Keys To Building A Third World - One State Disaster At A Time
Devastation in what ever form it takes is unfortuitous. The jet stream flows from West to East as does the politics. It takes a special kind of myopia to witness the systematic collapse of one state under the weight of toxic, performative policies and decide to replicate it elsewhere. Yet, Connecticut seems intent on emulating California’s model, with the same disastrous results looming on the horizon. The irony here is thick enough to smother even the most fervent supporters of “progress.” Adding insult to injury, both states have been and continue to push the dystopian "15-minute city" concept as a supposed solution to urban woes, further illustrating the dangers of centralized control. Meanwhile, pervasive bureaucracy and excessive regulation—aptly summarized by Adam Carolla’s scathing critique—are paralyzing real progress.
California’s Deliberate Blueprint for Failure
California’s policymakers, led by Governor Gavin Newsom, have turned the state into a dystopian showcase of reckless governance disguised as progressivism. From devastating wildfires to soaring homelessness and housing crises, the state has perfected the art of virtue signaling while ignoring the fundamental needs of its citizens.
Newsom’s ill-fated decision to cut $101 million from wildfire and forest resilience programs in 2024––25—while boasting about his environmental stewardship—is a case study in political hypocrisy. Programs vital to reducing wildfire risks, such as Cal Fire’s fuel reduction teams and the forest legacy program, were gutted, leaving residents vulnerable to predictable and preventable disasters. Meanwhile, Newsom deflects blame onto local leaders or, better yet, onto Donald Trump, citing water management issues to shield himself from accountability.
Adding to this narrative is the lack of conclusive climate change data that definitively links human activity to increased natural disasters. While climate change is often presented as settled science, the complexities of weather systems and natural cycles leave significant gaps in our understanding. Policies predicated on these uncertainties—such as California’s aggressive environmental regulations—often result in more harm than good by ignoring immediate, pragmatic solutions.
The Adam Carolla Effect
As Adam Carolla aptly noted, California’s labyrinthine bureaucracy has made rebuilding after disasters—like the Malibu and Palisades fires—an insurmountable task. From navigating endless permits to meeting arbitrary and excessive regulations, residents are caught in a Kafkaesque nightmare. Consider the example of swimming pools requiring "double hulls" to prevent water leaching into the groundwater table, a regulation so extreme that it mimics the standards for oil tankers.
Carolla’s observation that the "Coastal Commission" often acts as a roadblock to rebuilding encapsulates the systemic issues. The commission’s mission to "protect the coast" often translates into discouraging rebuilding altogether, effectively forcing people out of their homes under the guise of environmental protection. This isn’t governance; it’s obstruction.
These barriers reveal an underlying agenda. Carolla quips, "they’re in the business of getting you to leave." By making it nearly impossible for residents to rebuild or develop their properties, California’s regulatory bodies are executing a slow, forced exodus—one that benefits bureaucrats and developers while disenfranchising homeowners.
Copy & Paste Disaster
Connecticut, whose leaders seem enamored with the California model, despite its glaring failures. Governor Lamont, along with the other progressive Democrats—including Rosa DeLauro, Chris Murphy, Richard Blumenthal, Matt Ritter, and Jim Himes—are dragging the state down a similar path. Legislative efforts, like Public Act 21-29, echo California’s disastrous housing policies, prioritizing centralized control over local governance.
Key Legislation and Consequences
Public Act 21-29:
What It Does: Mandates that municipalities allow accessory dwelling units (ADUs) as of right, reduces parking mandates, and promotes transit-oriented development.
Consequences:
Strained local infrastructure: Increased population density without adequate investment in schools, roads, or utilities.
Loss of local autonomy: Municipalities lose control over zoning decisions, leading to uniform policies that ignore unique community needs.
Property tax increases: Higher demands on local services result in tax hikes for residents.
Desegregate Connecticut Initiatives:
What It Proposes: A coalition-backed effort to reform zoning laws to encourage equity and diversity in housing.
Consequences:
Overcrowded housing markets: Zoning changes force communities to accept high-density developments, reducing property values and altering neighborhood dynamics.
