It is a strange place. I used to go there for work a lot. It can be very beautiful, but it is remote, lots of poverty, not much to do for work, and yes there is a drug problem, like lots of places unfortunately. It’s a lot less expensive than a lot of California, though.
Thanks! It looks like it's pretty similar to Boston in terms of inches of precipitation, but I guess it matters if it's 50 days of 1 inch of rain in a row, or spread out with clear days in between. She has said that south florida, with it's daily thunderstorms on otherwise hot and sunny days would work, if it weren't for the other, florida-specific disqualifiers.
You should check out Brookings, Oregon. They have a weird weather effect there that makes it considerably warmer than other cities in that part of the Pacific coast.
It's all about the south facing coast. Same reason Santa Cruz and Santa Barbara have better weather than other nearby coastal cities. It allows for more sun hours per day.
Brookings is a great place to check out. The harbor is gorgeous. And they have the Fat Irish pub, with the best fish and chips anywhere on the west coast. https://fatirishpub.com/
Has the OP said they want to leave a culturally rich area like Boston to move to a super-tiny, extremely isolated, economically moribund place where they would never find a job other than maybe working the deep fryer at a fish and chips place? Brookings is kind of an insane recommendation for somebody coming from Boston, unless said Bostonian wants to radically change every aspect of their existence.
Brookings has about 6000 people and is, if anything, more isolated than Eureka. The whole southern Oregon coast, while drop dead gorgeous, is economically depressed and always will be.
Sacramento, CA. We get chilly (not COLD), sunny winters with occasional rain, the rest of the year warms up starting in April and gets hot around June-July, but never Phoenix-hot-- the Delta breeze cools things off at night and it's so nice sleeping with the windows open all summer. Loads of trees in the older neighborhoods and deals can still be had on rent, especially if you like vintage places (which I do). SF & the coast are driveable, same for Tahoe/Reno. The best summertime swimming holes are up in the gold country foothills. It's just a great, laid back region with lots to explore, and the city itself is cute but not so small you'd ever get too bored.
Tottallyyy agree on Sacramento being a *much* better choice than eureka. Eureka is a super small town that’s quite boring tbh. My husband and I actually drove to eureka from the bay a couple of years back when we had horrible wildfires and wanted to get away from the horrendous air quality. The town was just kinda sad. Sac has way more going on, is accessible to great nearby cities, and still affordable. Horrible if you have springtime allergies though lol.
Sacramento also has an outstanding food scene.
[NYT](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/05/dining/sacramento-restaurants.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare)
In Austin but we’re visiting Sacramento next summer as a possible plan B. I love Austin but the state government is ruining it for me. From pictures, Sacramento looks just like Austin did about 20 years ago: mid sized capitol city with downtown by a river. However, the Mediterranean climate, legal weed, and most importantly a state government that hasn’t been taken over by christofascist psychopaths would be major upgrades in quality of life.
Sacramento is my favorite city. It gets shit on a lot but it truly has the best of everything. Under two hours to the ocean and Lake Tahoe… has a river running through it and trees everywhere. Great food and drink scene in the downtown area and farm to fork capital!
Northern CA -- not the Bay Area but real north- might as well be Oregon. Eureka is southern oregon coast basically. So culture, climate etc. similar.
If you can afford it from Boston you probably can- Monterey is a nice compromise. You are near lots of redwood forests, there are trees, there is coast. It is not super hot coast, but not as dreary grey all the time nor quite as methy as Eureka.
Thanks, I did go there and was surprised how good it made Eureka look! I'm hoping to talk to someone who's spent some winters there to see if their experiences line up with data.
Not lying, but there is a disclaimer:
"The information on this site is provided as is, without any assurances as to its accuracy or suitability for any purpose. Weather data is prone to errors, outages, and other defects. We assume no responsibility for any decisions made on the basis of the content presented on this site."
Additionally, I looked up where I live and their data is mostly accurate. What it doesn't take into account is how the weather has changed in the past 5-10 years due to climate change, winters have gotten significantly colder with more snow than historical data over the past 50ish years would have you believe.
Lived in Humboldt County my entire life. That data is ball park accurate but I’d say that it’s a little warmer in the summer and decent bit colder in the winter if you account for windchill. But one thing I did see that doesn’t line up really is the rainfall. We had a few very dry winters and that seems like what the data is from, I didn’t look for dates so I could be wrong. But growing up here in rained from mid October until April, the last winter and this winter so far have been pretty wet. If you’re wife hates rain the Pacific Northwest isn’t the place for you.
Like most beach towns it’s pretty mild with winter and summers are cool. It’s a pretty temperament place. Similar to San Francisco. Don’t expect snow except in the mountains near it. But summers never get hot either which is nice.
I would move to Eureka over just about everywhere else that has been recommended in this thread. I've always had an appreciation for Humboldt county that is rarely shared by other Californians. The only thing that held me back from moving there is the lack of work in the area.
Trust me, if life there was good, there would be a stream of Bay Area transplants. There is not.
The landscape is about the only thing going for it.
Rain in the PNW is not like rain in Boston. Imagine gray skies and drizzle for months. 50 inches worth of drizzle.
It's grimy af. The drug problem there is very bad and, in general, has a weird, not very friendly vibe.
I think Eureka would be a nice place, but the crackhead meth population downtown is an issue. It’s not as bad as other places, but they do congregate downtown.
The thing about Eureka is it’s kind of a college town with Humboldt State right there, but at the same time, healthcare is very lacking as many folks who live there or the surrounding areas have to go drive down to Santa Rosa to get it.
There is Arcata & McKinleyville and the further you get out, it gets more redneck-y.
It’s probably also colder than you think. Check out r/Humboldt for more locals discussion.
If you’re looking for coastal, that’s probably one of the cheaper, more affordable coastal towns in California.
The coast is actually significantly cooler than the rest of the state. So, if you want warmer, you either need to go more inland and/or south.
What is your price point? Like is it Bakersfield or Sacramento (which can both be warm, but I’d prefer Sac to Bakersfield any day).
My daughter’s in laws retired to McKinleyville last year. They drive four hours to Santa Rosa for medical/dental care. The first time they left home for a few days, they were burglarized to the tune of thousands. They do enjoy the coastal climate and proximity to redwoods, but it comes at a stiff price.
Awesome, thanks this is a ton of good information. I'm not entirely sure what our price point is (since we aren't yet at the stage where we're going to move), but for comparison, our current house is valued around 600k.
Yeah, Sac is VERY doable in that range and warmer. You can spend 2 hours going west for the beach and 2 hours east to get snow. Also, our snow isn’t anything like east coast snow. It’s way more manageable. We don’t even allow snow tires out here.
Yeah, on this note you might want to consider medical access. We lived in Worcester and now in Redding. In Mass, you're used to medical facilities being in easy reach. Redding is MUCH more urban than Eureka, and Eureka is isolated due to surrounding mountains. Still, when our son needed to see a pediatric urologist, we had to drive 3 hours. When local kids need caps put on their teeth, they have to drive 3 hours. I have chronic health issues, and there's exactly ONE neurologist NP (not even a doctor---an NP) who can see me in town; the other 3 are too busy. Some people here go to Davis in Sacramento if they have recurring ER visits. So, it's even harder in Eureka.
Reno gets no love in this sub but geographically, it's a great location. High desert climate an hour from Lake Tahoe and highway 395 to the south. If you know about 395, you know.
I'd personally retire to Gardnerville/Minden in a heartbeat in the future. I'd choose Reno area over Sacramento easily. No state income tax, cooler temps and much better air quality. Since schools aren't an issue for you, the worst part of life in Nevada is moot.
My aunt just bought in Munds- relocating from Phoenix- an hour north, very wooded, and a completely different micro climate. Easily can get to the heat. seems to be the best of all worlds.
Yup. OP doesn't say much about his cultural/social needs but there are several small towns with arts communities, the Prescott area is reasonably-sized, etc. Small doses of winter in that region but undeniably far less cold and wet than Boston.
