I told you this isn't rocket science (fight rising rent with more construction) (San Francisco: condo, mortgages)

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by HappyinCali

- The technology of the future will likely be built here. Self driving cars, robotics, electric vehicles, AI, avionics, software etc. all developed here. Ford doubling Silicon Valley workforce in push toward self-driving cars
- These workers will likely be very wealthy and will be able to afford high prices

Well, most of those workers live in Silicon Valley (not San Francisco specifically, which is 50 miles north of Silicon Valley) and make a middle class income (for the Bay Area), 100k or so. Although it is true -- and common -- that if two tech engineers get married and buy a condo together, they have a combined household income of 200k+ and can afford a single family home in an excellent school district. Many live in San Francisco itself, yes, but most are down here in Silicon Valley.

San Francisco only has like 20 tech companies, whereas Silicon Valley has hundreds, hence the name "Silicon Valley".

- There wasn't a single NEW family home built in SF last year. Or the year before. Or the year before. Or maybe there were like some low single digits. Who cares. Not nearly enough

There should be zero single family homes allowed. It is bad for the environment and the economy. What we need are large, DENSE residential developments. Huge buildings holding hundreds of three bedroom condos. I do agree with you that more needs to be built, but it has to be dense. You're never going to solve any housing problem in a big city with single family homes. San Francisco is bounded on three sides by water. You can only build so many SFHs. Then you have to stop building them and instead build dense developments.

Most in a big city don't want a SFH anyway. If they did, they would move to a flyover state where such housing is cheap.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by Perma Bear

Menlo park and Palo Alto are equals. Atherton, woodside, los altos hills, portola valley, and hillsborough are the highest tier. Below Menlo and palo are los altos/mountain view/San Carlos/Belmont, below them are redwood city and Sunnyvale. Below them are San Mateo and Santa Clara, and finally at the bottom of the "peninsula/western Bay Area" is San Jose/San Bruno/colma/Daly city/Pacifica/half moon bay)
Then the east bay cities (Hayward/Oakland/Berkeley etc.)
Then Livermore/Pleasanton/pleasant hill/walnut creek
Then Vallejo/Tracy/concord/Antioch
Then living under an overpass or a homeless encampment
Finally los banos

Good assessment, but next stop after Los Banos would be Planada the crown jewel of Merced County

[HappyinCali]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

Well, most of those workers live in Silicon Valley (not San Francisco specifically, which is 50 miles north of Silicon Valley) and make a middle class income (for the Bay Area), 100k or so. Although it is true -- and common -- that if two tech engineers get married and buy a condo together, they have a combined household income of 200k+ and can afford a single family home in an excellent school district. Many live in San Francisco itself, yes, but most are down here in Silicon Valley.

San Francisco only has like 20 tech companies, whereas Silicon Valley has hundreds, hence the name "Silicon Valley".



There should be zero single family homes allowed. It is bad for the environment and the economy. What we need are large, DENSE residential developments. Huge buildings holding hundreds of three bedroom condos. I do agree with you that more needs to be built, but it has to be dense. You're never going to solve any housing problem in a big city with single family homes. San Francisco is bounded on three sides by water. You can only build so many SFHs. Then you have to stop building them and instead build dense developments.

Most in a big city don't want a SFH anyway. If they did, they would move to a flyover state where such housing is cheap.

Oh I agree. The reason I mentioned that is so that people realize where a market where not even a single new house is built will have natural advantages, as far as price appreciation is concerned, when compared to a market with no zoning restrictions and unlimited land.

And as we build more condos, houses with yards will become even more valuable

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by WanderingFar

This isn't quite true because your property tax increases would be capped by Prop 13. Plus, at least property tax is a write-off come April 15.

If someone buys a home for a million dollars the property taxes on that home are based on a million dollars all things being equal.

If that million dollar home is sold 4 years later for 2 million dollars the property taxes on that home will now be based on 2 million dollars all things being equal.

Prop 13 limits annual increases to 2% plus voter approved assessments and property improvements and this applies to all taxable California Prop...

Property Tax in Oakland is about over 1.5% so this is the number I used to arrive at the 15k property tax on a million dollar sale.

[TheGreatCurve]

Originally Posted by Perma Bear

Cars are cheap as hell compared to
Houses in the bay area

Sure, but if you can't even afford to pay off your car loan then you certainly can't afford a mortgage here, either. And when the car loan bubble bursts, all those people will have their credits destroyed so making it even harder for them to qualify for a mortgage.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by TheGreatCurve

And when the car loan bubble bursts, all those people will have their credits destroyed so making it even harder for them to qualify for a mortgage.

