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.
Here's the caveat, though. How much of CA's land area cannot support large populations because of topography and lack of water? It's not always about how much land area you have, it's how much of it is usable.
california is a dry place, make no mistake. but it is incredibly efficient at utilizing its limited water resources. as far as urban water use goes, desalination is actually cheaper (and less energy intensive) than using the california aqueduct, so i'm not sure why investment hasn't been made in this area. obviously the vast VAST majority of water goes to agriculture. i believe a lot of water is wasted in places like the imperial valley - i mean so much water is used to produce so little, in the driest part of the country at that. you have over half of southern california's water going there, yet annual crop production is barely US$1 billion? if water truly needs to be reallocated to cities at some point, i think we know where to get it from.
Response to 3.) The smaller population, less infrastructure, and etc means the Northern portions of the state can manage themselves with their existing tax-revenue, the South has too much infrastructure, too many residents, and etc so essentially its benefiting the South more to be connected to the North rather than Vice-Versa. You obviously don't understand what I'm saying, it doesn't matter if the South is generating much more revenue if its all staying in its region and then its still getting more revenue from the North. Northern CA can sustain without Southern CA (much like the Northeast US can survive economically without the rest of the US), Southern CA needs the Norths revenue to sustain its infrastructure.
this is getting old. this isn't the first time you have claimed that southern CA is leeching off northern CA. yet you have presented zero evidence that it is. zero.
seriously, put up or shut up. this is getting old.
california is a dry place, make no mistake. but it is incredibly efficient at utilizing its limited water resources. as far as urban water use goes, desalination is actually cheaper (and less energy intensive) than using the california aqueduct, so i'm not sure why investment hasn't been made in this area. obviously the vast VAST majority of water goes to agriculture. i believe a lot of water is wasted in places like the imperial valley - i mean so much water is used to produce so little, in the driest part of the country at that. you have over half of southern california's water going there, yet annual crop production is barely US$1 billion? if water truly needs to be reallocated to cities at some point, i think we know where to get it from.
There has been some investment by the state and private enterprise into desalinization.
CA is not going down the tubes. beautiful as when i got here 12 1977.
the people are about the same too. its just that their vices are catching up with them.
You haven't really read any of my posts on this thread thoroughly have you? You're just skimming my post and selecting what I say here and there without actually reading what I say. I specifically said this:
Response to 1.) If you want to skim my quote, then let me reiterate this for you I didn't say crime was skyrocketing, I said its not like crime is skyrocketing.
Response to 2.) I never said population growth has stopped, I said many of the residents are moving to Texas which is true. The population will always increase because of natural population growth, and the Northern region of the state is still continuing to grow while South California has slowed its growth.
Response to 3.) The smaller population, less infrastructure, and etc means the Northern portions of the state can manage themselves with their existing tax-revenue, the South has too much infrastructure, too many residents, and etc so essentially its benefiting the South more to be connected to the North rather than Vice-Versa. You obviously don't understand what I'm saying, it doesn't matter if the South is generating much more revenue if its all staying in its region and then its still getting more revenue from the North. Northern CA can sustain without Southern CA (much like the Northeast US can survive economically without the rest of the US), Southern CA needs the Norths revenue to sustain its infrastructure.
ie: If I were making $400,000 annually, and you were making $200,000 annually, yet I had more to pay on my mortgage/bills/assets than you, then if your nice enough you'll help me out although you can fully sustain on how much you make although its less than me. Understand now? It's not like the North can't make it without the South although it has less tax-revenue, it has far less to manage in comparison to Southern CA.
Response to 4.) The $622 billion GDP was from 2005, the entire state had a GDP of $1.6 trillion in 2005, so you do the math. The North has less than half of the population yet it still produced a hefty amount of the overall GDP at that time. You yet again proved that you aren't capable of reading my post...oh and you proved that you aren't capable of doing math, you can't subtract the 2010/2011 GDP of CA from the GDP of Northern CA in 2005, the number would be grossly disproportionate.
Response to 5.) Yes, you're correct, CA or more specifically Northern CA is doing well in the business sector, Southern CA is still in decline. Be honest with yourself, why would any company want to start-up in LA? Northern CA is the hotspot right now.
You people must not understand that I love CA, but from a governmental perspective its far too much to manage as a whole. Of course the state isn't going to split, that's pretty obvious I'm just speaking hypothetically.
"Los Angeles outranks New York, London, Seattle, Chicago, Berlin and most other big cities in an extensive new report on the world’s top 20 startup ecosystems compiled by researchers at Startup Genome. Only Silicon Valley and Tel Aviv rate higher when it comes to optimum characteristics for launching a business (access to capital, talent pool, market size, work ethic, etc.)."
Los Angeles, and California in general, has always been a beast for entrepreneurship and startups. This has held true even during the economic downturn. I also can't stress enough that trillion dollar economies do not grow on trees. The 10 counties that make up Southern California (roughly 23 million people) have a GDP pushing $1.2 trillion. That's close to Texas's GDP. You annex from that at your own peril.
Last edited by RaymondChandlerLives; 12-28-2012 at 02:25 PM..
Id actually like to see California, Oregon, and Washington form their own country. I think it would do pretty well. It thrives on innovation creativity to spur startups and technology based companies. Young talented people would continue to go there, while more task-oriented jobs will continue to flow to cheap-labor states.
Let's face it, as data connectivity and cloud infrastructure improves, they'll skip Texas and send those IT worker bee jobs to Asia anyway.
Id actually like to see California, Oregon, and Washington form their own country. I think it would do pretty well. It thrives on innovation creativity to spur startups and technology based companies. Young talented people would continue to go there, while more task-oriented jobs will continue to flow to cheap-labor states.
Let's face it, as data connectivity and cloud infrastructure improves, they'll skip Texas and send those IT worker bee jobs to Asia anyway.
Oh I agree, would of been interesting if the three states would of broke off into a new country back in the railroad days. The mountains would of been a natural barrier for them to protect them from the US if they tried to invade if that ever happened.
The interesting this is, if the three states broke off they would take about 17% of the GDP with them, almost 48 million people, and the US would lose 74 Democrat electoral votes which would give the GOP a chance at seeing a Republican president again.
If you're talking about property taxes then, no, you're completely wrong because California has one of the lowest property tax rates in the country. It's about half the rate of Texas. Learn what you're talking about before you babble nonsense.
This is true based on median property tax rates, CA is at .74% while TX is at 1.81%. Texas has no state income tax so it is making up that revenue via property taxes.
If you look at property tax rates based on percentage of income, the picture changes a bit. CA is at 3.59% vs TX at 3.65%. Based on owner-occupied homes 2004 to 2009.
If you're talking about property taxes then, no, you're completely wrong because California has one of the lowest property tax rates in the country. It's about half the rate of Texas. Learn what you're talking about before you babble nonsense.
Might want to research the point the poster was making before you suggest he is "babbling nonsense". It makes you look silly.
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.
