For Those Thinking of Leaving, Where are You Looking to Go? (Los Angeles: taxation, live)

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by vlfradio

Brad,

Yeah... "loved" may be a tad of a stretch - I did like some things about TX 4 years ago during my storm-chasing experience - especially a section of the state between Alpine, Marfa, and Sanderson (mountainous and outback territory that vaguely resembles the Outback of Australia - yes, no kidding. But those nasty t-storms/tornadoes were intimidating!

But, I do love so many things about ole' Cali (landscape!) especially here in Inyo County, that I'm not inclined anymore to think about moving away.

And I still really like to visit the folks in Marin County now that I don't have to stress-out about having to live full-time there.

-v-

To each their own! I was stationed in Texas twice and didn't care for it either time. What was to like about Fort Bliss in the mid-60s and Fort Hood in the late 70s? Of course, neither is reflective of all of Texas. I just wasn't in the better parts. I had my fill of the desert, plus some, when the Army started training some of us who were combined arms qualified in Infantry, Armor and Cavalry to be the first designated desert rats since WW II. Keeler would not be my cup-o-tea either, but it is interesting. While I thoroughly enjoy rural living, in my opinion there's no there, there.

But by the same token, many would not enjoy the green, the weather, the rugged topography and the relative slow pace of the Ozarks, either. We appreciate the changes of the seasons, all the streams, rivers and lakes/reservoirs and the bountiful wildlife. Those who were raised and live in urban areas would likely be bored and would miss restaurants, stores, clubs, cultural opportunities, diversity, etc. within easy reach. Most of all, many would find the quiet unsettling.

As with almost everything in life it all comes down to personal preferences. We gladly gave up city living. Many wouldn't, and shouldn't. It's part of who they are.

[vlfradio]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

To each their own! I was stationed in Texas twice and didn't care for it either time. What was to like about Fort Bliss in the mid-60s and Fort Hood in the late 70s? Of course, neither is reflective of all of Texas. I just wasn't in the better parts. I had my fill of the desert, plus some, when the Army started training some of us who were combined arms qualified in Infantry, Armor and Cavalry to be the first designated desert rats since WW II. Keeler would not be my cup-o-tea either, but it is interesting. While I thoroughly enjoy rural living, in my opinion there's no there, there.

But by the same token, many would not enjoy the green, the weather, the rugged topography and the relative slow pace of the Ozarks, either. We appreciate the changes of the seasons, all the streams, rivers and lakes/reservoirs and the bountiful wildlife. Those who were raised and live in urban areas would likely be bored and would miss restaurants, stores, clubs, cultural opportunities, diversity, etc. within easy reach. Most of all, many would find the quiet unsettling.

As with almost everything in life it all comes down to personal preferences. We gladly gave up city living. Many wouldn't, and shouldn't. It's part of who they are.

I do agree, Curmudgeon - if every person/family could live in a place they found most appealing, people would probably be more happy. Yep, most folks prefer to live in a metro-area with all of the "conveniences" not available out here in the boonies, like in Keeler. We have to minimally drive 15 miles to the nearest store, and then that grocery/market store has some of the highest food prices in California - in a state with already the highest food prices in the country (total market manipulation - since a lot of food processors and much ag. is in CA).

Much as I love the desert, I often crave that cool ocean fog that covers the CA coast in the summertime - especially the northern CA version, which waters all of those beautiful Redwood Trees... so I bail outta here sometimes for that climate for a while, being a native of Marin County in northern CA, with its oceanic "natural air-conditioning" effect in the summertime. It gets sweltering here in June and July, and I get sick of the 110 degree heat for weeks on end, I do agree. But again, the very dark skies and blazing-bright Milky Way in the Inyo County desert makes for great astronomy... yep, to each their own...

-v-

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by vlfradio

Yep, most folks prefer to live in a metro-area with all of the "conveniences" not available out here in the boonies, like in Keeler. We have to minimally drive 15 miles to the nearest store, and then that grocery/market store has some of the highest food prices in California ...

