WidebodyPTV wrote:

seb146 wrote:

[What benefits do illegals get?

Lots of them -- it's shockingly easy to get CalFresh (food stamps, now redeemable at many restaurants) and CalFresh Cash (cash that's intended for household essentials but can be cashed out and spent on anything), no-cost Medi-Cal (now including dental, vision and a host of other benefits) with no out-of-pocket payments, school lunches (breakfast in many places, too), etc.

FYI - I volunteered with Orange County, so I'm not guessing or repeating false rhetoric.

https://www.cdss.ca.gov/inforesources/c ... quirements

Non-citizens that are in the U.S. temporarily, such as students or tourists are not eligible just as undocumented individuals are not eligible.

WidebodyPTV wrote:

You start off talking about immigration being a driving factor of home prices then go on for two paragraphs about investors wanting a return on their housing. Maybe we should look at that?

I connected the dots in earlier postings -- it takes multiple rent checks for investors to turn a profit on $1M homes. Few Americans are willing to share a 3 bedroom, 1200 sq. ft. home in Inglewood, so investors turn toward immigrants. who are willing to do it as it's better conditions than where they came from. The benefits are often the biggest reason they choose to come to what's otherwise an expensive area. If we cut the benefits off, we'd see significantly fewer immigrants.

And a substantial increase in homeless among LEGAL Americans. And, again, go back and read the laws and rules regarding who is and is not eligible for assistance.

WidebodyPTV wrote:

I also find it interesting that CA has a minimum wage far above the federal level and housing prices rival those in TX and AZ and UT and ID. We have always been told that if minimum wage goes up, prices of everything , like housing, will go up. Yet, when we actually look at what is happening, the prices of everything is going up regardless of minimum wage.

You must be thinking of Fresno, Bakersfield, etc. when you assert that housing prices in CA rival those in TX, AZ, UT, ID...

Which is where people are moving to. Fresno, Bakersfield, Sacramento, Eureka. I mean, if you simply focus on Anaheim as the bellweather for all of California, you have a completely valid point. However, add in places like Fresno, Bakersfield, Redding, Yreka, Sacramento, Eureka, etc. it is not really the same.

seb146 wrote:

https://www.cdss.ca.gov/inforesources/cdss-programs/calfresh/eligibility-and-issuance-requirements

Non-citizens that are in the U.S. temporarily, such as students or tourists are not eligible just as undocumented individuals are not eligible.

No, undocumented children under 26 and adults 55 and older are eligible for full benefits; persons between 26-55 are eligible for a limited benefits, which include no-cost ER access, and full coverage of pregnancies. Ever wonder why our ERs are always full?

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/n ... ld-affect/

Oh and in practice, most local agencies will make "clerical errors" that deem undocumented adults 26-55 fully eligible.

luckyone wrote:

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

CitizenJustin wrote:

People in flyover country absolutely despise California and the people living there, so if you listen to any source with a right wing bias, the information you get about California will be wildly inaccurate.

It is a weirdly specific type of Xenophobia. I find though that that generally results from two categories.

A. People who tried, but could not hack it out here and wish to externalize their failures.

2. People who never even tried, and are just naturally envious of any success.

Either way, not the sort I would personally engage with.

That type of person exists everywhere. More often than not, they have never been to the place they so despise. I moved from a suburb of Atlanta to Chicago, and many people would ask me the typical Chicago questions asked by people who had never lived there about crime, cold, and then-President Obama. One of the more amusing anecdotes came from a neighbor who had never been more than 100 miles from where she was born--which is fine. She said "Well I just remember seeing how things were on that show in Good Times." My reply was, "well, just remember, things change. They rebuilt Atlanta after they burned it down in Gone with the Wind."

And it’s always the people who haven’t been anywhere who seem to be the most informed about the world. I’m sure people in Chicago get tired of being asked about crime. You’d think the city was a crime ravaged war zone if you rely solely on certain media for information. The truth is that violent crime has dramatically decreased across the board since the 90’s. Chicago is safer today than it was in the early 90’s. The media never mentions that spikes in crime are different from overall trends in crime which are compiled over several decades.

flyguy89 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Responding without nuance to a lack of nuance doesn’t sound like a net gain to me.

It does to me when you put both points together.

That may be your perspective, sure. But you still couldn't answer in which state capital my relatives would be better off with their employment situation..

Aaron747 wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Responding without nuance to a lack of nuance doesn’t sound like a net gain to me.

It does to me when you put both points together.

That may be your perspective, sure. But you still couldn't answer in which state capital my relatives would be better off with their employment situation..

Seemed pointless since the notion that COL varies within large states like CA and TX was never disputed.

flyguy89 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

It does to me when you put both points together.

That may be your perspective, sure. But you still couldn't answer in which state capital my relatives would be better off with their employment situation..

Seemed pointless since the notion that COL varies within large states like CA and TX was never disputed.

Aha, well that pretty much dispenses with the whole "people do get paid more on average in California, it just doesn’t amount to much" broad brush.

Aaron747 wrote:

Aha, well that pretty much dispenses with the whole "people do get paid more on average in California, it just doesn’t amount to much" broad brush.

