The happiest cities

[schism666]

A letter to the editor of a small town newspaper?

SB90 was bipartisan legislation known as the Reagan-Moretti bill. Moretti was the Democratic leader of the state assembly. Democrats controlled the legislature then as they do today. School finance reform was required to conform with the state Supreme Court ruling known as Serrano vs Priest that mandated school finance equalization between rich and poor districts. SB90 actually raised the state sales tax and corporate income taxes. Leaders of both parties were pleased with the legislation and spending on education increased substantially under Reagan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Ronald_Reagan

wiki?

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

wiki?

Yes. Sources for the article are cited in footnotes. The text of the bill is public record and it was a major news story back when it was passed.

1. Garin Burbank, "Speaker Moretti, Governor Reagan, and the Search for Tax Reform in California, 1970-1972." Pacific Historical Review 61.2 (1992): 193-214.
2. ^ Michael W. Kirst, “Coalition Building For School Finance Reform: The Case of California.” Journal of Education Finance 4#1 (1978), pp. 29–45.
3. ^ Garin Burbank, "Speaker Moretti, Governor Reagan, and the Search for Tax Reform in California, 1970-1972." Pacific Historical Review 61.2 (1992): 193-214.
4. ^ Cannon, Governor Reagan, pp 362–367.
5. ^ Cannon, Governor Reagan, pp 368–379.

 

[schism666]

Yes. Sources for the article are cited in footnotes. The text of the bill is public record and it was a major news story back when it was passed.

1. Garin Burbank, "Speaker Moretti, Governor Reagan, and the Search for Tax Reform in California, 1970-1972." Pacific Historical Review 61.2 (1992): 193-214.
2. ^ Michael W. Kirst, “Coalition Building For School Finance Reform: The Case of California.” Journal of Education Finance 4#1 (1978), pp. 29–45.
3. ^ Garin Burbank, "Speaker Moretti, Governor Reagan, and the Search for Tax Reform in California, 1970-1972." Pacific Historical Review 61.2 (1992): 193-214.
4. ^ Cannon, Governor Reagan, pp 362–367.
5. ^ Cannon, Governor Reagan, pp 368–379.

good

 

[Dribble]

He still can't respond to the thread topic. I really am interested to hear from our Republican friends. Why do Californians view the cities they live in more favorably than Republican run States and cities. This really should be equal in term of satisfaction and happiness. After all, they choose to live there.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

He still can't respond to the thread topic. I really am interested to hear from our Republican friends. Why do Californians view the cities they live in more favorably than Republican run States and cities. This really should be equal in term of satisfaction and happiness. After all, they choose to live there.

The premise of this thread is a joke. WalletHubs article has nothing to do with Democrats and Republicans, or good governance. In fact it doesn’t even have much to do with happiness.

They didn’t actually ask anyone if they were happy. They measured happiness by applying their own subjective criteria which may or may not have a causal effect on happiness. The 30 weighted metrics they assume are most relevant include things like Covid vaccination, marijuana use by people over 12 in the past month, sports participation, and WalletHubs “most caring city” index. Nothing about taxation, property crime, affordability, homelessness, regulations and other factors that are more directly associated with governance.

It’s awesome that WalletHub thinks people in who live in places like Overland Park, Kansas and Fargo, North Dakota are way happier than people who live in Los Angeles. And how about Fremont? Happiest city in America?

Math works well for CA in the article as well. There are 26 cities representing CA, but only 16 for TX and 11 for FL.

The only meaningful way of comparing attractiveness among the 50 states is to measure demographic shifts. Which states are people leaving and which states are people moving to.

 

[Dribble]

The premise of this thread is a joke. WalletHubs article has nothing to do with Democrats and Republicans, or good governance. In fact it doesn’t even have much to do with happiness.

They didn’t actually ask anyone if they were happy. They measured happiness by applying their own subjective criteria which may or may not have a causal effect on happiness. The 30 weighted metrics they assume are most relevant include things like Covid vaccination, marijuana use by people over 12 in the past month, sports participation, and WalletHubs “most caring city” index. Nothing about taxation, property crime, affordability, homelessness, regulations and other factors that are more directly associated with governance.

