how crazy is SFO real estate?

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter][quote=bearishgurl]

San Diego County had enough positive attributes during ALL of its history to attract “newcomers” without having to “lure” them with a constant supply of new construction to choose from. If they want to be here bad enough, they will find a place to live. If they don’t, or don’t want to live in what SD County has to offer, then they won’t move here. It’s their choice. These are the housing conditions in the SF Bay coastal counties and other, more rural but pristine CA counties as well and none of them are going to go BK or lose their population solely because their leaders were good stewards of their environment and thus created a great place to live for their residents. As it should be.[/quote]

It’s not the housing that lured them, it’s the weather, the job prospects, and the image of California that lured them…and all the people before them since the indigenous people of what we now call California. I’m sure the indigenous people would have loved to keep you (and me and everyone else here) out, too, but that’s not how it works, (un)fortunately.

As a native Southern Californian, I have also seen all the overbuilding and the decimation of once-beautiful scenery. The neighborhood in which I grew up was once surrounded by orange groves, corn fields, and strawberry fields that we could play hide-and-seek in at night…not to mention the glorious views from the mountaintops which we would have to hike to because there were no roads. Now, it’s all developed: those hills that were free for us locals to use are now gated developments with expensive homes — they’ll call security the second you step out of your car up there; and those agricultural fields and groves are now condos, hotels, and high-rise offices. I don’t like it, but accept it as a condition of living in such a desirable place.

I also know that while it might be nice for my descendants to inherit property worth a gazillion dollars, this gain would come at the expense of all the families who would have to pay the exorbitant prices that would exist without new development…and I’m just not cool with that.

You say that the newcomers can just move out to the desert or some other far-flung place with cheaper housing and lower-density development, but it goes both ways. People who don’t like all the density and new developments can move to fly-over country to live on a farm, if space is what they’re looking for. Nobody should expect someone else to pay through the nose so that existing homeowners can enjoy ever-rising housing prices and a nice view of the hills over there. That is nobody else’s duty or obligation, not the government’s nor the families who are just looking for a home in which to live and raise their children.

And Mello-Roos taxes are a boon to the old-time land owners and developers. The land owners get to sell to the developers at an inflated price because the cost of infrastructure development isn’t deducted from the price of the land. The developers also get to sell homes for more than they otherwise would because the cost of the homes aren’t discounted as much as they would be if the cost of the infrastructure were factored into the total price (the “how much a month” club never seems to care much about total price). The benefits of MR are shared between these two parties, and the hapless and hopeless new buyers continue to overpay because financing these costs over decades “makes it more affordable.” :([/quote]

CAR, I agree with much of what you are saying here, EXCEPT that the older established areas are NOT losing value because of the presence far-flung, more “affordable” housing tracts within the same county. In other words, all the overbuilding we have experienced did NOT keep values in established areas (and thus prices which longtime owners situated in these often coveted areas will accept) down. It did nothing to prevent a future heir from inheriting a residential property now worth a “gazillion dollars” in an established area.

I never stated that newcomers should move to far-flung outer lizardia. What I stated, essentially, is that SD County (mostly out of the coastal zones) has numerous areas in which the existing housing is priced appropriately for them, ie parts of Santee, Lemon Grove, Spring Valley, parts of El Cajon, Lakeside, San Marcos, Oceanside, Vista, Escondido, etc, and, to a lesser extent, South County cities. Moderate income newcomers who want to buy a house for their families don’t have to move very far at all from the urban core or job centers. There are plenty of listings in all of these areas. They’re not entitled to new construction just because they have “arrived” here, nor was I. I never stated housing was a “lure” for newcomers but that Big Development’s mantra has always been, “Build them and they will come.”

There was no reason that the leaders of San Diego County and its cities needed to approve so many subdivisions. Especially since “new housing” is not the major “lure” for newcomers to this region. Even LA County and the OC planned their rate of growth much better than SD did …. especially LA County.

And yes, I am considering moving to the mtns, primarily to be close to skiing and living in surroundings with a bit more “solitude.”

[bearishgurl]

[quote=The-Shoveler]It’s just the project growth for SoCal, L.A. is out of build-able land and has been for a while.
Sure some of that will end up being in Riverside county but they will be commuting into SD one way or the other.

Population growth is expect to accelerate as well in the USA over the next 30 years.

(going from 300 mill to 400 mill)

Year Projection Actual result
2010 310,232,863 308,745,538
2020 341,386,665
2030 373,503,674
2040 405,655,295
2050 439,010,253

Charlton Heston said it best maybe in a 1970’s movie.[/quote]

That’s BS. If newcomers scout out a prospective new “hometown” anywhere in the US and can’t find anyplace to live at a price they’re willing or able to pay, they won’t move there to begin with … plain and simple. Please reread AN’s previous post here where he was contemplating moving to SV (he was a “prospective newcomer”):

[quote=AN][quote=UCGal]Back on the topic of silicon valley prices… Friends moved up there last year when he left Qcom for Goog. They sold their paid off Carmel Valley 4Ksf home for well over $1M. They are renting a 1600sf beater house in Palo Alto for almost $4k/month. They are having no luck finding a house for $2.5M or less in Palo Alto.

