Should I move to New York City or Seattle for city life as well as outdoors activities?

March 25, 2009 1:51 PM

Does New York City or Seattle offer the better mix of city life and outdoorsyness?

Hello. I'm trying to choose a city to move to for undergrad. I'm stuck between New York and Seattle, and unfortunately I don't have the funds to visit before college starts. I'll be living in dorms, so apartments aren't an issue right now.

I would prefer somewhere that I can live long-term, because I don't like to move around frequently.

My original choice was New York City, because I love the big city atmosphere. However, I believe that Seattle may be a better mixture of city life and outdoors activities. I have read that NYC has a lot of outdoors activities as well.

I'm also concerned that it seems as if with my projected salary, I won't have a comfortable life N.Y.C. This wouldn't bother me much, except that I love animals and I wouldn't be able to have dogs in an apartment.

My one worry about Seattle is that it's far away from the music scene I'm used to. I live within a five hour drive from Cleveland, Columbus, Chicago, and Detroit, so I'm used to having a lot of options for concerts to go to. I'd like it to stay this way, but I don't know anything about the availability of concerts in/near Seattle.

I would mostly enjoy "natural" outdoors activities... for example, going hiking instead of a tour through the park.

A little more about me... I'm female, liberal, and I'm interested in the Aerospace industry. I'm a fan of windy/rainy days, but I also love the summer. I'm from Ohio, so I would prefer the weather to be similar to here, except cooler.

Anyway... hope this is enough information to help with the advice. I'm open to suggestions of other cities, as long as they match the original criteria (no small cities). Thanks in advance!

posted by biochemist to Travel & Transportation (35 answers total)

I'm also concerned that it seems as if with my projected salary, I won't have a comfortable life N.Y.C.

You're assuming that you'll end up taking a job, and living, in the same city you go to college in. You have no idea what the older you, post-graduation, will be interested in; don't worry so much about the longer-term stuff, since you can always move elsewhere after college.
posted by korpios at 1:59 PM on March 25, 2009

Go to Seattle. NYC is no place for the lover of the outdoors.

Seattle, on the other hand, is amazing for nature, does have a lively music scene (though if that were your *only* interest, NYC would have better). Seattle also has Boeing for your Aerospace industry interests.
posted by Hediot at 2:10 PM on March 25, 2009

Seattle has always had a great music scene. Tons of small clubs, lots of great local bands, and they get all the acts that would go to any of the cities you named. Seattle is also two hours away from any number of nature-based activities; rainforests, hiking trails, biking trails, mountains, it's all handy. Seattle also has Boeing and AeroJet, thus aerospace; as for the weather, it's much less humid than Ohio in the summer, and much less snowy in the winter.

Seattle's a great city, and it's also more affordable than NYC.
posted by pdb at 2:13 PM on March 25, 2009

If you're open to suggestions, I'll offer you Los Angeles. Given your interests, it may be a good option to consider.

- It is a massive city. However, unlike NYC, it's a spread-out cluster of eightysomething different-sized cities that grew into each other. Each sub-city has its own unique flavor and history.
- There are excellent schools here for practically anything you could want to study.
- Aerospace industry. We have it. According to this paper (warning, pdf), 28% of Los Angeles' manufacturing jobs are in aerospace.
- There's a vibrant music scene, and virtually nobody who's going to the western US will skip LA.
- There are outstanding outdoor activities to be enjoyed. You can surf and snowboard in the same day. You can scuba dive, hike, rock climb, mountain bike, swim, hang glide, skydive, soapbox derby, etc, etc, etc. There is a huge, thriving cycling scene that is difficult to encapsulate in mere words.
- Current weather: NYC is 51F right now with rain in the forecast. Seattle is 49F right now, raining. LA is 79F and clear, with nothing but sunny days in the forecast. This is how we roll, on even the hottest summer day it's always 70 degrees at the nearby beach.
posted by mullingitover at 2:15 PM on March 25, 2009

Best answer: It's too bad you don't have the funds to visit both, because the atmosphere in those two cities in particular are just about the most polar opposites I can think of.

Seattle is very crunchy, laid-back, wear-fleeces-and-flip-flops. It's having a job so you can focus on your life, which is probably focused on things like outdoor hobbies, friends, and traveling. Have I mentioned it's pretty laid-back? It's waking up early, and all the restaurants pretty much closing up by 9pm. (Probably because everyone's focused on day life, not night life.)

