Grow up in the Bay Area? Do you agree?
A Burbed reader posted this comment the other day:
$949,000 – mi 1092sqft casa is su casa — Burbed.com: Your Silicon Valley Home and Mortgage Insanity Blog
# Norcalboomer Says:
February 8th, 2007 at 9:51 pm eI grew up in the Bay Area. It sure WAS special. Now it looks like a third world country, and has the services to boot! Thank god my kids did not attend Bay Area Public Schools. In the 50’s and 60’s they were some of the best in the nation, now they are no better than a glorified baby sitting service. How do I know? ALL of my relatives who live in the Bay Area and care about education send their children to PRIVATE schools. Except for the weather and beautiful scenery the Bay Area is a ” has been” locale.
Youch!
Did you grow up in the Bay Area? Do you agree with this assessment?
February 11th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Yes I agree 1000%. I grew up in San Jose, spent about 35 yrs in the Bay Area, SF, Fremont, Palo Alto. The man knows of what he speaks. My old east side haunts are now taquerias, birrerias, carnecerias etc etc… It is a third world country. And I’ll never go back.
February 11th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
I’m just wondering outloud here – but isn’t that more of a reflection of the current anti-Mexican sentiment?
If it were full of italian delis, social clubs, etc – would you still say that it’s gone down hill?
February 11th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
I grew up in MN while my husband grew up here. Education in MN is much better than here. I don’t think it has anything to do with the anti Mexican sentiment, but to do with the misuse of $ by the govt.
February 11th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
http://www.morganquitno.com/edrank.htm
here’s an interesting site. How Smart is your state?
February 11th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
What? Are those comments from actual Bay Areans? =( People always tend to forget about the little gems we’ve got here. Oh, & the education IS NOT that bad. I mean, I’m from South City (South San Francisco), & although SSF may not have the prime real estate or the ideal schools, I think, once you hit Millbrae & if you keep going further south on El Camino, the education, environment, & weather get a little nicer. I mean, look at Hillsboro, San Mateo, Redwood Shores, Atherton, etc. Those are NOT bad cities at all! Now, I went to private school most of my life (All Souls, then Mercy HS Burlingame), BUT even private school kids compete to get into Lowell HS— a PUBLIC high school in SF! & SF does NOT have a “third world” feel to it. I mean: sure, we have our “ghetto” neighborhoods in the city, but SF is not a suburb, so you can’t really expect it to be all teddy bears & bubblegum 24/7. Besides, SF’s got some beautiful, upscale neighborhoods, too, like Russian & Nobb Hill, or better yet, Golden Gate Heights. & so what about all the taquerias, taco trucks, and whatever Mexican establishments are in the Bay? CALI in general has a large Latino population, which consists of mostly Mexicans— but hey, we ARE bordered w/ MEXICO. Besides, you gotta admit: sometimes, that bean burrito really hits the spot!
Seriously though, in the heart of The Mission District in SF, you CAN & WILL find beautiful murals of great Latinos, like Diego Rivera & Frida Kahlo.
Oops. I just realized how long this comment’s gotten. [Sorry, Burbed--- YOUR blog.
] Well, point blank: there is NO OTHER state like CA in the ENTIRE COUNTRY, and there is NO OTHER place like the Bay Area.
February 11th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
Hey long comments are fine.
Interesting perspective – yours is entirely about SF, but the previous ones are about San Jose.
Maybe that explains part of the difference in observations? Have you been to Story & King?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_and_Story%2C_San_Jose%2C_California
February 11th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
It is no secret that public education in California is horrifically bad. Proposition 13 has killed public education.
See http://www.rand.org/publications/randreview/issues/spring2005/ulttest.html for instance.
Rich and influential people support lower taxes and lower spending for public education since they opt out of public education and opt into private education. Pre-proposition 13 California’s public education was top notch. We are now competing for the bottom spot and rank between 45 and 50th in just about every key statistic (both input side like per pupil spending and class size and output side like standardized test scores, reading and math proficiency, etc.).
