Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
bearishgurl
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.
Participant[quote=The-Shoveler]I 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).
Uhhh, Shoveler . . . try 1.75 to 2 hrs one way from Tracy to SV in rush hour. Tracy is +/- 1 hr just to the 680 fwy in rush hour.
A Tracy resident would be MUCH better off commuting to Stockton or Livermore for work than OAK, SF, SV or SJ.
Have you ever been out there? It’s an armpit. Different strokes for different folks … I guess :=0
Edit: Oh and I forgot to add that its 93-103 degrees out there in the daytime at least seven months per year and EASILY can get up to 114 degrees during July – Sept.
ParticipantYes, melanoma can grow like wildfire. It killed my dad (who was the owner of a longtime interstate business and worked mostly outside) in just over 4 months. He discovered a lump in his chest in September (not last year). It was in the area of a small protruding injury he thought he had gotten while leaning over one of his machines so he had put a bandage on it. He had it checked by his dr later that month and it was determined to be malignant melanoma. A large tumor which had grown deep into his chest was removed and he was completely healed from surgery by the first of December. He had a cat scan and everything was clear so he went back to work. By the third week of January, he was having trouble breathing and was admitted to the hospital with pneumonia. By the end of January, he was dead, due to the rapid spread of melanoma to his lungs. By the time I arrived at his bedside, he had been in intensive care on a bipap machine for 3 days at which time his doctor gave him a week to live. He lived 5 days after that diagnosis.
Melanoma kills by spreading through the cancer stages as a rapid fire rate (before many people detect any abnormalities concerning enough to get them to a doctor):
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Dermatology/SkinCancer/4726
http://oncosec.com/what-is-metastatic-melanoma/
http://www.aad.org/dermatology-a-to-z/diseases-and-treatments/m—p/melanoma
My dad was neither fair-skinned nor light-haired, tolerated the sun well (or so he thought) and was a self-made man with incredible business smarts. At 73, he was still working only because he enjoyed it. This could happen to anyone of any age (but usually to those over 50 who may have endured many years of sun exposure) who isn’t paying close attention to changes and abnormalities on/in their body.
I spent a lot of time in the sun when I was younger (mostly boating/waterskiing) but I haven’t done so for about 15 years. When I must be out there in the middle of the day, I wear 50+ sunscreen and 70-100 on my face and I do all my yardwork between 4 pm and 8 pm (depending upon season).
ParticipantI 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.
Participant[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?
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
Participant[quote=spdrun]
spdrun, those large swaths of “vacant land” in the peninsula (and in ALL bay area counties) you’re seeing on your map-reading expeditions from your comfy perch in Manhattan, NYC are protected. By that I mean they are National or state preserves and/or parkland. As such, they will NEVER be built on so there goes your “gentrification theory.”
No need to be insulting. I know about the parkland, which is why I was speaking strictly to already-developed areas like EPA and parts of Oakland.[/quote]
Well, I stand corrected, spdrun. Apparently Santa Clara is currently undergoing massive “gentrification.” Acc to the link Happs provided, several multifamily and commercial projects are currently underway there.
I wasn’t trying to “insult” you. I was going to ask you to obtain a “relief map” of the SF Peninsula to study, but sadly, I don’t think there are any more map stores in the entire country left. A relief map of this area (with overlays) would be extremely interesting, valuable and helpful to have, IMO. It is so hard to explain how it is impossible or impractical to get from “here to there” on the SF peninsula. It is a very unique stretch of land … and save for just a very few micro-areas along the bayfront, it is entirely natural and not dredged, filled in or otherwise man-made. As such, leaders of SM and SC counties have historically and repeatedly chosen to keep as much of this area as possible ecologically preserved … as it should be.
Participant[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]This is because the SF Bay area is relatively close to the rugged and spectacular CA north coast, the best wine regions in the country, Mt Shasta and Lake Tahoe (boating/skiing/hiking) . . . for starters. All of these areas are doable 3-7 hr (one-way) trips and certainly very doable long weekend trips.
And many (mostly peninsula but all over bay area) retirees have season tix to the 49ers (Candlestick Park), Stanford sporting events and the Mountain Winery (concerts, tasting, etc), for example.
http://www.mountainwinery.com/concerts
These types of spectacular venues (ambiance, etc) can’t be recreated in SoCal … or even in the inland bay area and Central CA. These other regions are not only lacking the topography, they’re lacking the towering redwoods among a cool Mediterranean climate creating intimate entertainment settings. In the case, of Stanford, the campus is situated on one of the most beautiful elevations in the state (if not the country). Its world-class olympic pool, stadium and grounds are absolutely pristine as are its observation platforms!
The bay view driving into SF (northbound) on the 101 with Candlestick Park/the Brisbane in the foreground is absolutely breathtaking to me, esp at sunset. It’s one of my all-time favorites and brings back a LOT of memories.
