Future growth in the Central Valley (Los Angeles, Fresno: crime rates, new home, unemployment)

[Dave Coe]

What direction will Central Valley Citites grow in the future and what areas will see the most growth?

[KC6ZLV]

Originally Posted by Dave Coe

What direction will Central Valley Citites grow in the future and what areas will see the most growth?

When you ask of the Central Valley, so you mean the San Joaquin Valley, or are you asking of both the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys? And population growth or economic growth?

[slo1318]

Hopefully they will reign in growth, and not allow rampant development outside current urban boundaries. That actually started years ago, there are many agencies that oversee the many collective interests of the valley. The valley should primarily be an agricultural area, it is a national treasure. California produces nearly two thirds of the nations fruit and is the leading producer of vegetables, dairy, and nuts, most of this in the central valley.

[Des-Lab]

As a resident of the San Joaquin Valley (Tulare), I'll chip in my two cents.

Frankly, I see much of the Valley-mainly the smaller towns like mine as remaining pretty much as they are: stagnant and status quo. There's only so much growth potential in farming. Most of the farmland is already producing at capacity so the only way any real "growth" would be possible is through soaring prices with little or no increased activity. Ironically, the latter could cancel out the former through demand destruction. Because of the social dynamics associated with an agarian economy, that translates to perpetually low wages, stubbornly high unemployment and crime rates, and limited or nonexistent redevelopment and opportunities. That's the tradeoff of having an ag based economy.

Tulare and many other towns seem to be content with that, showing little or no interest in forward thinking or breaking away from a long established "but we've always done things this way" paradigm. Of course the housing boom did provide something of a limited boost to many of these towns that may have otherwise slid into oblivion. Tulare again being an example of the former while Richgrove, Earlimart, and Terra Bella are examples of the latter.

Tulare County exhibited at least some initiative and foresight when it attempted to purchase the now defunct "East Valley" rail line. The theory was that if the out of service rail line was purchased and rehabilitated and marketed for service, that new industry would come to the area and provide new opportunities of all sorts ranging from new homes to factory work to clerical and management work to decreased air pollution to new shopping centers. The plan met fierce opposition from most of the voters (but I was in support of it) and failed. The tracks have now been removed and now the cities are squabbling over how to parcel out pieces of the right of way. At this point, the odds of this rail line being built are slim to none. Personally, I think the Counties biggest blunder here was not offering to include some sort of passenger commuter rail as part of the 'package'. Had the East Valley Rail project included some sort of Metrolink or Amtrak California type operation (with provisions for a possible link to the HSR in the unlikely event it ever gets built), it may have generated a lot more support. Granted, the population isn't there today to support such a service, but between projected population growth along with what the line would've brought in terms of commerce, such a line WOULD be justified in ten or twenty years time. Alas the window of opportunity is closing fast. It would've made more sense to do while the right of way is still intact. A big part of the reason the proposal died was because of a perception that taxpayer funds were being used to run a train for a few corporate 'cronies'. I strongly disagreed with that sentiment, but we are talking perception, which is not always reality (think of the added side benefits that could've helped the voters). This proposal could have been done and delivered all sorts of positives without severely impacting existing prized farmlands.

In short, the only cities I see as having real growth potential would be Fresno/Clovis-the current slump notwithstanding-because it's large enough to stand on its own and its central location in the State. And Bakersfield because of its relative proximity to Los Angeles. In some ways, Bakersfield can already be considered an exurb of LA. If any or all of the Tejon Pass ('The Grapevine') construction projects come to pass, it would largely connect the two regions in the same fashion that the High Desert Cities such as Victorville and Palmdale have become extensions of LA.

As for the rest of the Valley such as Tulare, Hanford, and Porterville?

They'll just have to be content with the occasional Grand Opening of a new Taco Bell. Because that's all they can or will get. Or for that matter, all they seem to want. And maybe, once every few years, a new chicken processing plant.

[eureka1]

No one wants to raise their kids in polluted air.

[pistola916]

Sacramento for sure. Maybe Fresno. and to some extent, Bakersfield.

[TimC2462]

Originally Posted by Des-Lab

As a resident of the San Joaquin Valley (Tulare), I'll chip in my two cents.

Frankly, I see much of the Valley-mainly the smaller towns like mine as remaining pretty much as they are: stagnant and status quo. There's only so much growth potential in farming. Most of the farmland is already producing at capacity so the only way any real "growth" would be possible is through soaring prices with little or no increased activity. Ironically, the latter could cancel out the former through demand destruction. Because of the social dynamics associated with an agarian economy, that translates to perpetually low wages, stubbornly high unemployment and crime rates, and limited or nonexistent redevelopment and opportunities. That's the tradeoff of having an ag based economy.

