As a Loyal Eddie, I'll throw in my 2 cents worth.
The civillian considerations must take priority over military ones. The army reserve will not cover your mortage - it's that simple. But if you find both cities more or less the same and army life will be the deciding factor, here goes.
Both units are still influenced by their previous taskings, the LER were jump tasked and the CalHighs had a mech tasking. Some (but by no means all) of the senior leadership had their formative years in the army in this period. It affects how they do things today. To dangerously oversimplify things, I'd say the LER's put a great deal of emphasis on commander's intent. The CalHighs tend to put more emphasis on doctrine and tactical execution. Neither is necessarily better than the other. The problem is that they can be very different approches, and once you become used to one method, adapting to the other can be difficult. When we have to work together on deployment or exercise, the sparks can sometimes fly.
As for a flat out recommendation, right now I'd go with the CalHighs. I have five reasons:
1. They exercise more - Both units are caught in some ridiculous policy from 41 Bde that says we shouldn't collectively train anymore. The CalHigh leadership seems to have the testicular fortitude to ignore this and go to the field on at least an occaisional basis. The LER leadership does not. The Eddies go to the field one weekend per year. As suave and charming as mess functions may be, they are not why people join the infantry. It's about the field.
2. Regimental spirit - The CalHighs have outstanding regimental spirit and morale. Granted, sometimes they lay it on a little thick and they can get childish from time to time. Nonetheless, their sense of unit pride, history, and identity makes them a stronger unit. The LER's have no comparable sense of identity.
3. The CalHighs can usually parade three platoons. The LER's parade about 10 guys. In the militia, troops assess their leadership with their feet. Draw your own conclusions.