“So what about California? The economic well-being of many metropolitan areas in the Golden State has been sinking precipitously since 2006. This year, three California regions--Oakland, Sacramento and San Bernardino-Riverside--have sunk down into the bottom 10 on the large cities list. That's a phenomenon we've never seen before--and never expected to see.” FORBES
CALIFORNIA IN MELTDOWN: JOBS GO FIRST TO ILLEGALS. MEXICAN GANGS HAVE INFESTED ALL CITIES. THE STATE OF CA PAYS OUT $20 BILLION PER YEAR IN SOCIAL SERVICES TO ILLEGALS. THE STATE HAS THE LARGEST, AND MOST EXPENSIVE PRISON SYSTEM IN THE COUNTRY, HALF THE PRISON POPULATION ARE ILLEGALS FROM MEXICO.
THERE ARE ONLY EIGHT (8) STATES WITH A LARGER POPULATION THAN LOS ANGELES COUNTY, WHERE HALF THE JOBS GO TO ILLEGALS USING STOLEN SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS. THIS COUNTY PAYS OUT $600 MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR TO ILLEGALS ON WELFARE, AND HIS MEXICO’S “ANCHOR” BABY BIRTHING CENTER.
BUT WHO PAYS FOR THE MEXICAN OCCUPATION AND EVER EXPANDING WELFARE STATE?
THE MEXICAN TAX-FREE UNDERGROUND ECONOMY IS CALCULATED TO BE $2 BILLION PER YEAR!
THERE HAVE BEEN MORE THAN 2,000 CALIFORNIANS MURDERED BY ILLEGALS THAT FLED BACK OVER THE BORDER TO AVOID PROSECUTION.
THERE IS NOT ONE DEM IN CA THAT IS NOT LA RAZA ENDORSED, AND WORKS CEASELESSLY FOR VARIOUS AMNESTY PLOYS!
FEINSTEIN, BOXER, PELOSI, AND WAXMAN ALL WANT OPEN BORDERS, NO E-VERIFY, CONTINUED OBAMA NON-ENFORCEMENT OF LAWS PROHIBITING THE EMPLOYMENT OF ILLEGALS AS WELL AS NO ENGLISH ONLY, AND NO I.D. TO EASE ILLEGALS INTO VOTING BOOTHS!
CA – NO LEGAL NEED APPLY!
CA – MEXICO’S WELFARE OFFICE!
CA – MEX GANG STATE!
OBAMA KNOWS HE WORKS FOR HIS BANKSTER DONORS, WHICH IS WHY EVEN AS A NATION CONTINUES TO SPIRAL DOWN, OBAMA’S BANKSTER DONORS ARE PULLING IN MASSIVE PROFITS, STAGGERING BONUSES, AND CONTINUED UNINTERRUPTED CRIME WAVE!
IT’S A BIT DIFFERENT FOR OTHER SECTORS WHERE OBAMA IS ASSAULTING THE AMERICAN WORKER, TYPICAL ON BEHALF OF JOBS FOR ILLEGALS FIRST!
THE REASON OBAMA BROUGHT IN DALEY WAS TO OPERATE J.P. MORGAN’S INTERESTS FROM THE WHITE HOUSE BY THIS MORGAN BANKSTERS, AND BECAUSE DALEY IS AN ADVOCATE FOR OPEN BORDERS LIKE OBAMA!
“Unfortunately, there's not much in the way of short-term--or perhaps even medium- or long-term--hope for a strong rebound in those places. President Obama seems determined to give the automakers, for whom Michigan is home base, far rougher treatment than what he meted out to ailing companies in the financial sector.”
Worst Cities For Jobs
Joel Kotkin, 04.28.09, 12:00 AM ET
One of the saddest tasks in the annual survey of the best places to do business I conduct with Pepperdine University's Michael Shires is examining the cities at the bottom of the list. Yet even in these nether regions there exists considerable diversity: Some places are likely to come back soon, while others have little immediate hope of moving up. (Please also see "Best Cities For Jobs" for further analysis.)
The study is based on job growth in 336 regions--called Metropolitan Statistical Areas by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which provided the data--across the U.S. Our analysis looked not only at job growth in the last year but also at how employment figures have changed since 1996. This is because we are wary of overemphasizing recent data and strive to give a more complete picture of the potential a region has for job-seekers. (For the complete methodology, click here.)
