Anywhere that had an economical stake in the housing market was hit especially hard. Sacramento's suburbs were hit pretty hard, but so were the growing suburbs around EVERY large city.. Most of the cities did alright, through the recession, though, at least if they had a diverse business sector.
What you might have heard would have been more about Sacramento suburbs like that of Elk Grove. Elk Grove was especially hit hard... being that it was like the fastest growing city in the country in 04/05 and just seemed to pop up a new house every other hour. It's a sprawling bedroom community that has only as much commerce/industry as it's convenience stores, InNout burger, and strip malls can muster. That place was crippled for the most part, but almost any city that experienced rapid suburban growth for the decade or so prior to the recession took quite a hit.
Their city leaders were pretty stupid, thinking that they could just build a bazillion houses on what was formerly farmland and have a city. It only became an actual city in 2000, though, so I'd barely count it as anything but a ridiculous cluster of houses.
That's why Las Vegas was hit especially hard... It's basically a tourist destination with a huge sprawling suburb surrounding it, trying to attract the retirement crowd. Once it's sprawl was limited, construction jobs and tourism from other suffering places ceased for the most part. That same thing happened in Florida, Phoenix, and the furthest reaching suburbs of LA, more or less.
Sacramento itself, with it's proximity to the Bay Area, and designation as a capital city, connecting it economically to everywhere in California, made it a little safer in that regard. I didn't see the 'forclosure' signs in Sac City so much as elsewhere. It's a diverse, cosmopolitain city with lots of education opportunities and amenities - It's not all that different from a place like Portland, only instead of being cloudy all the time, it's the sunniest location on the planet between June and September.
