TexasCHLforum.com

Having lived on both coasts and having been exiled to the cold and snow, not to mention stifling state income taxes, numerous restrictions on personal freedoms, lack of economic growth, etc., etc. Why would anyone want to live anywhere but Texas????? REALLY?

Bitter Clinger wrote:Having lived on both coasts and having been exiled to the cold and snow, not to mention stifling state income taxes, numerous restrictions on personal freedoms, lack of economic growth, etc., etc. Why would anyone want to live anywhere but Texas????? REALLY?

Perhaps because it's a safe bet that Dallas is the next Texas city to turn blue.(ok, top 3)?
The survey didn't say "Texas", it said "Dallas". No thanks.

RoyGBiv wrote:

Bitter Clinger wrote:Having lived on both coasts and having been exiled to the cold and snow, not to mention stifling state income taxes, numerous restrictions on personal freedoms, lack of economic growth, etc., etc. Why would anyone want to live anywhere but Texas????? REALLY?

Perhaps because it's a safe bet that Dallas is the next Texas city to turn blue.(ok, top 3)?
The survey didn't say "Texas", it said "Dallas". No thanks.

I've described Dallas as the NYC of Texas. No way so no vote.

RoyGBiv wrote:

Bitter Clinger wrote:Having lived on both coasts and having been exiled to the cold and snow, not to mention stifling state income taxes, numerous restrictions on personal freedoms, lack of economic growth, etc., etc. Why would anyone want to live anywhere but Texas????? REALLY?

Perhaps because it's a safe bet that Dallas is the next Texas city to turn blue.(ok, top 3)?
The survey didn't say "Texas", it said "Dallas". No thanks.

But the OP also said it could be a suburb of the city, there are some nice suburbs of Dallas that are definitely not blue or purple or pink, you get the idea. I wouldn't live in Dallas proper in any way shape or form.

I would stay in Texas.

In this order:

1. Dallas, Texas (although, almost anyplace in Texas outside of El Paso would be fine.....I've lived there, and don't like it enough to want to live there again...).
2. Phoenix, Arizona (Flagstaff, where I would rather live, is a short distance away)
3. Salt Lake City, Utah (would prefer Logan, Utah)
4. Boise, Idaho (actually tied with Salt Lake City and Phoenix, and would much prefer Kalispell, Montana)
5. Albuquerque, New Mexico
6. Seattle, Portland, and Denver are all the same to me. Not interested.

Phoenix, Salt Lake City, and Boise are nearly a 3-way tie for me. But those last three are no different for me than living in San Francisco or Los Angeles. Sure, maybe Seattle, Portland, or Denver are prettier than SF or LA, but, so is a large part of the rest of California, and the beauty of California is not worth (to me) the headaches and heartaches of having to live around and be totally outnumbered a bunch of stoned progressives who have zero valid ideas for governance and zero interest in reformation.

As much as I love living in Texas, and would never go back to California, the truth is that California is a more beautiful state in many ways. It's beaches are more beautiful. It's mountains are more beautiful. It's lakes are more beautiful. It has some truly majestic rivers. In sheer beauty of geography, California beats Texas hands down. BUT.......... Texans are smarter, more energetic, more appreciative of liberty, more business friendly, don't think that more government is the answer to all things. Furthermore, despite California being a "sanctuary state" for illegal aliens, Texas has done a much better job of integrating Spanish cultural traditions into the state's Anglo traditions, to create the uniquely Texan culture, which is deeper and richer than whatever passes for "culture" in California. I love it here, and whenever I have to go back to California, despite the geographic beauty, I have nothing but heartburn until I get back across the Californian border and into the United States.

The Annoyed Man wrote:In this order:

1. Dallas, Texas (although, almost anyplace in Texas outside of El Paso would be fine.....I've lived there, and don't like it enough to want to live there again...).
2. Phoenix, Arizona (Flagstaff, where I would rather live, is a short distance away)
3. Salt Lake City, Utah (would prefer Logan, Utah)
4. Boise, Idaho (actually tied with Salt Lake City and Phoenix, and would much prefer Kalispell, Montana)
5. Albuquerque, New Mexico
6. Seattle, Portland, and Denver are all the same to me. Not interested.