First let's deal with the perennial losers, the sad sacks of the American economy. Mostly cities in the nation's industrial heartland, these places have ranked toward the bottom of our list for much of the past five years. Eleven of the bottom 16 regions on our list are in two states, Ohio and Michigan. In fact, the Wolverine State alone accounts for bottom four cities: Jackson, Michigan, Detroit, Saginaw and Flint.
In Depth: Worst Big Cities For Jobs
In Depth: Worst Medium-Sized Cities For Jobs
In Depth: Worst Small Cities For Jobs
Unfortunately, there's not much in the way of short-term--or perhaps even medium- or long-term--hope for a strong rebound in those places. President Obama seems determined to give the automakers, for whom Michigan is home base, far rougher treatment than what he meted out to ailing companies in the financial sector.
In addition, new environmental regulations may not help auto production, since it necessitates some carbon-spewing and therefore perhaps unacceptable levels of greenhouse gas emission.
However, not all of Michigan's problems stem from Washington or the marketplace. Many of the locations at the bottom of the list remain inhospitable to business. To be sure, housing is cheap--in Detroit, property values are fast plummeting toward zero--but running a business can be surprisingly expensive in these hard-pressed places.
In fact, according to a recent survey by the Tax Foundation, Ohio has an average tax burden roughly similar to New York, California, Massachusetts and Connecticut. But while the others are comparatively high-income states, Ohio residents no longer enjoy that level of affluence.
Can these places come back? It is un-American to abandon hope, but there needs to be a radical shift in strategy to focus on creating new middle-class jobs. Some Midwestern cities, like Kalamazoo and Indianapolis, have made some successful efforts to diversify their economies, encouraging start-ups and trying to be business-friendly.
But those are exceptions. Cleveland, one of our worst big cities, could spark a renaissance by revamping its port and nearby industrial hinterland. Once the world economy improves, it could re-emerge--building on the existing knowledge and skills of its production- and design-savvy population--as a hub for manufacturing and exports.
But right now, Cleveland does not seem to be pursuing such opportunities. As Purdue's Ed Morrison has pointed out, local leaders there seem to "confuse real estate development with economic development."
So Cleveland will focus on inanities such as convention business and tourism, believing we all fantasize about a week enjoying the sights along Lake Erie. Yet even high-profile buildings like the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum, completed in 1986, have not transformed a gritty old industrial town into a beacon for the hip and cool.
Old industrial cities like Cleveland are better off focusing on their locational advantages--access to roads, train lines and water routes--while offering a safe, inexpensive and friendly venue for ambitious young families, immigrants and entrepreneurs.
Meanwhile, cities with formerly robust economies--like Reno, Nev., Las Vegas, Orlando, Fla., Tampa, Fla., Fort Lauderdale, Fla., West Palm Beach, Fla., Jacksonville, Fla., and Phoenix--are more likely to rebound. These areas topped our list for much of the 2000s; their success was driven first by surging population and job growth and later by escalating housing prices.
But the collapse of the housing bubble and a drop in large-scale migration from other regions has weakened, often dramatically, these perennial successes. "We could rely on 1,000 people a week moving into the area," notes one longtime official in central Florida. "These people needed services, houses and bought stuff. Now the growth is a 10th of that."
Instead of waiting for the real estate bubble to return, these areas should choose to focus on boosting employment in fields like medical services, business services and light manufacturing. In much of Florida and Nevada, there's also a need to shift away from a reliance on tourism, an industry that pays poorly on average and is always subject to changes in consumer tastes.
We can even be cautiously optimistic about some of these former superstars. After all, observes Phoenix-based economist Elliot Pollack, the existing reasons for moving to Arizona, Nevada or Florida--warm weather, relatively low taxes and generally pro-business governments--have not disappeared. "There's no change in the fundamentals," he argues. "It's a transition. It's ugly, and there's pain, but it's still a cycle that will turn."
Once the economy stabilizes, Pollack says he expects the flow of people and companies from the Northeast and California to Phoenix and other former hot spots will resume, once again lured by inexpensive real estate, better conditions for business and a generally more up-to-date infrastructure.
