San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down • Hacker News Board

Re: San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down

#241

Post by frogpelt » Mon, Jul 08, 2013, 9:07 PM UTC

api wrote: post #30

I've got a possibly great job offer on the table from SF/SV, but may turn it down. I'd love the city I'm sure, but after glancing around I've come to the conclusion that home ownership is unthinkable to anyone who hasn't had a cash-out event. The real estate market is certifiably, utterly bat-dookie insane. NYC is often considered more expensive, and Manhattan is certainly... well... Manhattan. But taken collectively…

Re: the Edit:

It's nothing more than simple supply and demand at work. Real estate suffers from being one of those markets where its very hard to create more of it (you can build taller buildings or build new cities, that's about it).

The reason real estate is so stinking expensive in huge parts of California is because so many stinking people want to live in those areas.

Re: San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down

#242

Post by nostrademons » Mon, Jul 08, 2013, 9:09 PM UTC

api wrote: post #68

RKoutnik wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you looked into Alameda? It's hundreds cheaper than anywhere in SF proper, quieter/cleaner and my commute's only 20 min.

Where do you commute? My possible offer's in Mountain View, and that seems like it would take a while. I also looked at Fremont/Newark, but have never physically been there. What's that area like? School district maps say some of the schools are decent. FYI I am 35 with a new baby, so the question is "can a family live in SF comfortably without having a cash-out event or a salary in excess of $240k?" The offer I'm pu…

MV housing has gotten insane since Google started their hiring binge in 2011. My rent's gone up nearly 50% since then. And Google's demographics are changing: average age is now about 31 (up from 28 or so when I started in 2009), so many of them will likely be having kids in the near future and driving up house prices even further.

Fremont is decent as long as you don't mind boring. Unfortunately, the commute over the bridge can really suck during rush hour (this applies to all the East Bay communities). Sometimes I'll take 237 around to Mountain View to avoid it, but both 880 and 101 have severe traffic issues.

A bunch of my friends actually bought houses in the Cambrian Park and Willow Glen parts of San Jose. These are still reasonably affordable, safe, and they're about a 20-minute commute down 85 from Mountain View. 85 is a parking lot between the Googleplex and about El Camino or Fremont Ave during rush hour, but opens up fast once you get past 280. If you're getting on at El Camino (eg. a downtown Mountain View office) and then commuting to San Jose it's not all that bad.

I've heard Santa Clara isn't bad either - it's 10 minutes from Mountain View without traffic (much worse in rush hour traffic, since it's on 101), but it's largely Korean/Vietnamese/Japanese immigrants and so prices have stayed relatively low so far.

All of these communities are really boring, with basically no downtown or civic events. One of the large factors that drives prices up are young professionals that want a high quality-of-life in addition to working at a fancy tech job.

Re: San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down

#243

Post by smsm42 » Mon, Jul 08, 2013, 9:10 PM UTC

api wrote: post #30

I've got a possibly great job offer on the table from SF/SV, but may turn it down. I'd love the city I'm sure, but after glancing around I've come to the conclusion that home ownership is unthinkable to anyone who hasn't had a cash-out event. The real estate market is certifiably, utterly bat-dookie insane. NYC is often considered more expensive, and Manhattan is certainly... well... Manhattan. But taken collectively…

If you're OK with San Jose, there are a number of houses under $500K available. Which is within reach of a decent hi-tech salary even without cash-out event. Of course, in SF it's different and given SF special appeal and the fact that SF govt is insane I can imagine both rents and ownership prices would be worse.

I think the only responsible thing a family can do is not to live there if they can't afford it. There are plenty of jobs for people not living in SF, really.

>>> Imagine what all that money in SV could be doing if it weren't all sucked up by real estate.

I'm not sure I understand how this works. When you buy a house, it's because somebody else sold it to you. The money aren't buried in the backyard - they went to somebody. Who is free to invest it in whatever they want.

I think the basic mistake here is different. Primary residence is rarely an investment (unless you plan to severely downsize sometime in predictable future) - it is an expense. Too many people wrongly regard it as an investment and make poor choices.

Re: San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down

#244

Post by Loughla » Mon, Jul 08, 2013, 9:11 PM UTC

enraged_camel wrote: post #235

JonFish85 wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What, exactly, is "crazy" about it? As a renter, you don't control your own destiny. You're at the whim of your landlord. As a home-owner, or better yet, a property-owner, you have much more control over your living situation. Don't like the paint color? Change it. Don't like your stove? Get a new one. Want to plant some new flowers? Go for it. As a renter, you're going to be dealing with rents rising year over year.…

>>What, exactly, is "crazy" about it? As a renter, you don't control your own destiny. You're at the whim of your landlord. As a home-owner, or better yet, a property-owner, you have much more control over your living situation. Don't like the paint color? Change it. Don't like your stove? Get a new one. Want to plant some new flowers? Go for it. This is hilarious. As a home-owner, you have control over your own home…

That is an asinine argument. You're more likely to run into terrible neighbors in an apartment setting, with the higher turnover in living spaces. Your argument is done in by basic research into the neighborhood.

That's like saying that you shouldn't buy a home simply because it might burn down one day, whereas living in an apartment is fine, because if it does burn down, it's not your building.

Re: San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down

#245

Post by larsonf » Mon, Jul 08, 2013, 9:12 PM UTC

I think there might be an interesting point underneath this. If everyone who feels like the author actually stayed then SF might not have the high rents/excitement/cultural contact that you get with large amounts of young, single, employed, relatively unstable individuals. Part of the reason SF is probably so desirable in the first place is that the type of people who live there are the types that actually think the cultural experience is worth the money.

