Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
I wound up writing this article about Scott Wiener, one
of my least favorite politicians in the entire United States
of America. Scott Wiener is a California State Senator. He
represents just the very heart of San Francisco, and for those.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Who don't know him, Scott Wiener is a little pervy.
Speaker 1 (00:26):
I say that because he marched in a gay pride
parade in public while he was a sitting in California
state senator wearing leather pants, a leather vest, no shirt,
and god knows what this is for a leather tie,
(00:48):
leather tie, no shirt.
Speaker 2 (00:50):
That's a pervy thing to do. I don't know, and I.
Speaker 1 (00:54):
Feel like people would judge me and say I'm homophobic
for that. Look whichever side of the plate you're batting from,
I don't know. I don't know too many people at
all who have marched in public in lingerie. I mean,
clearly it was some kind of sex thing and he's
(01:15):
marching in public about it. So I will stand by
my kind of pervy guy. And it's not just that he's,
you know, a perv in his private slash not so
private life. I mean the fact that you're doing that
in public is perhaps the perviest aspect of it. He
also introduced horrible, horrible, horrible, all kinds of horrible legislation,
(01:38):
especially relating to transgenderism and relating to sex trafficking. He
introduced the bill to decriminalize in California loitering with intent
to commit prostitution, which was a horrible thing to happen,
particularly for victims of sex trafficking. The chief way that
police are able to save so someone who is being
(02:02):
forced into prostitution, including miners being forced into prostitution, is
to see them standing on a corner hailing cars as
they drive by, wearing a g string or something and say,
that is obviously someone loitering with intent to commit prostitution.
Speaker 2 (02:21):
I'm going to go detain that person.
Speaker 1 (02:24):
And very often those detentions result in finding someone who
is being forced into prostitution, someone who might be a minor,
and that's the one way police can intervene in that
person's life to get them out of a life of crime.
But Wiener is such a teenager as it comes to
his attitudes towards police, thinking that no, the cops are
(02:44):
just bad.
Speaker 2 (02:45):
Man, that he thinks, oh that's harm.
Speaker 1 (02:49):
The police are just there to harm people, and that
police use laws against loitering with the ten commit prostitution,
they just use it to harass transgender people. So dragens
walking around just just to bother them, and so he
does that, and of course sex trafficking has exploded in
many parts of the state as a result of that legislation.
(03:11):
He also authored legislation to let out of state children
flee to California to get transgender interventions without parental permission.
Speaker 2 (03:24):
He authored the bill to allow biological.
Speaker 1 (03:26):
Well, there's no other kind, to let men who claim
that they are transgender to be housed in women's prisons
in California, where you've got men who might have committed
sex crimes against women who are now being housed with
women in women's prisons where they can more ably rape women.
(03:53):
In fact sally Moreno, the DA of Madera County is
currently prosecuting a case of alleged rape by a guy
named Tremaine Carroll, who claims he's a woman and has
allegedly raped three of his cellmates when he was housed
(04:16):
at the Chowchilla Women's Prison. There's a California state prison
for women in Chowchilla. The guy impregnated one of his sellies,
and three of his former sellies are accusing him of rape.
So that's Scott Wiener. These are the various things Scott
Wiener has done that we have to thank him for.
(04:38):
He is now going to be running for Congress in
Nancy Pelosi's seat, and I think it's significant on a
national stage because you look at all these bad bills
that Scott Wiener introduced and passed. Oh, he decriminalized past,
he introduced the legislation in by the way, this is
(05:01):
all bills that Scott Wiener wrote. I'm not talking about
just things he happened to kind of join in on
and vote for. These are bills that he authored and
introduced in the state legislature, the state legislature where he's
one of one hundred and twenty state legislators. No, he
he authored these things. He didn't just vote for him.
Speaker 2 (05:26):
So he is loathsome.
Speaker 1 (05:31):
And he's now going to try to run for Congress,
where I feel like if he gets elected, he immediately
but just boo right up to the top of our list,
whatever mental list you might carry around with you, who
are the worst members of Congress who are the worst
members of the House, the representatives? Is it you know
Aoc is it Ilhan Omar? Is it Rashida Talib? Is
(05:56):
it you know all the members of the squad? Is
it Maxine Waters? Is it you know this person? That
plenty of contenders to choose from, who's the worst one? Well,
if Scott Wiener gets elected, he might jump to the
top of the pack. He's that bad. However, I'm reminded
(06:24):
of another bad aspect of mister Wiener's legislative career from
a story that was running in the Fresno B And,
like most Fresno be things, I assume it was not
written by the Fresno B. It was written by someone
from McClatchy. More generally, more people are leaving California than
(06:50):
any other state where are they moving? Across every age group,
more people are moving out of California than moving in.
According to a new study from Retirement Living, The retirement
planning site found that the Golden State has the quote
highest negative net migration rate among all generations. While there's
(07:13):
no shortage of reasons to relocate no matter your age,
it turns out that moving preferences may be impacted by
when you were born, the site said. In the study
released November six, one thing unites every generation. They're all
leaving California, Retirement Living said. The study, titled Where Each
Generation Is Moving across the US, breaks down where Americans
of different age groups are heading. Next, Here's where people
(07:35):
are moving. Though people are relocating across the country. California
tops the list of the states with the most moves.
According to the data collected by Retirement Living, the Golden
State had an inflow of four hundred, eight hundred and
seventy three people and an outflow of six hundred and
(07:56):
sixty one two hundred five people, resulting in a net
loss of roughly two hundred fifty three and thirty two residents.
Cost of living may play a factor here, Yeah, you think,
with California having one of the highest costs in the US,
the site said. Additionally, the destructive wildfires taking place in
the state in recent years may provide an extra incentive
to leave.
Speaker 2 (08:18):
I feel like that's.
Speaker 1 (08:19):
A little over I mean, the wildfires are obviously bad
and probably I mean, I'd say the most concrete thing
the wildfires have done is massively increase home insurance for
various parts of the state, or fire insurance you know
that you need for your house in various parts of
(08:40):
the state. I don't know people, I don't I don't
know that people are living in constant you know, quaking
fear of wildfires unless you live in like an oakhurst
or kind of a I don't know, kind of a
more mountainous community like that. Anyway, People across the United States,
including California, residents are migrating south. Eight of the top
ten US state's gaining residents are in the South, along
(09:03):
with Arizona and Nevada. Perhaps the low cost of living
is a draw, with states like Texas and South Texas,
Florida and South Carolina boasting some of the most affordable
cities in the country, including El Paso, Texas and Tallahassee
and Fort Myers in Florida. Retirement Living said Texas saw
the largest inflow, gaining five hundred fifty one and fifty
(09:23):
six people a losing four hundred and eighty three thousand,
so net gain of seventy two thousand residents. Seniors in
the US, baby boomers and the silent generation defined as
seventy five and older, are largely relocating to southern states also,
So the top states with inflow are Florida number one,
(09:47):
Texas number two, South Carolina number three, North Carolina number four,
Virginia number five. The top five worst states for net outflow.
