Originally Posted by Steerpike

As I have said, I love the Bay Area, and I love so much about San Francisco (I lived in the City for 12 years before moving to the 'burbs). But this whole 'shuttle bus' and 'class war' thing just pisses me off and is symptomatic about what is so messed up with the Bay Area.

San Francisco is one of the most beautiful cities in the country, and there are literally millions of people who would like to live there. So what gives 'existing residents' any special right to stay there? If you look at the city historically, there were strong Irish and Russian communities, but they were displaced by Asians. There are plenty of cheaper places outside of SF that people can move to.

I personally lived in SF from 83 to 95, but in 95 concluded it was just too expensive for me, and moved out to Walnut Creek - a move I thoroughly enjoyed. My nephew was renting a crappy studio in the City until recently; he vowed never to leave the City but ended up moving to Redwood City recently and absolutely loves it - he wonders now why he ever put up with all the hassles of the City. These 'activist' people seem to think they are a special class of people who deserve special protections from normal market forces. If I want to spend my life being an artist, then I can't also expect to live in the most expensive city in the US ... Oakland is now becoming a haven for these displaced SF folk, due to its affordability. And of course, there are people in Oakland complaining that they are being displaced by these refugees from SF ... it's just the normal cycle of life.

I'm now considering leaving the Bay Area because it's too expensive; I will enjoy 'the next place' just as much, I'm sure, for different reasons.

Originally Posted by johnwoo

You mean places like this in Oakland.
http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/as...xlarge-169.jpg

Screw the poor who cares I'm alright? Maybe we could recreated the workhouse. What the hell are they doing in San Francisco anyway.

What are we to about the poor? they're such a nuisance.

Originally Posted by deadshoppingmalls

You see, the bolded is part of my beef with SF.

A rental home is just that...a rental. Our first place in SF, we got Ellis Acted. The owner wanted to move his elderly parents in (it was a 4 story walk up with 4 apartments). He was awesome. Not only did he abide by the rules of Ellis to the letter, he slashed our rent to $1 for 3 months to ensure we had enough reserves for deposits and moving costs (on top of the $10K he paid us both as part of Ellis). We found a place across the street and could stay in the neighborhood. But in all honesty, if it wasn't for Ellis, we would have left happily with just two or 3 months notice. It was his apartment, we paid him rent in order to have a roof over our heads.

We moved into a building where one of the residents was paying $900 for a 3BR. That didn't even cover their share of the property tax on the unit for a year. Think about that - the landlord was losing money by having them there.

We're landlords to two apartments in Barcelona (another city with a property crisis akin to SF), both rented out long term to families below what we could get for them now as rentals. But damnit, if we needed or wanted to move back - they would have 3 months notice before we moved back and nothing more. While it's their apartment, it's our home.

Originally Posted by Steerpike

I have no idea what the relevance of your reply is. There was a tragedy in Oakland and sadly many people died. Is this somehow related to the cost of housing? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_O...warehouse_fire

Originally Posted by Giantaxe

Inflation-adjusted, we're below the 2008 peak in the Bay Area. You can play around with both non-adjusted and inflation-adjusted graphs on this page:

Case-Shiller Home Price Trends in 20 Cities - Real Estate Decoded

Originally Posted by johnwoo

In your post you thought the poor should get out of SF, how I'm supposed to interpret that? To move into accommodation similar to that which ended in tragedy in Oakland.
Isn't that your solution for people that can no longer afford to live in the city, but who will be there be to do the dirty jobs?

Originally Posted by Steerpike

Interesting - here's the chart for several major cities, inflation-adjusted, including LA, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Portland, SF. I'm surprised to see LA at the top of the appreciation list in 2007; I always thought it was Las Vegas and Phoenix that were highest in the last bubble. And LA is also recovering well.

Originally Posted by Giantaxe

The people who lived at the Ghostship weren't doing "dirty jobs", they were largely choosing the "lifestyle" that that place offered. I do agree that there is some relationship between high rents and the existence of places like that, but let's be realistic here: your average blue collar worker who is "priced out" of San Francisco, isn't moving to places like that.

Originally Posted by johnwoo

In your post you thought the poor should get out of SF, how I'm supposed to interpret that? To move into accommodation similar to that which ended in tragedy in Oakland.
Isn't that your solution for people that can no longer afford to live in the city, but who will be there be to do the dirty jobs?

