Moving from CA's urban areas to suburbs/exurbs

[citizensadvocate]

Originally Posted by apple92680

One thing I did not factor in was the possibility of some movement of people from Nor Cal down to So Cal. That could easily happen, as housing stock is more ample here, and therefor more affordable.

You could live in a newer home in a large section of LA County for almost 2/3 the price of the Bay Area counties. Maybe less?

As for your personal prediction, that's what the guys in AZ and NV forums are saying. Yes, it may happen to an extent, but I best over half end up staying within California.

While I agree there are cheaper places in California both North CA and South CA they are not very desirable, anyways. I also severely doubt many people who lived in San Mateo County or the Peninsula in the Bay Area would be thrilled to live in comparably "cheaper" places that is a part of or around LA County such as Antelope Valley, Palmdale, Lancaster, Santa Clarita, or Caistac, while all these are in LA County proper they are pretty remote, isolated, dusty, and require hours driving to the major attractions, urban areas where everything LA offers is, or the beaches especially in LA traffic, even worse if one has to commute. Its not too much different than having to move to Tracy, Stockton, or Manteca for cheaper yet larger housing stock.
Also I noticed in CA it appears even if you choose where the housing is not that expensive the other costs may still be very high including hiring for labor work. Utilities are also very expensive if you live where its served by the big three utility giants, PGE, SCE, or SDG&E rather than a municipality where its even a bigger issue when you buy a larger 2800sq ft+ or larger house inland where you may want a pool and jacuzzi. Solar panels are a must there.

[thenext88]

Originally Posted by citizensadvocate

While I agree there are cheaper places in California both North CA and South CA they are not very desirable, anyways. I also severely doubt many people who lived in San Mateo County or the Peninsula in the Bay Area would be thrilled to live in comparably "cheaper" places that is a part of or around LA County such as Antelope Valley, Palmdale, Lancaster, Santa Clarita, or Caistac, while all these are in LA County proper they are pretty remote, isolated, dusty, and require hours driving to the major attractions, urban areas where everything LA offers is, or the beaches especially in LA traffic, even worse if one has to commute. Its not too much different than having to move to Tracy, Stockton, or Manteca for cheaper yet larger housing stock.

I 100% agree.

My wife and I have been working remotely long before COVID, and are looking at deep South OC now (i.e. Rancho Mission Viejo, San Juan Capistrano, inland communities of San Clemente). These places have good climates due to proximity to the ocean. And they're relatively remote compared to what is the entire basin, but not so remote that you're hours away from major attractions. In fact you've got both LA and SD about an hour away. If there's an ideal place to work remotely in SoCal, I'd say this area is it unless you're particularly tied down to one city or another.

But it's not cheap: for a 4BR home you're looking at $1M or more. But for what it is, it's a great deal compared to the desirable urban parts of LA, and completely doable on a tech (let's say ~$150K) salary. The homes are also generally much newer.

I'd move to another state before considering moving my family to Antelope Valley or similar. For $300K I'd rather be a good neighborhood in Idaho or New Mexico. You get just as much sun out there, climates are actually better than inland California, and while maybe not as diverse you still have enough in terms of dining out, outdoors activities, etc.

[apple92680]

Originally Posted by citizensadvocate

While I agree there are cheaper places in California both North CA and South CA they are not very desirable, anyways. I also severely doubt many people who lived in San Mateo County or the Peninsula in the Bay Area would be thrilled to live in comparably "cheaper" places that is a part of or around LA County such as Antelope Valley, Palmdale, Lancaster, Santa Clarita, or Caistac, while all these are in LA County proper they are pretty remote, isolated, dusty, and require hours driving to the major attractions, urban areas where everything LA offers is, or the beaches especially in LA traffic, even worse if one has to commute. Its not too much different than having to move to Tracy, Stockton, or Manteca for cheaper yet larger housing stock.
Also I noticed in CA it appears even if you choose where the housing is not that expensive the other costs may still be very high including hiring for labor work. Utilities are also very expensive if you live where its served by the big three utility giants, PGE, SCE, or SDG&E rather than a municipality where its even a bigger issue when you buy a larger 2800sq ft+ or larger house inland where you may want a pool and jacuzzi. Solar panels are a must there.

I never meant to imply that someone who lived in Palo Alto or Redwood City would want (or desire) to live in the Santa Clarita or Antelope Valley area. Not at all. I'm not sure how that got twisted into your interpretation?

HOWEVER, a person in Palo Alto, Redwood City, Los Gatos, etc, would find a similar community in So Cal to be be cheaper. Think: Thousand Oaks, Calabassas, Woodland Hills, Rancho Bernardo, Rancho Santa Fe, etc.

And if working remotely, could possible afford to live there, and not just exist.

[apple92680]

Originally Posted by thenext88

I 100% agree.

My wife and I have been working remotely long before COVID, and are looking at deep South OC now (i.e. Rancho Mission Viejo, San Juan Capistrano, inland communities of San Clemente). These places have good climates due to proximity to the ocean. And they're relatively remote compared to what is the entire basin, but not so remote that you're hours away from major attractions. In fact you've got both LA and SD about an hour away. If there's an ideal place to work remotely in SoCal, I'd say this area is it unless you're particularly tied down to one city or another.

But it's not cheap: for a 4BR home you're looking at $1M or more. But for what it is, it's a great deal compared to the desirable urban parts of LA, and completely doable on a tech (let's say ~$150K) salary. The homes are also generally much newer.

I'd move to another state before considering moving my family to Antelope Valley or similar. For $300K I'd rather be a good neighborhood in Idaho or New Mexico. You get just as much sun out there, climates are actually better than inland California, and while maybe not as diverse you still have enough in terms of dining out, outdoors activities, etc.

Not true re: Idaho. Because of it's geographic location, you lose a lot of sunshine compared to anywhere in Southern California. Summer nights are long in Idaho, true. But Summer there is usually brief. It can come late and end early, depending on weather patterns.

You will get more sunshine days in New Mexico, for sure. None of New Mexico's cities (Albuquerque, Santa Fe, Alamagordo, Farmington, etc) have very good crime statistics though. The Antelope Valley communities have lower crime rates, based on available data, plus the benefit of access to the rest of what California offers. The same is true of Tracy, Lathrop, Manteca and Lodi in Northern California when you compare them to New Mexico cities.

2019 COMPARABLE VIOLENT CRIME RATES (per / 1000) :

California--------------------------------New Mexico

Bakersfield 47 / 1000.........................Albuquerque 77 / 1000
Palmdale 19 / 1000.........................Alamogordo 35 / 1000
Sacramento 40 / 1000........................ Santa Fe 43 / 1000
Tracy 28 / 1000.........................Farmington 52 / 1000
Lancaster 34 / 1000..........................Roswell 51 / 1000