Is S.F. Really Worth The Cost? C'mon -- Really? (San Diego: mortgage, environment)

[Tallysmom]

Originally Posted by sliverbox

nadadsdsdsdssssssssssssssssssss

I have to ask -- since I have nine little helpers... did your kitty help you with this post?

[sliverbox]

Originally Posted by sliverbox View Post
nadadsdsdsdssssssssssssssssssss

I have to ask -- since I have nine little helpers... did your kitty help you with this post?

ha ha! no, what happened was that I accidentally posted the same thing twice. I went back to edit it and for some reason, it said that I had to have 'x' number of characters. So I just typed some garbly-****.

[baygirl]

I believe it was Ralph Waldo Emerson who said "The first in time and the first in importance of the influences upon the mind is that of nature". To put it simply, San Francisco is an inspiring place. It is almost mediterranean in its natural beauty, but still with all the city distractions you could possibly want.

What I noted that everyone talks about when refering to California in general is housing. We as a culture have become tied to our sofas. We care so much about houses and ownership...even in an economy when many people are seeing the value of their homes actually depreciate. I have been a homeowner since an early age (mid twenties) and I find that it only really matters for taxes and if I actually am forced to spend lots of time in my house. Home is where the heart is and it probably doesn't matter whether I own the place or someone else does as long as the people I love are in that house with me at the end of the day and I can find somewhere else to invest my money that will give me the same return that supposedly a house would.

What people who live in more temperate climates such as SF have that others may not realize or place importance on is a quality of life that encourages activity and promotes good health. When you have summers that are too hot, springs that are too wet, and winters that are too cold and Fall that is too short, you really do care about what size your house is...because you are constantly looking at that house as you wait for disagreeable weather to pass. For those of you who live in areas that are climate challenged, you know the feeling you get on a day when it is sunny and 70 after a long winter...or sunny and 70 after a short,but too hot, summer? You can barely keep the smile off your face and you can't wait to get outside and do all those things you've put off because it was too hot, or too wet, or too cold. Wouldn't you much rather do that all year around? Can you really put a price tag on that feeling? Most people I know here are obsessed with how big their houses are and how nice the amenities of the house are and their cars and I honestly believe it is because they spend so much time in the car and in the house (or at the movies and the mall).

[sliverbox]

What people who live in more temperate climates such as SF have that others may not realize or place importance on is a quality of life that encourages activity and promotes good health. When you have summers that are too hot, springs that are too wet, and winters that are too cold and Fall that is too short, you really do care about what size your house is...because you are constantly looking at that house as you wait for disagreeable weather to pass. For those of you who live in areas that are climate challenged, you know the feeling you get on a day when it is sunny and 70 after a long winter...or sunny and 70 after a short,but too hot, summer? You can barely keep the smile off your face and you can't wait to get outside and do all those things you've put

So what you're saying is that people in SF have a 'better' quality of life because of the weather? I've never heard so many people make claims that they CANNOT live anywhere that gets hot, humid, cold, or rainy as I've heard here in the Bay Area.

I grew up in the South. I've also lived on the East Coast. Some of my best memories include doing things like chopping wood on a brisk November morning with a lite jacket on in 35 degree weather. Or taking hikes in the Appalachians on a fall day when the leaves were the color of gold. Others include jumping off of high-dives into cool water at the lake in 95 degree, 80% humidity weather then having a picnic afterwards, watching the fire flies and listening to the cicadas chirp as the sun went down. Other memories include sledding in the snow in Boston or perhaps ice skating at Christmas. I also have equally pleasant memories of being here in California in January when the weather was warm and the sun was high. Bottom line- I am no less active than I was in other places.
Simply put- if you are an outdoors person, then you will be outdoors regardless of what the weather will be. I've had many housemates over the years here in CA- some who grew up here- who rarely if ever step outside and spent countless hours playing video games. Weather or not, couch potatoes survive as easily in all climates.

Cost of living in my opinion is a far worse adversary to the good life. I drive home in a sea of people in the rat-race. They must work every hour of every day just to make their mortgage payments. For those that want a family, this is often put aside until they are well into their late 40's, even early 50's. If healthy weather is all that keeps people here, then that drive home with the windows down in the sun comes with a very high price tag indeed because often times that's all many ever see of it.

Lastly, don't say that you CAN'T do the same things or be as happy in most types of weather. Trust me- you get used to it. If I can live in places that are humid, hot, cold, rainy, and sunny, then anyone can.

Once again, a somewhat weak reason for the astronomical prices demanded for something as simple as a house. Besides, if you already own and bought before the current boom, then naturally you won't see the severity of the situation many current future homeowners now face.