New York is frenetic, driven, bursting with color, and on the move. It's working your ass of on your career, because you love what you do. Restaurants stay open very, very late--you might be meeting friends for dinner and sit down at 9pm. In fact, everything runs about 1-2 hours later (you probably won't have friends that suggest meeting for an 8am breakfast on Saturday, which is what happened last time I was in Seattle). It's a grittier (okay, dirtier) place than Seattle, but also filled more interesting things--or hell, just filled with *more* things, period. You will not get bored here.

Anyway, I'm sure a bunch of people are going to jump in and point out how they're a total exception to the above. As someone who has lived on both the east coast and west coast, I'm painting with a reeeeeally broad brush here, but it's mostly to give you a sense of what is terribly hard to describe without actually visiting. You should really think about your personality and how it would fit with each city, because to some extent people with certain personality types are drawn to cities because of their stereotypical reputation, and your future classmates are no exception. (As someone who was raised in a more west-coast-type state, New York is totally overwhelming to me, and I could never hack it for college. But I'm totally jealous of those who could--oh my gosh, just all the free things you could do!)
posted by iminurmefi at 2:17 PM on March 25, 2009 [2 favorites]

Seattle. Jesus. I can't believe you're even asking this question. The only outdoorsy thing that people do in NYC is go jogging in the park. Oh, and there are about six people who kayak.
posted by alexwoods at 2:24 PM on March 25, 2009 [1 favorite]

If you want nature, with a reasonable city nearby, pick seattle. the weather here is much better than the weather in Ohio. no humidity, and you don't have to shovel rain. the air is clear, and the sight of Mt. Rainier, the olympic range, the sun setting over the sound, and sugar powdered mountains are incomparable.
NY is NY. Few cities can compare for nightlife and cosmo cred, but don't sell Seattle short. All the major acts play here or nearby, and if you like big outdoor festival type venues, the gorge at george beats giant's stadium any day of the week. and if you can't get enough hipster action in seattle proper, Portland and San Fran are close enough too.
Warning tho': if it's your life's desire to live in the big apple, do it before you move here, because once your here you won't go back.
posted by OHenryPacey at 2:26 PM on March 25, 2009

I lived in NYC and live in Portland OR now, and make frequent visits to Seattle. I think Seattle sounds up your alley.

Nature-wise, Seattle beats NYC hands down. The Pacific NW has a lot to offer in that regard - lots of various kinds of nature, you would never get bored or lack for options when it comes to that.

Windy/rainy - check. Summer - check, the PNW has beautiful, mild summers IMO (although I find every summer has a 2 or 3 day run of mega-hot temperatures). All that rain in the winter and spring makes for some vibrant summer colors.

Aerospace - check, as has been mentioned above.

Seattle has a great music scene (surprised you didn't know about it, to be honest! Not that you should know exactly what kind of bands are local to the area, but that there is a vibrant music scene to begin with).

Affordability - Seattle is not cheap, but less expensive than NYC

I loved living in NYC, and I have loved living in the PNW. My reasons for liking both are almost completely mutually exclusive from each other. As iminurmefi mentioned, it all boils down to personality because the 2 cities have very different lifestyles. But based on your description, I would have mentioned Seattle even if you hadn't offered it up as an option. I would mention Portland too, but I'm not aware of an aerospace industry here.
posted by DrGirlfriend at 2:28 PM on March 25, 2009

Seattle!

If you're into the outdoors and the aerospace industry, Seattle is absolutely the place for you. It'll put you smack in the middle of Cascadia, so you'll run out of hiking boots before you run out of places to hike. Seattle had an amazing music scene long before that whole "grunge" situation back in the nineties and has continues to long after the fad ended.

Also - I'm a fan of windy/rainy days, but I also love the summer. - Seattle/Washington weather is custom built for you! The Emerald City has a soggy reputation, but the gorgeous summer weather is less widely known - and if it's not sunny enough for you there in the summer months, then all you gotta do is cross the cascade range to find the warmer regions of our fair state.
posted by EatTheWeek at 2:30 PM on March 25, 2009

Seattle is where sailors go when they die if they've lived a good life. Puget Sound (and Lake Washington) are fantastic places for sailing.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 2:35 PM on March 25, 2009

Best answer: Seattle is probably a better mix of big city and outdoors for you, although, surprisingly for such a huge megalopolis, outdoors more accessible in New York than people think. I mean you can take a subway to the beach, and the Long Island Railroad to a national seashore. You can take Metro-North to go hiking in the Catskills. Not mountains to a Westerner, but fall color to rival New England.