The increased google salary was not enough to compensate for the HUGE increase in housing costs.[/quote]This is why I’m still in SD and completely rule out the bay area as a possible relocation spot, unless something change (either income there has to go up EVEN MORE, say 50% more, or housing has to decrease). A year ago, as I was pondering moving up there, I ran the numbers and look at housing cost for comparable areas (for me, it’s distance to work and school). For anything that have the distance to work and school like Mira Mesa, you’re look at 2x the price. The salary was higher @ ~25-35%, but with that higher W-2 income, you’ll be paying more taxes, and potentially losing out on some government perks for making less $, so to me, the income increase turn out to be only ~10-15%. There’s no way the number work out.[/quote]

[Happs]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=CA renter][quote=bearishgurl]

San Diego County had enough positive attributes during ALL of its history to attract “newcomers” without having to “lure” them with a constant supply of new construction to choose from. If they want to be here bad enough, they will find a place to live. If they don’t, or don’t want to live in what SD County has to offer, then they won’t move here. It’s their choice. These are the housing conditions in the SF Bay coastal counties and other, more rural but pristine CA counties as well and none of them are going to go BK or lose their population solely because their leaders were good stewards of their environment and thus created a great place to live for their residents. As it should be.[/quote]

It’s not the housing that lured them, it’s the weather, the job prospects, and the image of California that lured them…and all the people before them since the indigenous people of what we now call California. I’m sure the indigenous people would have loved to keep you (and me and everyone else here) out, too, but that’s not how it works, (un)fortunately.

As a native Southern Californian, I have also seen all the overbuilding and the decimation of once-beautiful scenery. The neighborhood in which I grew up was once surrounded by orange groves, corn fields, and strawberry fields that we could play hide-and-seek in at night…not to mention the glorious views from the mountaintops which we would have to hike to because there were no roads. Now, it’s all developed: those hills that were free for us locals to use are now gated developments with expensive homes — they’ll call security the second you step out of your car up there; and those agricultural fields and groves are now condos, hotels, and high-rise offices. I don’t like it, but accept it as a condition of living in such a desirable place.

I also know that while it might be nice for my descendants to inherit property worth a gazillion dollars, this gain would come at the expense of all the families who would have to pay the exorbitant prices that would exist without new development…and I’m just not cool with that.

You say that the newcomers can just move out to the desert or some other far-flung place with cheaper housing and lower-density development, but it goes both ways. People who don’t like all the density and new developments can move to fly-over country to live on a farm, if space is what they’re looking for. Nobody should expect someone else to pay through the nose so that existing homeowners can enjoy ever-rising housing prices and a nice view of the hills over there. That is nobody else’s duty or obligation, not the government’s nor the families who are just looking for a home in which to live and raise their children.

And Mello-Roos taxes are a boon to the old-time land owners and developers. The land owners get to sell to the developers at an inflated price because the cost of infrastructure development isn’t deducted from the price of the land. The developers also get to sell homes for more than they otherwise would because the cost of the homes aren’t discounted as much as they would be if the cost of the infrastructure were factored into the total price (the “how much a month” club never seems to care much about total price). The benefits of MR are shared between these two parties, and the hapless and hopeless new buyers continue to overpay because financing these costs over decades “makes it more affordable.” :([/quote]

CAR, I agree with much of what you are saying here, EXCEPT that the older established areas are NOT losing value because of the presence far-flung, more “affordable” housing tracts within the same county. In other words, all the overbuilding we have experienced did NOT keep values in established areas (and thus prices which longtime owners situated in these often coveted areas will accept) down. It did nothing to prevent a future heir from inheriting a residential property now worth a “gazillion dollars” in an established area.

I never stated that newcomers should move to far-flung outer lizardia. What I stated, essentially, is that SD County (mostly out of the coastal zones) has numerous areas in which the existing housing is priced appropriately for them, ie parts of Santee, Lemon Grove, Spring Valley, parts of El Cajon, Lakeside, San Marcos, Oceanside, Vista, Escondido, etc, and, to a lesser extent, South County cities to a lesser extent. Moderate income newcomers who want to buy a house for their families don’t have to move very far at all from the urban core or job centers. There are plenty of listings in all of these areas. They’re not entitled to new construction just because they have “arrived” here, nor was I. I never stated housing was a “lure” for newcomers but that Big Development’s mantra has always been, “Build them and they will come.”

