- This topic has 110 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 6 months ago by
joec.
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 8, 2014 at 2:48 PM #776258July 8, 2014 at 5:45 PM #776268
bearishgurl
Participant[quote=AN][quote=The-Shoveler]That is the biggest complaint I hear from bay area workers, retirees don’t move!!
You do not hear that as much in LA or SD but there is a lot of I am staying until they carry me out here as well.[/quote]I think that’s because SF has been built out for awhile now. Add on to the fact that RE price has drastically increase (well above your average owners from awhile ago), which created this situation. I’m betting that SD will be in a very similar spot 50 years from now if population keep on growing and SD is fully built out. I see some of that now in Mira Mesa. There are a lot of houses around me that have owners who bought 15-30 years ago and either have very little mortgage left or are completely paid off. Those original owners are your blue collar workers who could afford Mira Mesa 15-30 years ago. If they sell today, they can’t afford to buy a bigger place in Mira Mesa or better. So, they just stay put.[/quote]SD County would have been “built out” at least 20 years ago if our “esteemed leadership” hadn’t given away the key to the store to their cronies in Big Development, thereby allowing them to run amok over each and every hill which could be bulldozed and flattened (future financial detriment to cities be damned). If SD County’s (and its cities’) leadership hadn’t sold their resident homeowners down the river in this fashion, existing homes in SD County circa ~1992 would be worth a h@ll of a lot more today. The vast majority of the residential distress resulting from the popping of the millenium boom bubble occurred in housing built since 2000. A lot of this distress has had a significant detrimental “spillover effect” on property values in the same or adjacent zip code which were situated in much more established areas (with little distress). These areas are only just now recovering their 2003 values.
OTOH, SM and SC County officials didn’t give away any keys to their store. They did what was expected of them by their constituents and dutifully minded the store so as not to disturb the pristine environment which was so carefully preserved by their predecessors. Not ALL of the open space in SF bay peninsula is National and state parkland. Portions of this valuable land was set aside by county leadership in the past several decades for current and future ecological preserves.
Except for Alameda County, the other 6 counties surrounding SF Bay have elected to preserve their open space to maintain their quality of life (and 4 of them have even dedicated more open space in the last 20 years) instead of “selling out” to endless Big Development concerns.
Contra Costa County has managed to do an exemplary job of preserving wide swaths of their open space, while having much of the same type (grassy, hilly) open space that San Diego County had (past tense) but whose leaders have since managed to approve subdivision permits on into oblivion. Thus, CC County has a very high quality of life and its well-established SFR stock has steadily increased in value, accordingly.
Hence, the higher RE values in the close-in bay area cities and counties are a product of good planning … and consistent follow-through under the stewardship of their successive leadership.
In sum, (excepting Alameda County, whose leaders sold out their open space corridor east of I-680 to Big Development … and SF County, which was already built out), the counties and their respective cities surrounding SF Bay could have issued rampant subdivision permits over the last 3 decades (as SD County and its cities did) but chose not to. That very act of choosing not to boosted the value of existing inventory, in part, by reducing the supply of available housing but more importantly, by preserving the quality of life in those communities.
You pay for what you get in this life.
And AN, as time rolls on, I feel as MM becomes more and more dense, established SFR’s there will end up losing value due to the “hassle factor.” And due to the City of SD’s “vision” for it, MM is well on its way to becoming known as a very heavily-populated multifamily and commercial/industrial area. It is only a matter of time. SF might be able to get away with that but MM cannot (and still retain its value and livability) :=0
July 8, 2014 at 5:45 PM #776269spdrun
ParticipantI can understand the environmental aspect, but you’re speaking as if SF home prices are a good thing for anyone other than entrenched baby boomers and specuvestors.
July 8, 2014 at 5:56 PM #776270Participant[quote=spdrun]I can understand the environmental aspect, but you’re speaking as if SF home prices are a good thing for anyone other than entrenched baby boomers and specuvestors.[/quote]
First and second time homebuyers have to start somewhere. Historically, that hasn’t been San Francisco. Why should it be any different today? SF was one of the world’s most expensive cities in 1955, 1985 and 2005, and remains so today. There are several good reasons for that.
