Something I frequently have discussions with people related to roads usually circles back to a couple things that seemingly are trending more and more as a negative:
- Increasingly long traffic commutes
- Increasing housing costs
- Increases for specific fees, taxes and/or tolls.
That got me thinking, what was my breaking point for moving from place for greener pastures? Leaving Michigan and the Mid-West for me was a desire to get away from the failing blue collar industries and malaise of a (especially at the time) dull Mid-West. When I left Phoenix it was due to the economy flatlining with the housing bubbles on top of home prices getting way out of control. Florida while economically viable for me was one of the more boring places I lived which eventually ended up with a transfer to California.
I've often heard the notion that people can't move because of family, I've only found that to be as true as you make it. Even when I was a kid my Dad would chase the money in career which had us in Michigan twice, Connecticut and Illinois. So it begs the question; is there any tipping point for you that would make you consider leaving the area you are in? If so what would those factors be and where would you considering going? For me at present moment I don't foresee leaving California but it wouldn't surprise me if I ended up in a transfer somehow to Washington State one of these days.
My breaking point is simple: Connecticut. I would live in Maine again, IF money were no object. :(
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on September 08, 2019, 03:00:16 PM
My breaking point is simple: Connecticut. I would live in Maine again, IF money were no object. :(
I would prefer Maine too over Connecticut again and really a lot of states. The same would be true for me regarding Maine over Connecticut even if I had to deal shape shifting clowns, undead pets, mist monsters or toilet aliens.
Well I've already lived there twice: Wells (1974-77) and Old Orchard Beach (1985-87). This time I'd like to be in Portland proper, with easy access to Cross Insurance Arena (hockey, WWE, concerts, etc.), Hadlock Field (baseball), the Jetport (PWM) and the Maine Mall in South Portland.
Breaking point?
I have moved lots of miles to get closer to family, for school and to get away from a dead-end career. Take your pick.
The only thing that will get me out of the Coos Bay area is when the Cascadia Subduction Zone quake hits. That will render the coast uninhabitable. This is my home area and I love it!
Rick
Retirement.
After living in five different states over a seven year period I've settled back in Boise for the last three, and I intend to stay here to build a life as best I can.
That said - everything is flexible, and I'd gladly move if the right career opportunity came up or if my financial situation allowed me to retire to, say, Mexico at a very young age. I can't envision a situation where I'd leave Boise just because I hate it - but very long term I envision living in a much more rural area with some land, probably in the Great Plains somewhere.
I've moved, on average, every 2.8 years, over the last 22 years, and then 4 different times whilst living in the Kalamazoo area. I'm going to move one more time when I get my own house (I live with my mom currently) and that is it. I do get tired of the winter here in Michigan and sometimes think about moving somewhere warmer, but I just don't have another cross country move in me.
If I could afford to move, which I can't,I'd have been out of illinois a long time ago. I am tired of living in this state, and it'snot just the corrupt politics. It's waking up every morning and seeing corn and traffic. At least if I was in Colorado, it's be mountains and traffic.
I'm 46 and I've only lived in 3 different places. Each time I've moved, I was legally an adult, so it wasn't because my family moved.
The first move was within Highland Heights. I moved because I was in college, and college students move. More specifically, I was tired of drama from family members and needed quiet to do my schoolwork without them complaining that I was making too much noise typing after they went to bed at 8 PM, or them throwing huge temper tantrums because I needed quiet.
I actually wanted to get out of greater Cincinnati altogether, but the university was just a mile away.
I had that apartment for over 4 years, but I was forced to move from it because new subdivisions caused sewage to back up into it through the shower drain. So then I moved to Bellevue. If I had to stay in greater Cincinnati, I wanted to stay in Highland Heights, but the only place I could find was in Bellevue. I've had that apartment for 22 years since.
This turned out to be a good move. I'd much rather live in Bellevue in 2019 than the crime-laden mess that was Highland Heights in 1997.
In other words, I only move because of intolerable drama or destruction of the home.
Other factors that would prompt a move include ongoing harassment in the community. This was a real problem from about 1986 to about 1997. I wanted to get out of the area because of it, or move to the northern part of the county, but my parents wouldn't do it because the rest of the family was in the area - even though the northern part of the county was where most of the rest of the family lived.
A bad political environment would be a factor, though this is less of a problem in urban areas than it used to be.
Certain serious crimes might be a factor, but other than the aforementioned harassment, I've survived those.
A lack of job prospects might be a factor, but I've seen only about 3 "help wanted" signs in 25 years, and still I've stayed. I make most of my money from writing anyway.
Soaring housing costs would be a factor, but I'm very wary about keeping gentrification out. I check property maps to see who owns surrounding properties so I can figure out what their intent is.
All the houses and apartments I've had have been good, if you just count the home itself. But Highland Heights was just an absolutely terrible location.
What would I do if I lost my current place? Housing costs are artificially high around here, and local government does absolutely zero to fix it. The only new housing built is luxury housing. That's it. I'd have to live on the river or in the woods. There's nothing.
I've only moved for work/school reasons so far, but a big reason I moved to Virginia was because it's less flat than Indiana.
I actually have been looking to leave Colorado and head back to my home state of California, or the neighboring state of Nevada, for various reasons, two of which are:
Weather (getting tired of winter, but I don't want to live anywhere where heat & humidity combine)
Legal online gambling (specifically poker)
I prefer living in the Western US.
As far as cost of living goes, there isn't much difference now between the Denver area and many areas of California, and it would actually cost less to live in, say, Sacramento.
If I were to move, it would probably be back to Rochester, since that's where most of my family is. I probably will eventually anyways, since my parents aren't getting any younger. That said, I'm not really looking to move out of the Albany area in the near term - the location is just too good for traveling; I can head out in 5 directions from here by interstate; for Rochester, that's only 3, and it doesn't stay interstate if you want to head south. Not to mention, Albany is near the Adirondacks and Catskills, and otherwise closer to places I'm interested in going to than Rochester is.
If I were to move within the area, it would probably be if I felt comfortable spending the extra money for an apartment with in-unit laundry, and for that I probably wouldn't need to even leave my current apartment complex if I was willing to wait for one to become available.
I would like to move back to Chicago someday, but I'm currently in no rush to do so. Having lived on the West Coast for over 30 years (first L.A. and then Seattle), I'm planning to stay there despite the possibility of an earthquake, forest fire and/or volcanic eruption, and next year will be the 40th anniversary of Mt. St. Helens. As for Chicago, the bad winter weather, political corruption, high crime rate and mass exodus are the four main reasons why I'm not coming back in the near term, but I would love to get season tickets to the Cubs, since they were my first love.