I can identify with that. We have to drive seven miles to the nearest convenience store/gas station and 18 miles to the closest real town (Pop: 4,000) for groceries, doctor's office, pharmacy and Lowe's. Thankfully, the groceries cost significantly less than they did in Sacramento, the meats are much better and contrary to an initial concern, the produce is fresh and varied so we lack for nothing. It's 23 miles from home to the next city (Pop: 7,000) where we find Target, Best Buy, Kohl's, TJ Maxx, etc., as well as outlet stores and a reasonable selection of restaurants.

Many would find these distances inconvenient and stifling. We find them delightful. Shopping becomes an occasional, well-planned adventure which ultimately saves money (no convenient impulse shopping or take-out) and the drives through the Ozarks, much of the way on two lane, hilly, winding, forested country roads, are beautiful.

[Highnlite]

But by the same token, many would not enjoy the green, the weather, the rugged topography and the relative slow pace of the Ozarks, either. We appreciate the changes of the seasons, all the streams, rivers and lakes/reservoirs and the bountiful wildlife. Those who were raised and live in urban areas would likely be bored and would miss restaurants, stores, clubs, cultural opportunities, diversity, etc. within easy reach. Most of all, many would find the quiet unsettling.

Missouri has less than 3 % of its land area (less than 3 million acres) as public land available for your recreation use.
Missouri has less than 110,000 acres of designated wilderness. Aldo Leopold said that a wilderness should be large enough for a two week pack trip, based on that, Missouri has nothing.
The highest point in Missouri is Taum Sauk Mountain at 1772 feet, or about the elevation of Conejo Grade in Los Angles.
The average elevation in Missouri is a mere 800 feet.

California has 49 % of its land (over 45 million acres) available for public recreation.
California has over 20 million acres of designated wilderness. I can walk out my door and access a million contigous acres of wilderness
The highest point in California is Mt. Whitney at 14,505 feet, California has 13 peaks over 14,000, Missouri? none.
The average elevation in California is 2900 feet, higher than the highest point in Missouri.

If the great out of doors is important to you, Missouri would not be at the top of your list, nor anywhere near it, but, in fairness to Missouri, no state east of the 100th Meridian would work, aside from Maine.

[Hawk J]

When i was a youngun we had Fun exploring the caves in MO. We lived in Fort Leonard Wood.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Highnlite

If the great out of doors is important to you, Missouri would not be at the top of your list, nor anywhere near it, but, in fairness to Missouri, no state east of the 100th Meridian would work, aside from Maine.

Other than being disagreeable, I'm not sure what your point is. As I stated, rather clearly I thought, it's all comes down to a matter of personal preference so point-by-point comparisons are meaningless.

By the way, the highest point in MO may be under 1,800 feet but that's above sea level. It's also part of the St. Francois Mountains which are the only true "mountains" of the Ozasrks and are igneous. The St. Francois Mountain range is vastly older than either the Appalaichans or the Rockies and rise above the Ozarks plateau. So the Ozarks are not really mountains, per se, but an ancient plateau that was cut down and into by erosion so botton-to-top measurements will be greater in many areas than the apex' measurement above sea level. This is very different from elevations that were pushed up, such as most mountains, in other parts of the country.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Hawk J

When i was a youngun we had Fun exploring the caves in MO. We lived in Fort Leonard Wood.

There are caves and caverns here thanks to abundant water and the limestone. In fact, there are over 6,000 in the state which is exceeded only by TN with over 7,000. A little something for everyone.

[Hawk J]

Meramec Cavern - Missouri's Buried Treasure - www.AmericasCave.com

[Highnlite]

By the way, the highest point in MO may be under 1,800 feet but that's above sea level

Isn't this one of those O duh's?

My point is, not to be disagreeable but, to compare your statement about the natural landscape of Missouri to California. To use an analogy, Missouri is McDonalds, California is Jockos.

Or another, Missouri is to the United States, as Butte County is to California, except that Butte County has mountains.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Highnlite

Isn't this one of those O duh's?

My point is, not to be disagreeable but, to compare your statement about the natural landscape of Missouri to California. To use an analogy, Missouri is McDonalds, California is Jockos.

Or another, Missouri is to the United States, as Butte County is to California, except that Butte County has mountains.

In other words, you have no salient point, but what else is new? Disagreeable and needlessly and childishly argumentative. What's next, comparing America to Lower Slobbovia? That would be about as pertinent and enlightening in a thread about personal preferences and choices which was the jist of it to begin with.

G'Day!