Is Eureka, Ca better than Boston, Ma? (San Francisco, Oakland: 2015, apartments)

[mateo45]

Originally Posted by AutumnSweater

My husband has been trying to push the idea of living in Eureka, Ca. We are planning good places to start a family. I've never even heard of Eureka, Ca until he brought it up. I figured he only liked it because of the show Fire Fly. But upon searching this city on google, I haven't found anything substantial about it compared to somewhere else in Ca like Cupertino. It kind of seems unsafe although it does look picturesque from Google photos. How is the education and job opportunities? The cost and quality of living?

As someone raised and brought up from the East, I prefer somewhere like Boston. Does anyone have any comments regarding Eureka?

Has he said what attracts him specifically to Eureka? Or is it just because it's on the California coast and seems 'out of the way' (which it kinda is).

BTW, a buddy works there in the CHP, and while the 'crime' issue has increased, mainly due to a relatively tolerant attitude towards drugs and homelessness (and partly owing to the University presence)… it tends to be in certain 'pockets', and is still much less than in a typical urban area.

Although if you're used to all the amenities of a city like Boston, then San Francisco is really the nearest equivalent, and it's a long ways away!

[DCMann2]

OP, read this: //www.city-data.com/forum/calif...ead-first.html

Personally I love it on the North Coast; my fiancée and I fit perfectly here in terms of culture, weather, etc., but it's absolutely not for everyone. If frequently gray skies, very wet winters, and cool summers bother you even in the slightest, don't move here.

If you need lots of big city amenities, a thriving night life, or other big city attractions, don't move here.

If the idea of driving 3 hours to a medium sized city and 5 hours to a big city bothers you even in the slightest, don't move here.

If you love the outdoors, enjoy peace and quiet, are (generally) left leaning, and don't mind the weather, chances are you'll like it here. Humboldt is a special, magical place that frequently gets a bad rap that I feel is often undeserving. Yes we have problems with drugs, homelessness, poor job market, and other things (poor roads for instance) there's nowhere else I want to live. It's just a matter of finding the right place and generally avoiding the city limits of Eureka itself.

Best of luck; Humboldt is very much a love it or hate it type area with no in between.

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

I love the north coast, but - I'm kind of an old hippy who is also comfortable with rednecks and fishermen. That said, I grew up in the SF Bay Area, granted, from a family of blue collar workers.

If you're looking for a California coastal smaller town, with good schools, but with more upscale type of people (to be possibly politically incorrect), I think you should look at Carmel By the Sea (where Clint Eastwood was mayor), or Pacific Grove (by Monterey, too). Both boast fantastic schools, and perhaps more people like yourselves.

Eureka is not crime-ridden. For some reason, this forum likes to get on some band wagon about drugs and crime being everywhere. The problem with Eureka is that there are a LOT of homeless people, especially in the downtown areas, because the population are soft-hearted types who help them. In other words, if you build it, they will come. But, I bet you even have homeless in downtown Boston. This is kind of the norm in any downtown area nowadays.

But, Carmel is a wealthy city/town, as is Pacific Grove, but they do not encourage the homeless, and therefore, they are not as big a problem there. The homeless are transient, and will go where they can get the most resources. The town I live in, in Del Norte County (Crescent City) also is a town full of people who don't as a rule, give handouts to beggers, so they tend to move on - to Eureka/Arcata.

I'm just afraid, as others have said, that you will feel like you moved to some backwoods pot-filled town compared to Boston. Not that everyone smokes pot in Eureka, but it's a more "granola" type place by a million times than somewhere like Carmel or Pacific Grove. So, I highly suggest you look to Carmel/Pacific Grove. Both have better schools than Monterey or other towns in that area.

I personally would move to either in a hearbeat. Pacific Grove will be cheaper than Carmel, but is really nice with lots of Victorian homes and nice shops and farmer's market and fun events, etc. And, you can walk to the ocean from anywhere in town. You would also not be a really far drive to San Francisco, for some serious urban experiences for a weekend, etc.

Some images for you of Pacific Grove:

https://www.google.com/search?q=paci...w=1280&bih=678

https://www.google.com/search?q=paci...ic+grove+event

My daughter's friend moved to PG from Portland, OR, with a son who was a troubled student, and he thrived in the PG public school system, FYI.

