Look up the statistics. Somali-Americans have lower crime rates than white Americans. Probably because of almost no alcohol/drug usage. As someone who has actually lived there, unlike you, I can say that they by and large don't cause any trouble, although they are rather isolated and cliquish, but who cares, they come from a very different culture.
NonDemocrat wrote:
Too much Somali crime in Minneapolis.
Don't forget to include property taxes in the equation if you intend to buy a house. In some places the property taxes approach the mortgage payment.
It's not terribly ironic. Lots of people want to live there so demand drives up housing costs.[/quote]
Backfiring liberal policies (CRT/zoning/building regulations/section 8/banning Walmart/etc/etc/etc) help drive up the housing costs... the ironic part is that the snobby white liberal elitists like it that way.[/quote]
And yet enough people want to live there that real estate prices remain very high and that drives up housing costs more than banning Walmart does. By the way, I've been to California several times and I know I've seen Walmarts there. If you look at locations doing well on this thread you'll notice that many if not most of them are at least somewhat politically liberal.
ish wrote:
Minneapolis is the right answer. I mean Minneapolis, or maybe St. Paul though it's not nearly as interesting, and not the suburbs. The suburbs here are terrible.
Benefits: Great running community. Outstanding local road races with many competitive athletes. Good public schools. Wonderful greenspace. Beautiful wilderness areas within a few hours' drive for camping, etc. Affordable neighborhoods in the city so that you don't have to live in the suburbs. A great progressive mayor and city council who are doing their best to drive the city forward despite the temper tantrums thrown by the republicans in the legislature. Tons of outstanding food and beer. The summers can be very hot but the fall, winter, and spring weather are wonderful (yes, it snows, and yes, it gets cold, but the city is prepared to handle those things, and there's nothing better than a solo run after a snowstorm when the air is cold and crisp, the sun is shining, the snow is undisturbed, and nobody else is outside).
Drawbacks: the public transit system is quite poor for a city of this size. We're paying for several f*cking ugly stadiums for billionaires. The sports teams are terrible, but that can also be a benefit as it's fun to watch the sad-sack Vikings fans suffer every year.
You forgot to mention that it gets terribly terribly terribly cold there. brrrrrr
Anywhere in the NW except Portland or Seattle (unless the crowds and home prices are worth it). Corvallis, Hood River, Chelan, Pullman for Smaller towns but nice outdoor stuff nearby. Eugene, Bend, Spokane, Bellingham for more of a city feel but still away from the major metro areas.
Unfortunately many of the small towns in the northwest are turning into overpriced resort towns with people driving in from the city on the weekend so some of the usual local vs tourist vibes exist.
Group think, yes. As someone who has lived on the Front Range and in Boulder for almost 30 years, 100% yes to weird stuff happening/decision making in Boulder. They don't call it the People's Republic of Boulder for no reason.Boulder is alright. It's reputation is overblown. There are other places along the Front Range with just as good urban/suburban life and awesome/sometimes better outdoor access and trails,etc. With that said, Boulder is just weird. Compared to other liberal-strong cities like Portland or Seattle, Boulder is down right conservative looking.
Old D2 Guy wrote:
Hello again wrote:Boulder Area (+World class mountains/trails, +Educated, +Low stress/High quality day to day life, -Expensive, -Somewhat Isolated, -Group think)
---
Group think? You obviously haven't lived in Boulder. I highly suggest Boulder, well, unless you really believe that.
TAA wrote:
ohioohio wrote:Wherever in Ohio that Flagpole and his family live. Cost of living is lower, yet amenities are "good enough".
Don't come here. We don't want more people. Traffic on I-670 and I-71 is already bad enough. Thank you
And 315.
Oh damn! Not Bloomington, IN, It's a hellhole . Really! Don't move here. Other than B-Town err Bloominton, Portland , ME, Madison, WI, Bellingham, WA and Spokane, WA and Traverse City, MI. Oh yeah, anywhere in Canada. Don't move south whatever you do. You'll regret it as climate change will eat you up!
Williamsburg, VA
Cornholio Jr. wrote:
Certain places in upstate NY....
Ithaca. (is gorges)
Memphian wrote:
It really depends on your ideal climate and how close you want to be to others in your family. I'd vote for Memphis, TN, obviously...