Quote from: Henry on September 10, 2019, 09:44:01 AM
I would like to move back to Chicago someday, but I'm currently in no rush to do so. Having lived on the West Coast for over 30 years (first L.A. and then Seattle), I'm planning to stay there despite the possibility of an earthquake, forest fire and/or volcanic eruption, and next year will be the 40th anniversary of Mt. St. Helens. As for Chicago, the bad winter weather, political corruption, high crime rate and mass exodus are the four main reasons why I'm not coming back in the near term, but I would love to get season tickets to the Cubs, since they were my first love.
So you prefer earthquakes & fires to snowstorms?
Quote from: Verlanka on September 11, 2019, 05:33:21 AM
Quote from: Henry on September 10, 2019, 09:44:01 AM
I would like to move back to Chicago someday, but I'm currently in no rush to do so. Having lived on the West Coast for over 30 years (first L.A. and then Seattle), I'm planning to stay there despite the possibility of an earthquake, forest fire and/or volcanic eruption, and next year will be the 40th anniversary of Mt. St. Helens. As for Chicago, the bad winter weather, political corruption, high crime rate and mass exodus are the four main reasons why I'm not coming back in the near term, but I would love to get season tickets to the Cubs, since they were my first love.
So you prefer earthquakes & fires to snowstorms?
Earthquakes and fires are random events that may or may not affect you. If you live in Chicago, it's near-certain you're going to get affected by a snowstorm.
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 11, 2019, 06:48:04 AM
Earthquakes and fires are random events that may or may not affect you. If you live in Chicago, it's near-certain you're going to get affected by a snowstorm.
Earthquakes and fires are also not comparable to snowstorms. Snowstorms are oft-recurring, extremely predictable and manageable weather events that are not inherently dangerous to humans and human property.
A snowstorm in Chicago very well may wreak as much havoc as an earthquake in San Fran would... but that is 100% Chicago's problem. If Upstate NY and other northern areas can get 2 feet of snow and carry on with business as usual, Chicago should be able to figure it out as well. And "affected" is a fairly relative term. I guess you could say I was affected by whatever snowstorms we got last year. What affected me most was that I'm fortunate to live in an area with proper management of and response to snowstorms!
I have spent much of my life living in other places, but I have always had the ability to return to Kansas, and it would take a great deal for me to give that up. My roots in the state go back at least to 1890, I have access to a couple of generations' worth of institutional memory in my hometown, and cost of living is low while salaries are reasonable. I look at people who live on the coasts and find it very difficult to escape the feeling that they effectively have their own tigers by the tail since cost of living is so high and salaries are all over the map.
As I have grown older, I have come to realize that while I am personally very left-oriented in terms of politics, that does not necessarily translate into a desire to live in a blue state where I would have to dedicate more effort and attention to regulatory compliance rather than being left alone to make my own way. For example, I find it difficult to imagine how I could get a daily driver to 25 years if I had had to deal with the California smog test.
I personally find Wichita unpleasant in the summers owing to the high evening dewpoints we have had over the past few years, but I have never been convinced that it would be a good trade to live in the intermountain West (generally drier, with higher fire risk and air quality that is often seriously compromised as a result of fires) or on the West Coast (heavy traffic congestion, elevated cost of living, higher risk of flooding and mudslides--and this is without taking into account earthquakes and the possibility of a Cascadia event).
This idea that snowstorms do not cause damage is totally false. The damage caused by accidents, ice dams (causing costly damage to homes) and to utilities is frequent and costly. Although a bad earthquake can cause a single catastrophic event, the annual barrage of snow is routine, frequent and a constant expense -- especially when you include snow and ice operations.
Quote from: webny99 on September 11, 2019, 12:16:47 PM
Earthquakes and fires are also not comparable to snowstorms. Snowstorms are oft-recurring, extremely predictable and manageable weather events that are not inherently dangerous to humans and human property.
Extremely predictable? So how much snow is Chicago getting this coming winter, and when will the first big storm be?
I also recall a couple busted forecasts this winter, at least one where much less snow fell than predicted, and at least one where some areas got much more.
Quote from: webny99 on September 11, 2019, 12:16:47 PMIf Upstate NY and other northern areas can get 2 feet of snow and carry on with business as usual, Chicago should be able to figure it out as well.
I get the impression that "business as usual" is defined differently for an urban area like Chicago versus a mostly rural area such as Upstate New York.
Come to think of it, the idea that upstate cities can handle 2 feet of snow without breaking a sweat is also false. Sure, they're used to it, but that doesn't mean work hours aren't lost as people dig themselves out or have to wait for plows to come by.
Re: disasters vs. weather - I think it's a pick-your-poison situation. Do you want a relatively rare event that's more likely to cause significant damage/injury/death when it happens, or a more regular event that causes those things on a smaller scale each time? I'd be interested to compare, say, earthquake deaths in the Bay Area since 1989 (the Loma Preita quake) vs. snowstorm/freeze-related deaths in Chicago over that same period.
For me, there's only a handful of cities in the country that I could reasonably make the living I do in the industry I'm in (it's a "non-traditional" line of work). I've spent a lot of time in all of those cities/metros, and we would be perfectly happy living in most of them. But factor in that my family is here (very helpful when you have a child) and the climate, and it made the decision easy for us.
That said, it's a pretty safe bet that we'll move once we retire/kid is in college. But that's a while away.
Thus far in my life I have only moved within the confines of the same metro area... so I haven't really relocated per se. Nonetheless, for all the moves I have made, the reason each time thus far has been:
- Father left temporary job for permanent job, we moved from one apartment to another to be closer to where his job would be
- Parents left apartment and purchased a condo
- Parents left condo and purchased a house
- I went away to college
- I finished college and went back to my parents' house
- I moved out into my own apartment, placed so I'd have a shorter commute
- I moved to a different apartment because I was sick of that neighborhood and wanted to be closer to my girlfriend
- I moved to a different apartment to move in with my girlfriend
- (pending, hasn't happened yet) I will be moving with my wife out of this rented apartment into a purchased home.
Going forward? I'd be willing to move elsewhere for a career advancement opportunity. Might even be nice if it's to somewhere with a lower cost of living. The challenge will be convincing my wife to move somewhere potentially far away from her nearest friend or relative.
You can't be safe from extreme weather.
ΑΚ, WA, ID, MT, WY, ND, SD, MN, IA, WI, MI, IL, IN, OH, PA, NJ, NY, VT, NH, ME, MA, CT, RI: Snow due to latitude
WV, UT, western half of CO, parts of NV, AZ, and NM: Snow due to elevation
DE, VA, DC, NC, SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, LA, TX: Hurricanes
CA, OR: Earthquakes
The other parts of NV, AZ, and NM: Extreme heat
NE, KS, OK, MO, AR, TN, KY, eastern half of CO: Tornadoes
This covers everything except Hawaii, which is a different part of the world that just happens to belong to the same country.