Warren Buffett, while advising Schwarzenegger in his campaign, committed the political faux pas of talking about this and saying California needs to fix prop 13 (the worst kind of political mistake is when you say a politically uncomfortable (at least for republican primary voters) true statement). Buffett was paying more in taxes on his “modest” half a million house in Omaha then he was paying in property taxes for his multi-million house in California.
Of course, if someone were to fix prop 13 and allow more reasonable property taxes on California houses what do you suppose that would do to affordability? If people had to pay more $/year in taxes to own but not to rent and that money was “thrown away” it would further favor renting versus owning.
February 11th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
Rich and influential people support lower taxes and lower spending for public education since they opt out of public education and opt into private education.
I don’t think that’s the problem though. Recognize that the #1 largest voting bloc are Senior Citizens.
I went to the Santa Clara county fair once, and there was a senior citizen with a table asking people to sign a petition to protection Senior Citizens and Prop 13.
There’s no giant conspiracy – the fact is that Prop 13 is a great example of how Americans don’t care about the Common Good anymore. (Besides, isn’t that socialism?)
February 12th, 2007 at 9:17 am
The previous poster referencing San Francisco brought up an interesting perspective, which I think demonstrates some of the falacy in thinking for south bay residents.
He alluded to several of the good and nice features of San Francisco itself. No one here will deny that San Francisco is a beautiful and charming city. But therein lies the interesting fact: san jose is NOT san francisco. Somewhere along the way, this distinction became greyer and people made more broad based statements regarding the entire bay area as opposed to realizing that only certain sections warrant higher prices.
For example: Palo Alto is a sought after place of residence. Ditto for Atherton, Los Altos, Los Gatos, etc. And naturally, San Francisco holds its own distinction.
But my question is: why does this translate into extremely high home values in places like San Jose? Mountain View? Sunnyvale? Fremont? And especially Milpitas.
No matter how one slices it, these are the less desirable areas to live and in essence, are little more than suburbia. It is analogous to the difference between Queens and Manhattan.
Yet if anyone remembers the recent historical home prices, for a short time, San Jose actually had a HIGHER home price than San Francisco! This has since adjusted. However, I think it demonstrates the herd mentality and general lack of thought individuals were guilty of during the housing boom. Homes were being purchased like Beanie Babies with little or no thought as to their potential future appreciation prospects. Much like the dot com runup, when idiotic stocks like pets.com, etoys, etc. were being purchased simply for their affiliation with a perceived “gold mine” of future appreciation.
As this housing downturn continues to unfold, I believe you will see very sharp corrections in the areas existing outside of the more desirable areas. Although even those areas will not be immune. As one can see with the continued mortality rate of the mortgage lending industry, affordability will become a major factor moving forward. Which will make things interesting.
February 12th, 2007 at 10:48 am
I think the Bay Area is a GREAT place to grow up considering the abundance of taquerias, birrerias, carnecerias etc etc…
Can you imagine how bland it would be if they were all replace by Applebee’s and Chili’s?
I love that I can take my kid to authentic Thai one night, Indian the next, and grab some killer carnitas tacos for lunch in between.
All the reasons why people hate the Bay Area are the reasons why I think it’s so great. I’d rather live next door to hard working Mexicans in San Jose than in a crackerbox with Nosy Whitey McVanilla neighbors in Tracy.
February 12th, 2007 at 10:52 am
I love that I can take my kid to authentic Thai one night, Indian the next, and grab some killer carnitas tacos for lunch in between.
You can afford to take your kid out to dinner?
Clearly you’re not spending enough on housing.
February 12th, 2007 at 11:50 am
Burbed,
Thanks for the “ok.”
Story & King? No, I barely go to San Jose. But hey, thanks again for showing me what part of San Jose I SHOULDN’T plan on investing in.
==================================
Jason,
I remember when the cost of living was higher in San Jose than in SF. But there’s always gonna be 2 words that can sum up the answer to your question: SILICON VALLEY.
February 12th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
In response to marizen:
“But there’s always gonna be 2 words that can sum up the answer to your question: SILICON VALLEY”
And the last time I checked, “silicon valley” is rapidly being exported to India and China. And if I remember the wage data from government records, salaries in “silicon valley” are at the same level they were in 1998.
And of course, the coup de gras: according to census information, the population of “silicon valley” is DECLINING.
