Prop 13 reform to be on 2020 ballot (San Francisco, Sacramento: countertops, safe neighborhoods, purchase)

[JJonesIII]

Originally Posted by JohnSoCal

I bought a new 4 br, 3ba, 2200 sq. ft. home in San Jose in 1972 in San Jose for $36,500. In 1970 I bought a new 3br, 2 ba home in San Diego for $23,500. These homes were very affordable. So yes, there was a time when they were affordable.

It was SV then and lots of high tech.

And since that was 47 years ago and one can assume the person buying that home was at least in their mid 20's at best, that puts that person in their 70's (a very select group). For the majority of Middle Class families, those that are closer to the middle age range of 40-65, homes have never been affordable in the major metropolitan areas of CA. Many had to purchase getting loans at interest rates minimums of 9% and many in double digits. And of course, most would agree that they are not affordable for younger people today also. It has very little to do with Mark Zuckerberg.

Originally Posted by wannagettaway

Depends on what you consider "major" I suppose, and if you think that only the major areas are the ones currently effected.

The San Francisco suburbs used to be relatively affordable before the tech boom, particularly the East Bay. But the first tech boom only really drove up prices in the inner Bay. In the newest one prices have gone up EVERYWHERE in California, especially after AirBnB and VRBO became a thing. Look at any community on Zillow and you'll see a sharp spike in home costs starting around 2007. Even accounting for the impact of the 2008/2009 recession housing prices anywhere even remotely desirable have gone up dramatically, far in excess of salaries or inflation, as more and more housing stock has been converted into short term rentals.

I love California but tech is screwing this State up, down, and sideways.

What I consider major metropolitan areas is the SF Bay Area, LA/Orange Country, and San Diego. And the only way to do a fair evaluation is to put in ALL factors involved in home ownership (the majority of people having to acquire a home through a bank loan). Those factors to purchase a home involve 1) home price, 2) income level, and 3) Interest rates on loans. One would be hard press to claim affordability when looking into all factors (unless you're going to go as far back as the poster above...people in their 70's...which isn't all that practical for most people). Major metropolitan areas of CA have always been for the top 5% of income levels in the country. Most people do not consider that the definition of affordability.

Note: I highlight interest rates on home purchases as people always try and dance around that one

[JohnSoCal]

Originally Posted by JJonesIII

And since that was 47 years ago and one can assume the person buying that home was at least in their mid 20's at best, that puts that person in their 70's (a very select group). For the majority of Middle Class families, those that are closer to the middle age range of 40-65, homes have never been affordable in the major metropolitan areas of CA..

Totally false. Our neighborhood included people of all ages.

The major culprit is government regulations on new housing making it very difficult to increase the supply.

[JJonesIII]

Originally Posted by JohnSoCal

Totally false. Our neighborhood included people of all ages.

The major culprit is government regulations on new housing making it very difficult to increase the supply.

Totally false in what way? If someone bought in 1972, that is indeed 47 years ago. So unless you are claiming that person bought prior to their 23rd birthday (21st birthday for your 1970 example), they are indeed in their 70's. And if you're not aware of interest rates, you might want to check those historical numbers (starting roughly about 1978).

[PhoenixSomeday]

Originally Posted by JohnSoCal

I bought a new 4 br, 3ba, 2200 sq. ft. home in San Jose in 1972 in San Jose for $36,500. In 1970 I bought a new 3br, 2 ba home in San Diego for $23,500. These homes were very affordable. So yes, there was a time when they were affordable.

It was SV then and lots of high tech.

Originally Posted by JohnSoCal

Actually they started going up in 1974. We sold our San Jose house in 1976 for $85,000.

I rented a room from a guy from 2009 - 2014 in Santa Clara (Pruneridge / Kiely area). He bought the place in 1979 for $74,000 and raised his family there (he stayed living there and rented the rooms out once his kids moved out to college). In 1988 he added a second story and expanded the first one, doubling the square footage and bedroom count. He was in tech at HP at the time. That was definitely affordable for him.

It's worth.......more than what he paid, I'd wager. Much more. But at the time it was very affordable for what he did, which wasn't even engineering or high-level business stuff.

[JJonesIII]

Originally Posted by PhoenixSomeday

I rented a room from a guy from 2009 - 2014 in Santa Clara (Pruneridge / Kiely area). He bought the place in 1979 for $74,000 and raised his family there (he stayed living there and rented the rooms out once his kids moved out to college). In 1988 he added a second story and expanded the first one, doubling the square footage and bedroom count. He was in tech at HP at the time. That was definitely affordable for him.

It's worth.......more than what he paid, I'd wager. Much more. But at the time it was very affordable for what he did, which wasn't even engineering or high-level business stuff.

Anecdotes or only taking into account home prices without looking at incomes levels of the times and interest rates really don't make for a credible argument regarding affordability for the masses.