One of the lowest costs of living in the country - #4 on this list:
http://www.kiplinger.com/slideshow/real-estate/T006-S001-10-cheapest-u-s-cities-to-live-in/index.htmlAnd, Memphis is on the rise. We are seeing a revitalization that will only serve to increase the value of your investment. There's also a great running community that is supported by a couple of running shops (Fleet Feet, Breakaway).
And, you are only a few hours away from a few other (fun) mid-size cities if you ever feel the need to get away for a weekend - Nashville, New Orleans, Little Rock, and so on.
Memphis? You must be out of your mind. It's a crime-ridden shithole. And flat, and brutally hot much of the year.
Another vote for the Sacto area, but NOT Sacto itself. Go for Rocklin, parts of Roseville, Folsom, El Dorado Hills, Cameron Park. All decent.
Where is the BEST place in America to live? For a typical middle class family?
Trick question. There is no more middle class in the US. The republicans have destroyed the middle class by convincing uneducated formerly-middle class whites to support them based on social issues despite the fact that GOP economic policies disproportionately benefit the ultra-wealthy.
Cary, NC
Look it up. Located in the heart of North Carolina's research triangle. There are more good paying jobs than you could ever imagine. Has one of the best school districts in the country. Very affordable area. Plenty of things to do. 2 hours from the mountains. 2 hours from the beach. Amazing health care system. There's a reason it is the fastest growing town in the country. I've lived here for a few years now and it has been amazing.
Upstate SC is where you wanna be. You can buy a 3bedroom 2bath brick house on 5 acres for roughly 120,000.. the running trails aren't the greatest but you cant beat the cost of living. I pay $1.80 for a gallon of gas right now.
Somewhere that a certain people don't "Polar Bear hunt" or where white meth heads don't live.
Somewhere that people don't dance around you while they beat you or where white meth heads don't live.
Somewhere that people of unknown race or skin color don't like seeing and saying "White Girl Bleed a lot".
By the way, that's a book title.
I am from West Chester, I wish I could afford to live there still. It is a great place to live, but a bit expensive.
I think there are good trails, maybe not in West Chester but within a short drive. Lots of races in the area, close to Philly for additional bigger races. I am not sure if this is still true but I remember some pro Kenyans lived in the area. I would see them warming up for workouts running through the streets
We have more WalMarts than you could ever need, great places to run, the fastest indoor track in the world, great local running stores and lots of chicken.
The reason California is relatively expensive is that it is a very desirable place to live, therefore competition is high and people are willing to pay more of their income to live there. For running and outdoor activities, it is really hard to beat. The weather is great year round, lots of runners and running clubs, oodles of trails both paved and off road. The beaches are open to all, lots of parks (regional, state, national), national forests, mountains, desert, beaches within a reasonable driving distance from anywhere. There are affordable places in CA, even in coastal cities. They guy who claims you can't live comfortably on $200k must have very high expectations or does not know how to budget because the median income in CA is ~$62k and Silicon Valley region is ~$95k (this is a very expensive area to live). http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2014/09/24/silicon-valley-median-income-now-94-572-43-higher.htmlYou might get more house for your money elsewhere, but that usually comes with worse weather, further distance to trails/natural beauty, and often a culture of less open minded people.
observer of things wrote:
Roagna wrote:For a comfortable lifestyle, you need to avoid California.
I have tried it with three kids and a wife, and you just can't have the American dream (4b/3b house, cars, vacation) in California. As a guy that makes $200K, that got me nothing in Alameda and Carlsbad areas. Unless you inherit a property or want to spend a life renting and/or in over your head, you need to think about the midwest, south, or east coast (non-NYC or DC).
anyone find it ironic that the most liberal (modern day definition) state in the US is the hardest to live a middle class lifestyle?
The most desirable places to live are expensive because they are highly desirable. Every other place is less than desirable.California has more desirable places to live than any other place in the country. Why? Something known as Mediterranean Climate. There are a limited number of locations in the World with that climate type.
Irony?!? wrote:
The reason California is relatively expensive is that it is a very desirable place to live...
Roagna wrote:
For a comfortable lifestyle, you need to avoid California....