In his response to Nancy Fairbanks (July 19), Christopher Lucero made some very accurate observations on the state budget here in California. I honestly couldn’t fault him on any of his citations as the man has clearly done his homework. He even put California in fourth place globally on the sheer size of its economy. The only thing Mr. Lucero failed to mention is just how expensive it is to actually LIVE in California (all things considered), and what we get in return.
Although I haven’t done MY homework I would guess that California may also be the fourth most EXPENSIVE place to live in the world. It takes a hell of a lot of money to keep this place “running” as it does … sort of. From the sound of Mr. Lucero’s letter I would also guess that he doesn’t think it costs more than it’s worth to keep living here (all things considered). I wonder if there’s anything that would make him change his mind on that, because it seems that a lot of “former” Californians already have. My own family is pretty well-off financially (knock on wood), but even we’re starting to consider moving. The HOA fees are getting just a bit too steep even for a neighborhood with all of the “luxurious amenities” this one has (sarcasm).
Maybe Mr. Lucero can list all of the “worthwhile” luxuries we pay for in his next budgetary report, which should also compare cost vs “VALUE.” Yes, that would be even more useful than all of these statistical “citations,” which don’t speak to “quality of life” or “bang for your buck.” I don’t know where California ranks on THAT scale, but I doubt it’s fourth in the world.
Arthur Saginian
Santa Clarita
