Why is Sacramento more affordable than all the other California cities? (Davis: ski resorts, crime)

[bumpandturn]

Just a little list off the top of my head why Sac is better then the SF Bay Area

1. On hot days, you can swim, for free, in the lakes and rivers.

2. You can find places to ride a bike without driving to far, or battling the busy streets.

3. Many good restaurants, and if you weight them on affordability, you might find there are more in Sac.

4. Housing is more affordable

5. Pace of life is such that you can enjoy it a bit more (personal opinion)

6. Cost of living is below the national average

7. Snow is closer

8. The Bay Area is just down the road when you just have to go.

I have lived in Santa Rosa, Alameda, San Francisco, San Jose, Davis and Fair Oaks. I liked all of these places for various reasons, but for some reason the balance in Sac is most appealing at the moment. (I'm planning on moving back.)

I've have lived out of the US for the last few years, in a quiet town in the South Pacific. I have learned that balanced family lifestyle is important, and I think I can get it in Sac.

[wburg]

Originally Posted by CeJeH

Really now you're comparing us to LA and SF? Yes those places have natural risks involved but they are 2 of the most desirable places in the WORLD to live!

Yes, I am comparing them--in terms of risk of natural disaster. Yes, LA and SF are considered more desirable places to live by many--which is why they have higher property value, despite the risks of natural disaster which are just as present there as they are here. The point of the thread is affordability--and it isn't necessarily our flood risk that makes Sacramento affordable, but rather our "kid sister" relationship to those two cities and their regions. For some, however, it's part of the appeal--you can have close access to the Bay Area, to the mountains, or the ocean without having to pay those prices--and we're a pretty livable city in our own right, if you compare us to other medium-sized cities vs. comparing us to two of the entertainment and culture capitals of the western hemisphere.

And while it has almost become a citywide joke, it is that proximity that became the reason why Sacramento still exists at all. 1862, as you mention, was not the first time Sacramento flooded--there were several similarly disastrous floods during the Gold Rush. Each time, everyone ran to high ground and opportunists tried to establish new towns above the flood waters. But each time, when the waters receded everyone ran back down the hill to Sacramento. We went to Herculean lengths to build levees, raise downtown streets, and otherwise do all sorts of crazy stuff to make the city more flood-resistant, and while we do get the occasional flood out in the suburbs, downtown Sacramento hasn't been seriously flooded since '62 largely through supreme human effort.

So why bother saving Sacramento in the first place? They did it because, despite our low point above sea level, we were an extraordinarily good transportation hub, and communications hub, and a pretty good place to do business (even if the people who got rich here moved to San Francisco once they made their pile of cash.) That centrality, and our connection between the urban Bay Area and the rural Valley and Mountain regions made us an excellent choice as an administrative center for the state.

And we actually did pretty well in that role. Even now, our overall region benefits from our proximity to the Bay Area and the mountains--and our relatively cheap real estate. And if you actually take a look at it instead of expecting it to live up to Bay Area/San Francisco standards (which I don't) it's a pretty nice place to live in its own right.

[caligirlz]

We were just talking about this subject at work. Very few acute care hospitals in California, including the Sac region, are hiring...either new grads, or experienced nurses (> 10 years). The experienced nurses' benefits are too costly to the hospitals, and there is no longer new entry (for the grads) or re-entry (for RNs who've been out of acute care for > 10 years) training programs....too expensive. This is nothing new & has actually been occuring for the past 10 years, or longer.

When I moved to Sacramento, the only hospital jobs available for a seasoned nurse, was night shift on a general floor. As an ex-critical care nurse, I couldn't stand the thought of a general floor, so I continued on with business nursing.

For the RN who wants to work in a clinical setting, this leaves long term care, subacute care, clinics, outpatient ambulatory surgery centers, dialysis centers, home health, hospice, case management, & registry work...Jobs in non clinical settings could be health insurance, work comp and some case management positions.

