45 replies to this topic

[Rich_T]

 

Absolutely fair assessment, though I think that corruption is corruption, regardless of party. My real point wasn't to examine the demise of Detroit in this thread, but to point out that ethnic make up of a city may not tell the story.

 

 

I vowed I'd never leave the San Francisco Peninsula. I could be in the city, visiting great restaurants, events, baseball games and jazz clubs in minutes. I could jump in the car any time and head out to the coast. I spent a lot of time on the coast.

 

The weather was great, and it wasn't too crowded.

 

Eventually, it did get crowded, and expensive, and I really couldn't afford buy a house in any decent area.

 

I had family in Sac, Elk Grove and a brother in law and sister in law in Folsom.

 

Looking at all they had to offer, I chose Folsom because I felt it was safe, clean, had good schools and plenty of out door recreation opportunities.

 

I still long for the coast, and may some day get back out there, but right now, I'm happy with my Folsom life.

 

You remind me that I should have also mentioned the housing cost factor.  I couldn't (and still can't) afford to buy the modest home where I grew up in the East Bay.

[Carl G]

While not specific to Folsom, but rather this entire region, another nice thing is how central we are to fun places to visit.  So many places are an easy day trip, whether down to the bay or up to the mountains, it is all very close.  Spend a Saturday night and you have a nice weekend.

[SacKen]

<< Folsom scores high in everything from safety, to schools, relatively short 25 minute commute time, and quality of life. >>

 

I don't automatically assume that Folsom is first and foremost a suburb of Sacramento; I consider Folsom to be its own hub.  As such, the "relatively short commute time" is not necessarily relevant.  Even though many people do commute to Sacramento, many do not.  But I understand that this article was from the perspective of looking at cities close to Sacramento.  Perhaps they only included Sac County, because EDH would otherwise make the Top 10 list.

 

And sorry if I offend anyone with this, but in this kind of report "safety" and "good schools" are always code for (or at least synonymous with) "not many blacks and Latinos live there".  They might as well just come out and say that for once.  Also, there are many "professional" people here, in the tech industry etc., which help with the "safety" and "good schools".

 

I've lived here for almost 20 years now, and I actually don't see myself living here forever, but we'll see.  It worked for raising my daughter, but she's moved on, and I can think of other places in the world that are more interesting for empty nesters.  But it's been a good run.

 

All in all, I'd say the #1 ranking is warranted, and in answer to Steve's question, I think the desirability is going down ever so slightly with each passing year, as development keeps happening (sprawl and density both), and things start getting a little too crowded.  But Folsom may well remain #1 in the area for overall desirability.  Of course, what matters most is not an analysis at the city level, but at the neighborhood level.

 

Good gawd... so now making a decision based on a statistic that is 100% relevant to a quality of life discussion is code for racism?  That's effing idiotic.  *sigh*  So, I guess you would rather live in North Highlands than Elk Grove?  There's way more white folk in NH than EG and about the same black and Mexican population.  I wonder why it didn't make the list? Oh, that's right.  It's a crime-ridden crap hole with crappy schools.

[Rich_T]

 

Good gawd... so now making a decision based on a statistic that is 100% relevant to a quality of life discussion is code for racism?  That's effing idiotic.  *sigh*  So, I guess you would rather live in North Highlands than Elk Grove?  There's way more white folk in NH than EG and about the same black and Mexican population.  I wonder why it didn't make the list? Oh, that's right.  It's a crime-ridden crap hole with crappy schools.

 

I'm having trouble understanding your reaction.  My point was that "safety" and "good schools" are the same as saying "not many blacks and Latinos live there", but that no one ever will say it out loud.  Your North Highlands example does not change anything about that, since many black people do live there (over 40% of population in 2000).  (Those with enough education to leave, do.)  But to clarify even further:  I'm not saying that any area with a low black/Latino population is going to have good schools and low crime (though it's more likely).  That's not what I was saying, in case you thought it was.  What I'm saying is that any area with good schools and low crime will have a low black/Latino population.  I'm not glorifying the fact, I'm stating it as a simple truth that everyone knows, but which must never be mentioned in "best place to live" reports, for obvious reasons.  So just accept it and let's move on to other aspects of why Folsom is a good place to live. It's not like this was the key point of my previous comment.