Phoenix, Salt Lake City, and Boise are nearly a 3-way tie for me. But those last three are no different for me than living in San Francisco or Los Angeles. Sure, maybe Seattle, Portland, or Denver are prettier than SF or LA, but, so is a large part of the rest of California, and the beauty of California is not worth (to me) the headaches and heartaches of having to live around and be totally outnumbered a bunch of stoned progressives who have zero valid ideas for governance and zero interest in reformation.

As much as I love living in Texas, and would never go back to California, the truth is that California is a more beautiful state in many ways. It's beaches are more beautiful. It's mountains are more beautiful. It's lakes are more beautiful. It has some truly majestic rivers. In sheer beauty of geography, California beats Texas hands down. BUT.......... Texans are smarter, more energetic, more appreciative of liberty, more business friendly, don't think that more government is the answer to all things. Furthermore, despite California being a "sanctuary state" for illegal aliens, Texas has done a much better job of integrating Spanish cultural traditions into the state's Anglo traditions, to create the uniquely Texan culture, which is deeper and richer than whatever passes for "culture" in California. I love it here, and whenever I have to go back to California, despite the geographic beauty, I have nothing but heartburn until I get back across the Californian border and into the United States.

California..more beautiful..than Texas..?

Javier730 wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:In this order:

1. Dallas, Texas (although, almost anyplace in Texas outside of El Paso would be fine.....I've lived there, and don't like it enough to want to live there again...).
2. Phoenix, Arizona (Flagstaff, where I would rather live, is a short distance away)
3. Salt Lake City, Utah (would prefer Logan, Utah)
4. Boise, Idaho (actually tied with Salt Lake City and Phoenix, and would much prefer Kalispell, Montana)
5. Albuquerque, New Mexico
6. Seattle, Portland, and Denver are all the same to me. Not interested.

Phoenix, Salt Lake City, and Boise are nearly a 3-way tie for me. But those last three are no different for me than living in San Francisco or Los Angeles. Sure, maybe Seattle, Portland, or Denver are prettier than SF or LA, but, so is a large part of the rest of California, and the beauty of California is not worth (to me) the headaches and heartaches of having to live around and be totally outnumbered a bunch of stoned progressives who have zero valid ideas for governance and zero interest in reformation.

As much as I love living in Texas, and would never go back to California, the truth is that California is a more beautiful state in many ways. It's beaches are more beautiful. It's mountains are more beautiful. It's lakes are more beautiful. It has some truly majestic rivers. In sheer beauty of geography, California beats Texas hands down. BUT.......... Texans are smarter, more energetic, more appreciative of liberty, more business friendly, don't think that more government is the answer to all things. Furthermore, despite California being a "sanctuary state" for illegal aliens, Texas has done a much better job of integrating Spanish cultural traditions into the state's Anglo traditions, to create the uniquely Texan culture, which is deeper and richer than whatever passes for "culture" in California. I love it here, and whenever I have to go back to California, despite the geographic beauty, I have nothing but heartburn until I get back across the Californian border and into the United States.

California..more beautiful..than Texas..?

As much as it pains me to say, yes it is, but the loony toons living there over shadow the beauty of the state. I for one will never set foot there again. TAM, I can't argue with anything you wrote. Once again you are dead on.

Javier730 wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:In this order:

1. Dallas, Texas (although, almost anyplace in Texas outside of El Paso would be fine.....I've lived there, and don't like it enough to want to live there again...).
2. Phoenix, Arizona (Flagstaff, where I would rather live, is a short distance away)
3. Salt Lake City, Utah (would prefer Logan, Utah)
4. Boise, Idaho (actually tied with Salt Lake City and Phoenix, and would much prefer Kalispell, Montana)
5. Albuquerque, New Mexico
6. Seattle, Portland, and Denver are all the same to me. Not interested.

Phoenix, Salt Lake City, and Boise are nearly a 3-way tie for me. But those last three are no different for me than living in San Francisco or Los Angeles. Sure, maybe Seattle, Portland, or Denver are prettier than SF or LA, but, so is a large part of the rest of California, and the beauty of California is not worth (to me) the headaches and heartaches of having to live around and be totally outnumbered a bunch of stoned progressives who have zero valid ideas for governance and zero interest in reformation.

