• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Question for California residents, what keeps you there?

For California residents, why not just sell your house and buy something much cheaper elseware?

  • The high prices are worth living in California.

    Votes: 10 58.8%
  • I am actually considering doing that.

    Votes: 2 11.8%
  • Other.

    Votes: 5 29.4%

  • Total voters
    17
I would like Canada if the Canadian government didn’t turn BRITISH Columbia into Chinese Columbia or India Columbia.

And if they brought back the actual flag and anthem.


OH I get it, you want us to be a racist country. Not going to happen, so you can just stay put.
 
OH I get it, you want us to be a racist country. Not going to happen, so you can just stay put.
No, I think countries should value their own over outsiders and immigration should only be permitted asking the question how it benefits those already here. Whereas Canada (and the US too it seems) seems to view their countries as the common property of all mankind and import a bunch of aliens from foreign cultures then teach them the mother culture is racist and they don’t need to assimilate. It’s clear BCs lower mainland is overpopulated. And it’s only such because of mass immigration that should never have been allowed and it’s clearly destroyed the culture.
 
No, I think countries should value their own over outsiders??

download.jpg
 
Sorry but I just can't appreciate living anywhere else now, after witnessing the insanity of what used to be considered "the heartland".
And it's not just Trump either. We left Texas in 2012.
Yes, you're correct, our home has more than doubled in value. We really could buy a house just like the one we had in Mansfield, cash and still have a fat nest egg left over.
But we'd be back in North Texas again.
The best bargain in the world doesn't mean shit if you hate the South as much as I do.
Tulsa? Sure, it's a lovely place to visit, and in fact it's even becoming rather pleasant, until tornado season hits.
I might consider Tulsa.
Minneapolis, I'd love to live there again but my wife would be a prisoner half the year.

Yeah, glad to be in Los Angeles and I don't intend to leave.

Well I can't stand most of Texas, so it would take a lot to ever get me to move there. Other than around Big Bend, the Hill Country is the only part of the state worth living in if you ask me. Most of Texas is like Western Kansas if you covered it with death and decay.

Of the Southern States, I think Tennessee is probably the nicest one in terms of scenery and cost of living, but its very red. I used to like Denver, but it's way, way too crowded now. I really like Santa Fe and Northern New Mexico in general. The southern rockies there are beautiful and not nearly as crowded as Colorado. I have always liked Minnesota, and we go up to Lake Superior just about every summer or fall - the winters though... In terms of mountain scenery, nothing beats Western Wyoming, particularly the Wind River Range. It's quite possibly the finest alpine environment on earth. I go out there for a backcountry trip every summer, but there are too few people there for me to ever want to live there.
 
First off, I know that California is beautiful with mountains, ocean, deserts, forests, a great climate, and a lot of culture. So in many ways, it is a very attractive place to live. However, given the cost of living there, specifically housing costs, I am not sure what keeps middle and upper middle class households there.

Last year, for the first time in the state's history, it lost population. I suspect it is because once people saw they could work remotely, they decided to live and work from somewhere that was much cheaper to live and work from.

For example, let's say you bought this home 15 years ago for $495k, today you can get $900k for it and pocket $500k or more in equity.

You could move to Saint Louis and buy this home for $229k, it's bigger, its in a hip neighborhood, and you would probably pocket $300k and have a house that was paid for, so what is keeping you in California? (you can find homes in similar price ranges in many cities all over the country)

I stay for two major reasons:

1) Climate...climate...climate. It's not the ocean, nor the mountains, nor the cultural or dining attractions. I'm old, I enjoy my rose garden, and nothing is more pleasant that living is a place where the fog usually cools the summers (in the morning), when its is dry heat, and the winters have no snow. For me there is not another climate in the United States, including in Southern California, that I love more...after all, my roses bloom from mid April through October or later.

2) My best friend. If he moves, I'll move but not before.
 
Last edited:
First off, I know that California is beautiful with mountains, ocean, deserts, forests, a great climate, and a lot of culture. So in many ways, it is a very attractive place to live. However, given the cost of living there, specifically housing costs, I am not sure what keeps middle and upper middle class households there.
You seem like you have answered your own question. No offense to St Louis or anything. It was a lovely city when I went there for a Vikings Rams game, but if you can afford to live near a beach and beautiful mountains where the temperature is basically perfect all year why the **** would you want to live in St. Louis?