I guess they're including the District of Columbia in this
list because there's fifty one.
Speaker 2 (10:04):
The worst is California.
Speaker 1 (10:08):
Second worst is New York, then Illinois, California, New York, Illinois.
You know, the three most important Democrats states, three most
populous Democrat states, Colorado and Michigan. Many seniors leave costly states,
especially California.
Speaker 2 (10:25):
To make okay. So that was for seniors.
Speaker 1 (10:28):
For the Silent generation seventy five and older, the most
common destinations Florida the least. The most commonplace to depart
from is California. California has the most net departures baby boomers,
so under seventy five, most popular state to go too
is Florida, then Arizona, then South.
Speaker 2 (10:49):
Carolina, then North Carolina, Nevada.
Speaker 1 (10:52):
California has the most net away migration, then New York,
then Illinois, then Washington State, then New Jersey.
Speaker 2 (11:00):
Gen X.
Speaker 1 (11:02):
Most popular state for gen X to move to is Florida,
then Texas, the North Carolina and South Carolina, then Nevada.
Speaker 2 (11:09):
The most common state to leave.
Speaker 1 (11:10):
Last on the list again is California, then New York,
than Illinois and New Jersey than Pennsylvania millennials. Most common
state for millennials to move to is Texas, then Washington.
Oddly enough, Georgia, Nevada, Maryland, Maryland the most common state
(11:31):
to leave from, though again huge net migration out California,
New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, Florida. Millennials are leaving Florida seemingly.
Speaker 2 (11:44):
Gen Z.
Speaker 1 (11:44):
Where is gen Z going when they move? Well, the
most common state they flee from is California. California is
the worst, the worst net migration negative forty thousand, than
New Jersey, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota. The best states that gen
Z is moving to South Carolina, North Carolina, Washington, DC,
DC's a young person town kind of makes sense, Tennessee, Missouri.
(12:11):
So California is the worst in every single age demographic,
the worst. So why do I bring this up in
a discussion of Scott Wiener. Well, the thing that Scott
(12:31):
Wiener sort of fancies himself as being is that he
is a great yimby. As he calls it a yes
in my backyard, or liberals got very fixated on this
nimby yimby thing because I think it allowed them to
sort of be pro growth, but in a way where
(12:53):
they could blame their parents, their conservative parents, or something
where they can feel like they're blaming someone conservative. So
this dynamic. Some housing in California has indeed been limited
by the following dynamic. A real estate developer wants to
(13:15):
build in a community. He wants to build, say an
apartment complex. The residents of that community who have single
family homes, they are afraid that if there is lower
income accessible multi unit dwellings near their houses, it will
(13:40):
lead the neighborhood to decline and the value of their
houses will go down. So they go to the city
council and they try to block it, or the county
Board of Supervisors and they try to block it.
Speaker 2 (13:51):
Or they file a sequa.
Speaker 1 (13:53):
Lawsuit a California Environmental Quality Act to try to make
some phony blogne claim that the multi unit dwelling has
some adverse environmental impact, that it's an environmental impact report
was insufficient, blah blah blah.
Speaker 2 (14:06):
Okay, I will grant you.
Speaker 1 (14:11):
That dynamic has happened in many parts of California.
Speaker 2 (14:15):
It is not super helpful.
Speaker 1 (14:21):
Just because you don't like that, and you can sort
of act like you're a superhero because some rich lady
from Orange County who doesn't want an apartment complex near
her house, like you can paint her as the bad guy.
That does not make you some great advocate for building
more housing in California. Okay, unless you are willing to
(14:44):
actually outlaw sequa, unless you're willing to take the crazy
environmental regulations off of builders, unless you're able to change
certain aspects of labor law to allow houses to be
built at a reasonable clip in a way that isn't
crazy expensive. I mean, there are so many factors making
housing more expensive to build in California. How long it
(15:06):
takes to build because of various kinds of labor laws
and things like that. A building project that takes one
year in most states takes two years in California. So
as a result, the loans that a builder has to
take out to finance the project have to extend for longer,
more expensive.
Speaker 2 (15:25):
There's more risk.
Speaker 1 (15:27):
If there's more risk and expense on the you know,
if there's more risk and expense on the part of
the builder. If there's more labor costs because it takes
two years to be out there, two years of trucks
and construction equipment out there instead of one year, well
guess who guess to whom is the builder going to
pass on that expense to the home buyer. Ultimately it's
(15:52):
reflected in a house that costs three hundred thousand dollars
rather than two hundred thousand dollars or something some such scenario.
The Scott Wieners of the world have been very aggressive
in trying to permit more multi unit dwellings, more lower
income housing, passing laws to exempt certain kinds of urban
(16:18):
infill projects from SEQUA, passing laws to exempt downtown San
Francisco housing projects from SIQUA. That doesn't mean you're some
great builder. That doesn't mean you are taking the shackles
off the construction industry, off, the home builder, off, the builders,
(16:40):
off developers in California to allow them to build more
homes to reverse this trend, because fundamentally, the.
Speaker 2 (16:48):
Reason why everyone's leaving here is.
Speaker 1 (16:50):
It's too expensive, and the chief thing that's too expensive
is housing.
Speaker 2 (16:55):
Housing is too expensive.
Speaker 1 (16:56):
No matter who you are, if you're a seniorting. You're
sitting on a house that you bought in nineteen eighty.
That's a flipping gold mine. Of course you're gonna sell it.
You're gonna move to Florida with lower taxes, get yourself achieved,
pause and make you know, an enormous profit. If you're
a young person, where the heck are you supposed to live? Oh,
(17:19):
I'll rent a closet in San Francisco for three thousand
dollars a month.
Speaker 2 (17:24):
Good luck. And this is part of why I despise
Scott Weener so much, this attitude he has. Oh I'm
I'm like Yimmi, I'm in favor of building. I'm in favor.
Speaker 1 (17:38):
No, you're not. You're in favor of one hyper specific
kind of building and then not doing what it would
take to even make it profitable, other than just subsidizing
it with more government spending. When we return, we'll talk
a little bit about that dynamic helping feed the supply
(17:58):
rather than subsidizing the demand. That's next on the John
Girardi Show. There's a story by this publication called Retirement Living,
indicating that among every generational cohort, the main state that
people are fleeing from is California.
Speaker 2 (18:20):
Why cost of living? It's too expensive to live here.
Speaker 1 (18:24):
So California has net negative migration among elderly people, the
so called silent generation, the seventy five and older crowd,
among baby boomers, among Gen X, among millennials, and among
Gen Z. California is fifty first out of fifty one
(18:44):
states plus DC in net negative migration or in net migration.
Speaker 2 (18:51):
All of our migration is net negative.
Speaker 1 (18:53):
Okay, people are more people are leaving California in every
generational that are.
Speaker 2 (19:01):
Moving to it.
Speaker 1 (19:04):
Probably the only reason California is close to getting any
kind of population increase, and it sounds like California has
had some population increase in the last like year or two.
Speaker 2 (19:18):
Is foreign immigration legal or illegal?
