|
climbersam
Jun 12, 2003, 4:17 PM
Post #1 of 42
(11279 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 13, 2003
Posts: 73
|
I may be moving to California soon, but I'm not sure where to live.
My criteria in order of importance are;
1. Inexpensive to live
2. Small town
3. Available work
4. Scenery - beautiful location
5. Close proximity to climbing
I visited a place called Ukiah, seemed nice, but looking for other places.
Any ideas?
|
|
|
|
|
unirock
Jun 12, 2003, 4:31 PM
Post #2 of 42
(11279 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2002
Posts: 26
|
Small town, but available work and inexpensive living? In general, Cali is expensive. Here's an indicator: the average house in California cost 325K? I live in the Sacramento area and like it here. It's close to Tahoe and fairly close to Yosemite. You might look into Vacaville as a possibility.
|
|
|
|
|
kevlar
Jun 12, 2003, 4:36 PM
Post #3 of 42
(11279 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 5, 2002
Posts: 272
|
consider CLOVIS...
2 hours south of Yosemite...
1 hour east of numerous large granite areas...
downfall...can get hot an smoggy
PM. if you are serious...I have climb books on the area
cheers
john
EDITED FOR SUCKASSES ... YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jun 12, 2003, 4:42 PM
Post #4 of 42
(11279 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: I may be moving to California soon, but I'm not sure where to live. My criteria in order of importance are; 1. Inexpensive to live 2. Small town 3. Available work 4. Scenery - beautiful location 5. Close proximity to climbing I visited a place called Ukiah, seemed nice, but looking for other places. Any ideas?
This place you describe, Paradise I think? Doesn't exist in California and hasn't for decades. The combination of 3 and 4 will price you well out of #1. Numbers 2 and 3 don't seem to be able to conexist in this state unless you have very specific skill sets, such as a teacher or someone in the medical profession.
Ukiah is a nice place yup. It is so far from decent climbing it isn't even funny though. Like 5-6 hours from Yosemite for example, one way. Decent climbing, I said!
I can't speak to SoCal at all. In Norcal, if cheap is your most important priority, you can forget about #4. All the beautiful scenery has been taken.
The Central Valley offers the best combination of cheap/work/proximity to climbing in NorCal. The downsides are: it is a furnace in the summer and a foggy bog in the winter. The economy is perpetually depressed when compared to the rest of the state and wages are significantly lower here. And the smog is second only to LA in terms of density, and will surpass LA within 10 years. The upsides are, depending upon city and preferences, you are closer to great climbing and world class skiing than virtually anywhere else in the state, with the cheap living and potential work caveats thrown in.
Depending upon your work, you might want to consider a Nevada town such as Reno, or Carson City/Gardnerville.
Bishop is the classic small town/beautiful scenary/proximity to climbing locale. But there isn't much work there at all. Mammoth is a cool little tourist ski town, if you have skills in that arena. But it ain't cheap! Forget about the Tahoe/Truckee area. The average house there is in excess of 500k. Seriously.
Cheers,
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
dsafanda
Jun 12, 2003, 4:46 PM
Post #5 of 42
(11279 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2002
Posts: 1025
|
You want to live in California in a beautiful town that is close to climbing, affordable and has lots of jobs?
Ha! Don't we all.
Your list of wants is the exact same wish list that millions of other people in this state have. You're going to find out that you'll probably have to make some compromises. The most beautiful town might not be the most affordable. The town closest to climbing might not have as many jobs as a town closer to San Francisco or Sacramento.
If proximity to climbing is indeed last on your list...Ukiah is a pretty good idea. I'd look in to the Lake Tahoe area but that's going to be more expensive.
Ah! Dingus beat me to it and as usual his response is much more comprehensive.
|
|
|
|
|
apolobamba
Jun 12, 2003, 4:59 PM
Post #6 of 42
(11279 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 22, 2003
Posts: 337
|
Dsafanda has said it all.
Ridgecrest, Visalia, and Tehachapi might be options, but none that I would take. Idyllwild might work if you like driving.
