What does $1,199,999 buy Alameda these days?
Thanks to Burbed reader RinkRat for this find. Now, as we all know, Burbed doesn’t do a heck of a lot of East Bay – let’s face it, it’s not really Real Bay Area.
But if this is true, then perhaps it is time to reevaluate that and include Alameda in that designation!
Anyone familiar with Alameda and can share some of the biggest selling points of that area?
July 31st, 2008 at 8:14 am
From drhousingbubble, why the pain in RE has only just begun in CA —
The new housing bill now fully signed into law by the President will do very little to help California. Why? First, lenders should they wish to participate will need to have the property reappraised at today’s market value. Given the above data and across the board correction, this will force lenders to take a major haircut. In addition, the lender will be required to cut an additional 10 percent from the current appraised value. Well in places like Los Angeles where the median price is off by 35.65 percent an additional reduction of 10 percent will bring the one year correction to nearly 50 percent! That is astonishing and to be honest, I see very few lenders who will elect to do this (if they even can). It will force them to bring Pay Option ARMs that are current on a low payment looking like they are profitable into major losses were nearly half the balance is now gone. The weak balance sheet of lenders will implode if they elect to go this route.
Another reason that this won’t fly in states like California is many borrowers even with the new bailout program will not be able to make their payments on a 30 year fixed. How is that? Let us do a quick Pay Option ARM versus 30 year fixed calculation. We’ll use the peak Los Angeles price and current median price as our reference points. Let us take a look at the Pay Option ARM terms:
As you can see from the above, the minimum payment is only $2,053 on a $616,230 loan! Simply insane and ridiculous. What should be a $3,626 a month payment is artificially lowered by nearly half. Keep in mind that data on option arm loans tells us that approximately 80 percent of people make the minimum payment and we are not factoring in taxes or insurance above.
July 31st, 2008 at 8:28 am
I’m familiar with this house. Its been for sale for a long time. At least six months if not longer. The house itself is in nearly perfect, original condition and as you can see- massive. The reason it isn’t selling could be for a number of reasons. For one, its inbetween two roads, sort of like on an island. Secondly, there is a gas station just a block away.
It is situated on the very outer edge of a very wealthy section of Alameda. Homes in that area are similar to this one: historical and the previous residences of the areas’s monied class.Some of the old money still resides there. It is also close to Central Ave, which is a beautiful, tree-lined avenue. The house is in essence “orphaned” from other of its ilk.
In regards to Alameda itself, it is by and large full of historical old homes, an intact, preserved town, and all within east access to the beaches. You can walk or bicycle anywhere. The schools are decent and within walking distance for the kids, and since it is between Oakland, Berkeley, and SF, a fairly centralized area where commuters can get to their jobs relatively easily.
But… its still over a million bucks and there’s a number of other Victorians-albeit not as nice as this one- with asking prices of 700k or less, and they too are still sitting. So whoever owns this sort of missed the boat if they wanted to get that kind of price. I just drove by it a few days ago. Still for sale.
July 31st, 2008 at 8:29 am
I live in Alameda and intend to stay here forever. Great beach, views of SF and the Peninsula, 20 minute commute to downtown SF via Transbay bus, casual carpool, or ferry. Quiet, safe neighborhoods. Decent restaurants within a level, 20 minute walk of anyplace you could possibly live on the island. Typically 10 degrees warmer than SF with clear evenings, but 10 degrees cooler than Oakland in the summer.
We’re not on the way to anything, so most people who don’t live or work here even know we exist. A lot of people seem to think that Alameda is somewhere out near Antioch, not an island in the Bay. Maybe I shouldn’t have told you our secret.
July 31st, 2008 at 8:30 am
And yes, I agree with Bob – it’s overpriced for where it’s located, but a great house.
July 31st, 2008 at 8:32 am
Lionel,
I might be wrong about this, but I think I also read somewhere that for those who partake in the bailout, 50% of their future gains in property value will be owed to the government- in effect making them a leaser of partial government property. Also- the initial Bill called for over 300 Billion dollars. That got trimmed down to around 25 Billion, which isn’t going to come close to making a dent seeing as how over 10 Million Americans are now underwater on their mortgages.
July 31st, 2008 at 8:36 am
Sonya Nailed it. Most haven’t got a clue to what Alameda is. I wouldn’t have known either had I not gotten a sweet deal on a rental house when I first moved here via a friend who already lived there. What I like about it is that it doesn’t feel like the rest of the Bay Area. It could be Small town USA straight from the 50’s. The streets aren’t crowded, and the weather seems to be nicer for some reason. Very little, if any crime to speak of.To me, it makes living in the BA bearable. I can’t stand most of the rest.
Additionally, since a lot of people aren’t aware of it, the price of houses has been coming down a lot.Homes that were 600k last year are now 450-425k. Almost appetizing.The area is still overpriced in my opinion, but it didn’t get hit as bad as surrounding areas. The only thing I don’t like about Alameda is that there’s a real strong Not in My Back Yard contingency here.
July 31st, 2008 at 8:39 am
It’s like a townhouse, only without the “town”!
July 31st, 2008 at 8:40 am
It looks like a nice house, but $1.15M? Yes, it’s now down another 50K. The second most expensive house in Alameda right now is 789K. The house is 115 years old so $1.15M must make sense.