As much as I love living in Texas, and would never go back to California, the truth is that California is a more beautiful state in many ways. It's beaches are more beautiful. It's mountains are more beautiful. It's lakes are more beautiful. It has some truly majestic rivers. In sheer beauty of geography, California beats Texas hands down. BUT.......... Texans are smarter, more energetic, more appreciative of liberty, more business friendly, don't think that more government is the answer to all things. Furthermore, despite California being a "sanctuary state" for illegal aliens, Texas has done a much better job of integrating Spanish cultural traditions into the state's Anglo traditions, to create the uniquely Texan culture, which is deeper and richer than whatever passes for "culture" in California. I love it here, and whenever I have to go back to California, despite the geographic beauty, I have nothing but heartburn until I get back across the Californian border and into the United States.

California..more beautiful..than Texas..?

Yes, it is absolutely true. I grew up surfing the SoCal coastline and hiking in California's mountains. Texas has no beaches or mountains that compare favorably to California's. Texas has NOTHING like these mountains.......


.......or these beaches......

.....or these lakes.....

My mom's house which is in escrow at the moment is the third from the left in this picture of the homes along the edge of the cliff. It is the small white one with the rounded rooflines:
http://www.californiacoastline.org/cgi- ... &year=2004. (When my mom and dad built that house, theirs was the last one before the state park started, and none of the houses on either side had been built yet. My wife and I were married on the edge of that cliff in front of my mom's house almost 28 years ago. My dad died in the front bedroom, overlooking the ocean. There is a lot of family history tied up in that house and it is with a great deal of sadness in the family that the house is being sold on one hand, but pretty much everybody in my family gets to retire on the proceeds, so...... God is good on the other hand.)

My mom just sold it to the same guy who also just bought the property on the left. I say "small", but it is 2,700 sq ft on 1.2 acres with 108 ft of beach below. It's just that the homes on either side are ginormous. The house on the left is almost 15,000 sq ft. .............anyway, you won't find homes like that, on beaches like that, along the Texas coastline.

The Annoyed Man wrote:...
.......or these beaches......
...
My mom's house which is in escrow at the moment is the third from the left in this picture of the homes along the edge of the cliff. It is the small white one with the rounded rooflines:
http://www.californiacoastline.org/cgi- ... &year=2004. (When my mom and dad built that house, theirs was the last one before the state park started, and none of the houses on either side had been built yet. My wife and I were married on the edge of that cliff in front of my mom's house almost 28 years ago. My dad died in the front bedroom, overlooking the ocean. There is a lot of family history tied up in that house and it is with a great deal of sadness in the family that the house is being sold on one hand, but pretty much everybody in my family gets to retire on the proceeds, so...... God is good on the other hand.)

My mom just sold it to the same guy who also just bought the property on the left. I say "small", but it is 2,700 sq ft on 1.2 acres with 108 ft of beach below. It's just that the homes on either side are ginormous. The house on the left is almost 15,000 sq ft. .............anyway, you won't find homes like that, on beaches like that, along the Texas coastline.

I'll put Padre Island beaches up against those in California. No, we don't have homes on them (because most of 80 plus miles of white beaches are a national seashore), but that keeps the natural beauty intact, and also prevents folks from claiming it's "their" beach.

https://www.google.com/search?q=padre+i ... AQ&dpr=0.9" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ScooterSissy wrote:.....and also prevents folks from claiming it's "their" beach.

https://www.google.com/search?q=padre+i ... AQ&dpr=0.9" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nice! But how well do they hold up to hurricanes? No hurricanes in California.

BTW, that property was bought and paid for with a lot of blood sweat and tears on my parents' part, all legal like, and then they built the house themselves to save money, using a design my dad created and had an architect friend draw plans from as a favor. Not only that, but my parents had to cede 25 feet of lateral access measured from the mean high-tide line back to the state in order to get their permit from the Coastal Commission. It took them TWELVE expensive years to get that permit, during which they continued to pay all their property taxes nice and legal. So literally nobody is being kept from jumping into the water or playing volleyball right in front of their house, and the entire cost for that public access came out of my parents' pockets. They were professors who made a decent income, but were not millionaires. There are 840 miles of California coastline, and only a few of those miles where anybody actually owns property on the beach. It's not like the oligarchs are keeping Californians away from the waterline. So, just sayin'..........