Quote from: Rothman on September 11, 2019, 05:03:38 PM
This idea that snowstorms do not cause damage is totally false. The damage caused by accidents, ice dams (causing costly damage to homes) and to utilities is frequent and costly. Although a bad earthquake can cause a single catastrophic event, the annual barrage of snow is routine, frequent and a constant expense -- especially when you include snow and ice operations.
None of that is truly threatening - to people or property - on a scale that's comparable to an earthquake, or even a fire or hurricane. Snowfall is much more manageable than any of those precisely
because it is fairly predictable and recurs frequently over large areas.
Quote from: Rothman on September 11, 2019, 08:37:06 PM
Come to think of it, the idea that upstate cities can handle 2 feet of snow without breaking a sweat is also false. Sure, they're used to it, but that doesn't mean work hours aren't lost as people dig themselves out or have to wait for plows to come by.
I never said we don't break a sweat. I just said it's business as usual, which very well may involve breaking a sweat, especially for those that snow blow or hand shovel. Relative to what happens in Chicago (and on most of the East Coast, for that matter), snow here causes very minimal disruption. What I mean by "business as usual" is no international airports brought to their knees, no extensive freight delays, no five-hour commutes, no nationwide media coverage, etc.
I think your perception is biased by the pride people have here in being able to cope with the snow. Despite that pride, it is definitely not business as usual -- like a regular sunny day -- when 2 feet gets dropped.
Even in the offices of Syracuse, people take snow days.
Finally, if anything is unpredictable, it is snowfall. And, you are greatly underestimating the costs snow incurs year after year, when major earthquakes and the like are quite infrequent.
And since when does Chicago not handle snow?
Quote from: 1 on September 11, 2019, 09:24:43 PM
\CA, OR: Earthquakes
Technically you could add a good portion of Missouri, Illinois, Arkansas, and portions of Kentucky and Tennessee due to the New Madrid fault. South Carolina also could be listed.
Quote from: 1 on September 11, 2019, 09:24:43 PM
NE, KS, OK, MO, AR, TN, KY, eastern half of CO: Tornadoes
AL, IA, IL (which had a tornado warning in Lake County tonight, as well as a number of F4's and F5's in the past), and MS should be listed.
Quote from: Rothman on September 11, 2019, 09:31:15 PM
And since when does Chicago not handle snow?
I can't say for Chicago proper, but the other agencies have not done the best job for the past few seasons.
Quote from: webny99 on September 11, 2019, 09:27:43 PMI never said we don't break a sweat. I just said it's business as usual, which very well may involve breaking a sweat, especially for those that snow blow or hand shovel. Relative to what happens in Chicago (and on most of the East Coast, for that matter), snow here causes very minimal disruption. What I mean by "business as usual" is no international airports brought to their knees, no extensive freight delays, no five-hour commutes, no nationwide media coverage, etc.
Freight delays, five-hour commutes, and airports brought to their knees are symptoms of infrastructure operating close to capacity. One of the rationales for the ongoing O'Hare modernization plan is to effect a great reduction in weather delays (80% is the number I recall) by replacing the six intersecting runways with six east-west runways and two diagonal runways. To the extent that utilization so near capacity is a sign of robust economic growth, snow-related crises can be seen as a good problem for Chicago to have. Conversely, upstate New York being able to dig itself out quickly after a two-foot snowfall does not necessarily speak favorably of the economic health of the region.
I'd add forest/wild fires as a much bigger hazard out west over earthquakes. That whole deal in Ridgecrest didn't even turn out to be that big a thing but all the wild fires last year killed loads more people and did way more damage. Even in Arizona the wild fires of the Colorado Plateau were a much bigger problem over the raw heat of the desert.
I'd rather deal with snowstorms rather than major natural disasters like fires, hurricanes, and earthquakes. Regarding ice jams, I would avoid living in an area prone to be flooded by one - which I already do as I strive to avoid areas prone to flooding, as we seem to be getting "100 year floods" every five years these days. Otherwise, the only severe damage I've heard of from a snowstorm is when the area south of Buffalo got seven feet all at once. That was pretty extreme.
Meanwhile, if you're hit with a hurricane, earthquake, or fire, you just lost your home and all your possessions. No thanks. I don't care if everything's insured - that's way, way, WAY more hassle than I want to deal with!
Quote from: Revive 755 on September 11, 2019, 09:58:04 PM
Quote from: 1 on September 11, 2019, 09:24:43 PM
\CA, OR: Earthquakes
Technically you could add a good portion of Missouri, Illinois, Arkansas, and portions of Kentucky and Tennessee due to the New Madrid fault. South Carolina also could be listed.
Being a bit pedantic here, but a growing number of seismologists are thinking that the New Madrid fault isn't active anymore. They're citing the Wabash Seismic Zone which is on the Illinois / Indiana border to the ENE. Indeed, the last major earthquake in the region was a 5.2 that struck Mt. Carmel IL in 2008.
Quote from: Revive 755 on September 11, 2019, 06:08:50 PM
Quote from: webny99 on September 11, 2019, 12:16:47 PM
Earthquakes and fires are also not comparable to snowstorms. Snowstorms are oft-recurring, extremely predictable and manageable weather events that are not inherently dangerous to humans and human property.
Extremely predictable? So how much snow is Chicago getting this coming winter, and when will the first big storm be?
The entire Chicago area will see several snowfalls, including some significant ones, between November 2019 and March 2020. That's a lot more predictable and a lot more detail this far in advance than you would ever get for an earthquake or a wildfire.
Quote
I get the impression that "business as usual" is defined differently for an urban area like Chicago versus a mostly rural area such as Upstate New York.
Upstate NY may be mostly rural in terms of area, but there are four metro areas of about 1 million people each, accounting for about 2/3 of the total population. In terms of how weather affects "business as usual", I don't see any reason why there should be a difference between a mid-size metro and a large one like Chicagoland.
Quote from: 1 on September 11, 2019, 09:24:43 PM
You can't be safe from extreme weather.
Snow is not extreme weather, by any definition.
Quote from: webny99 on September 11, 2019, 12:16:47 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 11, 2019, 06:48:04 AM
Earthquakes and fires are random events that may or may not affect you. If you live in Chicago, it's near-certain you're going to get affected by a snowstorm.
Earthquakes and fires are also not comparable to snowstorms. Snowstorms are oft-recurring, extremely predictable and manageable weather events that are not inherently dangerous to humans and human property.