But still, Seattle beats us. I merely point out above to show New York isn't devoid in that category, but it is no Seattle.

New York is just more expensive, crowded, and difficult to live in. The so-called "hipster" parts of New York, (Like Williamsburg) have been pretty much ruined by those self-same hipsters, so you won't hear a native New York accent there at all. No New York irony, no New York edge, but lots of tattoos and piercings, just like at the mall in Encino. As a matter of fact, it will be kind of like Encino with worse weather and more grit. For real New York, you'll have to go to Queens.

NY and Seattle both have a good music scene, but again, because New York is so expensive, its scene has suffered in that the starving musicians probably can't even afford to move across the river to Hoboken or Brooklyn. You might find yourself ensconsed in an interesting scene in Seattle.

Seattle has got the most glorious summers in creation, but the rest of the year it is cool and drizzly. You mention

I'm from Ohio, so I would prefer the weather to be similar to here, except cooler.

You know that New York (the city, at least) and Seattle are both warmer than Ohio in the Winter, but Seattle is actually a lot warmer, you might not get snow every year.
posted by xetere at 2:36 PM on March 25, 2009 [1 favorite]

Seattle. There are outdoorish things to do in NYC, but they are either more park-ish, which is not what you want, or they are pretty far away. NYC is not the ideal place to live for a person who likes nature. I have lived here for eight years because I hate nature and driving.
posted by millipede at 2:38 PM on March 25, 2009

I love NYC, I wish I'd lived there for a while when I was younger, with extra time, and not much stuff. I'd like to visit there every month, or at least every quarter.

I grew up in Salt Lake City where the mountains always beckoned, a 15 minute bike ride got me up into a canyon, a 60 minute bus ride would get me to a nice ski resort, etc.

I live in Seattle now and I like it. Seattle doesn't have as easy access to the mountains as SLC, but they aren't that far if you have a car. If you want to go out on the water, it's all around us and UW rents canoes, kayaks, small sailboats etc to students for cheap.

As for access to concerts, Seattle is close to the western edge of the country. Being in the west but outside of California means that major cities are usually many hours from each other by car. The closest major cities to Seattle are Portland, OR, and Vancouver, BC, which are both within 3 hours of here and awesome. Adding another 2 hours to your drive isn't going to pick up any other major cities. On the other hand, Seattle is a great city for music. A lot of big tours stop here. A lot of small tours do too, and, of course, Seattle has a great local music scene.
posted by Good Brain at 2:46 PM on March 25, 2009

The coolness of the PacNW is highly overrated. No-one ever admits the rampant locust problems or frequent yeti attacks. Plus the people are vicious compared to New Yorkers.

Everyone move to New York or stay in California. Go on, off you go. Bright lights, big cities!
posted by codswallop at 2:55 PM on March 25, 2009 [10 favorites]

I used to love the outdoors and camping and nature and all that. I haven't done anything in the great outdoors in the five years I've lived in New York. I guess it sort of exists, but it's filled with smog, and it's not what I consider the outdoors anyway.

I've never been to Seattle so I certainly couldn't recommend one way or the other, but I would never associate "New York" with "outdoors" in any way, shape or form.
posted by peanut_mcgillicuty at 2:59 PM on March 25, 2009

I've lived in both cities. For literally every single issue you raise, Seattle is going to be a vastly better choice.

I have read that NYC has a lot of outdoors activities as well.

Sure it does. The garbage day sidewalk slalom, the 500m that's-my-taxi sprint, the traditional springtime game of dodge-the-crazed-rollerbladers-in-the-park, not to mention wistfully looking up at the sliver of nighttime sky to see the stars (both of them) -- New York has it all.
posted by ook at 3:13 PM on March 25, 2009 [1 favorite]

Seattle isn't a big city. It's a pretty small city. It's a Milwaukee-esque city (in terms of size, roughly).

So if you're looking for big city atmosphere, Seattle doesn't have it. Anyone who says otherwise has never lived in LA or NY. Or even San Francisco.

