It’s in California but, for those that don’t have kids, don’t need a large living space, and don’t mind renting, I think San Francisco is a good place to live. I’m visting there this weekend and used to live there a while back. You can take the BART (light rail system) from the airport right into downtown SF and you can get most places without a car. Not having to deal with traffic is a MAJOR plus. You really don’t even need to own a car – you could use FlexCar or rent one for the occasional weekend trip. I think if I really got tired of So Cal, I might think about going back to SF. I am married but we don’t have kids. The house/condo prices up there (last I checked) are way out of line (too high) in relation to rents, just like So Cal, so I’d rent up there too, at least until the cost of owning comes close to the cost of renting. I like Temecula, but I do get tired of having to drive everywhere. Even if you lived in downtown SD, you’d still need a car. It’s not a self-contained central city in the same way that SF is. PerryChase’s idea of having a small place in SD and traveling 1/2 the year sounds great but I wonder if SF might be a better home base in some respects.