Whoever would love that house was probably born when it was built and would have a hard time with all the stairs
July 31st, 2008 at 8:55 am
This house sort of draws a dramatic comparison to yesterday’s Million-Dollar beauty. I recall people actually saying how nice it was, and how it would probably sell for more than asking, near good schools, etc etc. But if I were someone with big buxs and wanted a nice house, I’d feel like I’d at least get something that looked like a million bucks, and not something that looks like a middle class rancher all dolled up with mis-matching architectural features.
That begs to ask the question again, which would be is living 10-15 minutes away from your workplace worth so much that you’d pay the same for a home not even half the size and not near as nice rather than live 35-40 minutes away and live in a house like this one- which is also close to good schools?
July 31st, 2008 at 9:31 am
Unless it can fly, there’s no way anybody will pay $1M for a house in Alameda.
July 31st, 2008 at 10:33 am
“Unless it can fly, there’s no way anybody will pay $1M for a house in Alameda.”
Of course not. No professional people want to live in Alameda!
July 31st, 2008 at 10:48 am
A lot of people did pay over a million for a house in Alameda, which in essence was due to the housing boom. Now that its over, prices are coming down to more reasonable levels. and RE- I’m glad that so many people are ignorant about the area. I can personally tell you that after living there and working on the Peninsula that the Peninsula is sort of dumpy in comparison. So by all means- stay away. uh-huh… Palo alto is SO MUCH nicer than Alameda… yup yup yup..
July 31st, 2008 at 11:09 am
Alemeda is a nice town, though its closeness to Oakland is a turn-off (but who knows, PA is right across EPA). There are pockets of nice areas around Oakland that are nice. I am surprised that Alemeda has fallen this much (not this one but bob’s description), then again even Orinda has quite a lot of attractive houses around 700k now.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:44 am
Well… ( I know Alamedans are going to ask me to shutup any minute) the thing is that Alameda is actually an island. There is a tunnel and a bridge to get to it. Even though it is close to Oakland, we don’t have any problems… whatever that’s supposed to mean, because there are those barriers.It isn’t super-convenient to get there.There’s also a pretty strong police dept, so if there’s anything weird, they tend to jump on it pretty quick.Basically, I feel perfectly comfortable walking anywhere in Alameda, be it day or night… and I often do this when we walk to and from town for weekend dinners.I’d say its probably one of the safest areas in the BA.
Parts of Oakland are really nice actually. The crime reminds me of where my Aunt lives in Memphis, where there are defined crime pockets.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:52 am
Come on bob, it is VERY easy to find and get there if you are from around Oakland, in fact neighborhoods near the bridge/tunnel are just as bad as Oakland across.
However, it is fascinating for me how PA/EPA can coexist as well. It seems criminals only feel comfortable in rotten neighborhoods.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Rick,
Ya, I know what you’re thinking: Proximity to Oakland= crime. But… in front of the Webster Tube, which is one of two ways to get to Alameda, is Chinatown, which is a safe, pedestrian neighborhood. On the other entrance, the bridge, is a industrial desert. While it might seem that there’s a real chance for crime to occur in Alameda, it doesn’t. So somehow, it works. I know… I live there!
July 31st, 2008 at 12:30 pm
That begs to ask the question again, which would be is living 10-15 minutes away from your workplace worth so much that you’d pay the same for a home not even half the size and not near as nice rather than live 35-40 minutes away and live in a house like this one- which is also close to good schools?
Time is money. Yes, it is absolutely worth it. You can blow off a “35-40 minute commute” (it would be an hour and a half from Alameda to Palo Alto during normal commute time) only because you don’t have kids.
Right now mr. madhaus lost his 7 minute/3 traffic light commute and replaced it with a 10 mile commute, which sometimes takes 15 minutes and sometimes takes 45 minutes. On 45 minute traffic-delay days, he is not a happy camper.
Alameda crime stats
Contrast with Sunnyvale. I think you’d best stop bragging since you’ve been made to look like a fool again, bob.
If you don’t feel like clicking on my links, here’s the bottom line:
Alameda has 75% the national rate of violent crime.
Sunnyvale has… 22%. Sure, bob, your city is sooooooo much safer. The only reason you think it’s safe is because you’re comparing it to Oakland (231%), which is probably the most crime-ridden city in the Bay Area. Next to Oakland, everything looks great.
Seems to me there’s a lot you don’t know about the RBA.
PS: Palo Alto: 25% the national rate of violent crime.
PPS: East Palo Alto: 163%. So not only does Palo Alto have 1/3 the crime rate Alameda has, it’s neighboring “dangerous” city is only 2/3 as unsafe as Oakland but it’s 1/10 the size.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Madhaus,
Based on those links, Sunnyvale did have more property crimes than Alameda. Of course, Sunnyvale also has more population.
Anyhow, a big part of Sunnyvale look like a dump to me. It’s awfully congested for a suburb. It looks quite depressing actually while comparing its “premium” price.
Alameda isn’t anything extraordinary either, except its proximity to the bay, and a relatively sparse population.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:23 pm
sg, look at the comparisons of the crime rates to the national average, these are normed per capita.