And btw, the interest rate on mortgage loans in 1979 ranged from 10.39% to 12.9%. The median income of the time (somewhere around $21k) would have required an outlay of 42%-46% of income. This assumes a 20% down payment. Without a down payment (but eliminating PMI), it would be 56% of income. As stated, he would have needed to be higher on income to be at a range banks find acceptable (probably about 35% more than median income with a down payment and 70% more without it), and that is not in the affordability range for most families.

[Ultrarunner]

There are so many factors that stem from Supply vs Demand...

I wanted to own in the worst way and had to keep lowering my sights... I found the only way for me to achieve home ownership at 22 was to buy a cottage schedule to be condemned on a 25 by 100 postage stamp lot in East Oakland...

My family thought I was nuts... I had been saving and working and paying into Social Security since age 12... so 10 years earning plus I sold my restored Z28 Camaro to make it work...

I couldn't be happier when the first dumpster arrived... my step-grandfather was the first to see the place but did not say much... I learned later he told my grandmother that I was young and could recover but it would be best to chalk it up as a loss... three strikes... condition, neighborhood and old/small... built around 1915 as best I could tell.

I had plenty of bumps along the way like coming home and finding my stack of sheetrock stolen from the living room and another time my new water heater and wall furnace taken... adding security bar on the windows and doors stopped that... lesson learned.

Talking to my elderly retired neighbor I learned that 10 years prior there were homes abandoned and being sold by the city for $1... just a dollar with the condition it be owner occupied for 5 years and 5k in improvements... a roof and paint would take care of that.

Amazing to see homes that no one wanted be in such demand today... prices are way up after falling in 2009-12.

These places have never looked so good in my lifetime but those already there have nothing to fear because Prop 13 prevents Gentrification from forcing them out...

As to defining business property... sounds way too easy to modify the definition at a later date... is a family farm a business... an owner occupied duplex with one side rented... what about mixed use property?

The beauty of Prop 13 is in its simplicity... a few short easy to understand paragraphs...

[JohnSoCal]

Originally Posted by JJonesIII

Totally false in what way? If someone bought in 1972, that is indeed 47 years ago. So unless you are claiming that person bought prior to their 23rd birthday (21st birthday for your 1970 example), they are indeed in their 70's. And if you're not aware of interest rates, you might want to check those historical numbers (starting roughly about 1978).

It doesn't matter what their age was. The issue is simply were homes affordable then and the answer is yes. A person with a middle class income could afford to buy a home in Silicon Valley and elsewhere in California. End of story.

[JJonesIII]

Originally Posted by JohnSoCal

It doesn't matter what their age was. The issue is simply were homes affordable then and the answer is yes. A person with a middle class income could afford to buy a home in Silicon Valley and elsewhere in California. End of story.

There's a saying in law...

"If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table."

You are doing a good job of pounding the table, but your subjective opinion means nothing


Your comment....

Originally Posted by JohnSoCal

Totally false. Our neighborhood included people of all ages.

The major culprit is government regulations on new housing making it very difficult to increase the supply.

Again, feel free to elaborate on exactly what I'm wrong about since your previous post included only a sliver of the population (those in their 70s).

The problem with comments like yours is you don't have the numbers to back up your claim that things were affordable. And as stated for the majority of people, this is simply not true in the major metropolitan areas of CA. If you think this is not so, feel free to provide the math that compares to the median income of the time, interest rate (since most people do indeed need to get a mortgage) and housing price. It's math John. I'm not interested in wasting any time on the editorials people try to provide or anything else. Math please.

[ClydeAJones]

Originally Posted by JohnSoCal

It doesn't matter what their age was. The issue is simply were homes affordable then and the answer is yes. A person with a middle class income could afford to buy a home in Silicon Valley and elsewhere in California. End of story.

You clearly don't remember the 80's and the 90's then to make such a ridiculous statement. Unless of course your definition of "affordable" is 1 in 4 or 5 Middle Class families being able to purchase a home. Looking only at the price of a home without factoring in income and interest on a loan is extremely short sighted. Feel free to look it up and run the numbers to see how foolish your comment is (of course we all know you won't because you can't prove it). Yeah, back in the good 'ol days...I don't think so.

http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/coun...coCounty70.htm

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by ClydeAJones

You clearly don't remember the 80's and the 90's then to make such a ridiculous statement. Unless of course your definition of "affordable" is 1 in 4 or 5 Middle Class families being able to purchase a home. Looking only at the price of a home without factoring in income and interest on a loan is extremely short sighted. Feel free to look it up and run the numbers to see how foolish your comment is (of course we all know you won't because you can't prove it). Yeah, back in the good 'ol days...I don't think so.

Bay Area Census -- San Francisco County -- 1970-1990 Census data

Plus supply and demand is not all of it for middle class. How desirable is an area? That drives up prices as well. Building can only occur at a certain rate due to many factors including the workers and supplies available. Then it is land availability, then the building codes and such. A middle class family in AR can buy a house easier than in SoCal. This is expected. Then income varies according to the job type a person has. That is their choice as to what they do, not anyone else. Then how they spend their money. Many upper middle class income earners cannot buy either because they spend, spend , spend and blame everyone else. Make enough or ... leave.