

The Not-So-Golden State of California - weaksauce
http://blog.inc.com/nolan-bushnell/2009/06/the_notsogolden_state_of_calif.html

======
quisxt
Yeah, right.

California's problem is that we keep on spending money like it's flowing in
like water, yet the flow was greatly reduced 30 years ago with the passage of
proposition 13. Instead of trying to live within our means, we voted people
into office who either wanted to spend more, xor reduce taxes and then we made
the problem much worse by passing a slew of costly initiatives without being
willing to raise the money to fund them fully. So here we are. The governor
screwed us, the state senate and legislature screwed us, but ultimately, we
screwed ourselves, and now we're going to have to pay for it.

As someone who lived most of my 38 years in this state, went to UC, and has
the joy of living in one of the most beautiful places on earth, it makes me
profoundly sad to see what we have done to ourselves.

~~~
gscott
The rich love to assail Proposition 13 but without it a normal person could
not retire in Califronia after working a lifetime in California. The other
problems are as you mentioned and are obvious to everyone not in Sacramento.

~~~
jacobolus
Helping “normal people” retire was cited as the reason to pass Proposition 13,
but the biggest beneficiaries (and the initiative was designed with this in
mind, to be sure) were corporate property owners, who because they never get
old and die, can never have their property taxes raised (well, it can increase
2% per year, generally less than inflation).

~~~
gscott
Corporations "die" and then sell the property. K-Mart had more value in
property then in it's own business. Granted some corporations are getting a
good deal, but in another article here they are getting such a bad deal they
are leaving. Corporations benefiting may just be a necessary evil.

------
anigbrowl
Although I'm a fan of Nolan Bushnell, this kind of blog posting is so lacking
in content as to be useless. So regulation is onerous in California - fair
enough. When did the burden of regulation reach a tipping point that made it
too much of a handicap? how was it in the old days? What regulations,
specifically, are the problem - taxation, employment law, consumer safety, or
what?

 _California's government is the problem. The state is business-hostile. It is
merit-hostile. It has the highest tax rates and returns less in services to
its average citizens. Massive pension abuses are not dealt with._

One wonders if California's emphasis on citizen democracy is at the root of
the problem. It's certainly left us with the best democracy that money can
buy, which turns out to be a pretty bad one.

~~~
Empact
> California's emphasis on citizen democracy

Yeah, but there are much better ways to do it. I'd recommend a substantial
decrease in the Citizen / Legislator ratio. That gives regular citizens
greater access to their legislature, while giving its members the power and
responsibility necessary for them to invest themselves in its decisions, and
make a more direct case to the constituency for the more responsible policy
decisions.

For example New Hampshire has

* 400 representatives for

* 1.3 million people, or roughly

* 3,000 constituents/legislator (illustrated: [http://www.biblebaptistchurchmoldova.com/evangelism/images/m...](http://www.biblebaptistchurchmoldova.com/evangelism/images/mpp-0016.jpg))

Meanwhile, California has only

* 80 representatives for

* 38 million people, or roughly

* 475,000 constituents/legislator (illustrated: [http://kashmirwatch.com/postnews/data/upimages/eidgah22aug2....](http://kashmirwatch.com/postnews/data/upimages/eidgah22aug2.jpg))

New Hampshire citizens have over 150x the access to their state
representatives, and those 400 legislators have 5 times the personal
experience with laws and regulation to bring to the table.

Now you may say it's crazy to suggest that California should have 12,000 state
legislators, but I disagree. The practicalities which have capped large-scale
decision-making have largely been wiped away with the invention of modern
electronic communication. And having those 12,000 means you could keep them in
their home neighborhoods, rather than call them out to Albany. This way
there's always _someone_ within a reasonable distance that you can speak to
directly.

Interestingly, with the position California is in, I'd think this idea (or a
more moderate version of it, say 2,000 legislators) might have a chance at
making it. That is, if people make a serious push for it in the new
constitution.

~~~
anigbrowl
There are some interesting ideas there. I'm not in favor of the sometimes-
suggested solution of splitting CA up into smaller states, but along these
lines, I can't argue with the observation that our US senators 'represent'
about 19 million people each, whereas a senator from Montana represents fewer
than half a million.

~~~
veqon
The problem with our legislature is three fold. 1) We have safe political
districts. The political districts are uncompetitive in the general elections.
The only worry they have in getting reelected is if they don't appeal to the
core of their party and are opposed in the primary. This leads to the most
active, the most idea logical and the more fringe elements of the party
deciding who our representatives will be. The people being elected are
unwilling to compromise and so cannot find practical solutions. 2) We have
term limits. The politicians do not have institutional memory and do not seek
long term solutions to the problems. They are looking to move up to a more
powerful position or at least they want to return home with a greater network
of connections. So they spend every dime they can find and borrow as much as
they can and are not there when the bills come due. The lobbyists do have
institutional memories and are seeking long term solutions to their problems,
not what is in the best interest of the state. 3) Proposition 13 Prop 13 was a
tax-cutting measure that took care of the problem of property taxes
skyrocketing as home values skyrocketed. This caused people to not be able to
afford their homes any longer, not because they couldn't pay the mortgage, but
because they couldn't pay the taxes . But it hit local governments especially
hard. Key budgeting authority devolved from cities and counties up to
Sacramento, where they have to compete with the state government for money.
You want your streets paved or more teachers for your third grade? Stand in
line behind the health department, or the corrections department, or Caltrans.
And then the state borrows (takes?) the money it is supposed to send back to
the cities and counties for it's own uses. California is not ungovernable --
it's just been ungoverned.

~~~
anigbrowl
An excellent post.

As we all know, there are times when it no longer makes sense to keep
maintaining legacy code which has begun to collapse under its own weight. In
that spirit, I invite HN readers to look into the Bay Area council's proposal
for a constitutional convention: <http://www.repaircalifornia.org/index.php>

Politics is an awkward subject, as evidenced by the often febrile debates here
over libertarianism, the role of government and so forth. But those of us who
are residents of California owe a lot to the state - not to be confused with
The State - and as hackers, pride ourselves on having the energy and insight
to make things work better. Rewriting our socioeconomic source code is a messy
and likely thankless task, but no less worthy of our participation for that.

------
rms
This was probably the best article on the topic.
[http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm...](http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm?STORY_ID=13649050)

Posted here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=645478>

------
hyperbovine
Paraphrasing something I heard on NPR...

California is the 8th largest economy in the world. We have the world's most
productive agricultural region, two of the world's top universities, the
largest port in the US, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, and tourism.

WHY THE HELL CAN'T WE MAKE IT WORK?

~~~
sarvesh
Because we expect too much for what we pay in taxes, add to that we also elect
some of the dumbest people into office.

------
costan
Is there any good source of data about the best place to start a company?

~~~
anigbrowl
Surely what you want is the best data about good places to start a company.

 _The real answer: it depends on your criteria. Delaware is the cheapest place
to incorporate, but nobody knows where it is. Nevada is the best place if your
business involves lots of cash and/or hookers. Silicon valley may still be the
best if you want to meet like-minded geeks. Hollywood stays in LA both for the
infrastructure and the weather. Michigan has great incentives right now if you
don't mind the cold winters...see the problem?_

~~~
mahmud
I think I like Nevada.

