- This topic has 110 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 4 months ago by
joec.
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 9, 2014 at 9:07 AM #776300July 9, 2014 at 9:13 AM #776302
spdrun
ParticipantI’d sooner buy a house in a marginal area of Oakland, along with a pistol license.
July 9, 2014 at 9:15 AM #776303bearishgurl
ParticipantShoveler, Tracy is not considered a “SF Bay Area” city as it is situated in San Joaquin County (county seat: Stockton). Yeah, that’s the same Stockton that had to file for BK protection awhile back (due to approving too many subd permits and subsequently being unable to provide services for their influx of people resulting from that).
It’s a completely different animal.
July 9, 2014 at 9:23 AM #776304The-Shoveler
ParticipantI was in Tracy last year, yea right now it is kind of undeveloped, But I think it will grow fast and be a lot nicer place to live give it 10 years.
It’s not about which city or county name LOL.it’s about building a new city.
San Jose has been considering BK for the last 10 years off an on BTW.
July 9, 2014 at 9:23 AM #776306Participant[quote=spdrun]I’d sooner buy a house in a marginal area of Oakland, along with a pistol license.[/quote]
I’m with you, spdrun, except I’ve posted before here that I’d take a seedy old hippie neighbor across the street (in OAK or Bezerkeley) with a telescope in his picture window who was on the state’s sex offender registry for an incident which happened in 1973 over moving out into that MR-infested dump of cheap shacks thrown up 6-8 feet apart on cow manure known as “Tracy” (feedlot odor incl with purchase).
At the very least, I’d prefer to be “familiar with my `territory’,” LOL . . . :=0
July 9, 2014 at 9:27 AM #776307ParticipantI was in Tracy last year, yea right now it is kind of undeveloped, But I think it will grow fast and be a lot nicer place to live give it 10 years.
The whole summer weather things sounds like a deal-breaker for many people.
July 9, 2014 at 9:30 AM #776308Participant[quote=The-Shoveler] . . . San Jose has been considering BK for the last 10 years off an on BTW.[/quote]
What’s SJ’s problem? Could it possibly be that they, too, have fallen prey to Big Development’s bribes to approve too many subd permits in their fair city and now cannot provide services to all their *new* population??
July 9, 2014 at 9:42 AM #776309Participant[quote=spdrun]
I was in Tracy last year, yea right now it is kind of undeveloped, But I think it will grow fast and be a lot nicer place to live give it 10 years.
The whole summer weather things sounds like a deal-breaker for many people.[/quote]
… as opposed to:
July 9, 2014 at 9:50 AM #776310an
Participant[quote=The-Shoveler]I 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.[/quote]I never understand why people would put up with 90 minutes commute. My limit is 5-15 minutes. In the past, when I was interviewing at GOOG and AAPL, first thing I did was scope out housing to see how much it cost for me to live 5-15 minutes away from those companies and have good school. They’re all well over $1M for your stand 4/2 1600 sq-ft place.
The way I see it, time is money. If you’re spending 3 hours each day in your car, if you live 5 minutes from work, you can either put that 3 hours each day working at your current job to get more work done and potentially lead to a promotion, spend more time with your family, or get another part time job. Not only will you save time to do more productive things, you also save $ in gas and car maintenance.
July 9, 2014 at 9:56 AM #776311Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=The-Shoveler] . . . San Jose has been considering BK for the last 10 years off an on BTW.[/quote]
What’s SJ’s problem? Could it possibly be that they, too, have fallen prey to Big Development’s bribes to approve too many subd permits in their fair city and now cannot provide services to all their *new* population??[/quote]
In the case of SJ I think it is quite the opposite
Not enough new development (and MR).Like I said if you got money your not going to live there BUT people are moving there and they do commute to SV.
I would not necessarily move there if I worked in SV, but people are doing it so it is sprawl and it will continue.
July 9, 2014 at 10:16 AM #776315Participant[quote=CA renter] . . . No matter the tax situation, the counties/cities have no obligation to do anything but what’s best for the cities and counties . . . [/quote]
CAR, you and both know that CA cities and counties can be very “short-sighted,” fickle and perfect targets/prey for their Big Development cronies’ bribes. It would be GREAT if we could count on the local officials we elect to do “what’s best for cities and counties,” but alas, the dollar signs in their eyes are leading them astray. They see more property tax coffers that come into their cities as an elevation of power to themselves (more population = more clout/importance in the region) and blindly sign on the dotted line on more subdivision permits.
