^Agree! That’s why I’m glad most people believe Maine is too cold to live in!
I am not a fan of the “if you want a career in tech, you need to go to SV” thing. As someone (Hanna?) mentioned before, there are hot spots around the country doing very interesting things. And if you are a star, you may shine better without as much competition. If you are a woman, I would advise researching the whole Tech Bro culture that infects too many SV firms.
In the 90s we left the Boston area and moved to Hooterville, Midwest. My husband has built a solid tech company. He and his employees live near work which means that they can pop over to the school for a program, pick up a sick kid, meet their preschooler for lunch, coach a team, etc. Can’t do that if home is 90 minutes away. People take interesting vacations which they can afford because they are not maxed out on mortgages.
His employees are thrilled to have a great job with good benefits and don’t turnover, making the company efficient.
We have more than enough for a good lifestyle and a great retirement. Tell these kids to think outside the box!
Same thing I said a few pages back in response to a comment that basically said that in only two cities/regions in the US is it possible to have a fantastic life full of fulfilling work and stimulating cultural opportunities.
@Nrdsb4: You misread & misunderstood my post. Those two locations are great places for young professionals to start their careers & learn their profession.
That’s not what you said, though. Sure, those are great places in many respects.
I disagree with the above. There are many places in the US where opportunities are plentiful and much excitement of all kinds is there to be found. And you don’t have to share an apartment with numerous other people or drive 2 hours to work to enjoy these benefits.
Not in their first few years out of college for certain financial positions. Either way, we just disagree. I think that your view is too narrow & you do mine.
Neither view is too narrow. It all depends upon personal preferences and desires. What one person loves and thrives upon someone else feels stifled and stressed by.
What’s good to know is that there are options, not a single path leading to fulfillment for all. Align the path to the person, not the person to the path. I know plenty who would be bored stiff living where we do and vacationing where as choose. We’re the opposite. That doesn’t make either individual wrong. Humans are just wired differently. As long as one can be gainfully employed or otherwise earning their living (legally) in a manner they enjoy who cares what they choose?
Native San Franciscan here…although I moved out of The City over 30 years ago. I still have family, and family property in SF.
This is NOT meant as a political statement, rather as an additional data point attempting to explain the insanity of costs in the area.
There are an estimated 30K housing units (apartments, single family homes) vacant and off the market. Some of those are in the turn over phase - and will be place on the market again. However, a significant number of these units have been intentionally left vacant. Why? Because of draconian and one sided regulations ruling the tenant - landlord relationship.
I’m in contact with a number of my grade school friends. We find ourselves in similar positions. There’s a family home, either inherited or currently not occupied by the elderly owner. Of my circle NO ONE is putting these up for rent. Why…because if and when you want to regain control and use of your home or unit you will find yourself stuck in a web of tenant protective regulations which are prohibitive and expensive. It can take years to remove a tenant. And, the owner will likely be assessed relocation costs.
H and I manage rental units for my parents. The stories of bad tenants and the inability to resolve the issue could fill pages. The worst example is the guy who moved in with his mom and ran a chop shop out of the unit’s garage. It still took years, many eviction attempts at the cost of 3-5 K each until we finally prevailed. (his mom would claim she didn’t speak/understand English at the beginning of each eviction process, this of course extended the time and cost of each attempt since extensions were granted until the appropriate interpreter could be present). At the final hearing, mom said she couldn’t make rent because her son lost his job! (yes, the chop shop). They got a 6 month extension to come whole with the back rent.
Shortly after the successful eviction, a neighboring tenant sued because they weren’t warned about ‘the bad people in the other unit’. Since it was SF, the insurance company settled.
Combine the above scenario with the fact that building restrictions are onerous, the area is a bay - so three sides are water - and you have the current situation. Low stock, expensive housing.
Regretfully, the SF scenario is spreading south. After another local municipality put rent control on the ballot, 85 homes were put on the market. These have been removed from the rental stock. And, the only people who can afford to purchase them are the tech sector highly salaried ones. Those previous rental homes will become weekend getaways.
There are things which could be done to at least partially alleviate the ‘crisis’. No, it won’t come down to rents in Kansas City but it could stabilized.
However, there is no will.
Yes, there is rent control so LLs have a cap on how much they can raise rents in CA. Also if they want to renovate or sell, they have to pay tenants. We have a relative who rented a place but then the owner wanted to renovate or sell it. The tenants each were paid high 4 or low 5 figures to move and rent elsewhere. As the relative was going to be traveling and had a place where she could store her things (her aunt’s huge home), she was thrilled with the windfall.
