4 ms·

Since the passage of Prop 46 and 47, the Central Valley has become exponentially worse. I grew up near Fresno and you never ever saw the level crime, homelessne

Since the passage of Prop 46 and 47, the Central Valley has become exponentially worse. I grew up near Fresno and you never ever saw the level crime, homelessness, and open drug use that is completely accepted now. People in the Central Valley resent that those laws were passed by liberals in SF and LA and now the Central Valley can't even address the crime situation. Similarly, I've seen tons of YouTube videos where people in Boston, SF, San Francisco say we should have open borders and allow all immigrants--but that they should settle in rural areas (i.e. republican areas) because their cities are too crowded already. It's easy to pass ideological laws when you work in a nice office park, or in your Ivory tower in Mill Valley or Nob Hill--but there are a lot of people now who work low level jobs and now have homeless tweakers living outside their house--something that was not a problem even a decade ago. California is sabotaging and self-destructing. None of the progressive laws have improved people's quality of life--they've had the opposite impact for most. But as democrats have increasingly become an elitist and PMC focused political party, they don't care that there is rising black on Asian crime, homeless people in nearly ever public space, and shoplifting and open drug use are not just status quo parts of SF. I say this all as a Bernie voter and someone who has NEVER voted republican, but I have lived all over California and have a pretty good sense of how typical SF citizens misunderstand what's really pissing people off in the Central Valley. It's not all guns and abortion--it's about what actually impacts them and their kids.

_8j50 4y ago
Don't get me wrong, I am sure those laws affected the central valley as you said but what is your solution? Perhaps the people who supported those laws should send their tax money to the central valley, would that improve things? I mean the job situation won't change so rolling back those laws just means those people move elsewhere and be other people's problems right? Also, why is your correlation of those laws with degrading conditions more accurate than a correlation of drought and recessions impacting the agriculture industry? I am asking this in sincerity not to support one view or the other.
- diogenescynic 4y ago
  I never said I had a solution, but clearly the direction we're going in is just dragging every city in California down. Before Prop 46 and 47, you didn't see rampant drug use all over the Central Valley in public spaces and parks. You didn't see theft rings running through big box stores and filling duffel bags with basic goods and then reselling it on Amazon. Yes, there were still drug users and thieves, but Prop 46 and Prop 47 opened the flood gates. These laws disproportionately affect people in lower income communities. If you live in Palo Alto, you're just virtue signaling by voting for Prop 46/47 as it won't impact you and the brunt of the burden will be on the working class who rich folks don't associate with or really care about. It's all ideological--but in an insanely narrow minded way. It's the result of democrats moving further and further away from the New Deal and labor unions and being captured by neoliberal PMC types and elitists. They'd rather pass laws about transgender rights or some niche cause than raise wages or pass universal healthcare to lift the working class up. Combine all that with no-cash bail reform and Martin vs Boise, and now you're basically legalized crime and criminals can just loiter and sleep where ever they want and even when they are arrested, they're released almost immediately and back on the street with zero consequences. Schools now have homeless camps within shouting distance where kids can see people using meth, prostitutes, mentally ill people exposing themselves to children. None of this was a problem before these laws were passed. Sure, Fresno was never a "rich" town, but the level of wanton destruction that's been heaped on it and the rest of the Central Valley because of ridiculous and frankly ignorant laws like Prop 46/47 and court precedents like Martin vs Boise, are not helping the average person's quality of life. This is why the democrats continue to lose voters--even non-white voters are leaving the party. Look at how democrat mayors allow Asians to be targeted over and over and over again by thieves (just google Little Saigon in Oakland). Where does this all end? >than a correlation of drought and recessions impacting the agriculture industry No offense, but this is just a stupid question. None of the drug users and mentally ill people you see smoking meth or shooting fentanyl were working in agriculture. Do you actually think that or what this just a rhetorical question? It's actually pretty offensive if you think ag workers are equated with homeless drug users. It's very obviously a drug and mental illness problem--not an economic one.
  - _8j50 4y ago

_8j50 4y ago

Don't get me wrong, I am sure those laws affected the central valley as you said but what is your solution? Perhaps the people who supported those laws should send their tax money to the central valley, would that improve things? I mean the job situation won't change so rolling back those laws just means those people move elsewhere and be other people's problems right? Also, why is your correlation of those laws with degrading conditions more accurate than a correlation of drought and recessions impacting the agriculture industry? I am asking this in sincerity not to support one view or the other.

diogenescynic 4y ago
I never said I had a solution, but clearly the direction we're going in is just dragging every city in California down. Before Prop 46 and 47, you didn't see rampant drug use all over the Central Valley in public spaces and parks. You didn't see theft rings running through big box stores and filling duffel bags with basic goods and then reselling it on Amazon. Yes, there were still drug users and thieves, but Prop 46 and Prop 47 opened the flood gates. These laws disproportionately affect people in lower income communities. If you live in Palo Alto, you're just virtue signaling by voting for Prop 46/47 as it won't impact you and the brunt of the burden will be on the working class who rich folks don't associate with or really care about. It's all ideological--but in an insanely narrow minded way. It's the result of democrats moving further and further away from the New Deal and labor unions and being captured by neoliberal PMC types and elitists. They'd rather pass laws about transgender rights or some niche cause than raise wages or pass universal healthcare to lift the working class up. Combine all that with no-cash bail reform and Martin vs Boise, and now you're basically legalized crime and criminals can just loiter and sleep where ever they want and even when they are arrested, they're released almost immediately and back on the street with zero consequences. Schools now have homeless camps within shouting distance where kids can see people using meth, prostitutes, mentally ill people exposing themselves to children. None of this was a problem before these laws were passed. Sure, Fresno was never a "rich" town, but the level of wanton destruction that's been heaped on it and the rest of the Central Valley because of ridiculous and frankly ignorant laws like Prop 46/47 and court precedents like Martin vs Boise, are not helping the average person's quality of life. This is why the democrats continue to lose voters--even non-white voters are leaving the party. Look at how democrat mayors allow Asians to be targeted over and over and over again by thieves (just google Little Saigon in Oakland). Where does this all end? >than a correlation of drought and recessions impacting the agriculture industry No offense, but this is just a stupid question. None of the drug users and mentally ill people you see smoking meth or shooting fentanyl were working in agriculture. Do you actually think that or what this just a rhetorical question? It's actually pretty offensive if you think ag workers are equated with homeless drug users. It's very obviously a drug and mental illness problem--not an economic one.
- _8j50 4y ago