There was no reason that the leaders of San Diego County and its cities needed to approve so many subdivisions. Especially since “new housing” is not the major “lure” for newcomers to this region. Even LA County and the OC planned their rate of growth much better than SD did …. especially LA County.

And yes, I am considering moving to the mtns, primarily to be close to skiing and living in surroundings with a bit more “solitude.”[/quote]

San Marcos for example is priced appropriately compared to more upscale areas of North County, but it’s not appropriately priced correlated to wages/salaries in the area. Why would an electrician move to San Marcos when he/she could move to the suburbs of Las Vegas and purchase an equal size house that’s roughly the same age for half price? Yes, I know it’s over 100 degrees in the summer in Las Vegas, but it does get in the mid to upper 80’s regularly in San Marcos in the summer with high humidity. Even in San Marcos, Santee, Lakeside, etc, high housing prices make it difficult for a veterinary assistant to afford housing, even an apartment. Speaking of affordable housing, there is an interesting editorial in the San Union Tribune from yesterday which advocated for a free market solution to affordable housing. Free market meaning economic growth. Textbook wise, economic growth should lift all boats, but it hasn’t in the last 30 years, since wages/salaries haven’t increased for the bottom 50% . I like the suggestion in the public comment section below the article of eliminating Prop 13 for second home owners. I also advocate means testing it as well, having it only apply to recorded owners who earn have an adjusted gross income of under $100,0000.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/jul/10/linkage-fee-affordable-housing-compromise/

[spdrun]

What about just renting in the SFBA and keeping your primary in SD as a rental to defray costs? Right now, the buy/rent ratio in SF is out of whack and this can be exploited.

[The-Shoveler]

That why sprawl LOL.

Moving to where they can afford.

[spdrun]

Or “where they can afford their unrealistic expectations”. I’d sooner live in an old 2/1 or 3/1 breadbox closer to town (even in a “bad area”) than a 4/2 out in “Lizardia.”

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Happs] . . . San Marcos for example is priced appropriately compared to more upscale areas of North County, but it’s not appropriately priced correlated to wages/salaries in the area. Why would an electrician move to San Marcos when he/she could move to the suburbs of Las Vegas and purchase an equal size house that’s roughly the same age for half price? Yes, I know it’s over 100 degrees in the summer in Las Vegas, but it does get in the mid to upper 80’s regularly in San Marcos in the summer with high humidity. Even in San Marcos, Santee, Lakeside, etc, high housing prices make it difficult for a veterinary assistant to afford housing, even an apartment. . . .[/quote]

Happs, I can think of dozens of reasons why one would rather live in SD than LV, none of which have to do with housing. And I don’t believe most (experienced) electricians are low or moderate-income individuals. If fact, their salaries are comparable to engineers or above. As you know, the difference (and quality of life) between SD and LV are night and day. The problem with LV is that “summer” is 6-7 months per year, minimum (Apr thru Oct). What do you consider “high housing prices” for a service worker? What about high rent? Electricians and veterinary assistants are professions, not min wage service jobs. There has ALWAYS been a disconnect between salaries and wages offered and available housing for rent or sale in the SD region vs other CA coastal regions. Nothing has changed in this regard except the current and upcoming captive audience for homebuying (Gen Y’s and newcomers’) “housing expectations.” They were “trained” to expect new housing to choose from by Big Development. Previous generations didn’t have an endless smorgasbord of *newer* housing to choose from when they were the age Gen Y is now and we’re all still around and doing okay.

Happs, would YOU move to Las Vegas? Just wondering ….

[spdrun]

“Summer” in Vegas isn’t summer. It’s the equivalent of winter in the Yukon.

[The-Shoveler]

Others want schools for kids etc…

I believe AN
1) had a home
2) had a job.

If you have none of the above you move to where you can find one, usually things work out.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=The-Shoveler]Others want schools for kids etc…

I believe AN
1) had a home
2) had a job.

If you have none of the above you move to where you can find one, usually things work out.[/quote]

Absolutely, the newcomer adapts to wherever they are living. If that is a 1150 sf bungalow circa 1947 in SV (as I mentioned before), then so be it.

Newcomers must adapt to any new locale which they have chosen to move to. That “new locale” is not obligated in any way, shape or form to adapt to newcomers’ housing wishes and wants.

[The-Shoveler]

OK sure, no more sprawl.

I guess we will see if we live 20 or so more years.

I say you will see it.