[Steve Heard]

 

 What I'm saying is that any area with good schools and low crime will have a low black/Latino population.

 

That is certainly the perception out there, and it is often but now always true. There are dozens of affluent communities with predominantly black populations that have great schools and low crime. Note the word 'affluence'.  

 

Just as the difference between the white population in Folsom vs North Highlands is affluence and the schools are better here and the town is safer, similarly with communities like Ketterling Md vs. Baltimore. 

[Rich_T]

 

That is certainly the perception out there, and it is often but now always true. There are dozens of affluent communities with predominantly black populations that have great schools and low crime. Note the word 'affluence'.  

 

Just as the difference between the white population in Folsom vs North Highlands is affluence and the schools are better here and the town is safer, similarly with communities like Ketterling Md vs. Baltimore. 

 

I appreciate your valiant efforts, Steve, but it would be better to leave it alone, otherwise I feel compelled to respond, and it keeps dragging on, and I feel like I'm being yanked into hijacking this thread, which was not my intent. 

 

For example, I just can't take this nice-sounding line seriously:

 

"There are dozens of affluent communities with predominantly black populations that have great schools and low crime."

 

I actually can't think of a single one in California, let alone anywhere else of which I'm aware.  Maybe someone can help me out, and we can identify the needle in the haystack.  Let's start with Northern California.  Anyone?  A majority-black area with great schools and low crime?

 

You referenced Kettering, Md., a Beltway town of 11,000 people.  Not the best choice (or maybe it is).  Despite its relative affluence, its middle school ranks 3 on a scale of 10 on the "Great Schools" website (http://www.greatscho...-Middle-School/).  Among the comments are these:  "Teachers, I believe are afraid of the students, frankly they should be. They are rude, vulgar, disrespectful, run their mouth too much, fight, have no home training and cannot spell, nor pronounce their own name."  "This is the most terrible school I have been into. Students do what they want and their is no order in there."  "The school is so ghetto and ugly."  "I think one of the biggest problems was the student body. Too many undisciplined and disrespectful children. You could expect 3 or 4 fights if not more a week at that school."  "If they have a negative star then I would have selected that. This i the worst school you can send your child to."  Doesn't sound like Folsom schools to me, and I doubt any of us would move to Kettering for the "good schools".   So maybe affluence isn't the decisive factor at work.

 

I wouldn't choose Kettering as a safe place to live, either.  Although it's not especially bad, these are the facts according to this website (http://www.areavibes...ering-md/crime/):

• Kettering is safer than 38.6% of the cities in the nation.  (So it's not safer than 61.4% of cities in the nation.)
• The estimated chance of being a victim of a violent crime in Kettering is 1 in 276.
• The estimated chance of being a victim of a property crime in Kettering is 1 in 38.

In other words, I wouldn't move there to get safer, unless I were coming from a really unsafe place.  And yet, Kettering is perhaps as good as it gets for a majority-black city.  But I'm open to hear about any of the other "dozens" of examples.  I will agree that affluent black enclaves (assuming that such exist) are bound to be far safer than ghettos, but I am guessing that they still do not manage to reach the same level of "good schools" compared with, say, Folsom.  Kettering didn't.

 

In summary, it's a pleasant idea that "affluence" magically causes schools to be good and neighborhoods to be safe, as opposed to the unpleasant reality that affluence is just another symptom, along with safety and good schools, of the root cause, which is a culture that succeeds at education and discourages destructive behaviors.  To the extent that majority-black areas can't break through to have such a culture (for whatever reasons), the discrepancies will persist, and the "best places to live" will look like they do today.

 

--

 

P.S.  Maybe this list will help that I found at http://atlantablackstar.com/2014/01/03/10-richest-black-communities-america/.  This is actually getting interesting:  Baldwin Hills California, Fort Washington Maryland, Friendly Maryland, Hillcrest New York, Kettering Maryland, Ladera Heights California, Mitchellville Maryland, Uniondale New York, View Park-Windsor Hills California, Woodmore Maryland.  I'm learning stuff I didn't know.

