I think I want to move to San Francisco
The Devil's Advocate©
month. This time I went to San Francisco. I went there last October to
have some fun, but didn't get to go around and see a lot, I stayed
mostly in Berkeley, but this time, I really saw the city, and such an
exciting place it is. Being back in L.A. is like being in a piece of
shit. So now I'm thinking about going to S.F. or somewhere in the Bay
Area. So for all you Bay Area people, can you give me the low down on
what it takes to live up there? I know it's expensive as hell but can
someone give me some details. Things like, what are the nicest
neighborhoods you can live in without being too expensive. How hard is
it to find a job? what skills are in demand? One thing you notice is
that the Bay Area doesn't seem to have much room, so I'd feel kind of
bad moving there and adding more crowding, especially given that their
traffic problems make L.A.'s look like utopia. (How hard is it to even
find vacancies there?)But damn, the place can't be beat, this is the
first time I got to take a really good look around for myself, and
it's like not even being in the United States, the city hall area
certainly feels more European than anything. Well, you guys up there
don't know how good you've got it. And nice cool, fresh air on top of
that. So any advice for an angelino prospective transplant?
--
L'un, le seul...
The Devil's Advocate
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"Your Warrant Is In Question"
The Devil's Advocate...Online
http://surf.to/advocate
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
remove "nojunk" to email
Inflatable Pinata
Yes, yes, thank-you for your consideration, but I think you haven't yet
fully explored this issue. The bay area is a terrible to live. Have you
tried further north? Portland is much better than San Francisco. Seattle
is better than Portland. How about Juneau with its long lazy summer
nights?
Don't move to the bay area--you won't like it. Trust me.
--
Fe mhats enearha esma; iufue dolha soentrides odoem esri.
Fe bhuearai osraha esma; iufue auaen bhuearai shahem essa.
CACS: http://homestead.dejanews.com/user.smjames/index.html
text: http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Studios/5079/index.html
Megagilby's inflatable fantasy joy-toy and pinata.
David Kaye
" Area. So for all you Bay Area people, can you give me the low down on
" what it takes to live up there?
Bags and bags of money. For a 1-bedroom apartment be prepared to pay
$1200 a month. Parking is extra, unless you intend to park on the street.
But, if you do park on the street, expect that your parking tickets will
run you about $100 a month. Or, you could sell your car as many people
have done.
" I know it's expensive as hell but can
" someone give me some details. Things like, what are the nicest
" neighborhoods you can live in without being too expensive.
How expensive is expensive? You could go from $1200 a month to $2500 a
month, but anywhere you go, it'll be pricey. What 'hood you want to live
in will depend on what amenities you want. Do you want to live near a
park? Near a trendy nightclub district? Near the ocean? Do you want a
view?
" How hard is
" it to find a job? what skills are in demand? One thing you notice is
" that the Bay Area doesn't seem to have much room, so I'd feel kind of
" bad moving there and adding more crowding, especially given that their
" traffic problems make L.A.'s look like utopia.
If you work in high tech, you'll probably have more job offers than you
could ever hope for. If you want to start your own business, this can be
a good place to do it. (I've done it and succeeded quite nicely.) But,
if you work in the service industry, such as retail or restaurants, you
may find you need two jobs.
" (How hard is it to even
" find vacancies there?)
Easier than it was last year. For the first time in about 5 years I'm
seeing a few for-rent signs around. Not many, but a few. Expect to go
the roommate route for awhile until you find the place you want.
" But damn, the place can't be beat, this is the
" first time I got to take a really good look around for myself, and
" it's like not even being in the United States, the city hall area
" certainly feels more European than anything.
Yeah, it's not that San Francisco is so amazing as a city, it's that the
rest of America is so BAD. And as the chain stores and homogenization
continues across America, SF will be in even *more* demand, since it still
dares to be different (somewhat different, at least).
" Well, you guys up there
" don't know how good you've got it. And nice cool, fresh air on top of
" that. So any advice for an angelino prospective transplant?
Yes, all our smog is blown by the westerlies into Stockton and Sacramento.
Unfortunate, but true.
Well, as for Angelinos or Angelanos or whatever, I woulnd't look with too
much disfavor on LA. LA has a quirkiness that can make it a fun place.
In LA, people take weird for granted. In SF, people use weird and make it
a fashion statement. All this trendiness can get annoying after awhile.
I mean, how many S/M cocktail parties can you go to in one weekend?
I do recommend the live music and small experimental theatre and video
that happens in the Bay Area. There are people doing some amazing things
here. But then, who am I to say? After all, LA has Glen Meadmore.
--
(C) 1999 Want to hear a little Balkan music?
David Kaye http://members.xoom.com/mfass/hfp/
dk at wco.com
Sac Of Tomatoes
you forget about the vicious swarm of bats that has plagued the
city since the last earthquake???!!! You know.... the killer
bats that eat children sometimes.... remember..???
Some Yung Guy
Ixnayonthemov...@dontblowit.com
Paul
>Well, the D.A. just got back from his second vacation to N. Cal this
>month. This time I went to San Francisco. I went there last October to
>have some fun, but didn't get to go around and see a lot, I stayed
>mostly in Berkeley, but this time, I really saw the city, and such an
>exciting place it is. Being back in L.A. is like being in a piece of
>shit. So now I'm thinking about going to S.F. or somewhere in the Bay
>someone give me some details. Things like, what are the nicest
>it to find a job? what skills are in demand? One thing you notice is
>that the Bay Area doesn't seem to have much room, so I'd feel kind of
>bad moving there and adding more crowding, especially given that their
>find vacancies there?)But damn, the place can't be beat, this is the
>first time I got to take a really good look around for myself, and
>it's like not even being in the United States, the city hall area
>don't know how good you've got it. And nice cool, fresh air on top of
>that. So any advice for an angelino prospective transplant?
>
expensive to get an apartment up there but then you don't need a car so it
comes out ok. It is a matter of outlook. If you were born her you are subject
to huge amounts of brainwashing and will defend this place to the end. If you
were not then you can understand the situation. If you want culture and a
better quality of life then go up north. If you are a car person and you enjoy
spending hours in your car and living in a paper world then stay here. It is a
matter of taste
Paul
"There are two means of refuge from the miseries
of life: music and cats." -- Albert Schweitzer
http://www.gn1.com/home/paulk/
keeth...@keethie.net
<d...@removethis.wco.com> wrote:
>Bags and bags of money. For a 1-bedroom apartment be prepared to pay
>$1200 a month.
Actually, that's not a bad rate (or is it just introductory, like the
credit card interest rates?).
In <ba.housing> NG, I just saw an ad for a studio for that price. Menlo
Park, I think.
--
Remove DRAT in reply to that
Fantomas
>
> The Devil's Advocate© wrote the quoted material below:
>
> " Area. So for all you Bay Area people, can you give me the low down on
> " what it takes to live up there?
>
> $1200 a month.
Thats worse than New York ! I didn't think that was possible except
maybe in Tokyo or in Switzerland.
Parking is extra, unless you intend to park on the street.
> But, if you do park on the street, expect that your parking tickets will
> run you about $100 a month. Or, you could sell your car as many people
> have done.
No reason to have a car in SF - the true test of a civilized city.
> " I know it's expensive as hell but can
> " someone give me some details. Things like, what are the nicest
> " neighborhoods you can live in without being too expensive.
>
> How expensive is expensive? You could go from $1200 a month to $2500 a
> month, but anywhere you go, it'll be pricey. What 'hood you want to live
> in will depend on what amenities you want. Do you want to live near a
> park? Near a trendy nightclub district? Near the ocean? Do you want a
> view?
>
> " How hard is
> " it to find a job?
Plenty of jobs, thats why its so expensive.
The bottom line is in real estate like other things, is you get
what you pay for. There is a reason why some places are expensive,
and other places are cheap. Its obvious why SF and NY ( I expect
to get plenty of shit from people in this NG about the latter )
are so expensive, and why East St.Louis, Gary, IN. and Riverside
are so cheap.
what skills are in demand? One thing you notice is
> " that the Bay Area doesn't seem to have much room, so I'd feel kind of
> " bad moving there and adding more crowding
The crowding there is the norm in most other places.
, especially given that their
> " traffic problems make L.A.'s look like utopia.
>
> If you work in high tech, you'll probably have more job offers than you
> could ever hope for. If you want to start your own business, this can be
> a good place to do it. (I've done it and succeeded quite nicely.) But,
> if you work in the service industry, such as retail or restaurants, you
> may find you need two jobs.
>
> " (How hard is it to even
> " find vacancies there?)
>
> Easier than it was last year. For the first time in about 5 years I'm
> seeing a few for-rent signs around. Not many, but a few. Expect to go
> the roommate route for awhile until you find the place you want.
>
> " But damn, the place can't be beat, this is the
> " first time I got to take a really good look around for myself, and
> " it's like not even being in the United States, the city hall area
> " certainly feels more European than anything.
True. Its my fave place on the west coast, and the only one that
I would really consider living in by choice.
> Yeah, it's not that San Francisco is so amazing as a city, it's that the
> rest of America is so BAD.
Sadly true.
And as the chain stores and homogenization
> continues across America,
...there will be more Littletons because when people are disconnected
to a place and don't have that identity they lose all bearings. This
is especially bad for young people who don't have an identity yet...
SF will be in even *more* demand, since it still
> dares to be different (somewhat different, at least).
>
> " Well, you guys up there
> " don't know how good you've got it. And nice cool, fresh air on top of
> " that. So any advice for an angelino prospective transplant?
>
> Yes, all our smog is blown by the westerlies into Stockton and Sacramento.
> Unfortunate, but true.
>
> Well, as for Angelinos or Angelanos or whatever, I woulnd't look with too
> much disfavor on LA. LA has a quirkiness that can make it a fun place.
> In LA, people take weird for granted. In SF, people use weird and make it
> a fashion statement. All this trendiness can get annoying after awhile.
> I mean, how many S/M cocktail parties can you go to in one weekend?
>
> I do recommend the live music and small experimental theatre and video
> that happens in the Bay Area. There are people doing some amazing things
> here. But then, who am I to say? After all, LA has Glen Meadmore.
But in LA you need a car which is the greatest indictment possible of
the city.
Daniel Donghoon Paik
The Devil's Advocate© <--nojunk--...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>what it takes to live up there? I know it's expensive as hell but can
>someone give me some details. Things like, what are the nicest
>it to find a job? what skills are in demand? One thing you notice is
apartments are expensive in SF. they basically start at around $1200. if
you live in the east bay, it's much cheaper. the lake merritt area can
get you to downtown SF in about 15-20 minutes on BART and you can get a
one bedroom there for around $650.
high tech. many jobs.
>bad moving there and adding more crowding, especially given that their
>traffic problems make L.A.'s look like utopia. (How hard is it to even
traffic. very bad. i moved down to LA 2 years ago from SF. everyone was
talking about the bad traffic down here, etc. it's not that bad. i
commute every day on the 405 from redondo beach to irvine. it takes me
about 40 minutes. except for a few patches of traffic, i'm at around 60
MPH the whole time. and people always say that 405 is the worst. SF is
much worse. try going on the bay bridge any day in the morning or
evening. try going on the bay bridge on friday night. at least in LA,
there are alternate freeways or surface streets.
>certainly feels more European than anything. Well, you guys up there
i've also lived in europe. personally i like europe much better than SF.
but the language barrier was a bit too much for me.
Dan.
--
Daniel Paik http://www.hanguk.com/uctt ICQ: 24635084
hey, go check out http://www.hanguk.com!
if yer not down the SF Giants...then i got two words for ya...SUCK IT
the Rock's gonna layeth the smacketh downeth
Daniel Donghoon Paik
Fantomas <lafant...@latinmail.com> wrote:
>> Bags and bags of money. For a 1-bedroom apartment be prepared to pay
>> $1200 a month.
>Thats worse than New York ! I didn't think that was possible except
in terms of housing in the US it's
1) SF
2) NY
3) honolulu
4) LA
yes, switzerland, londo, tokyo, etc...are all more than SF.