But for a smaller city, it's about as hip as they come (besides Austin). And it's got a monorail! And great nature! And is pretty nice! But also it rains pretty much all the time.

New York, though, you have to get out of the city or enjoy parks if you want nature. I go to Prospect Park in Brooklyn when I need to be surrounded by trees. Works fine for me. (Also, you can get a bus or a train to areas where "real" nature flourishes. Kind of a pain, but it certainly can be done on weekends with no sweat.)

Also, New York isn't so bad in terms of price if you get roommates, live in Brooklyn or Queens, and (like everyone else) don't own a car. Also, I know a ton of people here who have dogs in their apartment.
posted by Damn That Television at 3:16 PM on March 25, 2009

Best answer: If you're one worry is the music scene, then worry not. Seattle will compare with your previous concert availability. NYC in fact, may only frustrate you. There are so many bands playing all the time and they'll sell out before you know about them. If you needed to see bands 5 nights a week, I'd say move to New York, but since you'll be in school, Seattle will have enough.

A few Seattle venues: The Crocodile, The Showbox, Chop Suey, Neumos, among others.

I've lived in New York City for nine years now, have family in Seattle, and travel there 2-4 times a year. Seattle is the city you want. Seattle is far more affordable, has far more access to outdoor activities. You won't have a car in NYC, so it will be hard to get out. You are more likely be able to afford one in Seattle, so driving to Mt. Baker for a ski weekend or out to the Olympics for some camping, or a trip out to the Gorge to see a music festival. You know about Sasquatch, right?

On the other hand, I personally adore New York and could imagine spending the past decade any where else.
posted by yeti at 3:19 PM on March 25, 2009

Jeez people, New York is no Seattle, but I mean it isn't exactly a dystopian eco-horror either. I've lived here all my life, it compares about the same as say, DC, Chicago, Philly, Toronto, or Boston. I mean, come on! Staten Island has a green belt, Staten island. Again, NY is not Seattle and NY will likely NOT meet the OP's needs, but it isn't like there is one tree in Central Park where everyone gawks and that is it.

I think people who are posting that equate New York strictly with Manhattan, and might not have actually grown up here, where I have, and I am broadening it to the New York metro area and to places where you can get to with public transportation for a day trip.

but biochemist, for your needs, Seattle is better, but since you like cold, consider Minneapolis, kinda like Seattle, only colder, flatter, and more nasally.
posted by xetere at 3:21 PM on March 25, 2009

Just going to throw Austin out there for shits and giggles.
posted by Chuck Cheeze at 3:27 PM on March 25, 2009

WHOA there. Don't pick what school you go to based on what city it is. You'll be spending a small fraction of your time in the city or out of the city. You'll be spending a HUGE amount of time on your campus. Not picking a school because it's urban or suburban or rural is one thing, and I understand that, but that doesn't sound like the issue here - surely there are other factors besides what city the school is in for choosing them?
posted by devilsbrigade at 3:43 PM on March 25, 2009

As a native NYer, agreeing with all of the above that Seattle is the better option of the two.

Also seconding everything mullingitover says about Los Angeles. Can't be beat in terms of the sheer diversity of the natural environment.

"surprisingly for such a huge megalopolis, outdoors more accessible in New York than people think. I mean you can take a subway to the beach, and the Long Island Railroad to a national seashore. You can take Metro-North to go hiking in the Catskills."

This is precisely why NY is a subpar option for outdoorsy folks. Depending on where you live, all of the above will take hours and hours of travel back and forth.

The so-called "hipster" parts of New York, (Like Williamsburg) have been pretty much ruined by those self-same hipsters, so you won't hear a native New York accent there at all. No New York irony, no New York edge, but lots of tattoos and piercings, just like at the mall in Encino. As a matter of fact, it will be kind of like Encino with worse weather and more grit. For real New York, you'll have to go to Queens.

Really? Reaaaaally? If you are liberal, big into music and science/engineering Williamsburg is exactly where you would enjoy living in NY.
posted by hamsterdam at 3:44 PM on March 25, 2009

If you're not rich, Seattle.
posted by box at 3:57 PM on March 25, 2009

I think people who are posting that equate New York strictly with Manhattan, and might not have actually grown up here, where I have, and I am broadening it to the New York metro area and to places where you can get to with public transportation for a day trip.

