HOA restrictions in Temecula area

[temeculaguy]

You should start a new thread for that question as Inglewood and Temecula are far from each other in both distance and crime rates. These are polar opposites and your comment on Temecula’s lack conservatism while contemplating Inglewood as an option has me worried you are not from these parts.

To answer your question about Inglewood, you must first define “diverse.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inglewood,_California

In 2000 it was 47% African American and 46% Hispanic, according to wikipedia it has been shifting more towards Hispanics in recent years. In some circles that would be considered incredibly diverse, but in other circles having two races comprise almost all of it’s inhabitants would be seen as not very diverse. I guess it all depends on what you define diversity as. If you are African American or Hispanic it might seem fine but if you were the only Asian person there, you might not feel the same level of “diversity.”

When relocating, you should look into all sorts of data, Inglewood has some of the highest crime rates in California, some of the lowest home ownership rates and college education rates. Like all places, there are good and bad places to live in any city so my suggestion is to visit the area both day and night before relocating there.

Now on the issue of criminal street gangs, there is less diversity as the bloods seem to have more gangs, there are 9 blood gangs, 5 crip gangs and 7 hispanic gangs. For a town of a little more than 100k, I’d say that’s too many blood gangs for the overall balance of power.

Crips Gangs in Inglewood, California

Blood Gangs in Inglewood, California

Inglewood, California – Hispanic gangs

My apologies for any sarcasm, but where are you relocating from and what were you looking for?

[Anonymous]

Some information on Inglewood:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0161100/?ref_=nv_sr_1

[Anonymous]

California Civil Code, Section 60: “All marriages of white persons with Negroes, Mongolians, members of the Malay race, or mulattoes are illegal and void.” Section 69: “no license may be issued authorizing the marriage of a white person with a Negro, mulatto, Mongolian or member of the Malay race”

Overturned by the libtard activist judges of the CA Supreme Court in 1948.

Remember when America was great?

[FlyerInHi]

I have it on my list to watch Loving, the movie.
The speeches at the oscars tomorrow should be interesting.

[ucodegen]

[quote=spdrun]I know about the 1967 decision, in fact, it’s a very personal issue to me.
[/quote]
similar over here, though probably not the same.
[quote=spdrun]
A work colleague got off about how Supreme Court shouldn’t make law, and I gave him a bit of a speech recently.[/quote]
I actually tend to agree with the Supreme Court not being able to make laws. It disturbs the balance of power between the branches of government. The three branches of government would no longer be equal in power. Supreme Court would then contain the power of both President and Congress
(Legislative and Executive Branches). However the Supreme Court can determine what is NOT law or violates a higher law – namely Constitution, Bill of Rights, Amendments.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Key words being “All persons born or naturalized” and “equal protection”. For a while, States and others tried to get around this by considering anyone who was not white, as a non-person. It is an awkward twist to try to attempt on law.

[spdrun]

Nah, by “making law” he meant that the Marbury decision was wrong and that the courts shouldn’t have the power of judicial review.

[ucodegen]

[quote=spdrun]Nah, by “making law” he meant that the Marbury decision was wrong and that the courts shouldn’t have the power of judicial review.[/quote]
So he was reaching that far back for his opinion? W/o Marbury, then what purpose would the Supreme Court really have? It was supposed to be a counter to the Legislative and Executive branches. The Supreme Court was only court mandated by the Constitution – and its purview was judicial review. I don’t think the intent of the founders was to have members of the Legislative and Executive branch to be above judicial review. After all, they had just fought a war with members of an entity who felt above both common law and review of their actions. Whose very actions contributed to the intent and wording of both the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Article III, section 2:

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;–to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;–to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;–to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;–to controversies between two or more states;–between a state and citizens of another state;–between citizens of different states;–between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

Don’t need to quote the rest… but if continues along these lines.

I don’t get your work colleague’s position.

What is also interesting about Marbury v. Madison, it that it also limited the scope of the Supreme Court – part of the decision also indicated that part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional – because it would have given the Supreme Court the ability to ‘compel’ (writ of mandamus) which did not exist in the Constitution.

I think your work colleague needs to be careful of complaining about Marbury v. Madison because with out it, the Supreme Court would actually have been more powerful due to the Judiciary Act of 1789.

[FlyerInHi]

I was just talking to someone about Temecula and the inland empire.

Just out of curiously, what is the pecking order up there. Corona is closer to LA, OC. What about lake Elsinore compared to Temecula. Is along the 15 better than the 215?

[Ribbles]

Elsinore is fairly nasty in many parts, would definitely prefer Menifee (about the same distance north but off the 215). Temecula is far nicer than either, lower crime, much better schools, and better weather. Murrieta is Temecula Junior and pretty nice as well, slighter cheaper and slightly hotter.

Corona is more “grown up” than Temecula, nicer nice areas and worse bad areas, higher median income.

[FlyerInHi]

Ribbles, you confirmed what I kinda felt. Elsinore is bad.
I have friends in Hollywood Hills who want to leave a beautiful old house for semi retirement in Temecula with acreage. I was stunned when they said that because i always considered the wife a city girl through and through.

They say Temecula is a beautiful city that’s well planned. I suggested house with horses so I can visit and ride with them.

I didn’t know Temecula’s reputation is that good.

[Author]

Posts