Paul
>In article <37248F...@latinmail.com>,
>Fantomas <lafant...@latinmail.com> wrote:
>>> Bags and bags of money. For a 1-bedroom apartment be prepared to pay
>>> $1200 a month.
>>Thats worse than New York ! I didn't think that was possible except
>>maybe in Tokyo or in Switzerland. =
>
>in terms of housing in the US it's
>1) SF
>2) NY
>3) honolulu
>4) LA
>
>yes, switzerland, londo, tokyo, etc...are all more than SF.
>
>Dan.
>
David Kaye
" Actually, that's not a bad rate (or is it just introductory, like the
" credit card interest rates?).
Well, for me it's not bad at all. I have a spacious 2-bedroom which I
share with a roommmate. My slice of the pie is $500 a month. However, I
looked for months, and eventually found it via a roommate ad. She moved
out 9 months later and I put the place in my name.
--
(C) 1999 Play some games; meet some friends! Really!
David Kaye http://www.wco.com/~dk/games.html
dk at wco.com
John Higdon
<d...@removethis.wco.com> wrote:
> Well, for me it's not bad at all. I have a spacious 2-bedroom which I
> share with a roommmate. My slice of the pie is $500 a month. However, I
> looked for months, and eventually found it via a roommate ad. She moved
> out 9 months later and I put the place in my name.
Sounds comparable to the south bay. I charge a roommate $500 for the
master bedroom in my house. There is a walkin closet and a private
bathroom that goes with it. I pay all utilities out of my pocket since the
computers and A/C to cool them run the PG&E bill to astronomic heights.
The roommate also gets two extensions off the house PBX and a "private"
incoming telephone number that rings his extensions directly. Internet
connectivity is also included, but the current occupant is not
particularly interested in that.
--
John Higdon | P.O. Box 7648 | +1 408 264 4115 | FAX:
| San Jose, CA 95150 | +1 500 FOR-A-MOO |+1 408 264 4407
ab...@announcetech.com | http://www.announcetech.com
Fantomas
>
> In article <37248F...@latinmail.com>,
> Fantomas <lafant...@latinmail.com> wrote:
> >> Bags and bags of money. For a 1-bedroom apartment be prepared to pay
> >> $1200 a month.
> >Thats worse than New York ! I didn't think that was possible except
> >maybe in Tokyo or in Switzerland. =
>
> in terms of housing in the US it's
> 1) SF
> 2) NY
> 3) honolulu
> 4) LA
>
> yes, switzerland, londo, tokyo, etc...are all more than SF.
>
> Dan.
>
> Daniel Paik http://www.hanguk.com/uctt ICQ: 24635084
> hey, go check out http://www.hanguk.com!
> if yer not down the SF Giants...then i got two words for ya...SUCK IT
> the Rock's gonna layeth the smacketh downeth
to me London seemed about equal ro NY,Rome and Paris slightly less.
Supposedly Buenos Aires is pretty high too
d...@cheetah.net
>keeth...@keethie.net wrote the quoted material below:
>
>" Actually, that's not a bad rate (or is it just introductory, like the
>" credit card interest rates?).
>
>Well, for me it's not bad at all. I have a spacious 2-bedroom which I
>share with a roommmate. My slice of the pie is $500 a month. However, I
>looked for months, and eventually found it via a roommate ad. She moved
>out 9 months later and I put the place in my name.
9 months later, she moved out?
Hmmm, correlation is not causation,
right? May I ask, what document did
you "put the place" in your name."
DCI
Hugh Bonney
: certainly feels more European than anything. Well, you guys up there
: don't know how good you've got it. And nice cool, fresh air on top of
: that. So any advice for an angelino prospective transplant?
Well, the two areas do have a different feel to them. But you still
have California-style social disintegration among people who are
not US immigrants here. That's why many people leave, but find them-
selves unwelcome where people fear they will bring their lives with
them.
It is pricey. I moved to Petaluma from the Peninsula for 14 months in
the middle of '96. Petaluma is about 35 miles North of SF, but not a
practical commute. Just during that time rents produced sticker shock
and it was noticeable that people in local service jobs for years had
left as they could no longer afford to live here and the commute from
the East Bay was getting to be too long. Life on the Peninsula has
become more 'hard-edged' than it was when I came here, even though
the crime rate and all that is clearly lower. SF is probably the same.
In SF itself you can just rent cars when you need them occasionally,
elsewhere here they are almost indispensable like LA.
If any sort of family life is part of your long-term plans, then my
suggestion is to clear California entirely, unless you can join an
immigrant community as a member. It's not that it's impossible, of
course, but the odds are not good enough. In a company I worked in
even 10 years ago I quietly took a poll over time, without mentioning
a poll. The department had about 120 people. Among the 'anglo'
population the divorce rate was almost 70% and no woman under 40 had
more than one kid. People sometimes really dumped their stories and
most of the time they were doomed by egoism and a lack of any sort of
social matrix/community. Of course, everyone else and the world was
always at fault. YMMV, but can you beat the odds? Why?
If you are in the computer industry, the area has probably the best
job market in the US (though somewhat faddish). Among smaller companies
many are mostly people with some particular ethnic background/
language, so the market for any one person is not as large as it may
seem, but the market's breadth is still unmatched. I have worked in
a couple of such companies and consider it a rewarding experience
though, if they will employ you. My suggestion for anyone starting
a career is to come here for a while and accumulate an interesting
resume. Life in No. Calif. can be nice in an everyday way even with
the burgeoning overall population. Then go somewhere else.
H.---
A
>
> In article <3725f01e...@news.earthlink.net>,
> >someone give me some details. Things like, what are the nicest
> >neighborhoods you can live in without being too expensive. How hard is
> >it to find a job? what skills are in demand? One thing you notice is
>
> apartments are expensive in SF. they basically start at around $1200. if
> you live in the east bay, it's much cheaper. the lake merritt area can
> get you to downtown SF in about 15-20 minutes on BART and you can get a
> one bedroom there for around $650.
I've seen some of the rents from online newspapers and other online
sources.
Not a place for someone on a fixed income like I am, unless sharing a
place.
>
> high tech. many jobs.
Where have I heard that before? <G> ...
>
> >bad moving there and adding more crowding, especially given that their
> >traffic problems make L.A.'s look like utopia. (How hard is it to even
>
> traffic. very bad. i moved down to LA 2 years ago from SF. everyone was
> talking about the bad traffic down here, etc. it's not that bad. i
> commute every day on the 405 from redondo beach to irvine. it takes me
> about 40 minutes. except for a few patches of traffic, i'm at around 60
> MPH the whole time. and people always say that 405 is the worst. SF is
> much worse. try going on the bay bridge any day in the morning or
> evening. try going on the bay bridge on friday night. at least in LA,
> there are alternate freeways or surface streets.
I was on the bay bridge last May, when I went to S.F. with my dad.
Traffic was heavy, but moved steadily.
This was on a Wed or Thurs(I forget which), maybe a bit after rush
hour.
I wouldn't want to get in the rush hour traffic, as it would be wicked.
Parking places were hard to find, and expensive.
Cable Car was also a bit high, Uhm $8.00 for a round trip ticket.
Okay for one time I suppose..
Can't really comment on present day L.A. traffic, as I haven't been
there since 1964, and then I didn't have to drive in the rush hour.
I did drive in it in 1960 for a while, and found it quicker to take
surface streets (from just east of Hollywood to Glendale).
Dare say it could be much worse now, but not having been there
recently...
>
> >certainly feels more European than anything. Well, you guys up there
>
> i've also lived in europe. personally i like europe much better than SF.
> but the language barrier was a bit too much for me.
>
> Dan.
>
> --
> Daniel Paik http://www.hanguk.com/uctt ICQ: 24635084
> hey, go check out http://www.hanguk.com!
> if yer not down the SF Giants...then i got two words for ya...SUCK IT
> the Rock's gonna layeth the smacketh downeth
--
Wayne AKA Blackie!
http://blackies-place.webjump.com
The Devil's Advocate©
Pinata) wrote:
>Yes, yes, thank-you for your consideration, but I think you haven't yet
>fully explored this issue. The bay area is a terrible to live.
Are you a homophobe? ;-)
>Have you
>tried further north? Portland is much better than San Francisco. Seattle
>is better than Portland.
I've had some interest in the Pacific NW in the past, but that
interest is pretty much gone. I really like the Central Coast and Bay
Area, both in terms of the natural geography such as the hills, trees,
etc., and the cultural aspect. Since I like the outdoors, it would be
neat living where there are redwoods, rolling hills and oaks, and
lakes all near each other. I wish there was a bigger city along the
central coast, maybe a San Jose sized city right where San Luis Obispo
is located.
>How about Juneau with its long lazy summer
>nights?
Or L.A. with it's long hazy summer days.
>
>Don't move to the bay area--you won't like it. Trust me.
Wanna trade places?
The Devil's Advocate©
>The Devil's AdvocateŠ wrote the quoted material below:
>
>" Area. So for all you Bay Area people, can you give me the low down on
>" what it takes to live up there?
>
>Bags and bags of money. For a 1-bedroom apartment be prepared to pay
>$1200 a month. Parking is extra, unless you intend to park on the street.
>But, if you do park on the street, expect that your parking tickets will
>run you about $100 a month. Or, you could sell your car as many people
>have done.
Could never give up my car, what if I want to leave town? I'm still
too young to rent one. $1200/month for a one bedroom is even more than
I'd imagined. Is this on the richer west side of SF???
>
>" I know it's expensive as hell but can
>" someone give me some details. Things like, what are the nicest
>" neighborhoods you can live in without being too expensive.
>
>How expensive is expensive? You could go from $1200 a month to $2500 a
>month, but anywhere you go, it'll be pricey. What 'hood you want to live
>in will depend on what amenities you want. Do you want to live near a
>park? Near a trendy nightclub district? Near the ocean? Do you want a
>view?
If I had more money than I knew what to do with, I'd definately be
along the west portion of town, not far from the Golden Gate Bridge,
or maybe even Marin County. But an essentially unskilled college
student like me can only imagine living in places like that.
>
>" How hard is
>" it to find a job? what skills are in demand? One thing you notice is
>" that the Bay Area doesn't seem to have much room, so I'd feel kind of
>" bad moving there and adding more crowding, especially given that their
>" traffic problems make L.A.'s look like utopia.
>
>If you work in high tech, you'll probably have more job offers than you
>could ever hope for. If you want to start your own business, this can be
>a good place to do it. (I've done it and succeeded quite nicely.) But,
>if you work in the service industry, such as retail or restaurants, you
>may find you need two jobs.
And it seems like SF has an abundance of restuarants, it's
unbelievable. I noticed that there are pretty few supermarkets around
there, so I guess that's why they have so many restuarants.
>
>" (How hard is it to even
>" find vacancies there?)
>
>Easier than it was last year. For the first time in about 5 years I'm
>seeing a few for-rent signs around. Not many, but a few. Expect to go
>the roommate route for awhile until you find the place you want.
>
>" But damn, the place can't be beat, this is the
>" first time I got to take a really good look around for myself, and
>" it's like not even being in the United States, the city hall area
>" certainly feels more European than anything.
>
>Yeah, it's not that San Francisco is so amazing as a city, it's that the
>rest of America is so BAD. And as the chain stores and homogenization
>continues across America, SF will be in even *more* demand, since it still
>dares to be different (somewhat different, at least).
You are totally right on here. SF and NYC are the only two cities in
America that were done right. L.A. and S. California in general is
hopeless. Actually, L.A. might not be too bad if it were not so large.
Santa Barbara is no denser than L.A. is but a much nicer town. In
fact, I might consider Santa Barbara(California's 2nd nicest city) as
an alternative to S.F. if I can't make it up there.
>
>" Well, you guys up there
>" don't know how good you've got it. And nice cool, fresh air on top of
>" that. So any advice for an angelino prospective transplant?
>
>Yes, all our smog is blown by the westerlies into Stockton and Sacramento.
>Unfortunate, but true.
And all ours is blown into poor San Bernadino and Riverside, the smog
is so thick there that I don't even think the region is livable.
>
>Well, as for Angelinos or Angelanos or whatever, I woulnd't look with too
>much disfavor on LA. LA has a quirkiness that can make it a fun place.
