Anyone new to Sacramento regret their move? (Los Angeles, San Francisco: low income, lease)

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by CityGirl72

This was me in Seattle, I hated the weather from Sept to late June. I could only enjoy over 70 temps 6 to 8 weeks of the year.

Now I don't like the Sac weather when it gets 90+, but can tolerate it because it's only temporary - and really...the mornings are glorious! And the warm evenings are perfection!

So really I'm only "tolerating it" from 1 pm to 5 pm, 6 to 8 weeks a year. Small price to pay.

and you are right about how short the summers are and how nice the nights most of the time. That is why we were not bothered one bit. Most nights we were comfortable in long sleeve actually. Yes, there were a few weeks, July and Aug that were warm even at night but nothing like many places we have lived, Texas and the East coast for starters.

Nita

[Damnitjanet]

Originally Posted by wburg

Maybe I just don't get it. People want bustling, big-city amenities that are next to quiet, crime-free suburban single-family homes with big yards. They want low taxes and impeccable neghborhood services. They want low rent but don't want to live in a low-rent area. They want walkable neighborhoods with lots of big free parking lots but no traffic. They want unique local character, but only if there's a Chili's or at least a McDonald's nearby. Expecting the impossible from any city will only lead to disappointment--and if you're miserable in Sacramento because it can't deliver the impossible, you'll probably be miserable wherever you go.

I don't think you do get it.

Different people have different needs. Its not the same group of people wanting these things. It two different groups of people with different priorities.

You have a small population often without kids who are very well organized who prefer life in a bustling city and have enough time on their hands to regularly go to city council planning meetings. These people like walkable neighborhoods and think transit is something other people should use to get to their neighborhood. They want everyone to pay for transit into their neighborhood and want high taxes to pay for various social engineering projects. They don't like free parking. The schools in the city are bad. So you also have some people going to the meeting hoping to fix the bad schools by forcing wealthier people to attend bad schools hoping to force mixed income neighborhoods. These are the people pushing for mixed income ordinances in new neighborhoods.

You also have a significant population of people with kids who don't attend city council meetings at all, but do buy a bunch of homes. These people value sending there kids to high scoring schools without gang members. This population fears the gang members and and poor scoring schools that follow mixed income neighborhoods. This population only likes ethnic diversity when it means people of differing races but similiar economic backgrounds and of similiar levels of educational attainment. This population has no interest in living next to bars, noise or anything that might occur in a mixed income or mixed use neighborhood. They want things quiet for their young kids. This population has never felt safe on transit, never uses transit and hates parallel parking.

If the schools or traffic gets too bad, these people vote with their feet and move elsewhere to places that provide that provide the lifestyle they like. These people are abandoning Natomas right now as they realise that mixed income in practice means bad schools and crime.

When developers build high density mixed income neighborhoods like Natomas no one is happy. It isn't the walkable neighborhood that people who like bustling cities like and it doesn't have the safe neighborhood schools and good shopping that cater to the people who like suburbs.

When developers provide neighborhoods that cater to people who like suburbs (Roseville, Folsom, Rocklin, Lincoln) the development and the neighborhood are very successful. This is why developers push for these types of neighborhoods despite the lack of activists showing up at planning meetings in support of these types of developments.

Buyers like single income neighborhoods with lots of single family homes because they tend to stay nice over long periods of time. Sierra Oaks, Arden Park, Fair Oaks, Del Dayo were all built out 40 or 50 years ago and have all held up as neighborhoods during that time, where as the neighborhoods with lots of condos and apartments haven't held up as well. Look at Citrus Heights, Rancho Cordova, Natomas, Foothill Farms, Howe Avenue/Arden Fair, Oak Park, Meadowview and Del Paso Heights. Too many apartments or old condos in a neighborhood mean bad schools and that drives away the owner occupants. When the single family homes lose their owner occupants, the local schools fall apart completely. (look at Encina High, San Juan High or Natomas High Schools where that process is happening right now).

The neighborhoods that have fallen the hardest and the fastest were the ones that started out intially as the most mixed income. But the wealthy could afford to leave the poor scoring schools, so the neighborhoods stopped being mixed income and deteriorated especially as the housing stock aged.

[18Montclair]

Sometimes I regret leaving Sacramento. All this Bay Area drama is sometimes overwhelming.

My life in Sacramento was so stress free by comparison.

Hugs to everyone in beautiful Sacramento.

[Mossy]

Originally Posted by Damnitjanet

I don't think you do get it.

