Not fresno. eww

 

Um, yes (though both are properly capitalized):



Duh.

 

Milwaukee isn't too bad. Pretty large city and close enough to Chicago that you can drive in to play.

 

seems like all those places suck. i vote dont listen to her and make it on your own.

sounds like its time for someone to travel the US

 

the pacific northwest options.

ive been to or lived in all of those cities and state. they suck balls.

milwaukee isnt bad, though. madison is too small

 

Oakland...lol
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPwOTqkZvwM [/media]

 

Depends what you're looking for...

Cali Central Coast: Extremely beautiful with the price tag to go along with it, especially if you want to be actually on or within a few miles of the coast. If you go inland the prices drop and it becomes more average America. Santa Cruz and Salinas are about as different as you could expect, so unless you really want to live in a big city there will be somewhere you feel comfortable provided you can afford it.

Crescent City/Eureka are both pretty, Crescent City much more so... but they've got no economy so there's a lot of retirees, and indigents. They're also rather slow with not much to do as a side effect of no one except old people having any money. Good place to go on vacation if you like hiking, kayaking, camping, and getting lost in redwoods. Not so great to live.

Fresno/Modesto/Stockton - No. Unless you're a fat couch potato that just wants cheap housing so you can afford more Cheetos. It's cheap because there are no redeeming qualities.

Oakland - Good parts, bad parts like most cities. Oakland is just a bit heavier on the bad parts than most. The Eastbay is a lot like the central coast, just more developed and not as rugged. Oakland is very urban, where as Moraga is gentrified country, and Brentwood is bigbox suburbia.

Sac - Hmm... well, there are worse places to live. Winters are fairly mild (mostly 30-40's with occasional freezes), hot dry long summers. There's a decent number of restaurants and a few clubs if that's you're thing. If you're an active outdoors-type it's not the best place. Its claim to fame is really being 2 hours from everything. So, basically anything you could ever want (skiing, surfing, wine tasting, the arts, fine dining) is within 2 hours, but for a lot of it you will be driving all two hours.

Tacoma - Rose and fell with the blue-collar unionized jobs, but the uneducated, unskilled, and entitled attitude is still pervasive. There are lots of nicer blue-collar suburbs that are closer to Seattle that aren't much more expensive.

Vancouver - basically, it's a suburb of Portland. Quiet, picturesque, family friendly, not too expensive, not a whole lot to do without going in to Portland. But I've only spent a few days there so I don't know much about it.

 

Remember, too, that this area doesn't have prototypical California weather. Northern California is very different in weather from Southern California. Eureka, for example, rarely gets above the mid-70s, even in August.

It's gorgeous country - no doubt about that - but you're not going to find much use for a bikini there.

 

lol, what do you do that would bring you to Mount Pleasant? I've been here all my life/26yrs and I can't wait to get out of here. BUUUUT, I'm single with no kids and have ZERO interest in the "country" life. The biggest industries in the area are trailer manufacturing, chicken processing, and coal mining. If you want to live in a small town that is a good place to raise a family it's not so bad. 100k will buy you a nice house in a nice neighborhood and 2-300k will get you in a place in the country club. Good pre K-12 schools and a growing community college (NTCC). I have a 3/2 brick house and shop in town on 4 lots and pay around 3k in taxes. Low crime means the cops will pay attention to any flashy cars not blending in with the country bumkins driving 5 under the posted limit. Plenty of churches to choose from here in the bible belt. The DFW metroplex is about an hour and a half west on I-30. Two other larger towns with malls are an hour away. The "night life" consists of country bars. The town is dry but booze is 15 miles west or south. All in all, it's not a bad place to live.

Anything else you want to know

 

I'd first like to say that Jackson, MS is definitely not the best option out of your new choices, but I will give some insight into it for you and display some positivity out of Mississippi.

The Jackson area itself you don't want to live in; all the white, affluent people have moved north into Madison. It's just a few miles north of Jackson and it's a great town and community to live in. The past few years it's actually be recognized as one of the top places in America to raise a family. Also, there are lots of single women in Madison trying to find a rich husband.

For entertainment in Jackson and Madison, it's just okay at best. There are about 5 colleges/universities in Jackson so there's also a good bit of bars and a good night life. In my opinion, Mississippi doesn't have that many great musical acts come through, and they are often few and far between - it sucks really. Also, if I remember correctly you're coming from Georgia Tech, so you at least have a familiar idea of what the South offers. It's not the greatest, but it's also better than most people assume it to be.

As posted before, the weather is always nice, and you're just a few hours from beaches and casinos and New Orleans (which has GREAT music and entertainment).

Lastly, if you were to consider Jackson, the demographic in Madison is heavily conservative and is also right in the Bible Belt. However, taxes are considerably low, and the cost of living is below average. All-in-all I really enjoy Mississippi, considering the geography and atmosphere, but I hope and act on bettering Mississippi for the future,