Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
 [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 05-23-2018, 07:55 PM
 
Location: Vancouver, WA
8,174 posts, read 16,562,313 times
Reputation: 9397

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeauCharles View Post
That's a tough one. The Sacramento Valley is definitely more scenic than the San Joaquin. I think I'd choose here over Fresno, but I'd probably choose Eastern Madera County or Mariposa County over Butte. I lived in my teens and 20s in Mariposa County so I'm partial to it.
Interesting, one more question about your neck of the woods. If given the opportunity to live *anywhere* in the Sacramento Valley where would you pick? Imagine for a moment cost not being a factor.




Derek
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-23-2018, 08:25 PM
 
234 posts, read 299,193 times
Reputation: 381
Fresno’s proximity to Yosemite, King’s Canyon and Sequoia National Park are a huge selling point for me as well. There aren’t a whole lot of options if you want to visit those unique areas consistently. Fresno offers that option as well as the regular amenities that you would want in a larger city. Of course, you also have the luxury of being able to drive to the coast instead of fly (even though it’s definitly a longer trip and not really convenient).

But hey, it’s 60k in California.

Vegas and Albuquerque or Tucson would round out my top three.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2018, 02:31 AM
 
Location: Oroville, California
3,477 posts, read 6,461,004 times
Reputation: 6787
Quote:
Originally Posted by MtnSurfer View Post
Interesting, one more question about your neck of the woods. If given the opportunity to live *anywhere* in the Sacramento Valley where would you pick? Imagine for a moment cost not being a factor.




Derek
Well, not counting metro Sacramento I'd say the better neighborhoods of Chico (cost being no object). Its a pretty sweet college town. Only reason I bought in Oroville was the 22 miles dropped the price by about 1/3 on any comparable house.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2018, 10:31 AM
 
46 posts, read 31,244 times
Reputation: 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by MtnSurfer View Post
13 Cities Where You Can Live Comfortably On Less Than $60,000 A Year

The is an interesting list of options. I wasn't expecting to see CA in it. Although we do have more affordable areas in certain parts of the state.

If you had $60K to live on which would you pick? Or would it be somewhere else?

Columbus, OH
Fresno, CA
San Antonio, TX
Indianapolis, IN
Tulsa, OK
Memphis, TN
Louisville, KY
Las Vegas, NV
Tucson, AZ
Wichita, KS
Albuquerque, NM
Detroit, MI
El Paso, TX

Granted folks who bought homes a long time ago or have no mortgage can probably live somewhere nicer, perhaps.

Derek
Louisville.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2018, 10:48 AM
 
Location: Bella Vista, Ark
77,772 posts, read 104,081,702 times
Reputation: 49243
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJonesIII View Post
If you like strip malls, chain restaurants, hot summers (consistently 90+ degrees), conservative minded people, and areas where the police won't hassle street walkers, Fresno is awesome. They also have lots of bars if you're into that.
except for the outlandish heat, it all sounds pretty good to me, though I am sure living on less than $60,000 a year would be tough if you are a family
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2018, 09:13 AM
 
Location: Arvada, CO
13,824 posts, read 29,770,019 times
Reputation: 14417
I just got back from a trip including

Nashville
Evansville/Owensboro
St. Louis
Springfield, IL
Louisville
Cincinnati

You could probably live comfortably on $60K in all of them but Nashville (and even then you could still probably do it). Weird that the rest of them weren't mentioned in the article.

Doesn't matter, because we make more than that, and I don't think I'd want to live in Nashville anyway.

Anyhow, central St. Louis County (outside the city, lower-middle class range) had rents in the $300-$400 range. Cincinnati had a two bedroom apartment across the river from downtown in KY that went for $685, it's literally a block from the river, and a mere 1000 ft walk from downtown. We toured four Cincinnati homes in the <$150K range that were all in nice, livable neighborhoods.

For my money, out of those 6 above, and the 13 from the article, Cincinnati by far gives the biggest bang for the buck. I found little personally to like in Louisville, but it's more than doable in that range as well. I think Las Vegas is a better choice than Tucson, Fresno, Albuquerque, or Wichita (basically a white Fresno if I'm being honest), and Detroit is also a good choice if you don't want to live in a desert. I haven't been to the others in the list.

So why live in Fresno when you can live in a "real" city instead?

1: Simply being in CA is the goal.
2: You love the outdoor amenities that Fresno offers nearby
3: You don't mind driving several hours to the beaches, SF/Sac/LA.
4. You just love Fresno.

Or all of the above.
__________________
Moderator for Los Angeles, The Inland Empire, and the Washington state forums.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2018, 09:53 AM
 
5,322 posts, read 18,196,487 times
Reputation: 3850
Quote:
Originally Posted by MtnSurfer View Post
13 Cities Where You Can Live Comfortably On Less Than $60,000 A Year

The is an interesting list of options. I wasn't expecting to see CA in it. Although we do have more affordable areas in certain parts of the state.

If you had $60K to live on which would you pick? Or would it be somewhere else?

Columbus, OH
Fresno, CA
San Antonio, TX
Indianapolis, IN
Tulsa, OK
Memphis, TN
Louisville, KY
Las Vegas, NV
Tucson, AZ
Wichita, KS
Albuquerque, NM
Detroit, MI
El Paso, TX

Granted folks who bought homes a long time ago or have no mortgage can probably live somewhere nicer, perhaps.

Derek
I grew up in Fresno, lived there from 1970-1991, that would be my last choice. As for the remaining locations, I've visited all except San Antonio and El Paso.

If I had to live in any of the locations, here are my top three:
Louisville, KY
Wichita, KS
Indianapolis, IN

Ironically, Albuquerque has always reminded me of Fresno, perhaps the vibe or layout?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2018, 10:14 AM
 
4 posts, read 5,455 times
Reputation: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeauCharles View Post
From that list I'd choose Fresno just to stay in California. I lived there for two years in the early 90s and have been around it all my life because of family. Its fine. Yeah, the air quality could be better, but its no worse than the LA basin where millions upon millions live and people rarely say anything about anymore in that regard.

People are nice, commuting is easy, restaurants are cheap and quite varied and its close to a lot of great places for weekend trips.
Fresno has a terrible gang problem now. It's not what it used to be, it was a cute area back in the early 90s, things are bad now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2018, 10:18 AM
 
4 posts, read 5,455 times
Reputation: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by cleosmom View Post
I grew up in Fresno, lived there from 1970-1991, that would be my last choice. As for the remaining locations, I've visited all except San Antonio and El Paso.

If I had to live in any of the locations, here are my top three:
Louisville, KY
Wichita, KS
Indianapolis, IN

Ironically, Albuquerque has always reminded me of Fresno, perhaps the vibe or layout?
I'm with you on Louisville, I'd also look at San Antonio, I don't see Fresno at all, the last time I was there was in 2010. Tucson is also a place to look. I wonder why they didn't mention Eureka CA? (Affordable Pacific Northwest!)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2018, 10:24 AM
 
Location: Formerly Pleasanton Ca, now in Marietta Ga
10,276 posts, read 8,435,178 times
Reputation: 16488
I think eureka is very isolated and not as strong economically as the other cities. It takes forever to drive there.
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:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


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 > U.S. Forums > California
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top