Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Real Estate
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-19-2021, 04:49 PM
 
Location: Redwood Shores, CA
1,651 posts, read 1,285,949 times
Reputation: 1605

Advertisements

I am contemplating selling a condo in SF because the association fee eats up too big of a chunk of the rental income. I hope to change into a single family home without any association fee.

But for the amount the condo can fetch, about 800K, available single family homes in the immediate SF bay area are in very bad condition, or very small, or in a bad neighborhood. In final analysis I think they are not worthy of a switch, even if I can make 1000 more per month.

I looked outside the immediate SF bay area; one of the places jumped at me is Napa. Homes there at the same price range are in very good condition; the place looks upscale; and of course Napa has international reputation. This is a place I can feel proud to own a property. I expect the appreciation potential to be less than SF but it seems to me the difference should not be super big, due to the proximity of the two places.

Do you think it is a good idea or bad idea to make such a switch?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-19-2021, 05:42 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
3,416 posts, read 2,434,832 times
Reputation: 6165
Need a bit more information? Would you be buying the place in Napa outright? If no, do you need the rental income to cover all the bills? Do you like Napa? If the answer is yes and yes, or no, no, and yes, do it.

There’s great potential for rental income in Napa from STR. I’ve been to both Napa and Sonoma during all seasons and it always seems to be busy. Nothing like getting away yourself to your place in wine country. If I was in the Bay Area I’d look at either Napa (or Sonoma) or Lake Tahoe for a second home/vacation rental.

If it’s too much headache going the STR route I’m sure you’d have no problem renting it out long term? With working from home becoming more prevalent (especially in this state, and the Bay Area), Napa is a great location for those who only need to come into the office on occasion. I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s plenty who already commute M-F from there? It’s certainly doable if need be.

Do your homework first, but this seems like a no brainer to me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2021, 02:18 AM
 
1,462 posts, read 1,383,841 times
Reputation: 1645
A former gf was really fond of Calistoga. Two kinds of places will never get a rec from me, though.. 1) places with stray dogs 2) places in California.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2021, 05:58 AM
 
Location: East Coast of the United States
27,425 posts, read 28,498,647 times
Reputation: 24953
You can’t really own property in San Francisco unless you’re rich.

So, you have to learn to stay in your lane like everybody else does.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2021, 09:17 AM
 
Location: Redwood Shores, CA
1,651 posts, read 1,285,949 times
Reputation: 1605
Quote:
Originally Posted by TacoSoup View Post
Need a bit more information? Would you be buying the place in Napa outright? If no, do you need the rental income to cover all the bills? Do you like Napa? If the answer is yes and yes, or no, no, and yes, do it.

There’s great potential for rental income in Napa from STR. I’ve been to both Napa and Sonoma during all seasons and it always seems to be busy. Nothing like getting away yourself to your place in wine country. If I was in the Bay Area I’d look at either Napa (or Sonoma) or Lake Tahoe for a second home/vacation rental.

If it’s too much headache going the STR route I’m sure you’d have no problem renting it out long term? With working from home becoming more prevalent (especially in this state, and the Bay Area), Napa is a great location for those who only need to come into the office on occasion. I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s plenty who already commute M-F from there? It’s certainly doable if need be.

Do your homework first, but this seems like a no brainer to me.
My condo is fully paid for; there is no rent income pressure, just a matter of taking in more or less. But this is an investment property; so rent yield is an important factor along with appreciation potential.

Along that line, my complaint about SF is that 1) Association fee is too high causing yield to be low 2) Harder to manage with all the city rules; and if I get a property manager it further eats into the rent.

I feel switching to a single family home in East San Jose or East Bay will be just trading one problem for another. Napa, on the other hand, looks like a different package that is possibly better.

I don't think I have the energy to do STR; so my evaluation is based on just getting a good tenant and let things be.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2021, 09:27 AM
 
Location: Redwood Shores, CA
1,651 posts, read 1,285,949 times
Reputation: 1605
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAXhound View Post
A former gf was really fond of Calistoga. Two kinds of places will never get a rec from me, though.. 1) places with stray dogs 2) places in California.
Calistoga is very nice. It is as upscale as as Napa; farther away from SF than Napa, but more tranquil.

I actually have looked outside CA for this switch -- LV, Austin, Raleigh, Tampa, for example -- but eventually I came back to the devil I know. It's hard to get started in a brand new market, especially if I am not there physically.

But what would you recommend? Give me a few Zillow postings to research.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2021, 09:35 AM
 
Location: Redwood Shores, CA
1,651 posts, read 1,285,949 times
Reputation: 1605
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigCityDreamer View Post
You can’t really own property in San Francisco unless you’re rich.

So, you have to learn to stay in your lane like everybody else does.
Different property types require different management; some are easier and some are harder. SF + condo is a bad combo; that's my mistake and my learning. A single family home in SF, or a condo outside SF, would both be still manageable for me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-20-2021, 09:37 AM
 
Location: Sandy Eggo's North County
10,224 posts, read 6,694,683 times
Reputation: 16710
OP~
What could be the property tax implications of a move?

And yes, I'd sell the "City" condo quickly, before $$$ gets more expensive.

If you are finally seeing the rip-off that HOA's are, congratulations. You see what many other's don't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Real Estate

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:41 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top