I found this article (http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/State-should-take-no-pride-in-its-shabby-borders-6674787.php), which talks about the attractiveness of highways as they leave a neighboring state (or country) and enter California. In most cases, the writer finds that the California side of the border is usually not as attractive as whatever is seen in the adjacent state (or country). Examples cited include:
- San Ysidro Port of Entry leading from Tijuana into San Diego (with San Ysidro looking worse than neighboring Tijuana)
- California/Nevada 28 between various Lake Tahoe Resorts vs. Incline Village, Nevada
- Lake Havasu City, Arizona vs. any Colorado River settlements on the California side of the river
- I-5 (northern Siskiyou County, Hilt, and presumably Yreka vs. Ashland, Oregon)
- I-8 (Winterhaven vs. Yuma, Arizona)
- I-15 (Las Vegas, Nevada, vs. anything along this freeway on the California side of the state line)
- US 101 (Crescent City and Smith River vs. Brookings, Oregon)
Reading through this article, I found myself agreeing in most part with his opinions about how much "nicer" the border towns look on the other side from the California state line.
I had never even known this bit about sin taxes, either:
QuoteThe Golden State has long been distinguished by some of the nation's lowest taxes on beer, wine and distilled spirits – a legacy of the liquor lobby's might that dates back to the famous power broker Artie Samish, the self-proclaimed "Secret Boss of California" in the early 20th century. The locations of All Star Liquors on the California side of the border capitalize on these facts.
Online, the store boasts "savings of up to 70 percent or more over Oregon, Washington and Idaho pricing." When I dropped by, All Star Liquors staffers were loading up two customers' vehicles, neither of which had California license plates, as part of the store's "Road Trip Service," which allows people to order online and have the entire order ready for pickup.
The store's website promises: "You don't need to drive any further into California to find the best prices, best selection, and the friendliest staff this side of the Mississippi!"
That's not exactly an endorsement of the Golden State. But it's hardly surprising. Californians treat our borders like backwaters, even though millions of people enter through them. We could do better by our border communities, and by our state, if we thought of them as front doors.
Northern Del Norte on US 101 and US 199 looks nice in terms of scenery. Crescent City is a prison city, home to the state's toughest prison, Pelican Bay. As coastal towns go it looks down at the heels compared to some of the touristy towns like Bandon and Florence in Oregon. On the other hand a few minutes of driving through sees Crescent City in your rear view mirror and redwoods ahead!
Rick
Normally, you'd expect the Mexican cities to look worse than their CA counterparts across the border, especially Tijuana vs. San Diego. I'm shocked and appalled that they'd think of San Diego as anything less than a world-class city, because I think it's just as beautiful, if not more so, than Tijuana. I'm not too familiar with Calexico and Mexicali, but from what I hear, Mexico's cities have apparently stepped up their game in terms of cosmopolitan sophistication, as the article suggests.
Although there are some valid points in there (quality of roads in particular) I find the article to be a little disingenuous in other parts. For example:
-They want to compare downtown Tijuana with the San Ysidro district of San Diego, because they are immediately both adjacent to the border, rather than downtown San Diego (10 miles north), in which case there would be no comparison.
-But then, they compare Las Vegas (30 miles from the border) to the open desert on the California side of the border, as compared to Primm, right on the border. They disparage the liquor stores in Hilt or Smith River, but say nothing of the gaudy, oversized casinos waiting to take Californians' money in Primm or Stateline or Crystal Bay.
-They treat the idea that there's no city opposite Yuma as if it's a bad thing. No offense, but have the writers actually been to Yuma? It's a mainly lower-class desert/agricultural outpost that is becoming more so as it sprawls along with other Arizona cities. I'll take driving through the stark beauty of the desert on my way to Palm Springs or San Diego over downtown Yuma any time.
In any case, it's all a matter of geographical happenstance. Any amenities, physical or cultural, that the cross-border towns can offer can be matched or bested by similar towns in California (Las Vegas excepted, but then, Vegas doesn't have what San Francisco or Los Angeles can offer). Those California towns just happen to be further away from the border. Is the article implying that drought-stricken California should have built another metropolis in the Colorado desert so people crossing over from Mexicali don't feel let down?