Different people have different needs. Its not the same group of people wanting these things. It two different groups of people with different priorities.

You have a small population often without kids who are very well organized who prefer life in a bustling city and have enough time on their hands to regularly go to city council planning meetings. These people like walkable neighborhoods and think transit is something other people should use to get to their neighborhood. They want everyone to pay for transit into their neighborhood and want high taxes to pay for various social engineering projects. They don't like free parking. The schools in the city are bad. So you also have some people going to the meeting hoping to fix the bad schools by forcing wealthier people to attend bad schools hoping to force mixed income neighborhoods. These are the people pushing for mixed income ordinances in new neighborhoods.

You also have a significant population of people with kids who don't attend city council meetings at all, but do buy a bunch of homes. These people value sending there kids to high scoring schools without gang members. This population fears the gang members and and poor scoring schools that follow mixed income neighborhoods. This population only likes ethnic diversity when it means people of differing races but similiar economic backgrounds and of similiar levels of educational attainment. This population has no interest in living next to bars, noise or anything that might occur in a mixed income or mixed use neighborhood. They want things quiet for their young kids. This population has never felt safe on transit, never uses transit and hates parallel parking.

If the schools or traffic gets too bad, these people vote with their feet and move elsewhere to places that provide that provide the lifestyle they like. These people are abandoning Natomas right now as they realise that mixed income in practice means bad schools and crime.

When developers build high density mixed income neighborhoods like Natomas no one is happy. It isn't the walkable neighborhood that people who like bustling cities like and it doesn't have the safe neighborhood schools and good shopping that cater to the people who like suburbs.

When developers provide neighborhoods that cater to people who like suburbs (Roseville, Folsom, Rocklin, Lincoln) the development and the neighborhood are very successful. This is why developers push for these types of neighborhoods despite the lack of activists showing up at planning meetings in support of these types of developments.

Buyers like single income neighborhoods with lots of single family homes because they tend to stay nice over long periods of time. Sierra Oaks, Arden Park, Fair Oaks, Del Dayo were all built out 40 or 50 years ago and have all held up as neighborhoods during that time, where as the neighborhoods with lots of condos and apartments haven't held up as well. Look at Citrus Heights, Rancho Cordova, Natomas, Foothill Farms, Howe Avenue/Arden Fair, Oak Park, Meadowview and Del Paso Heights. Too many apartments or old condos in a neighborhood mean bad schools and that drives away the owner occupants. When the single family homes lose their owner occupants, the local schools fall apart completely. (look at Encina High, San Juan High or Natomas High Schools where that process is happening right now).

The neighborhoods that have fallen the hardest and the fastest were the ones that started out intially as the most mixed income. But the wealthy could afford to leave the poor scoring schools, so the neighborhoods stopped being mixed income and deteriorated especially as the housing stock aged.

Like this post a alot!!!!

[wburg]

Obviously everyone is much happier when only the poor are miserable, I suppose...or at least everyone who matters MOD CUT. The suburban sprawl machine is just a different kind of "social engineering," one based on fear of the different, and the assumption that we'll never run out of land, oil or money--and that suburbs can always use nearby cities as trash dumps for problems--and people--that they don't want to have to deal with. But that's a moot point: it is pretty clear that Sacramento already has plenty of suburbs for people who like suburbs.

The point that a lot of people tend to miss is that Sacramento also has a city, for people who like cities--and if some folks don't like going there because they fear cities and their human contents, that's just fine, as long as there are a lot of lively things to see and do, even if you sometimes get spare-changed while doing it. If attracting suburbanites means turning downtown Sacramento into a clone of the suburbs, there's no point--it would never work (and hasn't worked, it has been tried) and would destroy what we do have to offer. Instead, the central city can attract the people who actually like cities--and offer them city amenities. The main problem has been marketing the fact that those amenities exist.

18Montclair: I sympathize--there are a lot of things to love about the Bay Area, and we sometimes have our share of Sacramento drama too.

[Damnitjanet]

Originally Posted by wburg

Obviously everyone is much happier when only the poor are miserable, I suppose...or at least everyone who matters, in Dammitjanet's book. The suburban sprawl machine is just a different kind of "social engineering," one based on fear of the different, and the assumption that we'll never run out of land, oil or money--and that suburbs can always use nearby cities as trash dumps for problems--and people--that they don't want to have to deal with. But that's a moot point: it is pretty clear that Sacramento already has plenty of suburbs for people who like suburbs.

