U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [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 05-18-2014, 11:29 AM
 
Location: Glenbogle
730 posts, read 1,028,032 times
Reputation: 1046

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by tiluha View Post
So, Cleveland Heights will most likely to return to its long term Crime Stat averages?
IMHO in order to even begin to predict that, you'd also need to know the demographic and economic history of the area and if/how it has changed along with the crimes stats. There must have been some precipitating factor for a fairly quick and very dramatic shift like that. And even if it does revert, there's no way to predict a timeframe unless there's some kind of guaranteed "quick fix" (and how often do we see that happen anywhere? lol) for whatever the cause was.

Take a look at the current stats for Hempstead, NY. You'd never know, looking at those, that from the 1920s through the 1950s this was a desirable, stable, low-crime town that was at least 90% caucasian. The only "commercial" is retail; there was never any heavy industry or major employer that would have gone bust and dramatically altered the economy. But starting in the 1960s everything changed and in 50 years it has not yet rebounded to any degree. Every few years some plan or other is floated to "revitalize" or otherwise improve it but it never goes anywhere, either because of politics or money or both. Personally I would never want to gamble on any timeframe for the "crime stat recovery" of an area because depending on the cause(s) for the decline, it could take anywhere from decades to an entire generation. JMHO.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-18-2014, 12:30 PM
 
Location: Lakewood OH
21,697 posts, read 23,676,966 times
Reputation: 35449
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiluha View Post
Best of luck in your move Minervah! I hope you post about your experiences and how everything works out for you. I am thinking of relocating in a couple of years, first I thought of checking out the Pacific NW, but I think it would be way too expensive for me. Now I'm thinking of heading back towards where I'm from. Ohio would work for me because it is close enough to family, but maybe not as expensive. It sounds like you're moving to an ideal place to meet your needs which are similar to what I've been searching for.

Good Luck! Safe Travels!
Thank you and I will. I have been updating my adventures on the "Women and Men retiring to a new place alone etc" thread since its inception so look for me there."

Quote:
Originally Posted by StressedOutNYer View Post
Cleveland Heights is a great example of why what's perfect for one person might be out of the question for another. I took a quick look at its' stats on C-D and there are three things that would make that city a non-starter for me, despite proximity to excellent medical care (which is important to me) and affordable COL (which is ditto): the demographics, the crime rate, and the winters (all of which are at least as important to me as the first two)

In the end, it's all about balance and what tips the scales 'for' or 'against' is going to be different for everyone.
That's very true. I can also sit and watch the weather changes where I live now which are not to my liking. They are not as nearly as severe as what is happening back East but they if they are a portent of things to come, I don't think winters will be as ideal as they once were. Weather for me has never been a huge issue. I grew up in Chicago and lived there until my thirties. I can cope. And at least I don't have to live with the Sword of Damocles hanging over my head in which "The Big One" which might hit at any moment or any decade. My point is, you have weather everywhere and you have weather problems everywhere. You deal with it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StressedOutNYer View Post
IMHO in order to even begin to predict that, you'd also need to know the demographic and economic history of the area and if/how it has changed along with the crimes stats. There must have been some precipitating factor for a fairly quick and very dramatic shift like that. And even if it does revert, there's no way to predict a timeframe unless there's some kind of guaranteed "quick fix" (and how often do we see that happen anywhere? lol) for whatever the cause was.


Take a look at the current stats for Hempstead, NY. You'd never know, looking at those, that from the 1920s through the 1950s this was a desirable, stable, low-crime town that was at least 90% caucasian. The only "commercial" is retail; there was never any heavy industry or major employer that would have gone bust and dramatically altered the economy. But starting in the 1960s everything changed and in 50 years it has not yet rebounded to any degree. Every few years some plan or other is floated to "revitalize" or otherwise improve it but it never goes anywhere, either because of politics or money or both. Personally I would never want to gamble on any timeframe for the "crime stat recovery" of an area because depending on the cause(s) for the decline, it could take anywhere from decades to an entire generation. JMHO.
In the very expensive, trendy area in which I am living now property crime has gone up in the form of vandalism, tagging and theft. There are also more displaced and angry, frustrated people who have been displaced due to the ever increasing rents. I don't know if this has anything to do with anything but it might.Up until 90's, this used to be a lower income middle class neighborhood where there was a different sort of crime but less of it. It had more to do with a bit of the occasional selling of drugs. So are we supposed to conclude the more successful the neighborhood the higher the crime rate?