What is the "car loan bubble"? As far as I know car loans are fixed rate, so there is no "bubble" that would the interest rate or payment terms on existing car loans

[Perma Bear]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

What is the "car loan bubble"? As far as I know car loans are fixed rate, so there is no "bubble" that would the interest rate or payment terms on existing car loans

By people being unable to make monthly payments due to job loss?

[rodentraiser]

I get that everyone is saying high rents and high home prices are a result of supply and demand, but it still makes sense to have affordable housing in the Bay Area no matter what it takes.

One reason is simple: commuters. People have been commuting from Livermore and Pleasanton, from Scotts Valley and Santa Cruz, and from Mill Valley and Santa Rosa to the Silicon Valley for years, and now they're moving even further out. You might ask what all this has to do with you. Well, as more and more people move further and further out and commute, they're filling up the freeways with stop and go traffic at all hours of the day now, not just during prime commute hours anymore. You're the ones who get inconvenienced when it takes you two hours just to get to the grocery store - and you're the one living in the area! It's not just the freeways, it's roads like Central Expressway, EL Camino Real, Camden Avenue, and Blossom Hill Rd, among many others, just to name a few in the San Jose area alone.

More commuters on the roads means more roads in worse shape, even the local ones, not to mention how much it costs to fix them (local roads paid for by local taxpayers and not by the commuters who live out of the city), and how often the roads have to be fixed, making it necessary to close roads down which leads to more traffic problems.

Not only that, but in the Bay Area, you're seeing people making lots and lots of money, but spending it 50 to 100 miles away, in the towns they live in. At least some of that money should be circulating in the Bay Area and it's not. And it's skewing the economy on a smaller scale the same way the Californian economy is getting skewed by the thousands and thousands of Hispanic immigrants working here, getting paid in US dollars, and then sending the money back to their country instead of spending it here. In that case, all we're doing is propping up the Mexican economy. With commuters, the people living in Silicon Valley are propping up the small towns and cities the commuters are living in. Either way, that's a situation that can't last forever either without crashing eventually.

[Perma Bear]

Originally Posted by rodentraiser

I get that everyone is saying high rents and high home prices are a result of supply and demand, but it still makes sense to have affordable housing in the Bay Area no matter what it takes.

One reason is simple: commuters. People have been commuting from Livermore and Pleasanton, from Scotts Valley and Santa Cruz, and from Mill Valley and Santa Rosa to the Silicon Valley for years, and now they're moving even further out. You might ask what all this has to do with you. Well, as more and more people move further and further out and commute, they're filling up the freeways with stop and go traffic at all hours of the day now, not just during prime commute hours anymore. You're the ones who get inconvenienced when it takes you two hours just to get to the grocery store - and you're the one living in the area! It's not just the freeways, it's roads like Central Expressway, EL Camino Real, Camden Avenue, and Blossom Hill Rd, among many others, just to name a few in the San Jose area alone.

More commuters on the roads means more roads in worse shape, even the local ones, not to mention how much it costs to fix them (local roads paid for by local taxpayers and not by the commuters who live out of the city), and how often the roads have to be fixed, making it necessary to close roads down which leads to more traffic problems.

Not only that, but in the Bay Area, you're seeing people making lots and lots of money, but spending it 50 to 100 miles away, in the towns they live in. At least some of that money should be circulating in the Bay Area and it's not. And it's skewing the economy on a smaller scale the same way the Californian economy is getting skewed by the thousands and thousands of Hispanic immigrants working here, getting paid in US dollars, and then sending the money back to their country instead of spending it here. In that case, all we're doing is propping up the Mexican economy. With commuters, the people living in Silicon Valley are propping up the small towns and cities the commuters are living in. Either way, that's a situation that can't last forever either without crashing eventually.

But but disruptive technology?! Real estate always goes up! The future!

[Ultrarunner]

Many construction firms are based in the Central Valley... they have lower overhead costs including labor.

The ones that are union get a pay bump depending on where the job is... on one the electrician lived in Placerville and the 2 year job was in Oakland... asked him why he did it and it was about the money...

He was able to make enough for his wife to be a stay at home mom of their 3 kids and live in a nice home on a couple of acres... he would stay over during the week in his camper on the jobsite and was "Security" and got paid a little extra for that.

To him it was worth it and come Friday at noon he was on his way home.