Speaker 1 (19:24):
Honestly that that is the only reason among actual pre
existing American residents thought migration net negative migration. Everyone's moving
away from California to Texas or Florida. And the reason
(19:47):
is first and foremost housing. And what is happening at
the state level. Again, you have some effort by state
lawmakers to do more for multi unit urban dwellings. Why
because all of our lawmakers are from LA and San Francisco.
No one's from a suburban area. Well are they They
(20:08):
they're from an urban area, and they are representing large
swaths of suburban and ex urb areas that they don't
care about because not very many people live in it.
That tends to be the dynamics within jerrymandered districts in California.
They're from La or San Francisco, and they just don't
care about what we do out in the sticks, the
(20:28):
relative sticks, So they don't care about building more houses.
Speaker 2 (20:34):
Single unit, single family dwellings are bad for the environment, so.
Speaker 1 (20:40):
Sorry, sorry, get a fifteen hundred square foot house for
six hundred thousand dollars or you know, seven hundred thousand dollars.
Speaker 2 (20:50):
On a good day.
Speaker 1 (20:54):
Instead, what they do for the few things they want
to allow, which is multi unit quote lower income dwellings.
The California has this sort of standard of lower income housing,
so it's the sort of legal states in quote lower
income housing. And the problem is it's still way too
(21:17):
expensive for builders to build quote lower income housing. I
think it was in Huntington Beach they made a multi
unit apartment complex quote lower income housing. It cost them
one million dollars per unit to build it. So not
exactly gonna be if pure market forces are at play.
(21:37):
That's not going to be accessible to a quote lower
income person if it costs the builder a million dollars
per unit. So what happens, Well, the state wants to
feel good about themselves building more quote lower income housing.
So what they do is they give big fat state
subsidies to the builders building the quote lower income housing.
(21:59):
They subsidize the demand rather than help free up supply,
and you see the vicious cycle. Rather than fix the
actual underlying affordability problems that have been created by state policy, state.
Speaker 2 (22:18):
Environmental policy, state labor policy, this, that, and the other.
Speaker 1 (22:22):
Instead, the state just gives away taxpayer money to the
builders so that it can allow the builders to possibly
turn a profit.
Speaker 2 (22:33):
They subsidize the demand rather than fix the supply.
Speaker 1 (22:40):
It's a bleep backwards way of trying to resolve the problem.
But this is the Scott Wiener mindset. This is the
mindset of the dominant liberal block within our state legislature.
They cannot fathom the idea of single family homes.
Speaker 2 (22:59):
They hate it.
Speaker 1 (23:00):
And we'll talk about that when we return here on
the John Girardi Show. A lot of the cost of
living problems in California. Most of them are driven by housing,
and much of the reason why it costs so much
is it's on purpose.
Speaker 2 (23:18):
They want it to cost a lot.
Speaker 1 (23:21):
Because they want to stop they want to limit the
environmental blight of families.
Speaker 2 (23:33):
Allow me to explain.
Speaker 1 (23:36):
So environmentalists hold a huge amount of sway in the
California state legislature in spite of the fact that the
Sierra Club does seem to be somewhat imploding. As there's
this hilarious story in the New York Times about the
Sierra Club and how the Sierra Club instead of just
(23:56):
focusing on its environmentalist, you know, actual core thing. I mean,
that's the whole point of the Sierra Club is to
be environmentalist wackos. During the height of wokeness and intersectionality
in the throughout the twenty twenties, they got in trouble
because they kept jumping on every other liberal cause and
(24:16):
it caused all kinds of dissension and like problems and
not actually focusing on actual environmental policy. And they had
a CEO who they hired from the NAACP, who people
argue was stealing money and just giving a ton of
money to his friends and blah.
Speaker 2 (24:33):
Blah blah blah blah.
Speaker 1 (24:35):
Nonetheless, environmentalist groups that they have a lot of power
in California. That doesn't have anything to do with the
internal dynamics of the Sierra Club. Environmentalist groups have a
lot of power in California chiefly because they have massive
billionaire donors who give to them, or multi gazillionaire donors
who give to those environmentalist organizations, and individual Democratic politicians
(24:59):
don't want to cross those donors.
Speaker 2 (25:03):
That's the dynamic. It's not so much the groups they're
afraid of. They're afraid of.
Speaker 1 (25:08):
The big time political donors who give to those groups
and who also give to big time Democrats, super PACs,
et cetera, et cetera. And you know, again it's people
joke that politicians should wear, you know, suits like a
NASCAR driver, where you have logos with all the corporate
(25:29):
entities whatever who who you know, fundraise for them, to
let the American public know more exactly, you know, whose
interests they represent. It's maybe not the worst idea, and certainly,
you know, this dynamic happens on both sides of the aisle.
Both you know, both parties wind up voting for things
that are advantageous to people who donate to them, et cetera.
Speaker 2 (25:52):
All right, but.
Speaker 1 (25:56):
In the case of Democrats, you have these whacked out
environmental groups who have a lot of sway because they
have billionaires behind them. And so Democrats have set up
a state where, again, whatever problems exist in California, the
(26:16):
Democrats own them, all right.
Speaker 2 (26:18):
They've had control of both houses of the state legislature
with super majorities plus the governor for fourteen straight years,
fourteen and a half almost fifteen straight years.
Speaker 1 (26:32):
Okay, so at this point, whatever problems we have, it's
you have to lay it all at the Democrats' feet.
And this is the society they've constructed with these just
utterly untouchably, unreasonably high costs of living, particularly for housing, and.
Speaker 2 (26:51):
A lot of it.
Speaker 1 (26:53):
Has to do with environmental policy. The continuing existence of SEQUA,
the continuing defense of SEQUA as a general principle, is
one of the big reasons why it's so expensive to
build sequel. The California Environmental Quality Act one of the
worst things that Ronald Reagan ever did. The two worst
(27:16):
things Ronald Reagan ever did was signing the country's first
law to legalize abortion, which he did, and then SEQUA
the California Environmental Quality Act. Those are probably Reagan's two
worst things he did as governor. What SEQUE allows you
to do is it allows someone to sue a building
(27:41):
construction development project for business or for residential housing or
whatever on the grounds that its environmental impact report was insufficient.
And thereby you're basically just saying it's environmental impact will
be too adverse, too harmful. And it's the thing where
(28:01):
you know, you would imagine, well, shouldn't wouldn't just be
that the state governs it that if you have some
kind of environmental impact study that has to be done,
it's submitted to some kind of state or county level
or city level agency who reviews it, reviews the environmental impact,
you know, maybe compares it against the city's you know,
general plan, and then it's either approved or it's not approved,
(28:23):
and that's the end of it. No, in California, you
have all that process, and then on top of it,
any Yahoo can just sue any Yahoo, some third party
not who doesn't necessarily need to have some direct clear
impact on themselves or their life or potential impact can
(28:44):
just suit, can just file a lawsuit to say that
this will have an adverse environmental impact and stop some
big construction project cold.
Speaker 2 (28:53):
It had to be.