I don't think I will be waiting for any timeframe for the "crime stat recovery" of Cleveland Heights because when and if it ever happens, I'll probably be long dead so I'll take my chances.

As you said, and I agree, not every place is for everyone. Some are willing to put up with what others are not and some have very strong personal reasons for making their choices. I feel that life is all about of taking chances. Sometimes, you can concentrate so hard reading the playbill you can miss the show. That's JMHO.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-18-2014, 12:51 PM
 
Location: Keystone State
1,765 posts, read 1,886,082 times
Reputation: 2118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervah View Post
Thank you and I will. I have been updating my adventures on the "Women and Men retiring to a new place alone etc" thread since its inception so look for me there."
Great! Thanks!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervah View Post
I don't think I will be waiting for any timeframe for the "crime stat recovery" of Cleveland Heights because when and if it ever happens, I'll probably be long dead so I'll take my chances.
Good for you! Have a wonderful journey!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervah View Post
As you said, and I agree, not every place is for everyone. Some are willing to put up with what others are not and some have very strong personal reasons for making their choices. I feel that life is all about of taking chances. Sometimes, you can concentrate so hard reading the playbill you can miss the show. That's JMHO.
So true!

Actually after I looked up Cleveland Heights stats I checked out where I currently reside and according to the stats Cleveland Heights is much safer. I feel pretty safe where I'm at now, so it just goes to show you that "reading the playbill" ain't all it's cracked up to be.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-18-2014, 01:28 PM
 
Location: SoCal desert
8,093 posts, read 13,238,618 times
Reputation: 14870
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiluha View Post
Wow, I just took a look at the Crime Stats! I wonder what caused such a high spike! Interesting that 2008 was left out???


Crime rates in Cleveland Heights by Year

2000 93.7
2001 94.8
2002 92.8
2003 84.3
2004 81.2
2005 81.5
2006 83.7
2007 85.7
2008 ????
2009 152.5
2010 137.7
2011 224.2
2012 303.0

(higher means more crime, U.S. average = 301.5)

What the heck happened!?!

Read more: City Data Cleveland Heights Stats
When I saw the spike between '07 and '09, the first thing that came to mind ... whoever CD gets their Crime Stats from (Census Bureau?) changed their criteria of reportable crime.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-18-2014, 03:33 PM
 
Location: Keystone State
1,765 posts, read 1,886,082 times
Reputation: 2118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gandalara View Post
When I saw the spike between '07 and '09, the first thing that came to mind ... whoever CD gets their Crime Stats from (Census Bureau?) changed their criteria of reportable crime.
That makes sense, I've heard that crime reporting can vary from place to place therefore skewing results.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-18-2014, 04:36 PM
 
Location: Sacramento
13,784 posts, read 23,815,442 times
Reputation: 6195
Areas adjacent to Cleveland Heights include economically similar (housing prices and rent) University Heights and South Euclid. Both have modest crime statistics:

http://www.city-data.com/city/South-Euclid-Ohio.html

http://www.city-data.com/city/Univer...ghts-Ohio.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-18-2014, 04:56 PM
 
82 posts, read 97,427 times
Reputation: 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by StressedOutNYer View Post
I've pretty much given up looking at any of these "Best Places to..." lists, because they're usually too one- (or at the most, two-) dimensional.

