So how much should you have to pay for a home in San Francisco (neighborhood, utilities)

[Perma Bear]

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

Ye of little faith... just because some think they can't buy anything in the Bay Area under a million dollars doesn't mean these opportunities don't exist.

The owner bought in the 1960's and is winding things down in his 80's and decided to simplify his life between Chemo treatments. Absolutly was done dealing with tenants and as the units became vacant he kept them vacant which eliminated any ties to Oakland Rent Control.

Property was listed on the MLS and lots of wheeler dealer flippers came to look... my friend impressed him and the owner said what would it take to make this happen for you... he said he didn't have the money to buy it cash and the property condition would make it difficult to get a mortgage... the owner offered to carry with 50k down and this let my friend buy it and like I said... the day Escrow closed they were already working on it that night...

I went by today and he and his wife have already taken the two upstair units down to the studs and changing the floorplan... his electrician friend pulled the electrical for all new service... no more fuses.

Building was built as 3 one bedroom units... when done it will be nice 2 bedroom+ unit for him, wife and 5 year old daughter and a studio and a one bedroom downstair unit which will be his office.

Imagine that in one of the most expensive markets in the country... just took the right person to come along at the right time.

The short of it is the owner simply got tired of all the flippers looking at it and decided to sell it to someone looking for a home for his family and his business.

Rather just wait for the next crash where Oakland will go back to 200-300k which the fundamentals support

[bodyforlife99]

Originally Posted by Perma Bear

Rather just wait for the next crash where Oakland will go back to 200-300k which the fundamentals support

The fundamentals, lol. Uh huh, sure.



Would that include for San Francisco....less than 3 months of inventory on hand, homes that sell in 24 days on average, and 70% of homes going for over asking price? How about the fact that there are no more liar (stated value) loans, that there are no more negative amortization loans, that homeowners in the city are sitting on a substantial amount of equity in their homes, and that roughly 25% of the market were cash buyers (meaning 100% equity). Those fundamentals?

[Perma Bear]

Originally Posted by bodyforlife99

The fundamentals, lol. Uh huh, sure.



Would that include for San Francisco....less than 3 months of inventory on hand, homes that sell in 24 days on average, and 70% of homes going for over asking price? How about the fact that there are no more liar (stated value) loans, that there are no more negative amortization loans, that homeowners in the city are sitting on a substantial amount of equity in their homes, and that roughly 25% of the market were cash buyers (meaning 100% equity). Those fundamentals?

No the fact housing is 10x-20x the median income, the real
Fundamentals. The east bay does not have the economic structure to support 500-900k valuations.

[bodyforlife99]

Originally Posted by Perma Bear

No the fact housing is 10x-20x the median income, the real
Fundamentals. The east bay does not have the economic structure to support 500-900k valuations.

Apparently it can support it just fine since they've had an awesome run up too, and homes are still being bought. Maybe if I have some time later, I'll look up the East Bay trends and embarrass you some more. But feel free to put some numbers behind your claims so we can see that you at least have some substantiation. I won't hold my breath. I know of the 150,000 housing units in Oakland, there are currently less than 1,000 for sale (which is less than a 1% vacancy rate). You talk a good show, but you never provide any evidence. And btw, the topic is San Francisco, not the East Bay.

[Perma Bear]

Originally Posted by bodyforlife99

Apparently it can support it just fine since they've had an awesome run up too, and homes are still being bought. Maybe if I have some time later, I'll look up the East Bay trends and embarrass you some more. But feel free to put some numbers behind your claims so we can see that you at least have some substantiation. I won't hold my breath. I know of the 150,000 housing units in Oakland, there are currently less than 1,000 for sale (which is less than a 1% vacancy rate). You talk a good show, but you never provide any evidence. And btw, the topic is San Francisco, not the East Bay.

Your spiel is giving me a lot of 2007 nostalgia.

[bodyforlife99]

Originally Posted by Perma Bear

Your spiel is giving me a lot of 2007 nostalgia.

Yawn, still waiting. Let me know when you can substantiate your claim. All the numbers I supplied you are current numbers from 2016 (nice try though). I've already invalidated your previous response.

[Ultrarunner]

Originally Posted by Perma Bear

Rather just wait for the next crash where Oakland will go back to 200-300k which the fundamentals support

Always a possibility... on the other hand you can keep paying rent or buy a 3-unit building with plenty of parking in back for your business for 400k and get on with life.

Oakland the jewel of the bay ideally situated with near perfect year round weather...

[Perma Bear]

Originally Posted by Ultrarunner

Always a possibility... on the other hand you can keep paying rent or buy a 3-unit building with plenty of parking in back for your business for 400k and get on with life.

Oakland the jewel of the bay ideally situated with near perfect year round weather...

Or I could just not pay rent

[TheGreatCurve]

Originally Posted by WithDisp

I didn't say they drive their cars to work. If you're a multimillionaire living in Manhattan- it would likely never be sensible to drive to work. Many who live in Tribeca would just walk. Generally the highest concentration live on the UES and commute to Lower Manhattan. If during rush hour, and time is a factor, the train is a viable option. Later at night, it's the norm to take Car Services. Everyone with money has a car service account in Manhattan- then again, with Uber taking popularity, everyone in general has something similar.

The majority of commuters though are coming from affluent Westchester and Long Island. While a few agencies offer coach shuttle transport- it's unavoidable to take the LIRR or MNR. However they drive to the train station... as there is no real public transit in those suburbs.

Rich (multimillionaires) people in New York City walk out of their building, into a car.
They certainly aren't driving it around in the city though.

That's my point. Almost no one drives to work in Manhattan. Almost everyone takes public transit. Thus, just because someone takes public transit does not mean that they're poor. It just means that's what makes the most sense. Even millionaires do it.

[TheGreatCurve]

Originally Posted by Perma Bear

Just because you have a high roller lifestyle doesn't mean others can't live off a middle class income of 40k minus housing costs

That $40K is before income taxes. And just property taxes and health insurance is going to run you at least $10K a piece. Oh that's right, you're a government worker so you probably have never had to pay for your own health insurance. Wait until you have to pay for it yourself. LOL Then add in maintenance, insurance, fees, and other housing expenses, utilities, clothing, gas, car insurance and maintenance, car payments, other car expenses, and food and what have you got left?