What are you talking about? California is not allowed to run deficits. It can float bonds to pay for specific things, but it can’t run a general deficit the way the US government can.
Removing business property from Prop. 13 would be an excellent start. I’m a beneficiary too.
The house I live in was built in the mid-50s, and compared to the one I lived in in NJ has a tiny lot. (I have a push-mower there is so little grass. Back before it turned brown that is.) The expensive new houses have even smaller lots. It is land value, not earthquakes that account for this.
As I said, in Santa Clara there are tons of new condos/apartments. The already bad traffic has gotten worse, and when some big new ones come on line it will be even worse.
I have a Silicon Bayou poster from 1980 or so. It is easy for any region to claim it is the next Silicon X. It is a bit harder to actually do it.
We want to put our conference in places with a good tech industry. Austin is about the best. We’re doing the Dallas area soon. Not much else to choose from.
I’m calling bullshit that people actually say that. Illegal aliens are not driving up the price of real estate in CA. I’ve lived here going on 40 years now and have never head anyone say that.
Semantics. How do you suppose they got into such massive amounts of debt if they don’t run a deficit, regardless of how they did it or what they called it??? 
In CA, the usual procedure is that when you float a bond, the payments for the bond have to be accounted for in the budget somewhere (perhaps through a dedicated tax stream or perhaps out of the general budget). CA can’t just go float more bonds to cover existing bond payments.* That’s not semantics. CA has to produce a balanced budget each year.
Of course, there was a budget crisis after the 2008 crash, but pretty much every state had a budget crisis then. And there was a budget crisis after the electricity deregulation crisis. But neither of those were cause by runaway deficit spending. They were caused by specific crises.
Anyway, they’ve passed a rainy-day fund system now, which may help California’s system better withstand these sorts of crises (I’m not a fan of the way it was set up, but in theory, it should work).
*They pretty much did float bonds to cover the general budget after the electricity crisis, but that required voter approval. They can’t just do that anytime they want to.
So, I’m finding figures for CA’s debt/GDP ratio at about 18%, but I’m not sure of the reliability of the figures. Debt, here, would have to be the bonds we were talking about. 18% doesn’t strike me as particularly high and seems to be fairly close to the state average, but I’ll have to do further research to confirm these figures.
I live in KANSAS and I’ve heard people say that illegals are the reason California’s so expensive and so broke.
In fact, I think that’s a pretty popular meme on the right fringe: illegals are to blame for pretty much everything.
Well, there’s plenty of cheap housing available in the Inland Empire if anyone wants to move to CA. But, just note. It’s not really an “Empire.” But, boy, oh, boy, is it ever inland.
Then it should be easy to give a cite of people saying that illegal aliens are the cause of high real estate values in CA.
You’re describing the location about 1/4 mile from where I live. Yup, it’s a crime-ridden hellscape; makes Detroit look safe. You definitely don’t want to live here (because it pushes up my property tax).
The OP stated “driving up prices of everything,” not singling out real estate. He’s not claiming, and I’m not claiming, that anybody thinks illegals specifically affect real estate, as opposed to the general economy. The theory is that illegals cost so much in government services, in social services, in crime, etc., that the overall cost of living is increased because a percentage of everything you pay, including but not limited to real estate, goes to “those people” (for example, high property taxes to pay for all of those services for illegals). Do you want cites for people talking about high taxes, including property taxes, in CA due to illegals? Those I can provide. (See, e.g., http://www.fairus.org/news/illegal-immigration-costs-california-taxpayers-more-than-25-billion-a-year-finds-fair )
We got onto real estate as an alternative explanation for California being expensive: too many buyers chasing too few properties (due to prop. 13, zoning restrictions, lack of buildable land, etc.).