Agree there are large swaths of Sunnyvale that are dumplike. The good parts looks like suburbia. There are very few homes with charm, some places downtown (the arts & crafts bungalows around Frances St), a small handful of restored original farmhouses (one on Cascade next to the Catholic church), and that’s about it. Everything else is huge tracts of cookie-cutter places. There are ranchers, Eichlers, and some nicer 2-stories but those are rare.
Believe me, there is nothing about Sunnyvale for me to brag about living here. I compared the city to the Toyota company: reliable but not exciting vehicles. The only difference between American suburbia and Sunnyvale is we have more than just white faces, and there are a few decent restaurants. The only reason I posted at all was bob’s ridiculous braying about how Alameda was safer than everywhere else in the Bay Area, which is absolutely ludicrous.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:24 pm
More good news for California:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080731/ap_on_re_us/california_budget
So on top of having idiotically priced housing, choking vapors and 100+ temperatures with no A/C in many areas, we can now look forward to massive cuts in services.
But hey, its California. Who needs police, fire, teachers, sanitation workers, etc. All that matters is that you buy a house and buy NOW! That way you can look forward to talking down people like RealEstater does and build up your full level of pretentiousness as you dis every area in the continental United States outside of the Bay Area as being “garbage”.
By the way, what are the confines of the “Real Bay Area” now? At this rate, we’ll be able to measure it in square feet very shortly.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:50 pm
I’ve had the pleasure (or curse) to have worked in Sunnyvale and live near Alameda, and from my experience, I must say that Sunnyvale is by far, much safer than Alameda. The problem with Alameda is that there are *lots* of fast food joints and bars, which tend to attract most of the “thugs” in Oakland. On Park Street (one of the busier streets in Alameda) I come across glaring thugs on foot all the time.
Btw, recently the Alameda Trader Joes was held up afterhours, and a local teenager was shot to death by some Oakland thug Halloween last year.
Like bob says, the park street bridge leads to an industrial desert, however it borders the Fruitvale district, one of the most violent gang-infested areas of East Oakland. Chinatown/downtown is a fairly safe pedestrian neighborhood, but people get robbed/assaulted there all the time after hours, and it does border West Oakland, one of the most notoriously violent Ghettos in America.
Sorry to say, it really only takes a bottle of Old English “liquid courage”, a gallon of gas, and a “gat” in the glove compartment for thugs in Oakland to rob businesses and people in Alameda.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Thanks for that crime link.. interesting.
The town I live in (not in CA) is 5% for violent crime
July 31st, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Ah, the west is so progressive! Remember, accepted economic practices have no meaning here! We are state 2.0 – the western frontier. California. Do you understand? C-A-L-I-F-O-R-N-I-A. ‘Smart’ people move here because its better. They’re smart. You’re not. That’s why they can rationalize the home prices and YOU can’t.
Our dilapidated streets are better. Our smog is better – just inhale the smoke if you don’t believe me. This isn’t Texas.
All the things most people would think are bad about this place are really positives in disguise! If you were smarter, you’d see it. But, you don’t, and so you can’t be helped. In part, the negatives help to drive the naysayers away which helps curb our inflated property values.
Beep beep! All aboard the special (short) bus! Let’s drive it into the ocean.
On another note, does it strike anyone as odd that this particular slimeball is already asserting that they get 4% of the sale price? How would that work out for the buyer’s agent?
July 31st, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Come on madhaus, I don’t think one deserves to be insulted because he has misconception.
When I was enjoying parks around Alameda I had the impression that the people there were from Oakland. I just couldn’t draw the same with PA, where does EPA people go to have fun? There is no restriction for them to enter palm drive or the shopping mall nearby right? The main difference maybe that Alameda is a small nice area next to a big dump, and PA is a big nice area next to a small dump.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:10 pm
There is no restriction on people from EPA to go into PA, you’re right, but they can’t enter the Foothills Park, only PA residents can do that, that is why I never went to that park even though it was close by for several years.
BTW Palm Dr is NOT Palo Alto, and hopefully will never be, if Palo Alto annexed Stanford I would be really pissed off.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Wow, that is the first restricted park I’ve ever heard of. It is also new to me that Stanford is actually its own city (sorry for the ignorance), and probably you guys would snob at the Palo Altons.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Rick,
PA has the same issue as well. EPA people somehow don’t like to use their own parks; they love coming to PA parks. The lawn gets torn up by them playing soccer. However, like you said, EPA is small dump, so the problem is not big in magnitude.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Rick,
I think one way they try to limit the problem is by not providing any restroom in any of the parks, which makes things more inconvenient for the out-of-towners.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Don’t forget that if you live in Alameda you might get to see the Mythbusters in action!
July 31st, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Everybody knows the east bay has 10x the crime as the peninsula. Madhaus is absolutely right. And even in the CRIME RIDDEN parts of the peninsula which are parts of redwood city and central san jose, the crime is miniscule compared the the east bay.
It is just amazing that somebody is actually claiming the contrary, BOB. You really don’t know what you are talking about. Carjackings, holdups, misc violent crime are unheard of on the peninsula. I mean UNHEARD OF. Even in most of San Jose! In the east bay, even if you don’t live in Oakland you are nearer to oakland than we are. Theres your crime factor.
The only way a peninsula town like Sunnyvale or Mtn View or even West San Jose could ever, ever, ever be close to the east bay in crime stats is if you included white collar crime, controversial stuff like insider trading etc. But I’m not all that concerned if an ex-con CEO insider trader moves next door, vs a former carjacker.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:28 pm
>>Wow, that is the first restricted park I’ve ever heard of.