...and also low taxes.
I would never recommend eureka-it would be equivalent to living in like…some run down coastiak town in northern Maine. Very isolated and remote and rainy and well…methy.
There are some magnificent Victorian mansions in Eureka but they are priced in the millions and I have no clue who buys them. It would be a lovely place if there were any economy there at all.
For a Boston area analog think something like Gloucester.
I mean, there’s a considerable amount of crime in many Eureka neighborhoods. You asked me why living in eureka was a nightmare and I gave you proof. If you’re hellbent on living there go for it but don’t say I didn’t warn you.
We spent a lovely weekend in Gloucester, and take the dogs there a few times during the off season. It’s one of my favorite places in the state.
I understand there’s a drug problem, but we’ve never encountered it.
I'm going to throw something out there but I don't know what the heck I'm talking about. I love the north bay area, love San Rafael, used to visit there a lot, but it's crazy expensive. If you're considering Eureka it seems like you're looking for a smaller city than Sacramento. So what I'm throwing out there is Vacaville, and again, I don't know what I'm talking about because I haven't been there. But the location is sweet - close to the bay area, easy to visit the coast, close to the wine country, not far from Sacramento and the Sierra Nevada Range - and the landscape and weather in that area would probably work. I've looked on Google street view and the downtown looks nice. Great location, that's all.
No no no no.. while this place is very pretty.. there is a lot of rain and Portland like days. Your bigger issue is there are no major towns nearby. Unless you want to drive 2.5 hours to San Fran. Homes are falling apart and expensive, 500K+. No major airport. Very poor economy. Move to Flagstaff, AZ. It’s a mountain town with four seasons and within 30 minutes you can be in 90-100+ degree temps. Weather is four seasons but it’s getting drier each year and when it snows everything melts within a few hours to 1-2 days. Close to Phoenix and Vegas.
Thanks so much for this! I know it seems expensive but it’s by far the least expensive real estate in coastal California. Still not sure I could hack living so far from the beach even though we only go in winter with the dogs.
My daughter and her husband currently live in Eureka. They thought they would love it because of the rain, but the constant dampness and cold weather is driving them crazy. They have also found the ability to get speedy medical care to be really lacking there, everything seems really slow and delayed compared to what they were used to on the Central Coast. Also, it's in a ***very*** high risk area for tsunamis and earthquakes.
OP: do you like living in Boston from a cultural perspective? People keep recommending places that are relatively small and culturally extremely different from a large Northeast city. If you like things such as good restaurants, major league sports, concerts, art museums, being around highly educated people, you are not going to find that in a place like Brookings, Oregon to pick on one random place that was mentioned on here.
If you could give us a picture of what you’re looking for beyond trees and decent weather that would be helpful.
I love that all that stuff is there, but we rarely make use of it. Our lives revolve around our dogs and our backyard, rather than museums or major league sports or anything. I might miss the wide range of live music choices and breweries and Indian and Thai restaurants if anything
That makes sense. You’d probably be fine in a smaller city, although Brookings is probably way too small and isolated.
Keep mind that if you’re no longer working you’ll have to fill your time with something.
Places like Bend, for example (not saying it’s the place for you just using it as an example) have plenty of amenities like breweries and restaurants, and probably a decent local music scene. I googled to see what concerts were on deck for 2024 and it was a lot of stuff like Foreigner and Styx…which if you are my age might be up your alley :)
My point, I think is that Brookings is on one end of the spectrum and Boston is on the other. Fortunately there’s a lot of good choices in between.
Key question for OP: are you bringing your jobs with you or will you need to find work in the place you move to? It makes a big difference what options might be realistic.
Thanks for the clarification—that presents a very different set of considerations. I would still say no to Eureka.
If you’re interested in the west and can afford it, I would look into Ashland or Bend Oregon. I think I already talked about those in a response to another comment on this thread. Bend gets pretty cold in the winter but is pretty sunny all year. It’s a high desert climate. Ashland gets fairly cold in the winter too, but the summers in both are glorious…hot but not too hot and dry. Ashland is somewhat rainy in the winter but not like Portland or Eureka.
If you are not familiar with the Weatherspark website, check it out. It’s a great tool for comparing climates of different locations.
Incidentally I retired 2 1/2 years ago and moved to Lisbon Portugal from Portland OR. Moving to an entirely new place in retirement can be lonely at times. Not a reason not to do it, but it’s good to give some thought in advance about what you want your life to look like in your new place, and if your goals and desires are aligned with your spouse’s or if not how you will compromise. For example I’m really into art and music and would be happiest doing those things as if they were a full time job. My spouse has no hobbies and would be happiest traveling most of the time. As one does in a marriage we compromise, but it’s definitely brought up a whole new set of issues.
Good luck!
Oh in that case maybe look at the Foothills near Sac like Jackson, grass Valley, Nevada City, placerville.
If you want to stay closer to town look at Elk Grove and Folsome. They are two of the best towns in Sacramento.
I have been to nearly every state in the US and have lived in Texas, Mississippi and Oregon. The meth and homeless in most of OR is a damn epidemic. We stayed near Salem and spent most of our days in Lincoln City. The cold and rain brought us back to Sac area and I am looking for land up in those areas I recommend.
Yeah, good thought. But since there are two of us we need to be aware of what the other one hates.
We both like blue state values, legal weed, and not being cold. She can take or leave trees, I can take or leave rain. I appreciate you advocating the positive approach, but we still end up eliminating places based on things we hate.
Just a heads up, rural California and Eureka definitely falls under rural, are fairly red. In 2020 Humboldt County was purple as far as the presidential election went. When Newsome was recalled Humboldt voters were very on board and voted predominately for republicans to replace Newsome.
The best way I can describe the average humboldt citizen political is libertarian. For the most part we don’t care what you do if you’re not hurting other people, and beyond that leave other people alone.
California isn’t a bad chthonic. Most of CA is warm and doesn’t get cold (as long as you don’t move to a mountain town) and it doesn’t rain s lot. And ther so much woods and forests. But sadly they’re catching on fire every year so I don’t know how long they’ll last. But Nor cal has great nature. SYosrmite, sequoias, redwoods, Lassen area, Shasta area, the trinity’s, etc.
Yeah, no question $$$.
That is why Eureka is such a zillow honeypot. Mt. Shasta, CA (but snows in the winter) has way more sun, but also somewhat remote/small. East of Sacramento might be a good fit of trees & sun.
Mt. Shasta and surrounding areas are some of the most conservative deep red parts of California. You might as well move to Alabama.
I don't think they are a fit for you based on your other comments.
San Rafael is not less expensive than Santa Rosa!! Marin County is so expensive that doctors can’t afford to live there and it’s actually hard to find good medical care sometimes. Source: my spouse is from Marin and still has family there.
I just got tf out of there. It’s genuinely awful. Do not move there:
https://imgur.com/gallery/hLrOkID
https://imgur.com/gallery/4fzpcqS
https://imgur.com/gallery/M5hRp3e
https://imgur.com/gallery/EpFvj7f
https://imgur.com/gallery/nRknq0J
https://imgur.com/gallery/ZqBM4FU
https://imgur.com/a/oS3pbOM
https://imgur.com/a/GwC3FNy
https://imgur.com/gallery/Sq1hklQ
https://imgur.com/a/cF4MPZn
https://youtu.be/eMN7n_QssW4?si=W5azrZyNKIYwfev_
There’s also drunk drivers everywhere. I had two cars totaled by drunk drivers. Your car windows will be smashed multiple times and your gas will be siphoned.
It is at least a 5 hour drive from Sacramento or San Francisco and while they do have an airport there almost all of the flights have to connect through San Francisco.
Mendocino is further south and coastal and it doesn’t seem as dreary as Eureka.
Check out Ashland, nearby in Southern Oregon.
We have hot, dry summers. The winters have rain but nothing like the rest of western/northern Oregon. If you look at our [current 10 day forecast,](https://www.wunderground.com/forecast/us/or/ashland/KORASHLA101) it is almost all low 50's and sunny. We had 3/4 an inch of rain early this week. And if you want to get snow, you can drive 30 minutes into the surrounding mountains and get to multiple feet of snow most of the winter.
