8 replies to this topic

[Steve Heard]

It's happened many times over the years; Forbes, CNN, Business Week, Nerdwallet, and other organizations named Folsom California as one of America's best places to live. It's happened again, with Wall Street 24/7's new list of America's best.

 

Taking into account such factors as housing affordability, crime rates, employment, education, restaurants and more, they looked at 550 US cities with populations of over 65,000. 

 

Folsom came in at number 22. 

 

Quoting the article, WS247 says, "The California city’s population growth rate of 22.7% over the decade ending with 2014 is about 12 percentage points higher than the national growth rate. The typical household in Folsom makes more than $100,000 annually, nearly twice the national median income. Even after income is adjusted for the high cost of living in Folsom, the adjusted $92,000 income is still among the highest in the country. Just 5.0% of the city’s population lives below the poverty line, less than one-third of the national poverty rate."

 

Folsom's median home price of $445,000 is over twice the national average. 

 

Full article and list here:

 

See Folsom Homes for Sale

[Rich_T]

These lists are generally about suburban medium-sized cities for middle-class families, and should be viewed in that spirit.  Obviously, America's truly BEST places to live are the ones that are out of reach for 99% of the population - places like Bel Air, complete with private schools, fancy restaurants, private security, etc.  That's why houses cost several million dollars in such places.

 

But since housing affordability is part of the mix for choosing these "best" places to live, I find it interesting that Folsom has home prices and average income that are growing faster than in most other places, yet is still high up on the list, not yet having been bumped down for relative housing inaffordability.

 

I also notice that they picked many cold-weather locations as "better" places to live than Folsom.  I'll say "no thanks" to living in Eagen MN, Bethlehem PA, etc - you can keep your long cold winters!  We have the Sierras an hour away when we need snow (well, in most years).

 

I also think that buyers searching for best places to live would consider cities smaller than 65,000 in size (think EDH, for example).

[Steve Heard]

These lists are generally about suburbia for middle-class residents, and should be viewed in that spirit.  Obviously, America's truly BEST places to live are the ones that are out of reach for 99% of the population - places like Bel Air.  Private schools, fancy restaurants, private security, etc.  That's why houses cost several million dollars in such places.

 

But housing affordability is part of the mix for choosing these "best" places to live.  I find it interesting that Folsom has home prices and average income that are growing faster than in most other places, yet is still on the list, not yet having been disqualified for housing inaffordability.

 

I think in terms of affordability, the question they have to ask is whether people who live in town can afford to buy homes there.

 

I the case of Folsom, looking at the median of $445K, with 20% down, that would be a loan of $356K. 

 

With principal, interest, tax and insurance, that should be in the $2300 payment range, which should require about $70K in income, and this town averages over $100K income per household, so even though it is not affordable to some, it is too many others.

[Rich_T]

 

I think in terms of affordability, the question they have to ask is whether people who live in town can afford to buy homes there.

 

I the case of Folsom, looking at the median of $445K, with 20% down, that would be a loan of $356K. 

 

With principal, interest, tax and insurance, that should be in the $2300 payment range, which should require about $70K in income, and this town averages over $100K income per household, so even though it is not affordable to some, it is too many others.

 

It works if you have a relatively high household income, compared to the rest of the country.  It's great if you're coming from having sold a home in the Bay Area.  It's not so great if you're coming from - well, from Meridian, Idaho (their #1 choice).

[Robert Gary]

I can't think of too many places that are better to live in. I make regular use of the bike trails, the lake, the restaurants, easy access to skiing, etc. 

 

-Robert

[caligirlz]

 

I the case of Folsom, looking at the median of $445K, with 20% down, that would be a loan of $356K. 

 

With principal, interest, tax and insurance, that should be in the $2300 payment range, which should require about $70K in income, and this town averages over $100K income per household, so even though it is not affordable to some, it is to many others.

Really?? a 70K income can now afford $445K? So > 3 times your gross income is once again the norm? No wonder people think another bubble is on the way.

 

I had a friend who recently sold her house in Folsom & moved to EDH. Claims to have basically traded the house. The realtor is a mutual friend, we talked. ...basically, house sold for xyz, house bought for a little more than xyz. I looked at the stats for what my house could possibly sell for, and then looked at the houses selling in Folsom for the same amount. All required more $$$ for updates than I put in my house when i bought, most were in much worse shape as they were older and had not been updated. A larger house, better floor plan and numerous added costs is not worth it in that price range to me. Just interesting what people will do.

[Robert Gary]

It's expensive because it's a great place to live. I don't get the argument that everyone has the right to a house in Beverly Hills.

[Sandman]

Bel-Air...  Really??  I guess if living amongst over pretentious botox injected snobs is your cup of tea...  No thanks

 

On a whole I tend to ignore articles like this as they generalize the definition of "best" as though it applies to everyone.  Best place to live is subjective on so many levels.  I think where you are at in your life whether a young student, working/raising a family, or retired plays a big part.

 

Folsom is pretty tough to beat for raising a family but I have no plans of living here once I am retired.

[Rich_T]

Bel-Air...  Really??  I guess if living amongst over pretentious botox injected snobs is your cup of tea...  No thanks

 

On a whole I tend to ignore articles like this as they generalize the definition of "best" as though it applies to everyone.  Best place to live is subjective on so many levels.  I think where you are at in your life whether a young student, working/raising a family, or retired plays a big part.

 

Folsom is pretty tough to beat for raising a family but I have no plans of living here once I am retired.

 

I agree with you about the "phase of life" aspect.  Places that are nice for parents and their school-age children (or younger) are not usually the most attractive places for young singles.  Oldsters may or may not prefer Folsom over other possibilities.

 

Bel Air is an example of places where houses and restaurants and surroundings are objectively nicer and safer, but the trade-off is that almost no one can afford to live there, and then there's the complaint of being too "snooty".  But the high prices reflect the desirability, so they must be the "best" places to live.  Your mileage will vary, and apparently does.  We middle-classers tend to learn to like the things in life that fit our budget, and that's a good thing.  I wouldn't need to live in Bel Air either, but look at all the "moving on up" folks who do leave Folsom for Serrano or Los Lagos or what have you, once they make a little more money.  Wealthy places are nicer places, by and large, which makes perfect sense.  Our defense mechanism here in suburbia is to sniff at the pretentiousness of those places.  I do it, too, and I'm sincere in my sniffing.  But that doesn't make Folsom "nicer" than Bel Air, it just means I am using the subjective criteria that fit my world.  "Best" is a malleable word.