From NY to San José... or not...

[Chuck5000]

dogandcat, you completely misread my post and intentions. Calling me a "hater"? Talk about impolite. That is an extreme reaction, and you didn't even ask for clarification. Also note that at least one other persons agree with me here, although you're implicitly disparaging him as a "hater" also.

The living in a truck example is merely an example. In no way did I compare your life to living in a truck; I was specifically referring to the continuum of possibilities of sacrifice of space for dollars, and the effects on one's life that entails. Nothing more. No reason to read insults into that. No reason to take that personally. If you found it pointed a bit, well, sure, we are arguing on a forum. But an insult? Hatred? Come on.

Did I accuse you of acting superior and calling me a crybaby? I didn't. But you saw fit to project your prejudices and make accusations of me. I don't "work hard" enough? You know nothing of my life and circumstances.

You say you live in zip code 95123. Note that in my post I said 7/10 schools from k thru 12. Most of 95123 does not have that. I'd be surprised if you could buy a 3/2 of the size we discussed for 750 in your zip code, that is not in a bad location like on a busy street, and get 7/10 in elementary, middle *and* high schools. Correct me if I'm wrong; it looks like sections of that zip code have some areas that have much higher median prices and I'm guessing that's where the better middle and high schools are. No way would I put my kids in a 4 or 5 out of 10 middle school. Maybe that's a sacrifice some people are willing to make.

By the way, it is objectively true that non-wealthy people, both in the USA and in the rest of the world do live in smaller spaces comapared to wealthy people. And it is true that very few people like to step down multiple levels in life choices if they are forced to. (I.e., move to a much smaller and more crowded place than they grew up in.) BTW, I live in a 600 sq foot apartment with wife and child. Grew up in an 1800 sq foot home with 5 siblings.

Also, dogandcat, you seem to be assuming that nobody other than yourself sacrifices; if one complains, then one is reluctant to sacrifice. That is simplistic and wrong. It's also quasi-social darwinist. And it neglects the role of luck in life, which is huge. The year you moved here and the year you bought your home - you got lucky. I have a friend, immigrant from South Asia, is brilliant, and is a senior engineer. He laments that he can't afford a house here, because his wife doesn't earn enough to complement his salary, and he can't find a cheap rental to save enough. Is he a complainer? Is he not as good as you?

In the end, if you do not like complaints, or disagreement about public policy, housing, or do not want to give or get advice that may contradict what you already believe, etc, then you should close your ears and not spend time on internet forums. Of course, if you are asserting that you never complain about anything, then you are therefore a superior being and don't need to be here.

[aramax666]

Chuck,

I saved 130K in 1 year 9 months for my downpayment. That included a 15K loan from my 401K. And I did have one child.
I made around 150K the first year, and around 180K the second. What dogcat is saying is totally doable, at least in terms of savings.

But I could not afford a good school in 95123. Of what I saved, I used 80-90K for a 10% downpayment. The rest was to furnish home and emergency funds.

[MediocreButArrogant]

FWIW, if you go by test scores (Greatschool's rating methadology), several of the schools in 95123 made big jumps recently. I saw this in a post on Nextdoor.

Santa Teresa High became a 9 (!) and Herman Middle School a 9 as well.

I think these big jumps should help convince people that a single number and test scores aren't a good way to rate or compare schools.

[Chuck5000]

Yeah, the near-impossibility of achieving good schools within good commuting distance of Silicon Valley *k thru 12* even in a small unimpressive house at an affordable price (less than, say, 900k) is pretty much the whole point of this - I'm sorry if I didn't make that clearer. I personally grew up in schools that would probably rate 5 or 6 out of 10, and no way will I expose my child to that if I can help it - renting will be better for him in that circumstance.

The reasons are many, including exposure to more academically oriented peers, and the associated better services and activities of stronger districts. Now I have no interest in being a tiger parent, with the excess pressure that plagues districts like Palo Alto. But I do not want less than 'decent' schools.

The key question re: 95123 is are the 750k SFH's available assigned *k thru 12* to the 7 out of 10 or better schools. That's undetermined. It's *easy* to find a home in the Bay Area for 600 to 800 with not-good schools.

[hipogrito]

Hi all,

Thanks for all the comments. There's very valuable information in all posts and we appreciate the time and advice you put on them. Our commute would be to Downtown SJ, so that's why the areas of interest might not be exactly the same than people who work at some valley tech companies further north-west.

Thanks,

Regards,
Hipo

[calicoastal]

Originally Posted by dogandcat

No your numbers are not stand. If you read my previous comments in that thread (I see you did not), the same houses as mine down to the street are selling for 750,000 and up right now. That is actual price of selling, not starting price. It is easy to use Redfin to put 95123 zip code...

What about your other fantasies about my life style (what?? truck?? unbelievable I hear it here...), please do not share them more. They are not appropriate for that forum created by polite people for polite people, not haters. My only advice to you... If you can not afford a house because of some circumstances, please do not blame people who can do it, and who work hard to be able to do it.