Los Angeles County doesn’t offer quite this level of open space until one gets nearly 50+ miles east of the ocean (bordering SB County) i.e. Walnut, Diamond Bar. Although the up close and personal views of the towering (and sometimes snowcapped) San Gabriels are beautiful, this area is nonetheless very hot (95+ deg) 8 months per year and plagued by over-trucked state highways in middling to poor condition which tend to be at a standstill most of the day on the east side (SB/Riv County lines).
Parts of inland Central CA and nearly all of So-Cal is essentially an irrigated desert. Although there are many beautiful areas in SoCal, the fact that is IS a desert can’t be fixed.
Aside from not wanting to leave family members (as joec mentioned) the above list are just more reasons why most of the longtime residents of the bay area are choosing to retire in place, imho.
I disagree with joec about one thing, however. I believe most of the current retirees in the most desirable, close-in bay area communities have paid-off homes. Thus, they could care less what the local RE market is currently doing. That’s for their heirs to figure out …. someday 🙂
Participant[quote=The-Shoveler]I did a quick search there are actually quite a few new single family homes going up within 1 to 1.5 hours commute from San Jose for under 500K but not sure about the hood.
Hey if google employee’s ride a bus 90 minutes (just saying).
Yea it’s probably about commute time and schools plus further from the Ocean and SF.
Having been to SF quite a few times, I still don’t see the draw. I guess to each their own.[/quote]
“1 to 1.5(+?) hours commute time from San Jose” is probably Morgan Hill or even Gilroy:
http://www.morgan-hill.ca.gov/
http://www.cityofgilroy.org/cityofgilroy/
Shoveler, you’re forgetting that a SV worker/commuter has to navigate the fwy loops in/near SJ around to the Nimitz (nka I-880 spur) to Fremont and surrounds (if not using the toll bridge) or down thru Morgan Hill to Gilroy. That’s well over an hour commute barring any accidents, etc (30-45 mins during rush hr just to navigate thru SJ).
Proximity to the “ocean” in SV is likely not a criteria of SV homebuyers. Except for small off-the-beaten-path enclaves (ex Pacifica, Half Moon Bay) the “ocean” is bordered by mtns, incl state preserves and parkland. Thus, there isn’t much housing near the ocean there (and certainly not many listings situated close to the ocean at any given time).
Participant[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
Anecdotally, a couple weeks ago, I spent some time reading hotel/motel review websites of budget to mid priced properties from San Jose up to Palo Alto along El Camino Real and the 101. The great majority of properties where rooms are $125/night or less get poor reviews. Common themes are lack of cleanliness, unsavory clientele, indifferent customer service by owner/managers, dated rooms, etc.. It seems like one needs to spend $200 a night to get a room in a newer-built or clean property with a caring owner/manager. These 40+ year old properties can’t be paying that much yearly property tax to justify around $100/night. Based on the reviews of some of these properties, it doesn’t seem like computer engineers are staying there and nor are regular tourists or people in town visiting family/friends. Maybe people who can’t afford a regular apartment or who don’t have good credit are staying in these motels. So the boom in housing prices is probably translating to higher motel rates too.[/quote]Happs, from your link, it appears that Santa Clara may currently be undergoing “gentrification.” ALL its new projects underway (except “Midtown Village) ….
http://santaclaraca.gov/index.aspx?page=2495&recordid=39
…. are large commercial/industrial projects and large multifamily projects.
According to the photo in the above link, “Midtown Village” appears to be an “infill” project (as are likely most of the rest of the projects shown in your link) of 2-story homes 6 feet apart with a backyard rear fence not more than 8 feet from the house with another home backing into that tiny backyard (built on substandard lots). In addition, the “styrofoam-looking” columns on the front porch suggest they are built with the cheapest finishes throughout. I would classify these homes as “PUDs.”
A well-built 1950’s-era fixer house on a 7K lot just blocks away for $200K more would be a much better investment than buying into this project, IMO. Correct me if I’m wrong, but when I last checked (in the late nineties), this area of SC (Stevens Creek Park) was situated in the (excellent) Cupertino School District attendance area. Not sure if both sides of the fwy do today.
A homebuyer can’t expect new construction in a single family home in the heart of SV unless it is a spec home (replacing an existing building on one city lot). If a buyer wants a SFR with at least a 5000 ft lot in SV (std-size SFR lot in urban CA), there is a 99% chance that they’re going to have to buy an older home.
It’s funny you should mention some of the hotels in SC Co as being substandard. We had to visit relatives back in the 90’s in that area who had too many guests in the house at that time and ended up staying in a motor lodge right next to the RR tracks in SJ for a few days. It was very dark and dingy in our room and the train, blowing its whistle, came thru several times per night. It was the worst motor lodge I’ve ever stayed in (and I’ve stayed in a LOT). As I recall, we paid about $68 night there around 17-18 years ago! It was during Thanksgiving and we always booked our lodging in advance but we didn’t realize how full the host’s house (although ~3000 sf) would be with their last-minute guests. So at the last minute, this place was the only place left …
Participant[quote=The-Shoveler]I was hearing that they were building new tract homes for around 500K to the north/east of San Jose area (not sure about what the schools would look like).
It’s kind of funny a lot google employees live in SF but have to hop on a bus for 90 Minutes to get to work at the google facility.
