Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 6:34 pm
Another good point brought up above is that you indeed need to make sure you like the location you live in, not just judge its proximity. After all, you spend most of your time around your home.
Climbing, hiking, mountaineering forum
http://www.summitpost.org/phpBB3/
https://www.summitpost.org/phpBB3/relocating-to-ca-need-some-input-on-some-areas-t50532-30.html
Luciano136 wrote:Bottom line for the OP, if you like Yosemite and the northern Sierra, Sacramento is a good choice. If you like the High Sierra in the LP/Bishop area better, you should stick to the LA area.
redneck wrote:Luciano136 wrote:Bottom line for the OP, if you like Yosemite and the northern Sierra, Sacramento is a good choice. If you like the High Sierra in the LP/Bishop area better, you should stick to the LA area.
Meanwhile, I spend by far the majority of my high elevation time in the nearby San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains, no more than two hours from OC. In the summer, I do a weekend backpacking trip nearly every weekend.
I wouldn't do that if I had to drive three or four hours each way every time.
redneck wrote:OC is highly congested (Luciano and I aren't the only people who like it here). If I didn't work walking distance from my home, I doubt I would be able to stay here. YMMV[/color]
Dingus Milktoast wrote:See NorCal and SoCal are really 2 different states. They offer a very different lifestyle and climbing style too, for that matter.
IMO its really important to understand the OPs mind. If he likes desert climbing So Cal is the place to be. If he's tried of heat and needs something completely different - San Francisco, proper.
If he wants to be close to Sierra, Sacramento or East Bay.
Ski? Nor Cal.
Surf? So Cal.
Down to earth? Nor Cal.
Idealistic and vain? KIDDING! JUST KIDDING!!!1111
Cheers
DMT
1000Pks wrote:One more thing to factor in...
When you buy property, I wouldn't worry much about quakes. Building code and such are that unless it's another huge one, you will probably be safe enough. Only a few structures collapsed during Loma Prieta, those were built on dubious unstable ground. Similar with L.A. quakes.
More deadly are wildfires. Then mudslides, floods (a potentially disasterous probability in much of lower Sac), and daily, almost, crime. Get the history of the property, and do some research. Lots of fools in the homebuying business, and insurance is no doubt sky high, but indispensable.
The Defiant One wrote:Wildfires aren't anywhere near as deadly as earthquakes, either, they're just a whole lot more common (forget microquakes).
Luciano136 wrote:The Defiant One wrote:Wildfires aren't anywhere near as deadly as earthquakes, either, they're just a whole lot more common (forget microquakes).
If you live in the hills down here, you will burn a lot faster than your house will be devastated from a major quake. As a matter of fact, you run the risk of burning EVERY SINGLE YEAR!
The Defiant One wrote:Luciano136 wrote:The Defiant One wrote:Wildfires aren't anywhere near as deadly as earthquakes, either, they're just a whole lot more common (forget microquakes).
If you live in the hills down here, you will burn a lot faster than your house will be devastated from a major quake. As a matter of fact, you run the risk of burning EVERY SINGLE YEAR!
That's what I'm sayin.
1000Pks wrote:Ironic that such an Ag school is situated in an area well known for swallowing up Ag land! Development is rampant nearby in mostly Vacaville, Fairfield, and by Dixon. They envisioned a strip city built along I-80, mainly commuters tired of Bay Area home prices and high rent.
scottmitch wrote:The SF/ sac territory is basically San Rafael to Santa Rosa then Napa and I80 over to Davis and west Sac. The southern part is Vallejo and the big delta thing running east west.