The Problem with California
So what about California? The economic well-being of many metropolitan areas in the Golden State has been sinking precipitously since 2006. This year, three California regions--Oakland, Sacramento and San Bernardino-Riverside--have sunk down into the bottom 10 on the large cities list. That's a phenomenon we've never seen before--and never expected to see.
Like other Sun Belt communities, California suffered disproportionately from the housing bubble's bust, which has devastated both employment in construction-related industries as well as much of the finance sector. But some, like economist Esmael Adibi, director of the Anderson Center for Economic Research at Chapman University, where I teach, thinks a real estate turnaround may be imminent.
Among the first to predict the potential for a real estate bubble back in 2005, these days Adibi is more upbeat, pointing to rising sales of single-family homes, particularly at the lower end of the market. California's inventory of unsold homes is now down to about six months' worth, a figure well below the national average of 9.6 months.
(ILLEGALS STILL POUR OVER OUR OPEN BORDERS AND INTO OUR JOBS AND WELFARE LINES DAILY)
It seems not everyone is ready to abandon the Golden State--but still, recovery in California may prove weaker than in surrounding states. One forecaster, Bill Watkins, even predicts unemployment could reach 15% next year, up from about 11% today. California, most likely, will see only an anemic recovery in 2010 even if growth picks up elsewhere.
Much of the problem lies with the state's notoriously inept government. The enormous budget deficit will almost certainly lead to tax increases, which will fall mostly on the state's vaunted high-income entrepreneurial residents. Stimulus funds won't do much good either, Adibi notes, since "the state is grabbing all of the federal stimulus money" to keep itself afloat.
A draconian regulatory environment also could dim California's prospects for growth. Despite double-digit unemployment, the state seems determined not only to raise taxes but also to tighten its regulatory stranglehold.
This is a stark contrast to what happened in the 1990s during the last deep recession. At that time, leaders from both political parties pulled together to reform the state's regulatory and tax environment. Almost everyone recognized the need to improve the economic climate.
But an even deeper recession, it seems, hardly troubles today's dominant players--public employees, environmental activists and gentry liberals who largely live along the coast. The state has recently passed a draconian Assembly bill aimed to offset global warming by capping greenhouse gas emissions--a measure that seems designed to discourage productive industry.
"This is becoming a horrible place to produce anything," says Watkins, who is executive director of the Economic Forecast Project at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
California's lawyers, though, might stay busy. Attorney General Jerry Brown has threatened to sue anyone who grows their business in unapproved, environment-threatening ways. To be sure, this promise may have relatively little impact on the more affluent, aging coastal communities--but it could wreak havoc on younger, less tony areas in the state's interior. Many of the local economies there still reply on resource-dependent industries like oil, manufacturing and agriculture.
It's sad because California has the capacity to recover more quickly than the rest of the country if the state moderates its spending and stops regulating itself into oblivion. This current round of legislation is so dangerous precisely because it could eviscerate the heart of the economy by slowing down entrepreneurial growth, the state's greatest asset.
Even in hard times, there are people with innovative ideas trying to bring them to market--and not just in Hollywood- and Silicon Valley-based industries but in a broad range of fields, from garments to agriculture, aerospace and processed foods. The desire to increase regulation reflects a peculiar narcissism and arrogance of the state's ruling elites, who believe the genius of San Francisco's venture capitalists and Los Angeles' image-makers alone are enough to spark a powerful recovery.
This is delusional. True, California still has a lead in everything from farm products to films to high-tech manufacturers. But it has been slowly losing ground--to both other states and overseas competitors. CEOs and top management might stay in the Golden State, but they increasingly send outside its borders all jobs that don't require access to the local market, genius scientists or talented entertainers.
"There's a feeling in California that we will come back, no matter what, because we are California," Watkins says. "The leadership is swallowing Panglossian Kool-aid. Some very smart people, a beautiful climate and nice beaches is not enough to guarantee a strong recovery."
Joel Kotkin is a presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University. He is executive editor of newgeography.com and writes the weekly New Geographer column for Forbes.