Not really. To use your anecdote, more people are living in poverty in Sacramento than Austin.

flyguy89 wrote:

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

CA is not taking a net population loss. Domestically or otherwise.

So you think the California Department of Finance is lying?

https://calmatters.org/politics/2021/05 ... nk-exodus/.

Literally from your 'data point'...


"The state birth rate, which took a dip in 2020, has been on a gradual decline for years. "


"Some people who run with statistical scissors will try to extrapolate or hyperventilate that this is evidence of some sort of ‘Mad Max’ style ‘exodus’ from California and that is not the case,” he said.



A decline in birthrate hardly an exodus makes...

flyguy89 wrote:

Not really. Prices and speculative interest are still going to rise if supply remains constrained and unable to meet even slackened demand.

Supply is constrained because there is not much new development to be had. Inventory remains at an all time low however. Again, this would not be the case with people leaving the state.

Part of the attraction to real estate is that it does not behave the same way as other commodities where things like stability are concerned. This is literally why a good deal of wealth is stored there. The link between supply and demand is about as basic as you are wont to see in the economy. This is apparent when you look at the contractions —everywhere, not just CA— in the later part of the 2000s, this is quite visible.

N649DL wrote:

This is also true, but I found the type of Xenophobia to not be just towards people from CA. When I lived in CO there was also just as much of a hate towards people from the Tri-State Area in NY / NJ. They thought of us as mean and just as much a part of ruining their local culture. So I was cursed by both coasts being raised in Northern NJ and having moved from Los Angeles when I lived in Denver.

Absolutely. I just just seem to observe that this is more pronounced in CA's case. We are more visible than the east coast —just— but if the reverse were true, I am certain that shoe would be on the other foot too.

WidebodyPTV wrote:

No, it's not the only reason. You can assert it's the primary reason, but investors are clearly having an impact on the market. Per a Times article published last fall, investors are purchasing nearly all of the homes sold outside of families in places like Long Beach, Carsen, Commerce, etc. Supply-and-demand dictates pricing, but payroll is generally a limiting factor; none of those communities have household incomes that support $1M mortgages. The housing prices are clearly being driven up by investors scooping up these properties. As I mentioned earlier, it takes multiple rent checks to turn a profit, hence the strong push in recent years to override local laws and deed restrictions.

Investors/investment properties are certainly exacerbating the problem and something will need to be done about that sooner rather than later. But again, that would not be possible without a very strong demand.

WidebodyPTV wrote:

It's a domino effect. If it wasn't for investors pushing up housing prices in Inglewood, Long Beach, Carsen, Commerce, Santa Ana, Tustin, etc., you wouldn't have as many families using the newfound equity in their homes to flee to Redondo Beach, Laguna Niguel, etc., in turn causing further increases in the market.

I live in Redondo Beach. And I would not expect someone not from there to know this, but part of what makes Beach Cities somewhat distinctive here is that they are very insular. There are a very large number of people here who are from here. High school rivalries —among 50 year olds— are not uncommon. I am out and about in this town all the time and no one is fleeing here from anywhere.
In fact, if anything, people are using new found equity from Inglewood to stay there, as the new stadium/entertainment complex is expected to add more home value as the pandemic wears off.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

CA is not taking a net population loss. Domestically or otherwise.

So you think the California Department of Finance is lying?

https://calmatters.org/politics/2021/05 ... nk-exodus/.

Literally from your 'data point'...


"The state birth rate, which took a dip in 2020, has been on a gradual decline for years. "


"Some people who run with statistical scissors will try to extrapolate or hyperventilate that this is evidence of some sort of ‘Mad Max’ style ‘exodus’ from California and that is not the case,” he said.



A decline in birthrate hardly an exodus makes...

I never claimed anything about a "Mad Max" exodus from California. But it wasn’t I who stated "CA is not taking a net population loss."

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

Not really. Prices and speculative interest are still going to rise if supply remains constrained and unable to meet even slackened demand.

Supply is constrained because there is not much new development to be had.

Simply not the case. There is ample opportunity and desire by developers to upzone and densify.

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2021/9 ... ily-zoning

flyguy89 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Aha, well that pretty much dispenses with the whole "people do get paid more on average in California, it just doesn’t amount to much" broad brush.

Not really. To use your anecdote, more people are living in poverty in Sacramento than Austin.

We're talking about middle class people with jobs - not the under or unemployed, who more often than not lack resources to relocate anyhow.

flyguy89 wrote:

Simply not the case. There is ample opportunity and desire by developers to upzone and densify.

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2021/9 ... ily-zoning

"Ample" would be a deliberate misconstruence. "Upzoning" is not a simple matter here and virtually every attempt to densify needs to meet with strict guidelines from whichever city is applicable. But there is nowhere here where that is easy or casual.

Already addressed in a previous post. See below...

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

This. People not from here do not understand, but CA is incredibly built out. There is not space to simply plop new neighborhoods William Nilliam all over the place.

We can do small things like converting single family to multi unit lots —always a popular and desirable choice— and maybe a few other things. But by and large, there are no undeveloped areas from 710 west. Very few east of that, even.

We are built out.