It’s awesome that WalletHub thinks people in who live in places like Overland Park, Kansas and Fargo, North Dakota are way happier than people who live in Los Angeles. And how about Fremont? Happiest city in America?

Math works well for CA in the article as well. There are 26 cities representing CA, but only 16 for TX and 11 for FL.

The only meaningful way of comparing attractiveness among the 50 states is to measure demographic shifts. Which states are people leaving and which states are people moving to.

It is only a joke to you. Know why? Because the same criteria is applied to EACH CITY AND EACH STATE. So even flawed questions, result in accurate rankings. I know...stats is not your forte.

Now...you say the only meaningful way to analyze happiness is to measure demographic shifts. Which I also provided with the Big Think article. Do you not understand the graphics? Do you need me to explain them to you? So much information there. No reasons why...just flat out 100% facts. People born in California wanna stay in California. There are a couple states where the trend is flat. But only Michigan and California saw the same trend...home born citizens like it there and stay there. Which state do you think has a large proportion of happy Republicans? Let's see what the "demographic" movement says.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

It is only a joke to you. Know why? Because the same criteria is applied to EACH CITY AND EACH STATE. So even flawed questions, result in accurate rankings. I know...stats is not your forte.

Now...you say the only meaningful way to analyze happiness is to measure demographic shifts. Which I also provided with the Big Think article. Do you not understand the graphics? Do you need me to explain them to you? So much information there. No reasons why...just flat out 100% facts. People born in California wanna stay in California. There are a couple states where the trend is flat. But only Michigan and California saw the same trend...home born citizens like it there and stay there. Which state do you think has a large proportion of happy Republicans? Let's see what the "demographic" movement says.

Yes, the subjectively determined and subjectively weighted criteria were applied to each city in each state. Are people who have been “fully vaccinated” (a moving target by the way) really happier than people who haven’t gotten jabbed recently?

Are people who live in a city WalletHub has deemed “caring” really happier than people who live in cities that aren’t on their list? Are people who live in Fremont really happier than people who live in neighboring San Jose? Or Huntington Beach? Get serious.

People choose where to live for many reasons. Jobs, family, recreation, affordability, taxes, weather and more. Happiness is a function of many factors as well and it’s impossible to measure. Countless people are undiagnosed for mental illnesses such as depression. Many are wealthy and healthy, yet miserable inside. Others who are dirt poor, seriously sick, or live in blighted crime-ridden areas are extremely happy.

The way we measure where people want to live is by measuring where they actually live. I was born and raised in California. I left twice. Once for a job, and most recently for a number of reasons - family, quality of life, and taxes were criteria high in the list. I love CA’s weather, coastline, deserts, and mountains. Its natural beauty is fantastic. It’s tent cities, taxes, nonsensical regulations, congestion, dilapidated roads, and unenforced crime…not so much.

 

[Bray123]

Maybe it's related to the way that areas where taxes are raised have nice things. But places that are poverty-stricken look poverty-stricken.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Maybe it's related to the way that areas where taxes are raised have nice things. But places that are poverty-stricken look poverty-stricken.

Possibly. It would have been nice if WalletHub had thought to consider tax burden in its criteria. It’s odd that they excluded it. Given how concerned Californians are about its homeless crisis, it’s odd that was omitted as well. The state is home to 12% of US residents, and a whopping 30% of the nation’s total population.

 

[Dribble]

Yes, the subjectively determined and subjectively weighted criteria were applied to each city in each state. Are people who have been “fully vaccinated” (a moving target by the way) really happier than people who haven’t gotten jabbed recently?

Are people who live in a city WalletHub has deemed “caring” really happier than people who live in cities that aren’t on their list? Are people who live in Fremont really happier than people who live in neighboring San Jose? Or Huntington Beach? Get serious.

People choose where to live for many reasons. Jobs, family, recreation, affordability, taxes, weather and more. Happiness is a function of many factors as well and it’s impossible to measure. Countless people are undiagnosed for mental illnesses such as depression. Many are wealthy and healthy, yet miserable inside. Others who are dirt poor, seriously sick, or live in blighted crime-ridden areas are extremely happy.