It's kind of funny because many of us would like to return to a clinical setting, but can't find a job....so we frequently stay in a less than ideal position. (I actually love my job so it's not an issue for me, even though I'd like to do some moonlighting in the hospital...oh well, more time to play ).

[sacramento916]

Originally Posted by sacramento916

Hard to find workers who speak English? Are you kidding me?

I understand that Sac is inferior to the Bay Area. But it's definitely better than 98% of the South, including North Carolina.

Ive spent significant time in Tennessee and Louisiana.

Just the evangelical culture alone in the South already makes it the most ignorant, backward, least desirable region to live in in this country.

I'd rather live in Sac than anywhere in the entire South.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by sacramento916

Ive spent significant time in Tennessee and Louisiana.

Just the evangelical culture alone in the South already makes it the most ignorant, backward, least desirable region to live in in this country.

I'd rather live in Sac than anywhere in the entire South.

And the entire South would no doubt rather have you do so. A win-win!

[sacramento916]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

And the entire South would no doubt rather have you do so. A win-win!

And that's exactly fine by me. In life, there are some people you can never be friends with.

I'd rather be hated than loved by Evangelicals.

If I was considered an ally to the Evangelicals of this country, I'd consider myself either an evil or insane person.

[NorCal Dude]

Originally Posted by bumpandturn

Just a little list off the top of my head why Sac is better then the SF Bay Area

1. On hot days, you can swim, for free, in the lakes and rivers.

2. You can find places to ride a bike without driving to far, or battling the busy streets.

3. Many good restaurants, and if you weight them on affordability, you might find there are more in Sac.

4. Housing is more affordable

5. Pace of life is such that you can enjoy it a bit more (personal opinion)

6. Cost of living is below the national average

7. Snow is closer

8. The Bay Area is just down the road when you just have to go.

I have lived in Santa Rosa, Alameda, San Francisco, San Jose, Davis and Fair Oaks. I liked all of these places for various reasons, but for some reason the balance in Sac is most appealing at the moment. (I'm planning on moving back.)

I've have lived out of the US for the last few years, in a quiet town in the South Pacific. I have learned that balanced family lifestyle is important, and I think I can get it in Sac.

I like living in Sac more than the bay personally too. If I made twice as much as I do now, I probably would enjoy the bay a lot more than I did as a broke college student.

[wburg]

Originally Posted by caligirlz

We were just talking about this subject at work. Very few acute care hospitals in California, including the Sac region, are hiring...either new grads, or experienced nurses (> 10 years). The experienced nurses' benefits are too costly to the hospitals, and there is no longer new entry (for the grads) or re-entry (for RNs who've been out of acute care for > 10 years) training programs....too expensive. This is nothing new & has actually been occuring for the past 10 years, or longer.

I see an enormous amount of new hospital/medical offices going up: every time I go down Stockton it seems that there's a new tall building at UCDMC, Sutter and Mercy are expanding in multiple facilities. If they aren't hiring nurses, who is working in these new buildings?

[caligirlz]

Originally Posted by wburg

I see an enormous amount of new hospital/medical offices going up: every time I go down Stockton it seems that there's a new tall building at UCDMC, Sutter and Mercy are expanding in multiple facilities. If they aren't hiring nurses, who is working in these new buildings?

I didn't say they aren't hiring nurses.

I can't speak for all the facilities, but I do know that Sutter does not hire brand new grads or nurses with > 10 years experience....unless...and I am making an assumption based on my previous dealings with them....you are already an employee who has gone through their own nurse schooling. They have an arrangement with a local college, I think Samuel Merrit.

I have heard rumors just this week that even going to the Sutter-sponsored school is not a guarantee of employment. I work for a large (business-based) employer of RNs in the area & the only "seasoned" RNs getting jobs in acute care hospitals are those who have been out of the clinical setting for < 10 years.

[wburg]

Originally Posted by caligirlz

We were just talking about this subject at work. Very few acute care hospitals in California, including the Sac region, are hiring...either new grads, or experienced nurses (> 10 years).

Okay, so they're hiring, but only looking for nurses within specific parameters?