WidebodyPTV wrote:

seb146 wrote:

https://www.cdss.ca.gov/inforesources/cdss-programs/calfresh/eligibility-and-issuance-requirements

Non-citizens that are in the U.S. temporarily, such as students or tourists are not eligible just as undocumented individuals are not eligible.

No, undocumented children under 26 and adults 55 and older are eligible for full benefits

I did not see any qualifiers in the statement I highlighted. Please show me. Go on. Or admit that the United States is not a Christian nation. What does that have to do with it? Oh, I am SO glad you asked! Republicans INSIST the Constitution is based on the Bible. Their version of their CHRISTIAN Bible. My copy says to take care of everyone. Regardless of immigration status. Regardless of age. Regardless of skin color. Regardless of native language. The Bible says that. Which is what Republicans want the Constitution based on. Prove me wrong.

As a "liberal" I know the Constitution is NOT based on the Bible. I am fine with that. "Liberals" are. But you and Republicans are not, for some reason. You all HATE the Constitution based on "liberal" values. Like feeding the hungry and housing the cold and healing the sick. Republicans DEMAND the American Constitution is based on some random set of values that cover only very specific people in the United States. Including those in the United States who can trace their roots to when the Southwest was transferred from Mexico to America. Republicans don't care about that part when Russians became American citizens. Just those evil Spanish speaking and evil Native speaking ones. I see this all up and down the West Coast and it irritates me. People who claim to know history and love America know nothing about either.

seb146 wrote:

WidebodyPTV wrote:

seb146 wrote:

https://www.cdss.ca.gov/inforesources/cdss-programs/calfresh/eligibility-and-issuance-requirements

Non-citizens that are in the U.S. temporarily, such as students or tourists are not eligible just as undocumented individuals are not eligible.

No, undocumented children under 26 and adults 55 and older are eligible for full benefits

I did not see any qualifiers in the statement I highlighted. Please show me. Go on. Or admit that the United States is not a Christian nation. What does that have to do with it? Oh, I am SO glad you asked! Republicans INSIST the Constitution is based on the Bible. Their version of their CHRISTIAN Bible. My copy says to take care of everyone. Regardless of immigration status. Regardless of age. Regardless of skin color. Regardless of native language. The Bible says that. Which is what Republicans want the Constitution based on. Prove me wrong.

As a "liberal" I know the Constitution is NOT based on the Bible. I am fine with that. "Liberals" are. But you and Republicans are not, for some reason. You all HATE the Constitution based on "liberal" values. Like feeding the hungry and housing the cold and healing the sick. Republicans DEMAND the American Constitution is based on some random set of values that cover only very specific people in the United States. Including those in the United States who can trace their roots to when the Southwest was transferred from Mexico to America. Republicans don't care about that part when Russians became American citizens. Just those evil Spanish speaking and evil Native speaking ones. I see this all up and down the West Coast and it irritates me. People who claim to know history and love America know nothing about either.

I have no idea what you're ranting about. I merely pointed out the fact that many immigrants cite the available benefits as the reason they choose to come to CA.

[threeid][/threeid]

Aaron747 wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Aha, well that pretty much dispenses with the whole "people do get paid more on average in California, it just doesn’t amount to much" broad brush.

Not really. To use your anecdote, more people are living in poverty in Sacramento than Austin.

We're talking about middle class people with jobs - not the under or unemployed, who more often than not lack resources to relocate anyhow.

Doesn’t matter. It’s still an overall measure of affordability, purchasing power, and economic opportunity. Good for your relatives in Sacramento, but trading anecdotes is meaningless.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

Simply not the case. There is ample opportunity and desire by developers to upzone and densify.

https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/2021/9 ... ily-zoning

"Ample" would be a deliberate misconstruence. "Upzoning" is not a simple matter here and virtually every attempt to densify needs to meet with strict guidelines from whichever city is applicable. But there is nowhere here where that is easy or casual.

Already addressed in a previous post. See below...

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

This. People not from here do not understand, but CA is incredibly built out. There is not space to simply plop new neighborhoods William Nilliam all over the place.

We can do small things like converting single family to multi unit lots —always a popular and desirable choice— and maybe a few other things. But by and large, there are no undeveloped areas from 710 west. Very few east of that, even.

We are built out.

LA alone is less than half as densely populated as NYC with almost 10x the land area. The entire state of California is barely even in the top 10 most densely populated states in the US (one of the least densely populated developed countries). You’re nowhere close to built out.

@darksnowynight = we need to meet up at some point. Redondo rules on so many levels.

flyguy89 wrote:

LA alone is less than half as densely populated as NYC with almost 10x the land area. The entire state of California is barely even in the top 10 most densely populated states in the US (one of the least densely populated developed countries). You’re nowhere close to built out.

I think what is meant is built out in a practical sense. There have been numerous coordinated growth proposals and density upzoning efforts in California municipalities the last 25 years, and most get voted down by homeowners protecting property values and/or neighborhood groups concerned about traffic and parking.

Also it's worth keeping in mind both NYC and LA are outliers among major US metropolises. NYC has Manhattan, the most dense urbanized area in the country, and LA county has five named mountain ranges, topping out at 10,000 feet. No other US metro has anything like either.