>In LA, people take weird for granted. In SF, people use weird and make it
>a fashion statement. All this trendiness can get annoying after awhile.
>I mean, how many S/M cocktail parties can you go to in one weekend?
Yes, quite a weird place it is, although by most of the country's
standards, L.A. is weird as well. But I think we're more known for
being flakes and concerned with image and cars.
The Devil's Advocate©
>Well, for me it's not bad at all. I have a spacious 2-bedroom which I
>share with a roommmate. My slice of the pie is $500 a month. However, I
>looked for months, and eventually found it via a roommate ad. She moved
>out 9 months later and I put the place in my name.
That's pretty damn good for SF. I pay $450 with my roomates in a
2bd/2ba condo here in upper/middle class Northridge. But I guess $450
in SF would get you a dump for the most part.
The Devil's Advocate©
<lafant...@latinmail.com> wrote:
>> Bags and bags of money. For a 1-bedroom apartment be prepared to pay
>> $1200 a month.
>
>Thats worse than New York ! I didn't think that was possible except
>maybe in Tokyo or in Switzerland.
No shit, and downtown Tokyo at that.
>
> Parking is extra, unless you intend to park on the street.
>> But, if you do park on the street, expect that your parking tickets will
>> run you about $100 a month. Or, you could sell your car as many people
>> have done.
>
>No reason to have a car in SF - the true test of a civilized city.
But is public transport available at all hours of night as well? It
would take a helluva lot to get me to sell my car. But after spending
about 20 minutes circling everytime we wanted to park to go to a
restuarant, or paying $20 for a public garage downtown just to get out
and walk around for awhile, I can see why many people would be ready
to toss their car keys. The nonavailability of parking spaces in SF is
something that has to be seen to be believed.
>> " How hard is
>> " it to find a job?
>
>Plenty of jobs, thats why its so expensive.
>The bottom line is in real estate like other things, is you get
>what you pay for. There is a reason why some places are expensive,
>and other places are cheap. Its obvious why SF and NY ( I expect
>to get plenty of shit from people in this NG about the latter )
>are so expensive, and why East St.Louis, Gary, IN. and Riverside
>are so cheap.
Or Butler, PA ;-)
>
>
> what skills are in demand? One thing you notice is
>> " that the Bay Area doesn't seem to have much room, so I'd feel kind of
>> " bad moving there and adding more crowding
>
>The crowding there is the norm in most other places.
True, as long as the place is pretty clean and architecturally
pleasing, I could probably adjust. Coming back down to L.A. after
spending the weekend in SF, I feel like I'm in Omaha or something,
like I can actually spread my arms or park my car.
David Kaye
" 9 months later, she moved out?
" Hmmm, correlation is not causation,
" right? May I ask, what document did
" you "put the place" in your name."
She wanted to move to Portland to be with her sister and get involved in
the very large lesbian community there. As for documents, I signed a
rental agreement with the landlords, a very nice gay male couple. (We try
to keep things in the family around here...) The landlords are very nice,
even to the point of hiring someone to sweep up the sidewalk up and down
the block.
David Kaye
" Well, the two areas do have a different feel to them. But you still
" have California-style social disintegration among people who are
" not US immigrants here.
This certainly confirms my experience: White people treat me like dirt
(ignoring me on the street, pulling their belongings away from me when I
set near them in a cafe, staring through me when I try to talk with them).
Latinos, Asians, and other people of non-white immigrant background treat
me much better, in a downright friendly manner. It makes me embarrassed to
be white.
" a poll. The department had about 120 people. Among the 'anglo'
" population the divorce rate was almost 70% and no woman under 40 had
" more than one kid.
This is a sociological result of wealth. Poorer women tend to have more
kids, the idea being that there are more chances for family survival with
more kids to become potential breadwinners. Italy has gone through an
increase in their middleclass over the last decade, and now they're
running out of Italians! Italians have kids at less than the replacement
rate.
" People sometimes really dumped their stories and
" most of the time they were doomed by egoism and a lack of any sort of
" social matrix/community. Of course, everyone else and the world was
" always at fault. YMMV, but can you beat the odds? Why?
I see it all around me. People always complain about a "lack of
community", but they don't do a damned thing to help build one.
I run a weekly games group. We're very slowly building a community, but
it's not easy. Communities take time, and many people don't want to
invest in the time.
Meanwhile, our local neighborhood association has a tough time getting
volunteers to do anything. They all want to fight the Lucky Stores of the
world, but they'll be damned if they're going to do anything to help
toward that goal.
The Devil's Advocate©
Donghoon Paik) wrote:
>i've also lived in europe. personally i like europe much better than SF.
Romans and Parisians probably see SF the same way Friscans see
Phoenix.
d...@cheetah.net
>d...@cheetah.net wrote the quoted material below:
>
>" 9 months later, she moved out?
>" Hmmm, correlation is not causation,
>" right? May I ask, what document did
>" you "put the place" in your name."
>
>She wanted to move to Portland to be with her sister and get involved in
>the very large lesbian community there. As for documents, I signed a
>rental agreement with the landlords, a very nice gay male couple. (We try
>to keep things in the family around here...) The landlords are very nice,
>even to the point of hiring someone to sweep up the sidewalk up and down
>the block.
From what I do know, you are lucky to have
been able to take over a lease - was it
leased? - originally entered into by another
party. Figuring a lease would run one or
more years - usually a year to year - to be
able to rise above a "sublet" agreement into
a full lease is often chancy. This of course
means, you signed a new document and not a
voidable document (sublease) lease with the
party that moved on to other housing.
And I want to commend you for looking at the
issue that I presented to you in the light
as intended. Too often people enter into too
many agreements, leases, contracts that have
absolutely no legal standing.
And it is apparent that you have landlords
who enjoy having renters who understand
accountability and appreciate acts of landlord
kindnesses, all so very rare these days. This
is a mutual respect for property, ownership,
and renter's obligations.
DCI
d...@cheetah.net
Devil's AdvocateŠ) wrote:
>
>Could never give up my car, what if I want to leave town? I'm still
>too young to rent one. $1200/month for a one bedroom is even more than
>I'd imagined. Is this on the richer west side of SF???
>
CLIPPED
You're still to young rent a
car, or a town, which?
DCI
The Devil's Advocate©
>You're still to young rent a
> car, or a town, which?
town
The Devil's Advocate©
>On Tue, 27 Apr 1999 03:40:29 GMT, --nojunk--...@earthlink.net (The
>Devil's AdvocateŠ) wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Could never give up my car, what if I want to leave town? I'm still
>>too young to rent one. $1200/month for a one bedroom is even more than
>>I'd imagined. Is this on the richer west side of SF???
>>
> CLIPPED
>
>
> You're still to young rent a
> car, or a town, which?
>
> DCI
>
whoops, I mean car.
d...@cheetah.net
Devil's AdvocateŠ) wrote:
>On Tue, 27 Apr 1999 04:14:54 GMT, d...@cheetah.net wrote:
>
>>You're still too young to rent a
>>car, or a town, which?
>
>
>town
The whole thing?
DCI
d...@cheetah.net
Devil's AdvocateŠ) wrote:
>On Tue, 27 Apr 1999 04:14:54 GMT, d...@cheetah.net wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 27 Apr 1999 03:40:29 GMT, --nojunk--...@earthlink.net (The
>>Devil's AdvocateŠ) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Could never give up my car, what if I want to leave town? I'm still
>>>too young to rent one. $1200/month for a one bedroom is even more than
>>>I'd imagined. Is this on the richer west side of SF???
>>>
>> CLIPPED
>>
>>
>> You're still too young to rent a
>> car, or a town, which?
>>
>> DCI
>>
>
>whoops, I mean car.
Well that's more like it. You had
me worried, Mr. Advocate. Towns
are very hard to take on the road.
The proof? There are so many along
side the roadways of America.
DCI
David Kaye
" Could never give up my car, what if I want to leave town? I'm still
" too young to rent one.
Go with friends who have a car. Seriously, you don't want to own a car in
SF. We're 750,000 people squished onto 42 square miles of land. I owned
vehicles for years, until finally sick of the parking tickets and having
to park 5 to 8 blocks from my home each night, I finally sold my car 6
years ago. Haven't been happier, and I save about $400 a month.
" $1200/month for a one bedroom is even more than
" I'd imagined. Is this on the richer west side of SF???
Richer west side? You call the Sunset and the Richmond districts rich?
Man, have you got to do a little looking around.
" along the west portion of town, not far from the Golden Gate Bridge,
" or maybe even Marin County. But an essentially unskilled college
" student like me can only imagine living in places like that.
The Golden Gate bridge is north of SF. West is the ocean. As to being an
unskilled college student, if you're willing to do just about anything,
you can make it here. You'd naturally need to live with roommates, but
you could survive, and probably thrive. I know many coffeehouse workers
who pull in $9 or $10 an hour and survive okay.
" And it seems like SF has an abundance of restuarants, it's
" unbelievable. I noticed that there are pretty few supermarkets around
" there, so I guess that's why they have so many restuarants.
It is said that if everyone who lived in SF wanted to go out to eat at the
same moment, they all could.
As to markets, there are both supermarkets (which we're generally
fighting) and produce markets (especially in the Mission district). When
you go to the produce markets you really don't want to go back to buying
the junk they sell at Safeway and Lucky's.
" You are totally right on here. SF and NYC are the only two cities in
" America that were done right. L.A. and S. California in general is
" hopeless. Actually, L.A. might not be too bad if it were not so large.
While I do like many aspects of LA, I can't be there more than 2 or 3 days
tops. I get overwhelmed by its vastness. It's just too large for me. A
friend of mine once managed news at CNN in SF and in LA. In SF he knew
his co-workers and occasionally saw them around town. In LA he didn't
know anybody (even though the staff was more than 3 times the size), and
didn't see anybody outside of work -- they all lived spread out 50 miles
in any direction.
" Santa Barbara is no denser than L.A. is but a much nicer town. In
" fact, I might consider Santa Barbara(California's 2nd nicest city) as
" an alternative to S.F. if I can't make it up there.
I want to like Santa Barbara, but I find the people way too stuck up. It's
become the place LA movie and TV people want to go when they wish to go
slumming.
" Yes, quite a weird place it is, although by most of the country's
" standards, L.A. is weird as well. But I think we're more known for
" being flakes and concerned with image and cars.
I liked the movie "LA Story", especially when Steve Martin jumps into his
car to drive 2 houses away. I've known people who do that kind of thing.
It's funny when Angelano friends visit me and we go for a *walk* down to
trendy Valencia Street, about 10-15 blocks away. They get tired!
David Kaye
" I've had some interest in the Pacific NW in the past, but that
" interest is pretty much gone.
I lived in Portland for 6 years; owned a fairly well-known restaurant up
there. The local authorities hassled me with inspections all the time.
Finally, one guy pulled me aside and told me it was because I was a
Californian that I was being inspected 3 times a year for fire and every 3
months for health. They just couldn't believe that we were in better
shape for both health and fire than Jake's Crawfish (a Portland
institution owned by the McCormick and Schmick trophy restaurant group)
down the block.
After I left the restaurant business, I tried to work up there. "We give
preference to native Oregonians..." was literally what was told to me when
I applied for jobs in (1) broadcasting and (2) marketing director of the
Portland/Oregon Convention and Visitors bureau. I did, however land a
radio job up there, and the rest is another post somewhere else.
I have a love/hate relationship with Oregon. It has many good points, and
can be very innovative. On the other hand, once you get outside Portland,
Oregon is as backward as any place in Mississippi, and probably more
racist.
" I wish there was a bigger city along the
" central coast, maybe a San Jose sized city right where San Luis Obispo
" is located.
Be careful what you wish for.
i_have_...@concentric.net
> I see it all around me. People always complain about a "lack of
> community", but they don't do a damned thing to help build one.
I found this to be true in Mtn View, but then I got a dog. Now,
I know a lot of the people in my neighborhood. Perhaps a bit of the
the problem is that people don't get out and walk around their
neighborhoods? The dogless that I observe on my walks also seems
to interact with other people.
