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.
If you follow the news, you might have heard that New York and California each lost a congressional district as a result of the 2020 Census. And as it turns out, each seat is being taken from the state's largest metro area, obviously strongly Democratic* and demographically diverse. I know that in the case of CA, it was decided by a fourteen person committee comprising five Democrats and Republicans each, plus four more independents. It's clear how this worked out down there. In the interest of fairness, so to speak, California's redistricting process was designed to ensure that both major parties would have equal representation, but ISTM it doesn't reflect the political climate of the state. I don't know how it worked in New York, but I imagine was much the same.
Other than as the result of (IMHO falsely) perceived "fairness", it doesn't make sense to me that it was L.A. and NYC that lost seats. Why not the districts representing Modesto and the Hamptons? And I don't think for one second that the new districts in Florida and Texas will be going to anyone other than Republicans.
If you follow the news, you might have heard that New York and California each lost a congressional district as a result of the 2020 Census. And as it turns out, each seat is being taken from the state's largest metro area, obviously strongly Democratic* and demographically diverse. I know that in the case of CA, it was decided by a fourteen person committee comprising five Democrats and Republicans each, plus four more independents. It's clear how this worked out down there. In the interest of fairness, so to speak, California's redistricting process was designed to ensure that both major parties would have equal representation, but ISTM it doesn't reflect the political climate of the state. I don't know how it worked in New York, but I imagine was much the same.
Other than as the result of (IMHO falsely) perceived "fairness", it doesn't make sense to me that it was L.A. and NYC that lost seats. Why not the districts representing Modesto and the Hamptons? And I don't think for one second that the new districts in Florida and Texas will be going to anyone other than Republicans.
* Staten Island excluded, of course.
Don't tell me, let me guess...the number of people living in these large population centers declined?
Probably because drawing the lines to safeguard Democrats would have triggered an anti-gerrymandering lawsuit, which did happen in New York. The Court there did find the original map was illegally drawn.
quite simply, people don’t want to live in places where they won’t feel safe and are heavily taxed and nannied. i believe covid was a real wake up to many moderate people and businesses. i believe the numbers are even worse for them now because people from ny, nj, and ca are flocking to red states. people retiring or having remote work can live anywhere they want. businesses have also learned they don’t necessarily need a nyc address to thrive. the draw to these costal cities was the ports, and momentum just kept going after other methods of transportation were invented. if we didn’t have the current technology to work anywhere, why would anyone need these coastal cities? the same people have left and all that is left are the ultra wealthy who use these places as a novelty and then retreat to their gated estates far removed from the general public, the “working poor” aka underclass, and young people looking to party. all democrats. will continue to do what they do.
quite simply, people don’t want to live in places where they won’t feel safe and are heavily taxed and nannied. i believe covid was a real wake up to many moderate people and businesses. i believe the numbers are even worse for them now because people from ny, nj, and ca are flocking to red states. people retiring or having remote work can live anywhere they want. businesses have also learned they don’t necessarily need a nyc address to thrive. the draw to these costal cities was the ports, and momentum just kept going after other methods of transportation were invented. if we didn’t have the current technology to work anywhere, why would anyone need these coastal cities? the same people have left and all that is left are the ultra wealthy who use these places as a novelty and then retreat to their gated estates far removed from the general public, the “working poor” aka underclass, and young people looking to party. all democrats. will continue to do what they do.
Keep in mind, inflation has ramped up through most of the developed world, with the notable exceptions of Japan and Switzerland; the former due to massive central bank intervention, essentially "greasing the wheels" and making credit cheap, lowering business costs, and in the case of Switzerland due to its uniquely privileged circumstances which make that country practically immune to oil price shocks.
If you are referring to housing inflation in the coastal metros, conservatives automatically blame that on overtaxing and over-regulation, but one can also argue that the problem results from policies that aren't interventionist enough. As an example, the population of L.A. has almost doubled since 1960, but the cityscape with regard to housing is pretty much the same as it was then. AFAI can recall, only the Palms district went through a nearly complete changeover from single family homes to apartments. Elsewhere, vehement neighborhood opposition to higher density housing has mostly stopped it in its tracks. Local and state government, as liberal or progressive as they might be in nearly everything else (look what CA just did on gasoline powered cars), when it comes to overriding the local NIMBYs, they can't or won't go there. Apparently, the rights of "we the people", if we mean the ones who live in all those old SFHs covering the West Side, means continuing to live in a 1950s throwback neighborhood, come what may.
The residents of Culver City, West L.A., and Santa Monica may vote overwhelmingly Democratic, stand in favor of rent control, and housing assistance for the poor; but just brace for the local outrage if anyone suggests, say, razing a block of small 85-year-old houses somewhere between Olympic and Pico so a five-story apartment house can be built in their place. Owners of utterly undistinguished and threadbare duplexes wanting to redevelop are stymied by dubious declarations of historical or cultural significance. (Like environmentalism-related objections, historic preservation has become another tool of the NIMBYs.) When the population of a city doubles over time, there is absolutely going to be a housing crisis if local neighborhood "rights" trump everything else.
(Bolding mine)
When the population of a city doubles over time, there is absolutely going to be a housing crisis if local neighborhood "rights" trump everything else.
Growth is fine as long as you are building houses, schools, businesses, hospitals, etc at the same pace. Greater Atlanta for example, things have been kept affordable because they are building at a frantic pace. Unfortunately, CA and NJ and the like have made building time consuming, complicated and expensive with all the government; permitting requirements, fees, mandates, regulations, etc. Demand can’t be filled in CA because the government is preventing it from being filled. They’ve governed themselves into expensive stagnation. The residents you mention also play a role but not as much as government.
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.