Boise, Idaho

I've got kin living up there, the winters are mild in comparison to other northern cities, there's mountains, fishing, forests, and the like, and Idaho is a -very- gun friendly state.

Dallas is a no-go. Too many people there. Same for Phoenix and Salt Lake City. Denver's right out, both due to the large numbers of people and to the current political climate of the state and city. I've never been to Portland, but I imagine it's packed too, and there's too many of the "wrong kind" of Kalifornia refugees there. As for Albuquerque, it's right up the road from me, and trust me, no one wants to live there.

None of the above.

I live in the country and have for the past 10 years.

The quiet here is restful and right now with the screened storm door open, I can hear a wide variety of birds and frogs happily singing and croaking as it rained most of the night. It's wonderful.

I would never again live in a city no matter which one to choose from.

Abraham wrote:None of the above.

I live in the country and have for the past 10 years.

The quiet here is restful and right now with the screened storm door open, I can hear a wide variety of birds and frogs happily singing and croaking as it rained most of the night. It's wonderful.

I would never again live in a city no matter which one to choose from.

This. None. Not even in Texas. Not Houston, Austin, San Antonio, Dallas, or even Corpus Christi. There is no job I could realistically get in any of the cities listed, or any other large urban area, that would pay enough for me even to consider living there. I might consider working in a small city like Victoria, one that is far away from any large urban area, but not living there. I would never give up the freedom I have living in the country for any job --and I don't have to. After many years of city style living required by my employment I have a great well paying job with a great company and I don't have to work or live in a city, as both job and home are in the country.

And I really love being able to shoot from my front and back porch and on my "backyard" pistol, rifle, and skeet ranges. In fact, I just bought a new rifle and UPS is delivering the scope today. When I get home after work I'll be sighting it in and blowing up plastic water bottles from 150 yards. Anymore, whenever I want to test something or shoot something new I never have to wait for a chance to get to a range somewhere. I just step out the door, clip on a fresh target, and let the lead fly.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:.....and also prevents folks from claiming it's "their" beach.

https://www.google.com/search?q=padre+i ... AQ&dpr=0.9" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nice! But how well do they hold up to hurricanes? No hurricanes in California.

BTW, that property was bought and paid for with a lot of blood sweat and tears on my parents' part, all legal like, and then they built the house themselves to save money, using a design my dad created and had an architect friend draw plans from as a favor. Not only that, but my parents had to cede 25 feet of lateral access measured from the mean high-tide line back to the state in order to get their permit from the Coastal Commission. It took them TWELVE expensive years to get that permit, during which they continued to pay all their property taxes nice and legal. So literally nobody is being kept from jumping into the water or playing volleyball right in front of their house, and the entire cost for that public access came out of my parents' pockets. They were professors who made a decent income, but were not millionaires. There are 840 miles of California coastline, and only a few of those miles where anybody actually owns property on the beach. It's not like the oligarchs are keeping Californians away from the waterline. So, just sayin'..........

I hope you didn't take that little portion of my post as a slam against your parents. I was merely pointing out the reasons why I believe Texas' beaches hold their own in beauty. There's something to be said about unspoiled, publicly owned beaches.

I once sailed my sailboat from Corpus Christi to Port Isabel (southern tip of the state). Padre Island is beautiful. Different portions are beautiful for different reasons, but I maintain, we hold our own ;)

Interestingly, since you asked about hurricanes, when we sailed the sailboat south, we caught Erika just as it dropped from hurricane status to tropical storm. We tied up at the dock in a well protected marina, and waited out the storm on the boat. It was ... interesting.

Most of the island is natural, and it seems to come back from hurricanes well. The settled areas, well I'm sure they get damaged from time to time and have to rebuild. But, on the plus side, no one has to worry about the beach being "relocated" further inland when "the big quake" hits ;)