You realize even a middle-class household in say San Fran makes close to $200k/ year right? That easily makes up for the high cost of living.

I know it's hard for some people to grasp, but a high cost of living is actually a good thing. It means that a lot of people want to live where you live.
You say that a house that was $450k could not be sold for $900k. Well, what do you think it's going to be worth in another 10 years?

Here's what you should ask yourself if you really want a good answer to this question. Anwer this question for yourself...
Why would you want to live in St. Louis? That house you bought for $150k 10 years ago could now be sold for $200k. You could take the $50k in equity to Mexico and buy a literal mansion. The cost of living is sooooo much cheaper!
So what do you think? Are you making plans to move to Mexico?
 
Yup as I recall. The humidity belt in the eastern US stretches all the way til almost the Rockies.

Nah, it pretty much quits about Central Kansas. The real humidity belt is from Georgia to around Tulsa and south to Houston. The most miserable summers are from Memphis, through Central Arkansas, South to most of Mississippi and most of Louisiana, and west to Dallas. Growing up in Arkansas, during the summers I would take a cold shower before heading out so that I wasn't drenched in sweat just walking to my vehicle. When I was a kid, we spent the summer of 1988 (a southern heatwave summer) in a trailer without any A/C in Central Arkansas. You don't know what heat and humidity is until you have done that.
 
You seem like you have answered your own question. No offense to St Louis or anything. It was a lovely city when I went there for a Vikings Rams game, but if you can afford to live near a beach and beautiful mountains where the temperature is basically perfect all year why the **** would you want to live in St. Louis?

You realize even a middle-class household in say San Fran makes close to $200k/ year right? That easily makes up for the high cost of living.

I know it's hard for some people to grasp, but a high cost of living is actually a good thing. It means that a lot of people want to live where you live.
You say that a house that was $450k could not be sold for $900k. Well, what do you think it's going to be worth in another 10 years?

Here's what you should ask yourself if you really want a good answer to this question. Anwer this question for yourself...
Why would you want to live in St. Louis? That house you bought for $150k 10 years ago could now be sold for $200k. You could take the $50k in equity to Mexico and buy a literal mansion. The cost of living is sooooo much cheaper!
So what do you think? Are you making plans to move to Mexico?
I would live in Mexico City or Puerto Vallarta in a heartbeat. 200k a year would be paycheck to paycheck if you have to pay 900k for a 2 bedroom condo.
 
Well I can't stand most of Texas, so it would take a lot to ever get me to move there. Other than around Big Bend, the Hill Country is the only part of the state worth living in if you ask me. Most of Texas is like Western Kansas if you covered it with death and decay.

Of the Southern States, I think Tennessee is probably the nicest one in terms of scenery and cost of living, but its very red. I used to like Denver, but it's way, way too crowded now. I really like Santa Fe and Northern New Mexico in general. The southern rockies there are beautiful and not nearly as crowded as Colorado. I have always liked Minnesota, and we go up to Lake Superior just about every summer or fall - the winters though... In terms of mountain scenery, nothing beats Western Wyoming, particularly the Wind River Range. It's quite possibly the finest alpine environment on earth. I go out there for a backcountry trip every summer, but there are too few people there for me to ever want to live there.

I wouldn't care if it's mostly conservative but there's no such thing anymore besides a small handful of people who can't stand being Republicans and aren't willing to become Dems.
Being "red" now translates to Trumpers, Oath Keepers, insurrectionists, Three Percenters, sovereign citizens, secessionists, Proud Boys, Klan and Nazis.
I could live around conservatives all day long and not mind it, but living around anti-government Trump loving insurrectionists would result in me winding up in prison.
 
OH I get it, you want us to be a racist country. Not going to happen, so you can just stay put.
Good grief, was he serious? Anti-Chinese sentiment is so 18th century. Sounds like someone out of "Blazing Saddles."
 
