Look, I completely understand a person's PREFERENCES.
Who am I to tell anyone that they shouldn't have one?
I don't take offense at C-Rick saying that he prefers to live in NorCal.
He's happy there, so he should live there.
I like the area too, and if I could work there, I might consider living there.
But it's not the media hub, and it never will be, so I can't.
What I take umbrage at is when people imply that SoCal has no right to exist, or be part of California, or that it should be forced to merge with Arizona, or whatever.
Jeezus Christ on a crutch, Northern California is a fine place but I think it might just be stretching it a little to imply that they can dictate to the rest of the state.
And not every city or region can BE a wonderland of natural beauty and a center of haute couture, exclusive cuisine, vintage architecture and high priced accomodations.
Some areas are industrial, and they're important too.
Los Angeles does indeed have the annoying tendency to erase itself way too much, and it's tough to take sometimes when you see favorite landmarks go under the wrecking ball without much of a fight.
We do have too much concrete and not enough open green spaces. We have too many cars, too much smog (although that HAS improved) not enough urban transport and too many cookie cutter exurbs.
But not everyone can afford to live up North.
San Francisco is one of the most expensive cities in the world to live in.
So again, I ask you California Rick, would you like everyone down here to JUST MOVE UP THERE and start building some more cookie cutter burbs, because there's no way all of them will be able to afford mansions in the Marina District.
Or are you busy authoring those NorCal Guidestones in which you advocate a simple die off so you Northerners won't be inconvenienced?
