Advice from Californians

It depends who you talk to. The “small” view people would say that those cities aren’t in the Inland Empire.

OTOH, I would say that those cities are in the far northwest corner of the Inland Empire.

I would say the western border of the Inland Empire starts in the mountains where the San Gabriel Mountains split from the San Bernardino Mountains. I tried to search it, but I can’t find a definitive line. It would be roughly near Mt. San Antonio (aka Mt. Baldy). The line would drop south and follow roughly the 210 Freeway (where the 210 meets the 10 (Raging Waters!)). Then, follow an invisible line south from 210 through the crest of the Chino Hills to the Santa Ana River.

From there, the border would go up to the crest of the Santa Ana Mountains to the Santa Margarita River (near Camp Pendleton). From there, it would cut east to the top of Mount Palomar (just south of Temecula). Generally, east of that line is the Inland Empire and west of that line is the LA Basin.

For example, State Route (SR) 71 and Pomona are in the Inland Empire but SR 57 and Diamond Bar are not.

Worse weather? How? I live between Modesto and Stockton. I don’t really think its that bad compared to other places. Of course there is nothing to do but the crime is not as high as big cities like SF. Stockton is dirty and filled with drug addicts and hookers, but there are some nice parts.

The Ripon comment made me laugh. Ripon is such a tiny town. I bet there is more dumb people than creepy people there though. No offense to Riponians. Just my 2 cents.

I forgot to include places I wouldn’t want to live in Los Angeles proper. They include the following:

  1. The 110 Corridor north of San Pedro

  2. Venice Beach

  3. Hollywood

Around here, things are damn nice- except the home prices, which are outrageously high. But, still, avoid East Palo Alto like the plague. East SJ- be careful. Watsonville- the same. Salinas- not so nice.

Venice & Hollywood are fine- if you like that sort of lifestyle. I lived in Hollywood for years- loved it, but wouldn’t live there now.

Bakersfield- I lived there too- nice place to live, but I wouldn’t want to visit. terrible weather. Fresno, at least parts of it, is the asshole of California.

SLO is nice, but expensive. So is Santa Barbera.

If you want to know where they keep all the Californian degenerates, visit Taft. It will make you run screaming back to wherever you came from.

My car broke down there once and I think that every single person in that town is related to every other person, sometimes in multiple ways. But that is most of Kern County for you.

Well, I lived for 5 years in a fabulous 1950’s - era garden apartment with a huge pool on the corner of 6th and Cedar in Burbank. Lots to see and do and very nice, so I’d reccomend there. and nowhere else!

Ask for #211. You don’t get the morning sun.

When I was at UC San Diego and living with other students from all over the state, the Northern disdain for Los Angeles was so thick you could cut it with a knife. Where it really got ridiculous was how people who came from cities adjacent to, or completely surrounded by, L.A.

“yeah man, Torrance is like another world, compared to L.A.”.

Another stupid typo.

I seem to be having a lot of them, and my vB coding is also way below par.

The last sentence of my post should be: Where it really got ridiculous was how people who came from cities adjacent to, or completely surrounded by, L.A., ** would take pains to make it clear that they didn’t hail from the Ugly Beast. They’d say things like:

“No, man, I’m from Torrance, not L.A. Torrance is like another world, compared to L.A.”
I think I’ll go ban myself for a while until I learn how to type, vB code, and preview, dammit!

ANALYSIS OF CENTRAL VALLEY / SACRAMENTO FOLLOWS. SKIP IT IF YOU’RE NOT INTERESTED:

If the OP wants to stretch into the Central Valley, I offer the following:

There are too many counties here to list them because the original county lines were drawn in the Gold Rush days when everybody in the state flooded the Gold Country in the Central Valley.

The Central Valley is bisected at the Sacramento River Delta. The northern Central Valley is the Sacramento Valley, and the southern Central Valley is the San Joaquin Valley. Increasing coastal land values (relative to income) are pushing middle class residents into the Central Valley, so I suggest the OP consider the Central Valley as an affordable alternative.