Your California dream has left this state.
|
|
|
|
|
caveman
Jun 12, 2003, 5:13 PM
Post #7 of 42
(11279 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 7, 2002
Posts: 127
|
my parents used to live in ukiah, they hated it
|
|
|
|
|
maculated
Jun 12, 2003, 5:16 PM
Post #8 of 42
(11279 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 23, 2001
Posts: 6179
|
I can't believe someone would RECOMMEND living in Fresno. If Bakersfield is the armpit of the state, Fresno is just HELL. I wouldn't wish that on anyone who knew any better.
>1. Inexpensive to live
>2. Small town
>3. Available work
>4. Scenery - beautiful location
>5. Close proximity to climbing
This IS pretty funny. I've been on a search for that myself. I tried Mammoth and Bishop, but that knocks 1 & 3 out. Unless you're looking to drive everywhere, you can't have it all.
|
|
|
|
|
drkayak
Jun 12, 2003, 5:29 PM
Post #9 of 42
(11279 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 22, 2002
Posts: 136
|
In reply to: I can't believe someone would RECOMMEND living in Fresno. If Bakersfield is the armpit of the state, Fresno is just HELL. I wouldn't wish that on anyone who knew any better.
I agree!
I think the Sierra foothills east of Sacramento is a reasonable compromise. Placerville or Auburn areas.
|
|
|
|
|
apolobamba
Jun 12, 2003, 5:32 PM
Post #10 of 42
(11279 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 22, 2003
Posts: 337
|
I thought the term "armpit of the state" was reserved for Oildale or for downtown LA.
|
|
|
|
|
badphish
Jun 12, 2003, 5:42 PM
Post #11 of 42
(11279 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 2, 2003
Posts: 207
|
try some towns in Nor.cal closer to oregon, or
ones closer to nevade, what about quincy? truckee?
|
|
|
|
|
alvchen
Jun 12, 2003, 5:50 PM
Post #12 of 42
(11279 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 15, 2002
Posts: 616
|
Fresno isn't that bad, but damn it's hot. You could live in the foothills and commute to Fresno. There is only one climbing gym in Fresno, and it's ridiculously small, you're better off driving to Yosemite.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jun 12, 2003, 6:03 PM
Post #13 of 42
(11279 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
Tollhouse. You could get a job bussing tables at the Tollhouse Cafe! You'll only have to clean about 10 tables a day and there's a cliff just outside of town.
I don't know how someone living in Bakersfield or Sacramento could dog Fresno! Clovis isn't that bad, but keep in mind Fresno is no small town. It's bigger than Oakland or San Jose proper.
Foothill towns to consider:
Oakhurst
Mariposa (not much there at all)
Sonora
Angels Camp
Jackson
Placerville
Auburn
These are in order of cost of living, lowest to highest. Auburn is above the 300k mark in housing costs now. But commute work is most realistic for Oakhurst, Placerville and Auburn (Fresno and Sacramento).
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
maculated
Jun 12, 2003, 6:04 PM
Post #14 of 42
(11279 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 23, 2001
Posts: 6179
|
Other thought in your housing search:
Try the the grocery store litmus test. If you are in a tourist town, this only works on weekdays of non=holidays. Walk into the grocery store. Look around. These are your locals. Would you want to meet these people?
That's how I decided I wouldn't want to move to Moab. Those folks were old and busted. I know. I went twice just to be sure.
Now, in Mammoth, you walk in, and it is a feast for the eyes. All guys, all in their 20s, all strapping. :)
|
|
|
|
|
enigma
Jun 12, 2003, 6:07 PM
Post #15 of 42
(11279 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2279
|
In reply to: Fresno isn't that bad, but damn it's hot. You could live in the foothills and commute to Fresno. There is only one climbing gym in Fresno, and it's ridiculously small, you're better off driving to Yosemite.
Joshua Tree,just go away for the summer to climb. Work from home, or in a restaurant in 29palms.
I think a whole house is about 250dollars a month,for rent.
