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.
1. Arizona just elected its first Democratic Senator since the 1980s. That's California right there. That newly elected senator in Arizona has called herself a Prada Socialist. Socialism is a failure compared to capitalism. Socialism works when you spend other people's money, but soon enough people stop having the motivation to achieve when the government takes it all and re-distributes it.
2. No Republican has won Nevada in a presidential election since 2004. Nevada couldn't re-elect a Republican incumbent this November.
3. No Republican has won Colorado in a presidential election since 2004.
Just spend any time on the ground in any of those states and you'll see the California influence. In Colorado, for a long time, Boulder has been the San Francisco of the Rocky Mountains. The rest of Colorado is catching up to Boulder. Denver is nearly as liberal as Boulder. Denver is liberal nearly on par with Austin and might actually be more liberal than Dallas has become. I looked at the voting patterns in 2016, and Hillary Clinton did better in Pitkin County (Aspen), Summit County (Breckenridge), and Eagle County (Vail) than she did in some poorer parts of the state. There's a huge contingent of limousine liberals up by the big resort towns.
In all of the states, you see a lot of people cashing out on their expensive Bay Area, or Los Angeles/Orange County homes and moving to an area with less expensive real estate while bringing their political leanings that have ruined that state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Treasurevalley92
The Western States have seen massive growth from just about everywhere. By and large, I think Transplants and fresh blood are good things.
Texas does have the least right to complain about Californians. Though housing prices have gone up here, for the most part we have been able to keep up and so the increase has been smaller than just about everywhere else.
The biggest disadvantages to immigration are when the local housing prices shoot up, which relative to the rest of the country, they haven't done here.
Plus for every Californian moving here there are people moving to the cities from dying rural towns in Texas, or Oklahoma.
Anyway, the "Texasy" parts of Texas have stayed as Texas as anyone could want-they have very slow growth or negative migration.
The big cities have reaped the benefits of being bigger cities including better food, arts and diversity. The negatives are very localized and relative. What is negative for one person is a boon for another. A specific field gets paved over, a specific neighborhood doubles in price, but across the board DFW and Houston have dealt with growth better than most places and have benefited immensely from the infusion of money and talent into their cities.
The Western states are taking in transplants from everywhere. Texas is no exception to this. As a whole, I think what made Western states special is diminishing. Arizona is now overpopulated. The fragile desert ecosystem cannot handle the growth of people. There's not great environmental sustainability there.
It's not true that for every Californian that moves here, someone moves here from some rural Texas or Oklahoma town. There are just so many more people capable of moving here from California than rural Texas or Oklahoma. However, look at Texas' neighbors. It's much more compelling to live here than in states that neighbor Texas. Oklahoma is probably the best of Texas' neighboring states for quality of life. Arkansas and Louisiana don't have a lot of good things going on. New Mexico basically has 0 economy, and high crime and poverty rates, partially fueled by the nation's leading teen pregnancy rate. If you have ambition, you'd want to leave Arkansas, Louisiana, or New Mexico for one of the bigger areas in Texas. Even leaving rural Texas for the Big 4 metros is justifiable.
I don't like seeing open land getting paved over. I like the Texasy parts of Texas. Unfortunately, there's not enough economic and social opportunity for me to live in one of those places, so I had to live in a big Texas city.
1. Arizona just elected its first Democratic Senator since the 1980s. That's California right there. That newly elected senator in Arizona has called herself a Prada Socialist. Socialism is a failure compared to capitalism. Socialism works when you spend other people's money, but soon enough people stop having the motivation to achieve when the government takes it all and re-distributes it.
2. No Republican has won Nevada in a presidential election since 2004. Nevada couldn't re-elect a Republican incumbent this November.
3. No Republican has won Colorado in a presidential election since 2004.
Just spend any time on the ground in any of those states and you'll see the California influence. In Colorado, for a long time, Boulder has been the San Francisco of the Rocky Mountains. The rest of Colorado is catching up to Boulder. Denver is nearly as liberal as Boulder. Denver is liberal nearly on par with Austin and might actually be more liberal than Dallas has become. I looked at the voting patterns in 2016, and Hillary Clinton did better in Pitkin County (Aspen), Summit County (Breckenridge), and Eagle County (Vail) than she did in some poorer parts of the state. There's a huge contingent of limousine liberals up by the big resort towns.
In all of the states, you see a lot of people cashing out on their expensive Bay Area, or Los Angeles/Orange County homes and moving to an area with less expensive real estate while bringing their political leanings that have.
Political changes didn’t ruin anything. That’s just you being bitter.
Not one of the places you’ve mentioned is ruined.
See comment above about Arizona has been ruined. That desert ecosystem is ill equipped to handle the population growth of the last 3-4 decades there. There are legitimate sustainability concerns. The same thing could be said about Nevada, where much of the population growth has been around Metro Las Vegas.
