Poll: most Californians say future better someplace else
The most recent CalChamber poll speaks clearly: many Californians think it's too expensive, too dangerous, and too polluted to live in the state. Loren Kate, President of the California Foundation for Commerce and Education, explains in Fox & Hounds.
When asked if their family would have a better future if they left California, a stunning 54 percent agreed – 27% strongly. Of those agreeing with this statement, two-thirds cited “cost of living” or “cost of housing” as the main reason, while another three in ten cited, “California values are not my values.”
Demographically, voters who are most strongly agree that their future would be better if they left the state are middle-aged residents, Republicans and families with children living at home.
California voters agree that the state has a housing crisis, and voters in the Los Angeles and Bay Areas believe it’s worst in their neighborhoods. A majority of voters believe that increasing housing supply is a better solution that tax or developer subsidies for affordable housing. But in a sign of the difficulty to fashion statewide solutions, a strong plurality of voters believe local officials should have the right to decide the type and pace of homebuilding development within their own communities.
Homelessness remains an issue of great concern to voters. Fully two-thirds believe homelessness in California has gotten worse since the start of Covid earlier this year, with voters in Los Angeles, the Inland Empire and Central Valley reporting severe worsening in their regions.
Three-quarters of voters report seeing someone homeless on the streets at least weekly, with 40 percent reporting seeing homeless persons at least five times a week.
A majority of voters agree that climate change affects the state of California “a great deal,” and 63% agree that California should take the lead in regulating greenhouse gases because the Federal government is not addressing the problem, compared with 37% who believe that California should not adopt state-specific policies that harm the state economy, and should only support a nationwide strategy.
Voters initially support (58% – 41%) the Governor’s much-publicized executive order banning all in-state sales of gasoline-powered vehicles by 2035, but become more skeptical when asked about some of the tradeoffs inherent in adopting such a far-reaching strategy.
Fewer than one-in-eight voters want the Governor to execute this policy on his own. A strong majority would prefer this major policy be decided by voters on the ballot, while 20% would prefer the Legislature consider and decide this policy.
Voters recognize that rampant wildfires can only be addressed with a diversity of solutions.
They gave their strongest support for controlled burning to eliminate the dry underbrush, no matter if public or private lands, requiring homeowners living in fire-prone areas to keep their land clear of flammable brush, upgrade to safe building materials, and create personal evacuation plans, and increasing penalties for actions that lead to wildfires.
But voters also strongly endorse expensive and controversial notions, like modernizing the electrical grid and spend more on electrical equipment maintenance, even if it means environmental and renewable energy mandates are delayed, and even limiting future housing development in areas that are prone to wildfires.
Chaotic school schedules and widespread and often ineffective remote learning led to a suspension of statewide assessments of student progress. Many child advocates are pressing to ramp up assessments next year to understand the distribution of impacts on students of this disruptive year.
Read the whole thing here.
Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity