[Class_of_75]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=10167.msg91858#msg91858 date=1404338700]
[quote author=oman link=topic=10167.msg91857#msg91857 date=1404338129]
I realize focusing on cities is different than the state as a whole, but I would think the state as whole has a pretty energy intensive lifestyle, especially compared to say, east coast metropolitan areas with decent transit. 

If Californians are leaving for areas that are trying to establish areas with better transit and more compact living, then them leaving isn't necessarily a catastrophe.  No idea if there exports are trending toward metro or far suburban areas.

That's probably true. So, let's decompose a bit. First, one of the big benefits to California living that you don't get as much in other regions of the country is the lack of a need for temperature control. If you live in, say, Palo Alto, you almost never need to turn on a heater and can probably get away without air conditioning for large parts of the year. That's not the case in, say, D.C., which is currently trying to broil its inhabitants alive.

The other big problem is that outward CA migration is also accompanied by in-state migration -- people are moving from L.A. proper to San Bernardino, say; or from S.F. and the South Bay to, say, Fremont or more in the East Bay. That's problematic in both cases for a number of reasons. It means longer commutes, which means more energy expenditure. (It also means unhappier people -- the link between unhappiness and long commutes is very well-established at this point.) And of course the outer suburbs of California are less temperate than SF and (parts of) LA, which means more reliance on air conditioning.

I don't have exact statistics on where Californians are moving to -- I believe mostly Nevada and Arizona, but I don't know for sure.
[/quote]

Washington, I almost always agree with your posts, but your first paragraph seems just a bit myopic to me.  I don't want to use words like provincial and elitist, so won't.  "If you live in, say, Palo Alto . . . ."  The vast majority of Californians can never hope to be able to live in Palo Alto.  Or on the beach in Malibu, Newport Beach, marina Del Rey, or San Francisco's Marina District, so using areas like those as examples of why California is such an attractive place to live is ridiculous.  Your argument may not impress a working couple who leave their children for 16 hours per day to commute 4 or 5 hours/day on gas among the most expensive in the continental US, pay relatively high taxes, pay relatively high energy costs to live in the 90 dregree heat, and send their children to ineffective schools where their perhaps incompetent teacher is protected by a very strong union.  Unlike some, they wouldn't have time to shop at a japanese market if one were down the street so their poorly educated kids get fat on fast food.  They do, however, get to bask in the pride of knowing that their governor and legislature will, someday, provide high-speed rail from Lancaster to Sacramento.  Who knows?  Maybe one day their grandchildren may find a way to drive to Lancaster so they can take a bullet train to Sacramento.

Things are great.  Only negative curmudgeons would ever think of leaving.
[/quote] My parents owned a Japanese market. We weren't rich - we lived in the ghetto because that's the only place they could buy a house. I think owning a Ferrari is pretty elitist, though.

[Class_of_75]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=10167.msg91858#msg91858 date=1404338700]
[quote author=oman link=topic=10167.msg91857#msg91857 date=1404338129]
I realize focusing on cities is different than the state as a whole, but I would think the state as whole has a pretty energy intensive lifestyle, especially compared to say, east coast metropolitan areas with decent transit. 

If Californians are leaving for areas that are trying to establish areas with better transit and more compact living, then them leaving isn't necessarily a catastrophe.  No idea if there exports are trending toward metro or far suburban areas.

That's probably true. So, let's decompose a bit. First, one of the big benefits to California living that you don't get as much in other regions of the country is the lack of a need for temperature control. If you live in, say, Palo Alto, you almost never need to turn on a heater and can probably get away without air conditioning for large parts of the year. That's not the case in, say, D.C., which is currently trying to broil its inhabitants alive.

The other big problem is that outward CA migration is also accompanied by in-state migration -- people are moving from L.A. proper to San Bernardino, say; or from S.F. and the South Bay to, say, Fremont or more in the East Bay. That's problematic in both cases for a number of reasons. It means longer commutes, which means more energy expenditure. (It also means unhappier people -- the link between unhappiness and long commutes is very well-established at this point.) And of course the outer suburbs of California are less temperate than SF and (parts of) LA, which means more reliance on air conditioning.

I don't have exact statistics on where Californians are moving to -- I believe mostly Nevada and Arizona, but I don't know for sure.
[/quote]

Washington, I almost always agree with your posts, but your first paragraph seems just a bit myopic to me.  I don't want to use words like provincial and elitist, so won't.  "If you live in, say, Palo Alto . . . ."  The vast majority of Californians can never hope to be able to live in Palo Alto.  Or on the beach in Malibu, Newport Beach, marina Del Rey, or San Francisco's Marina District, so using areas like those as examples of why California is such an attractive place to live is ridiculous.  Your argument may not impress a working couple who leave their children for 16 hours per day to commute 4 or 5 hours/day on gas among the most expensive in the continental US, pay relatively high taxes, pay relatively high energy costs to live in the 90 dregree heat, and send their children to ineffective schools where their perhaps incompetent teacher is protected by a very strong union.  Unlike some, they wouldn't have time to shop at a japanese market if one were down the street so their poorly educated kids get fat on fast food.  They do, however, get to bask in the pride of knowing that their governor and legislature will, someday, provide high-speed rail from Lancaster to Sacramento.  Who knows?  Maybe one day their grandchildren may find a way to drive to Lancaster so they can take a bullet train to Sacramento.

Things are great.  Only negative curmudgeons would ever think of leaving.
[/quote] My parents owned a Japanese market. We weren't rich - we lived in the ghetto because that's the only place they could buy a house. I think owning a Ferrari is pretty elitist, though.