Re: San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down

#246

Post by the_watcher » Mon, Jul 08, 2013, 9:13 PM UTC

api wrote: post #30

I've got a possibly great job offer on the table from SF/SV, but may turn it down. I'd love the city I'm sure, but after glancing around I've come to the conclusion that home ownership is unthinkable to anyone who hasn't had a cash-out event. The real estate market is certifiably, utterly bat-dookie insane. NYC is often considered more expensive, and Manhattan is certainly... well... Manhattan. But taken collectively…

>>It's a city built on young entrepreneurs coming there and doing new stuff, but if nobody who hasn't already made it can afford to live there what happens then?

You mean can't afford to buy there. Which is why those of us who haven't made it rent, and put 3 people in 2 BR apartments. Or get a house in a less hip spot with 4 friends. Those who made it in SF/SV did it like this, and so will the next generation. That doesn't make it a good thing that ownership is so unrealistic, or that people who aren't young don't want to do it. But the idea that the next generation of software leaders won't keep coming to SF because of price is just wrong. As long as that's where the best companies and opportunities are, ambitious young people will move there.

Re: San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down

#247

Post by brownbat » Mon, Jul 08, 2013, 9:15 PM UTC

enraged_camel wrote: post #230

gknoy wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who recently (this past year) went from being a renter to a homeowner, and had previously been a home owner for several years, it's not all rational... but here are some of the reasons. I don't have to worry about the rent going up every year / six-months. If I plan to own the house for multiple years, a large chunk of my money goes to equity: I'm banking away value for later that you will get back when yo…

>>If I plan to own the house for multiple years, a large chunk of my money goes to equity: I'm banking away value for later that you will get back when you sell the house. (Assuming the market doesn't go pear-shape: a big assumption.) In contrast, money you spend on rent is a pure cost, and irrevocably lost. This logic is fundamentally flawed. Contrary to the popular conventional wisdom (repeated by our Baby Boomer p…

The Harlem numbers make a good point, both renting and buying involve unrecoverable costs. But it's is a case by case question as to whether one set of costs is higher than the other.

Where I live, my rent and utilities are higher than the cost of property taxes, HMO fees, utilities AND mortgage payments for an equivalent townhome. My market's the other extreme from Harlem.

Paying less per month for the same thing seems like a good idea. Even if the market drops the value of my house to zero, buying is still the right decision.

Not sure why the market is crazy here. Maybe it's a city of transients, people just passing through, or people with no savings?

This is why rent vs. buy calculators exist, there's no obviously correct answer for every situation, it's highly contingent.

Re: San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down

#248

Post by smsm42 » Mon, Jul 08, 2013, 9:16 PM UTC

enraged_camel wrote: post #164

api wrote: post #30

I've got a possibly great job offer on the table from SF/SV, but may turn it down. I'd love the city I'm sure, but after glancing around I've come to the conclusion that home ownership is unthinkable to anyone who hasn't had a cash-out event. The real estate market is certifiably, utterly bat-dookie insane. NYC is often considered more expensive, and Manhattan is certainly... well... Manhattan. But taken collectively…

>>I'd love the city I'm sure, but after glancing around I've come to the conclusion that home ownership is unthinkable to anyone who hasn't had a cash-out event. I've never understood this crazy, if not outright insane obsession with home ownership. Why does everyone want to tie significant amounts of their lifetime earnings into physical property that historically has had very low appreciation in value? It's like pe…

Good rental (i.e., well-maintained, good neighbors, long-term, non-crazy owner, etc.) may be harder to find than a comparable house to buy, and you still don't own it meaning there are many things that you can not do there.

>>>> It's like people have forgotten about the housing bubble popping just five years ago

Not everybody did. Some found it a pretty good opportunity to finally get into the market while it temporarily became a bit less insane than usual. Home ownership doesn't have to be with a goal to strike it rich on a bubble, it may be to minimize housing expenses too.

Re: San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down

#249

Post by jrochkind1 » Mon, Jul 08, 2013, 9:16 PM UTC

You feel bad about helping to gentrify San Francisco... so you're going to move to Portland and help gentrify Portland instead.... because girls at bars won't judge you as harshly in Portland?

I don't think you are wrong to be self-analytical and self-critical about the economic role you play in your city, and possible harm you can cause.

But moving to a new city isn't a solution to anything except possibly your ego.

Re: San Francisco, I Love You But You’re Bringing Me Down

#250

Post by jacoblyles » Mon, Jul 08, 2013, 9:16 PM UTC

enraged_camel wrote: post #164

api wrote: post #30

I've got a possibly great job offer on the table from SF/SV, but may turn it down. I'd love the city I'm sure, but after glancing around I've come to the conclusion that home ownership is unthinkable to anyone who hasn't had a cash-out event. The real estate market is certifiably, utterly bat-dookie insane. NYC is often considered more expensive, and Manhattan is certainly... well... Manhattan. But taken collectively…

>>I'd love the city I'm sure, but after glancing around I've come to the conclusion that home ownership is unthinkable to anyone who hasn't had a cash-out event. I've never understood this crazy, if not outright insane obsession with home ownership. Why does everyone want to tie significant amounts of their lifetime earnings into physical property that historically has had very low appreciation in value? It's like pe…

Communities are built by people that are in for the long haul. How many renters show up at city council meetings? The age of renting is the age of "bowling alone".