Why doesn't California's northern third have a higher population? (San Francisco: crime rates, unemployment)

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by EckyX

About how far can you go inland before fire risk is too high?

How high is "too high", and how high is acceptable?

From what I understand, the fire risk elevates significantly as the elevation increases, going eastward. This is in part due to the coast having much more open space, since it's more heavily populated. The forests predominate as close to Humboldt Bay as the Blue Lake area (on Hwy 299), which I've read is at risk. But I've also recently read, that it can't be assumed that the wetter parts of Humboldt are safe, because during the dry summers (which used to be wetter), a fire could still be sparked in the wooded areas of existing towns.

I don't mean to discourage you; I haven't ruled out a move to Humboldt entirely, myself, yet. But I think it's important to be realistic. Perhaps our members here who live there could chime in a bit more. But I think, if one had dreams of living nestled in the trees, and there's a lot of RE up there that's like that, around Arcata, McKindleyville, parts of Eureka, etc., it might be a good idea to adjust one's criteria, and look for RE that's a bit more urban, or on former farmland, say. Open space is safer space.

Also watch out for land that's on flood plains (Fortuna, parts of Eureka and Ferndale) and tsunami zones (west Arcata, a narrow coastal band of McKinleyville, edges of Eureka, etc.); low ground on the coast, or bordering rivers, basically. https://rctwg.humboldt.edu/tsunami-hazard-maps

[evening sun]

Fire is a worry, but earthquakes were a worry when we lived in the Bay Area. You can help mitigate your fire risks, by having "100' " defensible space around your home. Here we are not in a seismic zone, but fire may come in the fall. There is always something to worry about.

[EckyX]

Originally Posted by evening sun

There is always something to worry about.

I suppose that's one of the few perks to living in a place like Vermont. There are basically no natural disasters. No earthquakes, flood zones are predictable and pretty well controlled, few to no fires, no hurricanes, etc. etc., and all you have to put up with is 5 months of sub-freezing afternoon highs, frequent cloudiness, humidity, and a few weeks of sustained subzero weather every year.

[evening sun]

Well, ice storms are also dangerous, I, sadly, know several people in Bad winter states, who have lost loved ones to road accidents due to ice. I would consider an ice storm a natural disaster.

[Synchromesh]

Originally Posted by EckyX

I suppose that's one of the few perks to living in a place like Vermont. There are basically no natural disasters. No earthquakes, flood zones are predictable and pretty well controlled, few to no fires, no hurricanes, etc. etc., and all you have to put up with is 5 months of sub-freezing afternoon highs, frequent cloudiness, humidity, and a few weeks of sustained subzero weather every year.

I think a disaster named Bernie is worse than every forest fire in California in any given year. Also, VT much like NH and ME is an absolute hell hole in every single way.

[EckyX]

Originally Posted by Synchromesh

I think a disaster named Bernie is worse than every forest fire in California in any given year. Also, VT much like NH and ME is an absolute hell hole in every single way.

Difference of opinion, I suppose. I actually like where I live, a lot, but I've also enjoyed California every time I've visited.

Got a few selfies with Bernie as well. He doesn't live far away, and I once ran into him in Atlanta - we ended up sitting next to each other on the plane back to Burlington. Not that he knows me, of course.

[LPG2020]

Originally Posted by Chimérique

I hear ya OP,

Just clarifying, you do know that Sacramento is around 80 miles NORTH of San Francisco, and San Francisco is no where near the "middle of the state" either.

At least half of the Sacramento metro lies within the northern 1/3 of the state. All of the Sacramento Metro is well above the top northern 1/2 of the state.

A decent chuck of the Bay Area is within the northern 1/3 of California as well (parts of Marin, all of Sonoma, and part of Napa Counties)

Like I said, most of what you are describing and apparently want to know about is in the northern 1/4 of the state, not 1/3.

Most of all the jobs in this 1/4 northern top of the state are County, State, Federal, or hospital/medical jobs.

1/3 makes more sense than 1/4 honestly? None of Marin and none of Santa Rosa and south Sonoma (the highest population areas) are in the top 1/3 according to the map. And only a portion of Napa's population live above that line. So you would be correct if you said "a tiny chunk" of the Bay Area population as opposed to "decent chunk".

Honestly, though, I will always think of SF and Sacramento as "Northern California" even if they are geographically "Central California". On the flip side, I have also known people from WAY North who laugh when people call SF area "Northern California", so the perspectives vary. It's just the way it is when your state has two traditional major population centers and one is near the bottom of the state and the other near the top of the middle third. But geography and "feels" are two different things.

As for the topic at hand, why not the North?

Well, you're really talking about three regions as this is California and even the top third by itself is huge, with different kinds of constraints.

Eastern region: (like Susanville/Alturas) desert or rough mountains, poor highway access, no large towns already in place.