Andy Katz
>I found this to be true in Mtn View, but then I got a dog. Now,
>I know a lot of the people in my neighborhood. Perhaps a bit of the
>the problem is that people don't get out and walk around their
>neighborhoods? The dogless that I observe on my walks also seems
>to interact with other people.
Good point.
Just make sure your dog doesn't get away or they'll gas it in order to
save a few tax dollars:-(
Andy Katz
____________________________________
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Juvenal
a...@interport.net
Andre...@aol.com
Bastard Nation
http://www.bastards.org
Daniel Donghoon Paik
>would take a helluva lot to get me to sell my car. But after spending
>about 20 minutes circling everytime we wanted to park to go to a
>restuarant, or paying $20 for a public garage downtown just to get out
>and walk around for awhile, I can see why many people would be ready
>to toss their car keys. The nonavailability of parking spaces in SF is
>something that has to be seen to be believed.
don't get me wrong. although you can get by without having a car, it's
definitely more convenient to have a car and a parking space in your
apartment. if you want to go buy some groceries, you can drive out there
instead of walking back with 4 grocery bags (or hauling it into a bus),
you don't have to wait around for a bus or bart, you can go to places that
public transportation does go to (the world does not revolve around SF's
muni and bart routes), and quite frankly...there are a lot of places that
are a pain in the ass to get to if you don't have a car (try going to a
giants game).
it depends a bit on your personality as well. i like LA. i like being
able to drive over to the local mall, find parking, shop, and drive home.
i also like the fact that i bought a house here and pay mortgage instead
of rent. i don't want to be stuck paying rent for the rest of my life.
even those with 6 figure salaries have trouble doing that in SF.
sure, there's more crime in LA. but i don't walk the streets of east
LA....just like i rarely walk the streets in the tenderloin.
but you seem to like SF a lot so i would say that if you're young (no
family, etc.), then go for it and have fun. you'll realize that it's a
great city but it's also an expensive city.
Hugh Bonney
: Hugh Bonney wrote the quoted material below:
: " Well, the two areas do have a different feel to them. But you still
: " have California-style social disintegration among people who are
: " not US immigrants here.
: This certainly confirms my experience: White people treat me like dirt
: (ignoring me on the street, pulling their belongings away from me when I
: set near them in a cafe, staring through me when I try to talk with them).
: Latinos, Asians, and other people of non-white immigrant background treat
: me much better, in a downright friendly manner. It makes me embarrassed to
: be white.
It's not apparent that any kind of sizeable group is more tolerant than
another - I'm talking more about some cultural identification anyway.
The reaction of people to you as described seems unusual. Do you have
any insights about why? However, the soon-to-be-not-the-majority
population does seem to be working itself into some kind of terminal
paranoia. From TV? ? ? As a practical matter, the crime rate has gone
down quite a bit.
When I lived on the peninsula before, I would occasionally stop back
at my apartment during the working day to pick up something. All the
kids playing in the street or running around generally spoke Spanish.
So I thought I lived in a mostly Spanish-speaking neighborhood for a
while. But - not so.. It turned out over time that there were just as
many "anglo" kids around, but they were confined to apartments and
never came out. What do they do? - watch TV and play video games? Read?
Dream on.. Anyway, that's an odd existence, and they are becoming odd,
marginally socialized people. I've met some 20-somethings around here
from out of state (the midwest and Texas) and they frequently complain
about the strangeness of their local peers. If you want people to act
as though there is a Social Contract, you have to start early. You also
can't just say "I don't have time - here's money kid, go buy a life."
: " a poll. The department had about 120 people. Among the 'anglo'
: " population the divorce rate was almost 70% and no woman under 40 had
: " more than one kid.
: This is a sociological result of wealth. Poorer women tend to have more
: kids, the idea being that there are more chances for family survival with
: more kids to become potential breadwinners. Italy has gone through an
: increase in their middleclass over the last decade, and now they're
: running out of Italians! Italians have kids at less than the replacement
: rate.
It's true that in every developed country (?) where women are free to
not have children, they don't to the point that the society cannot
sustain it's numbers. This is true in Europe, Japan, Singapore,
California - everywhere. Countries try subsidies, free child care,
anything - they help, but not enough. Developed countries depend on
converts like the Shakers did. But the strategy didn't work for the
Shakers very long, obviously.
It's true that Italy's birth rate is disastrously low (what 1.1 or
1.2?). Business there will eventually bring in workers to survive
and Italy will probably be an Islamic country in 75-100 years or so.
Really. Yet feminism is simple, undeniable justice without question.
So should people be cloned and grown in vats :-)? Are they to be
raised in the vats and jacked into some Virtual Reality scheme to
be educated :-)? Will there be books of fond reminiscences of Vat
number NQW-237 by nostalgic alumni? Am I seeing too many films? ....
: " People sometimes really dumped their stories and
: " most of the time they were doomed by egoism and a lack of any sort of
: " social matrix/community. Of course, everyone else and the world was
: " always at fault. YMMV, but can you beat the odds? Why?
: I see it all around me. People always complain about a "lack of
: community", but they don't do a damned thing to help build one.
: I run a weekly games group. We're very slowly building a community, but
: it's not easy. Communities take time, and many people don't want to
: invest in the time.
: Meanwhile, our local neighborhood association has a tough time getting
: volunteers to do anything. They all want to fight the Lucky Stores of the
: world, but they'll be damned if they're going to do anything to help
: toward that goal.
Well, if the Social Contract idea is maintained community can arise
when it's needed and life is simpler. One makes the default assumption
that people are predictable and straightforward to you even though
there are obviously other possibilities. The decline of this ideal has
a serious effect on our lives. If we have to "network" to each build
our own society and don't use the Contract idea, we need to build a
society like China's, where the idea in the past hasn't been used.
H.---
John Higdon
<d...@removethis.wco.com> wrote:
> This is unfortunate. Some of the most enjoyable times I've had in SF have
> been in the Tenderloin. Between the great Vietnamese food, the live
> theatre, the nightclubs, the bookstores, the city-on-the-edge, the
> Tenderloin is a real living, breathing city.
Thank you for that observation. Real cities have districts with real bite
and atmosphere, such as the Tenderloin. It is important to make the
distinction between such a district and, for instance, downtown LA, where
one would not be caught dead (actually, probably the only way one would be
found) walking through at night. The Tenderloin has legitimate theater,
not-so-legitimate theater, unusual (not just dirty) bookstores, and every
vice for sale that one might imagine. "Living and breathing" is a perfect
description.
In downtown LA, they might just as well roll up the streets at night. I
recall working on a project in Culver City and being advised by the locals
to be sure that my truck doors were locked, even for the short drive to
the freeway. The place where I was working had security that was
reminiscent of a typical James Bond flick.
John Higdon
Hatunen) wrote:
> A good accountant can show you that home ownership is not cheaper
> than renting. The only time you make out owning is in a rising
> market so that you get your money when you sell.
Perhaps, but some like the idea of not dealing with a landlord who can be
unnecessarily restrictive or unresponsive, as well as have the power to
toss you out for a variety of reasons. I kind of enjoy not paying rent,
and the money I spend for upkeep and maintenance is something from which I
directly benefit.
David Kaye
" Perhaps a bit of the
" the problem is that people don't get out and walk around their
" neighborhoods?
I think this is exactly the case. The news media bombardment that "you
can't trust your neighbors" and "everyone is out to get you" creates
totally unreasonable fear of interacting with others.
David Kaye
" don't get me wrong. although you can get by without having a car, it's
" definitely more convenient to have a car and a parking space in your
" apartment.
A parking space in an apartment building? Gosh, this is San Francisco
we're talking about here.
" if you want to go buy some groceries, you can drive out there
" instead of walking back with 4 grocery bags (or hauling it into a bus),
When I chose to live where I live, I based it on several factors: (1)
proximity to public transit (easy in SF), (2) proximity to at least a
couple all-night restaurants, and (3) nearby shopping. Luckily, there are
many neighborhoods in SF where this is possible. Thus, the need for a car
diminishes even more.
" muni and bart routes), and quite frankly...there are a lot of places that
" are a pain in the ass to get to if you don't have a car (try going to a
" giants game).
Oh? The Muni runs direct express service to Candlestick from several
locations. Sure, it's a little more than regular fare, but you don't have
to pay that horrendous parking charge at Candlestick, either.
" it depends a bit on your personality as well. i like LA. i like being
" able to drive over to the local mall, find parking, shop, and drive home.
May SF be blessed with no more malls. So far we have only really 2
(Stonestown and downtown Galleria), and 1 strip mall (Potrero Center). I
hope this will be enough. But then, of course, Willie Brown keeps going
on about building a shopping mall in Hunter's Point. (Gosh, I wish
someone would indict him for something so we can be done with that
bastard.)
" i also like the fact that i bought a house here and pay mortgage instead
" of rent. i don't want to be stuck paying rent for the rest of my life.
I figured out what I'd pay in rent and what I'd pay in mortgages and
discovered it works out better for me to be a renter. Plus, nobody ever
*really* owns a home -- there's still the property taxes, etc.
" sure, there's more crime in LA. but i don't walk the streets of east
" LA....just like i rarely walk the streets in the tenderloin.
This is unfortunate. Some of the most enjoyable times I've had in SF have
been in the Tenderloin. Between the great Vietnamese food, the live
theatre, the nightclubs, the bookstores, the city-on-the-edge, the
Tenderloin is a real living, breathing city.
David Hatunen
>" muni and bart routes), and quite frankly...there are a lot of places that
>" are a pain in the ass to get to if you don't have a car (try going to a
>" giants game).
>
>Oh? The Muni runs direct express service to Candlestick from several
>locations. Sure, it's a little more than regular fare, but you don't have
>to pay that horrendous parking charge at Candlestick, either.
And, of course, next season it will be even easier to get to
Giants' games.
[..]
>" i also like the fact that i bought a house here and pay mortgage instead
>" of rent. i don't want to be stuck paying rent for the rest of my life.
>
>I figured out what I'd pay in rent and what I'd pay in mortgages and
>discovered it works out better for me to be a renter. Plus, nobody ever
>*really* owns a home -- there's still the property taxes, etc.
A good accountant can show you that home ownership is not cheaper
than renting. The only time you make out owning is in a rising
market so that you get your money when you sell.
[...]
--
********** DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@sonic.net) ***********
* Daly City California: *
* where San Francisco meets The Peninsula *
******* and the San Andreas Fault meets the Sea *******
David Hatunen
John Higdon <ab...@bovine.announcetech.com> wrote:
>In article <7g68qa$pha$1...@ultra.sonic.net>, hat...@bolt.sonic.net (David
>Hatunen) wrote:
>
>> cheaper than renting. The only time you make out owning is in a
>> rising market so that you get your money when you sell.
>
>can be unnecessarily restrictive or unresponsive, as well as have
>the power to toss you out for a variety of reasons. I kind of
>enjoy not paying rent, and the money I spend for upkeep and
>maintenance is something from which I directly benefit.
Sure. Emotional reasons for home ownership are valid. But they
shouldn't be recognized for what they are and not confused with
economic reasons.
Note, too, that in a falling market you canlose your shirt. And
falling markets do come around from time to time.
I'm not the owner type, myself. Still, it would have been nice if I
had moved to California thirty years ago and bought a house in Palo
Alto.
GeneK
condo to renting a 2 Br apartment, not buying a single family house.
Most renters don't rent as much home as they would choose if they
bought; none of the 2 dozen or so people I know who went from being
renters to buyers bought homes that were equivalent to what they had
been previously renting, they all "moved up" in size or location.
I'm on my 3rd home now, and in each case, within 2 or 3 years of
making the initial purchase, the annual expense after tax deduction
was slightly less than it would have cost to rent the same living
quarters (though in the case of my present house, I think it'll take
longer because it's more of a "fixer-upper" than the previous ones.)
David Hatunen
GeneK <gene@genek_hates_spammers.com> wrote:
>But remember to ask that good accountant to compare buying a 2 Br
>condo to renting a 2 Br apartment, not buying a single family
>house. Most renters don't rent as much home as they would choose
>if they bought; none of the 2 dozen or so people I know who went
>from being renters to buyers bought homes that were equivalent to
>what they had been previously renting, they all "moved up" in size
>or location. I'm on my 3rd home now, and in each case, within 2 or
>3 years of making the initial purchase, the annual expense after
>tax deduction was slightly less than it would have cost to rent
>the same living quarters (though in the case of my present house,
>I think it'll take longer because it's more of a "fixer-upper"
>than the previous ones.)