Yea I really don’t get it,[/quote]
Any “new homes” for that price would likely be smallish townhomes or zero-lot-line PUDS, Shoveler. I don’t see them fitting into Milpitas due to lack of buildable land and zoning and architectural restrictions due to historical preservation ordinances in place. “Fremont” is the area NE of SJ where there may be buildable land left and its schools are top notch. This is coming from a family relative who retired from their position as a HS teacher in the Fremont Unified School District (located in Alameda County).
From Silicon Valley cities, Fremont is likely quickest-reached by the Dumbarton Bridge and that’s no picnic to navigate back and forth every day.
Regarding Google employees living in SF and taking their l-o-o-o-ong distance company shuttle to work, that is a “lifestyle choice” they are making. ALL of them can likely afford to live near work (in Mtn View and surrounding cities) but choose SF for the culture it offers.
Visiting SF (for me at least) is absolutely exhilarating. It’s a combination of the endless choices of things to do that it provides, with its scenic backdrops (water/bridges, etc) in all directions, the rugged coastline, the wind and brisk air, architecture, city lights and widely diverse people (both residents and visitors).
There’s no other place quite like it on earth.
Participantpatb, the “tech bubble” in Silicon Valley already popped once, in 2000. In less than two years, residential RE in the close-in bay area communities was climbing in value again. Even during the “fog a mirror, get a loan” period (2004 – 2007), SFR listings were hard to come by in SF and the close-in bay area. As such, SF and SV weren’t impacted by the fallout of the failed exotic financing schemes anywhere near as much its inland neighbors (Sacramento, Stockton and surrounds) and Central and Southern CA.
In any case, patb, you’re in Wash DC, no? Any minor blip in prices or a random fixer popping up (or about to pop up) on the market is already being heavily watched (for YEARS now) by enterprising folks who already reside in the immediate area. So, if you were thinking on cleaning up on a “bargain” RE deal in SF, you can’t do it from where you’re sitting. These things don’t generally get put up on the MLS or get signs put in the yard (in many cases, there is no front yard, lol).
Participant[quote=flu]. . . If you have a home in the bay area, you’d be best serve keeping it for the long term. Because unlike here, there really isn’t that much more places to build in the Bay Area, and housing will always be tight in tech capital.[/quote]
Absolutely.
The few places there ARE left to build are 1.5 – 2.5 hours from the city one way by car barring unforeseen (but relatively common) circumstances. And of course, those areas which still have buildable land for subdivisions will have VERY high MR. For example, Tracy and Patterson’s gubments and school districts currently have more population than they can comfortably handle. Money for city services for thousands of new residents will have to come from somewhere.
flu forgot to mention the millions of well-pensioned retirees from every level of government and type of industry whose longtime homes are mostly situated in the most established, desirable bay area communities. The vast majority of them have and will retire in place, IMO. There’s no reason to move (and thus sell) with such low property taxes and the world, literally, at their feet (everything at their disposal). The bay area (and points northward from there) are awesome places to retire!
Participant[quote=spdrun]
You underestimate the amount of money floating in the Bay Area…
People have been saying this about the SFBA since the gold rush. This hasn’t changed the propensity for bubbles and bursts.
Secondly – there is room to build relatively close to SF. Oakland. East Palo Alto. Areas need to gentrify, but this will happen.[/quote]
spdrun, if you mean by “gentrifying” building up or increasing density, save for city centers, I just don’t see any significant upzoning happening in those areas. Past Boards of Supervisors and city officials in SM and SC Counties never allowed in or permitted huge multifamily units for very good reasons. Any city/county leader who makes a motion to do so now will undoubtedly face the fierce opposition of their constituency to any attempts at upzoning.
OTOH, Oakland (and its close-in small surrounding cities) ARE in the process of gentrification … to their betterment, IMO. Positioned in East Bay, Oakland is a completely different animal than SF and SV (where “East Palo Alto” is located – partially zoned industrial). Although hilly going eastward, there are many areas of Oakland which could still be redeveloped. (On a much smaller scale, compare some parts of Oakland to SD’s Dtn and East Village prior to redevelopment taking place.)
I’ve had “saved searches” in realtor.com on SFRs in 12 close-in cities (encompassing 18 zip codes) in the bay area (6 peninsula + 6 East Bay) for over two years now and only rarely does a listing trickle in my in box (by the time I click on it, its usually pending or removed). My sf req was set at 1200 and my garage req was 1 car. I had no age preference and my upper price limit was set at $800K. The truth is, the vast majority of SFR listings in the close-in bay area which are priced under $1,200,000 have an accepted offer prior to or simultaneous to being placed in the MLS.
This has been going on for ten years minimum and I don’t see it abating any time soon. They’re not making any more land there.
spdrun, those large swaths of “vacant land” in the peninsula (and in ALL bay area counties) you’re seeing on your map-reading expeditions from your comfy perch in Manhattan, NYC are protected. By that I mean they are National or state preserves and/or parkland. As such, they will NEVER be built on so there goes your “gentrification theory.”
-
AuthorPosts
