One of the most progressively-orientated cities in the country has the second largest gap between the haves and have-nots. Nothing that killing the successful and re-distributing their wealth can't solve.

82gradDLSdad;842327020 said:

---

Some of us have moved to Bay Point. :-)

---

Pronounced "gun point"

93gobears;842326819 said:

---

One percenter globals wanting to have a household in SF.

---

Uber rich Chinese have bought up a ton of property in major West coast cities, including Seattle/Bellevue. When my wife and I bought our house last year in Seattle, we had already lost several bidding wars on East side properties (Mercer Island and Bellevue where they prefer) with Chinese buyers who were blowing everyone out of the water with all-cash, no contingency bids. I'm sure it's worse in California.

OskiMD;842327166 said:

---

Uber rich Chinese have bought up a ton of property in major West coast cities, including Seattle/Bellevue. When my wife and I bought our house last year in Seattle, we had already lost several bidding wars on East side properties (Mercer Island and Bellevue where they prefer) with Chinese buyers who were blowing everyone out of the water with all-cash, no contingency bids. I'm sure it's worse in California.

---

True
One needs to be super-alert or wear shin/ankle pads in Costco.
Shopping for the Chinese is a contact sport. Great at aisle blocking.
Vancouver, BC, last I saw, looked like Hong Kong. No doubt the building heights and density have increased.

93gobears;842326797 said:

---

40% of the professional people living in San Francisco right now won't be living there in three years.

They will be back from where they came from.

---

Proof?

Cal88;842326836 said:

---

There are about 15 million millionaires in the US (not including the value of their primary residence), and they're not moving to Fresno or Stockton.

---

You created more wealth in this post than any politician has in a lifetime. According to this article there are 13.7 million millionaires in the world and 4 million in the US. If there were 15 million millionaires in the US that would be 5% of the population.

Unit2Sucks;842327274 said:

---

You created more wealth in this post than any politician has in a lifetime. According to this article there are 13.7 million millionaires in the world and 4 million in the US. If there were 15 million millionaires in the US that would be 5% of the population.

---

No dog in this fight but when I looked it up, several sources show there are 9.63 millionaires in the U.S. excluding residence..that sounds about right. I'll link CNN's Money site for this number....

http://money.cnn.com/2014/03/14/news/economy/us-millionaires-households/

Excludes primary residence...

Cal_Fan2;842327280 said:

---

No dog in this fight but when I looked it up, several sources show there are 9.63 millionaires in the U.S. excluding residence..that sounds about right. I'll link CNN's Money site for this number....

http://money.cnn.com/2014/03/14/news/economy/us-millionaires-households/

---

That sounds crazy to me because I think there are only around 115-120 million households in the US, so that would mean 8% of the US. Of course, doesn't mean it's not true. I guess if you include retirement accounts, it's a lot easier to get to a million, so would be interested to know how that plays into it. If you were to capitalize people's pensions, I have a feeling millions of retired pensioners would join the millionaire club.

The other thing that's interesting is that the same survey says there are around 39 million households with $100k in assets, so only about 3x as many families between $100k and $1 million than there are above $1 million. Would have thought there would be a much higher ratio.

Unit2Sucks;842327274 said:

---

You created more wealth in this post than any politician has in a lifetime. According to this article there are 13.7 million millionaires in the world and 4 million in the US. If there were 15 million millionaires in the US that would be 5% of the population.

---

I stand corrected, yes as CF2 mentioned that figure is around 10 million not 15. 15 million is the number of people with a half million net worth not including primary residence:



I'm not sure if those figures include wealthy foreign residents or non-residents as well, they definitely have a big impact on the real estate markets in places like SF, Miami or NYC.

93gobears;842327130 said:

---

Yeah, do you remember Homes.com (not the domain name that exists today and is currently headquartered in Norfolk, Virginia), well I helped foreclose on those Palo Alto asses back in 2001.

One of the funniest things I did during that tech boom was to attend the auction of 300 Herman Miller office chairs (which we foreclosed on) that retailed for $900 a piece.

People attended just for the spectacle.

---

As management consultant for tech industry, my perspective for this boom cycle is a lot more positive. Last dotcom boom was not based on profit or even revenue, id say even at the time, 90% of the companies I thought were frauds. This time around I can estimate perhaps only 25% are frauds. This cycle as a whole is fairly legitimate. That's not to say a mini bubble wont burst, but this is no where like the crazy bubble that was here before.

Note: when i mean fraud i mean do they probably have a business model that can produce sustainable earnings over a period of time to justify their investment.

Phantomfan;842327165 said:

---

Pronounced "gun point"

---

We took the best of San Francisco's Bay View and Hunter's Point districts.