It’s a beautifully maintained park. Bathroom facilities are first class, and extremely clean. There’s lake, hiking trails, picnic areas, and nice lawn in places.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:30 pm
>>Everybody knows the east bay has 10x the crime as the peninsula.
Just take the BART on the East Bay sometime, and you’ll see what kind of people live there. I thought I was in another country.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:32 pm
For old folks (which I think PA would have really high population of) going to restroom is a max of a couple of minutes walk. Not providing enough restrooms is a sure way to stink all people off.
Just the talk about restrooms in parks make me sick, I usually drive outside to go for restroom if possible. That makes parks with a good structure with decent restrooms nearby very desirable.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Wow, that is the first restricted park I’ve ever heard of. It is also new to me that Stanford is actually its own city (sorry for the ignorance), and probably you guys would snob at the Palo Altons.
You got me interested, and holy carp, I had no idea there were private properties in Stanford. Who knew? http://www.jimbyrneshomes.com/property/stanford/tranquil-gardens,-old-world-ambiance-on-stanford-campus_152
July 31st, 2008 at 3:54 pm
First of all only faculty or staff can buy in 94305, and the land does not come with it. Stanford owns the land, you just lease it from them, Stanford is not allowed to sell any of its land.
The Stanford Research Park for example is all land lease, Stanford Mall is land lease. All of the land belongs to Stanford.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:54 pm
The only reason why nobody knows where Alameda is because noone really cares. Its a crappy little town next to a stinky little beach where gang wars and drive-by shootings are happening more often than in Iraq. Alameda is a Navy ship dump and to get to Alameda, you have to drive through Oakland which is a sister ghetto to Alameda.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Only lease? That is another wow for me, sounds like communist China.
July 31st, 2008 at 4:13 pm
I think more appropriate example would be Singapore where you cannot buy land or home. You lease it, because land is scarce there. Instead of homeowner dad passing to the property to his children, next generation people get fair and similar deal. And there is no Prop 13 there.
July 31st, 2008 at 4:15 pm
BTW, Chinese people can own land in China. China is not a pure communist country. America is not a pure capitalist country either.
July 31st, 2008 at 6:12 pm
The wow just never ends, how can Chinese people own land? As I understand, they catagorize land by usage, for farm use farmers do have right to keep them, but they can keep it as long as it is for farm use and their own consumption. If they sell it for commercial development then the government takes over as landlord for the lease.
July 31st, 2008 at 10:55 pm
> EPA people somehow don’t like to use their own parks; they love coming to PA parks. The lawn gets torn up by them playing soccer
Must suck to live in Palo Alto with such problems.
> It’s a beautifully maintained park. Bathroom facilities are first class, and extremely clean.
On the other hand, with such bathroom facilities…
July 31st, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Do some parts of Palo Alto belong to Stanford?
I remember seeing a listing on MLS for a house close to downtown Palo Alto for around $700K but it was to buy the remaining of the lease. That was a year or two ago.
August 1st, 2008 at 8:35 am
It is just amazing that somebody is actually claiming the contrary, BOB. You really don’t know what you are talking about. Carjackings, holdups, misc violent crime are unheard of on the peninsula. I mean UNHEARD OF. Even in most of San Jose! In the east bay, even if you don’t live in Oakland you are nearer to oakland than we are.
That’s about the most ignorant statement I’ve read on this blog. It for one shows that you don’t know a single thing about the East Bay other than broad statistics, which by the way you’re using them insinuates that the ENTIRE East Bay is a crime-ridden hellhole of humanity.
The reason You’re doing this I assume is to justify the extreme differences in cost between the Peninsula and the East Bay. Is there crime in the East Bay? Yes there is. Is it everywhere? No it isn’t. I’ve never had my car broken into, been held up, or even felt threatened in Alameda, or when I lived in Berkeley either.Alameda is a huge magnet for families with young children, the reason being because it is safe and quite, plus it has a good school system. Yes- there are bad parts of Oakland, Berkeley, and El Cerrito. But we are all very aware of those areas and thus- we don’t go there. Amazing isn’t it? I bet none of you ever venture to the bad parts of Palo Alto, do you? Why… who knows? Someone there might give you a dirty look or something, or steal your socks.
The real reason the Peninsula is so much more is simply because most people are lazy and simply can’t stand the thought of spending a little more time commuting. There is nothing inherently special about the Peninsula, and after working here, I can’t really find any redeeming values about it either. But That’s perfectly fine with me.
Anyhow, it really amazes me just how stuck-up the attitude is in regards to the “RBA” and the East Bay. Amazing because I thought you all were kidding for the longest time. But to find that you’re actually serious, and somehow think that a narrow swatch of dirt is vastly superior to an almost identical one just 30 miles away is incredible.
August 1st, 2008 at 9:10 am
Bob, when I read your excerpt above, I had to search up above to see the original for context. I thought for sure it was meant as sarcastic. Wow. Doesn’t look like it was.
I don’t think I’d want to live in the east bay either; I’ve worked there and have seen enough, honestly. That aside, to say crime is unheard of on the peninsula is pretty funny. It just doesn’t get the same headlines as Oakland.
