Please recommend the ideal place to live in the U.S. - Page 3

I chose Newport as I lived there about 24 years, but like the beach front sidewalk for rollerblading and biking as Laguna does not have a great exercise path and the traffic is super bad in summer.

 

Not to say Newport does not have traffic in the summer, but I feel it is a little better. imo

 

 

 

 

I was conceived 50 yards from this exact location while Dick Dale played in the background!

Edited by Redcarmoose - 8/12/12 at 9:11pm

I've lived in the Midwest, the Southeast, the West and the Far West and as far as overall living conditions, I like where I am right now, Vancouver, WA. It's just across the river from Portland, OR which is like San Francisco politically. Very liberal and nanny cityish. The climate here is very mild and it doesn't rain nearly as much as people who don't live here think, but it is overcast a lot from about October/November - March/April.

 

The Portland side of the Columbia has higher housing prices and generally costs a little more to live there but they have no sales tax and Washington has no income tax. So you can live in WA and when you need to buy more expensive items you go to Portland to avoid the sales tax. Crime is pretty low here but as with any larger city there are places you don't want to wander around in after dark if you're alone but much of the crime is gang related so if you aren't a gang banger you should be okay.

 

Seattle is 3 hours north, the beach (nothing like CA beaches though) is about 90 minutes west. Great skiing is about an hour east. 

 

If I didn't live here, I'd choose Colorado Springs. Lots of sunshine and outdoor activities and it's just beautiful there. It gets hot and cold but it usually doesn't stay that way very long.

Get an Airstream, and hang out in WA for the summer, then head South for the winter. It's so damn dark in WA for the winter, drives me batty. NM, AZ, CA for winter? I've never figured out where I should go for winter.

I'm gonna change my vote and tell you not to come to California - we have enough tourists that never go home...  

The best place is wherever I am at the moment.

I lived in Port Townsend WA. Even though we were in the rain shadow it rained about 100-200 days a year. It was overcast about 250 days a year. I lived there for nine years and think it rains much more than people think.

Edited by Redcarmoose - 8/12/12 at 11:06pm

I'll add to this: good luck finding a house for $250k or less - property values have SKYROCKETED due to the massive influx of Californians who are willing and able to pony up $400-$800k for a 2 BR or $2000/mo for similar (and this is an oddly documented demographic trend - Colorado is the world's largest importer of Californians, and back in history, California used to be the world's largest importer of Coloradans).

The airport, however, is not indicative of the entire region - it's out in the sticks. Be glad it isn't KSLC .

The guy who said it's all sprawl is entirely right about the I-25 Corridor too, I remember a time not really that long ago when 20-30 miles in any direction was ranchland or wasteland, and now it's all overpriced apartments and cookie cutter suburbs, a lot like the Valley or the Bay. That said, stay on the Utah side of the mountains, or go towards Kansas or Arizona, and you dump all of that and go back to dirt-cheap land, dirt-cheap houses, and an agricultural/rural Zen thing. So if you want that, Colorado on the whole isn't a terrible idea - you just have to be willing to commute or find whatever work exists in that area (which is probably not white-collar).

Yeah. This for Colorado too. Except they all come from California. (I keed I keed).

 

You can have 'em!  Take all you want!  Please start with the celebrities and the wanna-be celebrities.  That way, maybe their agents, hair-dressers, fashion designers, personal coaches and gurus will follow them.

See, that would help the economy. So I won't fuss. I'd be fine with multi-billionaires like Tom Cruise and Tom Hanks and George Lucas setting up here and paying property taxes here and doing their charity stuff here and so on. And if they wanna bring their respective comitatii here with them, go for it - those people are probably all employed and paying taxes too.

Of course, generating actual tax revenue through growth as a logical plan for expansion would be too damn simple, and it makes more sense to just keep taking money out of public education, the DOT, and prisons, to fund god knows what (those super important projects, like re-doing the gold leaf on the capital building, or building a new governor's mansion) because it's not like children need school, or cars need safe roads, or prisoners need anything resembling shelter or rehabilitation.
Edited by obobskivich - 8/13/12 at 12:23pm

 

Don't go overboard.  I'm a guru.

New England

 

Very in between whether.

Depending on which state and area, housing can be cheap and or affordable while still being near major areas and cities.

New England is also very tolerant and generally more pro scientific but also accpeting of what ideology or religion you are. Yes, this is still America so religion still plays a big role but not as huge as other down below states.

 

In between what?  http://www.boston.com/news/weather/2012/08/10/new-england-storms-down-trees-flood-streets/w7a6hJzqo95DcjXB4Q4mTK/story.html

I don't see what that has to do with anything? A whether report..but seriously. As opposed to many other area's in the mid west. We are very mild bar some things every now and then like that article.

I've noticed that people from New England and California feel no need to bash other regions of the country.