Job offer in SF....yes? no? hell no? (Oakland, Berkeley: rentals, townhomes)

[WithDisp]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

Ask somebody who grew up in London if he would rather have a three bedroom condo in London or a large single family home in Leeds. He'll definitely say he would prefer London. I can see wanting to move away if you are from a small town in the middle of nowhere, but I'm from Silicon Valley.

You can't compare the two.

SF is one of the most unique examples of a dense urban city that has the majority of it's economic base OUTSIDE the city itself.

If all of London's best jobs were in Leeds, you can imagine the SFH would be a more desirable option to many.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by boulder2015

Try again, buddy. I bet there is something wrong with that place... i dont see an address for example. The median resale value of an sf condo is over 800k.

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranci...r-records.html

I think it was actually a listing for some foreclosures so its a bad example. I posted that on my way to work; I'm on my lunch hour (I work 1100-2000 today).

It sounds like you concede that condos are at least 20% cheaper than SFHs.

The android browser displays the forum better on my phone but for some reason won't let me paste some links lol, but on RedFin I see a listing for 888 7th Street, #242, in San Francisco, which is a condo with two bedrooms and one bathroom. The listed price is $ 348,220. Half a mile from Caltrain. I've been in that area many times, since I don't own a car and I go to SF on Caltrain. Seems like a reasonably good neighborhood to me.

Are you saying that someone who makes 100k+ (median income Silicon Valley) couldn't buy that? There are many listed for around that price.

Again, from what I can see, it is the SFHs that are expensive, and I support that situation. We need to live in denser communities imho.

Btw I grew up in a five bedroom, two story SFH in a suburb in Silicon Valley but the apartment I now share with my dad (for about two years now I think) is in the same suburb. In Silicon Valley.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

I think it was actually a listing for some foreclosures so its a bad example. I posted that on my way to work; I'm on my lunch hour (I work 1100-2000 today).

It sounds like you concede that condos are at least 20% cheaper than SFHs.

The android browser displays the forum better on my phone but for some reason won't let me paste some links lol, but on RedFin I see a listing for 888 7th Street, #242, in San Francisco, which is a condo with two bedrooms and one bathroom. The listed price is $ 348,220. Half a mile from Caltrain. I've been in that area many times, since I don't own a car and I go to SF on Caltrain. Seems like a reasonably good neighborhood to me.

Are you saying that someone who makes 100k+ (median income Silicon Valley) couldn't buy that? There are many listed for around that price.

Again, from what I can see, it is the SFHs that are expensive, and I support that situation. We need to live in denser communities imho.

Btw I grew up in a five bedroom, two story SFH in a suburb in Silicon Valley but the apartment I now share with my dad (for about two years now I think) is in the same suburb. In Silicon Valley.

That's a BMR (Below Market Rate) unit so yes someone who makes $100K cannot buy that unless they have 4 people in their household b/c of income restrictions on the unit. I'd imagine the waiting list for that unit is pretty long too.

[SageCats]

Originally Posted by sav858

That's a BMR (Below Market Rate) unit so yes someone who makes $100K cannot buy that unless they have 4 people in their household b/c of income restrictions on the unit. I'd imagine the waiting list for that unit is pretty long too.

Yes, exactly. Trulia isn't a good site because it doesn't disclose this information.
I've seen many properties for sale like that in SF (San Francisco Condos for Sale and San Francisco, CA Townhomes for Sale - realtor.com®). Many of them have this clause: "Restrictions Apply. Must be 1st-time homebuyer & income eligible. Maximum income for 1 person = $64,200; 2= $73,350; 3 = $82,550; 4 = $91,700, etc. Application, loan pre-approval, homebuyer education certificate, and SF Purchase Contract due by application deadline. Unit available thru the Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development & subject to resale controls, monitoring & other restrictions. Fair Housing Opportunity"
It's part of a special program to help people out who make what's considered a low income by SF standards. Also, you have to be a first time home buyer.