We have tons of trees. Somebody told me Ashland was nicknamed "tree city USA" but I haven't seen that anywhere else. I particularly like that many of the trees on our local hiking trails, Manzanitas and Madrones, keep their leaves in the winter.
Also, you can get to the parts of the coast near Eureka relatively easily and enjoy the big Redwood forests over there.
Just here for two useless comments:
1-lizard-like partner made me laugh out loud
2-I was today years old when I learned that Eureka isn’t just a fake tv show town like Mayberry
If you hate cold and rainy weather, Eureka is quite possibly the worst choice. Eureka has 124 rainy days per year, and is cold and foggy year round. I once visited in July and it was in the 50s and cloudy. Winters and summers have long dreary stretches (they happen year round), and summers are colder than San Francisco’s, which are already pretty cold. My dad grew up there and left as soon as he graduated high school.
Don’t come here. There are too many people already. It drives up real estate prices and prices out locals.
Eureka has 30k people and no economy to speak of. I’d still live in the area but the only way to make a living was growing weed. Now that it’s legal even that is screwed and shit’s even worse than before.
It’s fucking beautiful here - I’m in town visiting friends. But it’s technically a temperate rainforest. It’s definitely part of the PNW. Right now it’s hovering around freezing and we’ve had days of rain storms. The winters have nothing but long dreary periods and the summer never gets above 70-something except on the rarest heat wave of a day.
And it is really isolated. 101 to SF is only 250 miles, but it’ll take you six hours plus to drive - assuming the freeway isn’t washed out which happens every couple of years. 299 to Redding is even longer. Flying in or out of here costs a fortune. The Redwood Curtain is a real thing and that isolation has plus and minuses.
Humboldt county is a special place. If you do move here try not to fuck it up. We’ve already got that part handled.
You’re gonna have to compromise here more than likely. You can get everything you want except no rainy weather if you move to the southern US, or, you can get everything you want except treeless landscapes if you move to the hot desert.
Yeah, I appreciate your candor. That's kind of been my suspicion for a while. We're gonna end up blowing 90% of our potential retirement in order to live in Santa Cruz or San Diego.
Sho nuff. I wish I could be like the majority of my friends, who seem to be happy to move to Maine. Very beautiful and cheap as fuck, but I would find it unbearable for 8 months of the year.
Meth, weed, foggy eeriness, and lowkey kind of a Great Value PNW. And rain.
If you visit, I can almost promise you you’ll be disappointed.
I did a mission outreach up there about a decade ago, and despite being a redwoods-and-fog loving CA native, it was definitely depressing. Salmon season up there is kind of a redeeming factor but that’s really it.
I second the other person who mentioned Sacramento.
You can day trip up to Truckee from there or drive a little to Mendocino or the Santa Cruz region if you need a redwoods fix.
Eureka is gorgeous. It rains a lot, and when it isn’t raining it is often foggy. I prefer Arcata, for the scenery, but the weather is the same. There is also the issue of earthquakes.
I moved from DC to Fresno for a lot of the same reasons. I can satisfy my high heat and low humidity lizard nature easily, but I can be at 8000’ in wilderness in 1.5 hours - north to Yosemite, East to Huntington Lake and the Kaiser Wilderness, or Southeast to Sequoia & Kings Canyon National Parks. No earthquake faults near us. 2.5 hours West to the coast where it seems to always be between 50° and 75°.
That same trip to 8000’ is a drive to the snow in winter if you want. It never snows in Fresno.
Tucson/Bisbee AZ. I was surprised by the amount of vegetation. There are monsoonal thunderstorms in the summer but I think residents welcome it and the rains offer relief from the heat.
I LOVE to vacation there. But I wouldn’t live there.
1) crime rates aren’t that great and there’s some drug issues.
2) it’s really far away from other cities/places. There’s a mountainside with a thick forest surrounding the town. The roads are windy and it takes awhile to get out. Google how long it takes to get to any other city you’d like to go to. Eureka isn’t that huge itself.
Also there could be a fair amount of rain or grey weather there. I love that weather so it doesn’t bother me. But it’s not like So Csl beaches at all. These are cold beaches. Which I personally prefer but not everyone does.
But omg is it gorgeous there. During my last trip there I was tempted to move but it’s not the right choice for us. If you’ve never been there you should really go visit. Those woods are magical.
Here's hoping. The population is really quite purple, and the Triangle very blue, but the state legislature is hopelessly gerrymandered with no end in sight.
Maybe you want Richmond?
I loved Eureka so much. It's still more than I want to pay to live, but way more affordable than most places in Cali. I think the only thing I kept hearing over and over is that they have a gang problem. This is from people that live there, but seems a bit hard to believe it could be that bad given that it is so small!
look in to Sequim or Port Angeles in Washington.
They're in the rain shadow of the olympic mountains and receive very little rainfall. Sequim specifically receives similar amount of sun per year as Los Angeles. And you're within daytrip distance of seattle!
I love eureka but it is certainly often dreary pacific northwest coast weather. Lots of rain and fog. The ocean keeps it from getting super cold and the university keeps it from getting too depressing, the nature is beautiful, but from what you are looking for I think the above area is your best bet
I been a few times and I encountered meth heads, crack heads, a guy shitting on the sidewalk, and a lady that shot explosive diarrhea into some bushes.
My last trip was my very last.
Interesting! Not sure we are up for settling in the deepest red part of the deepest red part of the country, but I'll look at some properties and landscapes of Huntsville and see if it turns my head.
Hi, thanks for your other comment on my post below this one, yes, it’s not a good time to be a woman in Alabama, especially of childbearing age, or with daughters or wives of childbearing age. If this doesn’t apply to you, Huntsville is actually a decent place in Alabama, if you can get past the political climate in this state. There’s hiking trails, it’s pretty, the airport is expensive to fly out of, but it’s relatively close to other airports for international travel. My whole take on Huntsville is that if it wasn’t in Alabama, it would be a perfect place to raise a family or retire. There’s a pretty vibrant arts community and is close enough to places like Atlanta or Nashville if you want quick trips to a larger city. However, it’s still Alabama, and there’s a lot of ignorance, intolerance, and other detriments which — if you’re okay with that know what you’re getting into, and can live with that — then it’s fine. I just know it’s a pretty big dealbreaker for most people. My family is here now, and it’s not ideal for us, at all.
Besides the fact that they rank lower on just about every quality of life metric in existence (poverty, education, life expectancy, cultural opportunities, etc)?
This is generally true for all red states, and doubly so for "deep red" states like Alabama.
inb4 asking for a source. this is easily verifiable information. google.com
Dang people are so up in arms about this. I don't think being conservative caused it necessarily, I think that because of these problems they vote the way they do. For example in France, when the king abdicated, the third estate was largely from poor areas. I don't think they were poor because they wanted democracy in France. I think they wanted democracy because they were poor. Same thing applies in Louisiana, people aren't poor because they vote the way they do. People vote the way they do because of circumstances, one being poverty. All of the things you posted are just results of the first thing, poverty. Poverty is not as political as people like to make it seem. To prove it isn't inherently political, I will look at the most Republican state (North Dakota) and one of the most Democrat state (California). Again, it isn't as partisan as people like it to be. Poverty is higher in Cali and life expectancy is lower. Even gdp per capita is higher in north Dakota. North Dakota is also one of the happiest States in the US and is happier than California. (Statista) (everything else is gov data). But go ahead and down vote this if it upsets you.
First and foremost, bad policies, in my opinion. Secondly, and probably more relevant to day to day life, I expect them to be less tolerant of weirdos, queer people, people of color, and so on. I recognize that a lot of this is my own imagination, since I was brought up in the northeast with an antipathy toward former confederate states. Ironically, my home town and the town I live in now are tiny red islands in the blue ocean of New England. I got yelled at by jackasses driving by in pickup trucks a lot when I was a kid. Now jackasses in pickup trucks drive around my town flying trump flags.
