Elk Grove...maybe I'm an optimist, but... (Sacramento, Orange: real estate, crime)

[goodbyegirl]

Okay, this is an outsider's point of view (who sees the incredible deal to be had in E.G. and can't bring myself to look seriously at other areas because the prices are so much better in EG)...

We live in the Seattle area and may have to relocate to Sac. My sister in law lived there are moved out to NC at the height of the market (lucky for them) so we visited about five years ago. What we saw was a family orientated area with fabulous schools.

Fast forward a few years and everyone is complaining about EG going down hill due to the over-building and fore-closures. Instead of thinking that the "bad element" will take over, is it possible that transplant people and other families taking advantage of a down-market will come in, get great deals on real estate and then build it back up to what the hopes were for EG?

If the school were lousy, then I would concur that one should stay away from the area. However, it seems the schools are still doing well. Where there are healthy schools, there is healthy real estate, in my opinion.

Maybe it is a pipe dream...to come down and offer builders $110-120 per sq ft on some of the new homes sitting vacant that they are currently asking $158 sp/ft. But, man, it sure looks good from up in Seattle. And when I look at Rocklin, Folsom, and Roseville with their resales of $150-200 a sq/ft. and to think we could get new for $120 sq/ft in EG.

Any thoughts? (Please be nice...I'm just looking for some frank discussion!)

[CityGirl72]

I lived in Elk Grove back before the big housing boom

When the boom hit it was the place to be for the affordable suburbs. Now I visit still a couple times a year (My son's dad lives there) and it's never really gone downhill in a "falling apart" kind of feel. But I was always very very aware that South Sacramento is just a stone's through away.

From what I know - the crime has trickled down to Elk Grove just as was suspected.

Never would I really want to live there because of the crime that can be so close by...

Would you be living in Sammamish if you thought that the community just a minute away from you was the worst ghetto part of Seattle? Isn't that why you are in Sammamish? Because you feel as though it's far away enough? I know that's one of the things that Issaquah, or Maple Valley apeal to me...that it's far away from "the yuck"

That's why I don't want to be in Elk Grove. Florin Mall (the South Sac mall) closed down, finally. And the yuck that used to hang out there has spread and now hangs out in other neighborhoods. And a mall for Elk Grove is in the works (and has been for a while) and where do you think the"hoodlums" will want to hang out? Probably the closest mall (just my opinion though)

Anyway the home prices are low because supply is so high...too many houses were built and so many stand empty now. My son's dad bought his house for 320K, it appreciated up to 500K and it's back down to 300K...he also did a HELOC and he's upside down over 200K...everyone's situation there is teetering

[goodbyegirl]

I guess we're so protected in Sammamish...

I suppose we should look farther out?
Are Rocklin, Roseville, et al isolated enough that those cities don't have trickle dow crime too?

[CityGirl72]

Well there's crime anywhere right?

Just know that Roseville, Rocklin, Granite Bay, Foldom and El Dorado hills - are the towns farthest from the crime

[wburg]

Except for the crime that's in those towns.

There's an assumption that you can make yourself safe simply by living in suburbs that are farther and farther out, but it never really works. People assume "boring suburb" equals "safe" and that's why the folks who wanted to set up an indoor marijuana growing operation picked a bunch of houses in Elk Grove for their operation.

[MrsBrianO]

Honestly I used to live in Folsom and Roseville and wouldn't consider Elk Grove for the crime trickle down factor. South Sac is too close and is horrible. Sacramento as far as citys go is horrible you will miss Seattle. I used to live there too so I understand. Also remember it is very hot in Sacramento but at least you will have some sun. I would recommend Folsom the schools are the best in the area. Elk Grove has some shopping finally but just too much housing inventory I don't recommend the area. They will get more desprate to fill those houses. I personally like Folsom better than Roseville. Roseville doesn't have a downtown. Well it does but it is a ghost town. Folsom has all the shopping that you need. Roseville has a mall but you can get there in no time. El Dorado Hills is more expensive for no good reason Granite Bay as well.

There is crime everywhere but as far as feeling more comfortable and for a better quality for life for you and children I would definatly recommend Folsom.

[cw68]

There's crime in the suburbs and there are safe places in urban areas.

Elk Grove, to me, is just poorly designed and a bedroom community. There aren't many long-term residents who have pride in the city. The city services are new and they do not cooperate well (if at all) with other regional services. There aren't enough jobs in Elk Grove so the large majority of residents leave the city to work, creating a disconnect from their city. They also built their town and future on real estate tax revenue and developer fees. Now that both of those have declined, and will continue to, they are in trouble. Cities that have a larger base of business taxes will face fewer problems than Elk Grove in the future in terms of budgets and revenues.

IMO, that's what has caused the problems, not the proximity to South Sac.

[wburg]

Originally Posted by MrsBrianO

Sacramento as far as citys go is horrible you will miss Seattle.

I suppose I just don't find Sacramento that horrible. I live downtown and find it quite nice. Folsom is pleasant, and it's possible to get there via light rail now, which is a plus.

Excellent post, cw68. A lot of Elk Grove's problems are indeed problems of design, and the assumption that suburban growth would last forever. The problem is that suburbs, like so many other artifacts of 20th century consumer culture, are disposable. They last for a while, but the property values don't stay high because new suburbs get built, and the "crime" and "yuck" and "hoodlums" and other euphemisms move in. Then a new subdivision gets built farther out and the cycle starts again.

Until a municipality starts running out of space, or energy costs get too high and commuting those distances is no longer practical, or the economy starts breaking and people can't afford to relocate to the exoburbs every five years.

[goodbyegirl]

Thanks for all you insight and opinions. It is much appreciated.

[MamaToThree]

I agree with everything CityGirl said in her first post. Personally, I wouldn't live there because there are just too many homes. Elk Grove and Natomas just have that "urban decay waiting to happen" thing going on. I have friends that live in both EG and Nat and they love it. But I prefer the older neighborhoods (Carmichael, Fair Oaks, Orangevale) because the lots are larger and it doesn't have such a crowded feel. That's just my personal opinion.