article saying that SF Bay Area needs DENSE HOUSING (San Francisco: rental, condo)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You can expand freeways and build new transit lines, there is room and you can always make room with eminent domain to acquire a right-of-way. It's mainly funding and the enormous costs that prevent most expansions. But it's technically possible.
I see. Well, you're right, there; the state can always run people out of their homes to create more freeway or transit room. That would be very expensive, with the prices of real estate being what they are.
That would be ideal. That mean the peninsula needs to build densely b/c there are not enough units to the number of jobs. Or, they need to build their share so workers can actually live near where they work. Also, the region needs to eliminate public review of new housing units. The couple of posters on here who want to keep their SFH but yet also complain about prices need to be made powerless to stop the building of multi-unit 5-6 story buildings near transit in their hoods. There are a lot of people in the Bay Area like this and I truly believe they are a big factor in this current mess!!!
Which posters are these? And you think there are a lot of people in the Bay Area like this, huh? Would that be the same group of people that posters here feel don't want to expand housing because "they got theirs", lol. I gotta tell ya. I don't know anyone that cares if someone buys a home (more power to them...I'll applaud them). My neighbor moved away a couple of years ago. I can assure you, we didn't get together and plan a scenario so that someone couldn't buy his house. In fact, the only thing he said was all things being equal (i.e. similar offers on his house), he would try to find the nicest family possible (and he did a good job...I love our new neighbors).
I'm also humored by the typical intolerance in your statement (yes, let's make anyone that doesn't agree with your viewpoint "powerless").
Did it ever occur to you that some people think the viewpoint that all you have to do is expand upward and build 5-6 story buildings, skyscrapers, etc,. is going to be pretty useless in the long run and simply overpopulate the city and turn it into a New York type environment? And I happen to think it's clear that the reason it hasn't happened is people like you are in the minority in your thinking (how can I not think that since this isn't the first time it's been talked about and it's never gained any steam).
I always find it funny how people will post some article they've found somewhere of some guy with some blueprint of all the big buildings they'll be putting into the city and how it's going to solve all the "problems". Of course, the one thing that is always missing is how they'll either take down the economy or how they will stop people from coming into one of the most desirable cities in the country (pretty much the only way I could see rentals and housing prices coming down).
There are currently over 850,000 people that live in San Francisco. From 2000 through 2009, the population increased by 52,000 people. In just the first 5 years of this decade, the population has increased by 48K (so nearly matched the entire last decade). Not only will you not be able to meet demand at this pace, but the only thing that would happen is people from outlying areas would just flock to the city and buy or rent all the new units. People would then inhabit the outlying area and new people coming to the area would once again drive up prices (seems pretty logical to me).
In addition, most of my friends who are homeowners, and have relocated (something my wife and I are thinking of doing) don't even sell their home. They rent them out. And pretty much all of them aren't the least bit concerned about some drastic reduction of rents or mortgages (none of us think it could happen for any real duration and we'll all be getting cash flow regardless).
I hardly think the next recession will be quite normal since this is one of the cleanest home buyer cycles in the last 20 years
-1/3rd have been bought with cash. I have no idea why people always claim this would result in some sort of distressed inventory. It will do nothing of the sort. It actually works against the "bubble" argument.
-Buyers of 2010-2014 have equity protection
-Cash Flow of these buyers get better each year since most have fixed debt payments with rates of 3.25%- 4.25%
It's the exact opposite from the housing bubble years. Even semi exotic debt are structured in a way where you still need to have the income capacity to own the debt.
You've already got 72% of available rental stock under rent control. What other artificial means could you manufacturer to bring prices down (and more importantly that you could get people to agree to?). You're never going to be able to stop income inequality (shy of full blown socialism). But many of you will continue to try anyway. And in the end, all you're doing is passing on the cost of things to the very Middle Class you claim you're trying to help.
Last edited by bodyforlife99; 03-31-2016 at 01:12 PM..
Which posters are these? And you think there are a lot of people in the Bay Area like this, huh? Would that be the same group of people that posters here feel don't want to expand housing because "they got theirs", lol. I gotta tell ya. I don't know anyone that cares if someone buys a home (more power to them...I'll applaud them). My neighbor moved away a couple of years ago. I can assure you, we didn't get together and plan a scenario so that someone couldn't buy his house. In fact, the only thing he said was all things being equal (i.e. similar offers on his house), he would try to find the nicest family possible (and he did a good job...I love our new neighbors).
I'm also humored by the typical intolerance in your statement (yes, let's make anyone that doesn't agree with your viewpoint "powerless").