IN ANY CALIFORNIA CITY, IT WILL BE ILLEGALS THAT GET JOBS FIRST. IN SILICON VALLEY, IT WILL BE THE IMPORTED CHINESE AND INDIANS THAT WILL GET JOBS FIRST.
WORST BIG CITIES FOR JOBS: HERE’S CALIFORNIA’S SHARE
No. 10: Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, Calif.
The mortgage crisis and housing bust in this populous suburban area south of Los Angeles led to a halt in home building and a subsequent drop in natural resources, mining and construction jobs, which declined 23.6% between 2007 and 2008. Overall employment declined by 6.2% in the last year and 38.5% over the last decade, sinking the Inland Empire into the first major downturn in its recent history. Yet it’s not all negative. Home sales are up, which may mean that this once vibrant area could come back sooner than many expect.
No. 7: Sacramento-Arden Arcase-Roseville, Calif.
The real estate bust in California's capital and its surrounding areas has stunted job growth. Construction and natural resources jobs fell by 30.4% between 2005 and 2008. The housing crisis is accompanied by ones in the financial services and manufacturing industries, in which jobs declined 14.8% and 12%, respectively, over the last three years. The year between 2007 and 2008 saw a 3.9% overall decline in jobs. Employment in education and health services has been the area's saving grace; jobs in that sector increased 23.5% between 2003 and 2008.
No. 5: Oakland-Fremont-Hayward, Calif.
The financial services sector of this metropolitan area, across the bay from San Francisco, which includes urban Oakland and the surrounding suburbs, lost 21.1% of its jobs between 2003 and 2008. Construction jobs were hit almost as hard, dropping 18% over the same period. However, the Bay Area, bolstered by colleges in and around San Francisco and Berkeley, saw a 1.6% increase in education and health services jobs last year. But, overall, job losses in this northern California region totaled 3.7% from 2007 to 2008.
No. 4: Santa Ana-Anaheim-Irvine, Calif.
The fallout from real estate speculation and a longstanding tech boom in this region, which is south of Los Angeles and includes some of the toniest coastal real estate in the nation, has slowed employment to a crawl. Here, between 2005 and 2008, jobs in construction declined 17.8%, and jobs in information declined 10%. Employment in financial services, a field that especially boomed in Irvine, dropped by 22% over the same years. Much of this was tied to mortgage related companies. Overall, the area saw a 4% decline in jobs between 2007 and 2008. Dropping home prices and rising sales suggest a slow recovery could be on the way though.
CA CONTRIBUTION TO WORST MEDIUM SIZED CITIES FOR JOBS
No. 10: Santa Rosa-Petaluma, Calif.
"Best of the worst" is a dubious honor. But for the cities of Santa Rosa and Petaluma, home to just under 500,000 people north of San Francisco, the news isn't all bad. Despite cumulative job losses of 4.5% between 2007 and 2008, these communities have seen an 8.2% overall uptick in jobs if you consider data since 1997. The drops are biggest in one predictable sector: the construction sector which saw a double digit decline in jobs, largely from the collapse of the bay area’s housing bubble. Retail and financial services employers also cut workers, with each sector losing about 10% of its jobs.
CA CONTRIBUTION TO WORST SMALL CITIES FOR JOBS:
No. 7: Redding, Calif.
Partly because of the housing slump affecting many Sun Belt states, between 2005 and 2008 jobs in the natural resources, mining and construction sector contracted by 41%. Overall employment has dropped 10% since 1997. In the last year, Redding also saw double-digit job loss in the wholesale, information and transportation and utilities sectors. While government positions account for 22.8% of all jobs--and their number has been increasing over the last five years--the Redding Record Searchlight has reported that the city may have to lay off 60 workers.
WORST PLACES IN COUNTRY BY CNBC
1. El Centro, California
Lose your job in El Centro and it may be quite some time before you find another one. One in four people here are out of work and the city holds the not-so distinguished honor of having the highest unemployment rate — 27.5 percent — in the country (close behind is Yuma, Ariz., with 27.2 percent unemployment).
The desert city, which is located in Imperial County just across the border from Mexicali, has a jobless rate triple the national average of 9.5 percent thanks to the seasonal fluctuations of field laborers. Field work is the county's third-largest employment sector after government, transportation and utilities, according to AOL News.