I grew up within a 20 minute train ride to NYC, and I think it blows for outdoorsy stuff. Oh, and my sister lived in Queens for years, and my good friends live in Green Point so it's not like Times Square is my conception of New York.

Then again, these are people who could take or leave the outdoors life, so it works for them. Seriously, I can't tell you how many times I tried to convince my sister to take a trip to the last farm in Queens, but it wasn't worth the long subway ride for her. And, to be fair, it was a long subway ride--not easily accessible. It doesn't sound like it would really work for OP.

WHOA there. Don't pick what school you go to based on what city it is. You'll be spending a small fraction of your time in the city or out of the city. You'll be spending a HUGE amount of time on your campus. Not picking a school because it's urban or suburban or rural is one thing, and I understand that, but that doesn't sound like the issue here - surely there are other factors besides what city the school is in for choosing them?

I don't know what it's like in Seattle, but a good number of NY schools don't have campuses.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 4:01 PM on March 25, 2009

Go to Seattle. NYC is no place for the lover of the outdoors.

As a NYer who can't imagine living anywhere else, I have to agree. You gotta love asphalt to live here, or have a country house.
posted by CunningLinguist at 4:12 PM on March 25, 2009

May we ask what the colleges in question are? I'm really scratching my head here as to how you can be completely indifferent between the two schools to the point that only the cities are coming into play in your decision.
posted by telegraph at 4:16 PM on March 25, 2009

Look, there are spectacularly beautiful outdoors places you can get to from New York on the train. There are.

BUT NOBODY YOUR AGE IN NEW YORK WILL BE GOING THERE. I lived in New York when I was your age, and everyone I knew who lived there was all about being in the city and doing city things and staying up all night and getting drunk and going to CBGB's (because I am old and lived there when CBGB's was still a) open, and b) cool).

So if having friends who love doing outdoorsy things with you is something you want in your life, move to Seattle.
posted by Sidhedevil at 4:43 PM on March 25, 2009 [1 favorite]

NY is not Seattle and NY will likely NOT meet the OP's needs, but it isn't like there is one tree in Central Park where everyone gawks and that is it.

When I went to Central Park, the trees were behind fences and you weren't allowed to walk among them. Granted, this was only one part of the park (the southern half), but it's such an urban place - the parks aren't real parks but are just bits of grass with benches in them. Even the open end of Central Park is more controlled than I am used to for urban greenspaces. There is no serious greenery in Manhatten - Toronto is way more green (lovely ravines), and even that is nothing like Vancouver (mountains very close in).

And NYC is big enough, and undergrad stressful enough, you don't really have time to go treking to other boroughs to find the little bit of green. When I was in undergrad, the only green I got was on campus - I was really lucky that there was a woodlot I could detour my way through on the way to the bus stop. (Only benefit to York University being buried in the wilds of North York).

I haven't been to Seattle, but if it is anything like Vancouver, you would find it far preferable for outdoor activities.

But, of course, the universities matter. Some universities have green space as part of the campus, some don't. There is little to no wild greenspace at the University of Toronto downtown campus, for example; Simon Fraser University in Vancouver is at the top of a wooded (low) mountain, if I remember right, though not far from the downtown core. Where I am now there is a stunning wilderness park in the city, but it's an hour long walk from the campus with few regular buses, so it might as well not be there as far as I'm concerned. So check out the campus and it's relationship to local green space.
posted by jb at 7:00 PM on March 25, 2009

Seattle isn't a big city. It's a pretty small city. It's a Milwaukee-esque city (in terms of size, roughly).

Yes and no. Milwaukee is about the size of Seattle, but metro Seattle is twice as large. And Milwaukee is essentially an exurb of Chicago now, where the next closest "there" to metro Seattle is three hours either north or south.

Seattle's nightlife is not NYC or LA or Chicago or SF, but the concert scene is far more vibrant than what you'd expect from a "small city," and there's a huge foodie culture here as well.

But keep in mind, too, that Seattle is a cold city to live in socially. Even with the influx from the East Coast people here still don't make friends easily and keep to themselves. There's a continual argument over whether the "Seattle Freeze" is real, but I can tell you that there's a Scandinavian reserve out here that persists despite immigration.
posted by dw at 8:44 PM on March 25, 2009

I dunno. If you get past the flannel check point, there is Mt. Rainier towering above you and if it erupts and the wind is right, it's Pompei, grunge style. The PCB's in the water are killing off all the orcas, and it's hard to get anything done walking around with the required latte in one hand. And the library. . .The fucking library.

