Why I Would Not Live in California, Parts 284-286

I’ve actually had good times when I’ve been in California. I know a lot of people who live out there. There are lots of opportunities for science and technology. It’s five hours closer to Australia than my current abode. It would be a lovely place to live … if it weren’t run by a bunch of totalitarian dunces.

Today, we find ourselves amidst a trifecta of good-old fashioned California What the Fuck:

A handful of local officials in California who say the housing bust is a public blight on their cities may invoke their eminent-domain powers to restructure mortgages as a way to help some borrowers who owe more than their homes are worth. …

… instead of tearing down property, California’s San Bernardino County and two of its largest cities, Ontario and Fontana, want to put eminent domain to a highly unorthodox use to keep people in their homes.

The municipalities, about 45 minutes east of Los Angeles, would acquire underwater mortgages from investors and cut the loan principal to match the current property value. Then, they would resell the reduced mortgages to new investors.

Bainbridge has the dirty details. Essentially, the cities would seize mortgages from companies, cut the principle to the current value, then let a well-connected venture capital firm sell a new mortgage to the homeowners for a $25,000 profit. If that sounds like moneyed interests and government ganging up to rob banks, that’s because that’s what it is.

Bainbridge points out why this is so bad for Californians (I mean, apart from the robbery, corruption, violation of basic contract law, etc.):

There will dountless be costs to California tax payers. There will inevitably be litigation (even though Messrs Williams, Gluckstern, and Altman reportedly are deliberately targeting the weakest banks with the shallowest pockets for legal fights). Banks will be less willing to lend to Californians, which will drive down property values. As such, this is a wealth transfer from people like yours truly who were fiscally prudent, took on only as biug a mortgage as we could afford, and didn’t run up huge lines of credit to people who were fiscally imprudent, who took on jumbo mortgages to buy far bigger houses than they needed, who ran up huge lines of credit to finance spending, and stupidly thought the housing bubble would last forever. Now that the music’s stopped, they’re going to get relief–with a big chunk being siphoned off for Messrs Williams, Gluckstern, and Altman–at our expense.

This is pure robbery, enabled by a greedy government.

But, wait there’s more. The California legislature just voted for the initial funding of the $68 billion rail line from Los Angeles to California. I just want you to take a moment and think about that. $68 billion. For a train. A train that no one will ride because it will be cheaper to fly between the two cities. Gillespie talks about how this passed over fierce opposition in the electorate.

Electorate, what electorate? Obama and Pelosi are the ones who matter.

Or rather, Obama and Pelosi are the ones who matter when you know you don’t have the courage to take on your public unions in Sacramento and are planning to go hat-in-hand to the federal government for a bailout when your state’s economy crashes into a grove of fig trees at 200 miles per hour. Prediction: Appeasing the great and powerful O will pay off with federal dollars when weak-willed legislators prove utterly unable to defuse the state’s pension bomb. Also, if Obama wins reelection, perhaps he’ll ride in on his unicorn and save California from the education cuts that are almost certainly likely to happen now that Brown’s tax initiative is likely doomed.

Yes, that will be us, the non-Californians, making sure the state can build this gigantic white elephant of a public work. According to their own estimates, the rail will pay for itself … sometime in the late 22nd century.

So that’s the economy. What about the law?

Parents who transport a youngster without a car seat and lose the child in a fatal traffic accident may have their surviving children removed by social welfare authorities, the California Supreme Court decided unanimously Thursday.

The state high court ruled in favor of Los Angeles County social workers who placed two young boys in foster care after their 18-month-old sister, held on the lap of an aunt, was killed when a driver ran a stop sign and plowed into the car their father was driving.

The ruling permits counties to remove children in such cases even if the child’s death was not caused by criminal negligence or abuse. Social welfare agencies also are not required to show that the fatal conduct posed a risk to the surviving children, the court said.

We all know that the best way to deal with an unimaginable tragedy is to seize someone’s kids.