Did it ever occur to you that some people think the viewpoint that all you have to do is expand upward and build 5-6 story buildings, skyscrapers, etc,. is going to be pretty useless in the long run and simply overpopulate the city and turn it into a New York type environment? And I happen to think it's clear that the reason it hasn't happened is people like you are in the minority in your thinking (how can I not think that since this isn't the first time it's been talked about and it's never gained any steam).
I always find it funny how people will post some article they've found somewhere of some guy with some blueprint of all the big buildings they'll be putting into the city and how it's going to solve all the "problems". Of course, the one thing that is always missing is how they'll either take down the economy or how they will stop people from coming into one of the most desirable cities in the country (pretty much the only way I could see rentals and housing prices coming down).
There are currently over 850,000 people that live in San Francisco. From 2000 through 2009, the population increased by 52,000 people. In just the first 5 years of this decade, the population has increased by 48K (so nearly matched the entire last decade). Not only will you not be able to meet demand at this pace, but the only thing that would happen is people from outlying areas would just flock to the city and buy or rent all the new units. People would then inhabit the outlying area and new people coming to the area would once again drive up prices (seems pretty logical to me).
In addition, most of my friends who are homeowners, and have relocated (something my wife and I are thinking of doing) don't even sell their home. They rent them out. And pretty much all of them aren't the least bit concerned about some drastic reduction of rents or mortgages (none of us think it could happen for any real duration and we'll all be getting cash flow regardless).
I hardly think the next recession will be quite normal since this is one of the cleanest home buyer cycles in the last 20 years
-1/3rd have been bought with cash. I have no idea why people always claim this would result in some sort of distressed inventory. It will do nothing of the sort. It actually works against the "bubble" argument.
-Buyers of 2010-2014 have equity protection
-Cash Flow of these buyers get better each year since most have fixed debt payments with rates of 3.25%- 4.25%
It's the exact opposite from the housing bubble years. Even semi exotic debt are structured in a way where you still need to have the income capacity to own the debt.
You've already got 72% of available rental stock under rent control. What other artificial means could you manufacturer to bring prices down (and more importantly that you could get people to agree to?). You're never going to be able to stop income inequality (shy of full blown socialism). But many of you will continue to try anyway. And in the end, all you're doing is passing on the cost of things to the very Middle Class you claim you're trying to help.
Ah the classic "This time is different! It's a new paradigm" argument. It's so old it applied to AARP and drove a 1947 Chevy as its first car.
You can expand freeways and build new transit lines, there is room and you can always make room with eminent domain to acquire a right-of-way. It's mainly funding and the enormous costs that prevent most expansions. But it's technically possible.
Somehow I knew it would only be time when someone started talking about kicking people out of their homes. I'm thinking that was the ultimate goal all along.
Somebody help me out here. Who was that environmental group that was attempting to force seniors out of their SFH after their kids moved out to make way for younger families?
You must not remember the 2008 crash... Or the 2000 crash... Or the....
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it
Uh, I think I commented on that. Apparently you didn't read it.
Funny thing is, you comment should probably be directed at you. Somehow you think things will be different and that rents and housing will permanently go down just because we have a recession (rents don't typically go hand and hand with housing depreciation). In addition to our home in SF, we have an investment property. The rent never changed from 2006 through 2010 (despite the recession). And of course, now we get more. I guess you don't remember the last 40 years of exceeding previous highs in housing after every recession. Yes, most of us get that the housing market has ebbs and flows (as does the economy). But, of course, you have no logical reply as to why our next recession should be in any way like 2008. Do let me know when you can back up your comment with some statistical data (you know, things like existing inventory, distressed housing, and the like).
Somehow I knew it would only be time when someone started talking about kicking people out of their homes. I'm thinking that was the ultimate goal all along.
Somebody help me out here. Who was that environmental group that was attempting to force seniors out of their SFH after their kids moved out to make way for younger families?
How do you think many of today's freeways were built in the first place? Nowadays there tends to be far fewer people displaced by freeway construction it seems.
Uh, I think I commented on that. Apparently you didn't read it.
Funny thing is, you comment should probably be directed at you. Somehow you think things will be different and that rents and housing will permanently go down just because we have a recession (rents don't typically go hand and hand with housing depreciation). In addition to our home in SF, we have an investment property. The rent never changed from 2006 through 2010 (despite the recession). And of course, now we get more. I guess you don't remember the last 40 years of exceeding previous highs in housing after every recession. Yes, most of us get that the housing market has ebbs and flows (as does the economy). But, of course, you have no logical reply as to why our next recession should be in any way like 2008. Do let me know when you can back up your comment with some statistical data (you know, things like existing inventory, distressed housing, and the like).
I could care less about rent. The housing values are what I'm keeping an eye on, especially in the east bay which takes bubbles way worse than the peninsula you seek to be focusing on
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