Las Vegas, Phoenix, and Tucson have grown too fast and will have problems with access to water in the future. All 3 of those population centers were nicer before a lot of the areas got paved over. While those areas got paved over, it happened to get paved over with liberal sympathizers.
See comment above about Arizona has been ruined. That desert ecosystem is ill equipped to handle the population growth of the last 3-4 decades there. There are legitimate sustainability concerns. The same thing could be said about Nevada, where much of the population growth has been around Metro Las Vegas.
Las Vegas, Phoenix, and Tucson have grown too fast and will have problems with access to water in the future. All 3 of those population centers were nicer before a lot of the areas got paved over. While those areas got paved over, it happened to get paved over with liberal sympathizers.
What you’re talking about has everything to do with geography and nothing to do with politics. It’s the desert. It’s hot and dry most of the year and that attracted a lot people. But being in the desert there are limitations. Perhaps they shouldn’t exist in the first place but they do and their lifestyle and climate attracted people.
Given the type of city Vegas is why on earth would you expect it to be conservative long term? As for Arizona, the majority of the transplants there are NOT from California. They are from cold weather states in the Midwest.
What you’re talking about has everything to do with geography and nothing to do with politics. It’s the desert. It’s hot and dry most of the year and that attracted a lot people. But being in the desert there are limitations. Perhaps they shouldn’t exist in the first place but they do and their lifestyle and climate attracted people.
Given the type of city Vegas is why on earth would you expect it to be conservative long term? As for Arizona, the majority of the transplants there are NOT from California. They are from cold weather states in the Midwest.
I have lived in Arizona and can speak on it. One of the things I hated seeing most when I was in Arizona was the over development. I did not like seeing pristine desert land being paved over. I felt that Arizona should have limited growth and growth should have been infill and upwards. I can say the same thing about Dallas now, and probably can be said for Houston, San Antonio, and Austin. Growth is not always good. I'm not enamored with the fact that in 1990, Frisco was a town of 6,000 and is now 180,000. That rate of growth is too high.
Part of Arizona's growth is illegal immigrants from Mexico and their anchor babies. There's also been legal immigration too from Mexico. California is a leading source of Arizona's transplant population, so it's not just snowbirds from the Midwest.
The Northeast and California have done a lousy job of retaining their residents. If their liberal local governments were not overtaxing residents and businesses, residents and businesses would not be leaving. California has not lost population due to unchecked immigration from Mexico, which the local California government is unconcerned with stopping. However, there are places in the Northeast and Midwest losing population. Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania had 86,000 people in 1940, and has 40,000 now. When you tell that to people who have lived in Arizona, or in Texas cities like Dallas and Houston, it is astounding because growth in Texas and Arizona has been immense since 1940.
Californians have been cashing out of their state and coming to neighboring Western states. Why do you think In-N-Out Burger went to Nevada first when it opened its first location outside of California? In-N-Out went to Las Vegas first, then Arizona, and then later Texas. In-N-Out Burger has been following the Californian migration pattern.
I have lived in Arizona and can speak on it. One of the things I hated seeing most when I was in Arizona was the over development. I did not like seeing pristine desert land being paved over. I felt that Arizona should have limited growth and growth should have been infill and upwards. I can say the same thing about Dallas now, and probably can be said for Houston, San Antonio, and Austin. Growth is not always good. I'm not enamored with the fact that in 1990, Frisco was a town of 6,000 and is now 180,000. That rate of growth is too high.
Part of Arizona's growth is illegal immigrants from Mexico and their anchor babies. There's also been legal immigration too from Mexico. California is a leading source of Arizona's transplant population, so it's not just snowbirds from the Midwest.
The Northeast and California have done a lousy job of retaining their residents. If their liberal local governments were not overtaxing residents and businesses, residents and businesses would not be leaving. California has not lost population due to unchecked immigration from Mexico, which the local California government is unconcerned with stopping. However, there are places in the Northeast and Midwest losing population. Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania had 86,000 people in 1940, and has 40,000 now. When you tell that to people who have lived in Arizona, or in Texas cities like Dallas and Houston, it is astounding because growth in Texas and Arizona has been immense since 1940.
Californians have been cashing out of their state and coming to neighboring Western states. Why do you think In-N-Out Burger went to Nevada first when it opened its first location outside of California? In-N-Out went to Las Vegas first, then Arizona, and then later Texas. In-N-Out Burger has been following the Californian migration pattern.
Man, I get it. Youre frustrated. However data does not back up what you are saying. Yes there are a lot of Californians in Phoenix and yes there are more than the big Texas cities, but it is not the number one source of migrants to Phoenix. The Midwest is. Also, sure there are illegal immigrants in Phoenix, however there are a lot more in Houston and Dallas even per capita. Let me help you out with some data. Its all by Metro Area, not just city.