[osjo73]

[quote=sliverbox;531987
So what you're saying is that people in SF have a 'better' quality of life because of the weather? I've never heard so many people make claims that they CANNOT live anywhere that gets hot, humid, cold, or rainy as I've heard here in the Bay Area.

[/QUOTE]

Uh, in a word...yes, that is correct. When we had ice storms this winter I didnt even go to work much less leave the house. Last Spring we didnt evan have a spring. It was 40 ro 50 one day and next it was 90...and then July and August was over a 100....for a number of days consecutively....people actually died from heat stroke....the news says keep pets in doors....check on elderly who dont have air...etc. You cannot say this does not make people stay indoors...and those who did not stay indoors ended up on the nightly news in some horrible car accident.....

Prime example, I was going to attend a professional org. meeting and had prepared to go for an entire month...the day of the meeting the ice storm came....I stayed home.

Its true...not too many people go joggging in the park in July and August in dallas. Maybe at 5:00am in the morning.....Fact is if you dont mind having to schedule your outside events around the seasons in the year....youll be fine here in Dallas.

One thing, I never heard the weatherman in the bay area say rain is coming and you do not want to be out on the roads when it comes. I'm being told to stay indoors because of a rain storm?????? Back home, if the weatherman said rain was coming, you grabbed your umbrella and away you went!!!! anyway....what were we talking about again

[shereealewis]

I was born and raised in San Francisco and although it is a beautiful city I personally do not think it's worth the high cost. The City, as we natives fondly refer to SF, has it's pro's and con's but the cost is not worth it. I feel bad downing my city but "the truth shall set you free!"

[gizmo980]

Originally Posted by sliverbox

So the salaries in SF for a Librarian in SF is 40% higher than in other areas? Perhaps you aren't considering the fact that the cost of living in SF is about 70% more than just about anywhere else. My mom and aunt are both librarians, live in metropolitan areas in other states, make less than those in SF yet both own their own homes, will be retiring early, LOVE where they live, and have lots saved up. You will find via a quick search on the bls.gov web site that wages aren't exactly up to par with the cost of living in many expensive metros, but more than sufficient- albeit less- in other "less sexy" ones. I find the salary argument a poor substitute and outdated by about 10 years. In fact, many professions actually pay more elsewhere than here at this point, and yes- that means more monetarily.

Funny you'd say I was 10 years out-of-date, considering I've only been a librarian for 2 months! I was in the job market just a few months ago, so my information is as current as it can possibly be. Yes, the real estate prices are still higher in comparison, but that's the only downside... and since I have no immediate plans to buy a house, it's not a concern for me yet. And actually, it'll never be a huge concern, since I have outside funds that will go toward that (no need to give details here). Plus, I do eventually hope to become a 2-income household, and then it won't be much of a problem... every married person I know owns their home, so it can't be THAT impossible. Oh, and lots of my librarian co-workers own places too, so there ya go.

So are you saying that if you grow up somewhere that has crappy living situations, then you might as well suck it up and deal with it? Interesting analogy. What I find really confusing about the Bay Area is that while people protest about wars, big government, and so on- nothing is ever done to improve living conditions at home. Housing prices are perhaps the biggest problem with this region.I'm surprised people aren't protesting every day about it with the same enthusiasm as the war.

No, that's not what I said at all... I was saying that when a place is home, that's usually what you know and love. And if living in San Francisco is "putting up with crappy situations", I'd like to know what real crap is like! It's still a terrific city, no matter how you look at it, and you're beginning to sound a tad bitter. We love it here, so what's the problem? You're not paying my rent, so it's really nothing you need to be worried about. The question was asked whether it was worth the cost, and I'm sorry if you don't like our HONEST answers... I can't change how I feel, and I'm certainly not moving to Arkansas (no offense to anyone there) just to buy a home.

And to all those that moved away and came back... I've noticed that Californians seem to only be aware or a very narrow selection of states to move to. WA, OR, AZ, FL, and NY are not the entire United States. There are 50 states in all of which only 5 or 6 are chosen by California relo's probably because someone told them how the above mentioned states were " just like" California. If you do move away, don't do it because you're wanting to go someplace cheaper. Do it because you WANT to. Otherwise, you'll just try to turn something into a place that it isn't which will only cause you frustration. I've been all over this country and trust me- there are many WONDERFUL places that many of you would probably be amazed that you never knew existed. Once you get to wherever you got, leave California and the Bay Area behind and appreciate the beauty around you.

Did I say I'd only lived in Oregon? I don't think you know our life stories, so you might want to learn the facts first... I've also lived in Maryland (where I was born) & Pennsylvania, and have traveled extensively around the US and world. So my vision is hardly jaded, and I know what else is out there - but for some reason, I always end up back here. If it were such a horrible place to live, do you really think the real estate market would be so crazy? We can barely fit all the people who want to live here, and there's a darn good reason why.