Sure, there’s a lot less crime in general on the peninsula and in SJ, but I know a SJ cop who can tell you it isn’t “unheard of.” Hell, a couple of years ago the cops shot and killed a guy in front of the Radio Shack on Story Road, just a block or so from my office. The taser had no effect on his drug-addled system and he was threatening people with a knife. This was in the middle of the day – like 11AM.
August 1st, 2008 at 9:49 am
Well,
What it boils down to is that Oakland isn’t Alameda, nor is Alameda Berkeley, and so on. The East Bay is composed of numerous, very different cities with entirely different dynamics, neighborhoods, rich, poor, and areas with or without crime. I’m hearing an awful lot of comments that suggest that since Oakland is over here, then the entire region must be bad, which as someone who’s lived here for 9 years can tell you is incorrect.
August 1st, 2008 at 10:00 am
It’s true; have you people ever heard of Piedmont? or the Oakland hills? or the Berkeley hills?
East bay is more real bay area than this bunghole down here. The south bay and the peninsula resemble LA more than they do Northern Cali.
August 1st, 2008 at 10:33 am
I guess on what you consider the “east bay.” I think areas like Danville, Alamo, and Orinda are much nicer than just about anywhere in the “RBA” and much more affordable. If given the option between a job in Walnut Creek or Mt. View, it is a no brainer if you ask me. Take the job in WC and buy in an area like Danville. Or, if you work in SF, I would much prefer to Bart from the East Bay than live in an area like Redwoody City or San Carlos.
August 1st, 2008 at 10:40 am
the point is that madhaus and bob were talking about crime rates in SUNNYVALE vs Alameda. Sunnyvale. Let me repeat that- crime rates in SUNNYVALE.
There is almost no crime in Sunnyvale that is not somehow related to the victim. Ask anybody who has ever lived there if they have ever been a victim of crime. You can leave your front door unlocked in sunnvale, nothing happens.
Otoh the east bay, including alameda is full of stuff like this:
ALAMEDA — A man used a rock to break a window at Trader Joe’s Wednesday night before he stepped through the frame and confronted employees at gunpoint, demanding cash, police said.
Are there *ever* armed robberies in Sunnyvale? Yes it happens about once every 2 years. Lots of times nobody ever sees a weapon, like this recent Wamu set of robberies.
http://losgatosobserver.com/los-gatos/Article.php?article_id=0954
You know what? There are more guns, way way more guns in the east bay than anywhere else, INCLUDING san jose. Theres your problem. This is obvious to everybody.
August 1st, 2008 at 10:56 am
WG,
You totally misread my responses to this. I never made any comparisons to Sunnyvale and the East Bay. The post asked if there was anyone who knew anything about Alameda, which I do since I live there. However, you’ve gone off on a whole tangent to “prove” how bad the entire East Bay is, how dangerous it is, and so on- again to what I assume justify why Sunnyvale literally costs twice as much.
I feel like I have at least a degree of authority on this subject since I am most of my friends live here-none of which have had any problems with crime or anything else other than typical BA woes, like traffic and exorbitant housing prices. So if you really don’t know what you’re talking about, it doesn’t help the topic at hand. You can talk about raw numbers, compare the number of guns, and other equally useless stats all day long, but the truth is that me, and everyone else I know who lives here live very comfortably, experience zero crime, and have no problems as you’d like to think. Perhaps if you admitted it, you’d likely see that you overpaid for that POS 400k starter home in SJ even though you can now get something remotely decent for 425-250k in the East Bay.
August 1st, 2008 at 11:17 am
So if you really don’t know what you’re talking about, it doesn’t help the topic at hand.
Bob, of all the people who post here, including yourself, I know just about the most. Thats because I have lived in the bay area for over 40 years off and on. I went to UC Berkeley and lived in numerous east bay towns during that period. I have lived in SF, the peninsula, the east bay, everywhere except the far east bay like walnut creek and Danville. You make a lot of unqualified statements and you are doing it again. Gun crime is one of those things that nobody experiences even in EPA, UNTIL THEY DO. Its all about statistics with gun crime. The fact that you have never been held up or shot is pretty meaningless. The fact is a trader joes was just held up at gunpoint in Alameda- ever been there? Probably you have. thats about as close to home of a gun crime as anybody here wants to deal with I am sure. Its a significant piece of data that pretty much refutes your claim that there is essentially no crime in the east bay towns where you live, esp since it happened yesterday. Guns and oakland are the problem, and this has always been a problem with the east bay.
Does that mean that Alameda is not a desirable place to live? No – alameda is a decent place, I think anyway. I am not even bothered by oakland crime, esp at the price points where I buy houses. But your inability to see why some people prefer the west bay to the east bay in the face of various facts is this issue.
August 1st, 2008 at 11:19 am
bob is ignoring that he claimed Alameda was safer than every city on the Peninsula, and that the crime stats prove this is utterly false. As I made clear in my post with the stats, I am not bragging about Sunnyvale, there’s little to brag about. But I am not going to let a silly statement like, “Basically, I feel perfectly comfortable walking anywhere in Alameda, be it day or night… and I often do this when we walk to and from town for weekend dinners.I’d say its probably one of the safest areas in the BA.” go unchallenged.
Is it the safest part of the East Bay, west of Caldecott? It probably is. Is the safest area of the entire Bay Area? No, Hell No, and No Effing Way No.
