Is Southern CA really so bad? (Pasadena, South Pasadena: houses, neighborhoods, buy)

[Mr Floyd]

If you live in a city in the US, you must except it all. Gangs, crime, pollution...etc. I don't know of a city that does not have these. Some cities are better than others, statistically speaking, but how safe are you really? Remember...Columbine was once considered a model school until a couple of knucleheads shot it up.

You may live up on the hill out of the element so to speak but you'll have to drive through it and occasionally, it comes to you. The only way to avoid it is to buy a large ranch, have supplies shipped in and home school your kids. But is that really a good idea? Hmmmm...

[Mr Floyd]

majoun originally said:

MANY suburban and ex-urban parts of SoCal do have gang, smog, and traffic issues.

Familiar with the AV and IE at all? [End Quote]

AV? Assuming Antelope Valley. IE? Assuming Inland Empire. Homes are cheaper the further out you go. AV to Clairmont would be a commuting nightmare. IE would be definately closer. However, aren't both areas known for problems with crystal meth?

[buckeyenative01]

Originally Posted by Mr Floyd

However, aren't both areas known for problems with crystal meth?

It sounds stereotypical, but pretty much any location that's predominantly suburban tract housing without much of a "city" element nearby are hotbeds for meth. Maybe its a western US thing fueled by the dry climate since the ingredients of meth are extremely volatile? I've seen (and smelled) it in both the Inland Empire and Phoenix...

[Mr Floyd]

buckeyenative01 originally said:

It sounds stereotypical, but pretty much any location that's predominantly suburban tract housing without much of a "city" element nearby are hotbeds for meth. Maybe its a western US thing fueled by the dry climate since the ingredients of meth are extremely volatile? I've seen (and smelled) it in both the Inland Empire and Phoenix...[End Quote]


Certainly is stereotypical but I believe backed by law enforcement statistics. Lancaster / Palmdale. Fontana. San Bernadino. Victorville. Hemet. Even as far away as Phoenix (LA's largest suburb?) and Laughlin. Most have a rap for above average production and likely consumption of meth. Why? It's relatively cheap and now easy to get. It is very destructive. Much quiker than cannibas anyway. Anyway, I'd rather have my child closer to the city perhaps in with a more affluent influence. No guarantee there but likely better results.

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by buckeyenative01

It sounds stereotypical, but pretty much any location that's predominantly suburban tract housing without much of a "city" element nearby are hotbeds for meth. Maybe its a western US thing fueled by the dry climate since the ingredients of meth are extremely volatile? I've seen (and smelled) it in both the Inland Empire and Phoenix...

right, we have a meth problem here, it is everywhere, Ca,AR, NM and all the states inbetween.

Nita

[majoun]

Originally Posted by Mr Floyd

majoun originally said:

MANY suburban and ex-urban parts of SoCal do have gang, smog, and traffic issues.

Familiar with the AV and IE at all? [End Quote]

AV? Assuming Antelope Valley. IE? Assuming Inland Empire. Homes are cheaper the further out you go. AV to Clairmont would be a commuting nightmare. IE would be definately closer. However, aren't both areas known for problems with crystal meth?

The AV and IE are known for not only really bad meth problems but also pretty severe gang problems, and do have smog and traffic problems.

I was responding to the poster who claimed that suburbs and exurbs were free of "urban problems"

[timelesschild]

Originally Posted by buckeyenative01

It sounds stereotypical, but pretty much any location that's predominantly suburban tract housing without much of a "city" element nearby are hotbeds for meth. Maybe its a western US thing fueled by the dry climate since the ingredients of meth are extremely volatile? I've seen (and smelled) it in both the Inland Empire and Phoenix...

Eesh, it's everywhere rents are low. E v e r y w h e r e. All over the rural eastern US. That lets out the dry-climate theory, sad to say.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by timelesschild

Eesh, it's everywhere rents are low. E v e r y w h e r e. All over the rural eastern US. That lets out the dry-climate theory, sad to say.

From what I've read the eastern US is more into crack than meth if we're talking about really awful hard upper drugs. But I could be wrong.

[timelesschild]

Originally Posted by majoun

From what I've read the eastern US is more into crack than meth if we're talking about really awful hard upper drugs. But I could be wrong.

Eastern US is, of course, a big place - I probably overgeneralized.

I am thinking meth is the bigger problem in the Southeast. I have no knowledge of the Northeast or Florida.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by timelesschild

Eastern US is, of course, a big place - I probably overgeneralized.

I am thinking meth is the bigger problem in the Southeast. I have no knowledge of the Northeast or Florida.

I was talking more about the Northeast. I think you're right about the Southeast.