I don't know. I thought I already did the approximate math for you.

Are you stupid, or never use math?

SF, a city of approximately 750,000 people with 70,000 handicapped parking permits.

That's one handicapped parking permit for every ten citizens of SF.

Approximate those that live in SF who don't own a car (the elderly, children, and those that choose to not own a car) and you minus easily 200,00 people.

Now divide 500,000 car owners by 70,000 handicap permits and you come up with an ugly number.

SonOfCalVa;842327114 said:

---

San Francisco ... then (1969)

Our first apartment as newly-weds was at the peak of Crestline drive, top (2nd) floor with a nice balcony. Two bedrooms for $225/month with a walk-in closet. About the highest apartment in The City, looking down on Market St. and beyond.

Great fun cooking ribeye on the hibachi, drinking Martini Pinot Noir, watching the fog coming around Twin Peaks, then dining while the fog surrounded us with The City below, appearing and disappearing.
Long ago when Starkey was just beginning as Cal announcer.

Adopted a stray cat from Twin Peaks in back of us which got us booted (great cat) ... rented in outer Richmond near beach and GGP at much cheaper rent which bought washer/dryer, first dog (collie) and helped with saving to buy house in Los Altos for $42K, $225/month mortgage a year later.
Long ago.

Homeless wasn't a problem because Governor St. Rummy Raygun had not yet created homelessness by closing state hospitals throwing the patients onto cities/counties as his way of balancing the state budget. Cities/counties scrambling for money and former patients lived on the streets.
Long ago but still a problem.


Memories .....

---

Rather than espousing a simpleton's view that Ronald Reagan "created homelessness" (one of the most tired clichs on the internet), I encourage you to leave your political biases behind and spend a few hours doing research on the trend toward deinstitutionalization. Society's views on how to care for lunatics have changed from one extreme to the other over the past 200+ years, covering all points in between. You may also want to review relevant court decisions.

Unless, of course, you're trying to support your political agenda...then go right on believing that Ronald Reagan somehow single-handedly convinced the vast majority of mental health experts that community-based care was a promising trend in the mid 1900s. Boy, I wonder how he pulled that off... And maybe he was around in the 1800s as well when a similar trend was seen?

SonOfCalVa;842327114 said:

---

San Francisco ... then (1969)

Our first apartment as newly-weds was at the peak of Crestline drive, top (2nd) floor with a nice balcony. Two bedrooms for $225/month with a walk-in closet. About the highest apartment in The City, looking down on Market St. and beyond.

Great fun cooking ribeye on the hibachi, drinking Martini Pinot Noir, watching the fog coming around Twin Peaks, then dining while the fog surrounded us with The City below, appearing and disappearing.
Long ago when Starkey was just beginning as Cal announcer.

Adopted a stray cat from Twin Peaks in back of us which got us booted (great cat) ... rented in outer Richmond near beach and GGP at much cheaper rent which bought washer/dryer, first dog (collie) and helped with saving to buy house in Los Altos for $42K, $225/month mortgage a year later.
Long ago.

Homeless wasn't a problem because Governor St. Rummy Raygun had not yet created homelessness by closing state hospitals throwing the patients onto cities/counties as his way of balancing the state budget. Cities/counties scrambling for money and former patients lived on the streets.
Long ago but still a problem.


Memories .....

---

I too miss the days when we could arrest and imprison people for mental health problems. Much easier.

gardenstatebear;842326877 said:

---

Speaking as someone who has not lived in the Bay Area for 35 years, I am shocked at how high San Francisco rents and prices are. Back in the early 1970s, a good many of the "hot" areas were quite marginal. Yet I don't get the sense that the housing stock has gotten upgraded by a lot -- am I wrong?

---

If you want to buy condo, there are lots and lots of new condo's. If you want to buy a single family residence, the choices are much more limited. New homes came on the market in the Potrero in the 1970's and 1980's. New homes are now coming available in Hunters Point, if you want to go there.

I moved here 3 years ago, and when I tell people I live at O'Farrell and Hyde for $1500 by myself, they are perplexed because they know my part of town is less-than-desirable, on the other hand not having roommates is almost a luxury more valuable than even the nicest rental in San Francisco at this point.

Strykur;842327325 said:

---

I moved here 3 years ago, and when I tell people I live at O'Farrell and Hyde for $1500 by myself, they are perplexed because they know my part of town is less-than-desirable, on the other hand not having roommates is almost a luxury more valuable than even the nicest rental in San Francisco at this point.