Central region/Sacramento Valley: hot as blazes, dominated by ag and smells and dust that come with it, flat, boring landscape. It works for plenty of people and feeds a huge percentage of this country, so I can't hate on the Valley, but it isn't the most aesthetically pleasing place and not the type of area that could easily attract young, skilled workers interested in tech, biotech, design, etc. And as always... water. I think Redding is nicer than most of the Sac Valley and has a lot of unfulfilled potential: great river frontage, pretty countryside, nice old homes, literally some of the best views in America, surrounded by Shasta, Lassen, and the Trinitys on three sides. Hot by California coastal standards, but better weather than most of America. But it is surprisingly expensive for such a bad job market and has significant drug and crime issues. It could really use a "UC Redding", which I think would be a great anchor for the entire region's development.

Western region: (Eureka) beautiful, tree-covered, green, plenty of water... but with winding roads in all directions, tough weather and road conditions, significant hard drug problems and rural poverty. Yes, it has a port, but ports aren't worth much when the mountain roads don't allow for quick travel away from the ports. The ports in Oakland and Long Beach are within miles of multiple interstate highways. Personally, I like this area a lot, especially the physical beaty but it does come with a lot of baggage, and I feel like one pays a lot for a CA address when they could just move to Oregon if they really want to head that far north.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by LPG2020

1/3 makes more sense than 1/4 honestly? None of Marin and none of Santa Rosa and south Sonoma (the highest population areas) are in the top 1/3 according to the map. And only a portion of Napa's population live above that line. So you would be correct if you said "a tiny chunk" of the Bay Area population as opposed to "decent chunk".

Honestly, though, I will always think of SF and Sacramento as "Northern California" even if they are geographically "Central California". On the flip side, I have also known people from WAY North who laugh when people call SF area "Northern California", so the perspectives vary. It's just the way it is when your state has two traditional major population centers and one is near the bottom of the state and the other near the top of the middle third. But geography and "feels" are two different things.

As for the topic at hand, why not the North?

Well, you're really talking about three regions as this is California and even the top third by itself is huge, with different kinds of constraints.

Eastern region: (like Susanville/Alturas) desert or rough mountains, poor highway access, no large towns already in place.

Central region/Sacramento Valley: hot as blazes, dominated by ag and smells and dust that come with it, flat, boring landscape. It works for plenty of people and feeds a huge percentage of this country, so I can't hate on the Valley, but it isn't the most aesthetically pleasing place and not the type of area that could easily attract young, skilled workers interested in tech, biotech, design, etc. And as always... water. I think Redding is nicer than most of the Sac Valley and has a lot of unfulfilled potential: great river frontage, pretty countryside, nice old homes, literally some of the best views in America, surrounded by Shasta, Lassen, and the Trinitys on three sides. Hot by California coastal standards, but better weather than most of America. But it is surprisingly expensive for such a bad job market and has significant drug and crime issues. It could really use a "UC Redding", which I think would be a great anchor for the entire region's development.

Western region: (Eureka) beautiful, tree-covered, green, plenty of water... but with winding roads in all directions, tough weather and road conditions, significant hard drug problems and rural poverty. Yes, it has a port, but ports aren't worth much when the mountain roads don't allow for quick travel away from the ports. The ports in Oakland and Long Beach are within miles of multiple interstate highways. Personally, I like this area a lot, especially the physical beaty but it does come with a lot of baggage, and I feel like one pays a lot for a CA address when they could just move to Oregon if they really want to head that far north.

Very good point for the OP.

People could live in Oregon, but aside from the SW area near the CA border, there are no redwoods! And hardly any universities to speak of, outside of Portland, Eugene and Corvallis. Humboldt has HSU, which is a big amenity, IMO, a big plus for the area.

[sacreole]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

Very good point for the OP.

People could live in Oregon, but aside from the SW area near the CA border, there are no redwoods! And hardly any universities to speak of, outside of Portland, Eugene and Corvallis. Humboldt has HSU, which is a big amenity, IMO, a big plus for the area.

Ashland does have Southern Oregon University, which serves the Rogue River Valley.

[Igor Blevin]

Lack of jobs and business. If California had a friendly business climate, I think businesses would eventually have migrated to the top of the state to entice more desperate workers who would work harder for less.

The problem is, by the time businesses had strong incentives to do that, they have even stronger incentives to move completely out of state. California now has a hostile business climate, so moving north of Yuba City/Chico is no longer very attractive, especially after the $15 minimum wage kicks in. Business looking to move just go to Texas or Nevada instead of moving within California.

Jobs attract people and that attracts jobs. It is something of a vicious circle. The north state never got off the ground with urban areas packed with good paying jobs, and now they have pretty much missed the boat. That may happen in states like Texas or South Carolina. Maybe outlying areas will pick up business and jobs someday to avoid the higher cost of urban areas. And maybe not. Maybe the urban areas will stay attractive for a while to come. Not sure though. Look how expensive Austin TX is getting for business.