But hey, if you want to buy a home, feel free. It is your money. The only thing myself and many others ask is the following: do not go crying to the government for a personal bailout after you home’s networth declines to a level far below its purchase price.
February 12th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
“I love that I can take my kid to authentic Thai one night, Indian the next, and grab some killer carnitas tacos for lunch in between.”
I love it, that is such a classic refrain: It is impossible to get Thai/Chinese/Mexican/Indian/name-your-ethnicity restaurants outside the Bay Area.
Restaurants make it all worth the grime, filth, crime, ghetto, gangs, smog, traffic, piss-poor education system, outrageous housing prices, massive tax burden, right? Did I get that right?
The issue is the transformation of the Bay Area (specifically San Jo) into the third world with balcanized enclaves of gated million dollar homes.
You simply cannot complain about first world invaders. I could never complain about Japanese/French/Italian/Spanish/Portugese/Scottish/Irish/German/name-your-first-world-country cultural and economic effects on the Bay Area.
February 12th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
I could never complain about Japanese/French/Italian/Spanish/Portugese/Scottish/Irish/German/name-your-first-world-country cultural and economic effects on the Bay Area.
If you didn’t qualify your sentence with the words “Bay Area”, I could point you to the movie “Gangs of New York” about how well the Irish were received when they first immigrated to NYC.
February 12th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Damn right I agree, except I haven’t lived here in the 50s and 60s.
The BA is so special – it’s the only city in the US where it’s frowned upon to just work a 40 hour week. All these Blackberry heads need to show off their worth through the amount of work they do, instead of the type of person they are. (This might explain the crappy ratio of ugly guys to hot women.)
Why am I still here? Probably because of the same reason most peeps in the BA are – because jobs like ours aren’t easy to find anywhere else. Slave away, fellow workers!
Bottom line – the BA is best for single people who don’t have anything better to do than to work their 20-something lives away. Any place worth going to on the weekends is crowded as hell. So what’s the lure of the BA again? Bad drivers? Fry’s? Crappy and overpriced houses? Crappy schools? Cheap food (in certain areas)? Mr. Chau’s? Okay – nix that last one..
BTW – SF is overrated. There’s a reason why you don’t see a lot of kids growing up in SF anymore. Can’t blame their parents.
February 12th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
it’s the only city in the US where it’s frowned upon to just work a 40 hour week.
Um, I think it’s like that in other places too. Like Tokyo, Hong Kong, Shanghai, and New York.
That said, it does remind me of this “article”: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30795
February 12th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
I grew up in the bay area. I was actually born and raised in Hayward. My parents were born and raised here too. Right now I’m 30 years old and I’ve been able to make several observations. I currently reside in San Jo and I do think it looks rather 3rd world. With that said the crime rate is pretty low (per capita), and it isn’t THAT bad of a place to live. However I think homes are way overpriced, and you have to pay through the nose to live in a decent neighborhood.
As for growing up, it seemed that when I was a kid that immigrants came here with a better attitude, and they were actually coming to this country to accept the American way of life, and our value system. They’d get a good job, work hard, take care of their home and yard, and generally were good people. This used to also apply for American born citizens. Over time it seems that people care much less about where they live, and care less about their community. I think this is definitely a result of the shitty 40+ hour work ethic coupled with the added traffic from having some of the poorest freeways in the nation.
Growing up I was basically forced into private school because the Hayward school system was horrible. The guys I grew up with on my street went to public school and constantly got picked on or their asses kicked. Also the academic standards are so low that none of my childhood friends attended and finished college. I was lucky and was sent to a good private school. As a results I have obtained a college degree and have a decent job.
The thing that really sucks is that if the income of a given area is lower the schools are going to suck. People who are educated and well off will pump enough money into their local school system to make them top-tier schools. Look at any ‘rich’ area and you’ll see that is true. Lower income areas just have to take what they can get because they don’t have enough money to offset the issues. I’m sure that educated parents probably don’t take no for an answer when their kids are getting a sub par public education. There are also many other factors as well.