Speaker 1 (28:56):
One of the silliest examples of this was from about
a year ago, little more than a year ago Pixley, California,
which I don't know if too many of you have
been to the teeming metropolis of Pixley, California. It is
a tiny little stop on the ninety nine going south
from Fresno down to Bakersfield, and tiny little town. There's
(29:25):
not one spot of the town that's more than a
mile away. I don't think from.
Speaker 2 (29:29):
The ninety nine. It's a rest stop on the ninety nine.
It's a tiny little town.
Speaker 1 (29:37):
Governor Newsom is really wanting to push these nitrogen power
plants because basically he's deliberately again the environmentalists forcing this.
He's handcuffed himself with energy production where he can't build
any natural gas power plants, he can't build any cold
(30:00):
power plants.
Speaker 2 (30:02):
He can't build nuclear power plants, even though nuclear is
the obvious best choice zero emissions. Nuclear waste is smaller
and more containable. It's totally steady form of power. It
doesn't matter if it's.
Speaker 1 (30:18):
Sunny or windy, with you know, solar energy or wind power.
It just produces tons of super efficient, super reliable energy. Okay,
So he can't do nuclear, he can't do natural gas,
he can't do coal. He can't even do that much
more hydro because environmentalists get mad at that because hydrogen
power usually requires a dam, and dams are bad for
(30:40):
the fishies. Hydro power, which is the only genuinely green
form of power production that is worth a dam, and
it actually has zero byproducts, no good because it hinders
fish and that's bad.
Speaker 2 (30:59):
So he's super limited.
Speaker 1 (31:00):
So he was putting a lot of stock in the
idea of well, let's let's do these hydrogen power plants.
Is zero emissions, you know, green forms of energy production.
And they were going to put one of those power
plants in Pixley. Now you'd think, for the good people Pixley,
this is a great thing. Pixley does not exactly have
a lot going on. Let's have a business something start
(31:25):
up there, have people move there, have people work there.
That's jobs, probably good paying jobs, you know whatever. A
couple of environmentalist wackos stopped the production of this hydrogen
power plant. Why, on the grounds that it would harm
the environment in Pixley.
Speaker 2 (31:47):
It's a green power plant. That's the whole point.
Speaker 1 (31:50):
It's the whole point of these power plants is that
it's green, zero missions, it's it's it won't harm the environment.
Speaker 2 (31:57):
What was the claim?
Speaker 1 (31:58):
The claim was that trucks will drive there to drop
off the raw I guess, liquid nitrogen, whatever it is,
whatever the original product is that has to be converted
into energy. So trucks are going to stop there, and
that'll increase truck pollution in Pixley. Pixley a town that
(32:23):
the ninety nine goes through, the whole town is less
than a mile away from the ninety nine. You know
how many trucks drive through Pixley a day. One hundred gazillion,
one hundred gazillion eighteen wheelers drive through Pixley every single
day and day. You're going to tell me that the
(32:45):
environmental harm of like four of those trucks stopping in
Pixley to drop off their load of liquid nitrogen whatever
it is, that's good, that'll do it. That's tipping the scale, buddy. No,
But that's what Sequel allows. It allows some stupid left
(33:07):
wing environmental group from Fresno funded assuredly with money from.
Speaker 2 (33:13):
LA or something or San Francisco.
Speaker 1 (33:16):
To stop this big construction thing called for a green
energy project. Now, if they'll do that for those kinds
of projects, let's focus on the thing they hate the most,
single family dwellings. Any of the action to relax SEQUA,
(33:42):
it's all focused on certain kinds of things. Well, one,
it's focused on the state Capitol building, so you know,
you know, we legislators, we want to have a nice office,
so it stop suing us.
Speaker 2 (33:55):
You're slowing down construction of our nice new offices.
Speaker 1 (33:58):
But most of the can instruction projects that have gotten
exceptions from SEQUA where the state legislature has passed a
law to say SEQUA is not going to apply to
this situation, this situation, this situation where it's like it's
like they acknowledge that SEQUA is stupid, that it is
a unnecessary hindrance to building, and that they can speed
up building just by repealing it for this purpose or
(34:21):
that purpose. So they acknowledge it for certain situations. Why
not just ban the whole thing altogether? Is because obviously
they want to continue artificially hindering certain kinds of construction.
The only things that they pass exceptions to Sequa for
is urban infill multi unit dwellings.
Speaker 2 (34:44):
So the city has already been built up around this area.
Speaker 1 (34:48):
You've got a vacant lot, or you've got a lot
that someone built and they're gonna demo whatever's on it.
Speaker 2 (34:55):
And build an apartment complex on it.
Speaker 1 (34:58):
That that is something they will allow an exception to
seek with for and pat themselves on the back like they're
the great heroes of housing. But let's note something. If
you're gen z or a millennial and you would like
to I don't know, get married and have some kids,
apartment living is not exactly what you're hoping for. That's
(35:21):
not the American dream. The American dream is a house
where maybe you could have more than one point four children.
Even if you have two children. Probably a lot of
people would rather not live in an apartment. They would
like a house, they would like a backyard.
Speaker 2 (35:44):
And so guess what.
Speaker 1 (35:46):
Young people don't want to live in places like that
where the only construction that they're allowing to build realistically
is urban in fill multi unit apartments.
Speaker 2 (35:54):
That's why you walk around San Francisco. There's no kids.
Why because families can't live there. They're priced out.
Speaker 1 (36:02):
There aren't homes available for them.
Speaker 2 (36:05):
There's no new construction.
Speaker 1 (36:10):
Why because the environmental footprint of a housing a gated
housing community with a bunch of single dwelling, single family dwellings,
is greater than the environmental footprint of an apartment complex.
Speaker 2 (36:30):
And so that is it.
Speaker 1 (36:32):
They are actively driving middle class family life out of
the state. That's what they want. They think families are
the enemy. They think families must be avoided, and they
have succeeded. They have succeeded in making this state as
(36:54):
hostile to middle class family life as they possibly can
when we return. Why, I have no confidence that any
Democrat will actually realistically change course on this. Next on
the John Ferarti Show, I have no confidence that the
horrible problems with housing in California will reach any kind
(37:15):
of resolution with any Democrat running.
Speaker 2 (37:17):
This was highlighted when Javier basera former HHS secretary.
Speaker 1 (37:21):
Under Biden, former Attorney General California, he announced he was
running for governor and he did this interview where he
was as what would you do differently? And he literally
could about housing, and he literally couldn't say anything.
Speaker 2 (37:31):
He had genuinely no answer. He just said he would
listen to what the experts said and do what they.
Speaker 1 (37:35):
Say, because there's nothing else they can do. They won't
restrict that, they won't lessen ease up on the environmental
regulations that make it incredibly expensive and impossible to build
middle income, affordable houses, single family dwellings. They don't want
(37:56):
middle class single family formation because they think.
Speaker 2 (37:58):
It's bad for the environment.
Speaker 1 (38:00):
And if if that's what they're committed to, and they're
all from San Francisco in La urban areas, they just
won't care about actually fixing the problem, that'll do it.