Now, to be fair, this was not exactly an ideal family. There were 20 people living together and there was evidence that the children were neglected. However, as we have learned about a million times, once you establish a precedent, it applies to everyone. All law enforcement, anti-terror and bureaucratic abuses are justified by the worst case scenarios and then applied to scenarios that we didn’t ever imagine they’d apply to.

At some point, California is just going to implode — fiscally, legally, culturally and morally. The only thing we can do is take in the good people as they flee the chaos.

Comments are closed.

  1. Nexus

    The march of statism continues, and thanks to SCOTUS and their infamous Kelo v City of New London decision, the first part of your trifecta will likely survive legal challenges.

    Thumb up 6

  2. georgebalella

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 1

  3. JimK

    Jesus H. Christ this has to be a troll. No one is that 100% of a stereotype. NO ONE.

    How much longer do we let the performance art go on? Is he still amusing? Do we give a fuck one way or the other?

    Thumb up 13

  4. Seattle Outcast

    How much longer do we let the performance art go on? Is he still amusing? Do we give a fuck one way or the other?

    I don’t think it was EVER amusing. CM at least has some redeeming qualities when he isn’t being a lecturing dick of a troll, but moogoo is just a sock puppet.

    Thumb up 5

  5. Seattle Outcast

    According to their own estimates, the rail will pay for itself … sometime in the late 22nd century

    I find it hard to believe that anybody actually has faith that this will be operating 175 years from now. And by “pay for itself”, do they mean the initial investment only, or the maintenance and upgrades that will go along with it. Not to mention being forced to rebuild the thing after major earthquakes.

    It’s a boondogle and a payoff, nothing more.

    Thumb up 5

  6. richtaylor365

    Hal, don’t feel sorry for us Californians, we (meaning the lunatic left) made our own bed, now we gotta sleep in it. It is predictable as the nose on your face, give democrats power and they will bankrupt themselves everytime. It is interesting that since Moonbeam got in office, the deficit has risen 70 percent, typical. States like California, Illinios, NY, they are doomed, liberals couldn’t balance a checkbook if they turned out to be Steve Jobs only heir. this is what happens when you sell your soul to the unions and every special interest group with “green” in it’s name.

    But when our state does go bankrupt, and it will, you guys, in the form of your federal income taxes that you pay, will bale us out. Just think of us as a big GM.

    Thumb up 9

  7. Mississippi Yankee

    There was never a question as to the the High-speed rail line being approved. And it had to be approved THIS year or the matching federal funds would have been lost.

    A lot of wealthy and connected people bought or owned land precisely in the path of this ‘boondoggle express’ with the sole purpose selling it to the State. Without the federal funding California had no way to pay off these powerful investors.

    Politics, right down to it’s ugliest core.

    Thumb up 6

  8. InsipiD

    attacking womens access to health care


    Is he still amusing?

    Never was. I’m actually thankful for the downrating system as it means that his dreck is often invisible by the time I’m home from work.

    What would Lee do?

    He’d have tried to run him off with personal insults (probably without anything specific), and then George would’ve found himself looking at a diseased asshole whenever he tried to visit.

    Has it gotten to that point yet?

    Thumb up 5

  9. hist_ed

    Have you seen Victor Davis Hanson’s musings on Rural California? He documents a culture of lawlessness brought on by massive illegal immigration.
    Here is his latest: http://tinyurl.com/7a2mtde

    Check his author archive on NRO for many more.

    Thumb up 0

  10. hist_ed

    How much longer do we let the performance art go on?

    I vote for one more week, just to see what happens. You could let him know that the hammer drops on a particular day and see how he reacts as the day approaches (reserving the right to hasten the day of judgement if he is particularly awful)

    Is he still amusing?

    Never was

    Do we give a fuck one way or the other?


    Thumb up 3

  11. georgebalella

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 1

  12. Poosh

    Same Lord Keynes who kept having to rewrite everything he claimed and admitted it didn’t matter that he was wrong as he’d just bring out a new book in the next few years anyway.

    Same Keynes who believed that one day we’d all be ruled by a small group of elites like himself.

