To be fair, those two cities, and a few others, control the outcome of elections. No matter how strong the vote is from less dense counties, those three cities overwhelm the vote. The elected officials then dictate policy that prevails across the entire state, not just their location.
Here are a couple of comparisons:
- I own "traditional" residential rental property in both CA and Nevada. In CA, "rent control" limits me to a 5% annual increase in rent. Because of that, every year I raise rents 5% whether I want or need to-- since there is no makeup provision. If I miss a year, the "heavy hand of government" says the opportunity is lost forever. In the long run, does that really benefit the tenant?
In Nevada, there are no controls-- the market forces of supply and demand keep rents where they should be. I just increased rents last month due to rising costs. It was the first rent increase in 10 years. I am not motivated to raise rents annually, needed or not, because I have the flexibility to adjust to market forces as those forces emerge.
I built a luxury residence in NV-- over 5,000ft. Also a separate detached garage. Combined permits costs, all in for both, was about $3,500.
Permit cost to build a basic residence at my property in CA starts at $40k then goes up. Once they started adding road improvements, etc. it reached nearly $200k. Just for permitting, no construction. I'd really like to build a new/added residence there. But at $200k for a permit I said "no thanks."
In my view, the population of just three cities does have an enormous impact.