Speaker 2 (38:09):
John Gilardi shows you next time on Power Talk
I wound up writing this article about Scott Wiener, one
of my least favorite politicians in the entire United States
of America. Scott Wiener is a California State Senator. He
represents just the very heart of San Francisco, and for those.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Who don't know him, Scott Wiener is a little pervy.
Speaker 1 (00:26):
I say that because he marched in a gay pride
parade in public while he was a sitting in California
state senator wearing leather pants, a leather vest, no shirt,
and god knows what this is for a leather tie,
(00:48):
leather tie, no shirt.
Speaker 2 (00:50):
That's a pervy thing to do. I don't know, and I.
Speaker 1 (00:54):
Feel like people would judge me and say I'm homophobic
for that. Look whichever side of the plate you're batting from,
I don't know. I don't know too many people at
all who have marched in public in lingerie. I mean,
clearly it was some kind of sex thing and he's
(01:15):
marching in public about it. So I will stand by
my kind of pervy guy. And it's not just that he's,
you know, a perv in his private slash not so
private life. I mean the fact that you're doing that
in public is perhaps the perviest aspect of it. He
also introduced horrible, horrible, horrible, all kinds of horrible legislation,
(01:38):
especially relating to transgenderism and relating to sex trafficking. He
introduced the bill to decriminalize in California loitering with intent
to commit prostitution, which was a horrible thing to happen,
particularly for victims of sex trafficking. The chief way that
police are able to save so someone who is being
(02:02):
forced into prostitution, including miners being forced into prostitution, is
to see them standing on a corner hailing cars as
they drive by, wearing a g string or something and say,
that is obviously someone loitering with intent to commit prostitution.
Speaker 2 (02:21):
I'm going to go detain that person.
Speaker 1 (02:24):
And very often those detentions result in finding someone who
is being forced into prostitution, someone who might be a minor,
and that's the one way police can intervene in that
person's life to get them out of a life of crime.
But Wiener is such a teenager as it comes to
his attitudes towards police, thinking that no, the cops are
(02:44):
just bad.
Speaker 2 (02:45):
Man, that he thinks, oh that's harm.
Speaker 1 (02:49):
The police are just there to harm people, and that
police use laws against loitering with the ten commit prostitution,
they just use it to harass transgender people. So dragens
walking around just just to bother them, and so he
does that, and of course sex trafficking has exploded in
many parts of the state as a result of that legislation.
(03:11):
He also authored legislation to let out of state children
flee to California to get transgender interventions without parental permission.
Speaker 2 (03:24):
He authored the bill to allow biological.
Speaker 1 (03:26):
Well, there's no other kind, to let men who claim
that they are transgender to be housed in women's prisons
in California, where you've got men who might have committed
sex crimes against women who are now being housed with
women in women's prisons where they can more ably rape women.
(03:53):
In fact sally Moreno, the DA of Madera County is
currently prosecuting a case of alleged rape by a guy
named Tremaine Carroll, who claims he's a woman and has
allegedly raped three of his cellmates when he was housed
(04:16):
at the Chowchilla Women's Prison. There's a California state prison
for women in Chowchilla. The guy impregnated one of his sellies,
and three of his former sellies are accusing him of rape.
So that's Scott Wiener. These are the various things Scott
Wiener has done that we have to thank him for.
(04:38):
He is now going to be running for Congress in
Nancy Pelosi's seat, and I think it's significant on a
national stage because you look at all these bad bills
that Scott Wiener introduced and passed. Oh, he decriminalized past,
he introduced the legislation in by the way, this is
(05:01):
all bills that Scott Wiener wrote. I'm not talking about
just things he happened to kind of join in on
and vote for. These are bills that he authored and
introduced in the state legislature, the state legislature where he's
one of one hundred and twenty state legislators. No, he
he authored these things. He didn't just vote for him.
Speaker 2 (05:26):
So he is loathsome.
Speaker 1 (05:31):
And he's now going to try to run for Congress,
where I feel like if he gets elected, he immediately
but just boo right up to the top of our list,
whatever mental list you might carry around with you, who
are the worst members of Congress who are the worst
members of the House, the representatives? Is it you know
Aoc is it Ilhan Omar? Is it Rashida Talib? Is
(05:56):
it you know all the members of the squad? Is
it Maxine Waters? Is it you know this person? That
plenty of contenders to choose from, who's the worst one? Well,
if Scott Wiener gets elected, he might jump to the
top of the pack. He's that bad. However, I'm reminded
(06:24):
of another bad aspect of mister Wiener's legislative career from
a story that was running in the Fresno B And,
like most Fresno be things, I assume it was not
written by the Fresno B. It was written by someone
from McClatchy. More generally, more people are leaving California than
(06:50):
any other state where are they moving? Across every age group,
more people are moving out of California than moving in.
According to a new study from Retirement Living, The retirement
planning site found that the Golden State has the quote
highest negative net migration rate among all generations. While there's
(07:13):
no shortage of reasons to relocate no matter your age,
it turns out that moving preferences may be impacted by
when you were born, the site said. In the study
released November six, one thing unites every generation. They're all
leaving California, Retirement Living said. The study, titled Where Each
Generation Is Moving across the US, breaks down where Americans
of different age groups are heading. Next, Here's where people
(07:35):
are moving. Though people are relocating across the country. California
tops the list of the states with the most moves.
According to the data collected by Retirement Living, the Golden
State had an inflow of four hundred, eight hundred and
seventy three people and an outflow of six hundred and
(07:56):
sixty one two hundred five people, resulting in a net
loss of roughly two hundred fifty three and thirty two residents.
Cost of living may play a factor here, Yeah, you think,
with California having one of the highest costs in the US,
the site said. Additionally, the destructive wildfires taking place in
the state in recent years may provide an extra incentive
to leave.
Speaker 2 (08:18):
I feel like that's.
Speaker 1 (08:19):
A little over I mean, the wildfires are obviously bad
and probably I mean, I'd say the most concrete thing
the wildfires have done is massively increase home insurance for
various parts of the state, or fire insurance you know
that you need for your house in various parts of
(08:40):
the state. I don't know people, I don't I don't
know that people are living in constant you know, quaking
fear of wildfires unless you live in like an oakhurst
or kind of a I don't know, kind of a
more mountainous community like that. Anyway, People across the United States,
including California, residents are migrating south. Eight of the top
ten US state's gaining residents are in the South, along
(09:03):
with Arizona and Nevada. Perhaps the low cost of living
is a draw, with states like Texas and South Texas,
Florida and South Carolina boasting some of the most affordable
cities in the country, including El Paso, Texas and Tallahassee
and Fort Myers in Florida. Retirement Living said Texas saw
the largest inflow, gaining five hundred fifty one and fifty
(09:23):
six people a losing four hundred and eighty three thousand,
so net gain of seventy two thousand residents. Seniors in
the US, baby boomers and the silent generation defined as
seventy five and older, are largely relocating to southern states also,
So the top states with inflow are Florida number one,
(09:47):
Texas number two, South Carolina number three, North Carolina number four,
Virginia number five. The top five worst states for net outflow.
I guess they're including the District of Columbia in this
list because there's fifty one.
