Just cant handle Eastern MA (Boston, Springfield: appointed, townhomes, buying)

[GetmeoutofMA]

Originally Posted by mdovell

to comment on nh and vt...

They seem to keep moving in other directions for development. Vermont takes 20 years to open up a walmart and meanwhile Concord/Manchester/Nashua has them every five feet!

I think NH went a bit too crazy allowing sprawl. Just because your neighbors don't want something doesn't mean you should take their share.

Personally the only place I wouldn't want to be would on would be a small island.

So within the next 10 yrs.. do you see the state of NH as a more peaceful place deteriorating and becoming a suburban wasteland as more people continue to relocate there? Not only are MA people but there may even be a wave of West coasters coming to NH too. While I don't think it will be exactly like MA, I do think it will grow into a more modern strip mall kind of feel like some of California has only a small state with winters. The sports or snowboarding crowds up there do seem laid back enough though.

[parried]

The job market totally depends on what you are looking for. Nobody can give you a definite answer on that. It might be awful for one person but fruitful for someone else.

[cjam]

Sounds like it's time to move!

[missionhill]

Originally Posted by AtkinsonDan

...we were discussing the plight of Lowell, Lawrence and Haverhill. Now everyone knows that the collapse of the textile industry in the US hurt these cities economically and some will blame the current climate solely on that event. My friend and I disagree. We both feel that most of the damage was caused by Boston-centrism. There is no reason all three cities could not have rebounded much earlier if the Boston/Cambridge politicians were willing to share some of the economic opportunities with Lowell, Lawrence and Haverhill. The state let them go to hell for the sake of Boston...

"We both feel..." Well, we all have feelings, and they can get in the way of balanced analysis of the data. Boston-Cambridge politicians have little if anything to do with the economy, which is based in millions of business and institutional decisions about location, spending, and investment; and is a very complicated ecosystem that defies easy understanding much less manipulation. Boston, Cambridge and environs are in a favorable economic situation today because of their assets and advantages to business and institutional investment, not because politicians favor them with cozy deals. Blaming Lawrence's or Springfield's woes on Boston has sentimental appeal--i.e., the wealthy metropolitan bully is grabbing all the wealth--but I doubt it holds up under careful analysis. Do you think the very wealthy state of Connecticut would allow all its larger cities to be crime-ridden, hollowed out embarrassments if it had some practical and reasonable alternative? Or New Jersey? I think not. New York has a similar predicament to Mass, where the Big Apple is accused of draining all the resources from the poor downtrodden upstate cities. I'm sorry but that is not the case. On the contrary, tax revenues from the thriving downstate economy go in part to support and invest in fragile economies in the upstate region. Cities like Buffalo and Hartford and Lowell were economic powerhouses once and their rise then had nothing to do with state government and everything to do with favorable economic conditions. Nowadays, economic conditions do not favor old medium-sized cities in northern states. Certain larger cities, and the Boston area is one of them, get all the economic love. We can thank our fellow citizens for that-- the stockholders, investors, speculators, employers, and everyone else involved in generating the economy. If governors and legislators had the power to redistribute all those economic decisions equitably around the state, so that every legislator's district enjoyed economic growth, they'd be first in line to do it, but they don't have that power. At the same time, government would be delinquent in its duty not to support those local economies that do thrive with appropriate investments in infrastructure. Mass has made huge investments in the Boston area over the past 30 years in water, sewerage, transportation, and environmental cleanups. Those expenditures support and encourage all the private decisions that make for a robust economy, one that is, in fact, helping Lowell and Haverhill, at least, to revive. We'll see what happens with Lawrence.

[Synchromesh]

Originally Posted by FCMA

If you can find a job, Western MA (minus Springfield) Pioneer Valley has no traffic, is prettier, much cheaper (rent a 2-bed apt for under $900) and the people are slightly less cold. Some towns don't even have a Dunks, which is a plus. Nice downtowns that may be small, but emphasize local and quality stores and restaurants over chains and quantity.

Bunch of commie whackos out here though! Take it from a guilty Green Party voter here, yours truly.

You've got to be kidding. I lived in Framingham for 8 years and it was a complete hell hole. I think Boston itself is a hell hole too. But Springfield? On hell hole scale it's 11 out of 10. I wouldn't live there if I was paid $200K/year. Uneducated rednecks, drug problems, general country feel, fat people and still snow and winters. Who the hell wants that? I sure don't and you can't make me.

This is why I moved to SF. Sure, everything is so expensive but it just doesn't have that horrible hell hole feeling Boston does. People are a little more shallow but far less unpleasant overall. Weather is good. Every time I look at Boston on the map I just want to spit on it. If it wasn't for friends and family who stayed I would love to see it burn along with its ridiculous taxes, awful government, broken roads and bad weather.

[whoathere]

Fascinating. I too lived in SF (Inner Richmond) and don't really think it was any less grimy (in many ways more with the homeless population and overt drug use) than Boston.

