4 ms·

It's a very anti-democratic move by California. They are willing to destroy local control of people in their communities to foster growth that will lead to furt

It's a very anti-democratic move by California. They are willing to destroy local control of people in their communities to foster growth that will lead to further deterioration of living standards. Wouldn't it be better to try to grow tech outside of California in places like the Dakotas and Idaho where there is plenty of land and people in need of work? The American heartland could be a place rich in opportunity if we invest there as a nation. Considering urban/rural income differentials it would ease inequality also.

favorited 9y ago
Why would you expect California to want to grow the tech industry in other states? California has a pretty vested interest in making sure that high-earning tech employees and companies continue to pay California state taxes.
- golemotron 9y ago
  It is something we could do as a nation. There is so much land and there are so many people who need jobs. Many of them can't move to the cities.
  - moultano 9y ago
    Mostly they can't move to cities because zoning laws prevent the places they would live from being built.
- Tempest1981 9y ago
  Or how about jobs in Pleasanton/Tracy, close to where all the new cheap(er) housing is being built? Instead, those homeowners now have a 60-90 minute to SF or Sunnyvale, where all the jobs are.
imbusy111 9y ago
Not a lot of people want to live in places that you mentioned. The really smart people will find a way to stay in California forcing all others to gather around them.
- golemotron 9y ago
  That sort of intellectual/economic wealth concentration is problematic for society. Wouldn't it be better to have many smaller hubs that more expansive communities can grow from?
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  How far is it from Silicon Valley to a really good trout stream? In Boise, it's a lot closer. How about hiking in a wilderness area? Skiing? Now, true, if you want high-quality Chinese food, Boise may not be your cup of tea (pun intended). But I bet there are enough tech people who like the outdoors more than the big city to make a small-ish tech hub in someplace like Boise.
  - imbusy111 9y ago
    California is great for outdoorsy stuff as well. Beach is right there, plenty of hiking areas around the Peninsula, skiing is available 4 hours away about 8 months per year and there are enough fresh water rivers.
  - MaysonL 9y ago
    Ever heard of Micron Technology? They have a bit of a presence in Boise: https://www.micron.com/about/locations/USA/Boise https://www.micron.com/about/locations/USA/Boise
  - mercutio2 9y ago
    This is an odd comment. Have you ever lived in the Bay Area? Because part of what non-tech people love about it is great hiking is almost always within half an hour's drive. The climate doesn't support skiing or trout fishing, but outdoor activities are very big here. It's a significant part of why many people stay here rather than going to NYC or Boston.
- clock_tower 9y ago
  Not many want to live in these areas yet, but there was a time when Paris was a few mud huts on an island, and Venice was a swamp. Determination, patience, and wealth are what create destinations, even if you don't have California's climate. (And Idaho's climate is pretty nice, from what I've heard of it, certainly better than the South's and the interior Midwest's.) And in the meantime, there's a great deal of unspoiled nature to enjoy -- as a sibling comment points out.
pcwalton 9y ago
It's perfectly democratic. Our elected state legislature is doing what they were elected to do. I'm sorry that you didn't like the result, but it's not undemocratic.
- golemotron 9y ago
  I meant to say it breaks the principle of subsidiarity. It's a strain that runs through governance.
coenhyde 9y ago
It's not anti-democratic. It's the opposite. California State representatives were elected into power by all voters (home owners and renters). Where as local anti-building policies in communities exist because the NIMBY's pay the taxes and local governments have an inventive to encourage higher property prices. Also I think you've forgotten we live in a free market. Tech has decided to base its industry in the Bay Area. And unfortunately the new participants in this industry have a higher purchasing power than the existing community. You can not tell people where they can and can not live or work. So if your strategy is to limit the supply of housing the only outcome possible is higher property prices with the existing residents pushed out.
yonran 9y ago
It can actually be more democratic to remove local zoning authority, if stakeholders are disenfranchised from the cities that they work in. See https://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2016/06/18/a-theory-of-zoning-and-local-decisionmaking/ https://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2016/06/18/a-th...

favorited 9y ago

Why would you expect California to want to grow the tech industry in other states? California has a pretty vested interest in making sure that high-earning tech employees and companies continue to pay California state taxes.

golemotron 9y ago
It is something we could do as a nation. There is so much land and there are so many people who need jobs. Many of them can't move to the cities.
- moultano 9y ago
  Mostly they can't move to cities because zoning laws prevent the places they would live from being built.
Tempest1981 9y ago
Or how about jobs in Pleasanton/Tracy, close to where all the new cheap(er) housing is being built? Instead, those homeowners now have a 60-90 minute to SF or Sunnyvale, where all the jobs are.

imbusy111 9y ago

Not a lot of people want to live in places that you mentioned. The really smart people will find a way to stay in California forcing all others to gather around them.

golemotron 9y ago
That sort of intellectual/economic wealth concentration is problematic for society. Wouldn't it be better to have many smaller hubs that more expansive communities can grow from?
AnimalMuppet 9y ago
How far is it from Silicon Valley to a really good trout stream? In Boise, it's a lot closer. How about hiking in a wilderness area? Skiing? Now, true, if you want high-quality Chinese food, Boise may not be your cup of tea (pun intended). But I bet there are enough tech people who like the outdoors more than the big city to make a small-ish tech hub in someplace like Boise.
- imbusy111 9y ago
  California is great for outdoorsy stuff as well. Beach is right there, plenty of hiking areas around the Peninsula, skiing is available 4 hours away about 8 months per year and there are enough fresh water rivers.
- MaysonL 9y ago
  Ever heard of Micron Technology? They have a bit of a presence in Boise: https://www.micron.com/about/locations/USA/Boise https://www.micron.com/about/locations/USA/Boise
- mercutio2 9y ago
  This is an odd comment. Have you ever lived in the Bay Area? Because part of what non-tech people love about it is great hiking is almost always within half an hour's drive. The climate doesn't support skiing or trout fishing, but outdoor activities are very big here. It's a significant part of why many people stay here rather than going to NYC or Boston.
clock_tower 9y ago
Not many want to live in these areas yet, but there was a time when Paris was a few mud huts on an island, and Venice was a swamp. Determination, patience, and wealth are what create destinations, even if you don't have California's climate. (And Idaho's climate is pretty nice, from what I've heard of it, certainly better than the South's and the interior Midwest's.) And in the meantime, there's a great deal of unspoiled nature to enjoy -- as a sibling comment points out.

pcwalton 9y ago

It's perfectly democratic. Our elected state legislature is doing what they were elected to do. I'm sorry that you didn't like the result, but it's not undemocratic.

golemotron 9y ago
I meant to say it breaks the principle of subsidiarity. It's a strain that runs through governance.

coenhyde 9y ago

It's not anti-democratic. It's the opposite. California State representatives were elected into power by all voters (home owners and renters). Where as local anti-building policies in communities exist because the NIMBY's pay the taxes and local governments have an inventive to encourage higher property prices. Also I think you've forgotten we live in a free market. Tech has decided to base its industry in the Bay Area. And unfortunately the new participants in this industry have a higher purchasing power than the existing community. You can not tell people where they can and can not live or work. So if your strategy is to limit the supply of housing the only outcome possible is higher property prices with the existing residents pushed out.

yonran 9y ago

It can actually be more democratic to remove local zoning authority, if stakeholders are disenfranchised from the cities that they work in. See https://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2016/06/18/a-theory-of-zoning-and-local-decisionmaking/ https://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2016/06/18/a-th...