Also in Vancouver they let alien foreigners move in and replace the Anglo population. Victoria and Vancouver used to be fundamentally English cities. Now a majority of the population are not native English speakers. If half the population of Vancouver disappeared the real estate values would be rather low. But when you have a government that emphasizes multiculturalism over its own people that’s what happens.
BC is bigger than California, Oregon and Washington combined and has a population less than 5 million. Do you really want to make an issue about foreigners moving in? And what do you think the Vancouver civic government has to say about that anyway? Damn.
Multiculturalism works just fine. We don't live in a bee hive up here.
 
True. California has all that because it's huge. But slice off a part, say, where I live in the north to see why I stay here. On your map, draw a line from Mendocino to Lake Tahoe, south to Yosemite, then towards Monterey. In that area you have the aforementioned Yosemite, another national park in Point Reyes, magnificent coastlines, the glory of Lake Tahoe and the Sierra that surrounds it, the fabulous wine country, magnificent redwoods at Muir Woods and in many neighborhoods, one of the most beautiful cities in the world, (I used to be a SF tour guide in a 14 passenger van. For part of the tour I didn't have to say anything, the city spoke for itself.) Then there is the roller coaster and other rides at the boardwalk in Santa Cruz, the maverick waves for surfers, both baseball leagues represented, several Spanish missions, and Carmel/Big Sur. You can fish for huge salmon fresh from the ocean in January next to a freeway in the suburban city Walnut Creek. April saw an array of poppies and blossoms in the hills of the East Bay, with parks stretching from Richmond to San Leandro. There is no desert, and the ocean could be a bit warmer, but it's quite a place, has everything. One never feels pain from great heat or cold. Ask here for tourist tips if you plan to visit a particular place in the area.

Lots of great things about California, but where you and I won't agree is the politics, and that is what is making people leave California now. You mention SF, Santa Cruz and a few other cities, but those are full of homeless and crime is on the rise. People in SF are in a mass exodus out of there, and it is the same in Los Angeles, Santa Monica, and even some part of San Diego. All due to what I call failed liberal policies.

The downside is that so many people want to live here that it makes it hard for service workers and others to afford to, so the nearby Central Valley is filling up, and people have ghastly commutes. My city, Berkeley, is putting up dense housing, but that is not always easy to do in nearby cities. And I bought my home almost 30 years ago, when doing so was possible. Even then, it took help from a smart realtor -- and from foolish relatives -- :) to do so.

I really don't worry about "service workers" or where they live, or their commutes. If they don't want the work, they don't need to take the jobs. But what I see as a huge problem is the state demanding more low income housing and higher density housing, just to satisfy all the people coming to the state, who maybe can't afford to, or should go someplace else. Because building low income housing where the market does NOT demand it, is only bringing in low income people and their problems. And personally I don't like how those people vote, which is basically socialism.

No, nice places are nice for a reason, and high density low income housing is not a way to make any place nice. And one reason why many are leaving California. I know of a friend who lives in Los Angeles in a very nice neighborhood, who's neighbor just converted his 4 car garage into a rental, in addition to building another unit in the backyard---all now legal to do there. But then all of those cars now have to park on the street, and suddenly that nice neighborhood isn't so nice anymore. Yes, high property values, but too many people, especially too many renters.

I live in a gated community where all of the lots are very large. We only have single family homes, many large, but no rental units or garage conversions. The state (Sacramento) still says they are legal to build and HOAs can't stop them. But we are lucky because we live in a high fire area, so there are bans on further housing structures here due to fire hazard, and also emergency egress--- so we are lucky.

But the OP is correct in some regard, and that is that policy in California is what is driving many people out of the state. At some point there is a tipping point, and for someone say who lives in 5 million dollar home in Santa Monica or Pacific Palisades, but there are rows of campers and trailers up and down their block with scores of people living in them, many of them drug addicts. Then why would you stay there? How is your 5 million dollar home a block from the ocean good living with squatters and dope heads right outside your driveway?

You are going to hate living in Berkeley within a few years I guarantee you. Your city is looking to ban all current single family zoned neighborhoods. After that happens you will see a lot of people leave, and then a lot of neighborhoods turned into quadplex housing or even more density. And due to new rules in the state, many developments MUST have at least 15% low income units. Well, there goes the neighborhood as they say.
 
