- This topic has 121 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 11 months ago by
spdrun.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 4, 2012 at 12:07 AM #753726November 4, 2012 at 12:16 AM #753728
an
Participant1st one is bleh. 2nd one is better but definitely not walkable to food and entertainment. 3rd one is better but again, SOMA << Marina. I can't find the size of the SOMA property. Not the mention the view in the SOMA property is bleh compare to the Marina properties. You're right, you have to live somewhere, so if you have money, why compromise. Why not live in SD for the weather and fly to NY for the culture?
November 4, 2012 at 12:36 AM #753729spdrun
ParticipantBecause SoCal people might irritate you to the point of self-defenestration. Plus, making money in certain industries is easier in SF than in NYC or SD.
November 4, 2012 at 12:51 AM #753730Participant[quote=spdrun]Because SoCal people might irritate you to the point of self-defenestration. Plus, making money in certain industries is easier in SF than in NYC or SD.[/quote]
So very true and the type of people will never change. It’s harder in other industries.November 4, 2012 at 1:21 PM #753739bearishgurl
Participant[quote=spdrun]Because SoCal people might irritate you to the point of self-defenestration. Plus, making money in certain industries is easier in SF than in NYC or SD.[/quote]
You are so right, spdrun. Most of the jobs, on avg, pay 40% more in SF than comparable SD positions.
My kids have never paid any more than $2350 mo split four ways and have never lived in any less than a 3 br flat and more often a 4 br flat. These flats monthly rents were from $1850 to $2350 mo and abt 1850 sf to 2200+ sf. They were in Richmond (1.5 bl from “beach”) and Potrero (with nearly 360 deg pano views). Depending on size of unit, rents haven’t changed for them in the last ten years.
It appears they were/are paying about $1 per sf in monthly rent.
I don’t know why AN was only looking at a 275 sf studio. Flats of more than 1550 sf per month there are the norm there. As a tenant, you have to be willing to work with the landlords who are mostly reasonable (most have “Prop 13” tax treatment and a good portion own their bldgs outright). For instance, if you want a new kitchen floor, you ask your LL nicely if he/she would deliver the mat’ls and rented/owned tile saw and then lay it yourself. If your toilet is running, you buy a repair kit, install it and send your LL the receipt for reimbursement. If you want use of a corner of his/her garage below for some storage, you offer to clean windows, paint or mow the backyard. In short, be cooperative, don’t ever block the driveway with an unattended vehicle and don’t EVER be a PITA!
If you, as a SF tenant, need to have everything *new* and *perfect* and bother your LL over a missing or broken blind wand, they can and will easily replace you at their first oppt’y, likely for well over the rent than you’re paying :=0
So take this advice for what its worth, be happy, enjoy your pano view and walk to all your fav delis, mom & pops, bus stop and Caltrain and you will likely be able to stay for ~10 years or more without a rent hike :=]
November 4, 2012 at 1:39 PM #753741Participant[quote=AN]1st one is bleh. 2nd one is better but definitely not walkable to food and entertainment. 3rd one is better but again, SOMA << Marina. I can't find the size of the SOMA property. Not the mention the view in the SOMA property is bleh compare to the Marina properties....[/quote] SOMA is convenient, but more than half comm'l. And it is too low to have any views. There are many reasonable areas in SF to live but some are more walkable to stores, delis, restaurants and public transportation than others. If you have the good fortune to have a your own well-located bldg or reasonable rental flat in SF, esp with your own garage to park in, it wouldn't matter as much its proximity (or lack thereof) public transportation. Your life would be grand and it likely wouldn't be worth it for a well-paid SF worker to ever move away from that situation :=] Believe it or not, a LOT of SF retirees live in the smallest unit on the bottom floor of their own buildings (which shares its square footage with garages) and rent out their 2-3 (view) flats above *reasonably* for a fantastic retirement income! And they're on the premises if needed!
November 4, 2012 at 2:00 PM #753745Participant[quote=spdrun]SF has a lack of condos. . . [/quote]
There is a lack of “HOAs” in many areas of SF, spdrun. This is because these buildings were built long before HOAs were a figment of anyone’s imagination. The vast majority of these buildings are comprised of rented “flats,” which are either one-half or one whole floor of the bldg. Almost none of them meet ADA reqs and climbing stairs to these units is required.
In the last two years, I personally have seen online 3000 – 4500 sf residential bldgs for sale in SF (2-3 rental “flats” with 2-3 garages) with asking prices of $500K – $700K. Obviously, they needed work and in a couple of cases, gutting. But they are there and the energetic and enterprising buyers of these fantastic opportunities can eventually (thru “sweat equity”) get themselves a great unit to live in as well as a VERY good permanent monthly income from the other unit(s).
Unlike SD, the vacancy rate in most areas of SF has always been close to zero.
