Paradise Lost: Crowdifornia 2008


Not so long ago—before the

Immigration Profligacy
Act
of

1965

took hold, and before
Washington decided to
stop enforcing the law against illegal aliens
—California
was Eden,

even for average folks.

The late demographer
Meredith Burke

wrote in

The Union Sells Out
The Little Man—and the Nation

[San Francisco Chronicle, March 27, 2000] about
the life her parents had in post-war Los Angeles:


`My father`s long
workweek earned him about $25-30 in 1938 when he and my
mother married and perhaps $65-70 in the postwar era. On
this he and my mother were able to buy into the American
dream. They could afford the $58 monthly payments on a
three-bedroom stucco bungalow house. Sundays we enjoyed
drives to near-by San Gabriel Valley farms and orchards
or a day at an uncrowded, unpolluted beach. My mother
used to say, thanking God, `Where else can working folk
live like this?`


“…The low cost of
living, the unparalleled beauty of the natural setting
my father`s generation enjoyed were benefits conferred
by a sustainable population base. In 1940, the country
had 132 million people; California, 7 million people. By
1950, the nation`s 150 million and California`s 10
million people were both butting up against ecological
limits. Yet land for postwar housing tracts was cheap;
one merely had to convert nearby farmland. Long Island
and San Gabriel Valley farms alike vanished.”

The speed at which
postwar California has been

paved over

for

dubious progress

and

substantial profit
has been
breathtaking. California is full and getting fuller, but
They Keep Coming—everyone on earth, or so it appears.
The Golden State is

losing its luster

to many—but not enough. As a result, the state`s
population is expected to pass

40 million in 2012 and
exceed 50 million by 2032
.

Unpleasant crowdiness is
becoming normal as quality of life drops off the chart
in the place that was once close to paradise on earth.
It seems every day brings

another report

about worsening everything, and how much more it will
cost.

  • Here in Alameda
    County, east of San Francisco, where I live in the
    People`s Republic of Berkeley, the water barons just
    announced that

    mandatory rationing

    will be imposed immediately.


Robust January rains

looked bright for bringing the state`s snowpack and
reservoirs up to snuff for the current population of 38
million. But late winter rains ended like drinks at 2am,
so now we face

short showers
,
brown lawns and

drought anxiety disorder

lasting for who knows how long.

I suspect that even


seasonably normal
rainfall
will
not provide enough water in the near future, and some
form of rationing, e.g. very high charges above a
certain level of use, will remain permanently.

If California were still
a semi-manageable 23-24 million residents—as it was
during the

moderate late 1970s
drought
—these
harsh measures would not be required, at least not this
early. But Washington`s immigration treason has painted
us into a corner of few options and bad choices.

  • Down south where
    water concerns are more pressing, Los Angeles Mayor
    Tony Villaraigosa has been talking up water
    conservation.

(Even Mexican mayors are
supposed to

sound green

in California nowadays. Particularly when

political advancement is
desired
… )

The ambitious water plan
carries political risks for the mayor, but also could
burnish his record as an environmental leader in a bid
for higher office. A number of key details remain to be
worked out and vetted by the City Council, including the
cost of various elements and how they would be financed.
[L.A.
prepares massive water-conservation plan
,
By Rich Connell, Los Angeles Times, May 15, 2008]

The Mayor`s

20-year master plan

includes

recycling sewage water
,
a scheme which met stiff resistance in an earlier trial
balloon; see Slate`s 2000 report,

L.A. to serve toilet
water
.

However, LA`s exploding
population will largely nullify water conservation
efforts. The county

added over 400,000
residents

2000-2006 and had the fourth-highest numerical increase
in the nation during that period, according to the
Census. The LA Department of Water and Power estimates a
mere

15 percent increase

in demand by 2030 due to population growth, which sounds
unduly optimistic, even with giveaway programs of

low-flow toilets

and the like.

Exhortations in

Spanish

to conserve water won`t help much with a demographic
tsunami of this magnitude.

BART, the regional rail
system that is carrying more passengers on a typical
weekday than ever before, has been quietly removing
seats from trains to make room for even more riders.

Soon we can rename the system

Bay Area Standing
Transit
.