Bishop, South Lake Tahoe,Arcata,Idywillid,and Yosemite, (but it's well not exactly a small town)--but you already know that. :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
climbersam
Jun 12, 2003, 6:35 PM
Post #16 of 42
(11279 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 13, 2003
Posts: 73
|
Thanks for the advice all, I'll get this noted for my roadtrip.
|
|
|
|
|
desertgranite
Jun 12, 2003, 7:28 PM
Post #17 of 42
(11279 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 2, 2003
Posts: 52
|
In reply to: I may be moving to California soon, but I'm not sure where to live. My criteria in order of importance are; 1. Inexpensive to live 2. Small town 3. Available work 4. Scenery - beautiful location 5. Close proximity to climbing I visited a place called Ukiah, seemed nice, but looking for other places. Any ideas?
Forgetabout Ukiah, checkout CLEAR LAKE, you'll love it! This destination should satisfy ALL your criterea:
1. Trailers are cheap dude!
2. Only you and yur cousins
3. Start up your very own meth lab!
4. Lakeside & Mountains
5. Climb at the Bear every day!
Welcome to paridise!
|
|
|
|
|
nabisco
Jun 12, 2003, 7:37 PM
Post #18 of 42
(11279 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 16, 2001
Posts: 38
|
I am moving to Cali , I'll be there by the end of June, and I have found nearly all the criteria you have mentioned. exept for the inexpensive part. I going to live in Auburn and work in Sacramento. Auburn is about 1-2 hours from Tahoe area, about 5 from yosemite, 5 hours to Bishop ect. in other words its great location. Auburn is a Beautiful laid back town in the foothills of the Sierra. I will eventually be looking for roomate here in a few months. So check it out. If your in the area pm me and we'll go climbing. I like trad and sport up to 11. I used to live in placerville so I know the area pretty well from a climbers perspective. :twisted:
I would stay the hell away from fresno.. dirty, nasty expensive.. The ONLY thing that town has going for it is its proximity to THe Valley IMHO
|
|
|
|
|
climber1
Jun 12, 2003, 10:12 PM
Post #19 of 42
(11279 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 5, 2000
Posts: 484
|
Fresno? anyone that suggest Fresno has got to be kidding. with out a doubt Fresno is the worst place to live in cali.
|
|
|
|
|
thrillseeker05
Jun 12, 2003, 10:19 PM
Post #20 of 42
(11279 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 14, 2002
Posts: 612
|
move to Weed.
|
|
|
|
|
crazyfingers
Jun 13, 2003, 12:18 AM
Post #21 of 42
(11279 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 512
|
Try Grass Valley, right outside of the Tahoe/truckee area
|
|
|
|
|
dsafanda
Jun 13, 2003, 1:11 AM
Post #22 of 42
(11279 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2002
Posts: 1025
|
Hey, that's a pretty good suggestion
|
|
|
|
|
watersprite
Jul 24, 2003, 11:45 PM
Post #23 of 42
(11279 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 21, 2003
Posts: 1601
|
In reply to: move to Weed.
I second this! or Redding. close to OR, Shasta, Lassen, Trinity- there is so much up there. Pick up one of Tom Stienstra's books on camping in Cal. - he knows every nook and cranny in the state.
|
|
|
|
|
watersprite
Jul 24, 2003, 11:46 PM
Post #24 of 42
(11279 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 21, 2003
Posts: 1601
|
In reply to: Try Grass Valley, right outside of the Tahoe/truckee area
also close to Nevada City, CA - mentioned above... climb at Tahoe or Donner.
|
|
|
|
|
hasbeen
Jul 25, 2003, 12:36 AM
Post #25 of 42
(11279 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 17, 2003
Posts: 543
|
From my perspective, I wouldn't call Grass Valley cheap.
Clear Lake, now there ya go. In SoCal we have our own version of Clear Lake, with more climbing, Apple Valley. My friend Josh and his wife moved from a thousand clam per month closet in Santa Barbara into a sprawling desert palace for about 70 grand. Paid off the rest of their debt from the SB years in about a year and a half. Of course, now they're about to commit suicide and are planning to move back to the central coast even if they have to live in a tent but, well, you said you wanted cheap...
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
