Have I waited too long to try and buy a house? Extremely discouraged. (San Francisco: for sale, real estate)

[bluevelo]

I have about 60K I can put down and I can afford a 200K mortage. No, I haven't done the preapproval yet but I've got a decent credit score... but hearing the stories about no inventory, competing with investors - I work downtown but I don't want to commute a flipping hour or more just to buy a house. But renting sucks, and you are throwing your money away renting. I should've probably have bought last year but I felt at the time that buying a house was a risky proposition. I feel like I've already been priced out of the market and that I'll never be able to afford anything here ever. I do not want to live in gangbanger infested suburbs like Elk Grove with its poorly built houses and strip malls atmosphere. Every time I'm in Elk Grove, I see people in gangwear with gang behavior. Its an extremely uncomfortable situation...

I do NOT want a condominium or a townhouse. I am an amateur musician, I have children, living in a condo is the same as living in an apartment - worse, actually, because usually they are occupied by renters rather than owners, and the condo fees are not tax deductible - and condos suck to try and sell.

I'm thinking I should be putting my energies instead into moving to a metro area and state that has cheaper housing and more inventory for sale. I already feel like I'm locked out of the market... so discouraged.

[Majin]

You waited too long. Sorry. I told people on this forum 6 months ago housing was coming back but no one listened. Now you're going to pay for it.

[bluevelo]

Originally Posted by Majin

You waited too long. Sorry. I told people on this forum 6 months ago housing was coming back but no one listened. Now you're going to pay for it.

I'm not looking for something cheap... I realize a lot of the stuff around 200K is getting snapped up, and the cheap stuff isn't in good neighborhoods anyway.

[beb0p]

It pays to follow other markets, historically, Sacramento trails San Francisco Bay Area in home prices increase and leads in home prices decrease. In early 2011, Palo Alto and Mountain View were already sellers' market with low inventory and high demand pushing up prices. I knew then in about a year San Francisco will experience the same and then it'd spread to the East Bay; which is exactly what happened. I thought Sacramento would follow suit in another year but it has happened much sooner and faster than I had anticipated.

What I'm seeing now in SF is that the high demand is encouraging more sellers to put their properties on the market. I'm guessing in about a year or two, there will be a equilibrium and prices will stabilize. And then a year or two after SF Bay Area stabilizes, Sacramento will as well. After that, who knows. Maybe prices will come down, maybe not. In no way am I advocating buying a place now, or in the future. Real estate is a long term commitment, and most people (just like me) can only see the very short term.

But in the meantime, it's ugly for buyers. With that said, you sound like a solid buyer with at least 20% down payment. So if you really want to throw you hat in, I think you can compete with the all cash investors, many of whom are bargain shoppers looking for discounts. You are the type of buyers that investors hate to compete with.

[ryuns]

Not entirely sure what to tell you, particularly when you seem to complain (in this post and others) that pretty everywhere outside of Rocklin is invested with gangbangers. If your tolerance for imperfection is that low, I'm not sure what to recommend. Do you have any neighborhoods in mind? You might be able to find something adequately sterile in Natomas. Something gated, maybe?

It does sound tough out there for buyers right now and that's unfortunate. That said, I bought in 2011, my mortgage is larger than what you quote, my house is small, and I still see plenty of people you might not approve of not too far away (a function of the high school and the Broadway strip, but nearby nonetheless). Even at the market's nadir, it wasn't as if that was a free pass to the country club.

[bluevelo]

Originally Posted by ryuns

Not entirely sure what to tell you, particularly when you seem to complain (in this post and others) that pretty everywhere outside of Rocklin is invested with gangbangers. If your tolerance for imperfection is that low, I'm not sure what to recommend. Do you have any neighborhoods in mind? You might be able to find something adequately sterile in Natomas. Something gated, maybe?

It does sound tough out there for buyers right now and that's unfortunate. That said, I bought in 2011, my mortgage is larger than what you quote, my house is small, and I still see plenty of people you might not approve of not too far away (a function of the high school and the Broadway strip, but nearby nonetheless). Even at the market's nadir, it wasn't as if that was a free pass to the country club.

When the levees break, because the City is more interested in basketball than in keeping the city's infrastructure in good shape, Natomas will be gone. I think buying in Natomas is an extremely bad idea.

I rent in Tahoe Park now. I do not want to be an hour's drive from work, nor do I want to ride transit in this area, which is gang-infested, unreliable and inconvenient. I did for two years and was constantly late for work - rail was always breaking down or the buses would be late.

[Majin]

Originally Posted by bluevelo

When the levees break, because the City is more interested in basketball than in keeping the city's infrastructure in good shape, Natomas will be gone. I think buying in Natomas is an extremely bad idea.

I rent in Tahoe Park now. I do not want to be an hour's drive from work, nor do I want to ride transit in this area, which is gang-infested, unreliable and inconvenient. I did for two years and was constantly late for work - rail was always breaking down or the buses would be late.

You think that not contributing to a basketball arena that somehow instead the money will be used to fix the levees. That isn't true.

[bluevelo]

Originally Posted by Majin

You think that not contributing to a basketball arena that somehow instead the money will be used to fix the levees. That isn't true.

The only way we're going to get the levees fixed is via a proposition that directs money to be spent on that particular need, as you really can't trust the politicians to spend the money on things that are needed - not just here - anywhere.

My point is Natomas is extremely flood prone. West Sacramento would be a better bet if you're going to live in an extremely flood prone area of the metro.

[Majin]

Originally Posted by bluevelo

The only way we're going to get the levees fixed is via a proposition that directs money to be spent on that particular need, as you really can't trust the politicians to spend the money on things that are needed - not just here - anywhere.

My point is Natomas is extremely flood prone. West Sacramento would be a better bet if you're going to live in an extremely flood prone area of the metro.

My point was your analysis is faulty, just like people who say spend money on cops or firefighters instead of an Arena. It doesn't work like that.

If the city, for example, is going to sell off $200 million in parking spaces downtown right next to a new arena getting build, you can't sell the $200 million in parking spaces and repair levees, because no one would even buy the parking spaces in the first place unless you build the arena. The money simply wouldn't exist.

[ryuns]

Originally Posted by bluevelo

When the levees break, because the City is more interested in basketball than in keeping the city's infrastructure in good shape, Natomas will be gone. I think buying in Natomas is an extremely bad idea.

I rent in Tahoe Park now. I do not want to be an hour's drive from work, nor do I want to ride transit in this area, which is gang-infested, unreliable and inconvenient. I did for two years and was constantly late for work - rail was always breaking down or the buses would be late.

Then I don't have a ton of sympathy. You may need change your standards. Like I said, it wasn't like houses in nice areas were free in 2011, nor were the exurbs any closer to downtown. So I'll ask more directly: What areas would you like to live in, but feel there is either no inventory in, or that you can't afford?

Also, as majin stated, flood protection funding is much more complicated than you're making it sound. I'm not a big fan of the arena, but you can't mortgage an asset to pay for flood protection, nor is it the city's direct responsibility to repair the levees. Sacramento levees fail federal maintenance criteria - Environment - The Sacramento Bee