Do you think those “entrenched baby boomers” (and older) current property owners in SF woke up one day when they were 25 years old and said, “I’m going to go buy me a property in SF?”
Do you expect SF to be “affordable” to Gen Y to buy into it today?
July 8, 2014 at 6:10 PM #776271joec
ParticipantHaving Tahoe so close is awesome as well…You can take ski buses which leave early in the morning, drive you to the slopes at first open, you ski and play all day, come back early/late afternoon and get home and can still have a nice dinner out after a shower…
I’m generally not a fan of San Francisco city itself, but the bay area, I feel generally has better weather (not as hot) than LA or SD (IMO) and as most people say, just a lot more amenities that people seem to value.
SD might get there if we had more companies coming here since we’re a lower cost alternative to the bay area as quite a few people here used to live there…We do have all the nice theme parks here, just need another QCOM or something here really.
July 8, 2014 at 6:13 PM #776273an
ParticipantBG, you won’t find me complaining that SD got a few more development lined up. I wouldn’t be able to afford a place 5 minutes from work if SD went the way of SF so early on. But now that I’m an owner, I would love SD to go the way of SF :-).
As for MM, I’m all for greatly increase density. IMHO, it would only increase the desirability of the surrounding SFR. More density means more restaurants, more walkability, more services, more jobs, etc. All of those things are a plus in my book. Also, if Sorrento Valley/UTC continue to add more high rises and adding more jobs, I’m pretty sure more and more people will want to live closer to work and not have to deal with the crazy traffic. So, while you see it as a hassle factor, I see it as a major positive. Kind of like owning a SFR in Hillcrest, where there are a lot on high density areas. I view owning a SFR is a big positive, since you get both the advantage of density while still have your own space. So, I say, bring on the density. The more the merrier.
July 8, 2014 at 6:14 PM #776274Participant[quote=spdrun]I can understand the environmental aspect, but you’re speaking as if SF home prices are a good thing for anyone other than entrenched baby boomers and specuvestors.[/quote]
Yeah, certain areas have been and always will be insanely expensive…SF especially. I want it to stay high or keep going up since my parents have places. It probably won’t end up helping me and I’ll just be pissed after, but who knows, maybe they will decide to throw me a bone after they have left this world…
Certain parts of Santa Clara County wasn’t expensive before the tech boom and those people made tons if they had multiple rental properties. Place like Cupertino is amazingly expensive to me since it’s not near water, pretty hot, and nothing special to me…Course, Apple is there…
We need an Apple in SD to drive property values insane over the next 15 – 20 years when I sell.
July 8, 2014 at 6:17 PM #776276Participant[quote=joec]I’m generally not a fan of San Francisco city itself, but the bay area, I feel generally has better weather (not as hot) than LA or SD (IMO) and as most people say, just a lot more amenities that people seem to value.
SD might get there if we had more companies coming here since we’re a lower cost alternative to the bay area as quite a few people here used to live there…We do have all the nice theme parks here, just need another QCOM or something here really.[/quote]
I personally prefer SD’s weather over Bay area. It’s much more temperate. SF is too cold while SJ is too hot during summer and too cold during winter.I agree SD needs more companies. I hope it’ll come with time. Bay area have the educational advantage for a long time, which is why there’s so many companies up there. But with UCSD and SDSU feeding the city with educated entrepreneurs, maybe we’ll have more job opportunities in 20+ years. These things take time. Maybe all these biotech start up will become major employers some day.
July 8, 2014 at 6:28 PM #776277ParticipantI don’t believe that CA coastal counties (and the most desirable cities within them) HAVE A DUTY to provide “affordable housing” to renters and 1st and 2nd time homebuyers and certainly do not have a duty to provide new construction housing tracts (of all prices ranges) TO ANYONE!
The low and moderate income renter and 1st and 2nd time homebuyer can keep driving inland until they find something to live in that they can afford. If they don’t like what’s on offer after they leave the coastal zone, then move out of county or out of state.
That’s the way its always been.
The SF Peninsula is within the “coastal zone.” Whether all of its tech companies stay or move to TX tomorrow, none of its jurisdictions “have a duty” to provide any type of housing to those looking for it except what already exists. If that is a 1180 sf fixer bungalow circa 1947 with a 350 sf granny flat over the garage in back for $850K, then so be it. Prospective buyers must accept these facts or shop elsewhere.
