I recently moved to California. Before i moved, people asked me “why are you moving there, its so bad?”. Now that I’m here, i understand it less. The state is beautiful. There is so much to do.

I know the cost of living is high, and people think the gun control laws are ridiculous (I actually think they are reasonable, for the most part). There is a guy I work with here that says “the policies are dumb” but can’t give me a solid answer on what is so bad about it.

So, what is it that California does (policy-wise) that people hate so much?

  • teuast
    131·
    1 year ago

    Coal rolling was bad for the environment. So they outlawed a large amount of car tuning. This causes damage to the car culture and a good hobby for a large number of citizens.

    the “downside” you state is actually a benefit to society

    Water, being a limited resource in California, made it finable to water your lawn or wash your car in a drought, even though farming and business use 96% of total water usage. Normal people water usage isn’t going to solve the problem

    i do agree that agricultural and business uses are a bigger deal than lawns or car washing in terms of water use, and the fact that almonds are farmed in california is a goddamn travesty, to name but one example. however, lawns cause or exacerbate way more problems to a much greater extent than you probably realize, and reducing how many of them we have, ideally in favor of local ecology if not just denser land use patterns, is a much greater benefit than you’re giving it credit for. california’s zoning codes have also been improving in this regard, though they’re still… not great. point is that i do agree with you that that policy doesn’t focus where it’s really needed, but it’s also not as useless as you think.

    Gun policies that dont allow suppressors, short barrel rifles, etc, but in reality, the vast majority of gun crime and accidents are all based around handguns.

    a fair critique, but also, far fewer californians per capita die to gun violence vs. the national average. i’m sure other factors play into that, but it certainly isn’t evidence that the policy hasn’t helped.

    now, i’ll give you two examples of my own. early in governor gavin’s term, he was given a bill called “complete streets” that would have dramatically improved pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure throughout the whole state, and he vetoed it. and that sucked major ass. but then he went ahead and signed sb50, which forces all municipalities in the state to build some actual goddamn housing, and specifically dense housing near transit. and i’m a huge fan of that. san jose has really jumped on it with gusto and has actually had their average rent drop somewhat, although the bill is still relatively new and its benefits aren’t likely to really be felt for a while yet. my main criticism here is how tons of the cities here are so nimbyed out the ass that it took the state government’s intervention to do literally anything about the housing crisis.

    there is much to critique about california, but not all california critiques are created equal.