How could they possibly have been able to get this far into debt without running a deficit? I mean, we are talking billions here. If ‘CA has to produce a balanced budget each year’ then the only way they could run up that kind of debt is to have a deficit, whether they are supposed to always have a balanced budget or not, whether they call it a deficit or not. There are millions of hits on Google typing ‘California deficit spending’, so I’m not alone in this perhaps mistaken belief that a state can’t get into these levels of debt (or really any debt) by not allowing deficit spending and always having to have a balanced budget, unless those phrases mean something different than I THINK they do. I freely concede, however, that I haven’t lived in California for over 2 decades now, don’t know much about what you are saying wrt California can’t do deficit spending or the like, so maybe I’m missing some key part.
And it’s going to screw up my commute. I’m glad I’m retiring before they all come on line - the ones on Zanker have screwed things up already.
That’s really hilarious considering we have a surplus and as far as I hear, your governor has driven Kansas into deficit. But I do not doubt you that people on the right are saying it, not for a second. That Governor Moonbeam got us a surplus would make their heads explode.
Well, maybe this is semantics, then, because this is not how I’m using the phrase “deficit” typically with regards to the yearly budget. For the yearly budget, I would use the term “deficit” to mean that the government is paying out more in a year than it takes in, which CA is not allowed to do. And I think most people use the term “deficit” that way. I don’t think the way you are using “deficit” is the common one. Every state floats bonds, but a bond float isn’t running a deficit in this sense, as long as you can make the bond payments from the yearly revenue that comes in. It would be silly not to float bonds for certain things (like construction projects).
I’m just not seeing this huge debt. Not as a percentage of GDP anyway, and that’s what’s really important when we’re talking about debt. I know that people like to blow-out pension obligations to 75 years and claim that this is a proper debt calculation. And if that’s what’s going on, then meh. I’m not going to engage in that silliness. But if you can produce cites that CA is genuinely out of line on its debt, I’ll take a look. I just haven’t been able to find anything yet that doesn’t come from a right-wing site.
No. The OP says " I hear people often complain that the reason California is expensive is because ‘illegals’ and ‘free-loaders’"
California is “expensive” mainly because of real estate. If you exclude real estate, CA is not so “expensive”. We pay more for gas, but things like food and clothes, etc cost about as much as everywhere else.
The right fringe needs to make up its collective mind and get its story straight. Is it the illegals or Obama that is to blame for everything?
I did find this cite from Kaiser Family Foundation (who, as far as I know, provide reasonably good data – but I haven’t investigated this more), and it looks like CA’s state expenditures per-capita are about mid-range when compared to other states. I don’t really see that CA’s spending is way out of line.
But on the state level, undocumented immigrants pay a lot of taxes. You have to pay sales tax or gas tax or utility taxes or property taxes (directly or indirectly, if you’re renting), so even if the state is spending resources on undocumented immigrants, the immigrants are contributing to that spending. I suppose there might be an argument that undocumented immigrants evade income taxes, but if this type of thing was really making an impact on CA, I’d expect their per-capita spending or the budgetary figures to show it, and I’m just not seeing it.
Basically, I keep finding that CA is in the mid-range for all these budgetary and expenses matters. Somebody is going to have to produce evidence that undocumented immigrants are actually having a serious impact to CA’s finances.
Business properties are already exempt from Prop. 13 in the opposite direction, due to a loophole in the law big enough to drive Donald Trump’s ego through. Even when they actually sell properties, they don’t get re-assessed, if the owner has arranged the finances right.
According to the law, properties get re-assessed when they are sold. But corporate property owners, at least the big ones, found a way around that: They create wholly-owned subsidiary companies whose sole function is to own a real property, and transfer ownership of a property to that subsidiary. This itself triggers a re-assessment, of course, but the big smart companies did this way back when Prop 13 was new and their properties hadn’t appreciated much yet.
Now, when a company wants to sell a property, it doesn’t sell the property. It sells the subsidiary that owns the property. So the property itself doesn’t change owners, and doesn’t get re-assessed.
Thus, greatly many commercial properties haven’t “officially” changed ownership since 1978, or soon after, and are still taxed at 1978, or soon after, assessment rates.