From Californian Exceptionalism to Statewide Gentrification

“[The] development of the West is being predicated on fragmentary information, improvised planning, and the opportunistic promotion of ‘projects.’” So wrote the late, great writer and journalist Carey McWilliams in 1949. He concludes his book, “California: The Great Exception,” with this sentence:

California needs men and women who can see beyond its mountains; who can see the entire West, and realize that, as with all good things, there comes a time when the gold runs out, when the exception disappears in the rule, and when California … must, indeed put on knowledge with its power and adopt, as an official policy, the same generous open-handedness with which its magic mountains have showered benefits on those lucky people, the Californians.

McWilliams wrote these words as he witnessed California’s population explosion during and after World War II. In the 1940s and 50s, the state’s population more than doubled. Millions and millions of new Californians claimed the state motto: “Eureka!” (“I found it!”). While there was an initial period of “improvised planning,” state leaders in government, business, and civil society responded with breath-taking speed and creativity. As a state, we were young, ambitious, positive, welcoming. 

What the heck happened?

A recent study by the state’s non-partisan Legislative Analysts’ Office (LAO) noted that between 2007 to 2016, 1 million more Californians left the state than moved in. These numbers are fairly consistent with trends we’ve seen in the last two decades, but the LAO researchers offer two reasons why this time is more alarming. 

First, the states Californians are moving to and those newcomers are arriving from. Californians are moving to Texas, Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon by the hundreds of thousands. And they’re coming from New York, Illinois, New Jersey, and Michigan in the tens of thousands. The report notes that this is the first time there has been this level of consistency.

Secondly, the report highlights the particular people who are coming and going — in ways that dismantle California’s long-held image of itself as a burgeoning middle-class paradise, which McWilliams described more than half a century ago. By annual household income, Californians left the state in every category from “Under $15,000” up through $110,000. Starting at $111,000 and up, we see increases in new Californians moving in. What’s more, the LAO writes, “Families with kids and those and those with only a high school education predominate among those moving from California.” More kids (those under 18 years old) have left California in the last decade than any other age cohort.

A state once known as a middle-class oasis is becoming increasingly older, richer, and less family-friendly. The reasons for these movements are well-known, from sky-rocketing housing prices to a lack of lower-middle-class jobs to the cost of energy — and don’t forget those taxes. A recent state-by-state study by CNBC even found the average cost of a ribeye steak and a gallon of milk to be higher in California than almost every other state, giving us an “F” grade in “Cost of Living.”

We agree with California real-estate writer and analyst Patrick Sisson’s recent assessment of these developments: “California’s experiencing what looks like statewide gentrification.” 

But California as a whole — including our government and major business and civic institutions — seems either disengaged or overwhelmed by these historic trends. Once again, as McWilliams wrote before one of the last major population changes in our state’s history, we appear to be responding with “improvised” policy-making based on “fragmentary information.” It’s as if we don’t view these challenges as the “man-made problems” they really are, or worse, some are just hoping these problems will go away with the next recession.

This is why the two of us have joined a bipartisan group of Californians — policy researchers, former pols, and community advocates — in forming something called the Economic Mobility Collaborative. The group has met up and down the state over the last year to deliberate over the central question: “How do we return California to a place of economic opportunity for all?” Our efforts are framed in a letter to the next governor. It’s signed by scores of the state’s civic leaders, and we welcome your signature too.

In particular, in this election year, we call on our next governor to take what is really a very Californian approach to solving problems — evaluate, track, and respond. “We will urge the next Governor to endorse clear, specific targets for the state to achieve by 2030, and easy-to-follow metrics to track progress. Our shared goal should be measurable, visible change” in returning California to the economically diverse state it once was. 

Unlike the era McWilliams lived through, today the public policy world is increasingly transparent. Big data is used to form “policy performance dashboards” that track budgets, economic development, and infrastructure building and maintenance. In the last two decades, California has made significant progress in reducing greenhouse-gas emissions through multi-year goal-setting and regular assessment, and the aforementioned LAO studies the economic impact of legislative measures and ballot proposals.

The time has come to match these new tools of analysis with the political will to do what Californians have always done: solve problems and provide opportunity for all.

Pete Peterson is Dean of the Pepperdine School of Public Policy, and Dr. Sam Blakeslee is Director of the Institute of Advanced Technology & Public Policy and former State Senator.