---

You are a brave man. We turn down O'Farrell and Hyde most nights when driving home from our city walk. I always amazed when I see a 'normal' person walking in that area. I guess now I'll know who it is. :-) Of course people say that about where I live so what do I know. I'm with you about the rent/mortgage. Living in Bay Point has allowed me to quickly pay my house off, send a kid through private high school, put two kids through college and amass a 'fortune' while doing it. All while working at a decent job at a decent stress level. Things could be a lot worse. I bet you can say the same.
Good night.

Cal fans are missing the best real estate investment in the bay area: Rossmoor Walnut Creek. Around 2010 you could buy a two-bedroom for $115,000 for your mother-in-law. Then you have a place to stay when coming into town for Cal games: 20 minutes to Memorial stadium. "Coupon" or condo fee is steep (c. $790 month) but includes taxes, cable tv, shuttle buses, golf course, tennis, two fitness centers, pools. Value!!

Phantomfan;842327318 said:

---

I too miss the days when we could arrest and imprison people for mental health problems. Much easier.

---

I wonder how much of the homelessness problem is related to vets with PTSD (Vietnam in the late 70s-80s, Mideast wars today).

Strykur;842327325 said:

---

I moved here 3 years ago, and when I tell people I live at O'Farrell and Hyde for $1500 by myself, they are perplexed because they know my part of town is less-than-desirable, on the other hand not having roommates is almost a luxury more valuable than even the nicest rental in San Francisco at this point.

---

That's a deal in my book.

Chapman_is_Gone;842327317 said:

---

Rather than espousing a simpleton's view that Ronald Reagan "created homelessness" (one of the most tired clichs on the internet), I encourage you to leave your political biases behind and spend a few hours doing research on the trend toward deinstitutionalization. Society's views on how to care for lunatics have changed from one extreme to the other over the past 200+ years, covering all points in between. You may also want to review relevant court decisions.

Unless, of course, you're trying to support your political agenda...then go right on believing that Ronald Reagan somehow single-handedly convinced the vast majority of mental health experts that community-based care was a promising trend in the mid 1900s. Boy, I wonder how he pulled that off... And maybe he was around in the 1800s as well when a similar trend was seen?

---

Bless you. I was thinking the same yesterday but didn't think anyone else would even hear that opinion. The ACLU trumpets many of the victories of that era (Willowbrook, Wyatt, etc.) although you'll be hard-pressed to hear them refer to it as "deinstitutionalization." That's a bit of a bad word now. No one wants to "credit" JFK with his part in the early 60's (Community Mental Health Centers Act). Not that the concept was wrong in its intent but as a society, we sometimes go all in on an idea, and later finding ourselves dealing with unexpected results.

93gobears;842327315 said:

---

I don't know. I thought I already did the approximate math for you.

Are you stupid, or never use math?

SF, a city of approximately 750,000 people with 70,000 handicapped parking permits.

That's one handicapped parking permit for every ten citizens of SF.

Approximate those that live in SF who don't own a car (the elderly, children, and those that choose to not own a car) and you minus easily 200,00 people.

Now divide 500,000 car owners by 70,000 handicap permits and you come up with an ugly number.

---

Hilarious. Drive past almost any Target store and 80-90% of the 50 handicap spots are always empty. Another excellent concept taken too far. Of course, practically anyone qualifies for a handicap placard these days so there's that... I remember the days when you'd watch a person pull into one of those spots, unload a wheelchair and feel thankful for the spot. Now, you're more likely to see someone jump out and run into the store. Oh well.

Cal88;842327340 said:

---

I wonder how much of the homelessness problem is related to vets with PTSD (Vietnam in the late 70s-80s, Mideast wars today).

---

What I actually saw discussed recently was that the homeless population in San Francisco may begin to precipitously decline over the coming years because a large portion of that population arose from the rise of crack cocaine in the 1980s, and therefore a generational segment of homeless will literally die out over time. Although the homeless veteran is an archetype associated with the homeless population, very few homeless remain in that condition for a long period of time unless there is a drug issue.

socaliganbear;842327347 said:

---

That's a deal in my book.

---

I recently saw a listing for a studio on O'Farrell and Leavenworth for $2,500, so probably.

Strykur;842327325 said:

---

I moved here 3 years ago, and when I tell people I live at O'Farrell and Hyde for $1500 by myself, they are perplexed because they know my part of town is less-than-desirable, on the other hand not having roommates is almost a luxury more valuable than even the nicest rental in San Francisco at this point.

---

My wife and I just left an apartment at Pine and Jones for $1420/month. It was painful to leave such a great deal, but we needed more space for an impending baby. I tried like crazy to find someone to take it over. Last I heard they were only looking to rent it for $1800. Which is insane - a nice, but smallish, 1 bedroom apartment in a fairly nice area. Somehow the owners do not know what is going on with the market.

