Why is there so much open land in the bay area? (San Jose: renter, credit)

[clongirl]

Originally Posted by FelixTheCat

Are you saying there are normal lending standard today? We don't have normal lending standards today as in 20% down. We have a lot more FHA loans today, where as low as 3.5% downs are allowed. We have an 8k tax credit to almost anyone who buys a house to live in. We have artificially low rates. This is to prop up prices to unaffordable levels and hand money to the sellers and banks via the taxpayer.

How do you explain this? My parents bought a house in the bay area in 1977. Their income about doubled (factoring in inflation), yet they would not have been able to buy the house they bought in 1977 if they had to buy it in 1990. Their income went up significantly, yet they would have been outpriced in the same house, even 10 years before the bubble. This doesn't seem to follow your rule:

" The middle class will still live in middle class areas. Higher income earners will still move to more expensive towns. That's not going to change."

Well, maybe we have 50% of people with mortgages in the bay area underwater. Who knows. Nationally it is 25%. Maybe there are middle class people buying unaffordable houses in middle class areas who are deep in debt just so they can have the dream.

I'm saying that the lending standards are strict (i.e. "more normal") now since the banks lost all that money recently (remember that bail-out?). They are not currently handing out risky loans like they were prior to the "meltdown" of the industry. (much evidence to support this, but I'm not going to search right now).

No, you cannot purchase a house now..today, unless you have evidence of a full time job of at least 6 months, 20% down payment, and excellent credit history. (Unless of course the vultures are back and willing to take a gamble on you foreclosing which in turn causes them great risk).

I honestly don't think you quite understand what happened in terms of the meltdown of the US economy and the banking/mortgage industry. You say you've read about it, yet you keep comparing a completely different era and standard of borrowing with the lack of lending standards by the industry of the past 14yrs.

I'm sorry, but I don't see any evidence of "middle class" folk buying up houses like they did a few years ago- stretching and going into debt just to get in. Not happening anymore. The "flippers" are probably back, but certainly not the working class...too risky in this economy.

It's kind of like comparing the farming industry of the 50's to the factory farming industry of today and corn subsidies. You cannot compare them as in any way as being equal.

[Pushing60]

Originally Posted by FelixTheCat

My question is more of why there is so much state park land? You could technically build around a resevior if the land was sold to a developer. Take lafayette resevior for example. It had houses maybe 1/4 mile from it. There is so much open space in the US. Just drive across the country one time and 90% of what you will see is open land. It doesn't make sense to have all this open land in such prime areas. There is no shortage of land in most cases unless we make it that way. I think we would benefit by lower housing prices and businesses would do better as well because some people won't work here due to high cost of living. Maybe the state will get desperate enough for cash and sell some of that land.

Oh lord I hope they don't do that!! Question...what is so wrong with open space? Do you not want some nice places to go for boating or water skiing or just a nice day out and a picnic and hike?

It isn't and cannot be all about lower housing costs. There must be a balance. One has to remember that once you build on it that land is gone forever.

Also some of the open space that you see on the satellite maps are actually crops. What will happen when those are concreted over?

[OyCrumbler]

The obvious thing to do is to cram a quarter million housing units on treasure island by making the seawalls taller and apartments themselves. The obvious thing to do, really.

[zugor]

The San Francisco Bay Area holds the most extensive wild green belts in the nation with over 200 parks and other protected land. Bay Area Wild is a beautiful book about it.

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Bay.../9781578050109

The East Bay Regional Park system was created in 1934 and now has grown to over 100,000 acres in 65 parks, which is about 156 sq. miles out of the 1,457 sq miles in the 2 counties, that's about 10.7 % of the land. Mt. Diablo State Park adds another 19,000 acres or about 19 more sq. miles.

East Bay Regional Park District | Embrace Life!

This doesn't seem like an outrageous amount to me for the 2.5 million people in those counties to have for R & R.

[Taboo2]

Originally Posted by FelixTheCat

It seems like if you drive aound the bay area that almost every bit of land is already built on. But if you look at an satellite map about half the land is open space. I'm talking about central location in the east bay around san pablo resevior, much of marin county, and a huge chunk of the peninsula.

Google Maps

Parks. We love our parks.

[FelixTheCat]

Originally Posted by Pushing60

Oh lord I hope they don't do that!! Question...what is so wrong with open space? Do you not want some nice places to go for boating or water skiing or just a nice day out and a picnic and hike?

It isn't and cannot be all about lower housing costs. There must be a balance. One has to remember that once you build on it that land is gone forever.

Also some of the open space that you see on the satellite maps are actually crops. What will happen when those are concreted over?

I would settle for 500,000 new 2 and 3 bedroom condo units near downtown sf. A lot of those people wouldn't need to drive at all. There would be less people on the freeway. Imagine the fits that people would have over their home prices falling.

[FelixTheCat]

Originally Posted by clongirl

I'm saying that the lending standards are strict (i.e. "more normal") now since the banks lost all that money recently (remember that bail-out?). They are not currently handing out risky loans like they were prior to the "meltdown" of the industry. (much evidence to support this, but I'm not going to search right now).

No, you cannot purchase a house now..today, unless you have evidence of a full time job of at least 6 months, 20% down payment, and excellent credit history. (Unless of course the vultures are back and willing to take a gamble on you foreclosing which in turn causes them great risk).

You don't want to research anything. Have you heard of FHA loans? Do you have any idea of how popular thay are and how little cash you need? Try googling it.

[clongirl]

I'm honestly not really going to bother... I've answered your original post with my perspective on the matter, as have many others. I'm pretty much done with this "debate" as I don't feel like you're truly looking for answers anyway. I think you're just looking to vent about not being able to afford a home since your posts have not been very cohesive to begin with.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by Uptown Oakland

This is the bay area, people like out door activities and open space to escape the urban landscape. Building more houses won't lower housing prices either. They keep building in San Francisco and each new unit that goes up is more expensive than the next.

Exactly! The wonderful thing about the bay area is the fact that it's not just continuous sprawl everywhere. It's nice to be able to go for a hike through the woods in one of our large parks and enjoy nature sometimes. There's enough developed land in the bay area.

[ca_north]

Originally Posted by FelixTheCat

It seems like if you drive aound the bay area that almost every bit of land is already built on. But if you look at an satellite map about half the land is open space. I'm talking about central location in the east bay around san pablo resevior, much of marin county, and a huge chunk of the peninsula.

Google Maps

I hope you're not asking this because you think every last acre should have a trophy home sucking it dry (I won't assume).

Read up on the history of regional and state parks, and the non-right-wingers who fought to save them. Many "conservatives" (conserving what?) have the mentality that open space is "wasted" and begging for development; unless they can shoot animals on it, in which case they see it as a game preserve. Everything's got to have an anthropocentric hook or a price tag.

Thankfully, the Bay Area has a large percentage of forward-thinking people who see nature and wildlife as worth preserving for its own sake. Open spaces also allow for hiking, horseback riding and mountain biking with nice scenery.

Also, by no coincidence, wilderness or "open space" tends to be in hills or mountains far more often than flatlands. It's rare to find a major park on level ground, if you haven't noticed. America's prairies were mostly replaced by farms. Wildlife would be in much deeper trouble if not for vertical territory. Stretches along rivers are often "preserved" just because they are flood plains.

Basically, it's much easier for human overpopulation (500,000+ gain each year in California alone) to crowd out the most accessible, easily-built-on areas first. The growth itself is the root of rising costs and depletion of natural resources. Shop-talk about bubbles & financing distracts from the real issue of physical limits to growth.