"Its location across the border from a much larger Mexican city means that there is a large floating labor force," Jim Gerber, an economics professor and director of the international business program at San Diego State University, told AOL News.
"The data for Imperial County is skewed by this, such that the layoffs and out-of-work laborers are not actually counted correctly."
Even with the ebb and flow of its working population, things are still pretty bleak in El Centro. Last year, the city's cemetery went into foreclosure.
6. Los Angeles, California
If you don't really care about breathing, Los Angeles is a great place. The metro area that stretches from Long Beach to Riverside has the worst ozone pollution in the country, according to the American Lung Association's State of the Air report for 2010. Along with being tops in ozone pollution, L.A. is ranked third in year-round particle pollution, and fourth in short-term particle pollution.
Ozone is the byproduct of pollutants released by cars, chemical plants, refineries, and other sources. It exists naturally in the upper atmosphere of the Earth, but when emitted at ground level, it's considered a harmful outdoor pollutant. Inhaling ozone can cause wheezing, coughing, chest pain, throat irritation, congestion, and can make people more susceptible to respiratory illnesses such as bronchitis and pneumonia, according to the US Environmental Protection Agency. Think about that next time you drive in Los Angeles, which also lays claim the worst traffic in the country.
Lou Dobbs Tonight Friday, May 16, 2008
Some in Congress are once again trying to push piecemeal immigration reform through the back door. Sen. Diane Feinstein of California attached a farm worker program to the multibillion dollar Iraq war funding bill yesterday which would grant temporary amnesty to 1.3 million farm workers and their families over the next five years.
LOS ANGELES AMONG FORBES’ ‘TOP 10 U.S. CITIES IN FREEFALL’
Forbes has released its list of 'Top 10 U.S. Cities In Freefall', and California has the dubious distinction of appearing thrice. The greater Los Angeles, Riverside and Sacramento areas all made the list, only Florida had more cities represented. In compiling the list, Forbes used six metrics, including the percent the median home price has fallen since its individual peak, how many people were moving in and out of these metros, and percent change in unemployment.
Of California's woes, Forbes writes:
Riverside, Los Angeles and Sacramento are suffering because of the knocks they took after their inflated housing markets began to plummet. Unemployment in the City of Angels has nearly tripled in three years, to 12%. Riverside's unemployment has also ballooned, to 15%. Meanwhile Sacramento saw a 75% drop in new building permits. These are troubling signs for Cali metros, but not surprising. The end of the state's home-price climb triggered more than just a housing slump.
"In California, so many jobs were concentrated in construction," says Michael Fratantoni, vice president of research at the Mortgage Bankers Association, the professional association for real estate financiers. "Jobs building single family homes wound up not being sustainable, and there were a lot of job losses."
The Forbes report comes on the heels of California's most recent jobless report, which put the state's unemployment rate at a record 12.6% for March. However, in what might be an encouraging sign for the region, KPCC reports today that foreclosures in LA County are down 43.5% for the first quarter of 2010 compared to last year.
LOS ANGELES UNDER MEX OCCUPATION:
Additionally, the county spends $550 million on public safety and nearly $500 million on healthcare for illegal aliens.
County’s Monthly Welfare Tab For Illegal Aliens $52 Million
As the mainstream media focuses on a study that reveals a sharp decline in the nation’s illegal immigrant population, monthly welfare payments to children of undocumented aliens increased to $52 million in one U.S. county alone.
The hoopla surrounding last week’s news that the annual flow of illegal immigrants into the U.S. dropped by two-thirds in the past decade overlooked an important matter; the cost of educating, incarcerating and medically treating illegal aliens hasn’t decreased along with it, but rather skyrocketed to the tune of tens of billions of dollars annually.
THIS FIGURE DOES NOT INCLUDE EXTRA MILLIONS PAID FOR ANCHOR BABIES
Those figures don’t even include the extra millions that local municipalities dish out on welfare payments to the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants, commonly known as anchor babies. In Los Angeles County alone that figure increased by nearly $4 million in the last year, sticking taxpayers with a whopping $52 million tab to provide illegal immigrants’ offspring with food stamps and other welfare benefits for just one month.