[SageCats]

Don't forget that old adage... "If it sounds too good to be true, it IS."

[SageCats]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

So buy a two bedroom or three bedroom condo. You can buy those on 100k in San Francisco.

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

The android browser displays the forum better on my phone but for some reason won't let me paste some links lol, but on RedFin I see a listing for 888 7th Street, #242, in San Francisco, which is a condo with two bedrooms and one bathroom. The listed price is $ 348,220. Half a mile from Caltrain. I've been in that area many times, since I don't own a car and I go to SF on Caltrain. Seems like a reasonably good neighborhood to me.

Well now you're just being disingenuous. The listing on Redfin (https://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Franci.../home/17306434) says "Known Below Market Rate".
Here, 888 7th St Unit 242, San Francisco, CA 94107 - Home For Sale and Real Estate Listing - realtor.com® it clearly says "Below Market Rate unit. Must be 1st time homebuyer & income eligible. Max income for 2 person household can make no more than $81,500; 3 person household can make no more than $91,700; 4 person household can make no more than $101,900; 5 person household can make no more than $110,050."

For someone who's a native of the area, you seem pretty clueless...?

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by WithDisp

You can't compare the two.

Sure you can, both are Great Cities and both regions are the kind of place that, if you grew up there, you wouldn't want to leave. Especially if you neither need nor want a monolithic SFH.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by SkySofiaLila

Well now you're just being disingenuous. [...] it clearly says "[b]Below Market Rate unit. Must be 1st time homebuyer & income eligible. Max income for 2 person household can make no more than $81,500; [...]
For someone who's a native of the area, you seem pretty clueless...?

Lol I saw that after I posted it. I can get you some good examples next time I'm on my laptop.

You're missing the greater point here, though. Being unable to buy a SFH here doesn't actually mean you can't live here. It just means you can't get the specific type of housing you want.

One could still live here if they could not afford a SFH. They would live in a condo, or they could rent, or they could share with roommates. You have to understand that for many of us, the Bay Area isn't where we went to get a job after college; it is our home. It is my home. I have emotional connections to the region because I grew up here.

So I guess there could be some people who just refuse to stay here because they can't afford to own their own monolithic building and the land underneath, but few who grew up here would say that. A single family home is just not something I want. If I got married and had kids I would take the biggest space we could afford, most likely a condo.

I'm not sure what's wrong with buying a condo or sharing an apartment instead of buying a sfh if you don't need or want a sfh. Or can't afford one in the area where you wabt to live.

For me as someone who prefers city life, a condo would bring greater enjoyment, actually, not less. A house has a yard to maintain, and more things to break that need to be fixed. Condos are also located in more convenient places for those who don't want to drive everywhere. With a house you need to have everything you like to do right there in your house, or drive a long distance to it.

[neutrino78x]

We're not being driven out, though. The natives know that owning a SFH in a dense, desirable city will always be expensive. This is normal for us. The ones being driven out are the people who want to own their own building and the land underneath. That is always going to be a lot cheaper out in the middle of nowhere than it is in a major city, just because of supply and demand.

Those 600k condos that you are calling low end are actually middle class housing. A big condo sort of defeats the purpose of going with a condo to save money, lol. All you need is a 100 sq ft room for the parents, one 100 sq ft room for each child and maybe one 100 sq ft common area. And at least one bathroom for every two bedrooms. So like maybe 400 or 500 sq ft is all you need. So if it is $1000/square foot you're looking at, you know, 500 to 600k. A one million dollar condo isn't middle class housing, lol.

Like I said, I would favor a ban on new SFHs in major cities.
As old SFHs get torn down they should be replaced with denser housing.

[jade408]

Condos were never an expectation for middle class housing here. We barely have any. We have only built single family homes for generations. We don't have family sized condos. The Bay Area, like most of California is suburban. The only difference is the prices have exploded because we haven't built enoigh to keep up.