Why Do Millionaires Like Los Angeles? (Orange, Newport Beach: upper-class, real estate, low crime)

[JerZ]

Originally Posted by TheRealAngelion

I think the NY number is misleading. Kiplinger states this without defining what constitutes NY metro area. If you compared NY metro with LA metro which includes Orange County or with the expanded LA metro which includes LA, Orange, Ventura, Riverside, and San Bernadino Counties, I bet LA would have more or a very similar number to NY metro.

You're kidding, right? First of all, New York Metro means just that: New York metro. It doesn't include New York state--any of it. It doesn't include Long Island. It includes New York City, period.

But you feel the fair way to compare numbers is to take New York City...v. Los Angeles (city), the rest of Los Angeles County, all of Orange County, all of Ventura, all of Riverside County and all of San Bernadino Counties?

Well, yeah. :P If you take one CITY vs. five ENTIRE COUNTIES, you might just come up with somewhat higher numbers of millionaires in the latter. I mean...just a wild guess here.

[kimbree]

what I think is being said here is that millionnaires live in areas close to bad areas. That is about right for LA, cause wherever you live there is a "bad" area close by. My one daughter and hubby purchased a home two years ago, this is a 60 year old, completely rehabbed home, 1500 square feet in a quiet area of Valley Village, nice area. Close to freeways and all, they paid $780,000 (about the going rate here), yet if you go down about 2 miles, right off the 101, you see homeless folks, etc. The downtown is supposedly being rehabbed and yes the lofts, etc go for over $600k. In my book, that says millionnaire to me. My daughter and her hubby make about $300-400k a year. They are lucky, not a lot of the average folks make that. I make about $60k, live in OC and live from paycheck to paycheck in order to pay horrendous rent, etc. So the millionnaires live here and in order to make it they live within a few miles of bad areas, they live here, cause they cannot make that kind of money elsewhere except maybe NYC which is even worse than LA. I myself am leaving California for the rural areas of PA, I am now being retired on disability and cannot make it here any longer (not that I want to). Goodbye SoCal, hello doing more than existing.

[JerZ]

Originally Posted by kimbree

what I think is being said here is that millionnaires live in areas close to bad areas.

In what way is NYC worse than LA? Crime? LA beats NYC in crime in EVERY major category (per person living there), often by double, including murder, theft, rape, and grand larceny. If you look at the actual numbers, NYC reports more crimes...but by percentages, you have often at least twice the probability of being a victim of a crime in LA than in NYC. The final numbers are due to the fact that NYC has double the amount of inhabitants as LA.

And that fact in itself is fascinating. LA is so super-duper fabulous...yet New York, long held up by Californians en masse as the last rung of Dante's hell, has double the amount of people. It kinda begs an opposing-question rebuttal to the original question of this thread: If LA is so fabulous and NYC is such an open gaping sore, why do so many people want to live in NY? (That's rhetorical--there are obvious reasons just as there is obviously some spin-doctoring on the "everybody wants to live in LA" idea.)

Or OTOH, if you mean worse as in trying to get in and out of the city or as the way the city as a whole looks, in that case I would have to disloyally agree with you. Just thought I'd put that in in case that's what you meant.

As for the above quote...yes, that's what's being said now by a lot of posters. But the original post was based on the premise that "LA isn't that bad!"--the evidence being that millionaires are here. So I think the original idea of this thread has been pretty much disproven...since all the many, many, many posts referring to millionaires living right down the block from gangs pretty much says it is that bad...even for the moneyed. Unless anyone here considers living within a crackpipe's throw of a gang to be "not that bad".

On a side note, if you don't by now think I'm the world's leading snot, maybe a quick question? Where in PA are you moving? Be careful. Depending upon where you go, as much as you think you might like driving 15 miles in an ice storm to pick up milk, it can be pretty wearing after just one year. OTOH--Penna is pretty darned, well, pretty. Parts of the state (esp. the eastern border and The Gap, etc.) are gorgeous. Good luck in your move.

[JerZ]

Really quick, just so I'm not talking out my yin-yang...crime rate percentages in 2005--New York City, 6.6%, ranked #49 in overall crime; Los Angeles, 12.6%, ranked #28 in overall crime. This does not include outlying LA cities...as you can see, they have listings all their own. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_..._by_Crime_Rate Remember that assertion that it's only "fair" to include, oh, I don't know, five or six counties amassing a size larger than a good few states? Still wanna include those?