Nah, it pretty much quits about Central Kansas. The real humidity belt is from Georgia to around Tulsa and south to Houston. The most miserable summers are from Memphis, through Central Arkansas, South to most of Mississippi and most of Louisiana, and west to Dallas. Growing up in Arkansas, during the summers I would take a cold shower before heading out so that I wasn't drenched in sweat just walking to my vehicle. When I was a kid, we spent the summer of 1988 (a southern heatwave summer) in a trailer without any A/C in Central Arkansas. You don't know what heat and humidity is until you have done that.
Fair enough. But I remember as a kid in Brooklyn w/o AC, lying in bed in the nights humidity. Blink once and you are covered in sweat.
No, I think countries should value their own over outsiders and immigration should only be permitted asking the question how it benefits those already here. Whereas Canada (and the US too it seems) seems to view their countries as the common property of all mankind and import a bunch of aliens from foreign cultures then teach them the mother culture is racist and they don’t need to assimilate. It’s clear BCs lower mainland is overpopulated. And it’s only such because of mass immigration that should never have been allowed and it’s clearly destroyed the culture.
How about --to quote "Blazing Saddles" -- if we take "the niggers and the chinks, but don't take the Irish"? Would that make you feel better?
 
BC is bigger than California, Oregon and Washington combined and has a population less than 5 million. Do you really want to make an issue about foreigners moving in? And what do you think the Vancouver civic government has to say about that anyway? Damn.
Multiculturalism works just fine. We don't live in a bee hive up here.
Southern Vancouver island and The Lower Mainland however are very much unaffordable for anyone making less then six figures. Maybe you can tell me how much you have benefited from the oligarchy of Hong Kong buying crash pads in Vancouver because they don’t trust their own government, but it seems like they get a better deal then you do off of this.

I think now that Vancouver is a majority non Anglo city they see nothing wrong with this. Much like London’s mayor is a Muslim who thinks Islamic terrorism is just a part of living in a city and has no interest in curbing knife crime.
 
Lots of great things about California, but where you and I won't agree is the politics, and that is what is making people leave California now. You mention SF, Santa Cruz and a few other cities, but those are full of homeless and crime is on the rise. People in SF are in a mass exodus out of there, and it is the same in Los Angeles, Santa Monica, and even some part of San Diego. All due to what I call failed liberal policies.
++ Um, One of the reasons housing prices are so high is that more people want to live in SF. Homeless are everywhere, perhaps more in warmer places, naturally.
I really don't worry about "service workers" or where they live, or their commutes. If they don't want the work, they don't need to take the jobs. But what I see as a huge problem is the state demanding more low income housing and higher density housing, just to satisfy all the people coming to the state, who maybe can't afford to, or should go someplace else. Because building low income housing where the market does NOT demand it, is only bringing in low income people and their problems. And personally I don't like how those people vote, which is basically socialism.
++ Rich people need services. The higher density housing is a favor to the rich, but you could ask them to vacuum their own floors, I suppose. You can live in your ranch style house if you like, get a huge lawn so you can't hear the occasional pedestrian walking by. Look around. Great cities of the world have dense housing near public transportation, but I suppose by your comments you think public transportation shouldn't exist either.
No, nice places are nice for a reason, and high density low income housing is not a way to make any place nice. And one reason why many are leaving California. I know of a friend who lives in Los Angeles in a very nice neighborhood, who's neighbor just converted his 4 car garage into a rental, in addition to building another unit in the backyard---all now legal to do there. But then all of those cars now have to park on the street, and suddenly that nice neighborhood isn't so nice anymore. Yes, high property values, but too many people, especially too many renters.
++ So change the zoning laws. Can't do what you describe in my neighborhood, but if I could walk to public transportation I'd have no beef with a six story building nearby.
I live in a gated community where all of the lots are very large. We only have single family homes, many large, but no rental units or garage conversions. The state (Sacramento) still says they are legal to build and HOAs can't stop them. But we are lucky because we live in a high fire area, so there are bans on further housing structures here due to fire hazard, and also emergency egress--- so we are lucky.
++ Congratulation on your castle. I live in the real world.
But the OP is correct in some regard, and that is that policy in California is what is driving many people out of the state. At some point there is a tipping point, and for someone say who lives in 5 million dollar home in Santa Monica or Pacific Palisades, but there are rows of campers and trailers up and down their block with scores of people living in them, many of them drug addicts. Then why would you stay there? How is your 5 million dollar home a block from the ocean good living with squatters and dope heads right outside your driveway?
++ Obviously you need to lead the BLF, the Billionaires Liberation Front, to address these injustices.
You are going to hate living in Berkeley within a few years I guarantee you. Your city is looking to ban all current single family zoned neighborhoods. After that happens you will see a lot of people leave, and then a lot of neighborhoods turned into quadplex housing or even more density. And due to new rules in the state, many developments MUST have at least 15% low income units. Well, there goes the neighborhood as they say.
++ I know. Trump warned suburban housewives about those dark people coming to rape them and do who knows what else if dense housing went up. Yet strangely the housewives helped get rid of Donald last November. I have no problem with Berkeley's rules. My mom, hungry during the depression, raised me right. Would lock her car unless there was food inside, as if people wanted to steal food, that was ok by her. The fool. You, however are in the running for the Marie Antoinette "Let Them Eat Cake" award. Didn't turn out well for Marie. My mom lived longer than she did. Read " A Tale of Two Cities." Try tossing a coin or two towards the peasants as your carriage rumbles past.
 
