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 portrayed yourself as a victim by claiming landlords were greedy (and of course, they were the villains). So yes, you were trying to get people to feel sorry for you.
No I didn't, and no I wasn't... I even said that I don't blame anyone specifically for the high cost of living, and only added "except MAYBE (those landlords who are greedy)" as an aside. I admit it was poorly phrased, but I think I've explained enough times by now for you all to drop it.
I've also said at least twice now that I'm fine here, especially since my salary recently increased. I was never playing victim, or even complaining about the cost of living here! The OP asked how the middle class survives, and as a member of that category, I was merely answering their question. Please show me where I ever said "woe is me," or that anyone else is responsible for my situation. I love my job/profession, and even love where I currently live! Sure, it ain't cheap, but I've been here long enough (since 1983) to know what the deal is.
Quote:
Clearly you couldn't afford the rent controlled apartment, but as you said, you didn't have a choice.
I said nothing about not being able to afford it; as was written in that post, I moved because I got a job in Hollister and wasn't about to commute nearly 200 miles a day. Am I not writing English here, or what? Because that one seemed pretty clear, and didn't imply anything about the cost. Considering I ended up with a 1-bedroom (so one fewer than the SF apartment) for only a couple hundred less, cost was obviously not the issue there.
Quote:
I personally wouldn't dwell on something like that, but that's up to you. But what I find interesting is the use of the term "regret".
I don't dwell on it, and honestly hadn't even thought much about that for the last 7 years (until this discussion). In retrospect, it would be AWESOME if I still had that apartment, since it was rent-controlled; but I couldn't have anticipated my job situation (getting a better job on the Peninsula 18 months later), nor the rapid increase in rents during the subsequent years. So be it.
Quote:
And of course, what you're regretting is you gave up a great deal on an apartment that you assuredly knew would be at a below market price as the years went by (hard to imagine anyone in a rent control apartment for the length of time you're talking about that wouldn't be paying below market). Which brings us back to my comment earlier. Knowing that you were paying below market, would you offer to pay more to the landlord (and we both know the answer is "no")?. Based on your thinking, people in rent controlled apartment certainly qualify as greedy.
To clarify one more point about my SF apartment: I only lived there for a year. One year. So I was paying market rate at the time, which is why I said "in retrospect it would have been cool to still have that place." But when I moved it was cheaper elsewhere, so would have made zero sense to keep a market-rate apartment 95 miles from my job.
Quote:
Of course, this is why your argument is absurd. Your landlord did nothing more than charge you a market rate, regardless of the percentage increase from your initial rent (and the chart I supplied, assuming it mirrors the area you were in, pretty much shows this). It looks like everyone went up that amount (so why do you deserve a better rate?). That's great you found a cheaper place, but if your landlord immediately occupied your place after you moved out, then there was a willing buyer, and he clearly knew what the market would command for your unit. About the only way you could make a justification for your accusation of "greed" would be if your unit was 100% comparable to others in the area, your landlord was charging above market, and the unit stayed unoccupied after you left for a length of time. Otherwise, you don't have a leg to stand on by accusing him of being greedy.
My apartment in San Jose (the one that went up $900) was part of a large complex, as I mentioned, which literally charged a different rate for almost every unit. They based some of that on "current market rates," I'm sure, but also showed a pattern of arbitrary pricing for new tenants - and consistent 10% increases on existing tenants, even when the market wasn't "hot." I know this because of friends who still live there, along with reviews and ratings from past tenants. Oh, and my friend there said the unit below her has been vacant for over 6 months. So clearly they're not able to immediately occupy them, and are now asking ABOVE market rate for the neighborhood.
Is that enough info for you to stop harping on me? Maybe my experiences with that one property soured me, and affected my original comments to come across as bitter... but in that specific case, I have reason to suspect greed as their motivation. Perhaps they're in the minority, and perhaps they are not. Fair enough?
