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.
Los Angeles may be greedy, but it has more trees than Sacramento. L. A. has 183,322,817 trees compared to Sacramento's 102,544,266 trees. Plus, there are an estimated 1200 new trees of all sizes and types planted, on average, every day!
Yea but LA has about 8 times the population of sacramento. so sacramento has more trees per person.
^Because here in NJ we set the bar and expect capital cities to be grand! LOL
I love the Bay Area, like L.A. and like S.D. I've never been to Sac, but somehow expected to hear good things about it.
LOL - me thinks I was misunderstood. I don't think anyone expects NJ's capital to be grand (I certainly don't), but a state like CA should have a cool, impressive capital city.
Except for the "downtown" area of Sac, it's subdivision after subdivision, all looking the same on their 1/8 plots of land, landscape is flat and dry. Nothing in between subdivisions but shopping centers or more dry flat land. I was shocked!
State capitals are often in boring agricultural areas. Sacramento makes sense for the capital- cheap land for government. Look at most state capitals- not impressive.
Tell me why. Other than proximity to Tahoe, I don't see the appeal. It is flat, has bad air quality, is not attractive, has a hot climate, the downtown is a joke. It is OK compared to Phoenix, Dallas, and other second or third rate cities, but compared to SF, San Diego, or Santa Barbara, it might as well be located in North Dakota.
Los Angeles may be greedy, but it has more trees than Sacramento. L. A. has 183,322,817 trees compared to Sacramento's 102,544,266 trees. Plus, there are an estimated 1200 new trees of all sizes and types planted, on average, every day!
Would you care to break that down on a trees/square mile metric for us?
State capitals are often in boring agricultural areas. Sacramento makes sense for the capital- cheap land for government. Look at most state capitals- not impressive.
I doubt that any of the 50 state governments considered the cost of the land in locating their capitals. I also doubt they considered the "impressiveness" , presence or absence of agriculture, or "boring" qulaity of the area.
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.
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.