CitizenJustin wrote:

luckyone wrote:

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

It is a weirdly specific type of Xenophobia. I find though that that generally results from two categories.

A. People who tried, but could not hack it out here and wish to externalize their failures.

2. People who never even tried, and are just naturally envious of any success.

Either way, not the sort I would personally engage with.

That type of person exists everywhere. More often than not, they have never been to the place they so despise. I moved from a suburb of Atlanta to Chicago, and many people would ask me the typical Chicago questions asked by people who had never lived there about crime, cold, and then-President Obama. One of the more amusing anecdotes came from a neighbor who had never been more than 100 miles from where she was born--which is fine. She said "Well I just remember seeing how things were on that show in Good Times." My reply was, "well, just remember, things change. They rebuilt Atlanta after they burned it down in Gone with the Wind."

And it’s always the people who haven’t been anywhere who seem to be the most informed about the world. I’m sure people in Chicago get tired of being asked about crime. You’d think the city was a crime ravaged war zone if you rely solely on certain media for information. The truth is that violent crime has dramatically decreased across the board since the 90’s. Chicago is safer today than it was in the early 90’s. The media never mentions that spikes in crime are different from overall trends in crime which are compiled over several decades.

A buddy of mine from college in LA wants to try stand-up in ORD. I'm more than willing to support him especially since DL flies LAX-ORD these days. He lives in BOS, but I'm happy to help him out. My biggest exposure to the Midwest has been MSP overall.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

I live in Redondo Beach. And I would not expect someone not from there to know this, but part of what makes Beach Cities somewhat distinctive here is that they are very insular. There are a very large number of people here who are from here. High school rivalries —among 50 year olds— are not uncommon. I am out and about in this town all the time and no one is fleeing here from anywhere.
In fact, if anything, people are using new found equity from Inglewood to stay there, as the new stadium/entertainment complex is expected to add more home value as the pandemic wears off.

This is a thing almost everywhere west of the 405 and it's really fascinating. I used to spend a lot of time restaurant hopping from Manhattan Beach to Santa Monica on LAX spotting trips, and was always amazed at how the locals at non-chain eateries seemed like they were from the much smaller towns I was used to.

Aaron747 wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

LA alone is less than half as densely populated as NYC with almost 10x the land area. The entire state of California is barely even in the top 10 most densely populated states in the US (one of the least densely populated developed countries). You’re nowhere close to built out.

I think what is meant is built out in a practical sense. There have been numerous coordinated growth proposals and density upzoning efforts in California municipalities the last 25 years, and most get voted down by homeowners protecting property values and/or neighborhood groups concerned about traffic and parking.

I think that’s pretty accurate, but it’s a completely artificial problem. NIMYism isn’t unique to California, unfortunately for California though they have a lot of NIMBYism codified into law that can make development notoriously expensive and drawn out.

WidebodyPTV wrote:

seb146 wrote:

WidebodyPTV wrote:

No, undocumented children under 26 and adults 55 and older are eligible for full benefits

I did not see any qualifiers in the statement I highlighted. Please show me. Go on. Or admit that the United States is not a Christian nation. What does that have to do with it? Oh, I am SO glad you asked! Republicans INSIST the Constitution is based on the Bible. Their version of their CHRISTIAN Bible. My copy says to take care of everyone. Regardless of immigration status. Regardless of age. Regardless of skin color. Regardless of native language. The Bible says that. Which is what Republicans want the Constitution based on. Prove me wrong.

As a "liberal" I know the Constitution is NOT based on the Bible. I am fine with that. "Liberals" are. But you and Republicans are not, for some reason. You all HATE the Constitution based on "liberal" values. Like feeding the hungry and housing the cold and healing the sick. Republicans DEMAND the American Constitution is based on some random set of values that cover only very specific people in the United States. Including those in the United States who can trace their roots to when the Southwest was transferred from Mexico to America. Republicans don't care about that part when Russians became American citizens. Just those evil Spanish speaking and evil Native speaking ones. I see this all up and down the West Coast and it irritates me. People who claim to know history and love America know nothing about either.

I have no idea what you're ranting about. I merely pointed out the fact that many immigrants cite the available benefits as the reason they choose to come to CA.

So between they need proof of income and they need proper documentation, illegals are not eligible. That's all I am saying. This whole myth of "illegals get all the welfare they want" is not true in any way. I have said this time and again to people who believe it: go to the welfare office. Give them your name and tell them you want all that welfare. Don't bother giving them any information because, apparently, no one needs to. Go on and try it. See how much welfare you get.

Aaron747 wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

LA alone is less than half as densely populated as NYC with almost 10x the land area. The entire state of California is barely even in the top 10 most densely populated states in the US (one of the least densely populated developed countries). You’re nowhere close to built out.

I think what is meant is built out in a practical sense. There have been numerous coordinated growth proposals and density upzoning efforts in California municipalities the last 25 years, and most get voted down by homeowners protecting property values and/or neighborhood groups concerned about traffic and parking.

