Study: Bay Area Housing, Transportation Costs High – cbs5.com
Study: Bay Area Housing, Transportation Costs High – cbs5.com
San Francisco Bay Area households spend up to two-thirds of their income on transportation and housing costs, a severe burden that leaves workers with insufficient resources for other basic needs, according to a study released on Wednesday.The costs in the nine-county Bay area vary from 54 percent in Santa Clara to 66 percent in Sonoma County, the Urban Land Institute’s Terwilliger Center for Workforce Housing said.
The average household spends nearly 60 percent of their income on transportation and housing, the center said.
For one-fourth of all households in the Bay area, housing and transportation costs account for two-thirds or more of their income, leaving workers with insufficient resources for health care, education and food, according to the study.
The report blames “ever-sprawling” development resulting in a growing gap between where people work and where they live. The consequences are both economic and environmental — transportation accounts for 40.6 of greenhouse emissions in the Bay Area, compared to 33 percent nationally, the study said.
Congrats to the Bay Area for being so unaffordable to live in! Woot!
We should revel in this and definitely play it up. Other cities may have expensive housing (Hong Kong, Tokyo), but do they have the winning combination of expensive housing and expensive transportation that is required to go to work? Nope.
We win!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What we need to do now is require all parking lots to have a Luxury vs Non-Luxury sections, so that BMW’s, MB’s, and Lexuses get better spots, and that people driving Hyundais and Kias need to take a shuttle bus to get to their final destination. This would help make life even more unaffordable, thus weeding out all the undesirables. Woot!
Thanks to Burbed reader Herve for this find.
November 26th, 2009 at 8:18 am
Not surprising. But I’d say about 90% of that equation is spent on housing alone, and most likely mortgages. I know MANY people who bought homes in the past 5 years who are living on a shoestring budget. But golly-molly they gotta’ howse!
November 26th, 2009 at 8:39 am
We are still not up to the mark. We should strive to make 1/2 of people spending 4/5th of their income towards housing & transportation. Readers, come up with creative ideas about achieving #1 position.
November 26th, 2009 at 9:53 am
But I’d say about 90% of that equation is spent on housing alone
and you’d be wrong. SanMatean pointed us to 2008 census on this very point. taking palo alto:
35% of homes are mortgage free. of those with mortages, 63% spend less that 30% of income on mortgage + typical ownership costs.
and, renters in PA, 64% of them spend less than 30% of their income on rent.
here’s the link to SMs comment; the census link is there too: http://www.burbed.com/2009/11/12/palo-alto-median-household-income/#comment-53058
November 26th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
The article wasn’t about Palo Alto, but rather the entire SF Bay Area. The people I am referring to all live in the East Bay.
As far as myself, We rent and entire 3bedroom house for $1,200- or around 1/3rd the cost to buy the equivalent home. Our cars are paid for and one if a Prius which we carpool to work. Its gets 50MPG and so far has had no mechanical problems. We are not typical, but only around 30-40% of our incomes goes to housing and transport.
For the majority who buy new cars every 5-6 years and buy houses, I think the article is fairly accurate.
November 26th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
>> Our cars are paid for
Bob is pure comedy. The last time I checked, my trash was paid for also.
November 26th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Looks like someone doesn’t understand the difference between actual wealth and the appearance of wealth.
I would rather have crappy cars that are paid for than pay interest on something nicer. That’s how us wealthy folks stay wealthy.
We make people like real estater pay us interest so they can pretend that they are like us.
November 26th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
bob, facts are your friend.
alameda county: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=05000US06001&-qr_name=ACS_2008_3YR_G00_DP3YR4&-context=adp&-ds_name=&-tree_id=3308&-_lang=en&-redoLog=false&-format=
the numbers aren’t as pretty, but 21.8% of homes don’t have mortgages. Of those that do, 58.2% have a SMOC less that 35% of income. for those that rent, 57% pay less that 35% of income.
I’m not disputing the article, just pointing out that your characterization of it is not accurate.
Also, how is this possible:
We are not typical, but only around 30-40% of our incomes goes to housing and transport.
You pay $15K in rent, $6K in cars amortized over their long life, another $3K in insurance and maintainence and let’s say $3K in gas. That’s $27K, so round up to $30K. How is that 30-40% of your dual income?
November 26th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
>>I would rather have crappy cars that are paid for than pay interest on something nicer.
Did you pay cash for your Porsche?
I pay cash for all my cars. There’s never been any exception.
November 26th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
“Did you pay cash for your Porsche?”
I have already answered this question.
November 27th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
Well done Steve, facts are indeed our friends. Thanks for taking the ball and running with it!
I do wonder a bit about the accuracy of the ACS data since they sample such a small sliver of communities to derive their data…
November 28th, 2009 at 9:46 am
Steve,
Your article is almost 2 years old. So if you want to try and have a go at “proving” me wrong, look for another link. Otherwise, look here
http://cbs5.com/local/housing.transportation.costs.2.1292727.html
RE,
My cars are better quality than the so-called exotic jelly bean on wheels you own -aka- Porsche. By the way, I went to the SF auto show and saw the new Porsche Panamera. Your fellow Porsche fans were wetting their pants over the thing. Given that the car was perhaps the ugliest car at the show and like the other alternative Porsche has tried of late- The Cayenne, equally stupid looking, it comes to show the general lack of vehicular tact most people I see driving Porches seem to have.
On the other hand, my 2 Toyotas will likely be around for longer, cost me much less in maintenance, and thus enable me to keep right on saving up my money. Like I said- a fool and his money are soon parted, whether it be overpriced houses in overrated areas of the Bay Area, or girly looking sports cars.
November 28th, 2009 at 10:19 am
Your article is almost 2 years old
bob, you seriously crack me up. what do you think people were doign in the last 18 months to make your claim (90% of costs on housing, meaning 54% of income on housing as the BA average) possible? are you really contending that a CBS poll is more accurate than census data?
anyway, enjoy your holiday weekend and good luck with the move.
November 28th, 2009 at 11:11 am
are you really contending that a CBS poll is more accurate than census data?
—–
Steve,
I don’t think it was CBS poll. It seems the stat is coming from ULI. Not sure about their methodology though.
The factfinder data you posted (and SanMatean too) is not census data either. It is based on sampling taken between 2006-2008. It claims “the value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error“.
November 28th, 2009 at 11:16 am
Given that the car was perhaps the ugliest car at the show and like the other alternative Porsche has tried of late- The Cayenne, equally stupid looking,
—–
I would not expect aesthetic/beauty sense in anything German – neither girls nor cars.
November 28th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
>>I would not expect aesthetic/beauty sense in anything German – neither girls nor cars.
LOL. I think we got enough sour grapes to get drunk this weekend!
November 28th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
ahhh, bob. Thanks for the comedic break. Haven’t we already established that the readers here are “special?”
For the majority who buy new cars every 5-6 years and buy houses, I think the article is fairly accurate.
If you want another useless anecdote, my spouse and I each buy a new car (European-built, if it matters) every 5-6 years and pay cash for it. We also own a house. Housing and transportation is 25-30% of our income. We have enough in liquid assets to cover all household expenses for well over a year if we lose our jobs.
So what? You can always find an exception to any survey.
November 28th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
I think we got enough sour grapes to get drunk this weekend!
—–
Not sure about sour grapes. Actually the closest analogy would be [French] “baguette that tastes like a piece of rock” or lousy Swiss food. You would call it either rocky grape or lousy grape.
November 29th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
I spent the holiday in the Napa Valley. In the evenings, the air from Oakville to St. Helena smelled like fermenting grapes. I’m not much of a wine-drinker but it did smell nice!