Tulare and many other towns seem to be content with that, showing little or no interest in forward thinking or breaking away from a long established "but we've always done things this way" paradigm. Of course the housing boom did provide something of a limited boost to many of these towns that may have otherwise slid into oblivion. Tulare again being an example of the former while Richgrove, Earlimart, and Terra Bella are examples of the latter.

Tulare County exhibited at least some initiative and foresight when it attempted to purchase the now defunct "East Valley" rail line. The theory was that if the out of service rail line was purchased and rehabilitated and marketed for service, that new industry would come to the area and provide new opportunities of all sorts ranging from new homes to factory work to clerical and management work to decreased air pollution to new shopping centers. The plan met fierce opposition from most of the voters (but I was in support of it) and failed. The tracks have now been removed and now the cities are squabbling over how to parcel out pieces of the right of way. At this point, the odds of this rail line being built are slim to none. Personally, I think the Counties biggest blunder here was not offering to include some sort of passenger commuter rail as part of the 'package'. Had the East Valley Rail project included some sort of Metrolink or Amtrak California type operation (with provisions for a possible link to the HSR in the unlikely event it ever gets built), it may have generated a lot more support. Granted, the population isn't there today to support such a service, but between projected population growth along with what the line would've brought in terms of commerce, such a line WOULD be justified in ten or twenty years time. Alas the window of opportunity is closing fast. It would've made more sense to do while the right of way is still intact. A big part of the reason the proposal died was because of a perception that taxpayer funds were being used to run a train for a few corporate 'cronies'. I strongly disagreed with that sentiment, but we are talking perception, which is not always reality (think of the added side benefits that could've helped the voters). This proposal could have been done and delivered all sorts of positives without severely impacting existing prized farmlands.

In short, the only cities I see as having real growth potential would be Fresno/Clovis-the current slump notwithstanding-because it's large enough to stand on its own and its central location in the State. And Bakersfield because of its relative proximity to Los Angeles. In some ways, Bakersfield can already be considered an exurb of LA. If any or all of the Tejon Pass ('The Grapevine') construction projects come to pass, it would largely connect the two regions in the same fashion that the High Desert Cities such as Victorville and Palmdale have become extensions of LA.

As for the rest of the Valley such as Tulare, Hanford, and Porterville?

They'll just have to be content with the occasional Grand Opening of a new Taco Bell. Because that's all they can or will get. Or for that matter, all they seem to want. And maybe, once every few years, a new chicken processing plant.

I agree with a lot of your points.

I think real economic growth is over for most part of the country -- we're only seeing economic activity and wealth being shifted around in different places. The migration from the coastal areas to the central valley has steadily rose in the last decade, at least in my observation. Fresno has something interesting and it is a much more progressive city than Bakersfield -- in that they have an excellent public and private education system, as well as Fresno State University.

Bakersfield has something else going for it, in that they are supported by local agriculture and oil industries. The close proximity to Los Angeles makes it an attractive destination for companies looking for cheap lands to construct warehouses and distribution centers. But they contrast greatly with Fresno with their mediocre education system. Our Cal State Bakersfield has been around for almost four decades, yet we don't even offer specialized majors in oil and agriculture. They have pretty much killed the child that would've spawned success that is comparable to Fresno.

[Bluesmama]

Originally Posted by slo1318

Hopefully they will reign in growth, and not allow rampant development outside current urban boundaries. That actually started years ago, there are many agencies that oversee the many collective interests of the valley. The valley should primarily be an agricultural area, it is a national treasure. California produces nearly two thirds of the nations fruit and is the leading producer of vegetables, dairy, and nuts, most of this in the central valley.

I so, so, SO agree with you!!!!

[Californiaguy2007]

I live in the San Joaquin Valley(Bakersfield Region) and because of the area's Proximity to L.A and it's Affordability,this region will continue to grow,especially since L.A has reached buildout so were basically receiving the spillover of growth which will continue for many years to come.

In my opinion Bakersfield has alot of potential because of it's Location and Affordability.

[BVitamin]

Maybe it's that time of the year where a lot more people are out on road trips but it seems Bakersfield has gotten more congested in the past few years with cars, particularly so with Stockdale Hwy; on the 99, I think more signs of "Slower Traffic Keep Right" are needed.

Des-Lab pretty much sums it up.