cause of the negative net migration figure is high housing cost."

I didn't claim to be quoting it verbatim, which is why I didn't use quotes. It says 34% of residents are considering moving due to housing, which seems extremely high. And it mentions housing specifically multiple times, including in the summary about ways to thwart the negative migration. Perhaps I should have said "a major driver" instead of "the cause," although it seems quite possible given the data that California wouldn't have negative migration if housing were cheaper.