In 1970, when BART was
being

completed
,
the population of the nine counties comprising the San
Francisco Bay Area was around

4.6 million
;
as of 2006 we were a crowded

7.1 million
.

Back during the
construction period, downtown San Francisco`s Market
Street was torn up for years with noise and dirt. The
BART media folks assured the public that a glorious
future transit lay ahead and would be worth all the mess
and trouble.

To demonstrate its
modernity, the first cars had no

grabber bars

on the ceiling for standing passengers, because there
would be seats for everyone on the automated BART
system! No one would ever have to stand, so bars would
be unnecessary.

What were those
engineers

smoking
?
These days, riders accept sardine conditions as normal.

Supporters warn that
without high-speed rail, California would need to build


3,000 new miles of
highway lanes,

60 new airline gates and
five more runways to meet the transportation needs
created by the

state population growing
from 35
million to 48 million over the next 25 years. [Bullet
train likely chugging to derailment
,
by Greg Lucas, San Francisco Chronicle, January
26, 2006]

A major argument against
the bullet train: the prohibitive price tag. The state
is up to its eyeballs in debt ($17
billion
at
last count),

courtesy

of

Gov. Schwarzenegger

who has

borrowed

up a storm. He sailed into office during the

2003 Recall

election as the movie-star fiscal-reform candidate who
would clean up

Gray Davis` financial
mess
. It


hasn`t worked out

that way.

We taxpayers have been
assured by Governor Schwarzenegger that we will not be
stuck with the entire cost of the bullet train because
he supports a private-public partnership. A cynic would
define that arrangement as where the citizenry pays the
costs and business reaps the profits. The details of how
the train would be financed

remain sketchy

at this point.

And any transportation
system that makes travel easier and faster from southern
California must be viewed skeptically by us in the
higher latitudes. The idea of easing the migration of
additional

Mexicans

by hurtling them northward at 220 mph is not a pleasant
thought.

As in the case of the
bullet train, population growth is regularly cited by
political elites when they want more money from the


taxpayer
.
The appeal is geared to common sense: there are millions
more people, so the government has to

build additional
infrastructure

to cope:

But when possible water restrictions
were reported in the press in April, a spokesman from
the local water agency announced the
resource shortage

had nothing to do with increased numbers of users. Water
managers apparently don`t want citizens connecting
excessive legal and illegal immigration with having to
cut back on normal water usage, which is
onerous and makes people angry.


“[EBMUD spokesman
Charles] Hardy discounts population growth as a factor
in the water shortage: He said the district uses the
same amount of water—about 230 million gallons a year—as
it did nearly four decades ago when the population was
two-thirds what it is today.”

[East
Bay water managers plan for drought
,
by Kelly Zito, San Francisco Chronicle, April 24,
2008]

Which presumably means
the agency is using water more economically—but that its
efforts are being obviated by

population growth.

You might think that
environmentalists would have

some interest
in opposing
population growth—in preserving

California`s unique
natural heritage,

that is. But the managers of groups like the Sierra Club
studiously avoid the immigration cause of America`s
domestic overpopulation crisis, because naming it upsets
their open-borders political allies.

The California salmon
are gone with nary a peep from the

Sierra Club

about the overpopulation factor that sways government
water management. The hoards of illegal aliens traipsing
across the border leave millions of pounds of

trash

that endangers wildlife and is generally disgusting. The
problem would be a natural for real conservationists to
tackle.

Instead,
environmentalists like the Sierrans have joined with
other far-left groups to

oppose

a border fence using the
courts. Keeping its

Raza pals happy
is apparently job #1
for the Sierra Club, e.g. when it

fought the REAL ID law

last fall. (And environmentalists wonder why the public


doesn`t trust them

about global warming.)

Sadly, Crowdifornia has
few organizations working to save what`s left of its
inspiring beauty and livability. Only immigration
realists like VDARE.COM have the integrity to even
discuss the real issues.


Brenda
Walker (
email
her)

lives
in Northern California and
publishes two websites,



LimitsToGrowth.org

and




ImmigrationsHumanCost.org
.
She wouldn`t mind a high-speed train for California if
it only ran from north to south.