A snowstorm in Chicago very well may wreak as much havoc as an earthquake in San Fran would... but that is 100% Chicago's problem. If Upstate NY and other northern areas can get 2 feet of snow and carry on with business as usual, Chicago should be able to figure it out as well. And "affected" is a fairly relative term. I guess you could say I was affected by whatever snowstorms we got last year. What affected me most was that I'm fortunate to live in an area with proper management of and response to snowstorms!
That's actually coming at my point from a different direction–if someone doesn't want to live in Chicago because of the snow, it is not because they are afraid of the snow hurting them, it's because they don't want to have to deal with the mental overhead of managing their lives around snowstorms. It's more akin to not wanting to live in Oklahoma because of the heat, rather than avoid it because of the tornadoes.
Quote from: webny99 on September 11, 2019, 11:33:02 PM
Quote from: 1 on September 11, 2019, 09:24:43 PM
You can't be safe from extreme weather.
Snow is not extreme weather, by any definition.
It is considered such here because there is no infrastructure. OKC got 14 inches of snow in 2009, and we had no ability to handle it because that had
never happened since the city had been founded. So the Highway Patrol just shut down the entire interstate system until ODOT had a plan.
I've always considered Kent Co, DE home wherever I was staying. I have many good friends & memories there.
I'm sole caregiver for me mum, she's 94 & cannot travel. When she passes I plan to return to my beloved Delaware.
Quote from: Rothman on September 11, 2019, 05:03:38 PM
This idea that snowstorms do not cause damage is totally false. The damage caused by accidents, ice dams (causing costly damage to homes) and to utilities is frequent and costly. Although a bad earthquake can cause a single catastrophic event, the annual barrage of snow is routine, frequent and a constant expense -- especially when you include snow and ice operations.
VDOT currently has a $220 million annual budget item for snow and ice removal.
It's gonna be expensive in any state that gets heavy snowfall. The western part of Virginia gets lots of it.
Quote from: Rothman on September 11, 2019, 08:37:06 PM
Come to think of it, the idea that upstate cities can handle 2 feet of snow without breaking a sweat is also false. Sure, they're used to it, but that doesn't mean work hours aren't lost as people dig themselves out or have to wait for plows to come by.
Friends in the Buffalo area say at about 12 inches accumulation driving starts getting pretty difficult for everyone. Even though they have one of the best snow removal fleets in the world.
Quote from: webny99 on September 11, 2019, 11:33:02 PM
Quote from: 1 on September 11, 2019, 09:24:43 PM
You can't be safe from extreme weather.
Snow is not extreme weather, by any definition.
Try a snow storm in the Sierras. Getting over even I-80 in the dead of winter can be a trip from hell.
Quote from: vdeane on September 11, 2019, 10:30:11 PM
Meanwhile, if you're hit with a hurricane, earthquake, or fire, you just lost your home and all your possessions. No thanks. I don't care if everything's insured - that's way, way, WAY more hassle than I want to deal with!
Do realize that the vast majority of structures in an area impacted by a hurricane or earthquake will likely survive it with little to no damage.
My big thing regarding hurricanes is simply: check the SLOSH maps for anywhere near the coast and flood hazard maps for anywhere near a creek or river. It is VERY predictable where homes will get destroyed by a major storm (tropical in nature or otherwise)... just don't be one of the idiots who chooses to live in a flood hazard zone and you've got little to worry about.
Earthquakes, too, are not really a problem... in places where structures are designed to withstand them. In this regard I have no qualms on California, the nature of seismic activity there has been well understood for a long time and their built environment is well-prepared to handle them. Note that the Loma Prieta and Northridge quakes both only killed a few dozen people in metro areas home to millions.
On the other hand, further up the Pacific coast, the hazard from earthquakes was not understood until recently and much of the built environment is
not built to handle it. Thus, there is no amount you could pay me to live west of the Cascades in Oregon or Washington. Those are areas where a lot of people are going to die or endure massive hardship the next time the Cascadia fault slips.
Quote from: webny99 on September 11, 2019, 11:33:02 PM
Quote from: 1 on September 11, 2019, 09:24:43 PM
You can't be safe from extreme weather.
Snow is not extreme weather, by any definition.
So you never had a day off from school because of snow?
Quote from: Duke87 on September 12, 2019, 01:22:56 AM
My big thing regarding hurricanes is simply: check the SLOSH maps for anywhere near the coast and flood hazard maps for anywhere near a creek or river. It is VERY predictable where homes will get destroyed by a major storm (tropical in nature or otherwise)... just don't be one of the idiots who chooses to live in a flood hazard zone and you've got little to worry about.
I've come to hate hurricanes. Their wind farm is often huge, like 200 miles diameter or more, their path is hard to predict, and with modern technology (the NHC website) you can instantly see the projected track and wind and size data. In the old days you had to take a lot of effort like listening to the weather radio reports and plot the track on a paper chart, and few people did that.
Aside from the wind they can drop massive amounts of rain, even as the remnants of a tropical depression. I live about 120 miles from the ocean, but even tropical storm force winds can do a lot of damage, and the rains can cause major river flooding as much as 200 miles inland, so seeing these storms in the Atlantic still makes a lot of people nervous here, especially when the projected track is headed this way.
This last hurricane did pass just east of the east coast, but made millions of people nervous and did actual damage to the Outer Banks.
Vdeane: By ice dams, I meant when you have heat escaping through the roof of a house which melts accumulated snow and then freezes over soffits and the like at the edge. Water then backs up on the roof and the leaks into the house, causing roof damage and interior damage. It is frighteningly common and very costly on a house-by-house basis each year.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 12, 2019, 05:26:22 AM
Quote from: webny99 on September 11, 2019, 11:33:02 PM
Quote from: 1 on September 11, 2019, 09:24:43 PM
You can't be safe from extreme weather.
Snow is not extreme weather, by any definition.
So you never had a day off from school because of snow?
Apparently, people took days off school for ball games, so that isn't a particularly relevant measure.
Snow days happen here, but they are rare; only in actual storms (a foot or more of accumulation), and not merely snowfall, which may occur every morning for a month straight and go largely unnoticed. I actually took more days off school for snow in private school than I would have in public school, because we were tied to several East Coast campus locations and they shut down at the drop of a hat.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 12, 2019, 12:42:35 AM
Try a snow storm in the Sierras. Getting over even I-80 in the dead of winter can be a trip from hell.
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 12, 2019, 12:12:06 AM
It is considered [extreme] here because there is no infrastructure. OKC got 14 inches of snow in 2009, and we had no ability to handle it because that had never happened since the city had been founded. So the Highway Patrol just shut down the entire interstate system until ODOT had a plan.
Snowstorms and blizzards can be extreme, especially in areas where they're uncommon, but accumulating snow alone is not extreme.
