Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-17-2012, 12:22 PM
 
880 posts, read 1,409,610 times
Reputation: 570

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulldogdad View Post
Little bit of white and economic flight in the last 20 years.

However most of Stockton's discontent is rooted in the poltical decisions of the 1970's. And promulgated by the stupidity of The City's leaders decisions over the next 30 years.

Being a low cost of living income area by California standards coupled with being a large urban city attracts a lot of rifraf as well. The 2008 crash drove a lot of low income crime here from the Bay Area.

Been good for the rental market though.
Just substitute CA for the word Stockton and you have hit the nail on the head.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-18-2012, 12:01 AM
 
1,018 posts, read 1,839,123 times
Reputation: 754
Poor Stockton (in both senses) is in a mass of trouble; its citizens are basically the victims of it, not the perpetrators. The city government has made some bad investment decisions, but that's what happens when you're desparate.

It's not like any of the Central Valley cities are in good shape, think about Fresno, Bakersfield. They all suffer from high poverty and unemployment, crime, city government problems. The structure of the California economy is such that the Central Valley gets little. The coastal, tech, information-driven economy of the San Francisco Bay Area and LA doesn't come to the Central Valley, except sometimes in the form of commuters. The Valley cities also have their own "rustbelts" of closed agro-industrial facilities, though sometimes are still functioning. It's sad that the places that produce the most essential thing of all--food--get the least return.

The only large Central Valley that's doing well is Sacramento, which has a strong stabilizing force in the state government. To me, Sacramento doesn't feel much like the rest of the Central Valley.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2012, 11:34 AM
 
1,664 posts, read 3,939,460 times
Reputation: 1878
Quote:
Originally Posted by RyanLeeParis View Post
What are your opinions? I've lived in Stockton all my life - yes, 20 years, and I agree it sucks. What makes Stockton so bad, in your opinion?
QUICKSAND!! The place is surrounded by it!

So, tread lightly there my friend, and stay thristy!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2012, 12:21 PM
 
Location: Oroville, California
3,477 posts, read 6,463,086 times
Reputation: 6787
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer View Post
Demographics changed dramatically from 2000 to 2010

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockton,California
Not many places in California haven't (and not all of them went down the tubes).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2012, 05:35 PM
 
6,802 posts, read 6,674,304 times
Reputation: 1911
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlite View Post
It's not like any of the Central Valley cities are in good shape, think about Fresno, Bakersfield. They all suffer from high poverty and unemployment, crime, city government problems. The structure of the California economy is such that the Central Valley gets little. The coastal, tech, information-driven economy of the San Francisco Bay Area and LA doesn't come to the Central Valley, except sometimes in the form of commuters. The Valley cities also have their own "rustbelts" of closed agro-industrial facilities, though sometimes are still functioning. It's sad that the places that produce the most essential thing of all--food--get the least return.

The only large Central Valley that's doing well is Sacramento, which has a strong stabilizing force in the state government. To me, Sacramento doesn't feel much like the rest of the Central Valley.
Fresno couldn't even get the UC system to place a school here. It went to Merced instead. Would have made sense to place the UC in Fresno , which is the states 5th largest city (but not the millions in population in sprawl), and the population center of the central/south area of the Central Valley.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2012, 08:54 AM
 
25,619 posts, read 36,502,350 times
Reputation: 23291
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senno View Post
Fresno couldn't even get the UC system to place a school here. It went to Merced instead. Would have made sense to place the UC in Fresno , which is the states 5th largest city (but not the millions in population in sprawl), and the population center of the central/south area of the Central Valley.
Traditionally new UC Campuses are placed in smaller bedroom communities that have cheaper land available but that are strategically placed to serve many population centers.

It's real easy to see that when looking at a map of the UC's and when they were built.

Besides Fresno already has two State level college campuses one public and one private.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2012, 04:51 PM
 
6,802 posts, read 6,674,304 times
Reputation: 1911
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bulldogdad View Post
Traditionally new UC Campuses are placed in smaller bedroom communities that have cheaper land available but that are strategically placed to serve many population centers.

It's real easy to see that when looking at a map of the UC's and when they were built.

Besides Fresno already has two State level college campuses one public and one private.
The land was donated, so free is best I suppose.

My neighbors daughter attends UC Merced pre-med, so the school is serving its purpose to serve valley residents it seems.

Still, having it here in Fresno would have been great. Never mind FSU and Fresno Pacific. Guess I'm greedy, but we sure could use the jobs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2012, 08:34 PM
 
30,855 posts, read 36,746,227 times
Reputation: 34384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leonard64 View Post
Here is the problem. A single mom with a kid or two getting assistance moves in.

THEN she lets her drug using boy friend move in. He has nothing to lose and what can they do to her?

The system is broke and no one seems to know how to fix it.
We know how to fix it. It's called: Not having a 41% out of wedlock birth rate (which we currently have in the U.S.). Until fairly recently, anyone who said this was written off as a right wing nut job. Now, finally....some people on the center/left are saying the same thing:

20 years later, it turns out Dan Quayle was right about Murphy Brown and unmarried moms - Washington Post

".....Stronger public support for single-parent families — such as subsidies or tax credits for child care, and the earned-income tax credit — is needed, but no government program is likely to reduce child poverty as much as bringing back marriage as the preferable way of raising children."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2012, 09:07 PM
 
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
1,482 posts, read 5,160,501 times
Reputation: 798
Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticaltyger View Post
We know how to fix it. It's called: Not having a 41% out of wedlock birth rate...
Identifying a problem is not a solution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2012, 09:26 PM
 
Location: Boulder Creek, CA
9,197 posts, read 16,768,548 times
Reputation: 6373
Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticaltyger View Post
We know how to fix it. It's called: Not having a 41% out of wedlock birth rate (which we currently have in the U.S.). Until fairly recently, anyone who said this was written off as a right wing nut job. Now, finally....some people on the center/left are saying the same thing:

20 years later, it turns out Dan Quayle was right about Murphy Brown and unmarried moms - Washington Post

".....Stronger public support for single-parent families — such as subsidies or tax credits for child care, and the earned-income tax credit — is needed, but no government program is likely to reduce child poverty as much as bringing back marriage as the preferable way of raising children."
Better idea: Don't breed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top