Best Place to live near San Francisco under $450K (San Jose: renting, condos)

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

Why do you keep repeating this, like a mantra? You sound like you have some kind of agenda.

I do. People on the forum think that if you make the median income for the area you're entitled to a five bedroom house with a pool and spa and a big yard, in an excellent school district. But the reality is, if you want the most expensive option, you have to make the highest salary. That doesn't mean that everyone else is living in poverty. There's nothing wrong with living in a condo and it doesn't mean you live in poverty.

Personally I grew up in an upper middle class neighborhood in a house like I just described (my dad made over 200k), but I hated the town because to do anything, you have to take transit for an hour. Not just go to work, but even to go to a decent movie theater. And obviously if you're under 16, you're not driving (at least not legally). So I don't know why people think kids would want to grow up in such a place. Well, some do. But not me. I would rather have grown up in a condo in downtown, assuming my parents made the same amount they did back then. At least then I can walk to a lot of things. There's a museum within walking distance, etc.

It looks OK, in the south end of the city in-between some large parks. But it's a condo, it's not a detached home. Interesting location, though. It sold last year for almost 100,000 less than what it's priced at now. That's a huge hike. It could be overpriced considering it's just a 900 sq. ft. condo. But I guess if those old earthquake cottages are going for &800,000+ in the downtown area, maybe this isn't overpriced. But a $90,000 jump in price in just 6 months or so for a 900 sq. ft. place on the edge of town sounds like a rip-off.

lol you're just making my point for me. San Francisco is a big city. Not one of the top 10 in the USA like San Jose is, but it is a big city. You can only build X number of monolithic single family homes. After that you have to start building denser. It's not a rip off, it's just what prices are in a big city with people living there who make good money. You're making it sound like living at 804 Red Leaf Court, San Francisco, would be an impoverished lifestyle. But it only takes 17 minutes to get to BART from there (through a combination of walking and the bus).

I think it is a good place to stay, and it is under $450k.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

I do. People on the forum think that if you make the median income for the area you're entitled to a five bedroom house with a pool and spa and a big yard, in an excellent school district. But the reality is, if you want the most expensive option, you have to make the highest salary. That doesn't mean that everyone else is living in poverty. There's nothing wrong with living in a condo and it doesn't mean you live in poverty.

Ya know, I haven't noticed that forum members hold this erroneous belief. I don't know where you get this.

Originally Posted by neutrino78x;

lol you're just making my point for me. San Francisco is a big city. Not one of the top 10 in the USA like San Jose is, but it is a big city. You can only build X number of monolithic single family homes. After that you have to start building denser. It's not a rip off, it's just what prices are in a big city with people living there who make good money. You're making it sound like living at 804 Red Leaf Court, San Francisco, would be an impoverished lifestyle. But it only takes 17 minutes to get to BART from there (through a combination of walking and the bus).

I think it is a good place to stay, and it is under $450k.

I don't know where you get that I make it sound like living at 804 Red Leaf Ct. would be an impoverished lifestyle. It looks like a nice neighborhood, to me. I was answering your "what's wrong with it" question, and reporting info taken from the actually listing, for the membership's info, here, in case anyone wanted to discuss.

Just guessing, that some people may not be up for paying close to $450 K for 900 sq. feet, I don't know. Especially since the property is so obviously a flip. I was always told by real estate agents that no one will pay a big increase that takes place in less than a year or two, but those weren't Bay Area agents, so, whatever. If that's what the traffic will bear, then so be it. I rather liked the location, and found the listing intriguing. So you completely misread my post, it sounds like.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

Ya know, I haven't noticed that forum members hold this erroneous belief. I don't know where you get this.

lol just read the forum. All the posts about "I make 70k and can barely make it", but come to find that "can barely make it" means "can't afford a 5 bedroom single family house with a big yard, swimming pool and spa in an excellent school district". lol, smh.

They can afford a condo...but if they can't afford the most expensive living option in the city of San Francisco it means they're in poverty, lol.

I rather liked the location, and found the listing intriguing. So you completely misread my post, it sounds like.

Fair enough, I stand corrected.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

lol just read the forum. All the posts about "I make 70k and can barely make it", but come to find that "can barely make it" means "can't afford a 5 bedroom single family house with a big yard, swimming pool and spa in an excellent school district". lol, smh.

They can afford a condo...but if they can't afford the most expensive living option in the city of San Francisco it means they're in poverty, lol.



Fair enough, I stand corrected.