Also it's worth keeping in mind both NYC and LA are outliers among major US metropolises. NYC has Manhattan, the most dense urbanized area in the country, and LA county has five named mountain ranges, topping out at 10,000 feet. No other US metro has anything like either.

Not even DEN or SLC?

To note, when I lived in DEN, I always told people that the mountains are closer in proximity of the city of Los Angeles compared to Denver and nobody believed me. It's still true, and with less traffic than Denver.

N649DL wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

LA alone is less than half as densely populated as NYC with almost 10x the land area. The entire state of California is barely even in the top 10 most densely populated states in the US (one of the least densely populated developed countries). You’re nowhere close to built out.

I think what is meant is built out in a practical sense. There have been numerous coordinated growth proposals and density upzoning efforts in California municipalities the last 25 years, and most get voted down by homeowners protecting property values and/or neighborhood groups concerned about traffic and parking.

Also it's worth keeping in mind both NYC and LA are outliers among major US metropolises. NYC has Manhattan, the most dense urbanized area in the country, and LA county has five named mountain ranges, topping out at 10,000 feet. No other US metro has anything like either.

Not even DEN or SLC?

To note, when I lived in DEN, I always told people that the mountains are closer in proximity of the city of Los Angeles compared to Denver and nobody believed me. It's still true, and with less traffic than Denver.

Neither Denver nor SLC have their populations in a basin between said mountains and an ocean. Particularly for Denver, east is prairie for hundreds of miles.

luckyone wrote:

N649DL wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

I think what is meant is built out in a practical sense. There have been numerous coordinated growth proposals and density upzoning efforts in California municipalities the last 25 years, and most get voted down by homeowners protecting property values and/or neighborhood groups concerned about traffic and parking.

Also it's worth keeping in mind both NYC and LA are outliers among major US metropolises. NYC has Manhattan, the most dense urbanized area in the country, and LA county has five named mountain ranges, topping out at 10,000 feet. No other US metro has anything like either.

Not even DEN or SLC?

To note, when I lived in DEN, I always told people that the mountains are closer in proximity of the city of Los Angeles compared to Denver and nobody believed me. It's still true, and with less traffic than Denver.

Neither Denver nor SLC have their populations in a basin between said mountains and an ocean. Particularly for Denver, east is prairie for hundreds of miles.

I wasn't referring to the ocean factor, I was thinking more about 5x named mountain ranges in DEN and/or SLC.

N649DL wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

LA alone is less than half as densely populated as NYC with almost 10x the land area. The entire state of California is barely even in the top 10 most densely populated states in the US (one of the least densely populated developed countries). You’re nowhere close to built out.

I think what is meant is built out in a practical sense. There have been numerous coordinated growth proposals and density upzoning efforts in California municipalities the last 25 years, and most get voted down by homeowners protecting property values and/or neighborhood groups concerned about traffic and parking.

Also it's worth keeping in mind both NYC and LA are outliers among major US metropolises. NYC has Manhattan, the most dense urbanized area in the country, and LA county has five named mountain ranges, topping out at 10,000 feet. No other US metro has anything like either.

Not even DEN or SLC?

To note, when I lived in DEN, I always told people that the mountains are closer in proximity of the city of Los Angeles compared to Denver and nobody believed me. It's still true, and with less traffic than Denver.

Oh those certainly qualify I was just thinking major comparable metros - 5 million and up. DC, MIA, HOU, DFW, ATL etc.

seb146 wrote:

WidebodyPTV wrote:

seb146 wrote:

I did not see any qualifiers in the statement I highlighted. Please show me. Go on. Or admit that the United States is not a Christian nation. What does that have to do with it? Oh, I am SO glad you asked! Republicans INSIST the Constitution is based on the Bible. Their version of their CHRISTIAN Bible. My copy says to take care of everyone. Regardless of immigration status. Regardless of age. Regardless of skin color. Regardless of native language. The Bible says that. Which is what Republicans want the Constitution based on. Prove me wrong.

As a "liberal" I know the Constitution is NOT based on the Bible. I am fine with that. "Liberals" are. But you and Republicans are not, for some reason. You all HATE the Constitution based on "liberal" values. Like feeding the hungry and housing the cold and healing the sick. Republicans DEMAND the American Constitution is based on some random set of values that cover only very specific people in the United States. Including those in the United States who can trace their roots to when the Southwest was transferred from Mexico to America. Republicans don't care about that part when Russians became American citizens. Just those evil Spanish speaking and evil Native speaking ones. I see this all up and down the West Coast and it irritates me. People who claim to know history and love America know nothing about either.

I have no idea what you're ranting about. I merely pointed out the fact that many immigrants cite the available benefits as the reason they choose to come to CA.

So between they need proof of income and they need proper documentation, illegals are not eligible. That's all I am saying. This whole myth of "illegals get all the welfare they want" is not true in any way. I have said this time and again to people who believe it: go to the welfare office. Give them your name and tell them you want all that welfare. Don't bother giving them any information because, apparently, no one needs to. Go on and try it. See how much welfare you get.

Illegal immigrants typically have a lot of US citizen kids. Those kids are absolutely eligible for the whole works.