And despite my posting stats showing this, bob still insists there is no crime in Alameda. Maybe he’ll beat a strategic retreat to No Crime In My Neighborhood, but that’s not his original statement.
I have left my door unlocked without incident (I don’t do it routinely), and I haven’t even had anything stolen off my porch. My son points out that someone stole a railroad spike out of our front yard. Sunnyvale Crime Wave!
August 1st, 2008 at 11:33 am
Is Alameda one of the safest areas in the Bay Area?
Yes, and I absolutely stand behind those claims that I made previously. Go ahead and try and claim otherwise, but I can tell you that half of my neighbors don’t even bother locking the doors on their cars, and even sometimes their houses. Did I EVER say that there was NO crime in Alameda? No. But that doesn’t mean that Alameda is dangerous nor does it have a crime problem. Cone on over sometime, tell us who live here that we have bad crime or so on and embarrass yourselves.Better yet- you might not want to come because according to you guys, you’ll be dodging bullets the second you step out of the Peninsula.
So keep right on flappin’away. I could really care less because you all can keep on trying to prove how wrong I am on this point when I already know the answer.You aren’t proving anything other than giving me further reasons to be glad I’m not going to be a permanent resident of this area. I swear to god you guys are simply astounding!
August 1st, 2008 at 11:41 am
WG, you’ve been here much longer than me, I’ve only been here 26 years. I have lived in SF (3 places), Walnut Creek, Menlo Park near Stanford, San Jose (2 places), Emerald Hills/Redwood City, and Sunnyvale (2 places). I never lived in the East Bay but my husband’s mom does and I had lots of friends at Cal that I visited, plus long ago I dated people who lived in various parts of Oakland. And I had some friends who lived in Alameda that we visited often (they have moved to the Sierra foothills).
So while I don’t have your longevity, I can certainly claim to know something about how the different parts of the Bay Area… differ.
Oh, one more thing. You’ve been going on how Alameda is comparable to the Peninsula in every way, and you also mentioned schools. Here ya go.
Great Schools rates the Alameda Unified school district 7 out of 10. 4 of the 10 elementary schools have a 10 out of 10 rating, but the problem is, there’s also a 9, three 7’s, a 6 and a 5.
Get ready to cringe at the middle schools: The charter school is a 9, the regular ones are 8, 5, and… 3 (shudder). The high schools: 9 (the charter again), 8, 8, and 7, then another charter with a 4 and a continuation school with a 2. I have no idea if Alameda Unified covers the whole island, out here school districts don’t seem to fit city boundaries. But every school I clicked on was in Alameda.
So again, you’re extrapolating the good part of Alameda to all of Alameda. I would never say “Sunnyvale has great schools” because they are a mixed bag. The CUSD area is the strongest, then there’s Cherry Chase and then Cumberland, and the rest are worse. The Santa Clara portion is somewhere behind the top Sunnyvale schools but ahead of the more struggling areas. Alameda manages to have the same uneveness as the Sunnyvale school district, some quite good and some just awful.
August 1st, 2008 at 11:46 am
Re: Comment #52.
Shorter bob: I’m putting my fingers in my ears! I can’t hear you! La la la la la!
August 1st, 2008 at 11:57 am
Agree with R.
“I guess on what you consider the “east bay.” I think areas like Danville, Alamo, and Orinda are much nicer than just about anywhere in the “RBA” and much more affordable. ”
I grew up in Danville. It is an affluent community and has a very charming downtown. In the Danville/Alamo/Walnut Creek area there is no extreme crime/poverty as you see in EPA and Redwood City. The nearness of Oakland (I don’t consider it near) was never a thought and I never heard any anecdotal stories of people from Oakland coming and committing crimes in Danville.
The first time I came to the peninsula to visit a new boyfriend’s house, I was very surprised because I thought he was upper middle class and when I saw his hood in West Menlo Park I thought hmmm, he must be lower middle class based on the houses I saw driving to his. (This was before there were a lot of people tearing down houses and replacing them with McMansions.) If you just saw the houses and didn’t know how much they cost it wasn’t very impressive compared to what I was used to. Of course, now his house in WMP is worth about 2.5 million. sigh.
August 1st, 2008 at 11:59 am
Schools have nothing to do with crime. I know how much you luuuuv to talk about schools,( which by the way, those stats mean NOTHING especially with regards to No Child Left Behind, as my Mom- a teacher for over 30 years will tell you) but it has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
But really, I have no kids, but if I did, I’d have absolutely no problem with them here, and in fact- I’d prefer them here because there’s little traffic, a large kid population, and lots for them to do in a safe, laid-back environment.
Just because you live in Sunnyvale doesn’t automatically mean that your kids live any better than the kids in the East Bay. Perhaps you too need to justify why it costs so much more there- which I can assure you isn’t tied to crime or school stats.
None of this matters anyway. As I’ve mentioned again and again- I’m outta’ this place as soon as I’ve saved up enough because I’ll be the first to tell you that if I ever have kids, I won’t be punishing them by making them live in an overcrowded dump like the BA. I’d rather they have a nice big yard, clean air, and better schools.
August 1st, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Um, bob, you said the schools in Alameda were excellent. You said it. Not me. I think you need to talk less, and research more.
