Whats the deal with East Palo Alto? (San Jose, San Francisco: sales, real estate market)

[Perma Bear]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

Yes, true on both counts. Much of it should probably be excluded, as south Bay and beyond (south south Bay, or whatever). Also, now we're running into a problem with comparing a limited area in the East Bay (Berkeley, or Berkeley/El Cerrito area) with the entire Peninsula. My only point was that the OP labeled the entire East Bay as "gentrifying" when it seems that she meant Oakland. Because I think we can all agree that Lamorinda has always been gentrified, and Berkeley, though to a lesser extent, had a strong element of that, as well, and some of the non-gentry areas of Berkeley have, for better or for worse, gentrified, though I think not as much as the Peninsula. Perhaps this comparison discussion would be more appropriate for its own thread.

Anyway, my point was that the OP either isn't well familiar with the East Bay, or s/he's painting the whole region with an Oakland brush, which is grossly inaccurate.

To be fair we also have Hayward, San Leandro, San Lorenzo, parts of union city, Richmond, el Cerritos, etc. those are east bay and they're kind of bad.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by Perma Bear

To be fair we also have Hayward, San Leandro, San Lorenzo, parts of union city, Richmond, el Cerritos, etc. those are east bay and they're kind of bad.

Yes, ok, good point, though I wouldn't lump El Cerrito together with Richmond, but you're right; maybe the OP wasn't thinking of Oakland exclusively. And I was just thinking the other day about how Richmond might be the next major area to gentrify. East Richmond already is a different zone than the rest of Richmond, and gets included in the El Cerrito rental and real estate listings. You'd think that being on the BART line, and located on the Bay and with decent proximity to Berkeley and the Bay Bridge, it would be ripe for gentrification. Whether or not that would be a good thing is a whole other debate. But we digress.

[Chuck5000]

San Lorenzo is "kind of bad" = stupid. Rest of San Leandro may not be upscale, but not at all "kind of bad." Just ignorant. Hayward hills are fairly nice, but schools are not good. For someone without children, it's a deal. "kind of bad" = stupid comment. BTW, Richmond has refinery issues.

I hope readers who have real questions are not distracted by the comments of those who don't know jack about the Bay Area. You can find good to great advice here, just know who to ignore.

[Perma Bear]

Originally Posted by Chuck5000

San Lorenzo is "kind of bad" = stupid. Rest of San Leandro may not be upscale, but not at all "kind of bad." Just ignorant. Hayward hills are fairly nice, but schools are not good. For someone without children, it's a deal. "kind of bad" = stupid comment. BTW, Richmond has refinery issues.

I hope readers who have real questions are not distracted by the comments of those who don't know jack about the Bay Area. You can find good to great advice here, just know who to ignore.

I lived there in the East Bay personally armchair economist.

[Chuck5000]

You don't show it, and your arrogance, pessimism and negativity outweigh any slivers of value your comments have.

If you had any guts you'd try to debate me point by point. E.g. tell me what "bad" is for you, tell me why there's no difference between any of the towns you mention, since they're all "kinda bad". But you're intellectually lazy, and paint with a broad brush.

Originally Posted by Perma Bear

I lived there in the East Bay personally armchair economist.

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

Originally Posted by Perma Bear

It's right next to Palo Alto, it's already valuable and desirable.

I guess the buyers and real estate agents haven't read your blog then.

[Perma Bear]

Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe

I guess the buyers and real estate agents haven't read your blog then.

600,000 dollars for a house is basically 3x the median home price.

[Perma Bear]

Originally Posted by Chuck5000

You don't show it, and your arrogance, pessimism and negativity outweigh any slivers of value your comments have.

If you had any guts you'd try to debate me point by point. E.g. tell me what "bad" is for you, tell me why there's no difference between any of the towns you mention, since they're all "kinda bad". But you're intellectually lazy, and paint with a broad brush.

Oh I don't know how about: Terrible public schools, sketchy run down neighborhoods, crime, gangbangers, I could go on if you wish.

[Protagonista]

Actually it was this headline that got me looking into EPA:


$250K Per Year Salary Could Qualify For Subsidized Housing Under New Palo Alto

Proposal

$250K/Year Salary Qualifes For Subsidized Housing Under Palo Alto Plan « CBS San Francisco

Is EPA under the same city council? Even if they aren't wouldn't this stimulate some growth in the area?

[sonarrat]

Originally Posted by Perma Bear

The western edge of epa is
Nice.

I beg to differ. "Over the Ramp" is where all the worst apartments are. I'd stick close to University Ave on the east side of 101, that area is better than the outskirts.