There seems to be a bit of denial here. From the article:
“I am frankly tired of hearing how people in the state of California are leaving,” Sen. [Hannah-Beth Jackson] said. Jackson added that when people are stuck in legendary traffic on the 405 in Los Angeles, or on the 101 in Santa Barbara County, “people aren’t leaving the state. They are going from place to place.”
State senator Jackson is a Democrat representing the area near Santa Barbara. She is a lawyer and former California government employee (as a prosector). Her official bio says:
During her time in the Legislature, Hannah-Beth has become known as an effective advocate for protecting the rights and privacy of Californians, protecting the environment, advancing legislation to reduce gun violence, supporting access to justice for all Californians, championing equality for women, advocating for commuter rail, improving access to early childhood education, and supporting veterans and veterans treatment courts, among other issues. She is the author of Senate Bill 358, the California Fair Pay Act… she helped establish Women Against Gun Violence…
Now that’s all very well and good if you’re State Senator Jackson. It certainly makes for good resume material. But have her accomplishments made it easier or harder for, say, young parents to buy houses? Have they expanded or circumscribed religious freedom? How many workers in, say, the central valley are helped by “advocating for commuter rail?” Does “protecting the rights” of Californians include protecting their rights to keep and bear arms? How about voting for tax reform, so California no longer ranks #50 of #50 for highest tax burden?
I don’t mean to pick on State senator Jackson. She seems to be an able advocate for her point of view. But she has earned a 0 rating from the Chamber of Commerce, and multiplied by the 120-or-so members of the state legislature, you can see why many Californians may choose to leave.
Or companies may choose not to start in California at all. I’m reminded of what investor Balaji S. Srinivasan said last week: “Choosing San Francisco in 2020 is like choosing Java in 2010. You can do it, you might even be able to build a great company with it, but it’s a legacy choice.”
There seems to be a bit of denial here. From the article:
State senator Jackson is a Democrat representing the area near Santa Barbara. She is a lawyer and former California government employee (as a prosector). Her official bio says:
Now that’s all very well and good if you’re State Senator Jackson. It certainly makes for good resume material. But have her accomplishments made it easier or harder for, say, young parents to buy houses? Have they expanded or circumscribed religious freedom? How many workers in, say, the central valley are helped by “advocating for commuter rail?” Does “protecting the rights” of Californians include protecting their rights to keep and bear arms? How about voting for tax reform, so California no longer ranks #50 of #50 for highest tax burden?
I don’t mean to pick on State senator Jackson. She seems to be an able advocate for her point of view. But she has earned a 0 rating from the Chamber of Commerce, and multiplied by the 120-or-so members of the state legislature, you can see why many Californians may choose to leave.
Or companies may choose not to start in California at all. I’m reminded of what investor Balaji S. Srinivasan said last week: “Choosing San Francisco in 2020 is like choosing Java in 2010. You can do it, you might even be able to build a great company with it, but it’s a legacy choice.”