Why the rents in San Francisco were so dirt cheap in the 1960's? (Oakland: sales, real estate market)

[Perma Bear]

Originally Posted by the topper

So the low gas prices and vast amount of lands, along with lack of interests to live a tired, worn out big cities, drove the rent down to the floor! Why can't this happen again? It would be nice if SF or SJ were so dirt cheap again. I guess that's what Donald Trump is trying to do: take us back in time and undo all the dynamics that brought us here today. If he successfully does that, I'd vote for Trump's re-election as the president: floods us with energy/oil with shale oils/electric cars made in U.S., do away with environment regulations and encourage massive construction of housing units wherever there's open land like hill/mountains and farms, building walls to eliminate immigration, and lastly, stop funding sanctuary cities to the point where they would be decline just like they were in the 1960's with lots of aging housing units, tired city infrastructures, higher crimes and young generation leaving the cities to start a family in suburban areas since cities would get out of hand.

I don't know if we can put the genie back in the bottle. In the past people lived in cities merely because it was the best place to get a job, now they live there to live the "metrosexual hipster lifestyle" and go to clubs, bars and dumb trendy restaurants. A lot of the techies think the suburbs are "square".

Another problem is the "exurbs" such as Vallejo, Tracy, Antioch, and Los banos are way too expensive for what they are.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by the topper

So the low gas prices and vast amount of lands, along with lack of interests to live a tired, worn out big cities, drove the rent down to the floor! Why can't this happen again? It would be nice if SF or SJ were so dirt cheap again. I guess that's what Donald Trump is trying to do: take us back in time and undo all the dynamics that brought us here today. If he successfully does that, I'd vote for Trump's re-election as the president: floods us with energy/oil with shale oils/electric cars made in U.S., do away with environment regulations and encourage massive construction of housing units wherever there's open land like hill/mountains and farms, building walls to eliminate immigration, and lastly, stop funding sanctuary cities to the point where they would be decline just like they were in the 1960's with lots of aging housing units, tired city infrastructures, higher crimes and young generation leaving the cities to start a family in suburban areas since cities would get out of hand.

Obama already did that. Didn't you notice that gas went down from around $4/gallon to less than half that? Maybe it didn't drop that low in CA, but it did in parts of the Southwest. It's debatable whether willy-nilly fracking is a good thing.

[HockeyMac18]

Originally Posted by the topper

So the low gas prices and vast amount of lands, along with lack of interests to live a tired, worn out big cities, drove the rent down to the floor! Why can't this happen again? It would be nice if SF or SJ were so dirt cheap again. I guess that's what Donald Trump is trying to do: take us back in time and undo all the dynamics that brought us here today. If he successfully does that, I'd vote for Trump's re-election as the president: floods us with energy/oil with shale oils/electric cars made in U.S., do away with environment regulations and encourage massive construction of housing units wherever there's open land like hill/mountains and farms, building walls to eliminate immigration, and lastly, stop funding sanctuary cities to the point where they would be decline just like they were in the 1960's with lots of aging housing units, tired city infrastructures, higher crimes and young generation leaving the cities to start a family in suburban areas since cities would get out of hand.

None of that is going to happen. Sorry...

[ny789987]

Illegal immigration exploded in the 80-90's. Reagan granted amnesty. NAFTA and other trade deals allowed massive amounts of foreign 1% wealth to flood into the area. The Bay Area you see today is the result of globalization at the extreme.

[basehead617]

Originally Posted by ny789987

Illegal immigration exploded in the 80-90's. Reagan granted amnesty. NAFTA and other trade deals allowed massive amounts of foreign 1% wealth to flood into the area. The Bay Area you see today is the result of globalization at the extreme.

Huh?

Illegal immigration has LITERALLY.. LITERALLY... Zero to do with why housing in SF is expensive now vs the 1960s.

[DabOnEm]

Bayview/Hunters Point is the last area thats relatively cheap for SF city. Wonder how long thay will last.

[Chuck5000]

So much nonsense in this thread, so many hobbyhorse complaints ("everything wrong is because of X, which I hate) and so little mention of the obvious drivers - jobs and job growth in certain high paying industries, and the '60s being a time of decline of the industrial economy.

And oh yeah, in the 1960's proposition 13 did not exist. Maybe that has a teensy weensy effect on housing across the state, especially later amendments that allowed people to pass on the tax basis to their heirs?

The result was that homeowners decided to protect their assets by closing the door to newcomers as much as possible.

The person upthread who says it's environmentalists has been smokin' the wacky weed too much. It's "homeowners" who are nimbys, regular old liberals, conservatives, and others, who want to preserve their assets. It is beyond ideology.

[SOON2BNSURPRISE]

In the 1960's the state had more Republicans than Democrats, although by only a slight margin. In the 1960's the state was more business friendly. In the 1960's a family could live on one income, more so because the cost of housing I am betting. As Liberalism and Socialism have overrun California we have lost what we once had in this state. If people want change then the change has to come from who is getting elected. It is time for a major shift from Liberalism and high taxation to Conservatism and letting the working people keep more of what they earn. Its time to say to those that don't produce that the party is over. It is time to tell the Public Employee Unions that enough is enough.

We can lead the nation. That will not happen anytime soon as long as we the People of this great state continue to give away our power to the Socialist sitting in Sacramento.

[Perma Bear]

Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE

In the 1960's the state had more Republicans than Democrats, although by only a slight margin. In the 1960's the state was more business friendly. In the 1960's a family could live on one income, more so because the cost of housing I am betting. As Liberalism and Socialism have overrun California we have lost what we once had in this state. If people want change then the change has to come from who is getting elected. It is time for a major shift from Liberalism and high taxation to Conservatism and letting the working people keep more of what they earn. Its time to say to those that don't produce that the party is over. It is time to tell the Public Employee Unions that enough is enough.

We can lead the nation. That will not happen anytime soon as long as we the People of this great state continue to give away our power to the Socialist sitting in Sacramento.

Is your dream car the "general lee"?

[SOON2BNSURPRISE]

Originally Posted by Chuck5000

So much nonsense in this thread, so many hobbyhorse complaints ("everything wrong is because of X, which I hate) and so little mention of the obvious drivers - jobs and job growth in certain high paying industries, and the '60s being a time of decline of the industrial economy.

And oh yeah, in the 1960's proposition 13 did not exist. Maybe that has a teensy weensy effect on housing across the state, especially later amendments that allowed people to pass on the tax basis to their heirs?

The result was that homeowners decided to protect their assets by closing the door to newcomers as much as possible.

The person upthread who says it's environmentalists has been smokin' the wacky weed too much. It's "homeowners" who are nimbys, regular old liberals, conservatives, and others, who want to preserve their assets. It is beyond ideology.

Prop 13 exists because people were fed up with the ever increasing taxation of the families biggest investment, the home. It has been an overwhelming success at keeping neighborhoods together. Prior to it people were losing their homes. Elderly people and others that could not afford the tax bill. Anything that cuts taxes is a good thing.