In order for a snow event to be considered extreme, it would have to bring even the places with top-notch infrastructure to their knees; normally requiring 18 inches or more of snowfall in a short time period. Such events are rare enough that they can't be grouped with regular, run-of-the-mill snowfall, much in the same way that a rainy/windy day here with 50 mph wind gusts might be exciting, but simply can't be compared with a major Atlantic hurricane.
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 11, 2019, 10:00:33 PM
Quote from: webny99 on September 11, 2019, 09:27:43 PMI never said we don't break a sweat. I just said it's business as usual, which very well may involve breaking a sweat, especially for those that snow blow or hand shovel. Relative to what happens in Chicago (and on most of the East Coast, for that matter), snow here causes very minimal disruption. What I mean by "business as usual" is no international airports brought to their knees, no extensive freight delays, no five-hour commutes, no nationwide media coverage, etc.
Freight delays, five-hour commutes, and airports brought to their knees are symptoms of infrastructure operating close to capacity. One of the rationales for the ongoing O'Hare modernization plan is to effect a great reduction in weather delays (80% is the number I recall) by replacing the six intersecting runways with six east-west runways and two diagonal runways. To the extent that utilization so near capacity is a sign of robust economic growth, snow-related crises can be seen as a good problem for Chicago to have. Conversely, upstate New York being able to dig itself out quickly after a two-foot snowfall does not necessarily speak favorably of the economic health of the region.
That's an interesting take that I'll be digesting for a while.
I tend to think that Chicago very well
could have infrastructure for handling snow equal or superior to what we have in Upstate NY. They've simply chosen not to invest as much into such, because they don't see the overall volume and recurrence of snow that we see. Their ill-preparedness for large snowfall is magnified by their transportation system already operating at or near capacity. The Twin Cities and Montreal are two examples of metro areas that handle much more annual snowfall than Chicago, and do so much more effectively than Chicago, and I don't think it can be argued that they have an excess of infrastructure capacity or are in decline economically.
Quote from: webny99 on September 12, 2019, 01:36:04 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 11, 2019, 10:00:33 PM
Quote from: webny99 on September 11, 2019, 09:27:43 PMI never said we don't break a sweat. I just said it's business as usual, which very well may involve breaking a sweat, especially for those that snow blow or hand shovel. Relative to what happens in Chicago (and on most of the East Coast, for that matter), snow here causes very minimal disruption. What I mean by "business as usual" is no international airports brought to their knees, no extensive freight delays, no five-hour commutes, no nationwide media coverage, etc.
Freight delays, five-hour commutes, and airports brought to their knees are symptoms of infrastructure operating close to capacity. One of the rationales for the ongoing O'Hare modernization plan is to effect a great reduction in weather delays (80% is the number I recall) by replacing the six intersecting runways with six east-west runways and two diagonal runways. To the extent that utilization so near capacity is a sign of robust economic growth, snow-related crises can be seen as a good problem for Chicago to have. Conversely, upstate New York being able to dig itself out quickly after a two-foot snowfall does not necessarily speak favorably of the economic health of the region.
That's an interesting take that I'll be digesting for a while.
I tend to think that Chicago very well could have infrastructure for handling snow equal or superior to what we have in Upstate NY. They've simply chosen not to invest as much into such, because they don't see the overall volume and recurrence of snow that we see. Their ill-preparedness for large snowfall is magnified by their transportation system already operating at or near capacity. The Twin Cities and Montreal are two examples of metro areas that handle much more annual snowfall than Chicago, and do so much more effectively than Chicago, and I don't think it can be argued that they have an excess of infrastructure capacity or are in decline economically.
I'll tell you what's done here for snow. The City of Chicago has a fleet of over 270 salt trucks with plows, over 20 smaller plows for alleys and the like, and can attach plow blades to over 200 city-owned garbage trucks. IDOT District 1 (which, IMHO, is the weakest link) attaches plows and salt spreaders to their dump trucks, as does ISTHA (which has 196 of them). My own city (Joliet) has 34 of these trucks specifically to plow the streets and spread salt. During events like the Groundhog Day Blizzard of 2011, they contracted private plow operators to aid in plowing the streets quickly.
I bet, given the costs of dealing with snow (snow/ice operations), work hours lost and property damage from it, that the U.S. has spent more on costs related to snow than damage caused by earthquakes or wildfires.
Quote from: Rothman on September 12, 2019, 02:06:05 PM
I bet, given the costs of dealing with snow (snow/ice operations), work hours lost and property damage from it, that the U.S. has spent more on costs related to snow than damage caused by earthquakes or wildfires.
Given that the northern 1/3 or even 1/2 of the country is subject to considerable snow and ice accumulations, that may well be the case.
I cited the current $220 million/year for snow and ice removal for VDOT, that is over a billion in 5 years, and for a state that has heavy amounts of show in the western part and moderate amounts in the eastern part. That does not include locality spending, and does not include work hours lost and property damage to vehicles in accidents.
The northern tier states get far heavier snows, and plenty of ice storms as well.
Quote from: 1 on September 11, 2019, 09:24:43 PM
You can't be safe from extreme weather.
ΑΚ, WA, ID, MT, WY, ND, SD, MN, IA, WI, MI, IL, IN, OH, PA, NJ, NY, VT, NH, ME, MA, CT, RI: Snow due to latitude
WV, UT, western half of CO, parts of NV, AZ, and NM: Snow due to elevation
DE, VA, DC, NC, SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, LA, TX: Hurricanes
CA, OR: Earthquakes
The other parts of NV, AZ, and NM: Extreme heat
NE, KS, OK, MO, AR, TN, KY, eastern half of CO: Tornadoes
This covers everything except Hawaii, which is a different part of the world that just happens to belong to the same country.
I would add ALL of CO as snow due to latitude, and elevation (not just the western half). Maybe the far southeastern corner doesn't have as much snow due to (wait for it...) lower latitude & elevation, but it is a threat every winter. Of course, they can get rather extreme with the heat there (just look at summer daily temperatures for Springfield, La Junta, Lamar...even Pueblo).
OR, NV, AZ & WA definitely have the threat of earthquakes (although this isn't weather). By the way, so do MO, TN, AR & IL due to the New Madrid Fault.
You failed to mention TX, OK, KS with the extreme heat (often accompanied by humidity).
WA also has a threat from volcanoes (as do OR & northern CA, to a somewhat lesser extent).
HI has to deal with volcanoes (at least on the Big Island) and tsunamis (any earthquake in the Pacific Basin, even thousands of miles away, can be destructive). WA, OR, & CA may have to deal with tsunamis whose origins can be both near and far (Crescent City, CA received significant damage in 1964 from a tsunami spawned by the Good Friday quake off the Alaska coast).