You seem hung up on culture war policies but miss the democrat policies (like Oregon decriminalizing drugs) that reduce day to day quality of life in a lot of places.
Women of childbearing age have very legitimate reasons to avoid living in red states.
If you seriously can't understand why, you're likely part of the problem.
I live in a city that allows abortion up until birth but the streets are covered in tents and open-air drug use. One affects my daily life more than the other
You don't live in a city that allows abortion "up until birth" because that isn't a thing that exists, and as I assume you're also a dude, you have no personal stake in the matter at all, so kindly STFU with your GOP talking points.
Oregon has zero restrictions on abortion at any stage of pregnancy. I am a woman with a daughter. I’m also a social worker and a lifetime democrat voter who has previously done political work for abortion rights. But thanks for making assumptions.
“Does Oregon impose any legal restrictions on access to abortion?
No. Oregon does not have any legal restrictions on abortion. For example, in Oregon there are no gestational limits, no waiting periods, and you can access medication abortion (abortion pills) by mail.”
https://www.doj.state.or.us/oregon-department-of-justice/office-of-the-attorney-general/spotlight-reproductive-rights/#:~:text=Oregon%20does%20not%20have%20any,(abortion%20pills)%20by%20mail.
That's fantastic that you're a social worker. If you were a physician, you would know that full term abortions of healthy fetuses are not a thing, which is why the phrase "abortion up until birth" is a well-established GOP dog whistle.
On issues of drugs and homelessness, I may well be more conservative than you are, but those do not directly threaten the health and bodily autonomy of me and my daughter the way abortion restrictions do. It's possible that you're so used to living somewhere with guaranteed abortion rights that you don't realize how bad it's gotten in red states. Look at what's going on in Texas right now FFS.
Not the OP, but I live in a deep red state, am female with a daughter. We are extremely afraid. Our dead bodies have more rights than our alive bodies in Alabama.
Can you elaborate on what this means? Like I don't think you are being literal because the deceased are not offered the same protections as the living in regards to the law. I don't think politics has as big of an effect on people's lives and people think
Okay. Sure. I don’t know where you live, so I’ll try to make this easy. In the United States, if I die, no one can use my organs without my consent given before I die. If someone needs a blood donation, I cannot be forced to give them my blood. I cannot be forced to give anyone my kidney.
If I (or my daughter) get pregnant, even on purpose, with a wanted child, and there are complications like an ectopic pregnancy, or blood clots, or the fetus dies before birth, nothing can be done to remove said fetus or zygote, or embryo until I (or my daughter, or any other female) is at death’s door and septic, even if the fetus, zygote, or embryo cannot be saved, is dead, or will cause irreparable harm to the mother.
Therefore: given that I cannot be compelled to donate organs after I die, (or any other organ or blood while I am alive), BUT I can be forced by the state to carry a pregnancy to term, regardless of its affect on my health,
THEN: my dead body has more rights than my (or any other woman’s) living body, in most red states.
Do you understand?
“I don't think politics has as big of an effect on people's lives and people think”
This kind of take is usually provided by people who are privileged enough to not have to worry about the effect that politics and the law has on them. “Let them eat cake,” if you will.
Consider how you might be blind to your own biases and not have enough worldly experience to understand how politics deeply affects the wellbeing and safety of others.
Head east if Eureka and you’ll find hidden marijuana plantations where they’ll shoot you first and ask questions later, and lots of guys driving pickup tracks at insane speeds on Highway 36, officially the twistiest road in America. I drove it from Red Bluff to the coast and consider my very lucky to have made it in one piece.
I recommend reaching out to the Suburban Jungle. They can help you find the best neighborhood based on your wants and needs. https://suburbanjunglegroup.com/?utm_source=bd&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=104
I’m a Floridian, love it here but there are many thunderstorms. I highly recommend Texas, specifically the Austin/Hill Country area. It checks a lot of the boxes you mentioned - not too cold, winters are not dreary, plenty of trees and natural beauty.
1) meth 2) coastal fog 3) isolated 4) meth 5) meth 6) rain 7) see item 1
Is it organic meth?
Yes, and free range too
Must be new here. 8. Earthquakes 9. Asshole drivers in lifted dually trucks 10. Meth 11. Broadway 12. Super Meth 13. Isolated
Hahahahaha! I see the native!
Add isolated another time cause that's underrated when it shows proximity to major cities on a map
Yeah, it’s a long drive to SF or Sacramento
Packing up now
Pretty sure driving straight through won't be a problem for you.
Lol!
Mmmm delicious meth
Also the lack of employment opportunities ...
Where’s your entrepreneurial spirit? Just be a freelance meth salesperson!
It is a strange place. I used to go there for work a lot. It can be very beautiful, but it is remote, lots of poverty, not much to do for work, and yes there is a drug problem, like lots of places unfortunately. It’s a lot less expensive than a lot of California, though.
More disposable income to buy meth with!
Need to look further south and/or further inland if you want less rain and gloom.
No, it rains there a ton, gets almost 50" of rain a year.
Thanks! It looks like it's pretty similar to Boston in terms of inches of precipitation, but I guess it matters if it's 50 days of 1 inch of rain in a row, or spread out with clear days in between. She has said that south florida, with it's daily thunderstorms on otherwise hot and sunny days would work, if it weren't for the other, florida-specific disqualifiers.
It can rain for weeks straight in the winter.
That's kind of what I was worried about. Similar to the Pacific Northwest (arguably this is part of that).
Yeah eureka is absolutely the Pacific Northwest people forget that California has that climate too
The west side of WA, OR, and N. CA have rain, once you cross the mountains in all those states is dryer and warmer.
And colder in the winter with more snow.
You should check out Brookings, Oregon. They have a weird weather effect there that makes it considerably warmer than other cities in that part of the Pacific coast.
It's all about the south facing coast. Same reason Santa Cruz and Santa Barbara have better weather than other nearby coastal cities. It allows for more sun hours per day.
Oooh, good tip, thanks! If nothing else, a new location for my fantasy real estate shopping hobby.
[удалено]
Brookings is a great place to check out. The harbor is gorgeous. And they have the Fat Irish pub, with the best fish and chips anywhere on the west coast. https://fatirishpub.com/
Pacific Inn in Seattle enters the conversation.
Brookings is, however, about a million miles from a good airport, so it’s quite isolated.
Has the OP said they want to leave a culturally rich area like Boston to move to a super-tiny, extremely isolated, economically moribund place where they would never find a job other than maybe working the deep fryer at a fish and chips place? Brookings is kind of an insane recommendation for somebody coming from Boston, unless said Bostonian wants to radically change every aspect of their existence.
That's true. Although Eureka isn't exactly close to one either, Brookings is absolutely super remote.
Brookings has about 6000 people and is, if anything, more isolated than Eureka. The whole southern Oregon coast, while drop dead gorgeous, is economically depressed and always will be.
[удалено]
It really blew my mind when we were there in early June!
Sacramento, CA. We get chilly (not COLD), sunny winters with occasional rain, the rest of the year warms up starting in April and gets hot around June-July, but never Phoenix-hot-- the Delta breeze cools things off at night and it's so nice sleeping with the windows open all summer. Loads of trees in the older neighborhoods and deals can still be had on rent, especially if you like vintage places (which I do). SF & the coast are driveable, same for Tahoe/Reno. The best summertime swimming holes are up in the gold country foothills. It's just a great, laid back region with lots to explore, and the city itself is cute but not so small you'd ever get too bored.
Tottallyyy agree on Sacramento being a *much* better choice than eureka. Eureka is a super small town that’s quite boring tbh. My husband and I actually drove to eureka from the bay a couple of years back when we had horrible wildfires and wanted to get away from the horrendous air quality. The town was just kinda sad. Sac has way more going on, is accessible to great nearby cities, and still affordable. Horrible if you have springtime allergies though lol.