That can be deceptive, since the true economic gain or loss has to
consider the interest that could be earned on any monies expended
on the ownership; looking at current cash flow isn't the entire
answer. It's really a very complex situation, and the situation can
also vary by the nature of the local housing market. There are
market conditions which tend to favor the renter, or which may
favor the buyer somewhat.
David Kaye
" The reaction of people to you as described seems unusual. Do you have
" any insights about why?
It may be because I try to be outgoing and friendly. Not only is this is
the only way to make friends, but it's my regular demeanor. Latinos
relate to it, blacks do, too. Asians, though a bit more reserved, also
relate. It may be due to their cultural upbringings.
It's funny. I ride the bus all the time and regularly talk to the
drivers, nearly all of whom are black. I notice on the bus that when
there are conversations going on it's usually the Latinos and the blacks
who are talking. White people just generally do not talk to strangers.
" However, the soon-to-be-not-the-majority
" population does seem to be working itself into some kind of terminal
" paranoia. From TV? ? ? As a practical matter, the crime rate has gone
" down quite a bit.
Apparently, the crime rate is now the lowest it has been since 1967.
" kids playing in the street or running around generally spoke Spanish.
" So I thought I lived in a mostly Spanish-speaking neighborhood for a
" while. But - not so.. It turned out over time that there were just as
" many "anglo" kids around, but they were confined to apartments and
" never came out.
This is my experience as well. When I was little I used to play with
"Stevie next door". We'd play in the vacant lot next door to his house,
building forts or playing soldier or whatever. White kids just don't seem
to do that anymore.
I think it's NO accident that in all 7 school shootings over these past 18
months, the shooters have *always* been white kids. White America is
screwed up!
John Higdon
Hatunen) wrote:
> Sure. Emotional reasons for home ownership are valid. But they
> shouldn't be recognized for what they are and not confused with
> economic reasons.
Emotional reasons, as you call them, are just as valid as economic ones.
Quality of life is important to some people.
> Note, too, that in a falling market you canlose your shirt. And
> falling markets do come around from time to time.
The ONLY people I have ever known to have lost money in any real estate
situations were those who insisted upon selling right after the market
dropped. Some people are intrinsically silly, I suppose.
> I'm not the owner type, myself. Still, it would have been nice if I
> had moved to California thirty years ago and bought a house in Palo
> Alto.
Some of us did buy homes thirty years ago. But you will never be in that
position if you never buy. Sounds like what you would really prefer is to
be able to buy now and then be whisked by a time machine to thirty years
in the future where your home would then be worth more than ten times what
you paid for it. Future rewards take present-day sacrifices.
John Higdon
<d...@removethis.wco.com> wrote:
> It's funny. I ride the bus all the time and regularly talk to the
> drivers, nearly all of whom are black. I notice on the bus that when
> there are conversations going on it's usually the Latinos and the blacks
> who are talking. White people just generally do not talk to strangers.
When in SF (at least weekly), my primary mode of transport is the bus. I
don't think there has been a single bus ride that did not include striking
up a conversation with another rider on such topics as local eateries,
theater events, and even that old standby: the weather.
Some of my finest eating experiences in San Francisco were the result of
recommendations of strangers on a bus.
d...@cheetah.net
Higdon) wrote:
>In article <7g767l$s10$1...@ultra.sonic.net>, hat...@bolt.sonic.net (David
>Hatunen) wrote:
>
>> Sure. Emotional reasons for home ownership are valid. But they
>> shouldn't be recognized for what they are and not confused with
>> economic reasons.
>
>Emotional reasons, as you call them, are just as valid as economic ones.
>Quality of life is important to some people.
>
>> Note, too, that in a falling market you canlose your shirt. And
>> falling markets do come around from time to time.
>
>The ONLY people I have ever known to have lost money in any real estate
>situations were those who insisted upon selling right after the market
>dropped. Some people are intrinsically silly, I suppose.
>
>> I'm not the owner type, myself. Still, it would have been nice if I
>> had moved to California thirty years ago and bought a house in Palo
>> Alto.
>
>Some of us did buy homes thirty years ago. But you will never be in that
>position if you never buy. Sounds like what you would really prefer is to
>be able to buy now and then be whisked by a time machine to thirty years
>in the future where your home would then be worth more than ten times what
>you paid for it. Future rewards take present-day sacrifices.
So far the exchange between you two
is getting right to the heart of
issues. One presents a bottom line,
bean counter's philosophy, the gives
"a quality of life" reasons.
People who work for local government
often look at the one single item that
provides them with a job which in turn
provides the salary to live in a
like environment as others. That single
item: property values. It equals an
expanding revenue income from taxes.
People who buy a "home" to pursue the
"life, liberty and happiness" may not
be tuned in solely on property values
as much as they are wanting community
health, safety, growth, etc.
Somewhere the answer may be there in
your discussion.
One of the issues arising out of the
Littleton, Colorado, tragedy is the
fact that the "community" is actually
very new. People arrived looking for
one thing and found another. New homes
that were created on the "cookie cutter"
idea that a community can be build by
building houses. That may have been
possible after World War II when people
wanted "get on with life." While it is
far too early, Littleton will be a
lasting study of the two issues brought
up in your comments above.
Keep up the discussion.
DCI
d...@cheetah.net
bean counter's philosophy, the other
GeneK
of investment capability. for me, it has always been *way*
more likely that I'd lose money in investments than in a home
purchase, and here in the Bay Area, a longtime investment in
a single family residence has been pretty reliable :)
Fantomas
>
> In article <7g767l$s10$1...@ultra.sonic.net>, hat...@bolt.sonic.net (David
> Hatunen) wrote:
>
> > Sure. Emotional reasons for home ownership are valid. But they
> > shouldn't be recognized for what they are and not confused with
> > economic reasons.
>
> Emotional reasons, as you call them, are just as valid as economic ones.
> Quality of life is important to some people.
But quality of life is different for different people. I personally
consider being close to public transportation, restaurants,
nightlife, and work to be high quality of life. Other people may
not agree. The best time of my life was when I lived in Madrid, a
city with an excellent public transport system and very high density.
I would consider SF to have a very high quality of life and LA outside
of a few neighbourhoods to have a very low quality of life.
David Hatunen
John Higdon <ab...@bovine.announcetech.com> wrote:
>In article <7g767l$s10$1...@ultra.sonic.net>, hat...@bolt.sonic.net (David
>Hatunen) wrote:
>
>> Sure. Emotional reasons for home ownership are valid. But they
>> shouldn't be recognized for what they are and not confused with
>> economic reasons.
>
>Emotional reasons, as you call them, are just as valid as economic ones.
>Quality of life is important to some people.
I certainly didn't say they weren't. In fact, I said (see above)
that they are valid. However, quality of life is different things
to different people.
>> Note, too, that in a falling market you canlose your shirt. And
>> falling markets do come around from time to time.
>
>The ONLY people I have ever known to have lost money in any real
>estate situations were those who insisted upon selling right after
>the market dropped. Some people are intrinsically silly, I
>suppose.
You obvously haven't known anyone who owned property in, say,
Rifle, Colorado. There are places where the prices *stay* dropped.
And the wisdom of hangng on can depend. If ten years later your
property has only reached 80% of the value when you bought it?
>> I'm not the owner type, myself. Still, it would have been nice
>> if I had moved to California thirty years ago and bought a house
>> in Palo Alto.
>
>Some of us did buy homes thirty years ago. But you will never be
>in that position if you never buy. Sounds like what you would
>really prefer is to be able to buy now and then be whisked by a
>time machine to thirty years in the future where your home would
>then be worth more than ten times what you paid for it. Future
>rewards take present-day sacrifices.
The fact is that you were lucky to buy in the Bay Area thirty years
ago. There are places in this country where that simply wouldn't
matter. My wife and I recently sold a four bedroom house in Apache
Oklahoma for $28,000 and felt lucky to get it (we inherited the
house). And don't think the bottom can't fall out of the market
here; it can. And one can be deceived about true gain: a mere 5%
rate of inflation over thirty years can mean a 432% increase in the
price.
David Hatunen
>It's funny. I ride the bus all the time and regularly talk to the
>drivers, nearly all of whom are black. I notice on the bus that
>when there are conversations going on it's usually the Latinos and
>the blacks who are talking. White people just generally do not
>talk to strangers.
Are the conversing Latinos and Blacks traveling together? Could it
just be that the whites are more likely to be traveling solo?
David Kaye
" Sure. Emotional reasons for home ownership are valid. But they
" shouldn't be recognized for what they are and not confused with
" economic reasons.
You're absolutely right. So many times people remodel their homes, under
the fantasy that they're somehow adding to its value. Usually, unless
it's a coat of paint, few remodel jobs are going to bring back the money
spent. People get so emotionally into the idea of home ownership that
they make some very dumb decisions.
" Note, too, that in a falling market you canlose your shirt. And
" falling markets do come around from time to time.
Many people are foolishly mortgaged. Once in awhile I visit a some of the
open homes. I overhear people taken by emotion talking optimistically
about how they're going to finance. One couple talked about how they were
going to do a balloon mortgage (do they still offer these?) and then
borrow the balloon payment several years down the road!
" I'm not the owner type, myself. Still, it would have been nice if I
" had moved to California thirty years ago and bought a house in Palo
" Alto.
Home ownership in the old days meant buying a home to live in. Today it
means making a bundle of money. However, home ownership involves the
"bigger sucker theory", that is that eventually a bigger sucker will some
along and pay more for the home than you did. The most a person can
assume will happen with a home price is that it will keep up with
inflation. But then, so do stocks; and with stocks, you don't have to
worry about fixing leaking roofs and digging up sewer line because they
were clogged by willow tree roots.
etaoin shrdlu
>
> i_have_...@concentric.net wrote the quoted material below:
>
> " Perhaps a bit of the
> " the problem is that people don't get out and walk around their
> " neighborhoods?
>
> I think this is exactly the case. The news media bombardment that "you
> can't trust your neighbors" and "everyone is out to get you" creates
> totally unreasonable fear of interacting with others.
>
seen many headlines screaming "you can't trust your neighbors" or
"everyone is out to get you" lately. I always thought that street
crime was the reason people don't walk much anymore.
When we moved up here in Sylmar 20 yrs ago, my wife and I would
stroll outdoors every evening until after dark and we never locked
our house when we left. A lot of our neighbors did the same.
Today, no one walks at night the way we used to.
Reason: bunch of wannabe gangstas in the neighborhood now and
the neighbors just stick their heads in the sand and put up with it.
If there was a law against looking like a gangster, that would take
care of that problem.
es
GeneK
unless you sell and move somewhere a lot cheaper, you still need a
place to live. The big advantage to home ownership is leveraging,
try buying 400K worth of stocks with 20% down and ask for 30yrs to
pay off the buy using the stocks themselves as security. Also,
the certificates don't make very good park bench blankets...
Haven't we had this conversation before? I have this incredible
feeling of deja vu...
John Higdon
Hatunen) wrote:
> And don't think the bottom can't fall out of the market
> here; it can. And one can be deceived about true gain: a mere 5%
> rate of inflation over thirty years can mean a 432% increase in the
> price.
OK. But I don't care. This is my home. I have lived my entire adult life
in San Jose, the overwhelming majority of it in this very house. I have
passing interest in the sale prices of houses in the neighborhood, but
that is for entertainment purposes only. Since I'm not selling the house,
why should I care if the bottom falls out of the market?
My home is not an investment; my home is a place to live. I am involved in
the community and have established firm personal and professional roots.
Sure, if one feels compelled to move on an annual basis, buying and
selling property on a regular basis, he will get creamed.
John Higdon
<d...@removethis.wco.com> wrote:
> You're absolutely right. So many times people remodel their homes, under
> the fantasy that they're somehow adding to its value. Usually, unless
> it's a coat of paint, few remodel jobs are going to bring back the money
> spent. People get so emotionally into the idea of home ownership that
> they make some very dumb decisions.