November 4, 2012 at 2:46 PM #753747ParticipantCan you give examples of what you’ve seen online in SF in that square-foot and price range?
Nevermind … seeing a bunch of buildings in SF even on Realtor.com.
November 5, 2012 at 9:18 AM #753758UCGal
Participant[quote=spdrun]Because SoCal people might irritate you to the point of self-defenestration. Plus, making money in certain industries is easier in SF than in NYC or SD.[/quote]
self-defenestration – great term… I knew it had something to do with windows (fenestration)… but assumed it meant gouging ones eyes out (windows to the soul?) until I looked it up.I’m adding that term to my repertoire.
December 3, 2012 at 7:35 AM #755672ocrenter
Participant[quote=no_such_reality]
So the real question with CARB is what is the right goal?CARB’s goal is apparently zero ppm.
What’s our economic cost from the roughly 5 PPM in 1990 to the 2 PPM today and the push toward 1PPM in the future with AB32?
what is the real air quality benefit in smog days we see from the mid-90s to today?
That is the complaint against CARB. Essentially, mission accomplished mid-90s.[/quote]
http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1393589
Pretty powerful evidence of effect of air pollution on autism. We’re looking at 3 times the risk when exposed to higher level of pollution.
Are we sure mission was accomplished in the 90’s?
December 3, 2012 at 11:21 AM #755688no_such_reality
ParticipantExcept the glaring issue, while pollution levels have dramatically fallen, Autism rates have dramatically increased.
So we may have a correlation to living near a freeway (high traffic related pollution), it doesn’t explain the over-all rise in Autism.
December 3, 2012 at 12:02 PM #755689ParticipantLead/other heavy-metal contamination on surfaces from fuel with metal compounds?
December 3, 2012 at 12:24 PM #755691ucodegen
Participant[quote=ocrenter]
http://archpsyc.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1393589Pretty powerful evidence of effect of air pollution on autism. We’re looking at 3 times the risk when exposed to higher level of pollution.
Are we sure mission was accomplished in the 90’s?[/quote]The work is severely flawed. One of the problems if multivariate statistical analysis is correlated independent variables. Because their population sample may have correlated independent variables, the author could remove one of the variables for correlation w/o telling the readers. The reason to remove the independent variable would be decrease heteroscedasticity which could invalidate the correlation if too high. I don’t see multiple multivariate runs with potential cross-correlated variables, which is supposed to be done when you consider removing an independent variable.
Outside of the ‘statistics talk’ above, there is an easy way to cross-check the study.
- Cigarette smoking used to be prevalent during the 1960s, even during gestation. If the mother didn’t smoke, there was second hand smoke in excess to compensate.
- Cigarette smoke contains Oxides of Nitrogen, Hydrocarbons, Carbon Monoxide, Particulate matter, Arsenic.. well above levels produced by a vehicle.
Now, we are much more aware of the effects of Cigarette smoking.. and fewer mothers smoke during gestation… yet autism rates are up. (not to mention what no_such_reality pointed out)
During the 1700s to early 1900s, most heat was produced by burning wood in the house, with all of its pollution by products. (but utism rates are up when compared to this period of time.)
American Indians would often have a small fire within their teepee pre 1900s.. the inside often being quite smokey.
- The authors of the study don’t mention if they filter for smoking vs. non smoking households.
- The authors do not state which part of the autism spectrum disorder, and which degree of the disorder is being considered as a child with autism. There has been some indication that some children are diagnosed as having autism when they just want to be left alone (over involved parent?)
- The authors do not state whether they are eliminating or controlling for subjects that had inoculation shots (The preservative for most vaccines is mercury based, which does correlate to damage to the brain) as well as the number of inoculations (mercury exposure)
- The authors do not state whether they are correlating with use of silver amalgam in fillings for children in their temporary teeth (silver amalgam contains a fair amount of mercury).
- The authors have not considered the potential latent genetic defects that could be caused by the use of recreational substances/chemicals.. the use of which increased after 1960.
I could go on, but as I said.. flawed study.
December 3, 2012 at 12:26 PM #755692Participant[quote=spdrun]Lead/other heavy-metal contamination on surfaces from fuel with metal compounds?[/quote]How about paint.. which had much more lead. Besides, lead was removed from gasoline around 1975 because it and other heavy-metals will contaminate a catalytic converter.. this includes zinc which has been removed from motor oil.
December 3, 2012 at 2:44 PM #755697Diego Mamani
Participant[quote=ucodegen]Because their population sample may have correlated independent variables, the author could remove one of the variables for correlation w/o telling the readers.[/quote] Population and sample are mutually exclusive concepts. The latter is a subset of the former. When the phrase “population sample” is (mis)used, usually its author means to say “study sample”.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.