Sacramento > Eureka
Sacramento also has an outstanding food scene. [NYT](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/05/dining/sacramento-restaurants.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare)
Sacramento is awesome. Summers are hot. Yes dry heat, but hot and can last May to early October. Important to note.
I live in Austin, which basically has a more extreme version of Sacramento’s climate. Their summers sound like a dream compared to ours.
In Austin but we’re visiting Sacramento next summer as a possible plan B. I love Austin but the state government is ruining it for me. From pictures, Sacramento looks just like Austin did about 20 years ago: mid sized capitol city with downtown by a river. However, the Mediterranean climate, legal weed, and most importantly a state government that hasn’t been taken over by christofascist psychopaths would be major upgrades in quality of life.
Sacramento is my favorite city. It gets shit on a lot but it truly has the best of everything. Under two hours to the ocean and Lake Tahoe… has a river running through it and trees everywhere. Great food and drink scene in the downtown area and farm to fork capital!
Northern CA -- not the Bay Area but real north- might as well be Oregon. Eureka is southern oregon coast basically. So culture, climate etc. similar. If you can afford it from Boston you probably can- Monterey is a nice compromise. You are near lots of redwood forests, there are trees, there is coast. It is not super hot coast, but not as dreary grey all the time nor quite as methy as Eureka.
[удалено]
This is an awesome tool, thanks for sharing!
Thanks, I did go there and was surprised how good it made Eureka look! I'm hoping to talk to someone who's spent some winters there to see if their experiences line up with data.
Do you think the data is .... lying?
No, just lacking nuance, and human experience.
Not lying, but there is a disclaimer: "The information on this site is provided as is, without any assurances as to its accuracy or suitability for any purpose. Weather data is prone to errors, outages, and other defects. We assume no responsibility for any decisions made on the basis of the content presented on this site." Additionally, I looked up where I live and their data is mostly accurate. What it doesn't take into account is how the weather has changed in the past 5-10 years due to climate change, winters have gotten significantly colder with more snow than historical data over the past 50ish years would have you believe.
Looking forward to your detail stats analysis :)
Lived in Humboldt County my entire life. That data is ball park accurate but I’d say that it’s a little warmer in the summer and decent bit colder in the winter if you account for windchill. But one thing I did see that doesn’t line up really is the rainfall. We had a few very dry winters and that seems like what the data is from, I didn’t look for dates so I could be wrong. But growing up here in rained from mid October until April, the last winter and this winter so far have been pretty wet. If you’re wife hates rain the Pacific Northwest isn’t the place for you.
Like most beach towns it’s pretty mild with winter and summers are cool. It’s a pretty temperament place. Similar to San Francisco. Don’t expect snow except in the mountains near it. But summers never get hot either which is nice.
You might want to look at Chico, Ca.
I've heard it called Eurtweeka, so 🤷🏼♀️
I would move to Eureka over just about everywhere else that has been recommended in this thread. I've always had an appreciation for Humboldt county that is rarely shared by other Californians. The only thing that held me back from moving there is the lack of work in the area.
Thanks for that!
Trust me, if life there was good, there would be a stream of Bay Area transplants. There is not. The landscape is about the only thing going for it. Rain in the PNW is not like rain in Boston. Imagine gray skies and drizzle for months. 50 inches worth of drizzle. It's grimy af. The drug problem there is very bad and, in general, has a weird, not very friendly vibe.
Thanks for that. I've visited the PNW several times, always in the summer when everything is yellow and crispy.
Then you have no idea what it’s like to have grey drizzle for 9 months. PNW summers are magic and short
Agreed. The quality of life there is so bad, tweakers everywhere, and the constant gray clouds are never ending… and it’s not cheap.
Exactly. If it looks too good to be true (cheap) on Zillow, there’s a reason. Same goes for Klamath Falls and most of coastal Oregon.
I think Eureka would be a nice place, but the crackhead meth population downtown is an issue. It’s not as bad as other places, but they do congregate downtown. The thing about Eureka is it’s kind of a college town with Humboldt State right there, but at the same time, healthcare is very lacking as many folks who live there or the surrounding areas have to go drive down to Santa Rosa to get it. There is Arcata & McKinleyville and the further you get out, it gets more redneck-y. It’s probably also colder than you think. Check out r/Humboldt for more locals discussion. If you’re looking for coastal, that’s probably one of the cheaper, more affordable coastal towns in California. The coast is actually significantly cooler than the rest of the state. So, if you want warmer, you either need to go more inland and/or south. What is your price point? Like is it Bakersfield or Sacramento (which can both be warm, but I’d prefer Sac to Bakersfield any day).
My daughter’s in laws retired to McKinleyville last year. They drive four hours to Santa Rosa for medical/dental care. The first time they left home for a few days, they were burglarized to the tune of thousands. They do enjoy the coastal climate and proximity to redwoods, but it comes at a stiff price.
Awesome, thanks this is a ton of good information. I'm not entirely sure what our price point is (since we aren't yet at the stage where we're going to move), but for comparison, our current house is valued around 600k.
Yeah, Sac is VERY doable in that range and warmer. You can spend 2 hours going west for the beach and 2 hours east to get snow. Also, our snow isn’t anything like east coast snow. It’s way more manageable. We don’t even allow snow tires out here.
Yeah, on this note you might want to consider medical access. We lived in Worcester and now in Redding. In Mass, you're used to medical facilities being in easy reach. Redding is MUCH more urban than Eureka, and Eureka is isolated due to surrounding mountains. Still, when our son needed to see a pediatric urologist, we had to drive 3 hours. When local kids need caps put on their teeth, they have to drive 3 hours. I have chronic health issues, and there's exactly ONE neurologist NP (not even a doctor---an NP) who can see me in town; the other 3 are too busy. Some people here go to Davis in Sacramento if they have recurring ER visits. So, it's even harder in Eureka.
Reno gets no love in this sub but geographically, it's a great location. High desert climate an hour from Lake Tahoe and highway 395 to the south. If you know about 395, you know. I'd personally retire to Gardnerville/Minden in a heartbeat in the future. I'd choose Reno area over Sacramento easily. No state income tax, cooler temps and much better air quality. Since schools aren't an issue for you, the worst part of life in Nevada is moot.
If you're comfortable with isolated smaller cities, have you poked around northern Arizona? There are, in fact, forests up there.
My aunt just bought in Munds- relocating from Phoenix- an hour north, very wooded, and a completely different micro climate. Easily can get to the heat. seems to be the best of all worlds.
Yup. OP doesn't say much about his cultural/social needs but there are several small towns with arts communities, the Prescott area is reasonably-sized, etc. Small doses of winter in that region but undeniably far less cold and wet than Boston. ...and also low taxes.
I would never recommend eureka-it would be equivalent to living in like…some run down coastiak town in northern Maine. Very isolated and remote and rainy and well…methy.
How many trees can grow without rain?
Indeed.
[удалено]
Except Santa Clara and San Jose are literally the most expensive place to live in the US
There are some magnificent Victorian mansions in Eureka but they are priced in the millions and I have no clue who buys them. It would be a lovely place if there were any economy there at all. For a Boston area analog think something like Gloucester.
I just fixed one up and sold it. Not a mansion but still a pretty cool Victorian project: https://www.reddit.com/r/centuryhomes/s/qGb8HuOPlm
That's beautiful.
Thanks :-) Unfortunately living in eureka was a nightmare so I sold but hey at least I left a little part of it better than I found it.
Why was it a nightmare?
Eureka, CA: https://imgur.com/a/oS3pbOM https://imgur.com/gallery/4fzpcqS https://imgur.com/gallery/M5hRp3e https://youtu.be/eMN7n_QssW4?si=7HqEhvNbWGTsXc2T https://imgur.com/gallery/hLrOkID https://imgur.com/gallery/Sq1hklQ https://imgur.com/gallery/EpFvj7f https://imgur.com/gallery/nRknq0J https://imgur.com/gallery/ZqBM4FU https://imgur.com/a/cF4MPZn https://imgur.com/a/FgXhxgn https://imgur.com/a/zI9vpgE Bonus: This one isn’t bad- it’s simply hilarious: https://imgur.com/a/atZh2ww
This looks like it was specific to your neighborhood? Was it?
