Stockton, Fresno, or Bakersfield?

[Majin]

Originally Posted by KC6ZLV

If you're referring to me you should have the courtesy of telling me what bothers you so much that made you post a comment which was uncalled-for.

As stated below, the post was deleted. Sorry I suppose I should of quoted him but I would of felt dirty doing so.

[Lifeshadower]

Originally Posted by dominus

Okay these seem to be the 3 most disliked big cities in CA, but which one do you think is best to live in overall, taking into account cost of living, surrounding suburbs, things to do, quality, etc.

I think the problem for many Californians is that they constantly compare all 3 cities to the big coastal cities of the state; San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego. When comparing almost any agricultural city to those 3 do you get a skewed perception of reality. How often do you compare Omaha and New York? How about Des Moines to Philadelphia? The difference here is a matter of distance; the agricultural hubs just happen to lie in much closer proximity to the large, desirable coastal cities than the other 2 comparisons I made.

I believe that in order to appreciate Bakersfield, Fresno, or Stockton, you have to look at the cities for what they are. Before the last 2 decades, these areas were primarily agricultural hubs with some railroads coming through. The manufacturing base for all 3 was relatively limited until very recently, but still retains many agricultural characteristics. Sacramento was lucky that it had the state government to rely on, because if it didn't, it would look like the rest of the Central Valley.

Living in agricultural cities isn't for everyone. It sure isn't for me, but I don't have the need to bash it because these areas are also in one of the most fertile areas of the country (San Joaquin Valley produces a huge percentage of our nation's produce). Fresno is doing its best to diversify its economic base, but until that happens to its fullest, all 3 cities will be bashed on by the coastal elitists of this state.