Speaker 2 (10:04):
The worst is California.
Speaker 1 (10:08):
Second worst is New York, then Illinois, California, New York, Illinois.
You know, the three most important Democrats states, three most
populous Democrat states, Colorado and Michigan. Many seniors leave costly states,
especially California.
Speaker 2 (10:25):
To make okay. So that was for seniors.
Speaker 1 (10:28):
For the Silent generation seventy five and older, the most
common destinations Florida the least. The most commonplace to depart
from is California. California has the most net departures baby boomers,
so under seventy five, most popular state to go too
is Florida, then Arizona, then South.
Speaker 2 (10:49):
Carolina, then North Carolina, Nevada.
Speaker 1 (10:52):
California has the most net away migration, then New York,
then Illinois, then Washington State, then New Jersey.
Speaker 2 (11:00):
Gen X.
Speaker 1 (11:02):
Most popular state for gen X to move to is Florida,
then Texas, the North Carolina and South Carolina, then Nevada.
Speaker 2 (11:09):
The most common state to leave.
Speaker 1 (11:10):
Last on the list again is California, then New York,
than Illinois and New Jersey than Pennsylvania millennials. Most common
state for millennials to move to is Texas, then Washington.
Oddly enough, Georgia, Nevada, Maryland, Maryland the most common state
(11:31):
to leave from, though again huge net migration out California,
New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, Florida. Millennials are leaving Florida seemingly.
Speaker 2 (11:44):
Gen Z.
Speaker 1 (11:44):
Where is gen Z going when they move? Well, the
most common state they flee from is California. California is
the worst, the worst net migration negative forty thousand, than
New Jersey, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota. The best states that gen
Z is moving to South Carolina, North Carolina, Washington, DC,
DC's a young person town kind of makes sense, Tennessee, Missouri.
(12:11):
So California is the worst in every single age demographic,
the worst. So why do I bring this up in
a discussion of Scott Wiener. Well, the thing that Scott
(12:31):
Wiener sort of fancies himself as being is that he
is a great yimby. As he calls it a yes
in my backyard, or liberals got very fixated on this
nimby yimby thing because I think it allowed them to
sort of be pro growth, but in a way where
(12:53):
they could blame their parents, their conservative parents, or something
where they can feel like they're blaming someone conservative. So
this dynamic. Some housing in California has indeed been limited
by the following dynamic. A real estate developer wants to
(13:15):
build in a community. He wants to build, say an
apartment complex. The residents of that community who have single
family homes, they are afraid that if there is lower
income accessible multi unit dwellings near their houses, it will
(13:40):
lead the neighborhood to decline and the value of their
houses will go down. So they go to the city
council and they try to block it, or the county
Board of Supervisors and they try to block it.
Speaker 2 (13:51):
Or they file a sequa.
Speaker 1 (13:53):
Lawsuit a California Environmental Quality Act to try to make
some phony blogne claim that the multi unit dwelling has
some adverse environmental impact, that it's an environmental impact report
was insufficient, blah blah blah.
Speaker 2 (14:06):
Okay, I will grant you.
Speaker 1 (14:11):
That dynamic has happened in many parts of California.
Speaker 2 (14:15):
It is not super helpful.
Speaker 1 (14:21):
Just because you don't like that, and you can sort
of act like you're a superhero because some rich lady
from Orange County who doesn't want an apartment complex near
her house, like you can paint her as the bad guy.
That does not make you some great advocate for building
more housing in California. Okay, unless you are willing to
(14:44):
actually outlaw sequa, unless you're willing to take the crazy
environmental regulations off of builders, unless you're able to change
certain aspects of labor law to allow houses to be
built at a reasonable clip in a way that isn't
crazy expensive. I mean, there are so many factors making
housing more expensive to build in California. How long it
(15:06):
takes to build because of various kinds of labor laws
and things like that. A building project that takes one
year in most states takes two years in California. So
as a result, the loans that a builder has to
take out to finance the project have to extend for longer,
more expensive.
Speaker 2 (15:25):
There's more risk.
Speaker 1 (15:27):
If there's more risk and expense on the you know,
if there's more risk and expense on the part of
the builder. If there's more labor costs because it takes
two years to be out there, two years of trucks
and construction equipment out there instead of one year, well
guess who guess to whom is the builder going to
pass on that expense to the home buyer. Ultimately it's
(15:52):
reflected in a house that costs three hundred thousand dollars
rather than two hundred thousand dollars or something some such scenario.
The Scott Wieners of the world have been very aggressive
in trying to permit more multi unit dwellings, more lower
income housing, passing laws to exempt certain kinds of urban
(16:18):
infill projects from SEQUA, passing laws to exempt downtown San
Francisco housing projects from SIQUA. That doesn't mean you're some
great builder. That doesn't mean you are taking the shackles
off the construction industry, off, the home builder, off, the builders,
(16:40):
off developers in California to allow them to build more
homes to reverse this trend, because fundamentally, the.
Speaker 2 (16:48):
Reason why everyone's leaving here is.
Speaker 1 (16:50):
It's too expensive, and the chief thing that's too expensive
is housing.
Speaker 2 (16:55):
Housing is too expensive.
Speaker 1 (16:56):
No matter who you are, if you're a seniorting. You're
sitting on a house that you bought in nineteen eighty.
That's a flipping gold mine. Of course you're gonna sell it.
You're gonna move to Florida with lower taxes, get yourself achieved,
pause and make you know, an enormous profit. If you're
a young person, where the heck are you supposed to live? Oh,
(17:19):
I'll rent a closet in San Francisco for three thousand
dollars a month.
Speaker 2 (17:24):
Good luck. And this is part of why I despise
Scott Weener so much, this attitude he has. Oh I'm
I'm like Yimmi, I'm in favor of building. I'm in favor.
Speaker 1 (17:38):
No, you're not. You're in favor of one hyper specific
kind of building and then not doing what it would
take to even make it profitable, other than just subsidizing
it with more government spending. When we return, we'll talk
a little bit about that dynamic helping feed the supply
(17:58):
rather than subsidizing the demand. That's next on the John
Girardi Show. There's a story by this publication called Retirement Living,
indicating that among every generational cohort, the main state that
people are fleeing from is California.
Speaker 2 (18:20):
Why cost of living? It's too expensive to live here.
Speaker 1 (18:24):
So California has net negative migration among elderly people, the
so called silent generation, the seventy five and older crowd,
among baby boomers, among Gen X, among millennials, and among
Gen Z. California is fifty first out of fifty one
(18:44):
states plus DC in net negative migration or in net migration.
Speaker 2 (18:51):
All of our migration is net negative.
Speaker 1 (18:53):
Okay, people are more people are leaving California in every
generational that are.
Speaker 2 (19:01):
Moving to it.
Speaker 1 (19:04):
Probably the only reason California is close to getting any
kind of population increase, and it sounds like California has
had some population increase in the last like year or two.
Speaker 2 (19:18):
Is foreign immigration legal or illegal?
