Whats the deal with East Palo Alto?

[Perma Bear]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

It sounds like a potentially good idea, and the OP certainly is doing her homework. I looked at some RE listings over there, and they're mostly shabby, run-down places, some might consider them tear-downs rather than fixer-uppers, but as population pressure increases in the general area (tech development isn't slowing down), at some point those people will find themselves sitting on hot property. If Seattle's ghetto areas could transform in just 20 years (to the point that I'm not able to believe the reports people post!), EPA can blossom. And the process has already begun in EPA; yuppification has begun, a toehold by the surrounding techie class has been established. That's a good sign, as long as you're not a blue-collar worker who needs lower-priced housing in the area.

I can't help wondering; where are all the janitors, the landscapers/gardeners, the maintenance people, the hotel workers, etc. supposed to go, when places like EPA get taken over? Will everyone end up in the East Bay, trying to jam onto the bridges to get to work? And to think that someone asked me on another thread why the Bay Area would need a BART line across the southern half of the Bay. Foresight seems to be sorely lacking.

I suppose the families who are protected by prop 13 should in theory take those professions.

[Protagonista]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

I can't help wondering; where are all the janitors, the landscapers/gardeners, the maintenance people, the hotel workers, etc. supposed to go, when places like EPA get taken over? Will everyone end up in the East Bay, trying to jam onto the bridges to get to work? And to think that someone asked me on another thread why the Bay Area would need a BART line across the southern half of the Bay. Foresight seems to be sorely lacking.

Most of the people I talked to at the "lower end" of the Stanford pay scale live in San Jose.

[HockeyMac18]

Originally Posted by Protagonista

Most of the people I talked to at the "lower end" of the Stanford pay scale live in San Jose.

Most people I worked with at Stanford lived in Sunnyvale. Very few were in Palo Alto/Menlo Park area. Of the remaining people I knew: a few in the cheaper parts of Mountain View, a couple across the bridge in Fremont/Newark, a couple in Redwood City, and one in Santa Clara.

I didn't know anyone in San Jose proper, and I think I was one of a few people that I knew that lived north of Redwood City (I lived in San Mateo and SF for a bit).

The only people that lived in SF were young post-docs/PhD students who were single and without families (they wanted to be near hip areas). I didn't know anyone that lived in EPA.

This was also in 2010-2015, and prices between 2010 and 2015 doubled (or went up more) in most of these cities...I can guarantee you that pay at Stanford barely went up anything - so I have no idea how new post-docs/research associates afford any of those areas if moving here for a new position today (maybe Fremont/Newark is possible?).

Academia doesn't pay very well, over all, for most positions (unless you're quite high on the faculty scale of things) - and Stanford is no exception to this.

[Protagonista]

Originally Posted by sonarrat

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.

The problem with University Ave or anywhere near 101 is flooding/liquification.
I posted this elsewhere, but some here may be interested:

Living with Liquefaction - Temblor.net

Scroll to the picture of SF and click on "Temblor Maps" type in your zip or address.
Upper left corner you can choose map overlay. Add liquification.

Cool article. Awesome site.


I notice property values seem to follow along with this map as well.

[Protagonista]

Originally Posted by HockeyMac18

Academia doesn't pay very well, over all, for most positions (unless you're quite high on the faculty scale of things) - and Stanford is no exception to this.

Agreed.
And just between you and me the Stanford nurses are about to strike over this. Stanford is requiring mandatory overtime and not allowing vacations. Not safe for patients or nurses.
but that is for another thread.

[HockeyMac18]

Originally Posted by Protagonista

The problem with University Ave or anywhere near 101 is flooding/liquification.
I posted this elsewhere, but some here may be interested:

Living with Liquefaction - Temblor.net

Scroll to the picture of SF and click on "Temblor Maps" type in your zip or address.
Upper left corner you can choose map overlay. Add liquification.

Cool article. Awesome site.


I notice property values seem to follow along with this map as well.

Yeah, there is a bit of correlation with liquification risk, but I don't think the lower property values are because of the liquification risk, per se. I actually don't think most people even pay attention to this/consider it (I do, but most certainly don't seem to). The stronger linkage is being in the "hills" vs. the "flatlands", especially in the East Bay. There are just nicer areas/houses in the hills than the older parts in the flatlands.

There's also a bit of a reputation of being in the "flatlands" vs. being in the hills (mostly related to perceptions of crime/safety). I think it's mostly overblown/exaggerated/overgeneralized, but that's also part of it.

Some exceptions to the liquification risk correlation that come immediately to mind include Foster City, Redwood Shores, SOMA/"South Beach" in SF, the Marina district in SF, and much of some of the nicer parts of Alameda (most of Bay Farm and parts of Alameda near the Crown Memorial Beach). All of these areas are filled in land.

[HockeyMac18]

Originally Posted by Protagonista

Agreed.
And just between you and me the Stanford nurses are about to strike over this. Stanford is requiring mandatory overtime and not allowing vacations. Not safe for patients or nurses.
but that is for another thread.

Oh, that'd be crazy if so.

But their feelings don't surprise me. I knew a few nurses when I worked there (not through my work - just somewhat randomly), and they complained often about working at Stanford Hospital. I always found these complaints odd for such a prestigious hospital/University, but I guess the people deciding the policy don't really care that much. I also found it interesting that Hospital and University employees were treated quite differently (I believe there were some things that "University" employees received that Hospital employees did not).

I don't mean to sound like I didn't enjoy most of my experience at Stanford (it was a great place to work, most of the colleagues were wonderful, the connections offered were amazing, and it was awesome for resume building) - but it was jarring how out-of-touch most of the administration seemed to be to the cost of living in the area (hardest on the young people just moving to the area) and also what comparable positions pay elsewhere (especially in Industry). I don't think I really know that many people still working there from when I started in 2010 (all left for better-paying jobs, some not really by choice).

My pay went up quite a bit just by leaving Stanford...and I wouldn't say I'm currently payed "extremely well" by the region's standards (fairly average). That's more a reflection of Stanford's poor compensation packages than it is of how well I'm being payed now.