‘Welcome to California, now go home’: Is it finally happening?

To the editor: “Welcome to California, now go home” — I recall this time-worn maxim, having relocated to California from Ohio after graduating high school decades ago. (“California loses population for an unprecedented third year. It could cost state real clout,” Dec. 22)

Now, finally, California has seen a few years of population decline. Couldn’t people leaving the state signal that less traffic and lower prices are on the way?

With 0.1% of the population gone this year, how many fewer cars will be on the road? How will air quality improve? And how long before the cost of living goes down with the population?

Mary Ann Vorasky, Santa Monica

..

To the editor: If California is disadvantaged by a declining population, should we grow the state from 40 million to 50 million, or 100 million, or more?

Perhaps a decline is not as scary as growth would be, in a state whose existing population already depletes its aquifers, cropland and fisheries.

Sooner or later Californians must reckon with our unsustainable resource depletion, and as with climate change, the sooner we act, the better our chance of success.

In California, losing a few seats from the nation’s largest congressional delegation does not threaten our civilization like overpopulation does.

Kenneth Pasternack, Santa Barbara

To the editor: “Welcome to California, now go home” — I recall this time-worn maxim, having relocated to California from Ohio after graduating high school decades ago. (“California loses population for an unprecedented third year. It could cost state real clout,” Dec. 22)

Now, finally, California has seen a few years of population decline. Couldn’t people leaving the state signal that less traffic and lower prices are on the way?

With 0.1% of the population gone this year, how many fewer cars will be on the road? How will air quality improve? And how long before the cost of living goes down with the population?

Mary Ann Vorasky, Santa Monica

..

To the editor: If California is disadvantaged by a declining population, should we grow the state from 40 million to 50 million, or 100 million, or more?

Perhaps a decline is not as scary as growth would be, in a state whose existing population already depletes its aquifers, cropland and fisheries.

Sooner or later Californians must reckon with our unsustainable resource depletion, and as with climate change, the sooner we act, the better our chance of success.

In California, losing a few seats from the nation’s largest congressional delegation does not threaten our civilization like overpopulation does.

Kenneth Pasternack, Santa Barbara