I've remodeled my home several times in the past several decades. That, in
addition to replacing water heaters, A/C systems, built-in kitchen
appliances, in addition to doing roof work, landscaping and sprinkler
systems, and on and on. Not once did I ever do any of those things with
the slightest consideration that it would somehow be recovered down the
road. I did those things because I wanted to enjoy them, or be more
comfortable, or just for fun. Yes, working on my home can be
fun--something that renters have difficulty understanding.
> Home ownership in the old days meant buying a home to live in.
I plead guilty. That's what my home is for. When I was a kid, my family
moved fifteen times (yes, that is an average of once a year). I made
friends only to lose them. I attended a dozen public schools in the Bay
Area. I swore that I was never going to do that again. After assessing the
rental world and talking to friends who had much rental experience, I
realized that rental was not going to be my tactic. I enjoy pets. I like
to customize my space. If my back fence needs repair, I am not going to
fight with a disinterested landlord trying to get it fixed.
> But then, so do stocks; and with stocks, you don't have to
> worry about fixing leaking roofs and digging up sewer line because they
> were clogged by willow tree roots.
You also cannot pull into the driveway of your stock, and walk inside
enjoying the confort and security of your very own space. Trust me on
this: I own both a portfolio and a home.
d...@cheetah.net
wrote:
>
>But quality of life is different for different people. I personally
>consider being close to public transportation, restaurants,
>nightlife, and work to be high quality of life. Other people may
>not agree. The best time of my life was when I lived in Madrid, a
>city with an excellent public transport system and very high density.
>I would consider SF to have a very high quality of life and LA outside
>of a few neighbourhoods to have a very low quality of life.
>
I'm not sure you're really
describing a quality of life
when all you can point to is
transportation, restaurants
and "nightlife."
DCI
David Hatunen
GeneK <gene@genek_hates_spammers.com> wrote:
>True, but then you have to factor in the additional variables
>of investment capability. for me, it has always been *way*
>more likely that I'd lose money in investments than in a home
>purchase, and here in the Bay Area, a longtime investment in
>a single family residence has been pretty reliable :)
So far. But buying at the peak of a market carries a certain risk.
Of course, you have to know you're at the peak of the market.
GeneK
killing, that's usually not a big problem, because the upturns
have historically gained more than the downturns have lost,
hence the far higher prices today than decades ago even
though there have been a number of downturns over the years.
If you've already bought and are moving up, peaks and valleys
become somewhat irrelevant, as what you sell and what you buy
tend to rise and fall together. Sure, there's an element of
risk involved, Silicon Valley could someday become the next
Allentown, but nothing's risk-free. I could've invested my
savings in any number of other places and made more than my
house is appreciating - or I could have lost it all.
John Higdon
<d...@removethis.wco.com> wrote:
> So, your investment in a home should be growing by 12% per year just to
> stay even. Well, sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn't.
It is a little more complex than that. The entire value of your home does
NOT have to appreciate at the rate you could have received on the cash
equivalent of your down payment. If your home appreciates 12% in the first
year, that would be a market price increase of $36,000. That right there
would be a 60% return on your $60,000 down payment, no? Of course, you
were paying on the mortgage that year, but the total payments are
typically less (PITI) than rent for equivalent living quarters. You have
to live SOMEWHERE.
So, in essence, to equalize the investment on your $60,000, you really
only need an annual market price increase on your home of around 2.5% to
match what you could have earned on the cash you put down. That's a
snooze.
This is simplistic all around since there are costs and benefits on both
sides of the ledger, but in no way does one's property have to appreciate
at a double digit rate to remain a solid investment. The fact that some
properties actually have appreciated at that rate means that some folks
have become much better off in their financial position!
Dave Schreiber
>" But remember to ask that good accountant to compare buying a 2 Br
>" condo to renting a 2 Br apartment, not buying a single family house.
>
>capital expenditures would earn had they been placed in a bank account or
>in a high-performance instrument such as a mutual fund?
>
>Let's say that the $300,000 home requires a down of 20% or $60,000. That
>$60,000 can earn an extra $600 a month (at 12% not even taking compounding
>into account -- and yes, you can get 12% interest out there).
Where, exactly, can one go and get 12% a year interest?
>
>So, your investment in a home should be growing by 12% per year just to
>stay even. Well, sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn't.
Not quite. Because someone who buys a home is highly leveraged, the home
does not need to increase in value greatly in order to give a high return.
Let's take your example. If I put $60K in a taxable account earning 1%,
compounded, per month (12% a year, more or less), at the end of 5 years I'll
have about $88,000, assuming I pay 28% (federal) + 9% (state) income tax on
the interest (and you did say interest), yearly.
If I put $60K down on a $300K house and it goes up 8% a year, at the end of
5 years it'll be worth about $440,000. If I sell it, I get $200,000:
$60,000 of the original amount plus $140,000 of appreciation (just to
simply things, I'm not including the $5K-$10K of principal I've paid as part
of my 60 mortgage payments). Take out $30,000 or so in sale expenses
(mostly realtor fees), and I'm left with $170,000, or almost twice as much
as if I left it in the 12% interest-bearing account. That's $110K of
tax-free gains (thank you, Newt and Bill).
This is why many people regard their homes as an "investment", though I
believe that one must always regard a home as a place to live first and an
investment second.
This is, of course, a highly simplified scenario. I left both out the cost
of maintaining a house, and the tax savings from owning one, for example.
No investment (real estate or 12% interest bearing account) is guaranteed.
Your mileage may vary.
--
Dave Schreiber "Can money pay for all the days
so...@dks2.net I lived awake but half asleep?"
^^^^^ ^^^^ -Primitive Radio Gods (SOaBPBwMiMH)
(For my e-mail address, swap the ^^^'d parts and remove the "2")
GeneK
ability to invest intersects with appreciation rates. In my case, the
initial investment was 20% of a 120k house back in 83, which has since
been traded up a few times and has become a 450k house. There are
certainly other investments that a savvy person could have made over
the past 16 yrs that might have grown 25k as much, but most of them
were/are riskier than a single family house in the Bay Area - and I
still would have needed a place to live. It's all a balancing act.
David Kaye wrote:
>
> Are you considering the amount of interest the downpayment and all the
> capital expenditures would earn had they been placed in a bank account or
> in a high-performance instrument such as a mutual fund?
>
> Let's say that the $300,000 home requires a down of 20% or $60,000. That
> $60,000 can earn an extra $600 a month (at 12% not even taking compounding
> into account -- and yes, you can get 12% interest out there).
>
keeth...@keethie.net
Hatunen) wrote:
>Note, too, that in a falling market you canlose your shirt. And
>falling markets do come around from time to time.
An acquaintance once told me about something that had happened to him
called "negative amortization". It sounded like a nightmare, no kidding.
It still gives me the willies when I think about it. And it happened with
a relatively small mortgage on a condo in North Carolina. The idea of
something similar happening to homes as pricey as the SF bay area is truly
scary.
--
Remove DRAT in reply to that
keeth...@keethie.net
ab...@bovine.announcetech.com (John Higdon) wrote:
>Yes, working on my home can be
>fun--something that renters have difficulty understanding.
Less so than you might think. The rental market is so rough in the bay
area that many renters are spending their own money to keep up the
landlord's place. My wife and I have regrouted the tile in both the
kitchen and the bathroom in our rental. Even so, we're still being hit
with a $100/month increase starting in May (and we're still slightly under
market rates for our neighborhood, I know someone who owns a similar place
up the street). Plus, we've turned the yard into such a garden that the
neighbors have complimented us (the neighborhood has actually improved
since we moved in). The rental agreement actually calls for us to keep up
the yard or they will hire a gardener and add the cost to our rent.
So some renters might know quite a lot about keeping up a house.
But it's better than having them sell the place out from under us--which
would be just as profitable for them as disastrous for us. It's so
ridiculous that I have a request in at work for a transfer to more
affordable area. Unfortunately, so do many others ahead of me.
David Kaye
" But remember to ask that good accountant to compare buying a 2 Br
" condo to renting a 2 Br apartment, not buying a single family house.
Are you considering the amount of interest the downpayment and all the
capital expenditures would earn had they been placed in a bank account or
in a high-performance instrument such as a mutual fund?
Let's say that the $300,000 home requires a down of 20% or $60,000. That
$60,000 can earn an extra $600 a month (at 12% not even taking compounding
into account -- and yes, you can get 12% interest out there).
So, your investment in a home should be growing by 12% per year just to
stay even. Well, sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn't.
David Hatunen
Dave Schreiber <no...@nowhere.gov> wrote:
>In article <7g87kb$ao$1...@news.ncal.verio.com>,
>David Kaye <d...@removethis.wco.com> wrote:
>>" But remember to ask that good accountant to compare buying a 2 Br
>>" condo to renting a 2 Br apartment, not buying a single family house.
>>
>>Are you considering the amount of interest the downpayment and all the
>>capital expenditures would earn had they been placed in a bank account or
>>in a high-performance instrument such as a mutual fund?
>>
>>Let's say that the $300,000 home requires a down of 20% or $60,000. That
>>$60,000 can earn an extra $600 a month (at 12% not even taking compounding
>>into account -- and yes, you can get 12% interest out there).
>
I'm getting it on some stocks I own.
The Devil's Advocate©
(John Higdon) wrote:
>OK. But I don't care. This is my home. I have lived my entire adult life
>in San Jose, the overwhelming majority of it in this very house. I have
>passing interest in the sale prices of houses in the neighborhood, but
>that is for entertainment purposes only. Since I'm not selling the house,
>why should I care if the bottom falls out of the market?
>
>My home is not an investment; my home is a place to live. I am involved in
>the community and have established firm personal and professional roots.
>Sure, if one feels compelled to move on an annual basis, buying and
>selling property on a regular basis, he will get creamed.
I like your attitude! I think too many people worry about too much
about property values/taxes, etc when they should look into living
somewhere that they actually enjoy living in.
--
L'un, le seul...
The Devil's Advocate
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"Your Warrant Is In Question"
The Devil's Advocate...Online
http://surf.to/advocate
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
remove "nojunk" to email
The Devil's Advocate©
As bad as it sounds, perhaps the only that that will get property
values down to an affordable level in SF is a quake of massive
proportion, like the one in 1906(?). That would get enough people to
flee and discourage more people from coming. Of course that is a scary
thought. The apartment I'm living in here in Northridge actually is
being rented under market value because many renters fled and were
discouraged from moving to Northridge after the '94 Northridge quake,
despite the fact that this complex took little damage.
David Kaye
" ability to invest intersects with appreciation rates. In my case, the
" initial investment was 20% of a 120k house back in 83, which has since
" been traded up a few times and has become a 450k house.
Had you put that money into Microsoft stock, it'd be worth about $4.5
million today versus 1983. Had you put that $24,000 in a conservative
blue chip stock (often called a "widows and orphans" stock) such as
General Electric, it'd be worth about $900,000 today (compared to GE in
1983).
But, peace of mind is often worth much more than money. All I'm saying is
that looking at a home solely as an investment, it's usually only about as
good as a hedge against inflation. Luckily, California real estate did
better than most.
--
(C) 1999 Play some games and make new friends. Really!
David Kaye http://www.wco.com/~dk/games.html
dk at wco.com SF Games, the friendly weekly game group
David Hatunen
David Kaye <d...@removethis.wco.com> wrote:
>Had you put that money into Microsoft stock, it'd be worth about $4.5
>million today versus 1983. Had you put that $24,000 in a conservative
>blue chip stock (often called a "widows and orphans" stock) such as
>General Electric, it'd be worth about $900,000 today (compared to GE in
>1983).
>
>But, peace of mind is often worth much more than money. All I'm saying is
>that looking at a home solely as an investment, it's usually only about as
>good as a hedge against inflation. Luckily, California real estate did
>better than most.
Precisely. And it's up to the individual. I find little comfort in
the idea of home ownership, others do. As to California real estate
(or, more precisely, SFBAy and LA region real estate) it has, so
far, done better than most, but that only counts when it's time to
sell.
i_have_...@concentric.net
> An acquaintance once told me about something that had happened to him
> called "negative amortization". It sounded like a nightmare, no kidding.