I would avoid the entire San Joaquin Valley. In the Sacramento Valley, I would avoid all of it except:

Auburn
Chico
Davis
Grass Valley
Locke (just kidding)
Sacramento

If you like sleepy suburbs ( :o ), you may enjoy the following:

Carmichael
Elk Grove
Fair Oaks (I hear it’s nice, but haven’t really explored it)
Folsom
Roseville
Vacaville (Some newer developments there)

In the Sac city area, I would avoid the following:

Del Paso Heights
Oak Park
Significant chunks of the South Area

In the Sac city area, I would recommend the following:

Downtown
Midtown
East Sac
Pocket Area
Arden Arcade
Land Park

Sac really is a nice place and growing. It’s not just a cow-town with a Capitol Building anymore. The cost of living relative to income is very reasonable (for now). It’s big enough, but not too big, with a compact downtown core.

A brother of mine, who lives in Torrance, echoes the fact about how people who live there disdain the rest of Los Angeles County. But that applies to much of the South Bay.

The infamous Det. Mark Fuhrman remarked that “Torrance was the last bastion of the white man”. Apparently he never noticed the large number of Asians who live there.

I think the most provincial section of Los Angeles County is the Palos Verdes Peninsula. People who live there act as if they are in a separate world.

[hijack]

ON WHERE PEOPLE ARE FROM IN CALIFORNIA:

OTOH, I hate it when people in NorCal refer to all of SoCal as “LA”.

They seem to think that LA stretches from SLO to Mexico and from the deserts to the sea.

Not to overlook the diversity of the area, but the LA Basin is essentially one big ugly urban blob. However, to say you’re from Downey does send a different message than sayng you’re from South Gate, even if they are right next to each other in the blob, so I see the point. For purposes of accuracy, I always try to be as specific as possible when referring to cities. If your place has been incorporated with a city charter, then that should be acknowledged. If you’re not being a snob about it, saying you’re from Torance, not LA, is ok in my book because it’s more accurate.

On the snobbish side, even some people who live in the SAME DAMN CITY try to distinguish themselves and don’t want to acknowledge it. For example, people in Belmont Shore say they’re from “Belmont Shore” instead of admitting that they are part of the City of Long Beach. They even address their mail “Belmont Shore”. If you ask them if they’re form Long beach, they’ll make a point of saying they’re from Belmont Shore instead of just saying “yes.” People in La Jolla (a neighborhood of San Diego) do the same thing.

ON THE INTRA-STATE RIVALRY:

As far as the rivalry between NorCal and SoCal, I like both places. People in NorCal see people in SoCal as water-stealing, money-centric, superficial yuppies polluting, over-developing, and otherwise trashing their overcrowded little “island” and beaches.

More than once, I have heard some NorCal residents say, “THEY’RE STEALING OUR WATER!” We’re all ONE STATE here, people!

I have notcied that people in SoCal tend to know less about California as a whole than people in NorCal. Many people in LA don’t know anything about anything beyond the LA metro area. I don’t get that same myopic vibe in NorCal.

The north-south rivalry stems back to when California was part of Spain and the various Spanish, and later Mexican, governors would move the capital from San Diego to LA, to Monterey, then back to LA, etc.

The differences between stereotypical residents of San Diego, LA, Bakersfield, San Francisco, and Humboldt are notable. However, IMHO, it’s that kind of diversity in geography and culture that makes California a great place. Economically, SoCal needs the water from NorCal, and NorCal enjoys the benefit of taxes generated by SoCal.

I embrace all of it. I don’t buy into the rivalry, and I hate it when formal efforts to split the state come up.

[/hijack]

I agree completely with the anti-rivalry statement. What good does it do? There are good parts to both North and South. Neither is better, just different. That’s the beauty of California. We have something for everyone here.

It would be great if the OP included more info, especially, income projections. That determines a lot here. Not that we are snobs, but housing prices vary quite drastically from place to place.

Bearflag mentioned:
**

This one always amuses me. The problem with a lot of these complaints is that we, in SoCal, don’t all get together and decide whether we want to continue the spread of development, or increase pollution levels, or steal water. Continuing population growth and coastal housing prices pretty much ensure that all these trends will continue in the wrong direction.

So, barring technological improvements, we WILL continue to build ever more distant suburban housing tracts, to draw more water from the acquifers, and to increase pollution levels until the underlying problems of population growth can be addressed. We’re stuck with handling the increase down here whether we want to or not.