I don’t buy that SM and SC County real estate will “crash” if their local “tech bubble” bursts. Those cities were humming along quite nicely before Big Tech moved in and and will continue to do so. There are enough VERY established residents (and diversified industries) in most of those small cities as well as a LOT of BIG money and OLD money floating around there (often one and the same) that isn’t going anywhere today, tomorrow or ever. In other words, if the Google buses are off the road, it will just clear the ATV lanes and city bus stops they were using for other drivers.
The tech industry is not the be-all and end-all. I guarantee that SV will survive if all the youngish tech nerds exited it tomorrow.
July 9, 2014 at 4:35 AM #776287CA renter
ParticipantThe coastal counties also have no obligation to keep housing prices artificially inflated, especially when most of those beneficiaries aren’t paying enough in taxes to support the infrastructure and other costs to keep everything going, thanks to Prop 13.
No matter the tax situation, the counties/cities have no obligation to do anything but what’s best for the cities and counties.
Trust me, as a native Californian (Angelino), I’ve seen all the overbuilding, and lamented the fact that they’ve taken away all of our old hiking grounds and make-out spots, but the cities and counties don’t owe us that; that is not their job.
We will always need more housing for the additional people who are constantly moving here. If people don’t like the density, they can move to flyover country where they can buy a farm and live far away from other people, if that’s what they really prefer. It goes both ways.
July 9, 2014 at 7:06 AM #776291The-Shoveler
ParticipantSprawl happens, get used to it.
It is even happening is San Jose area like it or not just look to the north, east, and south, new tract homes going up all over.We just need to do a much better Job at mass-transit.
And I am not talking about that stupid high speed rail project. I am talking metro lines.July 9, 2014 at 8:17 AM #776294Participant[quote=The-Shoveler]Sprawl happens, get used to it.
It is even happening is San Jose area like it or not just look to the north, east, and south, new tract homes going up all over.We just need to do a much better Job at mass-transit.
And I am not talking about that stupid high speed rail project. I am talking metro lines.[/quote]I don’t know, having lived in the bay area pretty much my whole life, I never actually ever considered “San Jose” as Silicon Valley. They maybe building homes 1.5 hours out in Gilroy or further out, but I’d guess most people who work and play in SF, Palo Alto, Peninsula really don’t even consider San Jose as tech anything…
To me, it’s mostly just from SF down to Santa Clara…Having also shopped for homes in the past there, most new places I saw were very small, triple levels, etc…
July 9, 2014 at 8:17 AM #776295UCGal
Participant[quote=spdrun]*shudder*
The few times I’ve been to downtown Chicago, I’ve found it to be bleak and depressing. Careful what you wish for!
I found San Francisco to be much prettier and more uplifting to walk around.[/quote]
Chicago is definitely becoming a “hip” mecca for high tech.
When Google bought Motorola one of the first things they did was lease the top several floors of the Merchant Mart building in downtown Chicago. They wanted to google-ize stodgey suburban Motorola. At the time my cynical self said it was a way to do a backdoor layoff without severance… move 42 miles from Libertyville to the loop, which is less than 50 miles, so no relo packages required. Plus the older suburbanites wouldn’t want to leave their suburbs and deal with the urban work environment. But they successfully kept a huge percentage of the workforce from Libertyville (those they hadn’t downsized in RIFs).
But then again, right after they opened the Merchant Mart corporate headquarters Mot-Goog was sold to Lenovo.
Even still – downtown Chicago is hipper than it used to be.
July 9, 2014 at 8:47 AM #776299ParticipantI don’t know, I get into San jose Airport and it’s like 10-15 minutes to Juniper or Cisco, broadcom etc…
maybe 20 minutes to AppleTracy has quite a few new tract homes going up, that seems to be close to 1 hour away.
(probable closer by about 20 minutes to cisco).
July 9, 2014 at 9:06 AM #776301ParticipantI have been there, not during rush hour, but my point is sprawl is happening and will happen.
Yea if you have money your not going to live there true, but lots of people with money do spend 90 minutes on the road one way almost every day who work in San Jose, I know and work with some of them.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.