Maybe if SF and the Bay area would smarten up and vote for republicans maybe the stench of failed democrat liberal ways would begin to cease and real progress could be achieved.

Excellent summation of people and family trends here. It would be interesting to have a similar discussion focused on business movement.

For those having moved out of a metropolitan area, they may be interested in following the developments of New California State (www.ncs51.com). They are focused on creating a more business and family-friendly (and efficient) state. Unlike previous statehood attempts, NCS plans on following the constitutionally-prescribed approach to better ensure success. It separates from the major metro areas so that each may pursue its own priorities (e.g., social justice versus family and business-friendly).

"The council has formed a group to work on improving the business climate in the state by addressing homelessness, high taxes and other negatives that are sending companies out of state. "

**Part of the problem is that Businesses have found many ways NOT to pay their fair share of taxes, so the middle class has to pay much more than their fair share. Giving more advantages to businesses just to hang on to them does not feel fair to the working class. And when did homelessness send companies out of the state? Big Business needs to pay more taxes so that money can go into budgeting for homelessness and such. Perhaps give homeless people jobs so they can afford a home. There's an idea!

"...absurdities such as the city paying $61,000 annually to house formerly homeless people in tents."

**That's some pretty expensive Tents... Who is the city buying them from?

"The city estimates there are 8,000 homeless people there which works out to $106,500 in city costs per person."

**Lets' see $106,500 x 8,000 = $852,000,000 hmmmmmmm

This article, brings up more questions than answers...for the reader. Just saying ~ and I know it's not just me.

Considering the Pandemic (responsible for loss of jobs & lives) and closures that were necessary for public health (life & death) this past year, just about all of 2020, the Bay Area has ALWAYS been a HIGH cost of living location, WITHOUT cost of living wage increases TO KEEP UP with it...

It's no wonder people leave and try too find a less expensive environment to live in, while trying to keep their existing jobs. Hence the HORRID TRAFFIC congestion in the Bay Area on Freeways, highways, neighborhoods AND public transportation.

Claudette - I love it when people say that "Big Business needs to pay more taxes" and that the wealthy and businesses need "to pay their fair share of taxes".
What exactly is the "fair share" they should pay in taxes? What is their fair share versus YOUR fair share?? I find it interesting that you (and others) want to tax someone that has become "wealthy" through hard work at a higher rate than you pay just to support some crack addict living on the streets of Oakland or San Francisco. I think it is at the very least the slippery slope into socialism.

Please just put out for all to see what the wealthy fair share is versus your fair share. Is the idea to tax them until they come down to your level of net worth?? Just want to clarify what "fair share" means.

Claudette is right! The rich and big corporations hire lawyers and lobbyists to pay less taxes and create loopholes that they can manipulate. It is not her job to tell you CWM what is a fair tax. It is the responsibility of elected state and federal governments. They not only favor the rich and big corporations, they also mishandle the money that we give them. Where is the accountability? Both Democrats and Republicans.

CWM- I would take your comments directed at Claudette a step further. This "fair share" business has always been a Liberal "talking point" because it fits with their narrative that somehow the people in this world who have failed to gain a measure of success "deserve" to be cared for (with someone elses's money), and conversely, those who have managed to create wealth from the "opportunities that a free country afforded them" somehow need to "pony up" what they term "their fair share" because of their success. It's the "Robin Hood form" of government, and it plays to those whom they determine to be "the needy!"
But the whole nonsensical mess walks completely around the matter of who really pays. Our businesses already are saddled with taxes that are greater than in most of the rest of the world, and as we should expect, in order to remain in business, they must pass those costs on to their customers (i.e. the average Joes who buy their products or use their services). So the "fair shares" of the wealthy are really paid ultimately by the very people who think somehow "the rich owe them." We have progressive taxation, so "the rich" already pay larger percentages of their incomes than "the poor." But somehow, the fact that they are still rich, bothers Liberals, who fail to realize that it's the rich folks provide jobs for the less fortunate. I think that "fair share" wouid end up being every last dime the rich had if it were possible for it to be taken from them.