AFAIK, "negative amortization" is a term that applies to a situation
that may occur in a variable rate mortgage where your monthly payment
does not cover the interest due, so the balance on your mortgage goes
up. This usually occurs when there is a cap in the amount the monthly
payment can rise and the interest rate on the variable rate mortgage
goes up. It is not related to property value; however, with this
situation you could find that you owe more than the house is worth,
and depending on the terms of the mortgage you could be in defualt.
GeneK
with the *down payment,* not with the monthly mortgage and expenses.
Had i invested my original down, regardless of whether it made or lost
money over the years, I would still have been able to afford a place
to live. It would likely have been a small 1 br apartment, like the
one I was in before I bought my first house, and by now I'd be paying
as much in rent for it as I was paying for the PITI on my last 3 br
house, but I wouldn't have been bunking out under any freeway overpasses.
Also, there's nothing that says one couldn't pull some profit from the
alternate investments to make a down on a house later - assuming one
made all the right investment choices and *had* a profit at all...
"Q€0" wrote:
>
> But you'd be living in a cardboard box for the last 16 years.
>
> It's only purely an investment if you *also* have a place to live. Many
> people can't afford both.
>
> -Q€0
John Higdon
Q€0) wrote:
> It's only purely an investment if you *also* have a place to live. Many
> people can't afford both.
But if you are not living in it, then you are getting rent for it. Rent is
much more than you would have received in dividends over the holding
period of the stock.
David Kaye
" But you'd be living in a cardboard box for the last 16 years.
Why do you say that? Buying a home requires a substantial downpayment.
Renting an apartment requires first and last month's rent.
With the money I managed to save I bought Microsoft stock and with the
proceeds from that I opened a restaurant. (Rule #1: Never make an
emotional investment. Nearly everyone who opens a restaurant has mashed
potatoes for brains.)
Even today as a renter, even in today's high rent climate I'm still able
to save and invest. It depends on where a person puts their priorities.
I shopped around for my apartment, so I got a good deal. I pay cash for
everything; I do not have credit cards. What I can't afford I don't buy.
I shop the bargains, buy house brands, don't do drugs or recreational
drinking. Not only am I able to save money, I can also eat out every
night of the week.
" It's only purely an investment if you *also* have a place to live. Many
" people can't afford both.
I'm not so sure about that. Even immigrant families working low-pay jobs
are able to pay rent and make investments.
David Hatunen
John Higdon <ab...@bovine.announcetech.com> wrote:
>In article <qqqooo-2904...@p34.hwts21.loop.net>, qqq...@qqq.ooo (
>Q€0) wrote:
>
>> live. Many people can't afford both.
>
>Rent is much more than you would have received in dividends over
>the holding period of the stock.
While a rental can be a good investment, at least one doesn't have
to pay property taxes and such on the dividends of a stock. And
once the property has been fully depreciated you lose one of the
tax advantages of investment real estate.
And the company you own stock in won't call you at midnight on
Christmas Eve and tell you the water heater has burst (this
actually happened to me as a renter).
Bob R. Kenyon
This sounds like the kind of mortgage I got (with a friend) for our
first house in 1981. The going rate back then was around 15 or 16
percent, and a nice 3 bedroom house in West San Jose was going for
about $105,000. We sold it for $135,000 in 1985, and barely broke
even. Ah, those were the days.
--
Bob R. Kenyon
Beautiful Downtown San Jose
<http://www.bobrk.com/>
Joseph Canale
> Yeah, it's not that San Francisco is so amazing as a city, it's that the
> rest of America is so BAD. And as the chain stores and homogenization
> continues across America, SF will be in even *more* demand, since it still
> dares to be different (somewhat different, at least).
What? The home of The Gap is chain proof? Say what? Thriftys, Macys,
Banana Republic, Starbucks, Safeway, and just about all of the fast food
chains. You name 'em, SF's got 'em. True, SF is till nicer than most
places--if you don't mind cold summers--but what makes it attractive isn't
the absence of chains. I'd say that SF is more chained out than Chicago or
Boston or DC. There used to be fewer chains in NY than current SF but
that was before the 90s invasion of west coast chains. Still, that's only
Manhattan.
Joe
mulders_notpairnoid_nuff
>
<snip>
>
> May SF be blessed with no more malls. So far we have only really 2
> (Stonestown and downtown Galleria), and 1 strip mall (Potrero Center). I
> hope this will be enough. But then, of course, Willie Brown keeps going
> on about building a shopping mall in Hunter's Point. (Gosh, I wish
> someone would indict him for something so we can be done with that
> bastard.)
>
uuuhhh, actually SF has quite a number of ticky-tacky ugly strip malls:
the hideous Safeway anchored strip mall at Market & Church (sheesh, how
could've you forgotten that one??); the Walgreens achored strip mall at
Third St. near Evans; the Lucky's anchored Lakeshore strip mall on Sloat
near Sunset Blvd; the Safeway anchored strip mall in Diamond Heights;
the Safeway anchored DEFACTO strip mall at Northpoint Blvd &
Powell/Mason; the Safeway anchored strip mall at Geary tween Fillmore
and Webster; 7-11 anchored strip mall on Ocean Ave. at Manor
(Lakewood?); the small strip mall at Pacific & VanNess (has Gap,
Sterling bank, etc); in Laurel Hts., the stores on California St. tween
Laurel & Spruce can easily be called a strip mall if one looks at the
HUGE parking lot BEHIND the storefronts; in 1999, the Plaza Supermarket
at Fulton & Masonic is gonna get re-modeled - better believe it WILL be
a strip mall when all is done; the empty ex-Safeway at 32nd & Clement
that WILL be a strip mall someday; others? - I'm sure I missed some so
if anyone wants to add to the list.....
This is not meant to be a flame, but it seems that there are persons
that seem to forget that places like the
Crocker-Amazon/Excelsior/Portola/DiamondHts/Ingleside/GlenPark/BayView-HuntersPt./etc.
ARE parts of the CITY of San Francisco....
Matt Ackeret
David Kaye <d...@removethis.wco.com> wrote:
>With the money I managed to save I bought Microsoft stock and with the
>proceeds from that I opened a restaurant. (Rule #1: Never make an
What restaurant? Would we have heard of it?
>Even today as a renter, even in today's high rent climate I'm still able
>to save and invest. It depends on where a person puts their priorities.
>I shopped around for my apartment, so I got a good deal. I pay cash for
>everything; I do not have credit cards. What I can't afford I don't buy.
Now this is completely illogical.
Credit cards, when used properly, are an absolute "free lunch" (as in,
a counter example to the "there's no such thing as a free lunch" cliche).
Heck, I now use my credit card to pay for my groceries at Safeway (along
with the Safeway cards there was such an argument about here a while back)
because I now get "Sony Points" for every dollar I spend. Some people get
frequent flier miles.. Whatever.. In my case, it's effectively over 1%
back, just by using the card. It's over 1%, because Sony products get 2%, and
at some retailers get 3%. I already buy Sony consumer electronics, so I'm
not actually altering my buying habits at all, except for using the credit card.
I pay no yearly fee, and never pay interest because I pay it off every month.
Sorry for the big ad, but I am paying less for stuff than someone who
pays cash, and it's more convenient than checks.
--
mat...@area.com
David Kaye
" What? The home of The Gap is chain proof? Say what? Thriftys, Macys,
" Banana Republic, Starbucks, Safeway, and just about all of the fast food
" chains. You name 'em, SF's got 'em.
Until it was declared unconstitutional about 28 years ago, SF had a law
which required certain kinds of businesses such as restaurants to be
locally-owned. This spurred such local restaurants as Zim's, Manning's,
Foster's, Doggie Diner, Miz Brown's, etc. Then, in the late 1960s or
early 1970s, McDonald's challenged the law -- and won. They then built
the first 3 McDonald's in SF. I believe the first McDonald's in SF opened
about 1971 or so. And chains had been slow to come to SF until about the
last 5 years. Now, they're everywhere.
" True, SF is till nicer than most
" places--if you don't mind cold summers--
SF normally has two summers: late april to the end of May, and
mid-September through October.
A
>
> Joseph Canale wrote the quoted material below:
>
> " What? The home of The Gap is chain proof? Say what? Thriftys, Macys,
> " Banana Republic, Starbucks, Safeway, and just about all of the fast food
> " chains. You name 'em, SF's got 'em.
>
> Until it was declared unconstitutional about 28 years ago, SF had a law
> which required certain kinds of businesses such as restaurants to be
> locally-owned. This spurred such local restaurants as Zim's, Manning's,
> Foster's, Doggie Diner, Miz Brown's, etc. Then, in the late 1960s or
> early 1970s, McDonald's challenged the law -- and won. They then built
> the first 3 McDonald's in SF. I believe the first McDonald's in SF opened
> about 1971 or so. And chains had been slow to come to SF until about the
> last 5 years. Now, they're everywhere.
>
> " True, SF is till nicer than most
> " places--if you don't mind cold summers--
>
> SF normally has two summers: late april to the end of May, and
> mid-September through October.
>
--
Wayne AKA Blackie!
http://blackies-place.webjump.com
John Higdon
--nojunk--...@earthlink.net wrote:
> Don't know why it's like that up there.
Cuz the fog bank sneaks in through the Golden Gate. In the summer, drive
thirty miles south and the temperature can go up thirty degrees or more.
One of the reasons I enjoy San Jose (it certainly wouldn't be the politics
or the culture!) is the access to San Francisco, but with the climatical
influence and protection of the Santa Cruz mountains. Rather than having
an identical high and low temperature in a given day (as SF can often
have), just down the peninsula one enjoys a Mediterranean climate that can
be 80 during the day, dropping to the fifties at night.
A
>
> On 29 Apr 1999 22:53:28 GMT, David Kaye <d...@removethis.wco.com> wrote:
>
> >SF normally has two summers: late april to the end of May, and
> >mid-September through October.
>
> Other than the fresh air, the weather really does suck there. Well,
> not so much that it sucks, it's just the same all the time, at least
> we have more seasonal weather here in L.A. I can go to the beach and
> walk around in shorts in the summer, and have a coat and umbrella in
> the winter. In S.F. it never changes, it's coat weather all year.
> Don't know why it's like that up there.
>
>
> L'un, le seul...
> The Devil's Advocate
>
Weather was slightly warmer in Modesto at the time.
Okay to visit, but don't think I'd want to live there.
Always seems to be cooler than it is in the SJ valley...
keeth...@keethie.net
>Even today as a renter, even in today's high rent climate I'm still able
>to save and invest.
One of my customers--an eightyish man who's owned LOTS of different bay
area properties--told me today, "One difference between a stock portfolio
and land is that they aren't making land anymore."
Hard to argue with that.
Miguel O'Pastel
A form of economic imperialism from the east.
M.
keeth...@keethie.net wrote in message ...
:In article <7ga1r3$p41$2...@news.ncal.verio.com>, David Kaye
David Kaye
" uuuhhh, actually SF has quite a number of ticky-tacky ugly strip malls:
" the hideous Safeway anchored strip mall at Market & Church (sheesh, how
" could've you forgotten that one??)
Yipes! To tell you the truth, I haven't set foot on that Safeway's
property since the remodeling. I guess they do have a strip mall around
on one side there.
"; the Walgreens achored strip mall at
" Third St. near Evans;
Didn't know about that one.
" the Lucky's anchored Lakeshore strip mall on Sloat
" near Sunset Blvd;
Ah yes, the old G.E.T store mall. I totally forgot about that one.
That's an oldie, too., going back more than 30 years.
" the Safeway anchored strip mall in Diamond Heights;
Totally forgot about that one. I once hiked up there from Glen Canyon
Park and was surprised to see a Burger King and some other stores.
" the Safeway anchored DEFACTO strip mall at Northpoint Blvd &
" Powell/Mason;
I'll have to take a look at that one.
" the Safeway anchored strip mall at Geary tween Fillmore
" and Webster;
I don't know if I'd call that a strip mall. Maybe it is.