But overall I think the bay area is starting to suck so bad because of the sheer number of people that USE and ABUSE the area then return ‘Home.’ I know a number of people doing that of pretty much any background. They come here, make money, take the money ‘home’ then retire. They leave disgusting garbage, and a strain on the system in their wake. It’s not just people from across the border. I think they get blamed for way too much.
Anyway there is my rant. I don’t know if it makes sense or applies, but whatever.
February 12th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
The thing that really sucks is that if the income of a given area is lower the schools are going to suck. People who are educated and well off will pump enough money into their local school system to make them top-tier schools.
That’s one of the things I don’t grok in California. Under Prop 13, most of the property tax goes to the state, which then redistributes it to the schools.
This is the opposite of most places where the property tax goes directly to the schools.
In theory, this should be more fair and equitable, making all school districts equally poorly funded – but yet there are some clear differences between… say a school in East San Jose and a school in Saratoga.
How does this work?
February 12th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
Who knows how it works. There is also the argument that the school system is just fundamentally flawed, and in rich areas parents are just more active. I watched some 20/20 John Stossel (sp?) episode where he was talking about how schools don’t need extra money, but they need to be run more like a business where teachers can be fired if they aren’t performing (i.e. kids get crappy test scores etc) It was a pretty compelling argument.
February 12th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
I happen to know what you’re referring to and that piece by Stossel (like most Stossel pieces) is complete junk.
Public schools are inherently at a disadvantage to private schools for 2 reasons:
1) They don’t get to say who goes in. As a result, public schools have to take the disabled (which cost 2-3x as much to teach) and the criminal (who disrupt others)
2) They get the students whose parents don’t care. Except for Gunn High where parents bring in a $2000 cash donation at the beginning of every school year, private schools are at an advantage because, by implication, the students have parents who care.
Sure there are bad teachers, but that’s just one aspect of a very flawed comparison.
February 12th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Yeah true about the disabled and children who disrupt classes. I didn’t think of that. I do remember any time a kid would screw up by doing something violent or illegal the kid was thrown out plain and simple. That definitely is a luxury public schools don’t have.
Yep you’re right about the parents too. It is just a bad cocktail of issues. It seems like it is one of the many things in life where there is no one solution. A complete overhaul of the system coupled with more funds may get closer to a solution.
BTW.. This site kicks ass, and I enjoy your commentary. Keep it up!
February 12th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
New York City – okay, I’ll buy the fact that it’s “illegal” to only work a 40-hr workweek there, too.
Still – the way BA people work at these tech companies (public or not), you think they get to screw more virgins in their afterlife if they get another 3 hours a work in… per day. (Or insert afterlife pleasure here.)
February 12th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
BTW.. good commentary on your site. This site is everyday reading for me. I get a laugh everyday…
February 12th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
To all the people bitchin’ about San Jose being “3rd world”.
Oh puh-leeze….try to hide your bigotry and racism better than that.
“Restaurants make it all worth the grime, filth, crime, ghetto, gangs, smog, traffic, piss-poor education system, outrageous housing prices, massive tax burden, right? Did I get that right?”
Gimme a break…San Jose has one of the LOWEST crime rates per capita NATIONWIDE. Check on your stats. Just cause people are brown doesn’t mean they’re murderers, rapists, and gang bangers.
And the quip about restaurants was just referring the diversity of the Bay Area since the original poster mentioned the abundance of taquerias. Fine…if you don’t want to talk about the abundance of restaurants, talk about the performing arts centers which benefit greatly from the diversity. Let’s talk about the great high schools in Cupertino, Palo Alto, Fremont, and (GASP!) San Jose that are nationally recognized and recruited by Ivy League schools. Let’s talk about the fantastic geography of the Bay Area that allows you to snowboard in Tahoe one day, sail in the Bay the next, and mountain bike in 65 deg weather the following day.
Sure there’s plenty wrong with the Bay, but picking on San Jose because it “looks like a third world country” cries of typical “white flight syndrome”. In any event, I laugh at all the fools who sit in traffic on the Sunol grade and Altamont pass coming into work just cause they can escape the Mexicans and Gooks in the Bay. Ha Ha
February 12th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
Let’s talk about the great high schools in Cupertino, Palo Alto, Fremont, and (GASP!) San Jose that are nationally recognized and recruited by Ivy League schools.