LCDFlight wrote:

seb146 wrote:

WidebodyPTV wrote:

I have no idea what you're ranting about. I merely pointed out the fact that many immigrants cite the available benefits as the reason they choose to come to CA.

So between they need proof of income and they need proper documentation, illegals are not eligible. That's all I am saying. This whole myth of "illegals get all the welfare they want" is not true in any way. I have said this time and again to people who believe it: go to the welfare office. Give them your name and tell them you want all that welfare. Don't bother giving them any information because, apparently, no one needs to. Go on and try it. See how much welfare you get.

Illegal immigrants typically have a lot of US citizen kids. Those kids are absolutely eligible for the whole works.

Food and school, fine. Feeding kids because every life is precious. The constant Republican complaint is that the parents just waltz into the welfare office and demand welfare and those parents are given thousands of dollars in cash payments every month for... ever? They lump kids in with parents. And, let's be honest: there are anchor babies from Russia and China and Kenya but no one seems to every care about that. We really should be outraged over those who come from the southern nations. Like Mexico and Guatemala and Honduras.

How much time does a five year old have to sit in a welfare office filling out forms anyway?

Immigration: Angry old white guys (plus their spouses, significant other, and even more so younger white people) are not having enough progeny to maintain the population. Beings competitive myself we need hard working immigrants and their kids if the US is to maintain its hegemony in the world, especially with regards to China - that alone could be reason to welcome immigrants.

LCDFlight wrote:

Illegal immigrants typically have a lot of US citizen kids. Those kids are absolutely eligible for the whole works.

Then your issue isn't with California policies, it's with jus soli (is that the term? I think it's the term) citizenship.

flyguy89 wrote:

LA alone is

Completely built out.

flyguy89 wrote:

than half as densely populated as NYC with almost 10x the land area.

Owing entirely to NYC's much higher average structural height and total lack of terrain obstacles. There are no areas in LA county that can be considered undeveloped. It is not possible here to build something without tearing something else down first.

flyguy89 wrote:

The entire state of California is barely even in the top 10 most densely populated states in the US (one of the least densely populated developed countries).

This is not a real point. If NJ were also full of deserts and mountains and ten times its size, it would not be in the top spot for that either.

N649DL wrote:

@darksnowynight = we need to meet up at some point. Redondo rules on so many levels.

Certainly. I can PM you about that.

Aaron747 wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

LA alone is less than half as densely populated as NYC with almost 10x the land area. The entire state of California is barely even in the top 10 most densely populated states in the US (one of the least densely populated developed countries). You’re nowhere close to built out.

I think what is meant is built out in a practical sense. There have been numerous coordinated growth proposals and density upzoning efforts in California municipalities the last 25 years, and most get voted down by homeowners protecting property values and/or neighborhood groups concerned about traffic and parking.

Also it's worth keeping in mind both NYC and LA are outliers among major US metropolises. NYC has Manhattan, the most dense urbanized area in the country, and LA county has five named mountain ranges, topping out at 10,000 feet. No other US metro has anything like either.

LA County has a population greater than a lot of whole nations. You can fit Estonia, Mongolia, and Ireland into LA County's population and still have room for a Miami or two. No doubt our population would likely be close to double that if it were possible to build on the Aneles National Forest...

Anyway, yes, traffic issues are a real concern. New residences are required to provide so many spots, off street, for a start. This naturally impedes things like placing a 5 unit in a space smaller than a quarter acre.

N649DL wrote:

A buddy of mine from college in LA wants to try stand-up in ORD. I'm more than willing to support him especially since DL flies LAX-ORD these days. He lives in BOS, but I'm happy to help him out. My biggest exposure to the Midwest has been MSP overall.

I do wonder what the stand-up scene in ORD is like. Out here, that was easier to break into than one might expect.

Aaron747 wrote:

This is a thing almost everywhere west of the 405 and it's really fascinating. I used to spend a lot of time restaurant hopping from Manhattan Beach to Santa Monica on LAX spotting trips, and was always amazed at how the locals at non-chain eateries seemed like they were from the much smaller towns I was used to.

No doubt. I have lived in Pasadena in the distant past as well. I just noticed that this was a lot more pronounced in South Bay. I do think there is something about being west of 405 & south of The Valley to this overall. SM & Venice are certainly like that, but just a lot more crowded and it does seem like there are more transplants there.
In any case, yes, people are certainly very 'local loyal' here. This is probably the largest area I have lived in with the fewest Wal Marts, Subways, etc I have ever seen. It does have a very small-town feel here, and it is not uncommon for locals to refer to RB as "Springfield" for that reason.

flyguy89 wrote:

I think that’s pretty accurate, but it’s a completely artificial problem. NIMYism isn’t unique to California, unfortunately for California though they have a lot of NIMBYism codified into law that can make development notoriously expensive and drawn out.

Why is it a problem at all?

LCDFlight wrote:

Illegal immigrants typically have a lot of US citizen kids.

Typically, huh?

seb146 wrote:

And, let's be honest: there are anchor babies from Russia and China and Kenya but no one seems to every care about that. We really should be outraged over those who come from the southern nations. Like Mexico and Guatemala and Honduras.