[Cliff Clavin]

Originally Posted by whoathere

Fascinating. I too lived in SF (Inner Richmond) and don't really think it was any less grimy (in many ways more with the homeless population and overt drug use) than Boston.

I agree. SF is probably one of the grimier cities I've been too. Definitely grimier than Boston and NYC IMO. It's looks great in postcards, but in person at street level, not so much.

To each their own I guess.

[Synchromesh]

Originally Posted by whoathere

Fascinating. I too lived in SF (Inner Richmond) and don't really think it was any less grimy (in many ways more with the homeless population and overt drug use) than Boston.

Weird. I live in Outer Richmond and don't see many homeless people on daily basis. There are tons of places where they hang out but Richmond seems almost immune. And it's certainly cleaner than anything Springfield and especially Framingham has to offer.

There are certainly more homeless people in SF. One of the reasons is weather. Being homeless in Boston area freezing temperatures just doesn't sound like a good idea to most people. And SF never gets nearly as grimy because of lack of sleet and snow every year.

The drug use part - that all depends. If you're talking about pot, yes it seems to be a major thing in CA. Other than that I haven't seen much open drug use with exception of Tenderloin. Springfield area, on the other hand, is renown for being a center of various drug-related activities.

[FCMA]

Originally Posted by Synchromesh

You've got to be kidding. I lived in Framingham for 8 years and it was a complete hell hole. I think Boston itself is a hell hole too. But Springfield? On hell hole scale it's 11 out of 10. I wouldn't live there if I was paid $200K/year. Uneducated rednecks, drug problems, general country feel, fat people and still snow and winters. Who the hell wants that? I sure don't and you can't make me.

This is why I moved to SF. Sure, everything is so expensive but it just doesn't have that horrible hell hole feeling Boston does. People are a little more shallow but far less unpleasant overall. Weather is good. Every time I look at Boston on the map I just want to spit on it. If it wasn't for friends and family who stayed I would love to see it burn along with its ridiculous taxes, awful government, broken roads and bad weather.

If you re-read my post, it says "minus Springfield." I'm referring to the so-called Happy Valley. Think Amherst, Northampton, Easthampton, Greenfield, etc. Springfield is pretty much a lost cause.

[mdovell]

"do you see the state of NH as a more peaceful place deteriorating and becoming a suburban wasteland as more people continue to relocate there?"

I wouldn't call suburbs a wasteland. I think that there can be some issues with respect to how commercial real estate is presented. For example in Mass places like the Derby Shops in Hingham and Colony Place in Plymouth are good examples of what some planning can do. However, much of what I see in the region is malls or strip malls. In a sense it can be hard to establish something unique and be able to have it be sustainable. Internet sales also change some of this so the idea of community might what now..a coffee shop? A library? Those are nice but some of the other things are harder to try to sell these days. What I usually see are restaurants, cafes and libraries and of course bars.

I understand the libertarian aspects of have no income tax and sales etc but this doesn't always attract the same things. If someone is affluent there are various ways to reduce taxes (donations, income from investments rather than labor etc). So I don't know if it will develop the same way.

Drugs can be pretty much anywhere. I found out the other day that the center of growth for gang activity is actually Barnstable. Seasonal population can attract seasonal workers and sometimes to fill that gap that's where dealers flock to.

"Sure, everything is so expensive but it just doesn't have that horrible hell hole feeling Boston does. People are a little more shallow but far less unpleasant overall."

A little more shallow? SF has dramatically gentrified to the point where the African American population left. There is no real diversity. Families' exodus leaves S.F. whiter, less diverse - SFGate It is gradually become more of a generic white city with an aging population. I'm not saying it's to the fault of the city's policies but the state shares some responsibility as well.

The Homogenization of San Francisco - The Bold Italic - San Francisco
"Look … San Francisco is the best place on earth and I understand why people flock here to build communities, start families, or just be themselves. But the magic of what makes this place so special is the juxtaposition of rich and poor, commercial and residential, the unorthodox and the conformist. It’s the proximity of nature just minutes away from an eclectic, urban city center. It’s the Alamo Square mansions two blocks from Section 8 public housing. This diversity of people and ideas is often heralded as the catalyst for our most lauded contributions to the world at large. To lose that diversity would be a travesty that would change not only the way this great city is viewed from a historical context, but the quality of life for us all."

"....I would love to see it burn along with its ridiculous taxes, awful government, broken roads and bad weather."

That's kinda rude. Can't blame a place for its weather. I wouldn't exactly say the taxes are high. Prop 2 1/2 was inspired by prop 13. Say what you will about Mass but I don't think California can realistically be governed. It's just too diverse. SF, LA Napa Valley, San Diego, Santa Cruz. Totally different needs.Don't be me wrong it looks great but you don't need to live in an area to enjoy it.