Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-01-2016, 12:03 PM
 
Location: Northern California
3,722 posts, read 14,722,363 times
Reputation: 1962

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by neutrino78x View Post

I don't see what's wrong with . . . renting rather than owning.
Owning is a lot better than renting. If an owner lives long enough in their condo or SFH, they get to see their home appreciate in value. I know people who bought their home years ago for say $200k and now their home is worth over a million. For them, a home is not only a place to live but an asset. They can also deduct their property taxes every Apr 15.

Renters on the other hand have nothing to show for renting except a pile of rent receipts. Their building owner sits back and watches their property appreciate in value and THEY get to deduct the property tax that YOU paid.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-01-2016, 01:18 PM
 
Location: Liminal Space
1,023 posts, read 1,551,733 times
Reputation: 1324
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth View Post
Well, that was a wry way of saying that expanding transit can't be done, so higher density shouldn't be attempted. In case you haven't noticed, there's no more available land for any commuter lines to serve the East Bay or Peninsula, not that I can see.
You don't need additional land. You just need to run the existing lines more efficiently. More trains, longer trains, trains running closer together, etc. BART, Caltrain, and Altamont Commuter Express all have existing projects in the works to do all these things.

Quote:
Not to mention the fact that expanding existing transit systems or building new ones would take major money that no one has right now. IDK, maybe they could tax all those successful tech businesses, but taxing corporations generally hasn't worked out.
Believe it or not there is a live proposal to do exactly this: tax employers by employee head count to pay for transportation improvements. Palo Alto, Mountain View, Cupertino and Sunnyvale are talking about putting it on the November 2016 ballot:

Time to tax big businesses? | News | Mountain View Online |
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2016, 01:25 PM
 
15,638 posts, read 26,251,926 times
Reputation: 30932
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
Why would we tear down existing buildings?
Didn't you hear? Duh, they're old and they're in Oakland.


Have a friend who's sick of SF and moving .... we suggested Oakland and she said Oh no -- it's over... prices have skyrocketed because PEOPLE WANT TO LIVE THERE NOW....


House in my neighborhood just sold 50K over asking. And I'm in the scary flats. Have to say, we are due for a correction, but a correction isn't a recession, and it won't be the blood bath that was. And before the recession, what was happening in my neighborhood was just crazy price wise with double digit percentage gains in months time over and over... this price run up feels different. It feels more sustainable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2016, 01:42 PM
 
Location: State of Transition
102,203 posts, read 107,859,557 times
Reputation: 116113
Quote:
Originally Posted by bentobox34 View Post
You don't need additional land. You just need to run the existing lines more efficiently. More trains, longer trains, trains running closer together, etc. BART, Caltrain, and Altamont Commuter Express all have existing projects in the works to do all these things.



Believe it or not there is a live proposal to do exactly this: tax employers by employee head count to pay for transportation improvements. Palo Alto, Mountain View, Cupertino and Sunnyvale are talking about putting it on the November 2016 ballot:

Time to tax big businesses? | News | Mountain View Online |
Interesting about the tax proposal, thank you.

re: running existing lines more efficiently: yes, that needs to be done. BART is not living up to its potential. However, improving all the existing options would not be enough. Look out your window the next time you try to drive anywhere in the Bay Area at around 3:30 p.m. See those huge slow-downs, the ocean of cars across 8-10 lanes of freeway? To make a significant dent in that, much more than double-frequency BART trains w/extra cars, and more buses, would be needed. More trains on the peninsula, a second BART tunnel to SF, with a line going down Geary, and some new bus lines would be needed. MASSIVE people-moving capacity needs to be created, in addition to what already exists, especially on the Peninsula, which seems underserved by transit. To say nothing of getting people across the bridges in the southern half of the Bay. What about a BART tunnel paralleling the Dumbarton, or both south Bay bridges?

Patchwork solutions will be inadequate. The mess out there is big, so the thinking to resolve it needs to be big.

And of course, taxpayers need to be willing to pay for it. You don't get something for nothing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2016, 01:54 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
18,982 posts, read 32,644,089 times
Reputation: 13630
Quote:
Originally Posted by bentobox34 View Post
You don't need additional land. You just need to run the existing lines more efficiently. More trains, longer trains, trains running closer together, etc. BART, Caltrain, and Altamont Commuter Express all have existing projects in the works to do all these things.



Believe it or not there is a live proposal to do exactly this: tax employers by employee head count to pay for transportation improvements. Palo Alto, Mountain View, Cupertino and Sunnyvale are talking about putting it on the November 2016 ballot:

Time to tax big businesses? | News | Mountain View Online |
We do need a new transbay tunnel though. A new train control system will allow trains to run closer together and therefor increase frequency but not so much that we won't need another tube.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2016, 02:20 PM
 
Location: State of Transition
102,203 posts, read 107,859,557 times
Reputation: 116113
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
We do need a new transbay tunnel though. A new train control system will allow trains to run closer together and therefor increase frequency but not so much that we won't need another tube.
Two tunnels: a 2nd one to SF, and one in the south Bay.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2016, 02:36 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
18,982 posts, read 32,644,089 times
Reputation: 13630
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth View Post
Two tunnels: a 2nd one to SF, and one in the south Bay.
Not sure where you think a tunnel in the South Bay would be needed, they don't even currently have BART service.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2016, 04:29 PM
 
Location: "Silicon Valley" (part of San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA)
4,375 posts, read 4,068,851 times
Reputation: 2158
Quote:
Originally Posted by humboldtrat View Post
Owning is a lot better than renting. If an owner lives long enough in their condo or SFH, they get to see their home appreciate in value. I know people who bought their home years ago for say $200k and now their home is worth over a million. For them, a home is not only a place to live but an asset. They can also deduct their property taxes every Apr 15.
I know that dude but the comment was that I don't see anything wrong with renting. Some if you act like its shameful to rent and not want to move in order to own your own place.

Well, as someone who grew up here, I would rather rent than move. Owning a building is not important to me. This is home, whether I rent my place or whether I own it.

Buying a condo would be cool to do, and I would probably do it if I had the money, but its not a goal in my life.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2016, 05:14 PM
 
96 posts, read 210,762 times
Reputation: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
Why would we tear down existing buildings?
To build bigger ones, you know what I mean? It's kind of like how 2 > 1.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2016, 05:18 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
28,226 posts, read 36,866,909 times
Reputation: 28563
Quote:
Originally Posted by abqcd View Post
To build bigger ones, you know what I mean? It's kind of like how 2 > 1.
We have way too many infill locations to worry about first: surface parking lots, empty lots and the like that should be filled in with useful stuff.
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:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


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 > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:54 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