http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Laredo-Texas.html (244,731 (2012))
http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Fr ... ornia.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (population 505,882 (2012))
California's gun laws (I know that is not your deciding factor) are possibly more draconian than even Massachusetts'. So, if personal safety and your gun rights matter, Laredo wins hand down over Fresno.........except for those pesky Sierra Nevada mountains and that pesky Sequoia National Forest, which exude powerful pheromones. Gun rights in Boston are a wash compared to California's.
Weather on the east coast, Boston included, is (obviously) cold in winter, but it can also get brutally humid and hot in summer—the Northeast's dirty little secret, and why the snowbirds fly south to Florida in both winter AND summer, which is, incredibly, cooler and more comfortable than almost any NE big city during the summer. Weather in Fresno can ALSO get brutally hot in summer, but it's a dry heat, and the winters are fairly mild.
As far as beaches go, I'll take any section of California coastline over the coastlines anywhere else. California has the Pacific Ocean, and therefore best beaches in the nation outside of Hawaii, and possibly Florida..........which is why tourist traffic to California's beach towns in summer beats tourist traffic to any other east coast beach hands down. Fresno is roughly 150 miles inland from Monterey Bay.....which is simply spectacular.
As far as mountains go, nothing outside of the Rocky Mountains can compare to the Sierra Nevadas. They are iconic in their beauty. Just imagine all the Ansel Adams photographs of Yosemite Valley you've ever seen.........that's the "high Sierras". Don't get me wrong.... I love living in Texas, and parts of Texas are indeed beautiful, but pound for pound, California has the most varied beauty of any state in the union. Sure, Hawaii has great beaches, but unless you like climbing volcanoes, it's mountains are monotonous. Idaho has wonderful mountains, but it has no beaches. Take any of the "mountain states", and it's the same thing.....nice mountains, no beaches. In Texas, you have to go to Big Bend to see "mountains", and those aren't.....well.... in California we call those "foothills". Emory Peak is 7,825 ft high. When I lived in Pasadena, I used to mountain bike down to 7,800 ft at Kratka Ridge. Southern California alone has 22 peaks above 10,000 ft. You can ski and surf in the same day in several parts of the state.
One other thing to consider....... Geographically, everything in the NE is kind of condensed and packed-in all together. The distance between any two of the Northeast's major cities is not that great, and that means that all of the little towns in between are cheek by jowl close. California, on the other hand, is much like Texas in that the large cities are spread out over a geographically large area (155,959 square miles, compared to Texas's 268,820 square miles), and so there is some distance, and geographical variety, between cities. Not counting the suburban sprawl of the larger cities, smaller towns are spaced much further apart than in the NE.
As far as history and culture goes......... sure, the NE is the cradle of the nation's founding, and that stuff IS important and worth going to see, but Texas and California have very interesting histories too, and (just my opinion) it isn't worth living in Boston for 2 whole years just so I can check out some of the museums and historical sights that I could visit in a couple of 2 week vacations.
So, my personal order of preference is:
- Laredo
- Fresno
- Boston