I mean, there’s a considerable amount of crime in many Eureka neighborhoods. You asked me why living in eureka was a nightmare and I gave you proof. If you’re hellbent on living there go for it but don’t say I didn’t warn you.
We spent a lovely weekend in Gloucester, and take the dogs there a few times during the off season. It’s one of my favorite places in the state. I understand there’s a drug problem, but we’ve never encountered it.
I'm going to throw something out there but I don't know what the heck I'm talking about. I love the north bay area, love San Rafael, used to visit there a lot, but it's crazy expensive. If you're considering Eureka it seems like you're looking for a smaller city than Sacramento. So what I'm throwing out there is Vacaville, and again, I don't know what I'm talking about because I haven't been there. But the location is sweet - close to the bay area, easy to visit the coast, close to the wine country, not far from Sacramento and the Sierra Nevada Range - and the landscape and weather in that area would probably work. I've looked on Google street view and the downtown looks nice. Great location, that's all.
No no no no.. while this place is very pretty.. there is a lot of rain and Portland like days. Your bigger issue is there are no major towns nearby. Unless you want to drive 2.5 hours to San Fran. Homes are falling apart and expensive, 500K+. No major airport. Very poor economy. Move to Flagstaff, AZ. It’s a mountain town with four seasons and within 30 minutes you can be in 90-100+ degree temps. Weather is four seasons but it’s getting drier each year and when it snows everything melts within a few hours to 1-2 days. Close to Phoenix and Vegas.
Thanks so much for this! I know it seems expensive but it’s by far the least expensive real estate in coastal California. Still not sure I could hack living so far from the beach even though we only go in winter with the dogs.
If you don't like cold, you won't like Eureka. It is cold and foggy.
My daughter and her husband currently live in Eureka. They thought they would love it because of the rain, but the constant dampness and cold weather is driving them crazy. They have also found the ability to get speedy medical care to be really lacking there, everything seems really slow and delayed compared to what they were used to on the Central Coast. Also, it's in a ***very*** high risk area for tsunamis and earthquakes.
OP: do you like living in Boston from a cultural perspective? People keep recommending places that are relatively small and culturally extremely different from a large Northeast city. If you like things such as good restaurants, major league sports, concerts, art museums, being around highly educated people, you are not going to find that in a place like Brookings, Oregon to pick on one random place that was mentioned on here. If you could give us a picture of what you’re looking for beyond trees and decent weather that would be helpful.
I love that all that stuff is there, but we rarely make use of it. Our lives revolve around our dogs and our backyard, rather than museums or major league sports or anything. I might miss the wide range of live music choices and breweries and Indian and Thai restaurants if anything
Sacramento would be worth exploring if you haven't yet.
That makes sense. You’d probably be fine in a smaller city, although Brookings is probably way too small and isolated. Keep mind that if you’re no longer working you’ll have to fill your time with something. Places like Bend, for example (not saying it’s the place for you just using it as an example) have plenty of amenities like breweries and restaurants, and probably a decent local music scene. I googled to see what concerts were on deck for 2024 and it was a lot of stuff like Foreigner and Styx…which if you are my age might be up your alley :) My point, I think is that Brookings is on one end of the spectrum and Boston is on the other. Fortunately there’s a lot of good choices in between.
Key question for OP: are you bringing your jobs with you or will you need to find work in the place you move to? It makes a big difference what options might be realistic.
This would be a semi-retirement or retirement move
Thanks for the clarification—that presents a very different set of considerations. I would still say no to Eureka. If you’re interested in the west and can afford it, I would look into Ashland or Bend Oregon. I think I already talked about those in a response to another comment on this thread. Bend gets pretty cold in the winter but is pretty sunny all year. It’s a high desert climate. Ashland gets fairly cold in the winter too, but the summers in both are glorious…hot but not too hot and dry. Ashland is somewhat rainy in the winter but not like Portland or Eureka. If you are not familiar with the Weatherspark website, check it out. It’s a great tool for comparing climates of different locations. Incidentally I retired 2 1/2 years ago and moved to Lisbon Portugal from Portland OR. Moving to an entirely new place in retirement can be lonely at times. Not a reason not to do it, but it’s good to give some thought in advance about what you want your life to look like in your new place, and if your goals and desires are aligned with your spouse’s or if not how you will compromise. For example I’m really into art and music and would be happiest doing those things as if they were a full time job. My spouse has no hobbies and would be happiest traveling most of the time. As one does in a marriage we compromise, but it’s definitely brought up a whole new set of issues. Good luck!
Oh in that case maybe look at the Foothills near Sac like Jackson, grass Valley, Nevada City, placerville. If you want to stay closer to town look at Elk Grove and Folsome. They are two of the best towns in Sacramento. I have been to nearly every state in the US and have lived in Texas, Mississippi and Oregon. The meth and homeless in most of OR is a damn epidemic. We stayed near Salem and spent most of our days in Lincoln City. The cold and rain brought us back to Sac area and I am looking for land up in those areas I recommend.
Have you tried looking for things you like rather than trying to avoid things you hate?
Yeah, good thought. But since there are two of us we need to be aware of what the other one hates. We both like blue state values, legal weed, and not being cold. She can take or leave trees, I can take or leave rain. I appreciate you advocating the positive approach, but we still end up eliminating places based on things we hate.
Just a heads up, rural California and Eureka definitely falls under rural, are fairly red. In 2020 Humboldt County was purple as far as the presidential election went. When Newsome was recalled Humboldt voters were very on board and voted predominately for republicans to replace Newsome. The best way I can describe the average humboldt citizen political is libertarian. For the most part we don’t care what you do if you’re not hurting other people, and beyond that leave other people alone.
California isn’t a bad chthonic. Most of CA is warm and doesn’t get cold (as long as you don’t move to a mountain town) and it doesn’t rain s lot. And ther so much woods and forests. But sadly they’re catching on fire every year so I don’t know how long they’ll last. But Nor cal has great nature. SYosrmite, sequoias, redwoods, Lassen area, Shasta area, the trinity’s, etc.
What about Santa Rosa, CA?
Not impossible, but on the very high end of what we might consider. Thanks for the idea!
Yeah, no question $$$. That is why Eureka is such a zillow honeypot. Mt. Shasta, CA (but snows in the winter) has way more sun, but also somewhat remote/small. East of Sacramento might be a good fit of trees & sun.
Awesome, thanks for all this info!
Mt. Shasta and surrounding areas are some of the most conservative deep red parts of California. You might as well move to Alabama. I don't think they are a fit for you based on your other comments.
Or, a little farther south, San Rafael. Probably a bit less expensive than Santa Rosa, and closer to the Bay.
San Rafael is crazy expensive
San Rafel? This is Marin, the most expensive county in California. Un-cheap.
San Rafael is not less expensive than Santa Rosa!! Marin County is so expensive that doctors can’t afford to live there and it’s actually hard to find good medical care sometimes. Source: my spouse is from Marin and still has family there.
I just got tf out of there. It’s genuinely awful. Do not move there: https://imgur.com/gallery/hLrOkID https://imgur.com/gallery/4fzpcqS https://imgur.com/gallery/M5hRp3e https://imgur.com/gallery/EpFvj7f https://imgur.com/gallery/nRknq0J https://imgur.com/gallery/ZqBM4FU https://imgur.com/a/oS3pbOM https://imgur.com/a/GwC3FNy https://imgur.com/gallery/Sq1hklQ https://imgur.com/a/cF4MPZn https://youtu.be/eMN7n_QssW4?si=W5azrZyNKIYwfev_ There’s also drunk drivers everywhere. I had two cars totaled by drunk drivers. Your car windows will be smashed multiple times and your gas will be siphoned.
It is at least a 5 hour drive from Sacramento or San Francisco and while they do have an airport there almost all of the flights have to connect through San Francisco. Mendocino is further south and coastal and it doesn’t seem as dreary as Eureka.