That is almost whataboutism. Most are from Mexico and it is ok to acknowledge that.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... ration_02/

seb146 wrote:

How much time does a five year old have to sit in a welfare office filling out forms anyway?

True. Likely not much.

The other issue there is that most undocumented immigrants do not actually want to stay in the US after they have made what they came to make. That can be months or years, but the reality is that to most, this place is not home and there is little incentive for them to want to raise their children here outside of asylum based reasons.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Immigration: Angry old white guys (plus their spouses, significant other, and even more so younger white people) are not having enough progeny to maintain the population. Beings competitive myself we need hard working immigrants and their kids if the US is to maintain its hegemony in the world, especially with regards to China - that alone could be reason to welcome immigrants.

Yep. I think the real proof of complicity there is the fact that these people want to build walls and hire agents all over the place, but no one wants to enforce things at the employment end. Most larger employers do use Everify, but that is almost voluntary, and it is plenty easy to pay cash to someone you know is not here legally.
If the outrage were real and there was not an addiction to cheap labor —labor not beholden to pesky things like OSHA & unionization— I am certain this 'problem' would have been cleared up —across party lines— decades ago.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

LA alone is

Completely built out.

Objectively no, not even close. It’s all sprawl.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

It is not possible here to build something without tearing something else down first.

And? It’s not rocket science, most other cities/countries do it all the time.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

The entire state of California is barely even in the top 10 most densely populated states in the US (one of the least densely populated developed countries).

This is not a real point. If NJ were also full of deserts and mountains and ten times its size, it would not be in the top spot for that either.

It’s the entire point until you can demonstrate that every square inch of inhabitable land in the state of California is occupied.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

I think that’s pretty accurate, but it’s a completely artificial problem. NIMYism isn’t unique to California, unfortunately for California though they have a lot of NIMBYism codified into law that can make development notoriously expensive and drawn out.

Why is it a problem at all?

Why is it a problem that development and housing supply are being artificially constrained when you’re in the midst of a housing crisis?

flyguy89 wrote:

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

I think that’s pretty accurate, but it’s a completely artificial problem. NIMYism isn’t unique to California, unfortunately for California though they have a lot of NIMBYism codified into law that can make development notoriously expensive and drawn out.

Why is it a problem at all?

Why is it a problem that development and housing supply are being artificially constrained when you’re in the midst of a housing crisis?

There is not much land available for use in Orange County or LA County. That also puts a strain on new housing. Developers have tried to make cities in the desert and failed, for the most part. Antilope Valley area is a success as is Palm Springs but around the Salton Sea and California City are failures.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

LA alone is

Completely built out.

flyguy89 wrote:

than half as densely populated as NYC with almost 10x the land area.

Owing entirely to NYC's much higher average structural height and total lack of terrain obstacles. There are no areas in LA county that can be considered undeveloped. It is not possible here to build something without tearing something else down first.

flyguy89 wrote:

The entire state of California is barely even in the top 10 most densely populated states in the US (one of the least densely populated developed countries).

This is not a real point. If NJ were also full of deserts and mountains and ten times its size, it would not be in the top spot for that either.

N649DL wrote:

@darksnowynight = we need to meet up at some point. Redondo rules on so many levels.

Certainly. I can PM you about that.

Aaron747 wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

LA alone is less than half as densely populated as NYC with almost 10x the land area. The entire state of California is barely even in the top 10 most densely populated states in the US (one of the least densely populated developed countries). You’re nowhere close to built out.

I think what is meant is built out in a practical sense. There have been numerous coordinated growth proposals and density upzoning efforts in California municipalities the last 25 years, and most get voted down by homeowners protecting property values and/or neighborhood groups concerned about traffic and parking.

Also it's worth keeping in mind both NYC and LA are outliers among major US metropolises. NYC has Manhattan, the most dense urbanized area in the country, and LA county has five named mountain ranges, topping out at 10,000 feet. No other US metro has anything like either.

LA County has a population greater than a lot of whole nations. You can fit Estonia, Mongolia, and Ireland into LA County's population and still have room for a Miami or two. No doubt our population would likely be close to double that if it were possible to build on the Aneles National Forest...

Anyway, yes, traffic issues are a real concern. New residences are required to provide so many spots, off street, for a start. This naturally impedes things like placing a 5 unit in a space smaller than a quarter acre.

N649DL wrote:

A buddy of mine from college in LA wants to try stand-up in ORD. I'm more than willing to support him especially since DL flies LAX-ORD these days. He lives in BOS, but I'm happy to help him out. My biggest exposure to the Midwest has been MSP overall.

I do wonder what the stand-up scene in ORD is like. Out here, that was easier to break into than one might expect.

Aaron747 wrote:

This is a thing almost everywhere west of the 405 and it's really fascinating. I used to spend a lot of time restaurant hopping from Manhattan Beach to Santa Monica on LAX spotting trips, and was always amazed at how the locals at non-chain eateries seemed like they were from the much smaller towns I was used to.