 

Kettering, the one you mentioned, is pretty much a dud.  So I checked out Baldwin Hills.  The main high school seems to be Susan Miller Dorsey High School, with an API score of 611 - lousy by Folsom's standards.  It has another "3 out of 10" rating (like Kettering) on the "Great Schools" website.  I'm sensing a pattern here.   The town also has above-average rates of all types of crime.  Probably not a "best place to live".  And this is one of the "top 10 richest" majority-black cities.

 

I'll let anyone who's interested continue with this exploration.  Sorry for the novel.

[4thgenFolsomite]

There was a time not that many years ago when people who lived in Folsom would have objected to being called a suburb of Sacramento. . We are a city in our own right, after all!

[rip]

I agree 4thgen.  When we moved to the area last spring we looked all over the 50 corridor (I work in Rancho) for a place to land.  One of the primary reasons my family chose Folsom was that it seemed like it's own city.  Reminded me of the small town I grew up in.  Now that we have been here for awhile, couldn't be happier with our choice.  Good schools, parks, tons of activities for the kids, superb cycling and quick access to the mountains.  Not much to complain about.    

[TruthSeeker]

I looked at Folsom as a rural town of sorts over 10 years ago. Now we're just another burb like every place else. 

[4thgenFolsomite]

I looked at Folsom as a rural town of sorts over 10 years ago. Now we're just another burb like every place else. 

over 10 years ago doesn't seem that long.  i think I have ketchup that old.    kidding.  actually more like mustard.

[TruthSeeker]

over 10 years ago doesn't seem that long.  i think I have ketchup that old.    kidding.  actually more like mustard.

 

I like mustard more too. What's your favorite? Mine's Goulden's Spicy.

 

Is it just me or did this thread get a bit racist? I've never pointedly attributed poor schools and crime to always being caused by minority populations. Does this mean that minorities are the cause of 99% of all crimes and poor grades? I've been to a few hillbilly southern white towns where the white population made rocks look smarter then them and they would rob their own moms for cigarette money.

[nomad]

I think this Best in Class rating that Folsom has received is only going to perpetuate the City Council to keep "doing what they do." I mean, their actions got them this award right?

[Rich_T]

 

I like mustard more too. What's your favorite? Mine's Goulden's Spicy.

 

Is it just me or did this thread get a bit racist? I've never pointedly attributed poor schools and crime to always being caused by minority populations. Does this mean that minorities are the cause of 99% of all crimes and poor grades? I've been to a few hillbilly southern white towns where the white population made rocks look smarter then them and they would rob their own moms for cigarette money.

 

Only if the word "racist" now means nothing more than "race is being discussed".  Again I say:  It's not that every heavily white or "Asian" town has great schools and low crime (though that is the norm in suburbia).  Rather, it's that no heavily black or Latino town does, which is why those towns are not in the Top 10 of "best places to live" reports.  If people are being honest with themselves, it's a shorthand way of knowing which places a newcomer wouldn't want to live, but instead it's polite to say "good schools" and "safe neighborhoods".  The result is the same.  But I promise not to keep harping on this if people don't keep challenging the concept.

 

I prefer to change the topic to the idea of Folsom being a stand-alone city, which is something in its favor that other places with good schools and low crime cannot necessarily offer.

[bordercolliefan]

Only if the word "racist" now means nothing more than "race is being discussed".  Again I say:  It's not that every heavily white or "Asian" town has great schools and low crime (though that is the norm in suburbia).  Rather, it's that no heavily black or Latino town does, which is why those towns are not in the Top 10 of "best places to live" reports.  If people are being honest with themselves, it's a shorthand way of knowing which places a newcomer wouldn't want to live, but instead it's polite to say "good schools" and "safe neighborhoods".  The result is the same.  But I promise not to keep harping on this if people don't keep challenging the concept.

I think the issue is that when you say no primarily black or Latino town is safe or has good schools, it makes it sound like the residents being black or Latino is the cause of the lack of safety/poor schools. It might actually be that poverty is the cause of the lack of safety/poor schools, and it just happens that blacks and Latinos are disproportionately poor. Then we can argue--or better yet, look for research--on why that's the case. I imagine the answer is complicated.

[camay2327]

I am open to GRANT MONEY. For a Million I would do some research.