    Thumb up 2

  13. hist_ed

    And yet in any given year as much as 50% of ALL venture capital dollars invested in America go to California

    I point out the fact that 50% of VC goes to California

    Can you please explain what the phrase “as much as 50%” means?

    Can you please provide a source to back up these numbers and the dates the data refer to?

    Thumb up 4

  14. richtaylor365

    George, you commented that lee never resonded to you, why do you think that is? Ya think he, like most of us, don’t suffer fools easily? you mentioned that you thought he respected you, you have got to be kidding. He, like most of us here, respect different points of view, well thought out and articulately presented, again, you fail big time in this area.

    face it, people here laugh at you, not because you are a liberal, but the fact you are a bad liberal who can’t present a cogent argument if your life depended on it. Nothing you spout is compelling, astute, or even sensible. You are worst then a cliche, even kos kids can cut and paste stuff that they read so that they can appear informed. but you, I think that real liberals, like the stuff I am used to here in the Bay Area, they would just tell you to shut up because you are making them look bad.

    your views on economics are rudimentary (rudimentary bad), and the fact that vc money flows into California, what correlation do you make from this? The simple fact that we have particularly good schools that breed environments were science and tech can flourish, so what, that has nothing to do with how the state is run. Have you looked at the stats that document how many science and tech companies are fleeing the state and going to those more business friendly?

    I got many liberal friends, they could argue circles around you. Maybe when you grow up you will get better at it, but for now you are nothing but a waste of bandwidth, sorry.

    Thumb up 10

  15. georgebalella

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  16. georgebalella

    Can you please explain what the phrase “as much as 50%” means?


    Ok Hist_Ed that phrase might mean one half of something ( as much as), or in numeric form might look like this ~1/2…. or in decimal </= 0.50000. It could be meant to suggest a majority or something close to it…. the greater part of the whole, a number large than half the total, it might be interpreted to mean not the minority, or not less than half…. or it could mean break the fuck out the google and look the shit up yourself before you make a claim about a very important fact that most of you apparently had no idea of. I hope this was helpful.

    Thumb up 1

  17. Section8

    And if it did I’d admit when I was in the wrong.

    Can you still explain how Haiti and Somalia are libertarian countries? I had responded to some of your questions and am fine in engaging further in return that you’d state how they were libertarian governments. Still waiting for an answer on that. I figure once I figure out where your logic is behind that notion, then there is a starting place to work with.

    Thumb up 4

  18. hist_ed

    You see, I was wondering about your use of that phrase. Was it a quote lifted from somewhere or did it come from your own brain. What I would like you to explain is what is the difference between “as much as 50%” and “50%” and why you chose the former over the latter.

    Sometimes “as much as” means “about that same”, however, it also sometimes is used to mean “this much and/or less”. I was wondering what you we thinking there.

    Thanks for the stats for 2012. What about for a few other years? Just curious. I know I could “break the fuck out the google” (sounds like I am being either very mean or very affectionate to Google there(( how do you break the fuck-hit a couple in the midst of copulating?)) ), but since you made the assertion, I think it is incumbent upon you to back it up with data.

    By the way, wanna answer my little question on the Bush the Keynsian thread?

    Thumb up 2

  19. Poosh

    Dear Mad George, I have to say I tried my best to google your 50% claim and could not find any information in it.

    From your report::

    The bulk of the money went to Silicon Valley firms

    What I said prior to this:

    should imagine many people want to take risks in Silicon Valley and the tech industry in California, the least regulated industry out there.

    How this affects you:


    Thumb up 2

  20. georgebalella


    The fact that I included Antarctica should have suggested I was some what tongue in cheek. But I am not sure that to some degree they are not the closet thing we have to a libertarian form of government. They are just minimalist of basically have no central government. In fact some of the poorest countries have the lowest tax rates. Do you have an example of a libertarian government that exist today or that ever existed? Do you have a good explanation as to why libertarian governments are NOT flourishing if they are so successful?