That means the nation’s most populous county, in the midst of a dire financial crisis, will spend more than $600 million this year to provide families headed by illegal immigrants with welfare benefits. In each of the past two years Los Angeles County taxpayers have spent about half a billion dollars just to cover the welfare and food-stamp costs of illegal immigrants. Additionally, the county spends $550 million on public safety and nearly $500 million on healthcare for illegal aliens.
About a quarter of the county’s welfare and food stamp issuances go to parents who reside in the United States illegally and collect benefits for their anchor babies, according to the figures from L.A. County’s Department of Social Services. Nationwide, Americans pay around $22 billion annually to provide illegal immigrants with welfare perks that include food assistance programs such as free school lunches in public schools, food stamps and a nutritional program (known as WIC) for low-income women and their children.
Lou Dobbs Tonight
Monday, February 11, 2008
In California, League of United Latin American Citizens has adopted a resolution to declare "California Del Norte" a sanctuary zone for immigrants. The declaration urges the Mexican government to invoke its rights under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo "to seek third nation neutral arbitration of disputes concerning immigration laws and their enforcement." We’ll have the story.
California must stem the flow of illegal immigrants
The state should go after employers who hire them, curb taxpayer-funded benefits, deploy the National Guard to help the feds at the border and penalize 'sanctuary' cities.
Illegal immigration is another matter entirely. With the state budget in tatters, millions of residents out of work and a state prison system strained by massive overcrowding, California simply cannot continue to ignore the strain that illegal immigration puts on our budget and economy. Illegal aliens cost taxpayers in our state billions of dollars each year. As economist Philip J. Romero concluded in a 2007 study, "illegal immigrants impose a 'tax' on legal California residents in the tens of billions of dollars."
HEARD ENGLISH TODAY?
1 IN 5 BIRTHS IN LOS ANGELS ARE BY ILLEGALS. THAT DOES NOT COUNT THE NUMBER OF HISPANIC BIRTHS THAT ARE LEGAL! A CHILD BORN IN OUR BORDERS FROM ILLEGALS FROM MEXICO IS STILL A MEX CITIZEN!
HERE’S THE PICTURE IF WE DON’T END THE MEX INVASION:
LOS ANGELES TIMES
60 million Californians by mid-century
Riverside will become the second most populous county behind Los Angeles and Latinos the dominant ethnic group, study says. By Maria L. La Ganga and Sara LinTimes Staff Writers
July 10, 2007
Over the next half-century, California's population will explode by nearly 75%, and Riverside will surpass its bigger neighbors to become the second most populous county after Los Angeles, according to state Department of Finance projections released Monday. California will near the 60-million mark in 2050, the study found, raising questions about how the state will look and function and where all the people and their cars will go. Dueling visions pit the iconic California building block of ranch house, big yard and two-car garage against more dense, high-rise development.But whether sprawl or skyscrapers win the day, the Golden State will probably be a far different and more complex place than it is today, as people live longer and Latinos become the dominant ethnic group, eclipsing all others combined. Some critics forecast disaster if gridlock and environmental impacts are not averted. Others see a possible economic boon, particularly for retailers and service industries with an eye on the state as a burgeoning market."It's opportunity with baggage," said Jack Kyser, chief economist for the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp., in "a country masquerading as a state."Other demographers argue that the huge population increase the state predicts will occur only if officials complete major improvements to roads and other public infrastructure. Without that investment, they say, some Californians would flee the state.If the finance department's calculations hold, California's population will rise from 34.1 million in 2000 to 59.5 million at the mid-century point, about the same number of people as Italy has today. And its projected growth rate in those 50 years will outstrip the national rate — nearly 75% compared with less than 50% projected by the federal government. That could translate to increased political clout in Washington, D.C. Southern California's population is projected to grow at a rate of more than 60%, according to the new state figures, reaching 31.6 million by mid-century. That's an increase of 12.1 million over just seven counties.L.A. County alone will top 13 million by 2050, an increase of almost 3.5 million residents. And Riverside County — long among the fastest-growing in the state — will triple in population to 4.7 million by mid-century.Riverside County will add 3.1 million people, according to the new state figures, eclipsing Orange and San Diego to become the second most populous in the state. With less expensive housing than the coast, Riverside County has grown by more than 472,000 residents since 2000, according