Quote:
It's mirrors the crap that was bandied about for awhile about the "living wage". Who the hell determines what is reasonable? Is it someone like yourself that gets mad because your rent went up 80%? And why should you be the determinant of what is reasonable versus the market?
Me personally? LOL, no. But I do represent the middle class, as my salary is literally at the median... and if someone earning the median local salary struggles with rental costs, that just MIGHT be an indication that things are a little off-balance. I would never claim that minimum wage should support living alone in the Bay Area, but a professional middle-class salary like mine probably should. Even if I had a lavish lifestyle (I really don't), we can't argue the fact that 50% of my take-home salary goes to rent. And I'm in a below-market unit right now, so that should count for something. No?
No I didn't, and no I wasn't... I even said that I don't blame anyone specifically for the high cost of living, and only added "except MAYBE (those landlords who are greedy)" as an aside. I admit it was poorly phrased, but I think I've explained enough times by now for you all to drop it.
I've also said at least twice now that I'm fine here, especially since my salary recently increased. I was never playing victim, or even complaining about the cost of living here! The OP asked how the middle class survives, and as a member of that category, I was merely answering their question. Please show me where I ever said "woe is me," or that anyone else is responsible for my situation. I love my job/profession, and even love where I currently live! Sure, it ain't cheap, but I've been here long enough (since 1983) to know what the deal is.
I said nothing about not being able to afford it; as was written in that post, I moved because I got a job in Hollister and wasn't about to commute nearly 200 miles a day. Am I not writing English here, or what? Because that one seemed pretty clear, and didn't imply anything about the cost. Considering I ended up with a 1-bedroom (so one fewer than the SF apartment) for only a couple hundred less, cost was obviously not the issue there.
I don't dwell on it, and honestly hadn't even thought much about that for the last 7 years (until this discussion). In retrospect, it would be AWESOME if I still had that apartment, since it was rent-controlled; but I couldn't have anticipated my job situation (getting a better job on the Peninsula 18 months later), nor the rapid increase in rents during the proceeding years. So be it.
To clarify one more point about my SF apartment: I only lived there for a year. One year. So I was paying market rate at the time, which is why I said "in retrospect it would have been cool to still have that place." But when I moved it was cheaper elsewhere, so would have made zero sense to keep a market-rate apartment 95 miles from my job.
My apartment in San Jose (the one that went up $900) was part of a large complex, as I mentioned, which literally charged a different rate for almost every unit. They based some of that on "current market rates," I'm sure, but also showed a pattern of arbitrary pricing for new tenants - and consistent 10% increases on existing tenants, even when the market wasn't "hot." I know this because of friends who still live there, along with reviews and ratings from past tenants. Oh, and my friend there said the unit below her has been vacant for over 6 months. So clearly they're not able to immediately occupy them, and are now asking ABOVE market rate for the neighborhood.
Is that enough info for you to stop harping on me? Maybe my experiences with that one property soured me, and affected my original comments to come across as bitter... but in that specific case, I have reason to suspect greed as their motivation. Perhaps they're in the minority, and perhaps they are not. Fair enough?
Me personally? LOL, no. But I do represent the middle class, as my salary is literally at the median... and if someone earning the median local salary struggles with rental costs, that just MIGHT be an indication that things are a little off-balance. I would never claim that minimum wage should support living alone in the Bay Area, but a professional middle-class salary like mine probably should. Even if I had a lavish lifestyle (I really don't), we can't argue the fact that 50% of my take-home salary goes to rent. And I'm in a below-market unit right now, so that should count for something. No?
Maybe the issue is not greedy landlords but that you need a new more lucrative career or need to move to an area with a cheaper cost of living.
There are 2 world class universities in Stanford and Cal that could get you trained and credentialed.