Developer favoritism: Benefits large-scale developers over local interests, further centralizing power.
Affordable Housing Appeals Act (Section 8-30g):
What It Does: Allows developers to bypass local zoning regulations if a municipality fails to meet state-mandated affordable housing quotas.
Consequences:
Displacement risks: Developments often target areas with existing affordable housing, displacing low-income residents.
Legal battles: Towns face costly legal challenges from developers, draining local budgets.
The '15-Minute City' They’ve (sort of) Told You About.
Both California and Connecticut are embracing the "15-minute city" concept, a utopian urban planning idea that envisions residents living within 15 minutes of all essential services. What is a 15-Minute City ?
Proponents of the 15-minute city, championed by urbanists and environmentalists, claim it reduces car dependency, cuts emissions, and fosters a sense of community. Neighborhoods are designed to include housing, workspaces, schools, and healthcare facilities within walking or cycling distance.
he Dystopian Reality
Surveillance and Control:
To enforce the 15-minute city concept, governments must implement extensive surveillance infrastructure. Tracking residents’ movements to ensure compliance with localized living zones invites significant privacy violations.
This centralized monitoring mirrors the social credit systems used in authoritarian regimes, making residents’ lives increasingly subject to bureaucratic oversight.
Restricted Mobility:
By discouraging car use and imposing restrictions on travel outside designated zones, these cities curtail personal freedom. Individuals are effectively trapped in their micro-communities, unable to explore opportunities or maintain autonomy.
In Connecticut and California, these restrictions are exacerbated by zoning laws that force high-density development near public transit hubs, reducing housing choice.
Economic Segregation:
The promise of inclusivity often masks economic stratification. Wealthier residents can bypass restrictions through private means, such as owning electric vehicles, while lower-income individuals bear the brunt of reduced mobility and limited options.
Housing costs in 15-minute city zones are likely to skyrocket, further entrenching inequality.
The parallels are undeniable. Both states are centralizing control, overriding local decision-making, and implementing policies that favor ideological conformity over practical governance. California’s "Builder’s Remedy," which allows developers to bypass zoning if municipalities fail to comply with state housing laws, is mirrored in Connecticut’s Affordable Housing Appeals Act. These policies claim to address housing shortages but instead lead to over development, increased taxes, and diminished community character.
California is burning itself out - figuratively and literally and Connecticut is eagerly walking the same path, driven by the same fucked up neo-Marxist idealism that have proven disastrous elsewhere. Policies that centralize control, erode personal freedoms, and exacerbate inequality are out on parade for all to see and without swift corrective action, the leaders responsible for these destructive policies will doom their municipalities and states to mediocrity and decline leaving residents with no alternative but to seek refuge in whats left of states that will welcome them with open arms.
SOURCES:
Newsweek: Analysis of California Governor Gavin Newsom's $101 million budget cuts for wildfire and forest resilience programs in the 2024–2025 fiscal year.
AP News: Coverage of Senate Bill 9 (SB 9) and Senate Bill 10 (SB 10) and their impact on local zoning and housing density.
Wikipedia: Explanation of the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) and the Builder’s Remedy as tools for housing development in California.
American Planning Association: Overview of Public Act 21-29 and its zoning reforms for accessory dwelling units and transit-oriented development.
Desegregate CT: Policy proposals and initiatives to promote housing equity and reduce segregation in Connecticut.
Direct quote from Adam Carolla: His observations on California's bureaucracy and regulatory challenges in rebuilding homes after natural disasters, emphasizing excessive red tape and the Coastal Commission’s restrictive policies.
Urban Planning Resources: General framework and goals of the 15-minute city concept, focusing on reduced car dependency and localized living.
Privacy and Surveillance Concerns: Studies on the potential for excessive monitoring and restrictions on personal freedom in urban planning initiatives.
Statements from Connecticut leaders, including Governor Ned Lamont, Rosa DeLauro, Chris Murphy, Richard Blumenthal, Matt Ritter, and Jim Himes, on housing and zoning policies.
References to Republicans’ role in supporting or failing to oppose certain state policies.
Comments