Good luck to you. I think you'll love CA, if you move to the right area. As you can tell my my name, I hate snow, and coastal Ca is paradise, IMO. :-)

[riceme]

I am in agreement that you would be hard pressed to find two more dissimilar places than Eureka and Boston. The economy is depressed because of the collapse of the timber and fishing industries, among other things, so I would be very cautious about moving there without jobs in-hand. My sisters and I went to school at Humboldt State and stayed as long as we could because we loved it there. Only one sister remains... she works in the non-profit sector, whereas I work in heavy industry and our other sister is a teacher.

If you are a sun-baby, I'm just going to go ahead and say it... Humboldt is not for you. The weather did not bother me and in fact, I liked it. But some people just cannot take months on end of rain. It is true that there is a drug problem in Humboldt (not just Eureka, but it's the biggest town, so...). And there is a homeless problem, primarily in Eureka and Arcata. But like anywhere, there are areas you may want to avoid and nicer areas. My sister now lives in a nice little neighborhood in Eureka because all the rich city people came and bought up all the houses in Arcata and drove up the cost of housing there (but that's a whole 'nother thread, isn't it?? Don't get me started!).

The person who posted above me is right... you either love Humboldt or you hate it. My sisters and I all love it, but I will never live there again. I can't because I would never be able to find gainful employment in my field. Besides, I will never leave Alaska.

[mdvaden]

Originally Posted by AutumnSweater

Is the crime that noticeable and dangerous? I'm thinking this means that it's the drug community creating the issues in the community or that police administration sucks. Safety is really important and from the sounds of it, the safety sounds terrible.

How is education?

I don't live there, but travel there a lot.

Anything about crime or safety would be blown out of proportion. People talk about pot growers in the hills. but if that's crime, then every city has criminals.

It would be safer than Portland where I live.

I think the climate and culture would be your biggest thing to deal with. If you like Boston, I'm wondering if you would like the redwood coast that much unless you fell in love with the natural area.

[Curmudgeon]

Absolutely no comparison historically, social, financially, sophistically, architecturally, educationally, you name it. In all those respects and more, Boston wins hands-down.

[freepelican]

Just a few comments on other comments.

Fort Bragg has far fewer amenities than Eureka and you are still a long ways from a major city.

There does seem to be more crime in Eureka per capita. I believe it is due more to the drug issues than the homeless issues, although both contribute. This is especially true for property crime, especially car break-ins. However, having said this, the crime rate may be a bit overblown because there are several very active news reporting entities in town so the news gets out fast and widely.

I agree that Pacific Grove is very nice but it is also MUCH more expensive than Eureka/Humboldt, especially house prices or rentals. Basically, you will get far less for your money, if you can find a place within your budget. The beaches and other natural places are also more crowded, not compared to southern California, but more so than Humboldt.

[Mr5150]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Absolutely no comparison historically, social, financially, sophistically, architecturally, educationally, you name it. In all those respects and more, Boston wins hands-down.

Except Boston is a City in a very densely populated area.

Not something that everyone wants. Tell me about where you live, for example (no need).

If one wants a low key CA coastal experience, Boston or LA will not do!

[riceme]

Originally Posted by mdvaden

I don't live there, but travel there a lot.

Anything about crime or safety would be blown out of proportion. People talk about pot growers in the hills. but if that's crime, then every city has criminals.

It would be safer than Portland where I live.

I think the climate and culture would be your biggest thing to deal with. If you like Boston, I'm wondering if you would like the redwood coast that much unless you fell in love with the natural area.

When people talk about the pot growers in the Emerald Triangle (Humboldt, Mendocino and Trinity Counties) we are not blowing anything out of proportion. Last year it was declared a High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area and they got additional task forces and funding to help local law enforcement.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Absolutely no comparison historically, social, financially, sophistically, architecturally, educationally, you name it. In all those respects and more, Boston wins hands-down.

On the other hand, Eureka does not have as many Celtics, Patriots, and Red Sox fans as Boston, which is definitely a net plus.