Yep. Most people don't understand that for a developer to build a high end luxury building in San Francisco that it must be accompanied with lower income housing (note...nothing for the Middle Class). In addition, as most of us understand, there is simply nowhere to build the housing needed in San Francisco (shy of closing down Golden Gate Park, along with all the other parks and most of the Presidio). In addition, the population of San Francisco for the first 8 years of this decade has doubled (roughly 80k) the growth from 2000-2010 (38.5k). San Francisco is the 2nd most densely populated city in the country next to New York. With this sort of restrictive supply and that type of growth, the ONLY thing that is going to drop housing and rent prices is a severe recession, accompanied by a high unemployment rate. It is humorous how so many people were complaining when SF had an unemployment rate that almost hit 10% in 2010. Now that we are below 3% and most people are gainfully employed, they complain about pricing. Sorry, you can't have it both ways. As the saying goes, "it's the Economy, Stupid".
SF had 6200 new units under construction in 2017, another 15,000 approved and permitted, another 29,000 approved but not permitted, and another 14,000 under review. All of this is in a city with 384,000 total housing units. The combined 63,000 units in the pipeline would be an addition of 16% of SF's housing stock. There is room for more housing in the city of San Francisco. 2014, 2016, and 2017 each had more new housing constructed than any other year from 1995 to 2014.
Market rental prices dipped in SF in '17 and '18. Unemployment has not risen in any significant way. Population has continued to rise. The difference is new housing units.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssmaster
With more new construction in Oakland prices may go down
Or
Luxury units attract transplants from SAN Francisco escaping $5000 one bedroom units. OAkland rental prices continue to rise. The middle class leaves Oakland
(A more likely scenario in my opinion)
Check back in 5 years for the answer
Prices are regional. Oakland prices have already risen as a result of upward pressure from people who want to commute into SF. That will continue. Downward price pressure will come with new housing construction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJonesIII
All this said, it's simply not going to happen. Those who claim it will, have conjecture on those side, and those that say it won't have history on their side.
I look at threads like these (that are a dime a dozen) and call them "dreamer" threads. It's a lot of pie-in-the-sky comments about what "we" need to do to correct the housing problem. Unfortunately for them, there is no "we". If there was, many of these things would have been voted out long ago. I hate to burst anyone's bubble but I think people in San Francisco like the way things are and don't really believe their is a housing "problem". Most of the complaining that I've seen appear to come from transplants and people that didn't buy when they had the chance (so they're on the outside looking in).
Zoning, Prop 13, rent control, environmental restraints, cost to build, etc., have been talked about Ad Nauseam for years. But I would say to those that think changing any of this has legs, to get out there and start knocking on doors and get those signatures (I will say good luck to you as you will need it). But sitting around on forums trying to make hay is not going to do a bit of good.
Admittedly, as much as rent control has clearly done a number on rentals and housing supply from the outset, I'm convinced at this point that ending it isn't going to do a bit of good. The only thing it's going to do is displace people who have been here for years and have no way of paying the market price of rent with a bunch of 1%ers (which I believe is where San Francisco is going anyway). Time will tell but this city will eventually be nothing but the elite.
P.S. Cue the screams about NIMBYism. I can assure you, no one really is worried about the name calling.
The affordability of housing is #1 or #2 on the list of issues of concern to most adults living here. There is no "clear" number done on the housing supply by rent control. In fact, there is no study indicating that 2nd generation rent control (the type existing in SF) has a negative impact on housing supply.
If you want housing, writ large, to be more affordable, then support pro-development city & regional policy. And support increased city and regional transportation funding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssmaster
Why the assumption new construction would be rental units as opposed to luxury condominiums or single family homes?
Being able to build, sell and move onto a next project appeals to many developers.
This would not benefit middle and lower class
The numbers indicate that new construction typically includes more units for rent than for sale in SF--both forms are needed to benefit people across the income spectrum. In 2017, there were 1,363 units under construction for sale, and 3,768 units under construction for rent. Another 548 units were part of mixed rent/sale buildings under construction.
Maybe the issue is not greedy landlords but that you need a new more lucrative career or need to move to an area with a cheaper cost of living.
There are 2 world class universities in Stanford and Cal that could get you trained and credentialed.