Most Californians I know already agree we have enough if not too many people.

I thought it was the other way around. I always considered Bakersfield the asshole of CA (useful when driving from SF to Vegas - turn right and go through Bakersfield at very high speed).

Point taken about Fresno though.
I lived in SF (Pacific Heights) for 6 years and don’t see why everyone has a problem with the Tenderloin. It wasn’t (3 years ago) too dangerous, its central and its cheap! It does take a bit of nerve to walk around at 2:00am though.

Avoid this place… whatever it’s called:

That’ll solve everything!

:rolleyes:

Well, maybe it will confuse the undereducated violent thug category of citizens. When they realize they are no longer in South Central, they’ll hop into their rides, throw down some three-wheel motion and drive around for hours on end trying to find out where they really live.

[sub]oh my, I really just said “throw down some three-wheel motion” - God, I am so white![/sub]

I’m a Sacramentan living in Santa Cruz, and both places are nice in different ways.

Sacramento is a beautiful city. It’s full of wonderful old houses and more tree than any other city except maybe Paris. It’s a big and diverse place (the greater Sacramento area has about a million people in it- hardly a cow town) that still maintains a charming downtown/midtown area. It’s got a lot of the ammenidies of a bigger city (I still miss the music scene there) and a great location between the sea and the mountains, and yet it’s still affordable and parts of it have a nice neighborhoody feel. Bearflag had it about right. There are lots of boring suburbs and like any city there are some bad areas. But there are some parts that are really jewels. If it wasn’t my hometown, I’d move back there in a second.

Santa Cruz is great. It’s got more natural beauty then any one place should have, a ton of wacky liberal politicians and a wonderful laid back feel. But Santa Cruz is as expensive a place as your going to get (My one bedroom falling down shack is 1,200 a month) and, as Kyla said, it doesn’t represent the real world at all. It’s also small. I’ve been here for four years and I’ve eaten at every restraunt. I’ve walked down almost every street. In my opinion, the cultural scene is sorely lacking. It’s undiverse racially, politically and economically. There isn’t even an Asian market in the entire area! I love this place and I will always miss it, but It will be nice to rejoin the real world soon.

Don’t overlook Watsonville. Watsonville is cool. It’s got a great small-town urban feel to it. The countryside surrounding it is paradisical- honestly it’s more beautiful than Santa Cruz. It’s full of tons of wonderful panaderias and fruit stands and hole-in-the-wall Chinese restraunts. There are little kids and old people and all kinds of real people living real lives. I was really impressed when I went there (but if I did move there I’d brush up on my Spanish). The only big drawback is that while it’s cheap to buy stuff there (I got a giant slice of tres leche cake for a buck last time I was there- try getting anything for a buck in Santa Cruz) the rents arn’t all that cheap.

Worse weather than San Fransisco - the ocean tends to smooth the edge off the heat a bit. This is still better than where we used to live (Champaign, IL). But, yeah, this is nowhere near the big cities, so don’t expect much to do, but don’t expect the problems that a large city has, either.

Even Steven, I agree with you on Santa Cruz. It’s a great little town, but in the end, it’s still so little. It does not have much diversity. If it weren’t for the college there would hardly be any people of color at all! You won’t find any Asian marts there, but you will find a group of white yuppies doing a ‘traditional’ Thai ceremony in the middle of the street on a given weekend. I ran out of new places to go and things to see, but at the same time I really miss the beaches and the laid back atmosphere. The traffic was horrible though…worse than many parts of LA!
As far as the NorCal SoCal thing goes, I think it’s funny because it’s really silly…for one thing the NorCal hatred for SoCal is so one sided…I mean, Southern Californians tend to be unaware and without a care as to Northern California, yet Northern Californians have a such a deep brooding hatred for all things Southern Californian, especially LA. Has anyone ever seen In Smog and Thunder? It’s pretty funny…

Well, I won’t beat up any neighborhoods or make any recommendations. But I will add that if you can buy real estate just about anywhere in CA, you may be able to profit from it in shorter time than in most other locations. Real estate values seem to hold and go up.