[Happs]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=Happs] . . . San Marcos for example is priced appropriately compared to more upscale areas of North County, but it’s not appropriately priced correlated to wages/salaries in the area. Why would an electrician move to San Marcos when he/she could move to the suburbs of Las Vegas and purchase an equal size house that’s roughly the same age for half price? Yes, I know it’s over 100 degrees in the summer in Las Vegas, but it does get in the mid to upper 80’s regularly in San Marcos in the summer with high humidity. Even in San Marcos, Santee, Lakeside, etc, high housing prices make it difficult for a veterinary assistant to afford housing, even an apartment. . . .[/quote]

Happs, I can think of dozens of reasons why one would rather live in SD than LV, none of which have to do with housing. And I don’t believe most (experienced) electricians are low or moderate-income individuals. If fact, their salaries are comparable to engineers or above. As you know, the difference (and quality of life) between SD and LV are night and day. The problem with LV is that “summer” is 6-7 months per year, minimum (Apr thru Oct). What do you consider “high housing prices” for a service worker? What about high rent? Electricians and veterinary assistants are professions, not min wage service jobs. There has ALWAYS been a disconnect between salaries and wages offered and available housing for rent or sale in the SD region vs other CA coastal regions. Nothing has changed in this regard except the current and upcoming captive audience for homebuying (Gen Y’s and newcomers’) “housing expectations.” They were “trained” to expect new housing to choose from by Big Development. Previous generations didn’t have an endless smorgasbord of *newer* housing to choose from when they were the age Gen Y is now and we’re all still around and doing okay.

Happs, would YOU move to Las Vegas? Just wondering ….[/quote]

If I was an electrician, I would move to Las Vegas over San Marcos because I don’t think hourly rates for an owner operator licensed electrician are that much less in Las Vegas vs San Marcos, but housing is about half. There are lot of people who don’t really care about quality of life and just move to another city because it’s cheap. There are probably lots of people (perhaps even electricians) who moved to Las Vegas in the last 10 years from inland Southern California who don’t gamble, aren’t too fond of the heat (but grin and bear it) and like the natural landscape but overlook all that for the $$ savings in living costs.

If I was a cardiologist with a successful practice and owned a house in Aviara, no, I would not move to Las Vegas for the $$ savings.

[Happs]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=The-Shoveler]Others want schools for kids etc…

I believe AN
1) had a home
2) had a job.

If you have none of the above you move to where you can find one, usually things work out.[/quote]

Absolutely, the newcomer adapts to wherever they are living. If that is a 1150 sf bungalow circa 1947 in SV (as I mentioned before), then so be it.

Newcomers must adapt to any new locale which they have chosen to move to. That “new locale” is not obligated in any way, shape or form to adapt to newcomers’ housing wishes and wants.[/quote]

I would surmise that the state, county and cities are losing out on income and property tax revenue from the lack of housing in Silicon Valley for eager and willing workers who want to move there for high paying jobs. If I was mayor or a county supervisor and there were high tech companies wanting to relocate to my city or county with a bevy of qualified workers in tow, I’d do everything I could to make it easy for them to set up shop. There is no obligation or mandate for government officials to raise or protect property values. If a retired high school teacher’s house suddenly loses value due to the construction of a large tract across the street, so be it.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Happs][quote=bearishgurl][quote=The-Shoveler]Others want schools for kids etc…

I believe AN
1) had a home
2) had a job.

If you have none of the above you move to where you can find one, usually things work out.[/quote]

Absolutely, the newcomer adapts to wherever they are living. If that is a 1150 sf bungalow circa 1947 in SV (as I mentioned before), then so be it.

Newcomers must adapt to any new locale which they have chosen to move to. That “new locale” is not obligated in any way, shape or form to adapt to newcomers’ housing wishes and wants.[/quote]

I would surmise that the state, county and cities are losing out on income and property tax revenue from the lack of housing in Silicon Valley for eager and willing workers who want to move there for high paying jobs. If I was mayor or a county supervisor and there were high tech companies wanting to relocate to my city or county with a bevy of qualified workers in tow, I’d do everything I could to make it easy for them to set up shop. There is no obligation or mandate for government officials to raise or protect property values. If a retired high school teacher’s house suddenly loses value due to the construction of a large tract across the street, so be it.[/quote]

Well Happs, according to a link on this thread which you provided:

[quote=Happs]Lots of office, retail, hotel and residential projects underway in the city of Santa Clara. Every little bit of new inventory helps if you’re looking to rent/buy.

http://santaclaraca.gov/index.aspx?page=2495
[/quote]

. . . the City of Santa Clara has permitted a dozen or more infill projects currently in progress (both commercial and multifamily). The problem with putting new tracts in SV is that they likely will be infill because there isn’t any more land available for new subdivisions. As such, there is nothing to prevent the existing housing there commanding a premium in both rents and resale prices. I really believe there IS enough housing in SV for ALL of its workers. Many of them are just making the choice to live elsewhere (SF proper, SJ and beyond and East Bay). An employer can’t dictate where their new hires choose to move to or how far away from work they choose to live.

[spdrun]

Technically, I think they CAN tell you how far away you’re allowed to live. Some public jobs require living in a given city or county, so it is legal. I don’t thing most employers will tell employees explicitly where to live, but they may put pressure on if commute times interfere with timely arrival at work, etc.

[Author]

Posts