Trained and credentialed for what, exactly? I already spent 7+ years getting a BA and Master’s Degree, and have been working in my field (librarianship) for over 11 years - so I’m good!
I love what I do, or I wouldn’t have stuck with it this long... and I’m actually a third-generation librarian, so I guess you could say it’s in my blood too. I really have no interest in doing anything else, to be honest, nor can I think of any lucrative professions where I’d excel. I’d rather be middle-class and love my job, than make more money doing something I wouldn’t enjoy as much.
As for relocating, I’ve discussed my journey with that on other C-D threads. I was actually offered a job in Eugene OR recently, but had to decline because it was part-time, and would have been a major step down in both pay and status. That’s the issue I’ve been facing, where even when adjusted for COL, other regions simply don’t pay their librarians as well as the Bay Area... and since I just got sort of a “promotion” (finally classified as full-time after years of working less than), I think I’ll stick it out here for now. I am still keeping an eye on the listings, though, and actually had a Skype interview this morning for a manager position in Truckee. We’ll see what happens, but the Bay Area has been my home for 35 years, and leaving for financial reasons might not make sense in the long run.
FYI: Despite how my original posts were construed, I really wasn’t complaining or even griping much. I was merely answering the OP’s questions, and explaining how a middle-class worker survives here. I also have other factors involved with my specific situation, which will eventually ease the burdens I’m facing at present.
I saw this after the fact, but with the exception of one line ("and I'm guessing Gizmo would have if there was something comparable at a significantly lower price"), my answer wouldn't change.
Sorry, but one more thing (since I skimmed over it before) - I actually DID move when that apartment got too expensive, and DID find something cheaper! I moved out of that apartment in San Jose after 5 years, and just as many rent hikes, when I realized there were better and cheaper places out there. So I eventually went from a 1br apartment which would have been around $2200 + utilities (so $2300+) with the next increase, to a larger duplex with a yard in a nicer neighborhood, for $2100 including utilities. So you guessed correctly, in fact I went a step beyond "comparable" to "soooo much better."
I also went back to re-read my original post just now, to see if I really was portraying myself as a victim. I see where the "greedy landlord" comment was badly worded, but the rest of my post was basically the opposite of griping or asking for sympathy. The highlights:
- tough but doable if you're not extravagant with non-housing expenses.
- I like living alone, though, which is why I'm willing to allot more of my budget to housing.
- I don't resent anyone personally for anything
- I can't blame anyone for earning a good salary, just as I can't blame anyone for being poor.
- if I wanted to be a Google engineer or something, I would have gone that route in school. But I love what I do, and knew going into the profession/degrees that it wasn't high-paying.
How does that = playing the victim card, or asking anyone to feel sorry for me? Apologies if the landlord comment triggered you, but the gist of my response was that it's expensive but I/we manage, and that I willingly entered a less-lucrative career with the full knowledge of what that meant. Period.
I'm sorry if I pushed your button but I'm also amazed that a Librarian would have such a problem depicting what she actually means.
I can understand how you could think no one would assume you couldn't afford a place when you said "after 8 months of unemployment... had to take what I could get" (yeah, that screams to most people that you had all the money in the world). As for the landlord thing, you just keep repeating that you think someone should be able to make a profit and then ignore the whole concept of market pricing, because it exposes your nonsensical thinking and then you continue to harp about your 80% increase despite the fact that everyone else was paying the same "market" price. You got called on the carpet on your faulty logic and just can't deal with it. I get it. Great job on the selective editing. No worries. Have a great day.
Forget those common 6-figure jobs like engineering, accounting, lawyer, business analyst, software engineer, marketing, publicity, sales, etc. There are plenty of other jobs in the Bay Area that aren't mainstream and people make $50,000 or less. There are waiters and waitresses in Chinatown, seamstresses, janitors. No way they make even close to 6-figures.
If you're single, like someone else said, don't move out of your parents' house, or live with family members, lots of roommates, or live far away like in Tracy, San Leandro, Hayward, and while working in San Francisco, Fremont, SFO, or Sunnyvale.
