Have you considered moving away from the bay area? (San Jose: rent, buying a house)

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by andyadhi01

I don't have to elaborate anything and those are personal experiences. The anti-kid vibe of SF is very well documented and widely discussed online. Not to mention the city is also known for having the lowest % of kids among any major US cities. And good chunk of people who live here equate having a dog with a having a kid and the sheer stupidity of that idea is just astounding. Add on top of that unaffordable/unavailable childcare, miserable public schools and lack of safe outdoor space for kids etc. and you have a very very kid unfriendly environment. I am not making this up... SF city officials also routinely state these as the biggest challenge for the community here. Get our of your russian hill bubble and smell the coffee! Also cutting down on alcohol helps the brain perceive reality better

So. You don't have a dog or a kid then. (No question Mark.)

[EricS39]

Just move to rural Texas then and be bored stiff. You will have a lot of extra money for all the Big Macs and whoppers you want. That's the highest people will spend out there, regardless of how many millions you earn while paying $200 per month rent. They are ultra-frugal.


Do any of you like that? Having a high income and $200 a month for rent and only Federal taxes? So you can take home 99.8% of your after tax income into savings and pure debit? So you call Bank of America. "Your current debit balance is ...$952,684.85

And then do you go to a villa in Italy for a nice pleasure trip? No! You pick up your 20% off coupon in the street paper and get that discount bounty at the walmart supercenter .
There are people like this.

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by EricS39

Just move to rural Texas then and be bored stiff. You will have a lot of extra money for all the Big Macs and whoppers you want. That's the highest people will spend out there, regardless of how many millions you earn while paying $200 per month rent. They are ultra-frugal.


Do any of you like that? Having a high income and $200 a month for rent and only Federal taxes? So you can take home 99.8% of your after tax income into savings and pure debit? So you call Bank of America. "Your current debit balance is ...$952,684.85

And then do you go to a villa in Italy for a nice pleasure trip? No! You pick up your 20% off coupon in the street paper and get that discount bounty at the walmart supercenter .
There are people like this.

Because the only options are 4k a month rent for a 2/1 to be around "unique" people in SF after you go to the toast bar or eating a Big Mac in west Texas.

There is more to do in many of these places than SF, it just depends on what you find entertaining.

[nowhereman427]

Originally Posted by andyadhi01

i don't have to elaborate anything and those are personal experiences. The anti-kid vibe of sf is very well documented and widely discussed online. Not to mention the city is also known for having the lowest % of kids among any major us cities. And good chunk of people who live here equate having a dog with a having a kid and the sheer stupidity of that idea is just astounding. Add on top of that unaffordable/unavailable childcare, miserable public schools and lack of safe outdoor space for kids etc. And you have a very very kid unfriendly environment. I am not making this up... Sf city officials also routinely state these as the biggest challenge for the community here. Get our of your russian hill bubble and smell the coffee! Also cutting down on alcohol helps the brain perceive reality better

:d

[dalparadise]

There are several places in the Bay Area that are suited to having kids and several that would make good retirement areas for people of appropriate means. The fact that the urban areas of the the Bay Area in general, and San Francisco in particular, are not considered all that suitable for either of these things is not a big news flash. Most people, given the opportunity of sufficient income, would choose to leave a central city for either of these life events. They wouldn't have to leave the Bay Area, necessarily, though.

And retirement on even a modest income and average savings will be doable in other parts of California. I'd pick the Tahoe area, Bodega Bay, or Sonoma Valley myself, over retiring anywhere in the Bay Area. All offer more affordable options and lifestyles better suited to retirees.

[Ultrarunner]

I think everyone has asked the what if question at some time.

Barring a natural disaster or economic melt down I think it will continue as business as usual.

For the life of me, I never could understand why so many I know bailed on housing a few years ago... they had good jobs and still bailed.

The most common reason is I can rent and save half or more... or the value just isn't there so why stay and keep paying.

Very short sighted...

For those that retire and move elsewhere are finding cashing out gives them an upper hand when it comes to buying or renting...

Not a month goes by without someone I know moving to Oregon or Washington...

My neighbors said it was time to downsize and having a home with stairs could be an issue.

They bought a home in Oregon almost twice as big with steps for about a little more than a third of what their Bay Area home sold for...

So much for downsizing...

[bentobox34]

Originally Posted by dalparadise

There are several places in the Bay Area that are suited to having kids and several that would make good retirement areas for people of appropriate means. The fact that the urban areas of the the Bay Area in general, and San Francisco in particular, are not considered all that suitable for either of these things is not a big news flash. Most people, given the opportunity of sufficient income, would choose to leave a central city for either of these life events. They wouldn't have to leave the Bay Area, necessarily, though.

Everything you say is true, but it is still sad that so many people in the Bay Area (and elsewhere) consider it common sense that "urban areas" are not suitable for children... which was far from the case in the mid-20th century and earlier. It is also ironic to me that some childless urban-dwellers who consider their choice of location to reflect their open-mindedness and appreciation of "diversity" have now swallowed this point of view hook, line and sinker, because the absence of children improves the quality of their dining experience or something.

[dalparadise]

Originally Posted by bentobox34

Everything you say is true, but it is still sad that so many people in the Bay Area (and elsewhere) consider it common sense that "urban areas" are not suitable for children... which was far from the case in the mid-20th century and earlier. It is also ironic to me that some childless urban-dwellers who consider their choice of location to reflect their open-mindedness and appreciation of "diversity" have now swallowed this point of view hook, line and sinker, because the absence of children improves the quality of their dining experience or something.

Point taken.

I think some urban areas are suited to raising a family, but for the most part, it's suburbs or nothing. Agreed that it's too bad for SF. It is surely costing the City its opportunity to be grounded by a native population by making itself inhospitable to kids. Of all the cities in the US I can think of though, SF would be the worst place to raise children, in my opinion, and there's little chance of that ever changing.

[nowhereman427]

Originally Posted by dalparadise

Point taken.

I think some urban areas are suited to raising a family, but for the most part, it's suburbs or nothing. Agreed that it's too bad for SF. It is surely costing the City its opportunity to be grounded by a native population by making itself inhospitable to kids. Of all the cities in the US I can think of though, SF would be the worst place to raise children, in my opinion, and there's little chance of that ever changing.

kIDS in SF are "Board of Education" (SFUSD)so now they get sent to private school.

[andyadhi01]

Originally Posted by dalparadise

Point taken.

I think some urban areas are suited to raising a family, but for the most part, it's suburbs or nothing. Agreed that it's too bad for SF. It is surely costing the City its opportunity to be grounded by a native population by making itself inhospitable to kids. Of all the cities in the US I can think of though, SF would be the worst place to raise children, in my opinion, and there's little chance of that ever changing.

Well if you look at the entire bay area all of the cities SF, Oakland, San Jose have problem with very bad schools. Most of inner east bay has bad schools. And that leaves very few small school districts with good schools (basically smaller cities in the peninsula and lamorinda area) and in those areas housing is completely unaffordable to even the upper middle class! The amount of rent you pay for oh so fancy Russian hill apartment is significantly cheaper than buying a house in the peninsula. This is not true in most metro areas in the country because at least in the suburbs schools are good and housing affordable.

The schools in Dallas/Houston suburbs i.e. the places you tend to complain about most, has much much better schools. If you look at Boston area, which is very similar to bay area in terms of economy, it's a far more advanced civilization compared to bay area when it comes to education.