August 1st, 2008 at 12:27 pm
bob, this “it’s all good according to me/my experience/etc” won’t fly. It is the exact argument the RE bulls have been using. It is ignorance and stupidity, you can say “small pockets in East Bay are nicer, have better schools, etc”, but please, no need to argue with statistics, unless you think they are tweaked.
August 1st, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Bob- you are one of the most narcissistic checked out from reality egomaniacs I have ever come across on any message board. It always amazes me how you constantly try to qualify your opinions (not facts FYI) to a higher place than that of all of the other posters here. I think you really believe all your own BS, and that your shit doesn’t stink.
August 1st, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Whoa! Let’s ease off on dem fighting words!
August 1st, 2008 at 1:10 pm
big yards just mean big allergies for me.
bob how would your mom measure and compare schools then? without actually having to work/attend each one?
August 1st, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Ok folks, let me re-phrase.What I’m trying to say-especially for this topic- is that so far I’ve hardly read anything that makes me think the topic at hand is terribly important or concerning.That’s why I’m barely taking it very seriously to start with. You make what you can out of life, and if something you read in the newspaper scares you enough to not give certain things or ideas another look, then that’s sort of sad. I get a feeling that this general attitude permeates this area, which is ironic given the penchant for residents here to claim that they are forward-thinking.
But just to dumb the topic down and condense it to it’s bare-bones foundation, I gather that Madhaus, WG, and others want me to beg for forgiveness and say that indeed- the little statistics they wave that shows more crime in the East Bay ( which by the way is a massive area) to the Peninsula, then yes- I agree… there is more crime in the East Bay. But the demeanor of their response was meant to indicate that I- as a resident of Alameda- am in a less safe position than they are in their respective zones on the Peninsula. Sorry, but I don’t agree with that notion.
August 1st, 2008 at 1:54 pm
i’m feeling lazy
what schools do kids living in emerald hills go to?
August 1st, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Hehe, madhaus’ post #51 just reminded me of something. About four months after I moved into my current house, my hubby left the garage open and went to mow the lawn in the back. His rather nice mountain bike was promptly stolen. The grass only takes 10-15 minutes to cut back there. (Sometimes I wonder if it was a ploy for an upgrade!)
Then a few weeks later we left on vacation for a week. When we got home, the front door was OPEN. I think I must’ve turned the key the wrong way and prevented the door from latching. Now maybe the door stayed closed until just before we got home, but there was not a single thing missing or out of place. Talk about luck! (I think the door was closed most of the time because my neighbors would’ve closed it if they saw it open.)
August 1st, 2008 at 2:39 pm
I also wanted to apologize to the forum. I’ve had a pretty terrible week, which is no excuse, but in either regard, no reason to vent it out on a blog. So for that, I apologize for being rude. Have a good weekend.
August 1st, 2008 at 2:55 pm
i’m feeling lazy
what schools do kids living in emerald hills go to?
Redwood City – either Roy Cloud, Clifford, or John Gill depending on the area.
August 1st, 2008 at 4:01 pm
East Bay West Bay what does it really matter it all sucks. In two years you’ll all be desperate to get out when your schools have no money, your free ways are pot holed and the state is sold off to pay debt.
August 1st, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Bob- you continue to make broad based judgments on the residents based on your perceptions and feelings. Why do you believe that if someone doesn’t agree with you it is because they are lazy, haven’t lived any where else or haven’t lived where you lived? Guess what? I didn’t live 9 years in the east bay, I grew up there (I’ve also lived in other states and other countries). I grew up spending my weekends in Alameda with my best friend. I can’t tell you what an absolute relief it has been to live in Mountain View and Sunnyvale away from violent crimes and gangs that permeate most of the east bay (yes even Alameda where my friend saw a girl being raped outside a super market and witnessed a shooting). I don’t have to read the papers to find out what happens in the east bay, I’ve lived it and my friends have lived it. A friend of mine was stabbed to death in one of the nice areas that borders Oakland, another held up by machine gun.
Your going on and on about the attitudes about the people that live in the bay area, what about your attitudes? You just called me lazy. You said that the reason that people live near work is because they are lazy. No, it is because we value our time and don’t want to fritter it away sitting behind the wheel of a car. Some of us like to bike or walk to work. BTW- if you spend enough time traveling and living in different places you will find that people are basically the same where ever you go.
I guess it is ok to throw around insults as long as it is directed at bay area residents. I suppose that is the purpose of this blog, a big negative hate fest on the bay area and the stupid, lazy, crazy people that live here.
August 1st, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Lots of talk about Alameda. When is Alameda due to be underwater? Thirty years? Before or after Foster City?
How far is it from the Hayward fault and what happens when it’ll shake? Sink?
What’s the ground made of?
Wouldn’t it be a choice target when the riots will finally break out in Oakland?
The place might be fine today, but you’ve got to be optimistic to invest long-term in it.
August 1st, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Great point, DreamT. Here’s a cool USGS tool where you can look into how likely the soil under your home is to liquify. And it turns out Alameda has two zones, half of it has a moderate risk, and the other half, most of it around the water’s edges, has a very high risk of liquification. Perhaps this part was created by infilling, like Foster City.
Check out USGS for other earthquake maps, but I liked this one because you could zoom in on any neighborhood and find your street (if you know what it looks like on a map with no street names).
bob, I appreciate your apologizing for some of your comments here.
