East SJ Question (San Jose, Oakland, Fremont: homes, neighborhood, college)

[gizmo980]

Originally Posted by bobby_guz_man

There are other parts of San Jose you can look at, besides ESSJ. Neighborhoods like Japantown, Midtown/Burbank, or some parts of the North 1st corridor as well. Downtown SJ is another good place to look at.

Union City, Fremont, and Hayward are truly suburb cities. Since you're the person who thinks SJ is a fake city made out of cardboard, I'm not sure what you would call those cities? Who knows, maybe you'll think they're "real"?

That comment really upset you, huh? Sorry, lol.

But since nobody thinks of those towns as anything but suburban, I wouldn't expect otherwise from them. My mother even lives in one, so I'm familiar enough with that area... not exactly my dream locations, but I'd sacrifice my desire for "urban-ness" to get a bigger place. Just a thought.

[gizmo980]

Originally Posted by pidgeontoad777

i lived in sj for entire life and the east side is and has always been a dump.some parts are much worse than others but you would be better off living in the west side by bascom, if you dont mind helicopters and police sirens constantly

Yeah, but that part of town is pretty comparable with where I currently live, so it probably wouldn't be worth moving there.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by gizmo980

Yeah, but the chances of a dog owner's issues (I'm talking one or two dogs - not a hoarder-type of situation) trickling down to you are pretty slim. We are more limited, yes, but hopefully most of us are still self-supporting. Anyway, that is definitely not the topic of this thread! My dog is my best buddy, and as I said earlier, I'd sooner live in my car than even consider dumping him..

I get what you are saying but only if we are talking about the issue in isolation. Everyone has their "must haves" list. But stepping back and seeing this issue within a larger context, the problem is too many people have more "must haves" than they can truly afford. People just don't seem to understand the concept of giving themselves a margin of safety and this drives me crazy!

Originally Posted by gizmo980

Now maybe if the landlords would stop being so damned uptight, and actually allow dogs in more complexes, this wouldn't be an issue?.

Bottom line is they don't have to be. It would help if they would actually build more housing so that the supply/demand imbalance wasn't so extreme...then landlords would have to be more flexible.

But, I have to admit, I sympathize with landlords. Pets can be a pain. I am allergic to them...and when you're living in an apartment building, the annoying stuff gets magnified. I don't want to hear barking dogs or potentially be exposed to allergens from cats.

And beyond all that, as you should know from working at a library....the rules are set up to prevent the 5% of problem renters from wreaking financial havoc on landlords and other tenants (As a general rule, 5% of the people cause 50% of the problems in any endeavor.) Also, I don't pretend to know all the laws, but it's my understanding that it's harder to evict tenants in CA than in other states. This makes landlords more conservative in what they allow.

[gizmo980]

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

I get what you are saying but only if we are talking about the issue in isolation. Everyone has their "must haves" list. But stepping back and seeing this issue within a larger context, the problem is too many people have more "must haves" than they can truly afford. People just don't seem to understand the concept of giving themselves a margin of safety and this drives me crazy!

Of course some people live beyond their means, others just HAVE no means and make certain sacrifices they feel are worth it... then you have the folks who used to do well, and acquired their pets (homes etc) before money was tight. But unless you know everyone's specific situation, you really cannot and should not judge. I got my oldest cat almost 17 years ago, when I was a college student, and now I'm a 37 year-old working woman. Could I have predicted all the changes I've been through since adopting her? Not a chance. Unlike some folks, however, I actually take my commitment to these animals seriously.

Anyway, as I've said a few times now, that is not the point of my thread or questions. Maybe you think my pets are a detriment, but I think they are a blessing - and worth any sacrifices I've had to make for them over the years.

Bottom line is they don't have to be. It would help if they would actually build more housing so that the supply/demand imbalance wasn't so extreme...then landlords would have to be more flexible.

But, I have to admit, I sympathize with landlords. Pets can be a pain. I am allergic to them...and when you're living in an apartment building, the annoying stuff gets magnified. I don't want to hear barking dogs or potentially be exposed to allergens from cats.

And beyond all that, as you should know from working at a library....the rules are set up to prevent the 5% of problem renters from wreaking financial havoc on landlords and other tenants (As a general rule, 5% of the people cause 50% of the problems in any endeavor.) Also, I don't pretend to know all the laws, but it's my understanding that it's harder to evict tenants in CA than in other states. This makes landlords more conservative in what they allow.

Children can be a pain too, but I don't see many advocates for adult-only complexes (might actually be illegal, with the exception of senior/55+ communities). I'm allergic to the lavender-scented crap my neighbors spray/burn, hate when they play loud music before noon, and I'm sure some of the neighbors don't like my smoking on the balcony. Oh well! That's life in a multi-family dwelling situation, and people who are sensitive about everything should find a townhouse or SFH to rent instead.