Speaker 1 (19:24):
Honestly that that is the only reason among actual pre
existing American residents thought migration net negative migration. Everyone's moving
away from California to Texas or Florida. And the reason
(19:47):
is first and foremost housing. And what is happening at
the state level. Again, you have some effort by state
lawmakers to do more for multi unit urban dwellings. Why
because all of our lawmakers are from LA and San Francisco.
No one's from a suburban area. Well are they They
(20:08):
they're from an urban area, and they are representing large
swaths of suburban and ex urb areas that they don't
care about because not very many people live in it.
That tends to be the dynamics within jerrymandered districts in California.
They're from La or San Francisco, and they just don't
care about what we do out in the sticks, the
(20:28):
relative sticks, So they don't care about building more houses.
Speaker 2 (20:34):
Single unit, single family dwellings are bad for the environment, so.
Speaker 1 (20:40):
Sorry, sorry, get a fifteen hundred square foot house for
six hundred thousand dollars or you know, seven hundred thousand dollars.
Speaker 2 (20:50):
On a good day.
Speaker 1 (20:54):
Instead, what they do for the few things they want
to allow, which is multi unit quote lower income dwellings.
The California has this sort of standard of lower income housing,
so it's the sort of legal states in quote lower
income housing. And the problem is it's still way too
(21:17):
expensive for builders to build quote lower income housing. I
think it was in Huntington Beach they made a multi
unit apartment complex quote lower income housing. It cost them
one million dollars per unit to build it. So not
exactly gonna be if pure market forces are at play.
(21:37):
That's not going to be accessible to a quote lower
income person if it costs the builder a million dollars
per unit. So what happens, Well, the state wants to
feel good about themselves building more quote lower income housing.
So what they do is they give big fat state
subsidies to the builders building the quote lower income housing.
(21:59):
They subsidize the demand rather than help free up supply,
and you see the vicious cycle. Rather than fix the
actual underlying affordability problems that have been created by state policy, state.
Speaker 2 (22:18):
Environmental policy, state labor policy, this, that, and the other.
Speaker 1 (22:22):
Instead, the state just gives away taxpayer money to the
builders so that it can allow the builders to possibly
turn a profit.
Speaker 2 (22:33):
They subsidize the demand rather than fix the supply.
Speaker 1 (22:40):
It's a bleep backwards way of trying to resolve the problem.
But this is the Scott Wiener mindset. This is the
mindset of the dominant liberal block within our state legislature.
They cannot fathom the idea of single family homes.
Speaker 2 (22:59):
They hate it.
Speaker 1 (23:00):
And we'll talk about that when we return here on
the John Girardi Show. A lot of the cost of
living problems in California. Most of them are driven by housing,
and much of the reason why it costs so much
is it's on purpose.
Speaker 2 (23:18):
They want it to cost a lot.
Speaker 1 (23:21):
Because they want to stop they want to limit the
environmental blight of families.
Speaker 2 (23:33):
Allow me to explain.
Speaker 1 (23:36):
So environmentalists hold a huge amount of sway in the
California state legislature in spite of the fact that the
Sierra Club does seem to be somewhat imploding. As there's
this hilarious story in the New York Times about the
Sierra Club and how the Sierra Club instead of just
(23:56):
focusing on its environmentalist, you know, actual core thing. I mean,
that's the whole point of the Sierra Club is to
be environmentalist wackos. During the height of wokeness and intersectionality
in the throughout the twenty twenties, they got in trouble
because they kept jumping on every other liberal cause and
(24:16):
it caused all kinds of dissension and like problems and
not actually focusing on actual environmental policy. And they had
a CEO who they hired from the NAACP, who people
argue was stealing money and just giving a ton of
money to his friends and blah.
Speaker 2 (24:33):
Blah blah blah blah.
Speaker 1 (24:35):
Nonetheless, environmentalist groups that they have a lot of power
in California. That doesn't have anything to do with the
internal dynamics of the Sierra Club. Environmentalist groups have a
lot of power in California chiefly because they have massive
billionaire donors who give to them, or multi gazillionaire donors
who give to those environmentalist organizations, and individual Democratic politicians
(24:59):
don't want to cross those donors.
Speaker 2 (25:03):
That's the dynamic. It's not so much the groups they're
afraid of. They're afraid of.
Speaker 1 (25:08):
The big time political donors who give to those groups
and who also give to big time Democrats, super PACs,
et cetera, et cetera. And you know, again it's people
joke that politicians should wear, you know, suits like a
NASCAR driver, where you have logos with all the corporate
(25:29):
entities whatever who who you know, fundraise for them, to
let the American public know more exactly, you know, whose
interests they represent. It's maybe not the worst idea, and certainly,
you know, this dynamic happens on both sides of the aisle.
Both you know, both parties wind up voting for things
that are advantageous to people who donate to them, et cetera.
Speaker 2 (25:52):
All right, but.
Speaker 1 (25:56):
In the case of Democrats, you have these whacked out
environmental groups who have a lot of sway because they
have billionaires behind them. And so Democrats have set up
a state where, again, whatever problems exist in California, the
(26:16):
Democrats own them, all right.
Speaker 2 (26:18):
They've had control of both houses of the state legislature
with super majorities plus the governor for fourteen straight years,
fourteen and a half almost fifteen straight years.
Speaker 1 (26:32):
Okay, so at this point, whatever problems we have, it's
you have to lay it all at the Democrats' feet.
And this is the society they've constructed with these just
utterly untouchably, unreasonably high costs of living, particularly for housing, and.
Speaker 2 (26:51):
A lot of it.
Speaker 1 (26:53):
Has to do with environmental policy. The continuing existence of SEQUA,
the continuing defense of SEQUA as a general principle, is
one of the big reasons why it's so expensive to
build sequel. The California Environmental Quality Act one of the
worst things that Ronald Reagan ever did. The two worst
(27:16):
things Ronald Reagan ever did was signing the country's first
law to legalize abortion, which he did, and then SEQUA
the California Environmental Quality Act. Those are probably Reagan's two
worst things he did as governor. What SEQUE allows you
to do is it allows someone to sue a building
(27:41):
construction development project for business or for residential housing or
whatever on the grounds that its environmental impact report was insufficient.
And thereby you're basically just saying it's environmental impact will
be too adverse, too harmful. And it's the thing where
(28:01):
you know, you would imagine, well, shouldn't wouldn't just be
that the state governs it that if you have some
kind of environmental impact study that has to be done,
it's submitted to some kind of state or county level
or city level agency who reviews it, reviews the environmental impact,
you know, maybe compares it against the city's you know,
general plan, and then it's either approved or it's not approved,
(28:23):
and that's the end of it. No, in California, you
have all that process, and then on top of it,
any Yahoo can just sue any Yahoo, some third party
not who doesn't necessarily need to have some direct clear
impact on themselves or their life or potential impact can
(28:44):
just suit, can just file a lawsuit to say that
this will have an adverse environmental impact and stop some
big construction project cold.
Speaker 2 (28:53):
It had to be.