Are they really? It seems that they’re all really motivated to get into Cal than anything else.
February 13th, 2007 at 12:41 am
“Are they really? It seems that they’re all really motivated to get into Cal than anything else.”
Um yes really. Monte Vista in Cupertino, Gunn in Palo Alto, Lynnbrook in San Jose, and Mission San Jose in Fremont are ranked very high in the US News and World Report of top high schools if that’s worth anything. All are public btw.
I would have thought a site dedicated to housing would be more enlightened when it came to school districts.
February 13th, 2007 at 1:07 am
Yes I know they’re ranked “high” on that list. But that doesn’t mean they all go to Ivy League schools.
Everytime I talk to parents at Cupertino, their top priority is getting into Cal.
Maybe it’s a cost thing.
BTW, they’re not all that high:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12532678/site/newsweek/
#79 – Gunn
#152 – Monte Vista
#147 – Mission San Jose
#361 – Palo Alto High
#501 – Lynbrook (Seriously….)
A school in Little Rock, Ark, a state that is the butt of many jokes, is at #20. 59 positions above Gunn.
The first “Bay Area” school on that list is Lowell at 26.
Personally, I went to one that’s in the Top 50 – this year it didn’t do to well but usually it’s Top 25. Not sure what happened there.
February 13th, 2007 at 1:43 am
I’ll take actual Ivy league admissions data over anecdotal data any day…so I still don’t buy the whole Cal thing at Monte Vista.
BTW, I see Lynbrook at #178 according to this link
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8759025/site/newsweek/page/2/
but regardless, even if it is #501 out of over 26,000 public high schools in the US, #501 ain’t so bad is it? That’s top 2%! At #178, that’s top 1%.
And so what if an Arkansas HS is higher than Gunn?… that’s not really the point. The point is that the Bay Area supposedly has really horrible schools according to some posters, yet a preliminary check of the data does show there are some damn good schools here.
February 13th, 2007 at 4:59 am
[...] Wow… if you missed this post yesterday, go click on it to read it. Grow up in the Bay Area? Do you agree? [...]
February 13th, 2007 at 9:47 am
The point is that the Bay Area supposedly has really horrible schools according to some posters, yet a preliminary check of the data does show there are some damn good schools here.
I think the point was that home prices –usually– (and I emphasize that) reflect the quality of schools, roads, other public services, and cultural attractions.
With home prices where they are here, you would expect the roads to be paved with gold. But people don’t seem to expect that here.
I guess it’s just special.
February 13th, 2007 at 10:45 am
Lets face it, Prop 13 has killed the California schools. Yes the cream of the crop will go IVY league as the would have had they been in any other school. But it is the mid to lower level graduating and dropouts that are caused by Prop 13. Overcrowding and lack of attention to modivate the lower students to excell is the main problem in Cal. We would all like to think our kids are A+ students, but they could all be if properly taught, and that can’t be done in a Prop 13 overcrowded school. And another thing. IF you think restaurants are a factor in determining authtic cusine, you are a dipshit that was educated in a Cal Prop 13 school and should kick your parents ass for not paying for a private school. Also, private schools are the added tax caused by Prop 13 but most people are too dumb to see it. Rich educated people know they are going for the private school anyway so who cares if the dips in public schools suffer. Just more dipshits for their highly educated private school children to ripoff later.
Now for all the public school parents that are now going to try and rip me a new one, “No, your kid is not special, maybe special ed going to school on the short bus, but that is it.” An A+ in a Cal public school is like a C- in private school. Don’t worry though, it’s okay for your kids to be average, rich landlords need average joes to rip off so they can continue to live better than you. Keep buying those lottery tickets, they really helped fix the Cal public schools. Billions from the lottery, yeah right, all that means is the government gives billions less. Zero sum gain, but thanks for paying the lottery tax instead of making landlords pay property tax. And don’t let Arnolds old lady story con you about how Prop 13 is a godsend, he owns more property in Santa Monica than the old lady and is only concerned that his property tax does not go up.
February 13th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Wow… lots of passionate comments here. That’s great!
But please, let’s ease up a little on the swearing.
Thanks!
