Where to move? Healdsburg vs St Helena vs Calistoga (San Francisco: to rent, home)

[NYCtoCalifornia]

We are a family of four moving from Manhattan to Wine Country in Northern California (yes, big change, but we've lived in rural locations before and we are excited for the slower pace of life). My husband is originally Australian and I am Canadian. We are left-leaning. Our kids: girl is 10 months, boy is 4 years. For ideological reasons we'd like to send them to public school (we support public education and hope for racial and economic diversity in schools, but I know diversity may not be possible).

I make documentary films and my husband is a representative for commercial illustrators (he represents children's story book illustrators, ad illustrators, etc, so pretty much works in the publishing industry). We will both work from home.

We would like a pool, a veggie garden, chickens. My husbands mother will live with us for a few months out of each year. She is in very good health in her 70s. She maintains healthcare in Australia (healthcare prevents her from selling her home in Oz and living with us full time, unfortunately).

We are considering the towns of Healdsburg, St Helena, Calistoga.

Does anyone here live in those communities or have thoughts on those communities? Any real life stories? Even dreaded stereotypes and generalizations would be helpful. I have visited all of the towns but feel my understanding of those places is superficial.

Thanks for your time and help!

[Snort]

You can't go wrong with any of these. Just visit and pick your favorite (sorry, favourite).

[Adriatica]

St. Helena and Calistoga are so close to each other that we'll consider that to be 1 area. Healdsburg, of course, is a bit of distance away from the other 2.

To me, there are a few differences. Healdsburg is in the Sonoma Valley and is close to Santa Rosa, which is a fairly large city in its own right and has a good number of resources. It's also along Highway 101, which is more of a straight shot to San Francisco, but also has very heavy traffic.

St. Helena and Calistoga are in the Napa Valley, close to the city of Napa, which is a smaller city and located on Highway 29. This is really a fairly rural highway and has traffic related to tourism, mostly, as opposed to daily commuters on 101.

Basically, the Sonoma Valley has a higher population than the Napa Valley and all that goes along with that (more retail, more health care, more resources, more traffic, etc.). In my mind that's the main difference. So if you think you need more access to those things, Healdsburg might be a better choice. If you don't, the the Napa Valley is a better option.

[NYCtoCalifornia]

Thank you so much for taking the time to respond. Yes, I got the sense that the Sonoma/101 route is more populated and a bit more hectic. I'm leaning towards Napa (St Helena, specifically) but the realtor (who lives in Healdsburg) thinks St Helena and Calistoga are too remote for every day life with kids. I'm not sure that I understand that point of view, but trying to remain open-minded and get to know the areas a bit better.

Thanks again for your time and help.

[Adriatica]

Originally Posted by NYCtoCalifornia

the realtor (who lives in Healdsburg) thinks St Helena and Calistoga are too remote for every day life with kids

I have 3 kids and would gladly live in St. Helena or Calistoga. I think I'd prefer St. Helena, myself. I can't think of anything child-related that you would be missing out on by living in those areas. I don't consider them to be remote, by any means.

[Mr5150]

I am familiar with all three towns. My guess is coming from Manhattan, the cost of housing is not going to be a factor. All three choices are very good.

Healdsburg: Classy, upscale. Good access to the Bay Area and points north or the coast. A smallish town filled with urban folk, but without pretentions. Kind of a real town

Calistoga: Ah-so many childhood memories. Grew up in San Francisco and that is where my dad took us for getaways. Great town. You could not find a bad restaurant if your life depended on it. A small town that tends to get overwhelmed with tourists. If access to the outside world is important, it may not be optimal. But if you are into being a Local, could be fun and satisfying. Has a geyser and a petrified forest nearby.

St Helena: Nice, nondescript and bypassed by tourists. Has the same national access limitations as Calistoga, but without the crowds.

Thanks to my dad, I could be quite happy in Calistoga.

My advice would be to rent in Santa Rosa for a bit and explore and research. Great area!

Diversity? I think you need to put that factor as a side issue. Let diversity be as it is. Pick a place that works for you. Kids are who they are. In this day and age racism and sexism are a fading concept. I live in a area that is 90% white. The kids, by and large, could care less about your race or if you are gay. And I live in a Red part of CA! My kids have no opinion about blacks or gays. As it should be.

If you value your kids future, plan to give them a hometown. Someplace where you plan to spend the rest of your life. Where they will have long term friends and connections and a place to return. Your choice can do that.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by NYCtoCalifornia

but the realtor (who lives in Healdsburg) thinks ..

.. like a salesperson, 9 X out of 10.
(There are exceptions.)

[bigdumbgod]

One caviat: Seems every time there is an appreciable rain event in the North Bay, two words emerge: "Flooding", and "Healdsburg". Might want to investigate what properties are in proximity of flood zones in that particular town.

Realtors might conveniently overlook that detail, much like what occurs to folks who rush to buy Malibu properties, only to find out about something called "mudslides"...too late.

[NinaN]

Flood zones are always disclosed in the natural hazard reports required to sell a house. Failure to mention that up front just causes problems later if the buyer cancels after receiving the report. Lots of extra work. Absolutely no motivation for a realtor to overlook that piece of info. None.

[bigdumbgod]

Originally Posted by NinaN

Flood zones are always disclosed in the natural hazard reports required to sell a house. Failure to mention that up front just causes problems later if the buyer cancels after receiving the report. Lots of extra work. Absolutely no motivation for a realtor to overlook that piece of info. None.

Unless they're shady.