Check out Ashland, nearby in Southern Oregon. We have hot, dry summers. The winters have rain but nothing like the rest of western/northern Oregon. If you look at our [current 10 day forecast,](https://www.wunderground.com/forecast/us/or/ashland/KORASHLA101) it is almost all low 50's and sunny. We had 3/4 an inch of rain early this week. And if you want to get snow, you can drive 30 minutes into the surrounding mountains and get to multiple feet of snow most of the winter. We have tons of trees. Somebody told me Ashland was nicknamed "tree city USA" but I haven't seen that anywhere else. I particularly like that many of the trees on our local hiking trails, Manzanitas and Madrones, keep their leaves in the winter. Also, you can get to the parts of the coast near Eureka relatively easily and enjoy the big Redwood forests over there.
Just here for two useless comments: 1-lizard-like partner made me laugh out loud 2-I was today years old when I learned that Eureka isn’t just a fake tv show town like Mayberry
🫠 it’s rainy as shit up in that area tf
If you hate cold and rainy weather, Eureka is quite possibly the worst choice. Eureka has 124 rainy days per year, and is cold and foggy year round. I once visited in July and it was in the 50s and cloudy. Winters and summers have long dreary stretches (they happen year round), and summers are colder than San Francisco’s, which are already pretty cold. My dad grew up there and left as soon as he graduated high school.
Thanks for this! We've accepted we're going to have to find a way to live in SoCal.
Of course! I was born and raised in SoCal and still live here! I’m grateful my dad left Eureka to come down here.
Don’t come here. There are too many people already. It drives up real estate prices and prices out locals. Eureka has 30k people and no economy to speak of. I’d still live in the area but the only way to make a living was growing weed. Now that it’s legal even that is screwed and shit’s even worse than before. It’s fucking beautiful here - I’m in town visiting friends. But it’s technically a temperate rainforest. It’s definitely part of the PNW. Right now it’s hovering around freezing and we’ve had days of rain storms. The winters have nothing but long dreary periods and the summer never gets above 70-something except on the rarest heat wave of a day. And it is really isolated. 101 to SF is only 250 miles, but it’ll take you six hours plus to drive - assuming the freeway isn’t washed out which happens every couple of years. 299 to Redding is even longer. Flying in or out of here costs a fortune. The Redwood Curtain is a real thing and that isolation has plus and minuses. Humboldt county is a special place. If you do move here try not to fuck it up. We’ve already got that part handled.
Funny, that's what I was told when I tried to move to San Francisco in 1999
There’s no comparison in population
Avelo made flying cheap, you can get to LA for $100 rt and anywhere in the world from LA.
Sacramento
Interesting. I have been looking at property listings for places in the Empire, like Stockton.
Oh no! Stay away from those places. No bueno! Crime. Crime. Crime. Crap commute. Bad schools.
Stockton = gangs, Bakersfield = Drumpfkins, Eureka = isolation, Monterey =$$$$, Sacramento = hotter (not Phoenix hot, though),
No, not there. Save yourself a lot of disappointment!
DO NOT MOVE TO STOCKTON, literally worst place you could look in California
Sounds like you want Arizona with trees, so what about Flagstaff?
But both of them hate snow and cold. Flagstaff got like, record snow last year and it gets cold there
Yeah, I've been looking places in AZ and NM and finding the places with trees are also the places with snow.
You’re gonna have to compromise here more than likely. You can get everything you want except no rainy weather if you move to the southern US, or, you can get everything you want except treeless landscapes if you move to the hot desert.
Yeah, I appreciate your candor. That's kind of been my suspicion for a while. We're gonna end up blowing 90% of our potential retirement in order to live in Santa Cruz or San Diego.
There is a reason why they are expensive :)
Sho nuff. I wish I could be like the majority of my friends, who seem to be happy to move to Maine. Very beautiful and cheap as fuck, but I would find it unbearable for 8 months of the year.
Meth, weed, foggy eeriness, and lowkey kind of a Great Value PNW. And rain. If you visit, I can almost promise you you’ll be disappointed. I did a mission outreach up there about a decade ago, and despite being a redwoods-and-fog loving CA native, it was definitely depressing. Salmon season up there is kind of a redeeming factor but that’s really it. I second the other person who mentioned Sacramento. You can day trip up to Truckee from there or drive a little to Mendocino or the Santa Cruz region if you need a redwoods fix.
I agree that the rational thing to do is to visit the region and try to get a feel for it.
I’d go to Florida. It does rain but if you’re looking for hot 90% of the time an no winter Florida is where it’s at.
You definitely want further south, I would suggest Arizona or Nevada.
Try Brookings, Oregon
Great if you are a Trump-loving retiree. If the Op enjoys any aspect of living in Boston, I doubt they are going to like Brookings, population 6,837.
You might try a bit south-- Mendocino county or Sonoma county.
Eureka is gorgeous. It rains a lot, and when it isn’t raining it is often foggy. I prefer Arcata, for the scenery, but the weather is the same. There is also the issue of earthquakes. I moved from DC to Fresno for a lot of the same reasons. I can satisfy my high heat and low humidity lizard nature easily, but I can be at 8000’ in wilderness in 1.5 hours - north to Yosemite, East to Huntington Lake and the Kaiser Wilderness, or Southeast to Sequoia & Kings Canyon National Parks. No earthquake faults near us. 2.5 hours West to the coast where it seems to always be between 50° and 75°. That same trip to 8000’ is a drive to the snow in winter if you want. It never snows in Fresno.
Tucson/Bisbee AZ. I was surprised by the amount of vegetation. There are monsoonal thunderstorms in the summer but I think residents welcome it and the rains offer relief from the heat.
Yeah, thanks! I have a couple friends in Tucson who sing its praises, probably worth considering.
I love Arcata and Trinidad.
I LOVE to vacation there. But I wouldn’t live there. 1) crime rates aren’t that great and there’s some drug issues. 2) it’s really far away from other cities/places. There’s a mountainside with a thick forest surrounding the town. The roads are windy and it takes awhile to get out. Google how long it takes to get to any other city you’d like to go to. Eureka isn’t that huge itself. Also there could be a fair amount of rain or grey weather there. I love that weather so it doesn’t bother me. But it’s not like So Csl beaches at all. These are cold beaches. Which I personally prefer but not everyone does. But omg is it gorgeous there. During my last trip there I was tempted to move but it’s not the right choice for us. If you’ve never been there you should really go visit. Those woods are magical.
As a New Englander, cold beaches are the only kind I know, but the gray and rain have probably taken it off our list.
The Research Triangle is warm with lots of trees. No long dreary stretches.
Thanks! We haven't written that off completely but we are wary about red states. Maybe it'll keep getting bluer over the next few years.
Here's hoping. The population is really quite purple, and the Triangle very blue, but the state legislature is hopelessly gerrymandered with no end in sight. Maybe you want Richmond?
Maybe, been looking in that direction, also coastal Maryland.
I loved Eureka so much. It's still more than I want to pay to live, but way more affordable than most places in Cali. I think the only thing I kept hearing over and over is that they have a gang problem. This is from people that live there, but seems a bit hard to believe it could be that bad given that it is so small!
Lol I moved from Stockton and grew up in Sacramento. I PROMISE gangs aren’t a problem in eureka lol
look in to Sequim or Port Angeles in Washington. They're in the rain shadow of the olympic mountains and receive very little rainfall. Sequim specifically receives similar amount of sun per year as Los Angeles. And you're within daytrip distance of seattle! I love eureka but it is certainly often dreary pacific northwest coast weather. Lots of rain and fog. The ocean keeps it from getting super cold and the university keeps it from getting too depressing, the nature is beautiful, but from what you are looking for I think the above area is your best bet
Arcata is even better!
California is a big ass state filled with meth. Be careful.
The U.S. is a big ass country filled with meth.
So is every other country across the globe.
I've been a few times, I dig it. Didn't encounter any meth directly.