I agree with you, people's definition of "barely making it" is very different.

When I post in the threads about "can I afford it", I always post from a "is it financial sound long term", which is different from many others. This different approach can be why some think more money is needed to live in a certain areas. Thinking about retirement and a healthy savings plan often is not calculated in the costs because they can be defered, and we all know what happens when they are defered too long.

To summarize, we are all using different "affordability" metrics.

[west17]

Originally Posted by AKADubstep

Hello,

What are the best vicinities near San Francisco that have affordable housing for under $450K

It should be:

-Safe for kids
- Have a high school with a high api (over 800)
- Commute to South San Francisco should be less than one hour


Thanks!

I have been searching for the same.

Martinez does have good schools and access to Bart with housing in that price range but there are the 2 oil refineries nearby.

Crockett has a good high school but the houses are older and the town itself is coming back up but the houses are selling fast. I put a bid on one and the inspection was too scary because of foundation issues/cost so I declined it.

Brentwood has good schools but the drive is very very long although they are putting in a Bart but I think I have read that the commute would be long from there - perhaps you can research that. But their schools are good and you do get a lot of house for the money.

Vacaville has good schools but the drive is long.

Benicia has good schools and if you watch, act fast and bid over the asking price you might get one.

I have decided on Glen Cove, Vallejo, CA. The housing there is being bought up by the minute - the houses sell in one day for over asking price. The good sections of Vallejo are Glen Cove - to the south and east of 80. Or to the NE and east of 80. Use trulia to check the crime index and you will see them.

I have found that most California schools, with the exception of very wealthy neighborhoods, all score low but the kids are a mix and they do have gifted programs. Or there are private schools. So you can't always look at them with a broad stroke. The same as you cannot apply a broad stroke to one city. Each city has good areas and bad areas.

With your budget you will have to choose 2: price, time, school. You won't get all three.

I have a realtor that is very familiar with these areas and she really helped me find the right house for me and works so hard 24/7 to find properties and help you put together a competitive bid. Her name is Cynthia Speers and you can google her. She was recommended by someone here for finding the same answer to the same puzzle and she far exceeded my expectations!!

[ttocs99]

Originally Posted by ketch89

Buy a small lot somewhere like Pacifica and put a tinyhouse on it.

These are so cool, hope to buy one of these in the Bay Area some day.

[bentobox34]

Originally Posted by Bisaro TMF

Bart from Concord/Pleasant Hill to Montgomery Station downtown is only 45 to an hour.

That doesn't include:
- The time it takes to drive from your home to the BART station;
- The time it takes to park, walk from the parking lot to the platform and wait for the next train;
- The time it takes to walk from Montgomery Station to your job.

Each of which could add another 5-15 minutes. In the absolute best-case scenario (you live AND work right next to BART stations at both ends) I would add 10-15 minutes to whatever amount of time the actual BART trip takes as a good rule-of-thumb for the total commute time. However 20-30 minutes or more is a more realistic add-on for the majority of people.

Source: Years of commuting on transit.

[bentobox34]

I'm looking for the same thing, except switch "South San Francisco" with "North San Jose," and make the "good schools" part optional. Even then, it's just about impossible.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by bentobox34

That doesn't include:
- The time it takes to drive from your home to the BART station;
- The time it takes to park, walk from the parking lot to the platform and wait for the next train;
- The time it takes to walk from Montgomery Station to your job.

Each of which could add another 5-15 minutes. In the absolute best-case scenario (you live AND work right next to BART stations at both ends) I would add 10-15 minutes to whatever amount of time the actual BART trip takes as a good rule-of-thumb for the total commute time. However 20-30 minutes or more is a more realistic add-on for the majority of people.

Source: Years of commuting on transit.

Exactly! This is what people forget, or neglect to mention, when giving BART commute times. If you get to the station just as a train is pulling away, you could be waiting there for another 15-20 minutes. Which just extended your commute to 1 hr., not counting the time it takes to get from your house to the station, park, etc. But the only way to accurately measure and compare times with other locations is to give the actual on-board transit time.

[PDF]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

Exactly! This is what people forget, or neglect to mention, when giving BART commute times. If you get to the station just as a train is pulling away, you could be waiting there for another 15-20 minutes. Which just extended your commute to 1 hr., not counting the time it takes to get from your house to the station, park, etc. But the only way to accurately measure and compare times with other locations is to give the actual on-board transit time.

You could say that for anywhere really. I guess it works out if you always make the same time train everyday.