People born in the Western States (California, New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah):
Los Angeles: 1,000,000 (7.3% of total population)
Houston: 575,000 (8.7 of total population - Highest in the US)
Dallas: 475,000 (6.5% of total population)
Phoenix: 250,000 (5.2% of total population)
San Francisco: 240,000 (4.8% of total population)
San Diego 170,000 (4.8% of total population)
Austin: 100,000 (5.3% of total population)
On a per capita basis, illegal immigration is a bigger problem in Texas than any other state in the US except Nevada. Yet, people will always try to find scapegoats. Here is the rational view:
-Arizona and Nevada are warm weather and cheap states. That attracts a lot of people and politics has nothing to do with that.
-Texas is an exceptionally diverse state (well the cities are diverse anyway). The officials here spent a ridiculous amount of effort poaching jobs from other states and now they want to turn around and complain that the state is changing? If you didnt want us here, why did you launch a giant media campaign and court companies from other states to move here? Only stupid people would have thought the state wouldnt have changed because of that.
-California is forever going to be desirable but desire comes with cost: its extremely expensive so people look for other places to park themselves. No other state has the pop culture appeal, the weather, and the natural beauty. California will pretty well always be ok. People on this forum love to bash it as a third world country but its anything but. Their economy is growing rapidly and their crime situation is no different than here. People are leaving because of the cost more than anything else.
-Were AMERICAN. Im not a Californian, Texan or anything other than American. Being American, we can live wherever we want and we dont need permission from anyone to move. People who ask the question "why are you just trying to change it into where you came from?" are being dense. Im not trying to change the state, the state just isnt going to change us. You can keep your church, your guns, your republican votes, etc. Have all of that. Its just a-ok with me. I just have no use for any of that.
People who are lamenting that things are changing too much just have to deal with it. There isnt anything you can do about it and only a fool is going to grow an ulcer over something they cant control.
-Arizona and Nevada are warm weather and cheap states. That attracts a lot of people and politics has nothing to do with that.
-Texas is an exceptionally diverse state (well the cities are diverse anyway). The officials here spent a ridiculous amount of effort poaching jobs from other states and now they want to turn around and complain that the state is changing? If you didnt want us here, why did you launch a giant media campaign and court companies from other states to move here? Only stupid people would have thought the state wouldnt have changed because of that.
When I was in Arizona, I didn't like the Midwesterners either. I will say that I've liked my time in Dallas more than I liked my time in Phoenix. One of the biggest differences with Dallas and Phoenix is the corporate infrastructure. For a city of its size, Phoenix has very few Fortune 500 HQs and such a low quality of jobs. Because Phoenix was nothing before the proliferation of air conditioning in the late 1940s/early 1950s, legacy economy companies such as Procter & Gamble never headquartered there. Google and other tech companies never have had a presence in the region. The jobs quality issue was one of the main reasons I left Phoenix. Neither political party solved that in Arizona.
It came down to between Dallas and Houston for me when I was considering moving to Texas. Both had way more economic opportunities than I would have been afforded had I remained in Phoenix. Both had legacy HQs because they were more established before air conditioning than Phoenix. I chose Dallas over Houston because there was a more diversified economy than oil/gas/energy. There's a lot to really like about Houston.
I was glad when Amazon didn't put HQ2 in Dallas, a serious contender, or anywhere else in Texas. There have been massive corporate relocations, such as Toyota North America, to Texas. While there is an upside in having a strong diversified base of companies in a state, some of the changes have been downsides. Although, it can be argued that some of the political ideology changes would have occurred due to demographic factors and conservative ideologies not claiming a greater share of white people.
I would much rather live in Texas than in Arizona.
See comment above about Arizona has been ruined. That desert ecosystem is ill equipped to handle the population growth of the last 3-4 decades there. There are legitimate sustainability concerns. The same thing could be said about Nevada, where much of the population growth has been around Metro Las Vegas.
Las Vegas, Phoenix, and Tucson have grown too fast and will have problems with access to water in the future. All 3 of those population centers were nicer before a lot of the areas got paved over. While those areas got paved over, it happened to get paved over with liberal sympathizers.
Since when are Republicans/conservatives concerned about environmental sustainability? It is in their platform to oppose public transit, mixed-use development, environmental protection, and dense infill. That's not to say that the Democratic Party is much better on these issues, but they're far more inclined to pursue "smart growth" than Republicans.
Transplant and proud of it. The city of Dallas is much better thanks to us. We're cleaning up the mess caused by natives who ran Dallas into the ground from the 50s-90s. Dallas's worst reputation was formed during that era.
As someone from LA, who cares what California ppl think about you
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.