; in Laurel Hts., the stores on California St. tween
" Laurel & Spruce can easily be called a strip mall if one looks at the
" HUGE parking lot BEHIND the storefronts;
Gosh, I totally forgot there's parking behind them! I've never parked in
that lot, so I didn't even consider.
" in 1999, the Plaza Supermarket
" at Fulton & Masonic is gonna get re-modeled - better believe it WILL be
" a strip mall when all is done;
Yes, a friend has been trying to organize opposition, but it appears to be
a futile effort since the Sierra Club came out IN FAVOR of the
Fulton/Masonic strip mall(!)
The Devil's Advocate©
>SF normally has two summers: late april to the end of May, and
>mid-September through October.
Well, it sure didn't feel like summer when I was there last weekend.
Other than the fresh air, the weather really does suck there. Well,
not so much that it sucks, it's just the same all the time, at least
we have more seasonal weather here in L.A. I can go to the beach and
walk around in shorts in the summer, and have a coat and umbrella in
the winter. In S.F. it never changes, it's coat weather all year.
Don't know why it's like that up there.
--
L'un, le seul...
The Devil's Advocate
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
David Hatunen
>David Kaye wrote:
>> SF normally has two summers: late april to the end of May, and
>> mid-September through October.
"Cold"
David Kaye
" Well, it sure didn't feel like summer when I was there last weekend.
I said "normally" -- the past two years (El Niño and La Niña) have been
abnormal. I'm surprised we haven't had any 90 degree days yet.
" In S.F. it never changes, it's coat weather all year.
" Don't know why it's like that up there.
Well, SF is not the Bay Area. The rest of the Bay Area has more seasonal
weather, especialy when you get into Walnut Creek or San José. If you go
as far as Clear Lake (about 60-70 miles) you get actual seasons with fall
colors and everything.
But, SF does have hot spells. Not for very long, though. Generally, a SF
heat wave *never* lasts more than 3 days. By the 3rd day, the Sacramento
Valley has heated up, the air has risen, and the ocean air rushes into the
Golden Gate and cools off SF and the immediate Bay towns.
I look at it this way: SF is a good excuse to wear leather. People look
really silly in LA wearing leather in 80 degree weather. Here, people can
always wear enough clothes to be fashionable.
David Kaye
" And what do you call June through mid Sept.?
We call it "Watch the Tourists Shiver in their Shorts Season".
David Kaye
" What restaurant? Would we have heard of it?
It was a landmark in Portland called Roxy Hearts World Diner. It is
currently known as The Roxy, and is definitely much "closer to the ground"
in cuisine than when I owned it. When I had it it was based on the
Hamburger Mary's model, except with dinners, too.
" Now this is completely illogical.
Not at all. Credit cards encourage people to buy things they can't
afford. So, I don't even mess with the temptation. Thus, I'm totally
debt-free. There's also another reason: No junk mail.
" Heck, I now use my credit card to pay for my groceries at Safeway (along
" with the Safeway cards there was such an argument about here a while back)
" because I now get "Sony Points" for every dollar I spend. Some people get
" frequent flier miles.. Whatever.. In my case, it's effectively over 1%
" back, just by using the card.
Well, except for one thing: you're encouraged by your credit card to shop
at Safeway. Thus, you pay higher hidden charges in inflated prices than
you would have paid at, say, a neighborhood produce stand, a farmer's
market, etc.
" Sorry for the big ad, but I am paying less for stuff than someone who
" pays cash, and it's more convenient than checks.
Everything has a price. Safeway obviously has to turn a profit to keep
their stockholders happy. And, with all the debt they have to pay down
from the time when they were bought by KKR with junk bonds, you just
*know* they're getting that money somewhere. Just because a store is big
does not mean it's cheap. Usually, it's the other way around. But people
have it so ingrained in their minds that big store=cheap prices that they
refuse to see they're being taken to the cleaners.
An example: I bought a package of 3 vacuum cleaner bags the other day.
Safeway had them for $3.99 (okay, $4). The neighborhood catch-all corner
store and flea market had them for $2.49. Saved $1.50 right there.
I needed cleanser last weekend. Typical Safeway price is probably $1.39.
Cole Hardware had some for 79 cents. Light bulbs are 25 cents at Cole,
and I think 79 cents at Safeway.
David Kaye
" One of my customers--an eightyish man who's owned LOTS of different bay
" area properties--told me today, "One difference between a stock portfolio
" and land is that they aren't making land anymore."
" Hard to argue with that.
No, it's not hard to argue with that. The comment presupposes that land
is somehow scarce and that the law of supply and demand will always cause
land to rise in value. One has only to visit the rust belt towns of the
Midwest to see that there is plenty of land people simply do not want,
land which has come down dramatically in price over the years. Some land
simply is not wanted.
On the other hand, stocks are ownership in companies, most of which
provide goods or services that *are* wanted by people.
There. There's an easy argument.
A
>
> In article <3729034E...@netzero.net>, A <wayne...@netzero.net> wrote:
> >David Kaye wrote:
>
> >> SF normally has two summers: late april to the end of May, and
> >> mid-September through October.
>
>
>
ROTFL...
And people still want to move there...
Paul
>David Hatunen wrote:
>>
>> In article <3729034E...@netzero.net>, A <wayne...@netzero.net>
> wrote:
>> >David Kaye wrote:
>>
>> >> SF normally has two summers: late april to the end of May, and
>> >> mid-September through October.
>>
>> > And what do you call June through mid Sept.?
>>
>> "Cold"
>>
> ROTFL...
> And people still want to move there...
>
something??
Paul
"There are two means of refuge from the miseries
of life: music and cats." -- Albert Schweitzer
http://www.gn1.com/home/paulk/
Matt Ackeret
David Kaye <d...@removethis.wco.com> wrote:
>Not at all. Credit cards encourage people to buy things they can't
>afford. So, I don't even mess with the temptation. Thus, I'm totally
But only stupid people buy things they can't afford. You can't use that
argument to say that credit cards are bad by default, because I have
given an example how I save money by using a credit card, and also save time.
>debt-free. There's also another reason: No junk mail.
Well, I'm debt free, and I get junk mail from other credit card companies.
You don't get junk mail from other companies trying to sell you their
credit card? Are you on the DMA's opt-out list? (As in, do you get any
junk mail at all?) BTW, both of the credit cards I have were ones I
got by my own volition, not due to junk mail (someone mentioned the Sony one
I use now on a newsgroup.. You could claim they were a company plant, but I
highly doubt it).
>Well, except for one thing: you're encouraged by your credit card to shop
>at Safeway. Thus, you pay higher hidden charges in inflated prices than
I understand your logic, and I can see that if more and more people use
credit cards, then they are paying a higher percentage of their overall
income to the credit card companies.
A counterargument is that, on each visit (because I have become a regular
Safeway customer, mostly because the Safeway I go to has a better selection of
TV dinners than the Lucky closer to my home), I am paying the EXACT same amount
whether I pay by credit card or by cash.. I'm actually paying less via
credit card, if you count my 1% cash back in the form of Sony equipment/
software I would have bought anyway.
>you would have paid at, say, a neighborhood produce stand, a farmer's
>market, etc.
I cannot claim to have done any scientific surveys of grocery stores (esp
Safeway) vs produce stands, though the one produce stand I drive by (Chuck's
Produce on Sunnyvale-Saratoga in Sunnyvale) has posted prices for the
few kinds of fruit I follow prices for that are higher than I see at
Safeway.. though I do tend to buy some fruit only when on sale.
>Everything has a price. Safeway obviously has to turn a profit to keep
>their stockholders happy. And, with all the debt they have to pay down
One other point in their favor for credit cards (which is even more valid
for ATM payments, since they don't have to pay the fee to the credit card
company in that case) is that they are saving money by not having to deal
with all of the cash and checks. That is a lot of manual labor. (This
_savings_ from a company's point of view is the reason I refuse to use ATM
cards at gas stations, for example, because they are charging *me* for
a service that is saving them a lot of money in the long run. So I will make
their life hell and make them deal with my cash.)
Besides the manual labor, they are much more likely to get their money
(guaranteed with ATM) compared to check payment.
So it seems to me that your "raise their prices" arguments are offset to some
degree by the paperless payments. (Gee, I actually happen to believe in the
"paperless [office|world]" concept that what a big deal over a decade ago.)
>from the time when they were bought by KKR with junk bonds, you just
>*know* they're getting that money somewhere. Just because a store is big
>does not mean it's cheap. Usually, it's the other way around. But people
>have it so ingrained in their minds that big store=cheap prices that they
>refuse to see they're being taken to the cleaners.
But you have to compare prices. Your examples of non-food items are good
examples, but for food items, bigger usually does mean competitive if not
cheaper prices. (I mean not every single thing will be cheaper, prices always
vary.) Even with Costco you have to compare, but if you shop carefully, you
can get great deals at all of these stores... Whereas "Mom & Pop Store" will
have higher prices overall for food items, because they can't buy in the
huge quantities.
>An example: I bought a package of 3 vacuum cleaner bags the other day.
>Safeway had them for $3.99 (okay, $4). The neighborhood catch-all corner
>store and flea market had them for $2.49. Saved $1.50 right there.
>
>I needed cleanser last weekend. Typical Safeway price is probably $1.39.
>Cole Hardware had some for 79 cents. Light bulbs are 25 cents at Cole,
>and I think 79 cents at Safeway.
How much are any of these at Costco? I dunno... (And yes, there is a
yearly fee for Costco, but even as someone who goes there fairly rarely, it's
worth it.)
--
mat...@area.com
John Higdon
> ummm may I ask just because a place is cold that makes it bad??? Am I missing
> something??
If people expect "warm" in the summer, then "cold" is bad. Since many
people remain in San Francisco, either they can live with "cold" or they
actually like it.
A
>
> In article <372A139C...@netzero.net>, A <wayne...@netzero.net> wrote:
> >David Hatunen wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <3729034E...@netzero.net>, A <wayne...@netzero.net>
> > wrote:
> >> >David Kaye wrote:
> >>
> >> >> SF normally has two summers: late april to the end of May, and
> >> >> mid-September through October.
> >>
> >> > And what do you call June through mid Sept.?
> >>
> >> "Cold"
> >>
> > ROTFL...
> > And people still want to move there...
> >
> something??
>
Most people move to California for warmer weather.
A
>
> In article <372A2B74...@netzero.net>, A <wayne...@netzero.net> wrote:
> >Paul wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <372A139C...@netzero.net>, A <wayne...@netzero.net> wrote:
> >> >David Hatunen wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> In article <3729034E...@netzero.net>, A <wayne...@netzero.net>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >David Kaye wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >> SF normally has two summers: late april to the end of May,
> >> >> >> and mid-September through October.
> >> >>
> >> >> > And what do you call June through mid Sept.?
> >> >>
> >> >> "Cold"
> >> >>
> >> > ROTFL...
> >> > And people still want to move there...
> >> >
> >> ummm may I ask just because a place is cold that makes it bad???
> >> Am I missing something??
>
>
And just when did S.F. secede from california?
>
> If you want warm in the SFBay area, live in Walnut Creek. The temp
> goes upwards of 100F or more almost every day from June through
> September and even October.
>
> --
David Kaye
" And just when did S.F. secede from california?
It didn't, but anybody who has spent time in SF and in other places in
California clearly knows that SF is equivalent to California.
Not only is the weather very different, the culture is different, the
density of housing, the public transportation issues, the local politics,
the degree of citizen involvement in the governmental process -- they're
all different from what one might find elsewhere in California.
For example, public transportion: A larger percentage of SF residents use
public transit than in any other city in North America (including New
York). In SF it's about 50%. In San Jose I believe it's about 3%. In
Walnut Creek, well, I don't think they've even heard of public
transporation.
And, since this topic has been weather for several postings, the weather
is decidedly different in SF than it is in cities even 10 miles away. At
the moment (1:30pm Saturday, SF's temperature is 59. Oakland's is 68.
San Jose's is 72, and Walnut Creek's is 76. That's an 18 degree differnce
between SF and WC, about 1 degree every 2 miles.
On the TV newscasts, they always give a *range* of high temperatures
because the range of highs can vary up to (from what I've seen) as much as
30 degrees between SF and other cities.