    Thumb up 0

  21. Poosh

    georgeballa basically realised he didn’t know what he was talking about, and backtracked. Given most people here, I believe, are conservatives not libertarians, I don’t see why we’re meant to be advocating an actual libertarian state. At any rate, why is it that georgebella keeps engaging in the strange, strange “if no one has tried it before, then that’s because it can never work” fallacy, that baffles the mind.

    Can you imagine if people actually used georgebella’s amazing critical thinking when working out if they should try democracy?

    Thumb up 4

  22. Poosh

    Here’s a good reason why heavy libertarianism, so to speak, is never tried: because it moves power from government down to people and limits the ability of a government to exert authority. It limits the use of politicians and limits the ability of high-and-might leftist academics to control what people think. It destroys the possibility of elites and levels the playing field to the point that power, when found, is fleeting. This does not serve the purposes of people who wish to rule or dominate.

    Thumb up 5

  23. Section8

    Do you have a good explanation as to why libertarian governments are NOT flourishing if they are so successful?

    Fair enough question. I do not see a lot of libertarian governments flourishing, but I do see dictatorships and authoritarian regimes all over the place. What is better doesn’t mean there is more. In fact, I do believe that more libertarian type governments have such difficulty because there is no appeal to envy, fear, or promises of goodies, just your right to excel, but not the faulty guarantee of such. In the end it’s hard to compete with those who appeal to emotion.

    Libertarian governments as I see it are similar to the Constitutional Republic we were founded on, with a written rule of law that restricts the reach of the government (not the people), and in our case more of the power broken up locally to the states. Nothing wrong with having a strong, but limited scope central government. In fact that is part of the Constitution, but it was also defined by limits, limits that have way been way over extended with each passing administration.

    We do need government I will never argue that, but just like fire, there’s a difference between wanting a campfire and the whole forest to burn down in order to get the benefit of the flames. At some point the benefit decreases and becomes a burden, but having nothing is just as bad.

    In the meantime, the federal government has way over expanded to where the federal government is involved in nearly every aspect of daily life, and has racked up so many obligations and continues to pile them on, that a Greece like ending is nearly a certainty now. Just like the housing bubble there is no pain, or no one cares to notice the pain until the shit hits the fan.

    As for me, do I agree with all libertarians or their plaitform 100%? Not really, I’d say 80%, but I believe in the rules our Constitution was written under, and if major changes are to be made that’s what the amendment process is for. It wasn’t meant to be taken lightly.

    Ultimately we the people are the ones who need to make sure they follow the rules, but politicians don’t like to follow the rules. They want to make their mark in histroy. That’s why they try to cheat by using fear, wants, needs, and emotions to consitently take power from us and to give to themselves. Now you do get some crumbs back don’t get me wrong, but as they keep bloating themselves you’ll find the crumbs get smaller. You’ll see. And believe me, this isn’t just referring to Democrats. The GOP has no problem sticking it up our asses when it suits them.

    Thumb up 4

  24. West Virginia Rebel

    When the big train goes bankrupt, a lot of those who bought land in its path are going to lose their shirts. They’ll be among the first (or maybe the last who can afford it) to bail the state when the bill comes due.

    Is it any wonder that the only people who can still afford to support Obama are in Hollyweird, or in cushy state jobs?

    As for Moogoo…I think this may be the ghost of Lee messing with us…

    Thumb up 1

  25. Mississippi Yankee

    When the big train goes bankrupt, a lot of those who bought land in its path are going to lose their shirts.

    Do you NOT understand the federal government just ponied up $43 billion for this Train Track to Nowhere? And that those people are being paid off NOW? BTW, this rail line will never be built. Nor was it ever intended to be built.
    They don’t call it political pay-off for nothing.

    Is it any wonder that the only people who can still afford to support Obama are in Hollyweird, or in cushy state jobs?

    Lemme give you a partial list:

    Almost anyone in a union
    Most EBT card holders
    A huge percentage of Black voters
    An increasingly larger Hispanic voter bloc
    Many, many city dwellers especially the lower middle class
    All of the OWS folks
    Possibly anyone illegal or dead
    (I could go on)

    And if 4 years ago are any indication … YOU… again

    Thumb up 1