Stupid is as stupid does. And the established taxpayers suffer because their services are taken away to accommodate another 50K to 100K residents with each new “master-planned community” that goes in. How does this happen? The MR bond money generated by the new development is deposited by the state into the respective CFDs from whence it was paid. The balance of the property tax goes into the respective school districts, utility districts and voter-approved bonds and what is left over is deposited into a city or county’s general fund. This “leftover” portion is not enough to hire sufficient personnel (with benefits) to service these extra 50K to 100K people. If personnel are hired in years when property tax receipts are higher, they are then laid off when Prop 8 adjustments are made, resulting in lower property tax receipts. Then the personnel serving the long-existing population have to stretch themselves to serve the newer residents, causing wait times to be much longer for ALL residents for services (ex: street sweeping, tree trimming, and hundreds of *new* students crowding established schools until new schools can be built for them). Thus, the CA cities/counties who fell prey to Big Development’s latest ruse just screwed themselves and their constituents.
MR bonds DO NOT PAY for ongoing municipal/county services to a development. They only pay for the initial construction of municipal/county facilities and schools which will be used by this new population. A brand new empty police substation, branch libary or school is worthless without humans to staff it.
The sole cause of this “boom-bust” cycle causing fiscal instability to many jurisdictions of this state is undoubtedly too many approved subdivisions.
July 9, 2014 at 10:31 AM #776316Participant[quote=The-Shoveler]… Like I said if you got money your not going to live there BUT people are moving there and they do commute to SV.
I would not necessarily move there if I worked in SV, but people are doing it so it is sprawl and it will continue.[/quote]
There are a few parts of SJ which are very nice to live in. Its eastern hills (consisting of homes built 1955 – 1970 on 1 AC+ lots and formerly looking over avocado groves) are much like the Oakland Hills and have panoramic views of the entire city (yes, fire ins is higher there). There are also very nice subdivisions off both Story and Tully Roads which have large lot homes built 1964 to 1978. Much of SJ IS well-heeled and established and a portion of its downtown is historical. What I’ve seen of SJ proper is NOT cookie-cutter homes 6-8 feet apart but I haven’t driven around in town there in more than ten years.
Could it be that you’re seeing new subdivisions pop up between SJ and Morgan Hill? I’m not sure that area is incorporated into SJ but it may be now. And, as I stated before, Alameda County is still approving subdivisions on its east and SE sides. Perhaps you’re looking at new subdivisions in the SE corner of Alameda County (Fremont or bet Fremont and Pleasanton)?
July 9, 2014 at 11:01 AM #776317ParticipantI was looking for the lower price new homes (sprawl I guess), they seem to be going up towards the north east areas, I do have a co-worker that lives in a new home (I need to ask him the community again) towards the south of San Jose (he has to drive about an hour or more to get to work), but it is a very nice home and he paid quite a bit for it (over a mil).
It seems a lot more expensive towards the south.
People do commute in SV.
July 9, 2014 at 11:07 AM #776318Participant[quote=The-Shoveler]I was looking for the lower price new homes (sprawl I guess), they seem to be going up towards the north east areas, I do have a co-worker that lives in a new home (I need to ask him the community again) towards the south of San Jose (he has to drive about an hour or more to get to work), but it is a very nice home and he paid quite a bit for it (over a mil).
It seems a lot more expensive towards the south.
People do commute in SV.[/quote]
If your friend’s home is south of SJ, that is not SV. As stated before here, SJ is not really in “SV” either. Yes, Morgan Hill has some million-dollar-mcmansion subdivisions and, yes, it would be more expensive to live there than Fremont. HOWEVER, folks, GILROY, the GARLIC CAPITOL beckons and is cheaper to live in! I guess one could get used to the smell of garlic … or move into one of their far southeastern subdivisions :=0
July 9, 2014 at 11:23 AM #776319ParticipantWhatever, everything seems to be very close together there, I say San Jose because that is where I land but it only takes about 15 minutes and your in Sunnyvale or Cupertino or where ever.
What ever floats your boat in the real world not everyone lives walking distance to everything.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.