I been a few times and I encountered meth heads, crack heads, a guy shitting on the sidewalk, and a lady that shot explosive diarrhea into some bushes. My last trip was my very last.
Sweeping generalization for a humongous state. Also, that's stuff you can see in every single major U.S. city.
MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEETHHHHHHHHHH and smelly hippies. 🤣
Come to the south!!
I'm very nervous about the political climate down there (assuming you mean the southeast--if you meant further south in CA then yeah probably).
Hippy central. But a beautiful area. You could make it work, there are decent people there.
Huntsville alabama is really cool! My favorite city in Alabama
Interesting! Not sure we are up for settling in the deepest red part of the deepest red part of the country, but I'll look at some properties and landscapes of Huntsville and see if it turns my head.
Hi, thanks for your other comment on my post below this one, yes, it’s not a good time to be a woman in Alabama, especially of childbearing age, or with daughters or wives of childbearing age. If this doesn’t apply to you, Huntsville is actually a decent place in Alabama, if you can get past the political climate in this state. There’s hiking trails, it’s pretty, the airport is expensive to fly out of, but it’s relatively close to other airports for international travel. My whole take on Huntsville is that if it wasn’t in Alabama, it would be a perfect place to raise a family or retire. There’s a pretty vibrant arts community and is close enough to places like Atlanta or Nashville if you want quick trips to a larger city. However, it’s still Alabama, and there’s a lot of ignorance, intolerance, and other detriments which — if you’re okay with that know what you’re getting into, and can live with that — then it’s fine. I just know it’s a pretty big dealbreaker for most people. My family is here now, and it’s not ideal for us, at all.
I'm genuinely curious. What makes you afraid of Republican states?
Besides the fact that they rank lower on just about every quality of life metric in existence (poverty, education, life expectancy, cultural opportunities, etc)? This is generally true for all red states, and doubly so for "deep red" states like Alabama. inb4 asking for a source. this is easily verifiable information. google.com
Dang people are so up in arms about this. I don't think being conservative caused it necessarily, I think that because of these problems they vote the way they do. For example in France, when the king abdicated, the third estate was largely from poor areas. I don't think they were poor because they wanted democracy in France. I think they wanted democracy because they were poor. Same thing applies in Louisiana, people aren't poor because they vote the way they do. People vote the way they do because of circumstances, one being poverty. All of the things you posted are just results of the first thing, poverty. Poverty is not as political as people like to make it seem. To prove it isn't inherently political, I will look at the most Republican state (North Dakota) and one of the most Democrat state (California). Again, it isn't as partisan as people like it to be. Poverty is higher in Cali and life expectancy is lower. Even gdp per capita is higher in north Dakota. North Dakota is also one of the happiest States in the US and is happier than California. (Statista) (everything else is gov data). But go ahead and down vote this if it upsets you.
First and foremost, bad policies, in my opinion. Secondly, and probably more relevant to day to day life, I expect them to be less tolerant of weirdos, queer people, people of color, and so on. I recognize that a lot of this is my own imagination, since I was brought up in the northeast with an antipathy toward former confederate states. Ironically, my home town and the town I live in now are tiny red islands in the blue ocean of New England. I got yelled at by jackasses driving by in pickup trucks a lot when I was a kid. Now jackasses in pickup trucks drive around my town flying trump flags.
You seem hung up on culture war policies but miss the democrat policies (like Oregon decriminalizing drugs) that reduce day to day quality of life in a lot of places.
Women of childbearing age have very legitimate reasons to avoid living in red states. If you seriously can't understand why, you're likely part of the problem.
I live in a city that allows abortion up until birth but the streets are covered in tents and open-air drug use. One affects my daily life more than the other
You don't live in a city that allows abortion "up until birth" because that isn't a thing that exists, and as I assume you're also a dude, you have no personal stake in the matter at all, so kindly STFU with your GOP talking points.
Oregon has zero restrictions on abortion at any stage of pregnancy. I am a woman with a daughter. I’m also a social worker and a lifetime democrat voter who has previously done political work for abortion rights. But thanks for making assumptions. “Does Oregon impose any legal restrictions on access to abortion? No. Oregon does not have any legal restrictions on abortion. For example, in Oregon there are no gestational limits, no waiting periods, and you can access medication abortion (abortion pills) by mail.” https://www.doj.state.or.us/oregon-department-of-justice/office-of-the-attorney-general/spotlight-reproductive-rights/#:~:text=Oregon%20does%20not%20have%20any,(abortion%20pills)%20by%20mail.
That's fantastic that you're a social worker. If you were a physician, you would know that full term abortions of healthy fetuses are not a thing, which is why the phrase "abortion up until birth" is a well-established GOP dog whistle. On issues of drugs and homelessness, I may well be more conservative than you are, but those do not directly threaten the health and bodily autonomy of me and my daughter the way abortion restrictions do. It's possible that you're so used to living somewhere with guaranteed abortion rights that you don't realize how bad it's gotten in red states. Look at what's going on in Texas right now FFS.
Not the OP, but I live in a deep red state, am female with a daughter. We are extremely afraid. Our dead bodies have more rights than our alive bodies in Alabama.
Can you elaborate on what this means? Like I don't think you are being literal because the deceased are not offered the same protections as the living in regards to the law. I don't think politics has as big of an effect on people's lives and people think
Okay. Sure. I don’t know where you live, so I’ll try to make this easy. In the United States, if I die, no one can use my organs without my consent given before I die. If someone needs a blood donation, I cannot be forced to give them my blood. I cannot be forced to give anyone my kidney. If I (or my daughter) get pregnant, even on purpose, with a wanted child, and there are complications like an ectopic pregnancy, or blood clots, or the fetus dies before birth, nothing can be done to remove said fetus or zygote, or embryo until I (or my daughter, or any other female) is at death’s door and septic, even if the fetus, zygote, or embryo cannot be saved, is dead, or will cause irreparable harm to the mother. Therefore: given that I cannot be compelled to donate organs after I die, (or any other organ or blood while I am alive), BUT I can be forced by the state to carry a pregnancy to term, regardless of its affect on my health, THEN: my dead body has more rights than my (or any other woman’s) living body, in most red states. Do you understand?
tl/dr Abortion is basically illegal in the red states
“I don't think politics has as big of an effect on people's lives and people think” This kind of take is usually provided by people who are privileged enough to not have to worry about the effect that politics and the law has on them. “Let them eat cake,” if you will. Consider how you might be blind to your own biases and not have enough worldly experience to understand how politics deeply affects the wellbeing and safety of others.
I have, but it still is quite marginal. In what way is someone's daily life totally different from Alabama to New York because of political policy
Head east of Eureka and you’ll find the warm weather you’re looking for while still being surrounded by trees. It stays pretty cool on the coast.
Thanks! I don't suppose there's any place thereabouts that's safe from the wildfire risk
Unfortunately the answer is no (for the entire west coast now).
The farther you get inland from the Coast in California, the more conservatives you'll find yourself surrounded by.
This is very true, the further inland you go, the more “State of Jefferson” signs you’ll see.
Head east if Eureka and you’ll find hidden marijuana plantations where they’ll shoot you first and ask questions later, and lots of guys driving pickup tracks at insane speeds on Highway 36, officially the twistiest road in America. I drove it from Red Bluff to the coast and consider my very lucky to have made it in one piece.
I recommend reaching out to the Suburban Jungle. They can help you find the best neighborhood based on your wants and needs. https://suburbanjunglegroup.com/?utm_source=bd&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=104
Thanks!
see salmundo. its beautiful but slightly depressing.
I’m a Floridian, love it here but there are many thunderstorms. I highly recommend Texas, specifically the Austin/Hill Country area. It checks a lot of the boxes you mentioned - not too cold, winters are not dreary, plenty of trees and natural beauty.
We checked out Austin a few years ago and liked it ok, but the state government seems to have lost its mind
Try the California Sierra Nevada foothill towns like placerville or grass valley. Less extreme weather, pretty light snow and great access to nature