Neither my wife nor I have seriously contemplated moving. I love this state. We live in one of the "cheapest" parts of the most beautiful if expensive states. Both of our extended families live here. Our mortgage is quite affordable. I have a good career, as does my wife, and we are able to enjoy the amenities of the state rather easily. There is no other state the two of us would enjoy living in more, with the possible exception of Pennsylvania. I would want the state to spend its money more efficiently and that taxes be lowered, but thus far we are able to bear them.
 
++ I know. Trump warned suburban housewives about those dark people coming to rape them and do who knows what else if dense housing went up. Yet strangely the housewives helped get rid of Donald last November. I have no problem with Berkeley's rules.

Don't fault me for being honest. I like living in a suburb with single family homes. That is the American dream I wanted for my family as well. If wanted to live in a dense place full of poor people and problems, I would have moved to NYC or Chicago.

Berkeley's "rules" will prove unsustainable, even for poor people. Like banning natural gas in new housing or in new businesses. All that will mean is higher costs for poorer people. And how does a restaurant compete on price if it can only use the VERY EXPENSIVE electricity there is in a state like California? Why hurt working poor people that way?


My mom, hungry during the depression, raised me right. Would lock her car unless there was food inside, as if people wanted to steal food, that was ok by her. The fool. You, however are in the running for the Marie Antoinette "Let Them Eat Cake" award. Didn't turn out well for Marie. My mom lived longer than she did. Read " A Tale of Two Cities." Try tossing a coin or two towards the peasants as your carriage rumbles past.

I have nothing against poor people, I wish them the best of luck. I just don't believe I need to subsidize them, especially if it means them moving into my neighborhood based off of some socialist redistribution scheme where they can live where I do at one one hundredth of the price. Personally I would love to live on the Newport Peninsula in a 20 million dollar home but I can't afford that. So, where is MY lower income house in Newport Beach I wonder? See my point?

Destroying the suburbs is just a liberal scheme to destroy all voting power in Republican distructs by dilluting those votes with low income renters who should not be there. Not that they aren't allowed to be there, but because they need to pay the the market value which would afford them to be there.
 
St. Louis is too far from salt water.
Lived in Monterey for 3 years. Was nice to go tot he beach but the water was freaking cold. Not really something you jump in. Also it got keep pretty quick and some beaches where downright dangerous. Hwy 1 is a beautiful drive though and the weather being moderate year around was nice. Moved to San Antonio after Monterey and thought I'd die of heat stroke.
 
Okay, let's say someone saved money their whole life long by living in the sticks. They haven't seen a civilized human being in years or decades. But they have a few thousand saved up. Now what? Now they leave the inbred enclave and venture out into the real world? Not likely. They double-wide that trailer, put up confederate drapes and collect a pension that doesn't support the life they always dreamed of.

It's good some people wanna live nowhere. It means I can afford to live somewhere.
 