What I'd be interested to see would be a list for "Best Places to Retire" based on fast/nearby access to EXCELLENT medical care (hospitals, etc). I bet it would probably match the typical "most expensive places to.." lists, though, because most will be either in or near major cities.
We live on LI now, with numerous large research/teaching hospitals all within 30 minute drive.
For a few years lived in a very large retirement community in central FL, which has a brand new hospital. We were very, very surprised at the discrepancy from the research/teaching hospitals. Very polite, nice folks, but the quality & resources just not there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-18-2014, 05:12 PM
 
7,936 posts, read 5,048,234 times
Reputation: 13596
My own perception is that the principal driver of "cost of living" is state and local income tax. For me personally, pretty much nothing else matters.

High cost of housing is high because the price of real estate is rising. Sure, bubbles and manias are possible. Industries might fold or relocate, taking employment with them. School districts might rise or fall in quality. But by and large, an area with cheap housing has cheap housing because that housing hasn't been appreciating in recent decades; and vice versa. So if you can afford the carrying costs of a house in San Francisco or Manhattan over one in rural Nebraska, the real cost of living – sales price of the house when you finally sell, minus purchase price, minus the sum of annual carrying costs – may actually be lower in the pricier place than in the cheaper one.

For me the upshot is to first consider those states and metro areas that have zero or low combined state/local income tax, and from that roster to select places that that are the most cosmopolitan and dynamic, avoiding extremes of climate (Minneapolis or Houston).

As for the quality-of-life issue, the comparison of LA and NYC and so forth, my view is that what matters isn't so much the cultural amenities themselves, as the sort of people drawn by them. I would go to live performances (theater, ballet, philharmonic) rarely, because I'm a cheapskate and I tend to be busy anyway. And if it mattered so much, I could take regular leisure trips, "cultural weekends" in NYC or Chicago or whatnot, to satisfy my craving. However, what really matters to me is being around other people who enjoy culture… dining with them, visiting their houses on a casual and regular basis, just chewing the proverbial cud with them. I want to be around neighbors who can pepper their conversations with quotes from classical authors and who would understand and appreciate esoteric cultural references. I'd like to be around people who have libraries that rival mine, so that we could borrow books from each other and discuss the pros and cons of Dryden's verse translation of the Aeneid, and Robert Fitzgerald's prose.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jm02 View Post
... I have personally found the adage "You get what you pay for" to be true more times than not when it comes to how I allot my dollars - whether it be restaurant choice, a seat in the opera, the class one choses to fly on an airplane, the car one drives, the neighborhood one lives in along with the house in that neighborhood, and on and on. Does this mean that purchasing a Mercedes S class is the best decision for everyone to drive? No. Why? Because not everyone places equal value on automobiles. Let's take Bob and Mary who value foreign travel and are perfectly happy with a Chevy Volt. So guess what?: Bob and Mary are getting what they paid for - for their trips abroad travels and for their ride.
"Getting what you pay for" is difficult to quantify. Take the example of the Mercedes S-class. Assume that three people, A, B and C, are all automotive enthusiasts. All enjoy spirited driving in comfort and style. All are brand-agnostic, all are savvy shoppers and none is beholden to the car's national origin. Well, A buys a brand-new model of the S-class, paying $100K (or whatever they cost). B buys a 7-year-old version, which has depreciated to $25K, and is out of warranty. C buys an alternative… a large and luxurious RWD V8 car from some less prestigious manufacturer, also used, for $10K. Did everyone get what they paid for? I would argue that B got more than A, since he got nearly the same car for 75% off. But what if B's car breaks down incessantly, with costly repairs and poor owner satisfaction? It might, or it might not… the proverbial luck of the draw. A has peace of mind, that such breakdowns won't occur, or will be covered under warranty. But suppose that B gets lucky and his car never breaks down. Then A's "insurance" against breakdown, costing him effectively $75K, is wasted. B got more for what he paid. And what about C? Maybe C bought a used Lexus, that's (for the sake of this example) just as reliable as the new Mercedes. I'd argue that C got even more for what he paid.