[TheRealAngelion]

Originally Posted by JerZ

You're kidding, right? First of all, New York Metro means just that: New York metro. It doesn't include New York state--any of it. It doesn't include Long Island. It includes New York City, period.

First of all, New York City doesn’t have 700,000 millionaire households. Manhattan, where most all millionaires in NYC live, only has 62,773. See graphic in the following NY Times article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/28/bu...erland&emc=rss

Second, the New York Metro area is defined by the U.S. Census as a 23-county metropolitan area including the seven counties that constitute New York City and Long Island, twelve counties in northern New Jersey, three counties north of New York City in New York State, and one county in northeastern Pennsylvania. So yes, indeed, New York Metro does include residents who live outside of NYC and outside of NY State entirely. The following link provides a description of the New York Metro area:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_metropolitan_area

Originally Posted by JerZ

But you feel the fair way to compare numbers is to take New York City...v. Los Angeles (city), the rest of Los Angeles County, all of Orange County, all of Ventura, all of Riverside County and all of San Bernadino Counties?

LA metro only includes 5 counties and they are all in CA. NYC needs 23, many of which are not even in NY State!

Originally Posted by JerZ

Well, yeah. :P If you take one CITY vs. five ENTIRE COUNTIES, you might just come up with somewhat higher numbers of millionaires in the latter. I mean...just a wild guess here.

Exactly which is why NYC needs 23 counties, in and outside of NY State, in order to claim 700,000 millionaire households which still seems over inflated.

[miracle]

Originally Posted by TheRealAngelion

I think the NY number is misleading. Kiplinger states this without defining what constitutes NY metro area. If you compared NY metro with LA metro which includes Orange County or with the expanded LA metro which includes LA, Orange, Ventura, Riverside, and San Bernadino Counties, I bet LA would have more or a very similar number to NY metro.

100% with you.

The number of millionaires in OC is part of the number of millionaires in Los Angeles, the only reason of OC existence as an urban place with millionaires and good houses is its proximity to an worldwide Alpha City as Los Angeles, saturated, everybody cant live in Malibu and Bel Air, or Beverly Hills, Hollywood Hills, the Palisades, Santa Monica or Los Feliz, thats the reason why places such as Laguna Beach or New Port have received a high influx of new millionaires from Los Angeles or new millionaires from the OC boom economy thanks to also saturation of Los Angeles.

I dont know why some peoplel from the OC dont want to assume that the OC is a part of Los Angeles metro, without any other function that to take in those people and business that yet dont hold in Los Angeles due to a clear problem of land lack.

[newportbeachsmostwanted]

Originally Posted by miracle

the only reason of OC existence as an urban place with millionaires and good houses is its proximity to an worldwide Alpha City as Los Angeles, saturated, everybody cant live in Malibu and Bel Air, or Beverly Hills

Essentially, OC was a bedroom community so you're right on. However, I think that Orange County offers a different type of lifestyle than say, Malibu or Beverly Hills. It's the people, good schools, master-planning, and the low-stress way of life. That's what attracts the millionaires. For many, proximity to LA is a side dish, not the main course.

[miracle]

Well I think proximity to Los Angeles with an international airport and major attractions cant be a side dish as you say, I think is excellent having places such as Laguna Beach, extremely beautiful and only miles away from an Alpha City.

And the way of life in OC is a suburban way of life in all the northern section, maybe southern OC is most independent from LA, and many people there probably think living close to LA is one of the negative side of living there, instead of a plus, and really are very pleased living without conmuting in marvellous homes with excelllent views and in very safe areas such as Mission viejo or Laguna Beach, but I do not know many of them, mainly are people who cant afford a good house in other beachfront or hills in LA and try OC as the second option.

[newportbeachsmostwanted]

Originally Posted by miracle

but I do not know many of them, mainly are people who cant afford a good house in other beachfront or hills in LA and try OC as the second option.

You might be suprised to know that cost per sq. foot is actually higher in Laguna Beach($1142) than in Malibu($952). Then again, people living in cheaper places such as Mission Viejo and Lake Forest might be proving your theory. As they likely can't afford to live in a place like Pacific Palisades or Malibu. It's hard to know exactely without taking a survey. LOL. (Wanna do it?)

As a personal opinion, I don't believe many (atleast in ritzy O.C. areas) look at L.A. in a very positive light.

[Sorcerer68]

Originally Posted by newportbeachsmostwanted

As a personal opinion, I don't believe many (atleast in ritzy O.C. areas) look at L.A. in a very positive light.

For as long as I can remember, that's gone both ways