Is Carmichael Headed Downhill?? (Long Beach, Sacramento: sale, renting, mortgage)

[Aquaboy]

Originally Posted by Mr. Opinionated

Yes I have learned so much about Sacramento from his straight-forward insight, which makes me also consider if I should remain here. But then where in California, would be any better, affordably?

That's a tough one. Some coastal communities are more attractive places to live at many times the cost. Mountain towns can be nice with their own set of problems for normal people that move there. I suppose we will never be like the safe, 1950's America that some of us grew up in again.
The quick answer is there is none!

[Mr. Opinionated]

Originally Posted by Aquaboy

That's a tough one. Some coastal communities are more attractive places to live at many times the cost. Mountain towns can be nice with their own set of problems for normal people that move there. I suppose we will never be like the safe, 1950's America that some of us grew up in again.
The quick answer is there is none!

Depressingly true!

[wburg]

What makes you want to get out? Heck, I like it here a lot. It's not perfect, but I consider identifying problems to be the first, and most important, step in solving them. And while I wasn't around in the 1960s, I'm pretty sure that not everyone's America was all that safe and idyllic as 1950s TV shows make things look.

[Mr. Opinionated]

Originally Posted by wburg

What makes you want to get out? Heck, I like it here a lot. It's not perfect, but I consider identifying problems to be the first, and most important, step in solving them. And while I wasn't around in the 1960s, I'm pretty sure that not everyone's America was all that safe and idyllic as 1950s TV shows make things look.

I agree with your outlook. And although a kid, I was around during the 1960's, when even L.A. was more fabulous than now, if you can imagine, contrary to the sewer so many outsiders love to think of it as. But I do realize that our perception of an area, especially one where we were grew up or now reside, can be sentimentaly biased, appearing safe and even idyllic.

When I asked, "where in California, would be any better, affordably?",
It was a way of saying I might as well stay, whether Sacramento proves to be any better or not. And while I maintain that Sacramento falls short of it's vast potential, there will always be advantages and not so much, anywhere one could migrate to, depending on your perception.

[Aquaboy]

Wburg: for most Americans life in the 1950's was idyllic. You could leave your door unlocked at night if you wished; street crime and gangs were almost unheard of. I think the biggest difference to 2012 is there wasnt that fear that many people feel these days. There was no need for shotguns and pitbulls guarding your home. On the down side there was legal racism; certain groups and religions were barred from buying homes in areas like Carmichael and Fair Oaks until the 1960's. And life in the South for black people was not great.
Sacto. has some good things going. First, its still in Norther CA. Its affordable and the climate is good despite the summer heat. There are State jobs here, tho less than before. Depending on the part of town you dwell in crime is low, or nil. Access to health care is very good.
Moving out of Sacto. is a tough call unless you have tons of money or win the Lottery!

[Aquaboy]

Originally Posted by Mr. Opinionated

I agree with your outlook. And although a kid, I was around during the 1960's, when even L.A. was more fabulous than now, if you can imagine, contrary to the sewer so many outsiders love to think of it as. But I do realize that our perception of an area, especially one where we were grew up or now reside, can be sentimentaly biased, appearing safe and even idyllic.

When I asked, "where in California, would be any better, affordably?",
It was a way of saying I might as well stay, whether Sacramento proves to be any better or not. And while I maintain that Sacramento falls short of it's vast potential, there will always be advantages and not so much, anywhere one could migrate to, depending on your perception.

From what I've read Southern California was paradise for middle-class people in the 1950s. Great jobs, beaches, good housing. Nothing like today!!

[wburg]

In the 1950s, Sacramento completely leveled its Black and Latino neighborhood downtown because it was considered a den of vice, crime, disease, sin and assorted immorality. A lot of other American cities did the same, or tried to, at about the same time and for about the same reasons. And, as you mention, places like Carmichael were considered safe and idyllic primarily because you had to be white to buy property there--and, again, this was also the case in suburbs around the country. So keep in mind that when you say "most Americans" you're pretty much just talking about "most white, middle-class Americans."

"Leave it to Beaver" was not a documentary!

[KC6ZLV]

No, you didn't have to be white to buy property in Carmichael. Any restrictions were due to CC&Rs. There was no shortage of racist language in CC&Rs in the old areas of most cities. The level of racism was the same in both the older parts of the cities as well as the suburbs.

[wburg]

Most residential real estate development from around 1910 to the early 1950s had racial-covenant language in the CC&Rs. Nonwhites could technically buy property in the unincorporated county, if they found a buyer willing to sell it to them, but they couldn't buy into most of the suburban communities being constructed in that era--the CC&Rs were established with the subdivision map. Asians couldn't even own land anywhere in California until the 1950s due to our 1913 "Alien Land Law."

There were some specifically nonwhite suburban developments, like Rosemont, and some older suburbs that didn't have racial covenants (they were seldom used before 1910 or so) became nonwhite neighborhoods, like Oak Park and Del Paso Heights, but most specifically excluded them.

[Mr. Opinionated]

Originally Posted by Aquaboy

From what I've read Southern California was paradise for middle-class people in the 1950s. Great jobs, beaches, good housing. Nothing like today!!

Well keep in mind that geographically, Southern California is not just Los Angeles, but a very large area, stretching at least, from Bakersfield to the border. So yes, contrary to media claims and those made on this forum, there are still many very desirable places to for the middle class or anyone else, to settle into.