The way we measure where people want to live is by measuring where they actually live. I was born and raised in California. I left twice. Once for a job, and most recently for a number of reasons - family, quality of life, and taxes were criteria high in the list. I love CA’s weather, coastline, deserts, and mountains. Its natural beauty is fantastic. It’s tent cities, taxes, nonsensical regulations, congestion, dilapidated roads, and unenforced crime…not so much.

The residents that live there think so. That is the purpose of the survey.

 

[Dribble]

Possibly. It would have been nice if WalletHub had thought to consider tax burden in its criteria. It’s odd that they excluded it. Given how concerned Californians are about its homeless crisis, it’s odd that was omitted as well. The state is home to 12% of US residents, and a whopping 30% of the nation’s total population.

And should we look at the Big Think graphic now? Why are Californians not moving away if they are "taxed so much"? Maybe...they like how those taxes are spent?

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

The residents that live there think so. That is the purpose of the survey.

Survey? I didn’t see any questions referenced in the methodology description. Did I miss that?

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

And should we look at the Big Think graphic now? Why are Californians not moving away if they are "taxed so much"? Maybe...they like how those taxes are spent?

Sorry, I’m not sure what Big Think graphic you’re referring to. Just saw the WalletHub article you posted.

 

[Lazaran]

The most salient points on Prop 13 and SB-90:

From a “republican” voter:

“Ronald Reagan was a nice guy but screwed up royally in several ways. First, it was not Proposition 13 in 1978 that began the demise of California Schools. No, it was Senate Bill 90 in 1973, signed by Reagan. How? This bill limited all school tax increases to 2 percent per year, while allowing property taxes for all other purposes to swell without limits. This began the demise of school supplies and teacher salaries while at the same time, the counties and libraries were glutted with excessive tax money.

I voted for Proposition 13 in 1978, and would do it again under the same circumstances. However, counties were sliced appropriately of glut-money, by Proposition 13, but schools were rolled right into the same level of cuts when, in terms of real money, they were already on a downhill slide.

This made Proposition 13 bite harder into schools than any other property-tax related government program, and schools continue to suffer disproportionately today. The point is, it started with Ronald Reagan and Senate Bill 90 in 1973. Add to that another fact: Ronald gave us the homeless when he cut mental health hospitals and expected the counties to pick up the obligation. They didn’t. Prior to that time, there was no homeless problem. Thanks to Reagan, it is a big problem today. Thanks, pal. I just love your admired sense of humor. Are you reading this, Gilroy’s URPS?”

Hope that ^ helps BabyBoobs.

BabyBoobs

 

[Dribble]

Sorry, I’m not sure what Big Think graphic you’re referring to. Just saw the WalletHub article you posted.

It is there. Not my fault you got caught up in idolizing a false God.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

The most salient points on Prop 13 and SB-90:

From a “republican” voter:

“Ronald Reagan was a nice guy but screwed up royally in several ways. First, it was not Proposition 13 in 1978 that began the demise of California Schools. No, it was Senate Bill 90 in 1973, signed by Reagan. How? This bill limited all school tax increases to 2 percent per year, while allowing property taxes for all other purposes to swell without limits. This began the demise of school supplies and teacher salaries while at the same time, the counties and libraries were glutted with excessive tax money.

I voted for Proposition 13 in 1978, and would do it again under the same circumstances. However, counties were sliced appropriately of glut-money, by Proposition 13, but schools were rolled right into the same level of cuts when, in terms of real money, they were already on a downhill slide.

This made Proposition 13 bite harder into schools than any other property-tax related government program, and schools continue to suffer disproportionately today. The point is, it started with Ronald Reagan and Senate Bill 90 in 1973. Add to that another fact: Ronald gave us the homeless when he cut mental health hospitals and expected the counties to pick up the obligation. They didn’t. Prior to that time, there was no homeless problem. Thanks to Reagan, it is a big problem today. Thanks, pal. I just love your admired sense of humor. Are you reading this, Gilroy’s URPS?”

