Has Sacramento became Bay Area yet ? (Roseville, Elk Grove: extended stay, apartments, rental)

[Upstateman92]

Is Sacramento still relatively affordable for middle class ? Or has the people flooding out of the Bay Area taken over and skyrocketed rental and home prices ( I never realized Sacramento was so close to San Fran )

What would my prospects look like for a 1 bedroom around 1200 budget ? With under half hour ( with traffic preferably ) to Sacramento airport

Which are the areas I should look into and which areas are Hugh crime to avoid .

[2sleepy]

Yes it's still affordable, I would guess you could find a 1 bdrm for $1200. My suggestion would be North Natomas 95834.

You might also check a site like for other areas within commuting distance. Places to avoid, South Sac and North Highlands. Some other areas can be a bit sketchy but the two I mentioned seem to be the highest crime areas. You can also check Craigslist or apartments.com https://www.apartments.com/sacramento-ca-95834/?so=2 South Natomas isn't as desirable as North Natomas.

[Upstateman92]

Ahh that is good to hear . Is this area mostly strip malls and shopping and restaurants ?
What other areas around the airport would be an option ? Figure northwest of the city it would get cheaper


How far is Sacramento from the coast ? And from the Sierra nevadas

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by Upstateman92

Ahh that is good to hear . Is this area mostly strip malls and shopping and restaurants ?
What other areas around the airport would be an option ? Figure northwest of the city it would get cheaper


How far is Sacramento from the coast ? And from the Sierra nevadas

North Natomas is a newer area I think almost everything was built after 2000. You might also check West Roseville and Antelope. Antelope is adjacent to North Highlands so parts of it might be sketchy but I think it's cheaper than North Natomas.

I'm about 2 hours from Reno and Tahoe. Baker Beach is about an 1 hour and 45 minutes away, Stinson Beach and Bodega Bay about a 2 hour drive.

If you aren't sure where you want to live in the area, why not rent an Extended Stay for a few months, or find something on Air BNB and then you can take some time checking out various areas yourself?
https://www.airbnb.com/s/Sacramento-...5B%5D=%2Fhomes

https://sacramento.craigslist.org/su...463448631.html

[wburg]

Sacramento has pretty much the highest rent increases in the country right now; the building industry is restricting housing supply in order to drive up prices. The Sacramento metro areas is mostly strip malls and suburbs, but so is the Bay Area. Where are you coming from, Upstateman92?

[Upstateman92]

Originally Posted by wburg

Sacramento has pretty much the highest rent increases in the country right now; the building industry is restricting housing supply in order to drive up prices. The Sacramento metro areas is mostly strip malls and suburbs, but so is the Bay Area. Where are you coming from, Upstateman92?

I assumed rent would be increasing fast as Sacramento seemed to be the last semi affordable major city in California

I would be comming from upstate New York ; Albany area

[wburg]

North Natomas is fine as long as you don't mind strip mall suburbs, Woodland is a good choice if you prefer a small-town atmosphere. Those are the immediate choices for neighborhoods/cities near the airport.

[shelato]

There are a number of different factors making it more difficult to build in Sacramento. First the Sacramento Regional Blueprint is an attempt to redirect development from the suburban fringe toward more high density infill. The problem with that approach is that on the urban fringe, the farmers and ranchers are easier to buy off than the nimbies. Builders also have more trouble assembling large tracts of land where they can build large housing developments at scale which is cheaper and faster than infill. Lastly after the last housing bust, the banks are less willing to lend to builders and developers that means that there is just fewer entities in the market.

Part of the reason the area had these huge booms and busts is that the builders in the past ramp up production dramatically, then they would keep on building even as demand slowed and there was a huge oversupply of new buildings which would further depress housing prices during down periods. The other part of this boom bust cycle is that Sacramento is very dependent on state government and tax revenue has wild flotations between booms and busts. But its possible that the Sacramento Regional Blueprint process will make the housing market less volatile, which would be good. But its also possible that the Sacramento Regional Blueprint process with make the housing market function more like Coastal California meaning that its going to create housing affordability problems as real housing prices become permanent what Gyourko, Mayer and Sinai described here
https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/vie...-estate_papers


We won't really know until we see what happens to housing prices in the area during the next housing bust. I personally think the Blueprint is going to make housing more affordable but I realize there is some diebate on that.

[wburg]

The problem with the Blueprint is that they're really little more than just suggestions, there is no way to enforce an urban growth boundary or prevent outward sprawl (as we just saw when Elk Grove was given the green light to annex some farmland on its southern edge for some more SFH suburbs) and any time someone from SACOG suggests not sprawling outward in an unlimited fashion, the local building industry types scream bloody murder. But a constrained housing supply is profitable for the building industry, and they're the largest private employer in the region.

Generally, government is considered a very stable job sector--that's supposedly why Sacramento pivoted from railroads and canning industry as its primary employers to the government sector back in the 1950s, to avoid the market dependence of the food industry. While we have had a rocky decade or so, I think it's safe to say that public employment is less variable than the private sector in terms of job expansion and contraction over the last couple of recessions. There were some hiring freezes and furloughs, but did the state lay off people in large numbers like the private sector and local governments did?

[Sactoslacker]

It's blowing up, stay away, we are full!