If married, buy a house in a bad neighborhood of town. I know someone who's low income and rents out a house that's next to a bar who has loud karaoke nights on Friday nights, customers of the bar who park in his driveway, the roof leaks and the owner doesn't want to fix it. That's what you do when you make no where near 6-figures. They previously rented out a condo, but the owner raised the rent and they couldn't afford it, hence now living next to a noisy bar.
SF had 6200 new units under construction in 2017, another 15,000 approved and permitted, another 29,000 approved but not permitted, and another 14,000 under review. All of this is in a city with 384,000 total housing units. The combined 63,000 units in the pipeline would be an addition of 16% of SF's housing stock. There is room for more housing in the city of San Francisco. 2014, 2016, and 2017 each had more new housing constructed than any other year from 1995 to 2014.
Market rental prices dipped in SF in '17 and '18. Unemployment has not risen in any significant way. Population has continued to rise. The difference is new housing units.
Prices are regional. Oakland prices have already risen as a result of upward pressure from people who want to commute into SF. That will continue. Downward price pressure will come with new housing construction.
The affordability of housing is #1 or #2 on the list of issues of concern to most adults living here. There is no "clear" number done on the housing supply by rent control. In fact, there is no study indicating that 2nd generation rent control (the type existing in SF) has a negative impact on housing supply.
If you want housing, writ large, to be more affordable, then support pro-development city & regional policy. And support increased city and regional transportation funding.
The numbers indicate that new construction typically includes more units for rent than for sale in SF--both forms are needed to benefit people across the income spectrum. In 2017, there were 1,363 units under construction for sale, and 3,768 units under construction for rent. Another 548 units were part of mixed rent/sale buildings under construction.
Yawn. Simply another response that doesn't address what was said. Nowhere in the data you supplied does it indicate the type of units that are being built (in other words, low income, luxury, or units in a price category for the middle class). The trend in population has actually decreased over the last two years (so yes, it went up but game a little breather). It will take time to build the units you quoted (and it's laughable you would include things under review). In the meantime, the population will increase by 8k-10k a year (so the amount of units built will not be enough). In addition, the new tax law has disincentivized home buyers so there should be more renters as we go forward.
Who said I cared about affordable housing?
There are tons of scholarly articles and studies written on rent control. Google is your friend. Let me help you here. In the search bar, type "why rent controls increase rents". You will get over 100k hits. Read these articles and we can revisit this conversation in 10 years after you've informed yourself how this works. Thanks!
Last edited by JJonesIII; 05-17-2018 at 04:41 AM..
Yawn. Simply another response that doesn't address what was said. Nowhere in the data you supplied does it indicate the type of units that are being built (in other words, low income, luxury, or units in a price category for the middle class). The trend in population has actually decreased over the last two years (so yes, it went up but game a little breather). It will take time to build the units you quoted (and it's laughable you would include things under review). In the meantime, the population will increase by 8k-10k a year (so the amount of units built will not be enough). In addition, the new tax law has disincentivized home buyers so there should be more renters as we go forward.
Who said I cared about affordable housing?
There are tons of scholarly articles and studies written on rent control. Google is your friend. Let me help you here. In the search bar, type "why rent controls increase rents". You will get over 100k hits. Read these articles and we can revisit this conversation in 10 years after you've informed yourself how this works. Thanks!
You post an awful lot about Bay Area housing prices for someone who doesn't care about the region's affordability. I am aware of scholarly articles on rent control. None demonstrate that 2nd generation rent control reduces construction of new housing units.
You post an awful lot about Bay Area housing prices for someone who doesn't care about the region's affordability. I am aware of scholarly articles on rent control. None demonstrate that 2nd generation rent control reduces construction of new housing units.
Your schtick is weak.
As is yours (in addition to your disingenuous manner of addressing comments). Take some time to educate yourself on that rent control and stop interjecting assertions based on comments that no one has made.
Last edited by JJonesIII; 05-17-2018 at 01:45 PM..
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.