February 13th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
“I think the point was that home prices –usually– (and I emphasize that) reflect the quality of schools, roads, other public services, and cultural attractions.
With home prices where they are here, you would expect the roads to be paved with gold. But people don’t seem to expect that here.”
True dat. No arguments here on the ridiculous cost of housing. My point though is the diversity, weather, and geography in the Bay Area is pretty damn special and the educational system & browning of San Jose is blown out of proportion and simply ignorant.
I suppose it’s all a matter of what’s important to you if you’re raising a kid. I would WANT my kid to have a diverse group of friends and be exposed to many different cultures. I would WANT my kid to be able to enjoy nature 365 days out of the year. And I would actually WANT my kid to go to some of the schools here in the Bay Area cause they’re pretty darn good.
February 13th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
To SteveK: I don’t think I care if anyone is brown or mexican or asian or whatever. Who really f’ing cares. It is just a fact that San Jose LOOKS like shit. That doesn’t mean it is shit, or that any one group of people are responsible. I’ve been to plenty of ‘whites’ houses that look like shitholes. I’m just saying it doesn’t seem like people in the SB really take care of their property.
February 13th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Oops.. just saw burb’s comments. Sorry about the swears.
February 13th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Holy shit, Burbed— I think you’re an official Blog-ebrity now! haha j/k! Well, I’ve always liked your blog, so I may as well add more to fire.
Oh & by the way, I don’t think you’ll ever have to worry about me buying a house in Silicon Valley. I mean, I’ve already got my heart set on this beauty right here… 
=======================================
1. Jason – “silicon valley” is rapidly being exported to India and China.
[rzn] Well, I gotta admit: you got me there! haha
http://www.warwickproperties.com/address.php?property_ID=1
=======================================
** I just copied & pasted the rest so I don’t really remember who said what, but here goes…
2. “This might explain the crappy ratio of ugly guys to hot women.”
[rzn] All I remember was cracking up when I read that. Hahaha
3. …immigrants came here with a better attitude, and they were actually coming to this country to accept the American way of life, and our value system. They’d get a good job, work hard, take care of their home and yard, and generally were good people.
[rzn] Is there some kind of underlying implication about immigrants here? like they’re no longer “generally good people”? I think the American Dream is still alive in today’s immigrants, although the dream is really more about just finding prosperity & freedom, rather than accepting the American way of life– I mean, America is called The Melting Pot for a reason.
4. In theory, this should be more fair and equitable, making all school districts equally poorly funded – but yet there are some clear differences between… say a school in East San Jose and a school in Saratoga.
How does this work?
[rzn] I know there were more replies to the question, but I just wanted to add that a public school’s piece of the pie is also determined by the # of students enrolled & registered, but then, is also offset by the actual attendance of its student body. & personally, I think cutting a class is A LOT easier done in a public school rather than a private one.
5. you think they get to screw more virgins in their afterlife if they get another 3 hours a work in… per day. (Or insert afterlife pleasure here.)
[rzn] Just another one that made me laugh. haha
6. Sure there’s plenty wrong with the Bay, but picking on San Jose because it “looks like a third world country” cries of typical “white flight syndrome”.
[rzn] I wanna say I agree, esp. because I remember that this comment also referred to skiing in Tahoe one day, then sailing the next. But I gotta ask— what exactly is the “white flight syndrome”?
=======================================
ONE LAST THING, about that MSNBC ranking of high schools…
W O W. No really, I mean— I would’ve never guessed that George Washington (SF) topped Piedmont, or that Fresno beat Beverly Hills. And that a high school in Danville, one of the better-off Bay Area cities, would be ranked in the thousandths.
February 13th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Just saw your “ease up on the swearing” comment, too, Burbed— SORRY!
February 13th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
3. …immigrants came here with a better attitude, and they were actually coming to this country to accept the American way of life, and our value system. They’d get a good job, work hard, take care of their home and yard, and generally were good people.
[rzn] Is there some kind of underlying implication about immigrants here? like they’re no longer “generally good people”? I think the American Dream is still alive in today’s immigrants, although the dream is really more about just finding prosperity & freedom, rather than accepting the American way of life– I mean, America is called The Melting Pot for a reason.
