A NJ Teacher considering a move to SF (Daly City, Santa Cruz: contractor, quality of life)

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by Perma Bear

Actually there are way more sfhs than condos because they built hundreds of thousands if not millions from the 1940s-the 1970s/80s

Yeah but most are not available. I said how many are actually on the market. Also, there will be fewer and fewer as we build more dense housing.

[Perma Bear]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

Yeah but most are not available. I said how many are actually on the market. Also, there will be fewer and fewer as we build more dense housing.

They don't sell them because of prop 13

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by WithDisp

It is idiotic, and you're threadjacking. You do it all the time, because you have nothing to contribute.

All you guys have to contribute is "no one can live here unless they make 200k. Renting doesn't count as living here. A condo isn't livable by a family."

When the reality is that MANY people live here who don't make 200k or even 100k, renting DOES count as living here, and probably MOST families in the area do not own a SFH.

Somebody says they have no problems living with roommates and you guys STILL say they shouldn't move here. That's lame.

Quick craigslist scan of Rooms for rent, show a vast 80% majority over $500 a month in the whole of the Bay Area. In SF it's slim to none, though a lot show up, it's because the rent is listed as weekly.

Again you're living in this fantasy world where everybody who lives in the Bay Area makes 100k. You fail to realize that half of us make less than that. Where do you think we live, if your claims are true? Your claims are NOT true, and we share housing.

Many people are sharing rooms and apartments for $500 a month each which are not listed on craigslist because they don't have room available. I know because I am one of them.

The CoL here isn't that big of a problem. It just means you have to adjust your housing expectations, that's all.

If you really ARE unable to afford to live in this area, despite making five or ten times the salary of people who CAN afford to live here, then maybe you SHOULD move. But it sounds like there is a fiscal discipline or money management issue, if someone can live here on 20k and you are having problems at 200k.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by Perma Bear

They don't sell them because of prop 13

Even without prop 13, there were be fewer and fewer SFHs in the area as we move to denser housing.

[Perma Bear]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

Even without prop 13, there were be fewer and fewer SFHs in the area as we move to denser housing.

Here are hundreds of thousands of sfhs if not millions, there's PLENTY of housing

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by Perma Bear

Here are hundreds of thousands of sfhs if not millions, there's PLENTY of housing

It doesn't count if it is occupied.

[Perma Bear]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

It doesn't count if it is occupied.

Many aren't. Chinese investors buy them to launder money and they go vacant

[WithDisp]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

All you guys have to contribute is "no one can live here unless they make 200k. Renting doesn't count as living here. A condo isn't livable by a family."

When the reality is that MANY people live here who don't make 200k or even 100k, renting DOES count as living here, and probably MOST families in the area do not own a SFH.

Somebody says they have no problems living with roommates and you guys STILL say they shouldn't move here. That's lame.

Again you're living in this fantasy world where everybody who lives in the Bay Area makes 100k. You fail to realize that half of us make less than that. Where do you think we live, if your claims are true? Your claims are NOT true, and we share housing.

Many people are sharing rooms and apartments for $500 a month each which are not listed on craigslist because they don't have room available. I know because I am one of them.

The CoL here isn't that big of a problem. It just means you have to adjust your housing expectations, that's all.

If you really ARE unable to afford to live in this area, despite making five or ten times the salary of people who CAN afford to live here, then maybe you SHOULD move. But it sounds like there is a fiscal discipline or money management issue, if someone can live here on 20k and you are having problems at 200k.

I, in this thread, or others- have made no such claims.
Most people entering the Bay Area now, DO make upwards to 100K. Market rate housing rather demands it. College educated professionals in good fields earn quite well in SF.

Do most people make 100K, no. Of course not. However most residents have lived in the Bay before prices skyrocketed over the last 20 years.

... and again, your obsession with SFH is bizarre. Rental apartments in SF are MORE expensive per Square Foot.

35.75% is the Federal locality pay offered to Government Employees in the SF Bay.
That's the Federal Government saying to it's employees- the CoL is so great there, they are going to pay nearly 36% more to do the same job as people in other areas.

Are SF Teachers being paid 36% more than National Average? Absolutely not.

The OP is in for a raw deal here no matter what her living situation is going to be.

[TheGreatCurve]

Originally Posted by Perma Bear

Here are hundreds of thousands of sfhs if not millions, there's PLENTY of housing

Obviously it's still not enough and they need to build more. But due to the lack of land and all the building regulations, it's better if they built more high-density housing than SFHs at this point. In fact, they should bulldoze all those old SFHs and build high-density housing in their place so that they can accommodate 10 times as many people in the same amount of space.

[Perma Bear]

Originally Posted by TheGreatCurve

Obviously it's still not enough and they need to build more. But due to the lack of land and all the building regulations, it's better if they built more high-density housing than SFHs at this point. In fact, they should bulldoze all those old SFHs and build high-density housing in their place so that they can accommodate 10 times as many people in the same amount of space.

No. Those tract homes are historical treasures that represent a time when the average Bay Area native had a good quality of life, a patch of dirt to call their own and a piece of the American Dream. We should bulldoze the green space first. It literally serves no purpose except fluffy green hippy bs.
75% of the Bay Area is wasted undeveloped space.