The point that a lot of people tend to miss is that Sacramento also has a city, for people who like cities--and if some folks don't like going there because they fear cities and their human contents, that's just fine, as long as there are a lot of lively things to see and do, even if you sometimes get spare-changed while doing it. If attracting suburbanites means turning downtown Sacramento into a clone of the suburbs, there's no point--it would never work (and hasn't worked, it has been tried) and would destroy what we do have to offer. Instead, the central city can attract the people who actually like cities--and offer them city amenities. The main problem has been marketing the fact that those amenities exist.

18Montclair: I sympathize--there are a lot of things to love about the Bay Area, and we sometimes have our share of Sacramento drama too.

There is a certain segment of the population that is incredibly anti-social. They don't apply themselves in school, they abuse controlled substances, they join gangs. They resort to violence. Not only do they screw up their own lives, they actively interfere with the ability of others to improve their lives. Why should we put the needs of self destructive above the needs of the responsible? Why shouldn't the responsible people be able to self segregate away from the willfully self destructive part of the population?

If someone decides to destroy their lives with drugs or alcohol, why should me or my kids be made to suffer on their account?

Moreover as a country we have instituted "reforms" that limited the ability of society to tone down the anti-social behavior. We banned corporal punishment, we limit the ability of the state to regulate profanity, decency and violence on the public air waves. Yet we do little to effectively regulate gun ownership. We opened up "medical cannibis" dispensaries where the users resell the product. We will allow anyone no matter how irresponsible to breed. Why isn't there a license to have children, given out only to people who demonstrate the financial ability to raise these children? We refuse to take any steps to effectively control immigration letting in lots of people with no skills and poor prospects for succeeding in this society. Compare our failed system with the much better Canadian or New Zealand approach below where the immigration systems keep out the unskilled but encourage the people who can add to the tax base.

Skilled workers and professionals: Self-assessment test
Points Indicator - New Zealand Immigration Service

I didn't set up the current system even though I strongly disagree with it. Why should my kids get sent to failing schools because someone else has been completely irresponsible? Why is it my duty to subsidize someone else's screwed up lifestyle?

MOD CUT

[NorCal Dude]

I personally wish all the people who crave urbanity would just leave already. Go spend 1500 bucks to live in a studio SF, above a cheezy faux boutique coffee shop and tell me how much better "life" is in sf. I'll take my short commute. I fish every evening while suckers sit on 880 going 3 miles in 40 minutes. I can go visit the city on the week end

[NewToCA]

Guys, please keep it civil.

I hate handing out posting infractions, don't push the buttons.

[wburg]

Originally Posted by NorCal Dude

I personally wish all the people who crave urbanity would just leave already. Go spend 1500 bucks to live in a studio SF, above a cheezy faux boutique coffee shop and tell me how much better "life" is in sf. I'll take my short commute. I fish every evening while suckers sit on 880 going 3 miles in 40 minutes. I can go visit the city on the week end

I don't see any need to do that at all. My commute is 10 minutes on the train or 20 minutes walking--to be honest, I put more miles on my shoes than my car. It's the folks in the suburbs who end up spending years of their lives commuting because they want to live in Green Acres and work in Times Square. I can visit the country on the weekend, although usually there are interesting things to do in town--and I generally don't need to drive to do that, either.

Originally Posted by Damnitjanet

There is a certain segment of the population that is incredibly anti-social. They don't apply themselves in school, they abuse controlled substances, they join gangs. They resort to violence. Not only do they screw up their own lives, they actively interfere with the ability of others to improve their lives. Why should we put the needs of self destructive above the needs of the responsible? Why shouldn't the responsible people be able to self segregate away from the willfully self destructive part of the population?

I did social work for 15 years, and trust me, plenty of the people who get screwed up on drugs or fall victim to mental illness come from the middle class and even the upper class--money doesn't buy good judgment, nor does it protect one from organic brain disease or the sometimes fickle hand of fate. In fact, the trust fund cases are often easier victims, because they want to rebel against their well-to-do suburban parents, and because they were never exposed to the real world they have no survival skills. They also typically had greater access to alcohol and prescription medication (the recreational drugs of the middle class and wealthy), addictive chemicals that kill more people than all illegal drugs combined. Often they end up the easiest prey for drug dealers or pimps. It's tragic, but true.

[NorCal Dude]

wburg one of my favorite things about sacto is just how bikeable and a walkable the city is. I can be in the city or the country with in less than an hour