RealEstatebull, you may be on to something

Roy321,

Money can be made anywhere, not just in those pristine areas. Had you bought Oakland years ago, you would have cashed out by now and would be off on an island now sipping mai tais for the rest of your life (not that you couldn’t do it now, I am sure) :wink:

1 Like

I am sure Union City is also on that target list. There simply aren’t any cheap areas anymore except up that way on 880. Again, play at your own risk…

We should do a group buy…:slight_smile:

It’s time to wheel out the old Buffett saying:

It’s far better to buy a wonderful company at a fair price than a fair company at a wonderful price.

I don’t mind paying a bit more. Just make sure the asset is of great quality.

No doubt, words to live by…but again I repeat Oakland used to be one of those cities that you avoided correct? Things do change eventually (hopefully). Again, Union City and Newark are not bad areas at all, not like some cities around here that I needn’t mention so that I don’t offend anybody.

I’d take both to hedge my bets. :slight_smile:

From today’s sfgate article on techies leaving even farther from the bay area:

And when the median price for a single-family home in San Francisco is up to $1.3 million, and Seattle and Portland’s single-family home price is swiftly rising, it’s understandable that tech workers would want to stretch their dollars in these other less-expensive but still tech-job-heavy locations.

Can’t one interpret that to mean certain cheaper areas in the Bay Area like Union City and Newark??? Not a stretch by any imagination…

I think you’re missing the point. There are areas in the US–probably almost every other city except New York–where the housing market is cheaper simply because of the geography. No bay, no mountains, no peninsula. So your money goes farther in buying a house. You’re not paying $5 to cross a bridge everyday. Add to the complicated geography that the Bay Area doesn’t have a unified transit system.

The Bay Area has great weather and a real anything is possible attitude, but there are certain things that cannot be overcome. It’s the right city in the wrong place.

1 Like

Think about it this way:

Did you ever watch the Incredible Hulk? Small guy wearing jeans turns into a big guy and rips his jeans. What if the IH were a woman wearing a skirt? Small woman turns into big woman stretches the skirt, but it wouldn’t rip. Why? Because there’s room to grow.

There’s no room to grow on the peninsula or in SF. Sure, you can go upwards, but we’ve already addressed that many families want land and a backyard. So it pushes down towards San Jose, and spills over some tiny clogged bridges into East Bay. It’s just not practical, and people, especially techies, know it. It’s a tragedy that Tech exploded here, because the geography cannot accommodate the industry.

Terry,

Personally I think you are missing the point. A lot of people here DON’T want to move. I don’t see you moving. How come you folks don’t seem to get it? Believe me, if I worked down that way and if I did not have kids I would be on Union City/Newark/Fremont like flies on crap. Why not? It is cheaper to buy there, I will probably make some money on the appreciation in the meantime and you get to live here. These are not crime ridden cities for Christ sakes. Just because you have a taste for caviar doesn’t mean other folks care for that you know. Why continue to pay potentially really high rent when you can buy??? Is it really that hard to understand???

Everyone goes blah blah blah about how great it is elsewhere. Then MOVE!!! Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

1 Like

I won’t! Thanks!

Won’t move or won’t let the door hit you?

Terri,

Take it from someone who grew up fairly poor but now have managed to own a few properties in one of the most expensive areas around, I don’t mess around. I don’t forget where I came from and I certainly don’t mind giving sound advice to folks who may have the same background. We all would love to live in really nice areas but that is not reality. I have given IMHO sound advice. You have every right to take a different stance but please do not tell me that I have it wrong. I have done well enough for myself thank you and I think some folks would appreciate that kind of advice.

Won’t let the door hit me on the way out.

sfdragonboy, I’m not saying that this place isn’t great (although, I think CA is in for some really rough times as the government continues to chip away at personal freedoms and parental rights), but if someone says “people are moving elsewhere and finding the cost-commute-house tradeoff easier to manage,” why do you disbelieve them? As I’ve said, the geography here has set things up to make the commute-housing cost matrix to be worse overall. Why resist that fact? Yes, Newark exists. I’ve thought seriously about moving there for years. But it adds 1.5 hours to everyone’s commute plus $5/day if the commute is across a bridge. It’s no longer free if you carpool. If I move there and keep kids in schools in Newark, while trying to work in RWC, it means having to drop everything on a moments notice if a kid is throwing up in the school office. If I take the kids to the Peninsula for school, then when one is sick, I have to take the other home early or keep them in the car throwing up (sorry, do you sense I’ve had multiple pickups with kids throwing up this year? yes, yes I have…). If that other one is in a public school, I may get nasty absence notices from the school district which have legal consequences. (Do you sense I’ve been getting nasty official gov’t notices this year saying my kid is habitually truant for OH MY 1 religious holiday and 2 late morning dropoffs! Wow. such a horrible attendance record!)

If you don’t have kids, you own houses, and you’re happy, I’m happy for you. But if you can’t understand why people say it was easier to manage the financial-house-commute-schools tradeoffs somewhere else, I find it problematic that you’re not willing to accept that other families have other priorities and were willing to give up a 10-level tech scene to move somewhere with an 8-level tech scene and better stats for housing/schools/commute and are happy. If those people are smart, and totally hirable, why shouldn’t they? In a downturn, they’ll remain employed.

Thanks Terri! Now I can NEVER unsee it…

1 Like

Terri,

Do you understand the concept that for some of us, those sacrifices you mentioned, the increased commute time, etc, is NOTHING!!! I will repeat this again: my grandparents worked on the shipping docks of SF hauling shrimp in, and saved whatever money they made (which I think you get the idea was VERY low wages) and over the course of many years of suffering and NOT SPENDING ON ANYTHING saved enough to buy a house. Any house. Who cares what kind of house. It was a house.

My point is: YOU HAVE TO START SOMEWHERE!!! Not everyone is born with a silver spoon.

What is the point of continuing to pay rent, probably high rent, when you can have your very own home? Any home. You can always move up. Again, why is the notion “it is not where you start but where you end up” so foreign to you?

1 Like

Congratulations! Now, can you understand that some people have chosen to live in Seattle instead of SF to lower their commute time, and that that is the sacrifice they have to make, and just like you, they think it is NOTHING.

Of course. But I came under attack for suggesting a viable solution to those folks who obviously might want to hear it. You needn’t chime in, correct?

Silicon Valley should learn from Singapore.

World class transportation system. MRT, buses, taxis, and private cars fully integrated.

Home ownership of over 90%.

NUS is ranked 26th higher than UC SD, SB and Davis.

In 2015, 5.5 million people on 278 sq miles. GDP per capita = $56, 319.

Singaporeans love the nanny government. PAP has been Singapore’s ruling political party since 1959.

Global warming seems to screw up the weather a bit there, now and then, very hot and very heavy rainfalls.

Take a deep breath guys and gals. :slight_smile:

2 Likes

Ewwwww!

LOL!