That's a little harsh. There is no reason to "attack" California or companies that want to reside there.
I do think that economics and "business climate" should dictate the decision as to where a company locates. I also think that companies owe it to their stockholders to re-evaluate that question every so often. An example is Boeing that moved its long-time headquarters from Seattle to Chicago. Having some business (and their employees) move out of Southern California could solve Air Pollution, lack of water, lack of new power plants, and a host of other problems that legislators don't want to deal with.
I do think that this article and decisions like this at various companies should be a wake up call for legislators and politicians who feel that they can impose any burden upon business and not worry about the results.