97% of California Cities Failed to Meet State Housing Goals

Re:97% of California Cities Failed to Meet State Housing Goals by amyjess on Monday February 12, 2018 @10:24AM (#16359153)

Houses under $200K in Bakersfield, CA:

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:97% of California Cities Failed to Meet State Housing Goals by gyrgtyn on Monday February 12, 2018 @12:17PM (#16360088)

The two best suggestions are Bakersfield and Fresno (edit: or the middle of unincorporated desert LOL)

You're telling OP to live in hell and it still costs more than they can afford.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:97% of California Cities Failed to Meet State Housing Goals by amyjess on Monday February 12, 2018 @02:12PM (#16361104)

Per Wikipedia [0]:

> Between 1970 and 2010, Bakersfield grew 400% (from 70,000 to 347,483),[33] making it one of the fastest growing cities in California.[17]

It can't be too much hell if so many people want to live there that the population quadrupled in 40 years.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:97% of California Cities Failed to Meet State Housing Goals by gyrgtyn on Monday February 12, 2018 @10:24PM (#16364490)

Does that follow?

Here, I found another example: > Between 1968 and 1975 the Dubai's population grew by over 300%

Maybe OP could find a sweet oil job there!

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:97% of California Cities Failed to Meet State Housing Goals by DoreenMichele on Tuesday February 13, 2018 @03:01PM (#16370212)

I am sorry you got downvoted. I have been to Bakersfield. I absolutely consider it undesirable.

I don't know if you realize it, but oil is, in fact, a big part of the economy in Bakersfield. And air quality is terrible because of it.

[ Parent | on HN ]