And the Olympics catch most of the rain headed in, so that is a huge disappointment for some. And with Vancouver and Victoria, you have those insufferable Canadians a boatride away. And the ride to work/school. A drag.

(Portland is worse. . .don't even visit.)
posted by Danf at 9:32 PM on March 25, 2009 [1 favorite]

If the choice is Seattle v. New York and the deciding factor is outdoorsyness, it is hands down Seattle. You can see Mt. Rainier from anywhere in the city. In New York, you'd need to drive upstate or to a neighboring state to get anything like that. I absolutely love New York, but when it comes to outdoors activities, Seattle has better options that are closer by.

As for the music scene, like any major city, Seattle has tons of venues, like the ones Yeti mentioned. That really shouldn't be a concern.

If you do decide to move to New York and are worried about price, you're probably going to end up in the outliers of Manhattan. That is, Brooklyn, Harlem, etc. I would suggest getting a place in Jersey and commuting (Bergen County FTW!).

Good luck with your decision! Either way, I think both cities are cool in its own unique way.
posted by carpyful at 12:25 AM on March 26, 2009

NYC doesn't offer much of a mix of big city life and outdoorsy life. As others have said, it's easy enough to find the outdoors near the city, but it's an order of magnitude more difficult than it will be in Seattle.

And if you're driving 4 or 5 hours to see concerts, you'll probably find far more options with less driving in Seattle.
posted by andrewraff at 7:47 AM on March 26, 2009

Sounds like you're describing Seattle to a tee. Go there, it's beautiful.
posted by alexherder at 9:58 AM on March 26, 2009

Seattle.

I live in manhattan, and I can tell you that outdoors access sucks here. Central Park is outdoorsy only for city folks. Getting out of the city (up to the catskills) is a logistical and psychological challenge, plus you get charged via tools the whole way. The best run I can find near my place is right along a highway, and I have a view of building construction as I run.
posted by nyc_consultant at 5:54 PM on March 26, 2009

Best answer: I agree with one of the first responses, which advised not to worry about the long term as your interests will probably change once you graduate from college and get older. For example, since I graduated from college in 98, I have lived in San Diego, Boston, Washington DC and New York, which is where I have lived for the past 5 years.

But I will offer some advice anyway since I have lived in New York for 5 years and grew up on the west coast in Southern California.

New York is an amazing city and has a great energy to it, but it feels like it is always "on." People walk fast, talk fast and drive fast here. At times it feels like everyone has an IV pumping coffee into their veins. Some people love that about New York and at times I do find it appealing, but it can also get tiring after a while. People can be friendly, but also a little rude, especially in the professional realm. You have to be somewhat tough to live here or become so somewhat quickly. As the old saying goes, if you can make it here you can make it anywhere.

If you love the outdoors then you have to drive to it in NYC though there are some amazing areas upstate such as the Catskills. But in NYC itself, it's pretty much nothing, but big buildings, which in my opinion at starts to feel claustrophobic after a while. Other then that the only real escape is the parks such as central park, which is an amazing, amazing park and in my opinion is one of the great man made creations in the history of the U.S.

As for the weather....oh man. That is the real downfall of living in the northeast. The winter is long and cold. It might not be as cold as Boston in the winter, but it is cold nonetheless and it feels endless. Then there is the summer, which is hot and humid. God forbid you rely on the subway to get around and have to wait in suffocatingly hot stations for a train. So really the onnly nice times to live in NYC is the spring and fall, which both feel way too short.

Last, you mentioned cost and yes, NYC is about as expensive as it gets. Besides being taxed for eveything the state can think of, all the other necessities of life (eating, dry cleaning, animal care for those like me who own a pet) is way more expensive.

But I don't want this to feel like an I hate NYC post, because it truly is a great city to live. You just have to decide whether your one of those people who would enjoy living here or visiting instead. But since you are going to college, I suggest concentrating more on the schools that both Seattle and NYC have to offer and decide which is the best fit for you.

Either way, I don't think you can go wrong with your decision. Good luck!
posted by Caliboy49 at 2:54 PM on April 19, 2009