OMG, Piggs, it’s what I’ve always believed. Call it what you will but, as of this month, the folks living in San Fran are solvent. Sure, unemployment is high all over the state, but San Fran’s foreclosure rate is .68 and BK rate is .57 . . . almost nonexistent.
Go where the opportunity is and don’t bother commuting. You can feel confident that your (circa 1917) flat will hold its value for years to come :=)
If I was free NOW to do so, I would be looking for work there as I write this and readying my house here for the market for whatever it would fetch so I could move there and buy a place. Life can be short.
My kid who’s currently a senior in college in SF just landed an internship with a major nationwide corporation there (pkg./lunch incl) and is slated to be finished with school Dec 2010. Of course, this is in addition to their $40 hr. job.
CA Counties next in line vying for the “most solvent populace” are, in order:
2. Humboldt: For = 0.79%; BK = 0.68%
(surprise! This is a lower-income county)
3. Marin: For = 1.28%; BK = 0.80%
4. San Mateo: For = 1.45; BK = 0.97
5. Mendocino: For = 1.62; BK = 0.71
Guess NoCal didn’t get hit as hard as SoCal did, except in the San Joaquin Valley and Sac Delta. IMO, the inland Counties of Placer, Merced, Stanislaus and Fresno were hard hit because they were grossly overbuilt in the last 10 years. In addition, the typical RE buyer in these counties (excluding Placer) is not as educated or high-earning as coastal buyers.
Just look at the fundamentals here. SF County was built out in 1930 and SM County was built out in 1960. The other three “solvent” counties have slow or “no-growth” initiatives in place.
In CA, the “winning formula for a solvent population” seems to be residing in a county with all well-established areas and no vacant land available as well as a substantial employment base within or nearby (no or low commute) or a county where it’s citizenry long ago voted in no-growth initiatives and thus has an unmatched quality of life.