I’m just saying now with the flood of people that come across our borders in an illegal way, they use the land then leave. That is a fact. I’ve worked enough jobs to know that money is sent elsewhere, and that property here is trashed because they don’t care. Yeah it’s not all people, but it sure is a large group.
Also I will say WHITES in this day and age don’t care about their homes and yards either. If they did SJ wouldn’t look so crappy.
February 13th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Oh one other thing. I suppose you can be a good person and still not take care of where you live. I’m not implying otherwise. I just think people in general now take less pride in where they live.
February 13th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
[Moving comment from other thread here]
Tim Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 11:56 am e
OK OK I give!
San Jose is HEAVEN ON EARTH, I apologize, I’m moving back right away……….can I “puleeze” pay $600,000 for a house on Story and King? I can’t wait to give up my 1.5hr drive to skiing in trade for the privilege of driving 5hrs one-way to Tahoe, oh but first I have to sit in traffic on 680 for 2 hrs just to get OUT of the Bay Area……
I have a question for anyone who left San Jo: Is there one solitary person who left the Bay Area (San Jose in particular) and says, “Oh God, leaving San Jo was the WORST possible decision of my life!”??
Anyone? Anyone? Hello? Do I hear crickets chirping?
I want to hear from all the old-school San Jo homeboys who grew up there. Because when you are living in a cesspool (San Jo) you become accustomed to the stench and don’t even notice it after a while. Only when you leave do you realize what a poor excuse of a wanna-be San Francisco San Jo really is.
February 13th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
[Moving comment from other thread here]
JasonofsoCal Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 2:07 pm e
Damn, people are getting downright caustic around here. Everybody take a step back, take a deep breath, chill out.
Ok folks, economics 101 for everyone. We are going to go beyond the notion of what’s nice versus what’s not nice. Let us set aside any of the aforementioned statements regarding housing being a “sure thing”. And let us also set aside the “they aren’t making anymore land argument”.
Let’s just stick to the math. So here goes:
The average per household salary in the Bay Area is roughly $70,000 per year.
Based on historical norms and formulas that have been in place for about a century, up until recently, individuals were encouraged to not take on a mortgage more than 3 times the pre-tax salary of the household.
By following that concept, the MAXIMUM mortgage size utilizing that formula should be: $210,000. Let us assume a downpayment of $50k as reference. That would yield a house price of $260,000.
Of course, now here come the rants. The Bay Area is “special”. The jobs are here. The land is disappearing. Etc. I am not going to debate those items. I am here to simply demonstrate the math.
Another way to determine “fair valuation” for housing is a rent/buy comparison.
Historically, homes (just like stocks) have certain P/E ratios. Those ratios dictate the valuation of an asset class. As far back as the late 1800s, the average P/E for a home was between 11 and 12. For the sake of argument, I am going to provide a premium for the Bay Area (since it is “desirable”) and allow for a P/E ratio of 15.
Now, the formula for home P/Es is:
P/E ratio = (home price)/(years rent – expenses)
So let’s do some math here.
Assume a standard Bay Area home with an average price of $600,000.
Now let’s make an assumption regarding renting. As a reference, I know of two friends who rent homes in San Jose for $2000/month. A peruse through craigslist seems to indicate that is a fair estimation.
Now let’s itemize:
I am going to low ball general maintenance and insurance costs for the property at about $200 per month. (its much higher, but I am demonstrating a point)
So the math yields
P/E ratio = (600,000)/(24000 – 2400)
therefore: P/E ratio = 28.
In other words, the P/E ratio is almost DOUBLE the HIGH BALL value I gave in reference to the P/E. By historical standards, it is MORE than double.
So there is the math. Before anyone dives in with their standard real estate cliches, I want some justification for the above math. If I hear phrases like “new economy” or “new paradigm”, it will simply re-enforce the view of the bloated nature of housing. Because folks, I was around during the dot com era and quite frankly, I’ve heard that before.
February 13th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
[moving comment from other thread here]
burbed Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 2:34 pm e
>>The average per household salary in the Bay Area is roughly $70,000 per year.