Well said. You do not need to make 200-300k+ to afford to buy a house in a nice Bay Area neighborhood. I'm also proof of this. Live within your means, save, be conservative, set realistic expectations, and it can be done.

[Chuck5000]

Originally Posted by calicoastal

Well said. You do not need to make 200-300k+ to afford to buy a house in a nice Bay Area neighborhood. I'm also proof of this. Live within your means, save, be conservative, set realistic expectations, and it can be done.

Of course you can buy *something*. But of very low quality.

So, not if you have a family and want certain things that are not luxuries, things that are straight middle of the middle class in the USA in 2016.

You need 200 to 300k minimum to:
a) buy a house in a neighborhood with 7/10 schools or better k all the way thru 12, i.e. you're not gambling with your finances and your kid's lives on a district getting better
b) have that house be within, say a reliable 60 or 45 minutes commute of SF or SV
c) have that house be a 3/2, at least 1200 square feet, and be habitable - not fancy, but NOT an immediate teardown, i.e. not needing 100k of renovation to be habitable
d) have that house be on not be on a major main road with any obvious detriments, like heavy truck traffic just outside your driveway

AND
e) be able to save *some* money for
1) retirement
2) college savings
3) rainy day savings

and

f) is not in a place with not-so-good weather or other factors, like odors

So you can earn 175k and pour every darn dollar into home savings to buy a 900k house, but that is not a smart way to live. If you lose your job, you lose your life.

I'm not talking about buying fancy cars or having fancy vacations.

You an probably find a townhouse for less than 900k, or a 2 bed condo meeting above requirements. But again, I'm talking about the modest middle class standards above.

Last, you can certainly find some very, very unappealing places in the Bay Area. I'm talking about minimum of attractiveness - i.e. a block with at least some trees, or on a block with reasonably well kept houses - or mostly well kept. You can move into the 'hood, but who wants to do that? Won't have good schools anyway.

So please provide examples if I'm so wrong.

[skris4]

OP, we saved a hefty downpayment in 4 years for a home which we bought 1.5 years back. At the time we started saving our HHI was in the 180k range and remained there for quite sometime. It has become much higher now thanks to living in SV.We had a kid when we started saving for the downpayment. We saved this despite taking nice vacations, sending kid to an expensive preschool etc. Its definitely possible. The truth is that some people are much better savers than others and only you can determine what kind of a saver you are.

Originally Posted by Chuck5000

Of course you can buy *something*. But of very low quality.

So, not if you have a family and want certain things that are not luxuries, things that are straight middle of the middle class in the USA in 2016.

You need 200 to 300k minimum to:
a) buy a house in a neighborhood with 7/10 schools or better k all the way thru 12, i.e. you're not gambling with your finances and your kid's lives on a district getting better
b) have that house be within, say a reliable 60 or 45 minutes commute of SF or SV
c) have that house be a 3/2, at least 1200 square feet, and be habitable - not fancy, but NOT an immediate teardown, i.e. not needing 100k of renovation to be habitable
d) have that house be on not be on a major main road with any obvious detriments, like heavy truck traffic just outside your driveway

AND
e) be able to save *some* money for
1) retirement
2) college savings
3) rainy day savings

and

f) is not in a place with not-so-good weather or other factors, like odors

So you can earn 175k and pour every darn dollar into home savings to buy a 900k house, but that is not a smart way to live. If you lose your job, you lose your life.

I'm not talking about buying fancy cars or having fancy vacations.

You an probably find a townhouse for less than 900k, or a 2 bed condo meeting above requirements. But again, I'm talking about the modest middle class standards above.

Last, you can certainly find some very, very unappealing places in the Bay Area. I'm talking about minimum of attractiveness - i.e. a block with at least some trees, or on a block with reasonably well kept houses - or mostly well kept. You can move into the 'hood, but who wants to do that? Won't have good schools anyway.

So please provide examples if I'm so wrong.

[smashystyle]

Originally Posted by Chuck5000

Yeah, the near-impossibility of achieving good schools within good commuting distance of Silicon Valley *k thru 12* even in a small unimpressive house at an affordable price (less than, say, 900k) is pretty much the whole point of this - I'm sorry if I didn't make that clearer. I personally grew up in schools that would probably rate 5 or 6 out of 10, and no way will I expose my child to that if I can help it - renting will be better for him in that circumstance.

The reasons are many, including exposure to more academically oriented peers, and the associated better services and activities of stronger districts. Now I have no interest in being a tiger parent, with the excess pressure that plagues districts like Palo Alto. But I do not want less than 'decent' schools.

The key question re: 95123 is are the 750k SFH's available assigned *k thru 12* to the 7 out of 10 or better schools. That's undetermined. It's *easy* to find a home in the Bay Area for 600 to 800 with not-good schools.

The best I've seen is pockets of Union City where there are 7/7/8 schools and houses under $700k.