Not to mention the potential for ice storms in the Midwest, South, and East...
There is literally nowhere to go if you want to avoid any and all threats from Mother Nature.
^^^^
Aside from western Arizona along the Colorado River I've never observed a ton of earthquake activity in Arizona. Interestingly volcanism is probably a higher risk factor given there is a hot spot under the Colorado Plateau moving east from the San Francisco Peaks. Said hot spot is thought to been responsible for much of the tribal movement off the Plateau before Spanish colonization.
Quote from: 1 on September 11, 2019, 09:24:43 PM
DE, VA, DC, NC, SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, LA, TX: Hurricanes
Delaware is actually quite insulated from Hurricanes. And due to its size, it would need to take a very exact hit to become a victim.
NJ, NY, CT, RI, MA, ME & Nova Scotia are actually more likely to be in a hurricane's path.
I only included each state once.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 12, 2019, 03:18:27 PM
^^^^
Aside from western Arizona along the Colorado River I’ve never observed a ton of earthquake activity in Arizona. Interestingly volcanism is probably a higher risk factor given there is a hot spot under the Colorado Plateau moving east from the San Francisco Peaks. Said hot spot is thought to been responsible for much of the tribal movement off the Plateau before Spanish colonization.
I was thinking more of the Big One that is overdue for the southern part of the San Andreas...and might still be a pretty good shaker even as far away as Phoenix.
Besides, those mountains didn't form themselves...
I have lived here....in this house....since my parents bought it in August of 1973. Mom was pregnant with me at that time. I moved to a "bachelor pad/stabbin'-cabin" during my college years, but it was only a few streets away in this town. When my mom moved out, I moved in to keep the house lived in.
Mom passed away in 2003...my siblings & I co-own this place. I live here rent-free & mortgage-free. Why would I want to leave? My job is close by, it pays the bills, and I am known. Life is good!
I've lived in 2 counties and 2 independent cities - Harford County, Baltimore City, and Baltimore County, MD; Lynchburg, VA.
Edgewood, Harford County, MD ages 0-5 (suburban)
Jarrettsville, Harford County, MD ages 5-18 (rural suburban)
Lynchburg, VA for undergrad at Lynchburg College ages 18-21 (college campus in city)
Jarrettsville again after college ages 21-25 (rural suburban)
Baltimore City (with roommate) ages 25-26 (urban)
Perry Hall, Baltimore County (moved in with Mike) ages 26-27 (suburban)
Baltimore City again (two different places) ages 27-31 (urban)
Currently Bel Air, Harford County, MD 31-32 (suburban)
17 years rural suburban
6 years suburban
5 years urban
4 years college campus
I am so done with moving, lol, as I've lived in 5 different places in the past 7 years (3 of those in the same neighborhood in Baltimore City.) I first moved to Baltimore City because I really wanted to go at it on my own. My time was cut short there as I moved out to the suburbs into Mike's apartment. I convinced him to move to Baltimore City because I missed it. We started in a small apartment and moved to a row home. We now live in a suburban townhouse so that we could be near my family so that they can watch our daughter while we are at work (SIL 4 days, Mom 1 day per week.)
I personally could live anywhere, as rural, suburban, and urban places all have their pros and cons. My favorite of these places hands down was living on a small college campus in a city. I loved being able to take a short walk to almost anywhere I needed. I'm one of those weirdos who would be happy living in a senior apartment building one day because it'll feel like being in an older version of college again.
It will be really hard to move away from my family now that I've had the joy of living so geographically close to them again. I love seeing them multiple times a week.
iPhone
I wish I had never left Minnesota, but at the time, it was a money thing; so I guess that's my breaking point? If I move again, it's going to be moving back.
I have moved a few times. Each time I moved a little farther away. The reason(s) why I moved is the same as most other moves:
To live in a better location.
I now own property in a location that I like. The city is not cut in half by railroads. (There are grade separations.) It has every thing I need, and no Home Owner's Association to obey. If there is ever gentrification, I will fight against it.
Replying To Other Topics:
I would be happy living in part of the Southwestern United States, where there are no lawns to mow. An interesting place is Needles, California, from Snoopy! Seeing Interstate 40, and looking at its unusual alignment, I immediately suspected it is near Nevada. And it is very close to Arizona. What is most impressive is that the entire area, not just Interstate 40, is grade separated from Rail Roads.
Texas has hurricanes. Hurricanes impact the entire state. Far South Texas has extreme heat.
I would not like living in California, perhaps visiting Needles but that is it. It is very expensive in California. As already mentioned I deplore expensive places.
California and several other states has volcanoes, (Montana, Wyoming) Wildfires, Earthquakes, and even cold weather (including Snow and Ice storms) is in California also.
That means if I had to Choose My Poison, I would survive in Illinois. New Jersey would be better.
But I do not like cold weather. I do not like cold winds. I certainly do not like any accumulations of Snow and / or Ice. Some of these posts acts like it is Water Under The Bridge when it is actually stuck ON the bridge. Dealing with Snow and / or Ice is nowhere near easy. I can not ever believe that it is paradise in Northeastern United States. There have been several occasions of below zero (Fahrenheit) as well as Power (Natural Gas also) failures lasting DAYS. Before any body replies saying it is rare, I do not want to risk it. I have Solar and Emergency Generator, but I still do not like winter weather.
I do not like driving in winter weather. Also, I watched videos where other people are driving. It is Halloween in the middle of winter. If you are driving, or if you are in a city but you can't go any where be cause they closed The Interstate 80 or some thing.
That means I live in areas with minimal winter weather. (and minimal grass also)
If any Fault Lines decide to appear, I will build a sturdier house. If a Volcano decides to appear and erupt, I will most likely move away from it. If Volcanoes decide to surround my property, I am doomed.
I realize I never properly answered the question, lol. I blame new mom brain.
Honestly, at this point of my life, the only thing that would make me move is if I pursue my dream of going back for my PhD in urban planning and get a tenure track position in another part of the country. As for the PhD itself, my top 2 schools are University of MD College Park and University of Pennsylvania, which would have terrible but doable commutes.
I won't make any absolutes, though. I didn't expect that I'd move back home after undergrad but then the economy melted down. My favorite movie, after all, is It's a Wonderful Life, where main character George Bailey has all of these grand plans to leave his hometown but never does.