to state estimates.But many residents face agonizingly long commutes to work in other areas. And Monday, the state's growth projections raised some concerns in the Inland Empire.Registered nurse Fifi Bo moved from Los Angeles to Corona nine years ago so she could buy a house and avoid urban congestion. But she'd consider moving even farther east now that Riverside County is grappling with its own crowding problems."But where am I going? People used to move to Victorville, but [housing prices in] Victorville already got high," the 36-year-old said as she fretted about traffic and smog and public services stretched thin. "We don't know where to go. Maybe Arizona."John Husing, an economist who studies the Inland Empire, is betting that even in land-rich Riverside County, more vertical development is on the horizon. Part of the reason: a multi-species habitat conservation plan that went into effect in 2005, preserving 550,000 acres of green space that otherwise would have vanished."The difficult thing will be for anybody who likes where they live in Riverside County because it's rural," Husing said. "In 2050, you might still find rural out by Blythe, but other than that, forget rural."Husing predicts that growth will be most dramatic beyond the city of Riverside as the patches of empty space around communities such as Palm Springs, Perris and Hemet begin to fill in with housing tracts. The Coachella Valley, for example, will become fully developed and seem like less of a distinct area outside of Riverside, he said. "It'll be desert urban, but it'll be urban. Think of Phoenix," he said. Expect a lot of the new development in Riverside County to go up along the 215 Freeway between Perris and Murrieta, according to Riverside County Planning Director Ron Goldman. Thousands of homes have popped up in that area in the last decade, and Goldman said applications for that area indicate condominiums are next. The department is so busy that he's hiring 10 people who'll start in the next month."We have over 5,000 active development applications in processing right now," he said.No matter how much local governments build in the way of public works and how many new jobs are attracted to the region — minimizing the need for long commutes — Husing figures that growth will still overwhelm the area's roads.USC Professor Genevieve Giuliano, an expert on land use and transportation, would probably agree. Such massive growth, if it occurs, she said, will require huge investment in the state's highways, schools, and energy and sewer systems at a "very formidable cost."If those things aren't built, Giuliano questioned whether the projected population increases will occur. "Sooner or later, the region will not be competitive and the growth is not going to happen," she said.If major problems like traffic congestion and housing costs aren't addressed, Giuliano warned, the middle class is going to exit California, leaving behind very high-income and very low-income residents. "It's a political question," said Martin Wachs, a transportation expert at the Rand Corp. in Santa Monica. "Do we have the will, the consensus, the willingness to pay? If we did, I think we could manage the growth."The numbers released Monday underscore most demographers' view that the state's population is pushing east, from both Los Angeles and the Bay Area, to counties such as Riverside and San Bernardino as well as half a dozen or so smaller Central Valley counties.Sutter County, for example, is expected to be the fastest-growing on a percentage basis between 2000 and 2050, jumping 255% to a population of 282,894 , the state said. Kern County is expected to see its population more than triple to 2.1 million by mid-century.In Southern California, San Diego County is projected to grow by almost 1.7 million residents and Orange County by 1.1 million. Even Ventura County — where voters have imposed some limits on urban sprawl — will see its population jump 62% to more than 1.2 million if the projections hold.The Department of Finance releases long-term population projections every three years. Between the last two reports, number crunchers have taken a more detailed look at California's statistics and taken into account the likelihood that people will live longer, said chief demographer Mary Heim.The result?The latest numbers figure the state will be much more crowded than earlier estimates (by nearLatino, 75% next and 80% after that."That should be a wake-up call for voting Californians, Myers said, pointing out a critical disparity. Though the state's growth is young and Latino, the majority of voters ly 5 million) and that it will take a bit longer than previously thought for Latinos to become the majority of California's population: 2042, not 2038.The figures show that the majority of California's growth will be in the Latino population, said Dowell Myers, a professor of urban planning and demography at USC, adding that "68% of the growth this decade will be will be older and white — at least for the next decade."The future of the state is Latino growth," Myers said. "We'd sure better invest in them and get them up to speed. Older white voters don't see it that way. They don't realize that someone has to replace them in the work force, pay for their benefits and buy their house."