Hope that ^ helps BabyBoobs.

BabyBoobs

Yesterday you attempted to make a point by posting a link to a letter to the editor of a newspaper in Gilroy, California. Now you’ve copied and pasted it. Too funny!

Questions:

• Why did Democrats who controlled the state legislature sponsor and pass SB90 in 1973?
• If SB90 is bad, why, after 16 years of Jerry Brown, 2 years of Grey Davis, 5 years of Gavin Newsom, and decades of Democratic dominance of the state legislature does it still stand?
• Did you know that CA voters can pass special property tax assessments for schools? (This might be an unfair question for you. But most of us who own property in CA pay additional taxes for schools)

If you’d like to blame Reagan’s actions as governor 50 years ago for homelessness in CA today, let’s examine that. Are you referring to bipartisan Lanterman-Petris-Short Act he signed after it passed overwhelmingly by a Democratic controlled legislature?

If so, I agree that the well-intentioned de-institutionalization movement that began in Europe, was adopted into US law under President Kennedy (who had a sister that was lobotomized in a mental hospital) has failed. It was never adequately funded by LBJ and Congressional Democrats. CA tried to address it with bipartisan legislation under Reagan and a Democratic legislature. Two Dems in the state senate sponsored it and I think only 2 members of the state assembly voted against it. But it did not work as intended.

To his credit, Governor Newsom has taken a small but important step toward acknowledging the mistakes of the past and changing course. It’s called the Cares Act. It allows compulsory institutionalization for people who can’t make rational decisions themselves. It’s weak, but probably has to be at this stage. Civil rights groups are pushing back hard but they’re wrong. Time will tell if Newsom does what’s needed to put teeth into this. I sincerely hope he does. It will cost a ton of political capital.

 

[Lazaran]

After offering BabyBoobs a view on their false god Ronald Reagan’s contribution to the decline of public education in California from one of their ilk, I will now submit a more comprehensive review of Ronald Reagan’s corrosive effect on public education as a whole, while Governor of California AND as POTUS.

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ684842.pdf

Hope that ^ helps BabyBoobs.

BabyBoobs



Side note:

BabyBoobs STILL has not addressed / acknowledged the veracity of the thread topic.

BabyBoobs

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

After offering BabyBoobs a view on their false god Ronald Reagan’s contribution to the decline of public education in California from one of their ilk, I will now submit a more comprehensive review of Ronald Reagan’s corrosive effect on public education as a whole, while Governor of California AND as POTUS.

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ684842.pdf

Hope that ^ helps BabyBoobs.

BabyBoobs



Side note:

BabyBoobs STILL has not addressed / acknowledged the veracity of the thread topic.

BabyBoobs

by all means, post another link with no original thought of your own and when that fails, copy and paste.

 

[Lazaran]

BabyBoobs

Nothing seems to help.

RWCJ “members” can’t handle the truth regardless of the source.

BabyBoobs was provided with TWO reasonable and well supported takes on why Ronald Reagan’s policies as Governor AND President led directly to the erosion of public education - one from a fellow “republican”.

BabyBoobs



Edit: STILL no answer to the OP about the super SAD! fee-fees of people in “red” states.

BabyBoobs

 

[JohnnySavage]

I can't imagine how anybody could be happy in a city. I lived in the DC burbs for 25 years and was misrabel.

I have a strict density limit of 25 people per square mile.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

“Happiest Cities”

https://twitter.com/x/status/1646922034012897285

https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2023/04/13/fremont-san-jose-are-two.html

 

[Dribble]

Boomer doesn't understand...the ranking is determined by those that live there...not haters from outside. Why didn't your town make the list?

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Boomer doesn't understand...the ranking is determined by those that live there...not haters from outside. Why didn't your town make the list?

Actually it is not determined by the people that live there. The website that generated the clickbait is called WalletHub. Their methodology did not include actually speaking to anyone that lived in any of these cities. My former town did make the list. I’m among those who have contributed to its shrinking population.