[gizmo980]

Originally Posted by baygirl

I believe it was Ralph Waldo Emerson who said "The first in time and the first in importance of the influences upon the mind is that of nature". To put it simply, San Francisco is an inspiring place. It is almost mediterranean in its natural beauty, but still with all the city distractions you could possibly want.

What I noted that everyone talks about when refering to California in general is housing. We as a culture have become tied to our sofas. We care so much about houses and ownership...even in an economy when many people are seeing the value of their homes actually depreciate. I have been a homeowner since an early age (mid twenties) and I find that it only really matters for taxes and if I actually am forced to spend lots of time in my house. Home is where the heart is and it probably doesn't matter whether I own the place or someone else does as long as the people I love are in that house with me at the end of the day and I can find somewhere else to invest my money that will give me the same return that supposedly a house would.

Yes!! That's part of what I was trying to say, but just couldn't find the right words... all I hear is "houses are expensive, houses are expensive, blah, blah". That's all anyone can argue with, and to me (and MANY others) it's a small price to pay for living here. Walking along colorful Mission st, hiking in the parks with my dog, playing at the beach, partying in the Castro, 3 hour drive for world-class skiing and rural country... where else do you get all of that? Maybe NYC, but their COL is just as high, and they don't have real beaches & great weather. Only other city I'd consider is Portland (OR), and maybe Seattle which is also very expensive.

Anyway, considering I'm gone 10-12+ hours a day, who really cares if the house is in my name? I still live in a beautiful home, and when the plumbing breaks I just call my landlord to fix it! I'm not planning to buy anytime soon, so at least for me, it's just not a daily worry or issue. But like you said, home is where the heart (and family) is... I tried to say that in my first post, but "sliverbox" obviously missed the point.

[sliverbox]

Plus, I do eventually hope to become a 2-income household, and then it won't be much of a problem... every married person I know owns their home, so it can't be THAT impossible. Oh, and lots of my librarian co-workers own places too, so there ya go.

Let's do some math. According to the bls.gov web site, the median income of a Bay Area librarian is around $49,000, which nationally is high, but not much more than the average.The median income for a librarian in TN is $39,000. In NC, it's $37,000. In TX, it's $39,500. My Aunt living in the Southeast makes around $42,000. My mom, who's also a librarian makes $47,000. Given the fact that the cost of living in CA is roughly a 4 to 1 ratio in terms of cost, the people living in any of the three above mentioned states will be doing approximately 3 times better than the equivalent librarian in CA.

I myself am married. So are many of my friends. NONE of us own a home even though many of us are making 6 figure incomes. Generically assuming that having a dual income and a marriage means instant homeownership is sort of a false assumption. It really boils down to one thing: money, and how much you have. Now I can understand if you have "money coming to you" as you mentioned,( many in the Bay Area do) but all in all- it takes an insane amount of money to get what people in most other states can get for way easier and with less sacrifice.Sure- me and my wife could squeeze into something- but it would mean we would be turned into mindless work-zombies just paying off the mortgage. Also- if your librarian friends "own" their homes, then either ask them when they bought, or what crazy loans they took out. If they bought in the last 4 years and live off of a librarian salary, the they likely took out one of those wonderful IO/ARM loans that so many people here did ( over 60%) that's causing all the foreclosures to start happening once they reset. If they bought before, then they bought before the boom which ran the prices up 200% in 3 years. When people mention real estate today, they're talking about today, not 2002. Just 5 years ago, the story was entirely different.

And if living in San Francisco is "putting up with crappy situations", I'd like to know what real crap is like! It's still a terrific city, no matter how you look at it, and you're beginning to sound a tad bitter. We love it here, so what's the problem? You're not paying my rent, so it's really nothing you need to be worried about. The question was asked whether it was worth the cost, and I'm sorry if you don't like our HONEST answers... I can't change how I feel, and I'm certainly not moving to Arkansas (no offense to anyone there) just to buy a home.


You're right. I can't change the way that anyone feels. But there are people in Arkansas that feel just as strongly about where they live as you feel about living here. There are people living in Alaska that think the weather is fantastic. But to use mere fact, the Bay Area and California in general is losing more people every year than people moving in.So there's obviously a growing number of people who are discontent and likely for the same reasons mentioned repeatedly on this blog: A decline in the quality of life. This is astonishing given the fact that the economy is actually doing somewhat decently. I think this "is SF the bestest" question would yield very different answers from different groups. I think for young, unsettled, young couples without children, this is a great city to them. But I think you'd get a lot more negative opinions from those with children, who are trying to settle, are either working or middle class, or basically wanting more stability. I don't think SF and the Bay Area offer much in way of anything close to financial stability unless you happen to be wealthy. It has turned into a totally transient city that sucks in young, just out of college kids, and spits them out as soon as they've run the cycle and actually want to settle down.