Regardless, the landlords could be a little more sympathetic to us pet owners, considering only maybe 5-10% of apartments allow dogs (more will allow cats). What are we supposed to do, live on the street? I literally took the ONE apartment I could find in SJ, which was under $2000/mo and dog-friendly... what if they hadn't had any units available? Again, I've lived in many towns and states in my lifetime, and this region is the absolute worst for renters w/ pets. THE WORST. They're dumb, too, as any landlord around here who accepts dogs - especially large ones - could easily get above market value for their units. And if the dog turns out to be destructive or a nuisance, evict and keep their deposit. It isn't that hard to evict a tenant in California, AFAIK, especially if the lease states behavioral expectations for the pets.

P.S. I say this as a responsible working professional, who makes slightly above the median income for a single person; so it's not like I am asking for low-income housing, I'm just asking for anything within the average realm of rentals here! I'm also very UN-picky about neighborhoods, but still find myself "hunting for treasures" every time I move. Just gets frustrating, ya know?

[gizmo980]

Anyhooooo... nobody answered my question about UC/Fremont/Hayward, outside of telling me (the obvious) that they're suburban. Guess I should post that on the East Bay forum, since it might be the only decent option if I choose to move.

[cardinal2007]

Originally Posted by gizmo980

Anyhooooo... nobody answered my question about UC/Fremont/Hayward, outside of telling me (the obvious) that they're suburban. Guess I should post that on the East Bay forum, since it might be the only decent option if I choose to move.

There actually isn't an East Bay forum yet, you will have to post in the SF forum. All I can tell you after driving around there is that it is suburban, and parts of it look run down. Hayward is probably the least safe. As for it being obvious, it is not, unless you've actually been there before, people always talk about the South Bay being a big suburb, and SF and the East Bay are more urban, so unless you've been there you would expect what people always say.

Like half of OPs or more haven't been around the Bay Area.

Have you considered Pittsburg, or Livermore? they may be more up your alley than Hayward, uh yeah, ask in the SF forum.

[bigdumbgod]

Originally Posted by gizmo980

Anyhooooo... nobody answered my question about UC/Fremont/Hayward, outside of telling me (the obvious) that they're suburban. Guess I should post that on the East Bay forum, since it might be the only decent option if I choose to move.

I don't know...still sounds like Midtown/Burbank would fit the bill. Everybody around here has dogs, works hard, and lives quite well.

[bobby_guz_man]

Originally Posted by bigdumbgod

I don't know...still sounds like Midtown/Burbank would fit the bill. Everybody around here has dogs, works hard, and lives quite well.

I suggested this as well, gizmo have you looked into this neighborhood? It sits between Downtown and Santana Row, has a few vintage arts and boutique stores, got a bunch of local dives, dance shops, smoke shops galore, and rents are generally pretty good. It is within walking/biking distance to Downtown, Santana Row, The Alameda, the Rose Garden area, and Willow Glen. With a car, you would access these areas very quickly.

It's not known as a constant headache like East San Jose is, but does have a bit of grittiness--explains the generally cheaper rent. It is not ghetto, however. It is also starting to see a building boom, with townhouses/condos/apartments going into Race Street, Meridian, and along San Carlos itself.

[gizmo980]

Originally Posted by bigdumbgod

I don't know...still sounds like Midtown/Burbank would fit the bill. Everybody around here has dogs, works hard, and lives quite well.

Originally Posted by bobby_guz_man

I suggested this as well, gizmo have you looked into this neighborhood? It sits between Downtown and Santana Row, has a few vintage arts and boutique stores, got a bunch of local dives, dance shops, smoke shops galore, and rents are generally pretty good. It is within walking/biking distance to Downtown, Santana Row, The Alameda, the Rose Garden area, and Willow Glen. With a car, you would access these areas very quickly.

It's not known as a constant headache like East San Jose is, but does have a bit of grittiness--explains the generally cheaper rent. It is not ghetto, however. It is also starting to see a building boom, with townhouses/condos/apartments going into Race Street, Meridian, and along San Carlos itself.

I would definitely prefer living there to my current neighborhood (Almaden/Blossom Valley), but how are the prices and availability in comparison? I pay just under $1700/mo right now for a 710sf 1-bedroom w/ amenities (washer/dryer in unit, 2 pools & hot tubs, fitness center, etc), so wouldn't I end up paying over $2000 for the same in that part of SJ? Or am I thinking more of DOWNTOWN & actual Santana Row prices? Of course I can go look on Craigslist, but it's possible I am getting my neighborhoods confused here.

Anyway, I just need it to be cheap(er) enough to justify moving ~2-3 miles away, since there would be no benefits in terms of my commute - and I'd possibly be giving up the size and amenities of my place, not to mention the actual cost of a move. I tend to move every 1-3 years, so consider that when factoring in these costs. I do appreciate the suggestion, though, and will look into it! What would that be called on Craigslist, downtown or Willow Glen?

[gizmo980]

Oooooh, wait a sec... isn't Midtown/Burbank right around the airport? If so, I am actually familiar with that neighborhood and have thought it would be a good fit. This might sound silly, but I used to frequent a cannabis club there - so at least I know they're 215-friendly.

But I still don't know what it's called on Craigslist, lol.