The Grass Isn't Greener..... (San Diego, Oakland: tech jobs, neighborhoods, school district)

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by happycrow

Respectfully, your walking-distance standard is a bit of a straw-man. All of them? Perhaps I miscommunicated.

I'm not putting words in your mouth...

Originally Posted by happycrow

But if you're poor or middle-class you're going to drive a long **** time to see them, and you'd better pack a lunch for once you get there. You may as well be living in another state and just come in for vacations.

Originally Posted by happycrow

Contrast this to the notion of any median-income person living within "swing by on the way home" distance of the redwoods, for instance, unless they're up in Crescent City or north of Eureka. Or (much-overrated imho) Tahoe. Or many of the beaches which are now inaccessible to the public.

ok, so now the criteria is 'swing by on the way home'. Of course most people don't live in a place where you can drive through redwoods or past a beach on your way home, but how many people can enjoy that in other states? Do you think that parts of Texas aren't gentrified, if so take a look at the prices in Austin.

I live in Sacramento, I'm 10 minutes away from a number of parks where I can walk down paths canopied with beautiful trees, go to either the American or Sacramento rivers, and Tahoe (which you seem to take great pleasure in calling 'overrated') is two hours away, Bodega Bay less than a 3 hour drive, we live cheap enough in Sacramento that we put a good chunk of our retirement checks into investments, I would guess that our COL is around 40k a year. One of my sons lives in Martinez adjacent to the Carquinez straits with great views and wonderful walking and hiking trails, he's 45 minutes away from San Francisco and two hours from Monterey. His rent- $950 a month for a 700 sq ft 1 bedroom apartment, hardly the digs of the rich and famous, but it's no crumbling ghetto either.

I get it that some people prefer Texas, I have no problem with that, but here's what I don't understand. On the Texas forum people seem to be involved in discussing Texas, not constantly putting it down while claiming that some other state is infinitely better in every conceivable way.

[Matadora]

Originally Posted by LoriBee62

For the record, I don't select Texas as a state to pick on. Personally, I would love to be able to visit the California forum and just talk about things relevant to our state.

Then walk like you talk.

Why start a post mentioning Texas and then come back and post the above?

Originally Posted by LoriBee62

I wonder how long it will be before the California haters come running back from Texas when they discover the grass wasn't exactly greener in other cow pastures. Don't get me wrong, I hope they leave and don't come back. The state prefers innovators, not whiners. But I sure would love to be there when reality bites these guys in the butt.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by ringwise

personal attacks aside, 10 years ago, CA was a boom in the area I lived. No, I wasn't a "loser" since I'd owned my home for longer than 10 years. But in 2005, when it was appraised pending a divorce settlement, it was appraised at $550,000. I sold in 2010 for $235,000. It just resold for $220,000 about 6 months ago.

You are correct to point out that many people did not over extend themselves with a home purchase--as the OP states--but lost $ with upswings and downturns in the CA real estate market for a variety of reasons. Some of it is simply bad luck. (For example, job transfer out of state during a RE downturn, after purchasing at a market peak.) For the OP to assume that everyone whose home declined in value after purchase has a "meth lab next door" is ridiculous.

Originally Posted by LoriBee62

IMO most of the people who did got what they deserved. They weren't people who bought a home. They were people who gambled money they didn't have to play a risky game and they lost. The day traders of real estate, who were very much responsible for the bubble in the first place. Legitimate homeowners who buy within their means and can ride out short term market fluctuations can do well in CA.

You have a limited view of the financial risks of home ownership. No one has a crystal ball to predict future prices in residential real estate.

[Cardiff Kook]

Originally Posted by ringwise

But in 2005, when it was appraised pending a divorce settlement, it was appraised at $550,000. I sold in 2010 for $235,000. It just resold for $220,000 about 6 months ago.

So current prices are no where near past peak prices? This assumption isn't even adjusting for inflation

[Ultrarunner]

Guess it all depends where in the State...

Many Bay Area communities have surpassed the bubble prices... some have not.

I've tracked a number of SF East Bay property and a solid 50% price appreciation can be documented over the last 3 years... incredible as it sounds.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

I'm not putting words in your mouth...

ok, so now the criteria is 'swing by on the way home'. Of course most people don't live in a place where you can drive through redwoods or past a beach on your way home, but how many people can enjoy that in other states? Do you think that parts of Texas aren't gentrified, if so take a look at the prices in Austin.

I live in Sacramento, I'm 10 minutes away from a number of parks where I can walk down paths canopied with beautiful trees, go to either the American or Sacramento rivers, and Tahoe (which you seem to take great pleasure in calling 'overrated') is two hours away, Bodega Bay less than a 3 hour drive, we live cheap enough in Sacramento that we put a good chunk of our retirement checks into investments, I would guess that our COL is around 40k a year. One of my sons lives in Martinez adjacent to the Carquinez straits with great views and wonderful walking and hiking trails, he's 45 minutes away from San Francisco and two hours from Monterey. His rent- $950 a month for a 700 sq ft 1 bedroom apartment, hardly the digs of the rich and famous, but it's no crumbling ghetto either.

I get it that some people prefer Texas, I have no problem with that, but here's what I don't understand. On the Texas forum people seem to be involved in discussing Texas, not constantly putting it down while claiming that some other state is infinitely better in every conceivable way.

Almost everywhere in the country is within 3 hours of some nice outdoor area.

[lndshk]

I think many Californians have moved to the Portland area, the housing prices in Portland have went up so much now, and rent and house for sale are much higher here now then in the inland empire. I am going to move back to California where the prices are more reasonable

[Goin' Coastal]

Originally Posted by lndshk

I think many Californians have moved to the Portland area, the housing prices in Portland have went up so much now, and rent and house for sale are much higher here now then in the inland empire. I am going to move back to California where the prices are more reasonable

C'mon back down!

[BayAreaHillbilly]

This reminds me that one of our notorious California / Bay Area rah rah boosters, LoriBee, has been absent from this forum or changed her handle. Sort of nice not having such repetitive overly optimistic rose colored noise.

[nslander]

Originally Posted by BayAreaHillbilly

This reminds me that one of our notorious California / Bay Area rah rah boosters, LoriBee, has been absent from this forum or changed her handle. Sort of nice not having such repetitive overly optimistic rose colored noise.

That's the problem with the tenor of this board? Really?