I confess that having to mow a lawn is not a guiding consideration for me in deciding where to live. I have actually been tracking lawn mowings (date, number of 39-gallon trash sacks filled with clippings, number of mower grass catcher emptyings to fill each sack, time required to finish, number of pushes of prime button required for the mower to start on first cord pull) since 2017, and for a lawn that is now mixed fescue/bermuda, I generally find it takes about 24 mowings a year with time to mow usually ranging from 45 minutes to 1 hour 30 minutes. (If it is the last mowing of the season in late November/early December, though, it can last as long as 4 hours since I am also collecting fallen leaves.)
With a working sprinkler system and a contract with a firm that applies lawn treatments, a well-established lawn is essentially maintenance-free other than for mowing and winterizing the sprinklers, generally by turning off the pump and then blowing out the lines with compressed air.
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 17, 2019, 09:46:10 AM
a well-established lawn is essentially maintenance-free
All lawns can be maintenance-free if you're lazy enough.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on September 17, 2019, 10:21:37 AM
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 17, 2019, 09:46:10 AM
a well-established lawn is essentially maintenance-free
All lawns can be maintenance-free if you're lazy enough.
One of the best things about living out west is you can realistically have a grass free lawn if you so desire. Unfortunately my wife doesn't agree...makes me miss my desert landscape that I had in Scottsdale.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 17, 2019, 11:57:42 AM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on September 17, 2019, 10:21:37 AM
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 17, 2019, 09:46:10 AM
a well-established lawn is essentially maintenance-free
All lawns can be maintenance-free if you're lazy enough.
One of the best things about living out west is you can realistically have a grass free lawn if you so desire. Unfortunately my wife doesn't agree...makes me miss my desert landscape that I had in Scottsdale.
I would really like to replace my lawn with native prairie grass. It'd be good for the wildlife and I wouldn't have to mow it! Unfortunately, it's expensive to do and I'm not 100 percent sure that city code even allows for it.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on September 17, 2019, 02:41:04 PMI would really like to replace my lawn with native prairie grass. It'd be good for the wildlife and I wouldn't have to mow it! Unfortunately, it's expensive to do and I'm not 100 percent sure that city code even allows for it.
Around here (climate zone Cfa, same as the vast bulk of the South, but within a few hours' drive of the BSk/Cfa/Dfa tripoint), buffalo grass is the popular eco-friendly choice. It grows prolifically if it is overseeded. However, it is green for a noticeably shorter fraction of the year than cool-season grasses like fescue. When our new library opened with buffalo grass as part of its landscaping, we received complaints about it going brownish in the fall while fescue on adjoining properties was still green.
I don't think true prairie grass is practical for typical suburban home landscaping, even in areas that were traditionally prairie. It has to burn periodically, and the resulting fire hazard is unacceptable for a fixed occupied dwelling. Bison and prairie dogs are also helpful in maintaining the soil biome and, of course, do not fit in suburban settings. In the past we have had people, including a district court judge, try to let their grass grow and then call it "prairie," only to be fined and forced to pay to have it mowed. In this city, grass over 18" high attracts a compulsory mowing order.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on September 17, 2019, 02:41:04 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 17, 2019, 11:57:42 AM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on September 17, 2019, 10:21:37 AM
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 17, 2019, 09:46:10 AM
a well-established lawn is essentially maintenance-free
All lawns can be maintenance-free if you're lazy enough.
One of the best things about living out west is you can realistically have a grass free lawn if you so desire. Unfortunately my wife doesn't agree...makes me miss my desert landscape that I had in Scottsdale.
I would really like to replace my lawn with native prairie grass. It'd be good for the wildlife and I wouldn't have to mow it! Unfortunately, it's expensive to do and I'm not 100 percent sure that city code even allows for it.
I tried Rye Grass but it was absurd trying to keep it alive in the summer with the amount of water it needs. I just planted Bermuda Grass which should work better since it ought to go dormant in the winter. Either way I'm chipping away at the amount of real estate dedicated to grass with walk way and porch expansions.
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 17, 2019, 04:01:50 PM
When our new library opened with buffalo grass as part of its landscaping, we received complaints about it going brownish in the fall while fescue on adjoining properties was still green.
Pfft. In Utah, we're amazed if the foothills are still green by June.
Quote from: US 89 on September 17, 2019, 04:58:07 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 17, 2019, 04:01:50 PM
When our new library opened with buffalo grass as part of its landscaping, we received complaints about it going brownish in the fall while fescue on adjoining properties was still green.
Pfft. In Utah, we're amazed if the foothills are still green by June.
Bet they were this year!
Our foothills were green (and mountaintops still had snow) into July.
But it's been a hot August and now September. Starting to remind me (a little) of growing up in SoCal, with some of the hottest days being in August and September.
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 17, 2019, 09:46:10 AM
I generally find it takes about 24 mowings a year with time to mow usually ranging from 45 minutes to 1 hour 30 minutes. (If it is the last mowing of the season in late November/early December, though, it can last as long as 4 hours since I am also collecting fallen leaves.)
I don't mow mine that many times. Maybe 10. This neighborhood has 1/3 to 1/2 acre lots, and a self-propelled mower makes it a lot easier. Some people have riding mowers. Some people hire a service.
I've lived in the Seattle area my whole life, but I'm considering leaving because of how expensive everything is. I'll likely never be able to afford a home in the metro area for a few decades, and even then there's always the risk of being dragged into a horrendous daily commute.
Quote from: Bruce on September 18, 2019, 12:08:09 AM
I've lived in the Seattle area my whole life, but I'm considering leaving because of how expensive everything is. I'll likely never be able to afford a home in the metro area for a few decades, and even then there's always the risk of being dragged into a horrendous daily commute.
I've considered Kitsap in the past but I've always been concerned urban sprawl, namely by way of cost of living will overtake it eventually.
Re: Lawn mowing
I have only had to mow my lawn a few times this year and I have only had to mow my back yard once, because it has been so dry. As a matter of fact, as of this week I will have mowed the yard more in September (2x) than I did in August (0 times). I live in southern Michigan.
If it's a dry summer, we can go for months without mowing.
If it's a wet summer, on the other hand, once a week is the absolute minimum.
Normally, once a week would be the expectation, because rain-free summers (or even a rain-free week, for that matter) are relatively rare.
Quote from: webny99 on September 18, 2019, 08:49:34 AM
If it's a dry summer, we can go for months without mowing.
If it's a wet summer, on the other hand, once a week is the absolute minimum.
Normally, once a week would be the expectation, because rain-free summers (or even a rain-free week, for that matter) are relatively rare.
That sounds horrific. Usually, once a week is only necessary in Oklahoma in late April and through May. By mid-June, things have dried out enough that you may have to mow once between July 1 and September 1. The heat and drought normally only breaks whichever week the State Fair happens to be that year, because it wouldn't be the State Fair if it didn't get rained on.