And we only moved in there in Fall 2011. So we're not talking a ten year rent controlled place.

grandmastapoop;842327381 said:

---

My wife and I just left an apartment at Pine and Jones for $1420/month. It was painful to leave such a great deal, but we needed more space for an impending baby. I tried like crazy to find someone to take it over. Last I heard they were only looking to rent it for $1800. Which is insane - a nice, but smallish, 1 bedroom apartment in a fairly nice area. Somehow the owners do not know what is going on with the market.

And we only moved in there in Fall 2011. So we're not talking a ten year rent controlled place.

---

Pine St. near Fillmore since 2005. My wife and I (and son) will probably stay in our 2BD/1BA for awhile to come. Never thought we'd stay here this long, but being under $2k/month for what we have, given what the market has done, there's no reason to really move until we absolutely have to. Didn't think our place would work for a baby, but we made it work...

grandmastapoop;842327381 said:

---

My wife and I just left an apartment at Pine and Jones for $1420/month. It was painful to leave such a great deal, but we needed more space for an impending baby. I tried like crazy to find someone to take it over. Last I heard they were only looking to rent it for $1800. Which is insane - a nice, but smallish, 1 bedroom apartment in a fairly nice area. Somehow the owners do not know what is going on with the market.

And we only moved in there in Fall 2011. So we're not talking a ten year rent controlled place.

---

That's insane and sad. I'm now sad. So sad.

BoaltBear;842326876 said:

---

Count me as one of the so-called "rent control leaches." Moved into a one-bedroom in the Marina in 2010 at what I thought then was outrageously high rent. Last month the landlord rented the apartment below me for $1,500 higher than what I'm paying. Ridiculous! Won't let go of this place until I buy. Happy to leach away for the foreseeable future!

---

we are same....Feb of '10, moved into a 2/2 with a parking spot and a huge deck one block off chestnut with very little competition..over 4 years later, they could easily get $4k or more for our $2,500 apt. Hell, there's a few people in their 50's who have been there for over 20 years who pay like $500/month.

I had the same thought, staying til I buy, but after buying in November, I changed my stance. The rental market is too good to pass up making $$$ every month to rent my house out.

Us 30k/yr take home, recent grad plebs can only afford Richmond or Sunset... which means go live in Oakland.

socaliganbear;842326761 said:

---

Hitler trying to rent in SF.

1) This meme never gets old. (sorry if you think it has)
2) I miss the days when 5k monthly rent sounded like a lot.

---

Whoever wrote the script is f***ing brilliant. I'm still laughing. My wife drives a Chevy Volt!

Wife and I lived in one BR apartment on Russian Hill in late 80s.
Paid $1100 per month and that included a parking space under the building. Still regret giving up the place. Had balcony with view of Bay, etc.

Now that kids are almost gone from house might think about moving back, but guess I will have to wait for next economic downturn to afford to do so.

concernedparent;842327422 said:

---

Us 30k/yr take home, recent grad plebs can only afford Richmond or Sunset... which means go live in Oakland.

---

Agree. From Oakland it takes me 35 minutes door-to-door to get to South Of Market. From the Sunset or the Richmond districts you are looking at 45-90 minutes on public transit.
Plus you never see the sun during the Summer.

6bear6;842327426 said:

---

Whoever wrote the script is f***ing brilliant. I'm still laughing. My wife drives a Chevy Volt!

---

"Everyone who works at Google, leave the room at once"

Thanks to the "progressives", owning property in SF is one of the safest and productive assets one can own. Even the few thousand units going up in the transbay terminal the next few years are just a drop in the bucket for what's needed.

My wife and I were able to buy a 2 unit building in the prime part of the Inner Sunset along Hugo St last August for just under 500/sqft. It was an absolute no-brainer at that price for long-term ownership. Things have become significantly more expensive since then but prices will dip at some point. Save up for years, beg, borrow, and steal from family, and be ready when it happens.

I would highly recommend this arrangement for anyone looking to stay in the city long term. Live in the top unit, rent out the lower. It's really not that much additional work since you're onsite anyways and the rent received actually makes it cheaper than owning a comparable sized condo or SFH. When the 2 bedrooms aren't enough, you can either do an addition or use the lower unit for more space.

Before that we rented 2 separate 1 bedrooms in the Marina since 2007. The first place was a really nice $2,200/month water view apt. on Jefferson St. next to the Palace of Fine Arts. When the economy tanked in 2009 tanked and we noticed rents were going down, we moved a few blocks over to Beach St. for an 1,800/month place since the Jefferson St. landlord refused to lower the rent. It's such a better experience to own though, I couldn't imagine being a lifelong renter.