Speaker 1 (28:56):
One of the silliest examples of this was from about
a year ago, little more than a year ago Pixley, California,
which I don't know if too many of you have
been to the teeming metropolis of Pixley, California. It is
a tiny little stop on the ninety nine going south
from Fresno down to Bakersfield, and tiny little town. There's
(29:25):
not one spot of the town that's more than a
mile away. I don't think from.
Speaker 2 (29:29):
The ninety nine. It's a rest stop on the ninety nine.
It's a tiny little town.
Speaker 1 (29:37):
Governor Newsom is really wanting to push these nitrogen power
plants because basically he's deliberately again the environmentalists forcing this.
He's handcuffed himself with energy production where he can't build
any natural gas power plants, he can't build any cold
(30:00):
power plants.
Speaker 2 (30:02):
He can't build nuclear power plants, even though nuclear is
the obvious best choice zero emissions. Nuclear waste is smaller
and more containable. It's totally steady form of power. It
doesn't matter if it's.
Speaker 1 (30:18):
Sunny or windy, with you know, solar energy or wind power.
It just produces tons of super efficient, super reliable energy. Okay,
So he can't do nuclear, he can't do natural gas,
he can't do coal. He can't even do that much
more hydro because environmentalists get mad at that because hydrogen
power usually requires a dam, and dams are bad for
(30:40):
the fishies. Hydro power, which is the only genuinely green
form of power production that is worth a dam, and
it actually has zero byproducts, no good because it hinders
fish and that's bad.
Speaker 2 (30:59):
So he's super limited.
Speaker 1 (31:00):
So he was putting a lot of stock in the
idea of well, let's let's do these hydrogen power plants.
Is zero emissions, you know, green forms of energy production.
And they were going to put one of those power
plants in Pixley. Now you'd think, for the good people Pixley,
this is a great thing. Pixley does not exactly have
a lot going on. Let's have a business something start
(31:25):
up there, have people move there, have people work there.
That's jobs, probably good paying jobs, you know whatever. A
couple of environmentalist wackos stopped the production of this hydrogen
power plant. Why, on the grounds that it would harm
the environment in Pixley.
Speaker 2 (31:47):
It's a green power plant. That's the whole point.
Speaker 1 (31:50):
It's the whole point of these power plants is that
it's green, zero missions, it's it's it won't harm the environment.
Speaker 2 (31:57):
What was the claim?
Speaker 1 (31:58):
The claim was that trucks will drive there to drop
off the raw I guess, liquid nitrogen, whatever it is,
whatever the original product is that has to be converted
into energy. So trucks are going to stop there, and
that'll increase truck pollution in Pixley. Pixley a town that
(32:23):
the ninety nine goes through, the whole town is less
than a mile away from the ninety nine. You know
how many trucks drive through Pixley a day. One hundred gazillion,
one hundred gazillion eighteen wheelers drive through Pixley every single
day and day. You're going to tell me that the
(32:45):
environmental harm of like four of those trucks stopping in
Pixley to drop off their load of liquid nitrogen whatever
it is, that's good, that'll do it. That's tipping the scale, buddy. No,
But that's what Sequel allows. It allows some stupid left
(33:07):
wing environmental group from Fresno funded assuredly with money from.
Speaker 2 (33:13):
LA or something or San Francisco.
Speaker 1 (33:16):
To stop this big construction thing called for a green
energy project. Now, if they'll do that for those kinds
of projects, let's focus on the thing they hate the most,
single family dwellings. Any of the action to relax SEQUA,
(33:42):
it's all focused on certain kinds of things. Well, one,
it's focused on the state Capitol building, so you know,
you know, we legislators, we want to have a nice office,
so it stop suing us.
Speaker 2 (33:55):
You're slowing down construction of our nice new offices.
Speaker 1 (33:58):
But most of the can instruction projects that have gotten
exceptions from SEQUA where the state legislature has passed a
law to say SEQUA is not going to apply to
this situation, this situation, this situation where it's like it's
like they acknowledge that SEQUA is stupid, that it is
a unnecessary hindrance to building, and that they can speed
up building just by repealing it for this purpose or
(34:21):
that purpose. So they acknowledge it for certain situations. Why
not just ban the whole thing altogether? Is because obviously
they want to continue artificially hindering certain kinds of construction.
The only things that they pass exceptions to Sequa for
is urban infill multi unit dwellings.
Speaker 2 (34:44):
So the city has already been built up around this area.
Speaker 1 (34:48):
You've got a vacant lot, or you've got a lot
that someone built and they're gonna demo whatever's on it.
Speaker 2 (34:55):
And build an apartment complex on it.
Speaker 1 (34:58):
That that is something they will allow an exception to
seek with for and pat themselves on the back like they're
the great heroes of housing. But let's note something. If
you're gen z or a millennial and you would like
to I don't know, get married and have some kids,
apartment living is not exactly what you're hoping for. That's
(35:21):
not the American dream. The American dream is a house
where maybe you could have more than one point four children.
Even if you have two children. Probably a lot of
people would rather not live in an apartment. They would
like a house, they would like a backyard.
Speaker 2 (35:44):
And so guess what.
Speaker 1 (35:46):
Young people don't want to live in places like that
where the only construction that they're allowing to build realistically
is urban in fill multi unit apartments.
Speaker 2 (35:54):
That's why you walk around San Francisco. There's no kids.
Why because families can't live there. They're priced out.
Speaker 1 (36:02):
There aren't homes available for them.
Speaker 2 (36:05):
There's no new construction.
Speaker 1 (36:10):
Why because the environmental footprint of a housing a gated
housing community with a bunch of single dwelling, single family dwellings,
is greater than the environmental footprint of an apartment complex.
Speaker 2 (36:30):
And so that is it.
Speaker 1 (36:32):
They are actively driving middle class family life out of
the state. That's what they want. They think families are
the enemy. They think families must be avoided, and they
have succeeded. They have succeeded in making this state as
(36:54):
hostile to middle class family life as they possibly can
when we return. Why, I have no confidence that any
Democrat will actually realistically change course on this. Next on
the John Ferarti Show, I have no confidence that the
horrible problems with housing in California will reach any kind
(37:15):
of resolution with any Democrat running.
Speaker 2 (37:17):
This was highlighted when Javier basera former HHS secretary.
Speaker 1 (37:21):
Under Biden, former Attorney General California, he announced he was
running for governor and he did this interview where he
was as what would you do differently? And he literally
could about housing, and he literally couldn't say anything.
Speaker 2 (37:31):
He had genuinely no answer. He just said he would
listen to what the experts said and do what they.
Speaker 1 (37:35):
Say, because there's nothing else they can do. They won't
restrict that, they won't lessen ease up on the environmental
regulations that make it incredibly expensive and impossible to build
middle income, affordable houses, single family dwellings. They don't want
(37:56):
middle class single family formation because they think.
Speaker 2 (37:58):
It's bad for the environment.
Speaker 1 (38:00):
And if if that's what they're committed to, and they're
all from San Francisco in La urban areas, they just
won't care about actually fixing the problem, that'll do it.
Speaker 2 (38:09):
John Gilardi shows you next time on Power Talk
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.