Actually, as noted here:
http://www.burbed.com/2007/02/13/bubble-war-long-island-versus-bay-area/#comment-6831
The Median income in this area according to HUD is:
SAN JOSE-SUNNYVALE-SANTA CLARA, CA
$97100
Using this calculator:
http://www.dinkytown.com/java/MortgageQualifier.html
Using the default settings, and adding an annual income of $97,100 and cash on hand of $50,000 – the purchase price should be $328,591.
That sounds about right – the median price for a home sold last month was $660,000. About 2x the traditional recommendation.
February 13th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
>>I just think people in general now take less pride in where they live.
Maybe that’s why HOAs are growing in popularity – even though they can easily become evil. People want dictatorships.
I guess you wouldn’t find this piece surprising:
Survey Reveals America’s Manners at an All-Time Low
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/newsletters/clientnews/2006_Lenox.pdf
February 13th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Burbed!!! Exactly!!! HOAs suck. A friend of mine just got squeezed for 40k to put new windows and siding on the complex. I won’t ever get into that mess. I’d rather have an interest only option arm before paying HOA fees.
February 13th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Brendan,
I was specifically referencing Tim’s absolute fear of mexicans, as is quite obvious in his posts concerning the rise of taquerias and gangs and crimes…as if one has a direct correlation with the other. That’s plain ignorant. Tim also throws out unfounded assertions about education and crime rate to further demonize San Jose.
I actually agree with you…it’s the lack of care that’s put into the houses that’s bringing down the quality of the area. And I agree that it LOOKS like shit in some places, but that doesn’t make it a third world country, by some people’s assertion. Palo Alto along certain stretches of El Camino looks like shit…that doesn’t make it third world. Almost all cities have their armpits, and painting the rest of the city in the same stroke as the armpit is ridiculous (just like that last analogy!!!!
)
Like burbed, I was really pointing out the inherint anti-mexican comment in Tim’s posting.
And Tim, BTW, so was King & Story, and East San Jose in general NOT full of taquerias and birrias 35 years ago? That’s funny, cause I’m pretty sure Cesar Chavez’s family felt there were plenty of taquerias and birrias when they moved to the predominately Hispanic neighborhood in 1930. Somehow I get the feeling your “old east side haunts” weren’t really that “old” or “east side”.
February 13th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
BTW,
I agree King & Story looks like crap. But I feel totally safe whenever I head down there and check out the Cinco de Mayo festivities, Lunar New Year Parade & Fair, or head over to Grand Century for some dim sum. I’m not even Mexican! go fig, huh? Crime-ridden?…um not so much… More like a vibrant, organic neighborhood full of color.
February 13th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
Having grown up in Millbrae (and aspiring to attend Cal like many good Bay Area natives), I found myself startled by the negative comments here. I love living/working in the South Bay and convinced my husband to stay in the valley so that we could raise our children here to have the same great education (yes, public school!) and multi-cultural experience that I had. Rents and mortgages may be lower in Portland or wherever, but I’ve thrived here and I think my children will too.
February 13th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
Hey Julia,
I noticed on your blog that it says this:
“DirtLaw Blog: Providing commentary and insight into trends in California real estate law and lending law, mortgages and foreclosures.”
Has business been picking up with the recent rise foreclosures?
February 13th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
Actually, since you’re a BA native… can you explain this:
“aspiring to attend Cal like many good Bay Area natives”
That part really puzzles me. Why not Princeton, Dartmouth, Georgetown, Yale, Tufts, NYU or Cornell?
February 16th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
Cal is like a fraction of the price of those schools and (without a commensurate drop in quality) and allows asian families too keep their offspring close by.
As for business, it’s true that foreclosures are getting more attention. If you’re a lender, it means you are taking back more property or negotiating short sales. If you’re a borrower, it means that you are getting into a squeeze because bankruptcy protections have changed and borrowers are less likely to qualify for a Ch.7 and will have to stay in a 13. This means that they still have to make their post-petition mortgage payments. Of course, once their 2/28 ARM rates spike, they won’t be able to do that and lenders will get relief from the automatic stay to take back the property at foreclosure sale. Foreclosure investors may make out or REO investors who have been holding on to some cash will be more selective because there is more inventory. More for work for a real estate attorney like me? Yes.