Quote from: Beltway on September 17, 2019, 11:33:02 PMI don't mow mine that many times. Maybe 10. This neighborhood has 1/3 to 1/2 acre lots, and a self-propelled mower makes it a lot easier. Some people have riding mowers. Some people hire a service.
I think our lot size is 0.27 acre, which is a bit larger than usual for the subdivision and may come from our backing onto a railroad line. We have always had self-propelled push mowers. In the past I have tended not to use propulsion assist, but now use it because the safety ignition interlock on our current mower operates in such a way that it is awkward to try to push the mower without assist. One neighbor has a riding mower. Many neighbors use lawn services, with pickup, trailer, and zero-radius riding mower being typical equipment. I don't have a hard figure on how many households in the neighborhood use automatic sprinklers, but we are part of a contiguous bloc of at least three houses that do, and I rarely see anyone attempting manual lawn irrigation.
Mowing once a week is the norm in this neighborhood. The lawn services arrive to mow each lawn once a week, rain or shine. This year and the past few have been wet, so even in August when grass clipping load is at its minimum for the year, there are usually enough clippings to fill a sack over three or four bag emptyings. In a relatively dry year (such as in the early part of this decade), multiple weeks' mowings can be skipped, a single mowing can yield as little as one bagful, and it is a struggle to keep the grass from going into dormancy with sprinklers operating three times a week. (Many neighbors run their sprinklers daily, but we do not because this gives rise to ponding and results in the grass forming weak, shallow roots.)
We are on friendly terms with our neighbors, so our lawn mowing regimen is informed partly by diplomatic considerations. We don't like our grass to grow significantly taller than in the yards on either side. We do, however, mow slightly higher, partly to promote good grass health. (The usual advice is not to cut more than one-third of the height of each blade of grass per mowing.)
Especially immediately after fertilizer has been applied, it can be self-defeating to skip mowings. This year we had a fertilizer application in late March, and I did not mow until April 22 because I was bound and determined not to start mowing until we were close to having to turn on the A/C. The grass was totally out of hand by that time, and the first part of mowing took three hours and filled three sacks at
nine bag emptyings per sack since the mower wouldn't stop clogging. Finishing the job the next day took a further hour and a half. It would have taken slightly less time overall, and been far less aggravating, to have started mowing once a week immediately after the fertilizer application.
I'm late to the thread.
Almost 3 years ago, I tried to move, due to changes in my life and a window of financial opportunity. However, my father decided to move into independent living a bit sooner than he had previously indicated...and my move was aborted because I had to get his house ready for sale.
I still want to move...but by disabled wife and I just don't have the flexibility/resources to make that happen. (It's hard to get a house ready for sale, and maintain it in that condition, when you're on the road 50% of the time and have a resident with health problems.)
The main reason for being interested in moving is that I am currently a telecommuter so I'm not necessarily tied to a specific location for work (although my current monthly trips into the office might require adjustment if it becomes less convenient to travel to Montréal), and my wife and I have family commitments in Memphis and southeast Alabama.
The main thoughts (some of which are conflicting) in considering a move, for me, are:
- I want to move no more than twice more in my life time; the next move should be my last move before it's time to go into "the old folks home".
- The next destination needs to have a couple of actuarial employers in commute distance, in case something changes with my current job/employer
- I'd prefer to live someplace with a reasonably low cost of living, and low taxes. Connecticut's taxes are miserable, and the upsides of living here aren't enough to offset those costs
- I am not interested in living someplace with significant exposure to hurricane or earthquake risk.
- The next move will be to someplace within a reasonable day's drive of our parents' homes .
- The next move will be to "ham friendly" property.
- The next move will be to property with good, reliable internet connectivity, sufficient for telecommuting to not be painful.
- We're not interested in fixer-upper properties.
We're already past our pain point in moving. The main reason we're still here are the logistics, and the difficulty in finding someplace that satisfies our requirements.
Does "ham friendly" have something to do with ham radio?
Interesting stories.
I live in the Netherlands, which is a small country, so people don't move so far from family that they only see them a few times per decade. In fact if you don't live in the periphery, much of the country is within a 90 minute commuting range. Which explains why we have such high traffic volumes and overloaded intercity trains compared to many other countries in Europe.
From what I've heard it is / was relatively common to move a thousand miles for a job opportunity in North America.
But are places like Los Angeles, San Francisco or New York really worth it? There are annual lists of where the paycheck stretches the furthest and many medium-sized urban areas in the south rank much higher once the income is adjusted for cost of living.
Is it worth it to live in an area that is extremely congested for an adjusted few thousand dollars more per year? I would value time and travel convenience as a quality of life factor as well.
It's not just money - it's also much easier to find a job in a large and prestigious metro area because that's where the employers are. Depending on what field you're in and how much experience you have, it might not even be possible to find a job in a smaller/less prestigious metro area at all, and the lower cost of living doesn't mean anything if you don't have an income.
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 18, 2019, 09:10:40 AM
Quote from: webny99 on September 18, 2019, 08:49:34 AM
If it's a dry summer, we can go for months without mowing.
If it's a wet summer, on the other hand, once a week is the absolute minimum.
Normally, once a week would be the expectation, because rain-free summers (or even a rain-free week, for that matter) are relatively rare.
That sounds horrific. Usually, once a week is only necessary in Oklahoma in late April and through May. By mid-June, things have dried out enough that you may have to mow once between July 1 and September 1.
Yep.. it was no fun, at least back when I was responsible for our lawn. You leave it for 10 days and its not only starting to get hard to cut without bagging, it could very well be the deepest lawn on the street. Fortunately, I don't have the lawn mowing responsibility anymore!
QuoteThe heat and drought normally only breaks whichever week the State Fair happens to be that year, because it wouldn't be the State Fair if it didn't get rained on.
:D
Quote from: ftballfan on September 19, 2019, 10:18:23 AM
Does "ham friendly" have something to do with ham radio?
Better than my guess - I thought he wanted to raise pigs.
Large metropolitan areas--especially alpha world cities like Chicago, Los Angeles, and Washington, DC--tend to have more to offer from an "adult playground" perspective, such as art museums and active theatre and chamber music scenes. To an extent, the costs and aggravations associated with transportation can be arbitraged away, e.g. by taking advantage of flexibility in setting working hours, relying on transit (especially heavy-rail-based) rather than driving, living in a smaller space closer in versus a larger space further away, etc. People vary in the importance they assign to individual criteria for deciding a place to live, so while it is generally recognized that your dollar goes further in smaller cities, that is not necessarily determinative for everybody.
Quote from: ftballfan on September 19, 2019, 10:18:23 AM
Does "ham friendly" have something to do with ham radio?
Having plenty of hogs nearby, for pork, bacon, ham, etc.!