Originally Posted by Steerpike

My point is, San Francisco is one of the most desirable places in the world, and it makes sense that there will be high demand and thus, high prices, for real estate. If you can't afford to live there, you can't expect the tooth fairy to swoop in and somehow magically 'fix' that for you; you need to look at alternatives. Many people I know who have moved out are ultimately happy with their decision, but there is a collection of people who seem to feel 'entitled' to special treatment and I just don't think they are being realistic. Protesting those shuttle buses is another manifestation of their delusions.

Finding a solution to keep school teachers, firefighters, and similar 'blue collar' workers in the city is of course a noble cause. As Giantaxe just mentioned in another post, rent-control is a failed policy. If the city government can somehow find a solution, good luck to them, but I've been around this for 34 years and I don't see one. I also don't think the people protesting the shuttle busses are teachers or firefighters.

One of the great ironies I remember from my move was that it used to take me 45 minutes to get from my SF condo (inner Richmond district) to downtown SF, but it only took me 35 minutes to get from Walnut Creek to downtown SF by bart. So this notion that you need to be living in the city to work there is just not logical.

Originally Posted by johnwoo

Nor is it logical to expect to find cheap housing in Walnut Creek.

Originally Posted by Steerpike

Finding a solution to keep school teachers, firefighters, and similar 'blue collar' workers in the city is of course a noble cause. As Giantaxe just mentioned in another post, rent-control is a failed policy. If the city government can somehow find a solution, good luck to them, but I've been around this for 34 years and I don't see one. I also don't think the people protesting the shuttle busses are teachers or firefighters.

Originally Posted by Steerpike

OK, so to the topic of leaving the Bay Area ...

I've been in the Bay Area for 34 years, and I can say i've thoroughly enjoyed it. Always had high paying tech jobs, and managed to get into the housing market before it went crazy. I bought my first condo in SF in 85, and traded that up over several moves to a big house in the East Bay. I love the weather in the East Bay. There's a fantastic array of food choices thanks to the abundance of foreign folk in the area.

But now, I'm not working full-time any longer and I'm finding that even though I owned the same house for 22 years, the cost of maintenance is very high (scaffolding that cost $6,000 in 2004 cost roughly $20,000 this year, for example). Traffic is a nightmare if you need to get anywhere during 'normal hours'. Property taxes (even with prop 13) are high, and the cost of living is generally high. And the weather - while generally mild - has been very a real pain this past year with massive rainfall causing me no end of trouble with drainage/etc (this coming after years of drought, bringing its own set of issues).

House prices are at an all-time high. I personally can't see this continuing much longer, so I took the plunge and sold my house earlier this year. I'm now living in a temporary apartment, and spending time at my place in Scottsdale.

The great thing about living in CA is that you can move almost anywhere and save money. I personally love Scottsdale, and am scouting out houses there. But for those who prefer a cooler, wetter climate, you have Oregon and Washington to the north.

I spent 5 years living in Scottsdale from 2009-2013, and discovered that there was much to like about the place. While the dining options are not as diverse as the Bay Area, we found a good Indian restaurant, a great Dim Sum place, a great 'Pho' place, and a ton of very healthy casual spots that are better than anything we found in the Bay Area. The traffic is a breeze in general, stores appear 'empty' by comparison to the crowded stores in the Bay Area, and just about everything is cheaper - from gas at $2:10/gallon to property taxes and income taxes. And of course, real-estate ... you can buy something really fancy in a ritzy development in Scottsdale for a lot less than the Bay Area; and if you are willing to go to cities such as Chandler, Tempe, or Mesa you can get REALLY cheap housing.

My strategy is likely going to be - buy something small and decent in Scottsdale, and with the money I save, make a lot more trips out of the area during the summer when the temperature gets really high.

PS ... I'm still considering So Cal also; I"m off to Pasadena / Glendale this weekend for a look at real estate. I suspect it's cheaper but not cheap enough. I also plan to check out San Diego, but again - while it may be a bit cheaper than the Bay Area, it's not 'cheap enough' to make it worth the move.

Originally Posted by jeepster

Have you thought of Sacramento and it's proximity to the Mountains?