I see very few middle class families living in this area. The last data pertaining to migration patterns to and from CA showed a net loss of over 29,000 last year. This was heavily offset by a huge influx of immigrants from Mexico. I'm all for new immigration since we are all immigrants ourselves, but simply using economics, I think it is safe to safe to say that the Bay Area is going to be more like a third world country in terms of it's socioeconomic composition soon: A lot of rich people, a lot of poor, and not a lot in between. This image to me is really unattractive. That's why so many people in CA are sort of creating a " reverse dustbowl" and moving to other states. The actual number of middle and even upper middle class people that left last year if it were not offset by immigrants is close to 400,000. That's something to consider when you think about what this could mean for the future here. I grew up in a middle class family and the fact that the BA is so incredibly stratified is what makes it increasingly unattractive to me. Quite honestly- I'm tired of all the bimmers, fancy eateries, chic people, and so on. You see so much of this crap that it becomes generic too.

All in all, what it really boils down to for me is whether or not the fundamental economics of a region supports the cost of living.In the Bay Area, that number jumped the scale and drowned years ago. It makes absolutely no sense. Perhaps if it were to come back into realignment, I might feel differently.

So in conclusion, we all have different opinions on what is important to us. I have my reasons, and you have yours. There's obviously something here that makes you want to stay and pay for it, no matter how much it costs. You seem to fit the bill of many metro type people who need to be entertained, party, and intertwine an area as part of your personality while I myself much prefer coming home and relaxing with my wife, working out in the shop, or taking a quite walk around the neighborhood.My 'place' could be anywhere USA.Neither of us are wrong in what we do,or how we live but it means that what we do in our lives is greatly affected on how easy our chosen lifestyles can be attained in this area. I have my own reasons for falling out of love with the Bay Area.You have yours for adoring it. Perhaps in 5 years we can pat each other on the back and be in places that make us both equally content. good luck to you.

[mr2007]

Thanks for all of the passionate responses to my original post.

Here's my take: The term "worth" is relative.

For me -- based upon the time I have spent in S.F. and what I observed -- the cost of living in San Francisco is not worth it.

I know it may feel like the "Meditteranean" in North America so to speak, but I think it would be less expensive and more practical to live in Atlanta or Austin or Charlotte and just fly to the actual meditteranean several times per year! Personally, I enjoyed S.F. and appreciate the culture, but I didn't enjoy it to the tune $paying $850K for a home that would be $250K in Atlanta.

I live in the Metro Detroit area. And before everyone goes into the "Anywhere is better than Detroit", "Murder Capital", "Rust Belt Economy", "Armpit of America" rant, let me tell you that I live in Oakland County, Michigan -- the "real" O.C. because our incomes and wealth actually exceed that of Orange County, California -- the more popular O.C. If you are familiar with the communities of Birmingham, Bingham Farms, West Bloomfield, Orchard Lake, Rochester Hills, and Farmington Hills, you know that some of these communities-- though near Detroit -- are among the top 10 wealthiest communities in the entire U.S.A. I am not even including the perhaps even wealthier Grosse Pointe communities, which are in Wayne County, Michigan. I just wanted to clear up that I am not stepping over bullet casings in my driveway just to get in my care and go to work. Michigan's core city of Detroit certainly has its issues, though.

There is a small, semi-rural community between Detroit and Ann Arbor called Ypsilanti Township, Michigan. It is a burgeoning area for young families in SE Michigan because you are close to Ann Arbor (University of Michigan) and Detroit (for sports events, concerts, clubs, museums). Google just opened up a new office in Ann Arbor, Michigan and a lot of the Google employees with families are buying homes in Ypsilanti Township. BTW -- SE Michigan is in the process of trying to transform itself from an Automotive/Industrial driven region to an IT Sector and Entertainment Destination focused region. Yes -- Entertainment. We have 3 casinos (not those cheesy casino boats but permanent Casino Hotels -- one of which is an MGM Grand property -- and many other performance/theater venues).

I just want to show you what a $270K home in rapidly growing Ypsilanti Township, Michigan looks like: (see attached photo)

4 Bedrooms, 2.5 Baths, 2861 Square Feet, .25 Acres of Property, monthly mortgage payment of approx. $1380 per month

What would this house cost in S.F.?

In my opinion, I would rather live in an area like this, maximize my money, and use the money I've saves to travel to San Francisco (or anywhere else) as many times as I want. We live in the United States, so we can find enough stimulating activities in almost any area that we live. That's the great thing about this country.

With that being the case, why not maximize your income?