Does anyone want to move out of the Bay Area (San Francisco: house, buying)

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Originally Posted by Roccaluma

That arguement about the lack of land seems to be true. It seems lack of land means that there is a restricted area and hence real estate prices go up. But I just went to San Jose from Santa Rosa. I was expecting nothing but sprawl between San Francisco and San Jose, I was shocked to see what seemed like 10 miles or more of open space between cites on that corridor. What land shortage?

You obviously did not drive down US-101. You were obviously on I-280, part of the outer ring road. That was watershed you were driving through plus a bit of Stanford U land. Plus you were on top of a low mountain range.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by Roccaluma

That arguement about the lack of land seems to be true. It seems lack of land means that there is a restricted area and hence real estate prices go up. But I just went to San Jose from Santa Rosa. I was expecting nothing but sprawl between San Francisco and San Jose, I was shocked to see what seemed like 10 miles or more of open space between cites on that corridor. What land shortage?

A lot of it is land use restrictions and environmental elitism. There was a recent article in the San Jose Mercury News about how a developer wants to build several thousand homes on the Peninsula between SF & San Jose, but of course, environmentalists are taking it to court because it will spoil the Bay marshlands or some such nonesense. I consider myself an environmentalist, but these extremists have no common sense whatsoever. They really don't seem to care about the consequences of their actions on ordinary people.

[18Montclair]

The Bay Area has only developed about 1100 square miles of land which equals about 700,000 acres. We still have about 4 Million undeveloped acres.

Of course much of that is undevelopable, but most of it is. We are very anti-development.

[BayDude]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

The Bay Area has only developed about 1100 square miles of land which equals about 700,000 acres. We still have about 4 Million undeveloped acres.

Of course much of that is undevelopable, but most of it is. We are very anti-development.

And consequently, you must be pro-high home prices.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by BayDude

And consequently, you must be pro-high home prices.

I mean that this area is anti-development. Not me personally.

[Roccaluma]

What about smart developement. I mean if it was option I would live in a high rise tower. I could even live in about 250 square feet. I had a trailer in a wonderful hippy travel trailer court where i was charged $235 in 1999. It was 8 foot by 32 foot, and it was plenty of space. Since then a new owner came in, and they didnt respect the ideal that led to its creation, cheap housing for college students at SSU in Rohnert Park. They jacked the space rent to $600. Gotta make that million. What I am realizing about Democrats and liberals that they say all the right things that I agree with but nothing gets done, I geuss it affects all those Democrats who own homes.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

A lot of it is land use restrictions and environmental elitism. There was a recent article in the San Jose Mercury News about how a developer wants to build several thousand homes on the Peninsula between SF & San Jose, but of course, environmentalists are taking it to court because it will spoil the Bay marshlands or some such nonesense. I consider myself an environmentalist, but these extremists have no common sense whatsoever. They really don't seem to care about the consequences of their actions on ordinary people.

You must be alluding to the ongoing conflict regarding developing former ranchlands and salt evaporators in Redwood City. The extremists want to break the levees and turn the land into marsh. Developing it certainly would preclude that project. Of course, there are several other former salt evaporators in other parts of the bayshore that have had the levees breached. It's not as if those RWC lands are all that critical in the grand scheme of things.

[jzt83]

The Bay Area is a lost cause in terms of proper development. Vast lands of low to moderately dense development designed for the automobile has nearly built out the area. We're at a point where it's too little too late. Sure you can develop some mixed-use development here and there, but they tend to be poorly designed and geared toward wealthier people who still drive a lot.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by Roccaluma

What about smart developement. I mean if it was option I would live in a high rise tower. I could even live in about 250 square feet. I had a trailer in a wonderful hippy travel trailer court where i was charged $235 in 1999. It was 8 foot by 32 foot, and it was plenty of space. Since then a new owner came in, and they didnt respect the ideal that led to its creation, cheap housing for college students at SSU in Rohnert Park. They jacked the space rent to $600. Gotta make that million. What I am realizing about Democrats and liberals that they say all the right things that I agree with but nothing gets done, I geuss it affects all those Democrats who own homes.

I agree with you on smart development. However, the reality is that a lot of people still like suburban sprawl. But I don't think this is an either/or situation. There is room for both. We do need more dense development. At the same time, there IS land available for suburban type development, too.

I agree with you about the Dems. They pay lip service to some environmental policies I agree with, but usually don't deliver. They managed to jack up the sales tax, but not the gas tax. How "green" is that?

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by BayAreaHillbilly

You must be alluding to the ongoing conflict regarding developing former ranchlands and salt evaporators in Redwood City. The extremists want to break the levees and turn the land into marsh. Developing it certainly would preclude that project. Of course, there are several other former salt evaporators in other parts of the bayshore that have had the levees breached. It's not as if those RWC lands are all that critical in the grand scheme of things.

Yes, it may have been RWC. I think a few thousand homes is pretty critical. The environmentalists said they want development, but in existing areas. I'm all for that, but as another poster said, we are pretty much already built out in low to moderate densities. There aren't as many opportunities for high density, mixed use development as the enviros like to pretend.