A NJ Teacher considering a move to SF

[Perma Bear]

Originally Posted by HockeyMac18

The price one pays for a SFH - you know, the things you want sprawled everywhere.

if they did build in the green space people wouldn't need to pay 600k for a house in pleasanton.

[TR95]

Originally Posted by Perma Bear

30 miles and an hour and a half almost? Doesn't seem convenient to me.

Never said it was. Said it was a 45 minute Bart ride to the city. And I said it's too far out for me. But for many t works just fine. There are many advantages to living there if you have a family and don't want the urban lifestyle. It's a suburb, not anywhere close to an exurb.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by Perma Bear

if they did build in the green space people wouldn't need to pay 600k for a house in pleasanton.

Not necessarily. People would move into all the houses that were built, and the values would eventually rise. Also, let's not damage the environment more than necessary.

Why not build denser housing? Then you can own a three or four bedroom unit that is located in the same building as hundreds of other units owned by other people. It is better for the environment and cheaper for the consumer.

Density is the future.

It is actually quite cheap to buy land and put a SFH on it, PermaBear. The down side is that you'll be far away from all the amenities of the area. You'll have to drive a long time to get to work.

Here's 2.56 acres for 7k.

North Edwards, Kern County, California land for sale - 2.56 acres at LandWatch.com

Buy that and buy a manufactured home and have it placed there. Install solar power and appropriate water/septic systems and you're good to go. Far less than a million dollars, probably less than 100k total.

But like I said...you have to live out in the middle of nowhere. I would rather have a shack that is in an area where I want to live than a SFH that is not in an area desirable to me.

[Perma Bear]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

Not necessarily. People would move into all the houses that were built, and the values would eventually rise. Also, let's not damage the environment more than necessary.

Why not build denser housing? Then you can own a three or four bedroom unit that is located in the same building as hundreds of other units owned by other people. It is better for the environment and cheaper for the consumer.

Density is the future.

It is actually quite cheap to buy land and put a SFH on it, PermaBear. The down side is that you'll be far away from all the amenities of the area. You'll have to drive a long time to get to work.

Here's 2.56 acres for 7k.

North Edwards, Kern County, California land for sale - 2.56 acres at LandWatch.com

Buy that and buy a manufactured home and have it placed there. Install solar power and appropriate water/septic systems and you're good to go. Far less than a million dollars, probably less than 100k total.

But like I said...you have to live out in the middle of nowhere. I would rather have a shack that is in an area where I want to live than a SFH that is not in an area desirable to me.

I don't think you know how supply and demand works

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by Perma Bear

I don't think you know how supply and demand works

Says the guy who thinks land should not be expensive in a desirable area like the one in which we live.

[Perma Bear]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

Says the guy who thinks land should not be expensive in a desirable area like the one in which we live.

There's tons of unused land in the bay area, easily enough to satisfy demand. Have you driven down 280? Oh wait you can't drive

[amyvegan]

Hi Girl...
I'm a former teacher. I believe many/most of the SF public schools are over crowded and underfunded. Many/most are full of low income and ESL students with minimal parental support. The Special Education support is abysmal. IEP promises are, tragically, also underfunded. Rich folks send their kids to private school or live in the burbs. If you're looking for upscale (and/or mostly native English as 1st language) school districts, try Pacifica, Millbrae, Burlingame, Hillsborough, Foster City, Belmont, San Carlos, Palo Alto.

I've lived in San Francisco (and nearby) since 1979. It's deteriorated to the point of tears. Don't idealize it, really. It's filthy, the traffic is atrocious, homeless crazies everywhere, and entitled hipsters (tech) have driven out long time locals.Being here on vacation is nothing like living here. I bought a house in Pacifica (google map it) in 1999. It's 15 minutes from SF. Good schools, ocean, small town feel, super close but a world away. Before you move to California, there are 2 things to really think about: long term drought and earthquakes.

Amy