Where does this estimate come from? Is this an estimate for the city of San Francisco? If so, it seems very out of line with what I can find on Google. I’m not here to defend rent control, which I think is an abomination, but we should base our discussion on facts.
Where is this place, and why do you believe these houses are going to be bought up as weekend houses? It’s rare for anyone in the Bay Area to have a second “weekend getaway” in the Bay Area.
Now here is where the wild-eyed liberal and the conservative come together. We probably agree that the Bay Area needs to upzone and loosen burdensome building regulations. I’m hoping that enough residents discover that their kids can’t afford to live here, nor can the middle and working class people who do the work to support the community. And then we can make sensible change to get more housing built.
SF data from top google hits:
https://sf.curbed.com/2017/7/12/15961486/sf-tax-landlord-homes-apartments-vacant
https://www.antievictionmap.com/vacant/
New rent control ordinance is in Santa Cruz. As of now, it is on the November ballot. It’s pretty much a sure thing. And yes, the smog stuck, inland crowded, beach seeking new owners of stock options, living San Jose, are buying up the properties.
The SC rent control measure on the ballot gives additional extra protections to families with kids, the disabled, the terminally ill and those over 62. It think it will help the UCSC student population quite a bit. They would be ideal tenants since in all likelihood students will move in a year, or a few years. Also in all likelihood it will be very difficult to find rental housing if you are anywhere near the 62 year mark.
At some point, the trade offs necessary to live in a cool place in terms of housing costs (and the extremes people have to go to in order to make it affordable) and commute times just are not offset by the positive aspects of the location. I wouldn’t make it to the point of having to share a bedroom or drive more than an hour before I’d decide it just wasn’t worth it. I’m always amazed at what people will put up with in order to live in NYC or SF.
Re: rent control
The analogue for owner occupied housing is Proposition 13, which also favors incumbent occupants over new entrants into the housing market.
It may also reduce the supply of housing for sale, since some owners who may otherwise sell may choose not to, because their property tax bills will go up a lot, even if they buy a lower price replacement elsewhere.
Of course, that is not surprising. Many measures exist for, or are changed to add, protection for incumbents against new entrants, not just in housing.
@dietz199
the sf.curbed study that you sited , with the “30000” unit figure, was based entirely on someones unsubstantiated “guestimates”, and was done 4 YEARS[ !!] ago.
SF housing has gotten a LOT tighter and more expensive since.
" a SPUR 2014 study SUGGESTS that roughly 30,000 vacant are vacant in San Francisco, which, according to the Examiner, “included 8,900 units in the process of being rented, 2,400 ownership units in the process being sold or sold and not yet occupied, vacation or seasonal use at about 9,100 units, and 9,700 units not in any of those categories.”
My kid like CountingDown’s also works at Google. He’s lived in the same apartment complex since his internship. One bedroom with a fenced in outdoor area (wasted on him) of about 150 square feet. I think the rental cost had gone up a lot until rent controls were put in, but it doesn’t seem impossibly pricey to me. He’s got a shuttle stop within a block which is very handy. He’s 10-10 minutes away depending on the time. His rent is close to twice what it was when he moved in seven years ago. He’s also making twice as much.
I wonder if the guy who lives out of his moving truck still works at Google. A few years back a new hire at Google decided to live out of a moving truck. Since all meals are free at Google and they have gym facilities and showers, I’ll bet the dude saved a ton of money.
Until recently you could see tons and tons of RVs parked in Mountain View overnight, and I’ll bet that most of them were regular high tech workers who didn’t want to pay for the outrageous apartment rates. You also have a lot of workers who actually live in Sacramento or places beyond, and use an RV to live here during the week and go home on weekends.
A few years ago, a guy at Mr. B’s place decided to buy an RV, drive to SF to start his new biotech job, and live out of the RV… we thought it was nuts. Apparently, not that uncommon. I wonder how he is doing.
I know a young man who lived in his Stanford office room for several years while in grad school. He rented an apartment when he married.
This is a true story…I had a friend, high income worker at a well renowned Bay Area hospital, have a conversation with me about seeing if she could park her soon-to-be RV on the side of my house. Out of pity (sort of) I offered to rent a room to her. Well, a year later we got married. And she never got that RV.
Did Mountain View crack down in the last month? I was on vacation for the second half of June, but before that I would see RVs parked on certain streets always. Most did not appear to belong to high income tech workers, but appearances can be deceiving.