http://finance.yahoo.com/real-estate/article/105262/Suburbs-a-Mile-Too-Far-for-Some

I also don’t agree that young people these days do not try. In fact, we probably work harder.Back in the day, you could have an average job, make average pay, and buy an average home. As it is now, you have to make a HUGE amount of pay, work long hours, and then wind up with the same average home that an average living situation afforded people back then. If young people want to “make it” here, then they have to bust their keisters to do so.Either that or wait for tidy little crashes to occur and STILL pay out the nose.

You can still live a comfortable life in 90% of the country. Perhaps if more people thought like I did, the BA wouldn’t have such a problem.

Willowglenner, that’s some interesting insite into Prop 13 and CA’s system. Indeed, what you said makes sense. The problem with the system here is that new propositions get passed all the time… but then they NEVER get taken down, which over time strains the system to the breaking point.

I recall back in TN the state passed “TNcare, which was a sort of universal healthcare system for working families. The system backfired and almost bankrupted the state ( may that be a lesson to certain Democrats) In the end, the state repealed the measure and within a few years, the state was back on track to financial success. Had TNcare care been CAcare, it would have never been repealed because too many people would whine about it and therefore, still be costing the state dearly.

On the notion of 13 though- one thing you guys may not realize is that when CA did have “good schools”, the perception of the public was that they weren’t any good. Like in the 70s- huge amts of money went to the school system, and yet their objective seemed to be to bring up the lowest kids (economic and/or learning disadvantage) to the mean, as well as a bunch of creative non accredited stuff at the high end. Those were CA schools, then. Lots of money going in and bad SAT scores coming out- even in the GOOD districts. The issue of spending all your resources trying to make sure the lowest kids can function in society is a problem many public schools have and taxpayers aren’t that interested in funding that (and in this case I agree). Schools in CA in the 70s were not worth the investment.

I am curious how many people, who vouch for this kind move up theory, moved up themselves within bay area.

1. Start small, then move up, and move up again.
2. Buy a house, and rent out rooms to support your payments during the first few years.
3. Buy a dupex, triplex, or quad. After you have enough money, trade for a single family home.
4. Move up strategy 2: East Bay -> Sunnyvale -> Mountain View -> Palo Alto

FWIW, commercial properties are the biggest beneficiaries of Prop 13. Companies tend to live longer than people.

The solution would have been tax relief to those on limited income, not tax rollbacks and limits that have nothing to do with actual property values. Allowing the rollbacks for corporations made it even worse.

Yes I benefit from Prop 13. But my kids suffer from underfunded schools. Sorry, I think the schools are more important.

That’s not called an emotional purchase. That’s the logical next step.

>>The fact that since 2004, more people have moved out of CA than moved in proves that when prices get too high, it has a negative impact.

Isn’t the price “too high” because too many people want to live here?

>>The fact is that no industry stays solidly planted nor does it remain indefinitely successful in any given area over time.

BA is different, however. The weather here will not change, Stanford and UCB will not move, and smart people can meet any future challenges.

>>CA has a unique problem where highly qualified professionals are being priced out of the market.

Real Bay Area is expensive, but there are plenty of affordable areas in CA.

In regards to Bostonians and much of the Northeastern migration, most of that migration has actually been to places like Raleigh,NC, Atlanta, and other Southern locales.

Most people assume that the BA is totally recession-proof and that tech will always be the one major industrial player in the area. The fact is that no industry stays solidly planted nor does it remain indefinitely successful in any given area over time. Just look at Pittsburgh,PA, Detroit,MI,Rochester,NY, and Boston,MA- the newest to join. In each city, they relied heavily on then-modern industry: Steel, Automobiles, Camera and optic equipment, and technology. Once opportunities dried up or the industries shifted, all that changed and in most cases, these cities are either shells of what they once were or simply falling further into economic problems.

CA has a unique problem where highly qualified professionals are being priced out of the market. If the BA eventually fails economically, it could very well have been the result of having lost a generation of new tech workers from none more than being priced out and shood away. I’ll be joining them sooner than later, so add me to the list of those who will eventually not be here to add my area of accumulated expertise to the industry.