The point is that sometimes we are rewarded in proportion to what we invest, but other times our money is wasted, and still other times it's amplified.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Submariner View Post
There are some who want to live in a city, and they are willing to pay 10X more to do so.

I prefer rural, and it is much harder to compare rural areas to each other.
I also prefer rural - but the rural outerbelt of a large metropolitan area (5+ million people), and not some isolated expanse far from any city. The worse, in my list of personal preferences, is living in the interior of a small town (<1000 people).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-18-2014, 06:24 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles area
14,018 posts, read 17,747,361 times
Reputation: 32309
Default Cost of housing trumps state and local taxation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant View Post
My own perception is that the principal driver of "cost of living" is state and local income tax. For me personally, pretty much nothing else matters.
I believe that statement is very inaccurate. The cost of housing trumps state and local income tax many times over. Let's take California, one of the highest income tax states in the nation. In 2013 my total Calif. income tax liability was $3,423 on an adjusted gross income of $80,172. (There is no local income tax anywhere in Calif. to my knowledge).

Now let's assume (perhaps not accurately to the dollar, but within the ballpark) that a $500,000 house where I live costs $250,000 in Tennessee. (Actually I think the difference is probably greater than that). It would take 73 years of my paying no state income tax to make up that $250,000 difference in housing costs. ($250,000 divided by $3,423 equals 73 point something).

Now of course someone with a higher income than mine would be paying much more in state income taxes (in California), both in absolute terms and as a percentage of adjusted gross income. But I am trying to put things in perspective, and I think the figures I have chosen as examples are reasonable, middle-of-the-road figures. Perhaps many people would consider my income to be almost permanent underclass, so we're all coming from different perspectives and I don't know how to account for the wide range.

If you are a big earner perhaps my analysis will seem flawed to you, but I would be interested to get your reaction, either positive or negative.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-18-2014, 06:37 PM
 
Location: Forests of Maine
30,687 posts, read 49,469,539 times
Reputation: 19134
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant View Post
My own perception is that the principal driver of "cost of living" is state and local income tax. For me personally, pretty much nothing else matters.
Ouch

Are your state / local Income taxes a majority of your living expense? That is hard to imagine, but I guess it is possible.

My pension is small, though my Federal / State / Local tax burden is paid by about the third week of January.



Quote:
... For me the upshot is to first consider those states and metro areas that have zero or low combined state/local income tax,
Makes sense.



Quote:
... "Getting what you pay for" is difficult to quantify. Take the example of the Mercedes S-class. Assume that three people, A, B and C, are all automotive enthusiasts. All enjoy spirited driving in comfort and style. All are brand-agnostic, all are savvy shoppers and none is beholden to the car's national origin. Well, A buys a brand-new model of the S-class, paying $100K (or whatever they cost). B buys a 7-year-old version, which has depreciated to $25K, and is out of warranty. C buys an alternative… a large and luxurious RWD V8 car from some less prestigious manufacturer, also used, for $10K. Did everyone get what they paid for? I would argue that B got more than A, since he got nearly the same car for 75% off. But what if B's car breaks down incessantly, with costly repairs and poor owner satisfaction? It might, or it might not… the proverbial luck of the draw. A has peace of mind, that such breakdowns won't occur, or will be covered under warranty. But suppose that B gets lucky and his car never breaks down. Then A's "insurance" against breakdown, costing him effectively $75K, is wasted. B got more for what he paid. And what about C? Maybe C bought a used Lexus, that's (for the sake of this example) just as reliable as the new Mercedes. I'd argue that C got even more for what he paid.

The point is that sometimes we are rewarded in proportion to what we invest, but other times our money is wasted, and still other times it's amplified.
Good point.



Quote:
... I also prefer rural - but the rural outerbelt of a large metropolitan area (5+ million people), and not some isolated expanse far from any city. The worse, in my list of personal preferences, is living in the interior of a small town (<1000 people).
Getting what you pay for, is difficult to quantify.
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:

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 > General Forums > Retirement
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - 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 - Top