Less personal freedom in California cities (Los Angeles, San Diego: house, neighborhood, buy)

[majoun]

What's the Matter With Chicago?: and Seattle and New York and Boston...? - Reason Magazine lists the best and worst cities for personal freedom amongst the US' 35th biggest cities.

Personal freedom on this list is measured by the lack of restrictions pertaining to alcohol, tobacco, drugs, sex, guns, freedom of movement, gambling, and food.

Chicago comes in as the least free city in the US, followed by Seattle and New York, but San Diego comes in as the 4th least free big city in the US, as it combines the intolerance for tobacco and guns that characterizes more liberal California cities with a socially conservative intolerance for drugs, sex, gambling, and alcohol.

Los Angeles is rated the 11th least free city in the US, and San Francisco and Oakland also come in amongst the bottom half of US cities when it comes to personal freedom. San Jose falls right in the middle. SJ, in fact, is rated as California's freest big city.

For those who want to know what cities come in highest, Las Vegas, Miami, Denver, and Louisville come in as the large US cities that most value personal freedom. Could the lack of personal freedom in California be an additional factor that drives people out besides the high cost of living and the high cost of housing, and in the case of some, certain prejudices?

[EscapeCalifornia]

Originally Posted by majoun

Could the lack of personal freedom in California be an additional factor that drives people out besides the high cost of living and the high cost of housing, and in the case of some, certain prejudices?

Yes. Many people are tired of the government micromanaging their lives through the tax code and statutes. I'm surprised San Francisco isn't at the top of the list.

[CA central coast]

I say yes

[majoun]

Originally Posted by EscapeCalifornia

Yes. Many people are tired of the government micromanaging their lives through the tax code and statutes. I'm surprised San Francisco isn't at the top of the list.

Because L.A. and San Diego are worse?
I'm from L.A. originally and have to say that L.A. is even worse for that sort of thing than S.F. is. I never lived in S.D. but I can easily believe that it's worse than L.A. or S.F.

[happ]

I was also surprised to see San Diego as the most restrictive & San Jose as the least [would have thought it would have been the other way around]. Well, I can't say I feel less free in LA [since I don't smoke

[sav858]

the SD ranking surprised me too. Until this past winter we were the only place in CA that allowed alcohol on our beaches and hopefully after this Nov election it will be legal again. SF's anti-smoking laws are now more restrictive than SD's, they just passed an ordinance preventing drug stores from selling them. I think if they did this study again today SF would rank lower b/c they just passed some crazy laws there, like fining people who don't sort their trash.

But most of these laws are not that big of a deal and don't affect us that much. How many people do you think are moving away b/c you can't smoke in a park or on the beach? We have some stupid laws across this state but none are that bad to me.

[bhcompy]

i dunno.. in california you can buy booze on sundays and they sell it in grocery stores. head to the midwest and the south and you may not be so lucky

[Capt. Dan]

The biggest reason I left California [San Luis Obispo] was the cost of living. But it also irked me when the Neighborhood Association told me what colors i could and couldnt paint my house and how tall my fence could be. never mind that they were able to tell business owners that people couldnt smoke in their businesses. The scary thing is there seems to be no stopping the intrusions into your lives. Will Californians reach a point where they say enough is enough? Things are not perfect here in Tennesseee but as a rule, government stays out of our business. And when there is a bit of intrusion, it is realistic. For example; Smoking is not allowed in businesses that allow people under 21 in. So if i own a tavern and no one under 21 can come in, i can allow smoking. That just makes more sense to me.

[cobmw]

As I recall it is also against the law to open a drive-thru fast food restaraunt in San Luis Obispo. Something about cars idling while in line? Screwy to be forced to park your car and walk in for your food regardless of the weather.

California in general is homebase for nutty, intrusive government. Mandates on lighbulbs, automobile design, gun restrictions (what really is an assault weapon?) come from this left wing haven and then pollute the rest of the nation.

I'd agree with Denver being a place with more freedom, but it has been under Democrat control for several years and is changing. Sad.

[CA central coast]

I remember when they banned drive-thru's in SLO. They may have made a car-idle/air pollution connecting? But, one main argument from what I recall was, they wanted people who were passing through to have to "stop" in San Luis Obispo to eat and not just simply drive thru and keep going on their way. It was an attempt to try to capture the travelling tourist. Totally silly. Also, if anyone remembers, San Luis Obispo was the first city in the nation to ban smoking in in all public places. It's funny how smoking can to banned in a private business, bars and restaurants are considered public and not private places?