No doubt. I have lived in Pasadena in the distant past as well. I just noticed that this was a lot more pronounced in South Bay. I do think there is something about being west of 405 & south of The Valley to this overall. SM & Venice are certainly like that, but just a lot more crowded and it does seem like there are more transplants there.
In any case, yes, people are certainly very 'local loyal' here. This is probably the largest area I have lived in with the fewest Wal Marts, Subways, etc I have ever seen. It does have a very small-town feel here, and it is not uncommon for locals to refer to RB as "Springfield" for that reason.

flyguy89 wrote:

I think that’s pretty accurate, but it’s a completely artificial problem. NIMYism isn’t unique to California, unfortunately for California though they have a lot of NIMBYism codified into law that can make development notoriously expensive and drawn out.

Why is it a problem at all?

LCDFlight wrote:

Illegal immigrants typically have a lot of US citizen kids.

Typically, huh?

seb146 wrote:

And, let's be honest: there are anchor babies from Russia and China and Kenya but no one seems to every care about that. We really should be outraged over those who come from the southern nations. Like Mexico and Guatemala and Honduras.

That is almost whataboutism. Most are from Mexico and it is ok to acknowledge that.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... ration_02/

seb146 wrote:

How much time does a five year old have to sit in a welfare office filling out forms anyway?

True. Likely not much.

The other issue there is that most undocumented immigrants do not actually want to stay in the US after they have made what they came to make. That can be months or years, but the reality is that to most, this place is not home and there is little incentive for them to want to raise their children here outside of asylum based reasons.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Immigration: Angry old white guys (plus their spouses, significant other, and even more so younger white people) are not having enough progeny to maintain the population. Beings competitive myself we need hard working immigrants and their kids if the US is to maintain its hegemony in the world, especially with regards to China - that alone could be reason to welcome immigrants.

Yep. I think the real proof of complicity there is the fact that these people want to build walls and hire agents all over the place, but no one wants to enforce things at the employment end. Most larger employers do use Everify, but that is almost voluntary, and it is plenty easy to pay cash to someone you know is not here legally.
If the outrage were real and there was not an addiction to cheap labor —labor not beholden to pesky things like OSHA & unionization— I am certain this 'problem' would have been cleared up —across party lines— decades ago.

Very curious about the stand up scene in the ORD as well and as to why my college friend who lives in BOS is so dedicated to break into it compared to LAX. We have a mutual friend from our college who is legacy ORD and lives there, but other than that "Second City" has a big presence there along with their offices in YYZ, LAX and I think NYC. He wants to go out there to see if he can handle the weather during the heart of the winter season, so like I said, happy to support him wherever I can.

PM me! Let's keep it local and go to Jersey's or Sports Harbour on 190th lol.

seb146 wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

Why is it a problem at all?

Why is it a problem that development and housing supply are being artificially constrained when you’re in the midst of a housing crisis?

There is not much land available for use in Orange County or LA County. That also puts a strain on new housing. Developers have tried to make cities in the desert and failed, for the most part. Antilope Valley area is a success as is Palm Springs but around the Salton Sea and California City are failures.

Have you heard of in-fill development? It seems pretty clear that there isn’t undeveloped land “available for use” in LA County. Of course it’s not pre-cleared; you need to buy the land and clear it first. That does not suggest we can’t double the population density of LA county if needed. That is very possible. The fact it does not happen is the reason why rents are high.

LCDFlight wrote:

seb146 wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

Why is it a problem that development and housing supply are being artificially constrained when you’re in the midst of a housing crisis?

There is not much land available for use in Orange County or LA County. That also puts a strain on new housing. Developers have tried to make cities in the desert and failed, for the most part. Antilope Valley area is a success as is Palm Springs but around the Salton Sea and California City are failures.

Have you heard of in-fill development? It seems pretty clear that there isn’t undeveloped land “available for use” in LA County. Of course it’s not pre-cleared; you need to buy the land and clear it first. That does not suggest we can’t double the population density of LA county if needed. That is very possible. The fact it does not happen is the reason why rents are high.

Or, could it be that rents are high because that is what property owners believe the land is worth? After market crashes, rents stay the same or go up. After market surges, rents go up. After markets have been at a plateau, rents stay the same or go up.

See a pattern here?

Also, developers COULD clear land. If they wanted to. Then charge whatever rent they want. They don't. I wonder why? There is demand for housing, so that can't be it.

seb146 wrote:

Also, developers COULD clear land. If they wanted to. Then charge whatever rent they want. They don't. I wonder why? There is demand for housing, so that can't be it.

If they own it, sure. But even then the land has to be zoned for that use. And an individual development may go on hold for any number of reasons including issues with the EIS or citizens suing the planning commission for approving the development.

WidebodyPTV wrote:

Please examine more closely the mathematics of that claim. People are 'leaving' because housing is too expensive... because housing is too expensive.

What makes housing expensive?

What happens to housing markets when people leave in an exodus?

Take all the time with that you need.

Uh, you do realize that the exodus refers to domestic migration? All those middle class homes that were to be built at El Toro and the surrounding area (areas where housing was previously prohibited due to the base)… largely went to wealthy Chinese immigrants. And there’s no shortage of illegals arriving every day…

UGH you and this use of "illegals" its the second time I've come across a comment like this from you on the thread...