Don't fault me for being honest. I like living in a suburb with single family homes. That is the American dream I wanted for my family as well. If wanted to live in a dense place full of poor people and problems, I would have moved to NYC or Chicago.

Berkeley's "rules" will prove unsustainable, even for poor people. Like banning natural gas in new housing or in new businesses. All that will mean is higher costs for poorer people. And how does a restaurant compete on price if it can only use the VERY EXPENSIVE electricity there is in a state like California? Why hurt working poor people that way?




I have nothing against poor people, I wish them the best of luck. I just don't believe I need to subsidize them, especially if it means them moving into my neighborhood based off of some socialist redistribution scheme where they can live where I do at one one hundredth of the price. Personally I would love to live on the Newport Peninsula in a 20 million dollar home but I can't afford that. So, where is MY lower income house in Newport Beach I wonder? See my point?

Destroying the suburbs is just a liberal scheme to destroy all voting power in Republican distructs by dilluting those votes with low income renters who should not be there. Not that they aren't allowed to be there, but because they need to pay the the market value which would afford them to be there.
We live in a society, from socius in Latin, meaning ally. All the developed world decided generations ago that "no man is an island," as John Donne said. We created systems to file the rough edges off of capitalism. You can seal yourself off from the world, but the rest of us will continue helping one another. Conservatives can point out the flaws in what we lefties advocate, as as such they are useful, even essential. Thus your comment on Berkeley's gas prohibition might make sense, as on the other hand does cutting fossil fuel use. I hate electric stoves, for example, but could live with them if necessary to help save the planet.

Your phrase "low income renters who should not be there" gains you another Marie Antoinette award, with oak leaf clusters. Precious. Your comments remind me of those of Commies I ran into in the 1960s-70s, so absolutely convinced of the inerrancy of Marxism-Leninism, only you take on different tack, that of fascism. Of course these unworthy lower forms of life shouldn't be in your presence. They are not worthy. Dream on behind your castle walls. But Francisco Franco is dead.
 
I did a thread asking why California is criticized much more than Texas, a state at war against medically uninsured and against women.

Don’t Retire In San Francisco​


If you want to spend your golden years in the shadow of the Golden Gate Bridge, be prepared to pay, well, golden prices. The median list price for a home is a mind-boggling $1.25 million, and paying out that small fortune will only secure the privilege of paying another fortune for expenses as the average senior spends over $150,000 a year.

Instead, Choose Sacramento, California​


California’s state capital is just inland of San Francisco and offers a cost of living that’s much more in line with what most people can sustain in their retirement. Sacramento’s median list price of $312,000 is less than a quarter of San Francisco’s, and you’ll then be able to keep saving in a city where the average senior spends $63,413.76. All this comes with a crime rate that’s close to half that of San Francisco and a restaurant scene that helped the city win the title of America’s Farm-to-Fork Capital.


There are reasons for this growth... but not if you're uninsured and can't afford a silver ACA market place plan

Monthly average daily high and low temperatures for major Georgia cities
CityJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec
Athens51/11
33/1
56/13
35/2
65/18
42/6
73/23
49/9
80/27
58/14
87/31
65/18
90/32
69/21
88/31
68/20
82/28
63/17
73/23
51/11
63/17
42/6
54/12
35/2
Atlanta52/11
34/1
57/14
36/2
65/18
44/7
73/23
50/10
80/27
60/16
86/30
67/19
89/32
71/22
88/31
70/21
82/28
64/18
73/23
53/12
63/17
44/7
55/13
36/2


Average humidity :
DailyPlaceMorningAfternoon
70Athens8552
68Atlanta8252

Census year
19805,463,10519.0%
19906,478,21618.6%
20008,186,45326.4%
20109,687,65318.3%
202010,711,90810.6%
 
Okay, let's say someone saved money their whole life long by living in the sticks. They haven't seen a civilized human being in years or decades. But they have a few thousand saved up. Now what? Now they leave the inbred enclave and venture out into the real world? Not likely. They double-wide that trailer, put up confederate drapes and collect a pension that doesn't support the life they always dreamed of.

It's good some people wanna live nowhere. It means I can afford to live somewhere.
What a vile and disgusting statement. This is bigotry defined.
 
Back
Top Bottom