August 1st, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Madhaus,
Your site shows West Bay has the most dangered areas, I think they include Foster City and quite a few cities around it, Menlo Park & Palo Alto, and Mountain View. The East Bay is largely better off.
August 1st, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Maybe “East Bay” is not Real Bay Area, but Alameda IS. Just look at the craziness in that listing. This house is cute, but not that cute. Only in the Real Bay Area were so many convinced that their nice homes were worth [pinky to pucker] over a MILLION DOLLARS. Sacto never got quite that weird and Ellay doesn’t have much of this Italianate thing going on.
I’d say this place is easily worth half of what is being asked.
August 1st, 2008 at 11:02 pm
Mole Man – Define “worth”
August 1st, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Worth: the amount of money it should fetch if it wasn’t purchased by someone with more sense than money who was over-leveraging themselves.
August 1st, 2008 at 11:09 pm
anon – Was going to say ‘worth’ is in the eye of the beholder, but with such a convoluted definition, I can only say ‘worth’ is what it’d sell for in an alternate reality.
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:00 am
You used to hear a lot of comments about foster city and how it was going to fall off in the next earthquake in the 80s……………… UNTIL LOMA PRIETA. Foster City came out like a champ. Whatever they built it on performed brilliantly. Now nobody talks about FC as a risk in an earthquake zone anymore.
August 2nd, 2008 at 10:33 am
It’s true – something is worth what someone will pay for it. Having said that, there was a time when Detroit was an epicenter of technology…
August 2nd, 2008 at 10:44 am
Worth is what the market will bear. To those of you who think homes are over-priced, just don’t buy them, and don’t complain if others are willing to pay the price. Don’t assume just because you cannot afford something, nobody else can.
August 2nd, 2008 at 10:55 am
Whether or not a place is safe has everything to do with the caliber of the population that reside there. High priced areas will naturally have less crime. Therefore, when it comes to buying a home, affordability should be construed as a negative. As everyone would agree, criminals are losers. You want to be in an area where losers cannot afford.
The above concept may be counter-intuitive, because when it comes to everything else, you want to buy for the lowest price.
August 2nd, 2008 at 10:55 am
Why shouldn’t people complain that other people are ‘willing’ to pay the price? It drives the overall prices up to a point where they have lost touch with reality. Isn’t that part of why this blog exists?
Actually paying for a home has become passe. Whereas the attitude once was: “can I pay for this home in 30 years?”, it is now: “I need to jump on the bandwagon so I can get 15% yearly appreciation. Therefore I will execute certain documents that put this home in my name for a year or five so that I can get some free money. Sure, I have no intent to fully carry out the lease, but that doesn’t matter because I’m guaranteed 15% appreciation so I can over leverage myself.”
The ‘market’ could only ‘bear’ these prices with the existence of easy credit.
August 2nd, 2008 at 10:56 am
Looks like a haunted house to me. Must be great to dress up on halloween, but I wouldn’t want to live in it.
August 2nd, 2008 at 11:01 am
>>The ‘market’ could only ‘bear’ these prices with the existence of easy credit.
Don’t worry about the market. The market will adjust if prices cannot be sustained, regardless of whether there is complaint.
>>Why shouldn’t people complain that other people are ‘willing’ to pay the price? It drives the overall prices up to a point where they have lost touch with reality.
It doesn’t matter. This is a capitalist economy. People have a right to take risks, and people have a right to pay the price if they’ve got the means. Reality is whatever the market is, rather than what you think the market should be.
August 2nd, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Worth is what the market will bear. To those of you who think homes are over-priced, just don’t buy them, and don’t complain if others are willing to pay the price. Don’t assume just because you cannot afford something, nobody else can.
Good advice and the best train of thought. If you cant afford the areas you want now, its best to figure out better methods (innovate) to make additional income to achieve your goal. If prices do indeed decrease, then take it as a bonus. If home prices increase, then hopefully your innovations will produce revenue that far exceeds real estate price inflation.
August 2nd, 2008 at 2:16 pm
‘Don’t worry about the market. The market will adjust if prices cannot be sustained, regardless of whether there is complaint.”
This statement is both trivial and self evident therefore I have no substantive response.
“It doesn’t matter. This is a capitalist economy. People have a right to take risks, and people have a right to pay the price if they’ve got the means. Reality is whatever the market is, rather than what you think the market should be.”
I am aware that this is a capitalist economy, and I am aware that people can take risks. The problem is that, in this case, the people who made stupid decisions are being helped by the government at the expense of people who did not live beyond their means.
It’s funny that you think you know a thing or two about ‘the housing market’ because you’ve been able to make money off it during a bubble.
August 2nd, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Take a look at Foster City on that USGS map. It’s all RED as far as the eye can see. If the San Andreas lets go closer to it, maybe over in Crystal Springs reservoir, say, I think we’re going to have a lot of places literally underwater.
August 4th, 2008 at 11:34 am
Real-a-tor speak: “…I fill in the blanks on your purchase contract for only $47,999.96″
- Timeline Guy™
August 4th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Real-a-tor speak: “…I fill in the blanks on your purchase contract for only $47,999.96″
- Timeline Guy™
but but but … they have to have a high school diploma *AND* pass a test! That seems reasonable to me…