Moving to San Francisco. Help us settle our housing debate!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm surprised no one as questioned this "family circumstance" that will yield money for you.
If this circumstance, as you describe it, doesn't happen, will you still be ok financially?
I would be concerned with overbuying before the money is in my bank account

Also, the commute thing would kill me if I miscalculated the commute time after I bought. It happened to us once, and it was really difficult to reconcile that a supposed 45 minute commute was actually typically 1 1/2 hours. Just driving it a couple times was not enough.

Did that happen in San Francisco or someplace else?

Somewhere else, why?

Just curious

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Knowing the history of the SF Housing Market and inventory (or lack thereof) is why people are saying it won't go down. Their has been an upward progression for many year prior to the "tech" industry and it has been difficult to buy a nice house at a bargain price in SF city limits since before many of the techies were born.

Prices plunged after the 1989 earthquake. If another one of those happens, you'll see that again.

It still wasn't so low that they were virtually giving away houses. And that was primarily in the areas hardest hit by the earthquake like North Beach. SF Natives were not swayed by an earthquake (excuse the pun). If anything the housing prices were higher than ever when they did go up again.

SF and SV were booming soon after (remember the 90s). I agree SF is a very nice place to live, but can they weather his job going with the pop when they are clearly over extending if looking at a $1M budget. If they can buy, and then buy again even without selling the first place bc they have to move for a new job then that's fine. This looks like a big bet on a new job in a new city simply because of FOMO.

There are busts even in SF. There were a few dead years after the 2001 internet crash.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whoops I mean Pacifica. Didn't mean to masculinize it

The schools are REALLY bad there though. I have three friends who live there. One of them actually teaches science classes at one of the elementary schools because otherwise the kids would get ZERO SCIENCE EDUCATION.

Maybe they aren't interested in the public schools. There are excellent private schools in the area and some charter networks like KIPP.

KIPP is not good. We looked into it for middle school. They discipline through humiliation. Lots of screaming at kids like military school. DD takes a bus that picks up about half a dozen KIPP kids and I've talked with them about their school. What they said reinforced my decision that KIPP is not a good school for the average well-behaved kids.

Is this KIPP in SF or another KIPP school? KIPP is not for everyone but I was offering it up an option.

I thought there was an income limit for KIPP. Is that not the case?

Sooo where does it say it is income restricted? The statistic you quoted doesn't include that fact.

For a charter school? Never heard of it. If they accept public funds how can there be an income requirement?

According the kip web page 87 percent of its students nationwide are low income and 96 percent is aa or Latino. Clearly that is not random. There is a very well known public magnet in San Diego that is only open to students whose parents did not attend college.

Like all public schools, charter schools are:
Tuition-free and open-enrollment
Non-sectarian and non-discriminatory
Funded primarily through a combination of federal, state and local tax dollars
Held to state and federal academic standards
- See more at: http://www.kipp.org/faq#sthash.XEV2dkWY.dpuf


For the record but not to take this thread off track.

The only restriction is where the student lives geographically. I assume that is done to assure them a predominantly low income student population -- you don't wind up with almost 90 percent low income students randomly. And not to get too far off the point, CA does allow schools to limit eligibility based on income. Here's the admission standards for the Preuss school I mentioned early (www.preuss.ucsd.edu)

he Preuss School UCSD recruits and enrolls students entering the 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th grade from the greater San Diego area. Eligible applicants must meet three requirements, both at the time of application as well as at enrollment.

The three requirements are:

All families must meet income eligibility criteria as defined by federal guidelines [PDF].
The parents or chief guardians are not graduates of a four-year college or university.
Applicants must submit a completed application by the deadline.

Perhaps that is part of the charter at the school you mentioned in SoCal however it is not a KIPP requirement:

Are there admissions requirements at KIPP schools?
There is no application or selection process to enroll at KIPP. Any student can attend a local KIPP school, as long as they meet the residency requirements of the local school district and there is space available at their grade level.
- See more at: http://www.kipp.org/faq#sthash.XEV2dkWY.4QXzVQli.dpuf

Not to beat a dead horse, but I already said it must be the residency zones that keep KIPP almost entirely low income.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whoops I mean Pacifica. Didn't mean to masculinize it

The schools are REALLY bad there though. I have three friends who live there. One of them actually teaches science classes at one of the elementary schools because otherwise the kids would get ZERO SCIENCE EDUCATION.

Maybe they aren't interested in the public schools. There are excellent private schools in the area and some charter networks like KIPP.

KIPP is not good. We looked into it for middle school. They discipline through humiliation. Lots of screaming at kids like military school. DD takes a bus that picks up about half a dozen KIPP kids and I've talked with them about their school. What they said reinforced my decision that KIPP is not a good school for the average well-behaved kids.

Is this KIPP in SF or another KIPP school? KIPP is not for everyone but I was offering it up an option.

I thought there was an income limit for KIPP. Is that not the case?

Sooo where does it say it is income restricted? The statistic you quoted doesn't include that fact.

For a charter school? Never heard of it. If they accept public funds how can there be an income requirement?

According the kip web page 87 percent of its students nationwide are low income and 96 percent is aa or Latino. Clearly that is not random. There is a very well known public magnet in San Diego that is only open to students whose parents did not attend college.

Like all public schools, charter schools are:
Tuition-free and open-enrollment
Non-sectarian and non-discriminatory
Funded primarily through a combination of federal, state and local tax dollars
Held to state and federal academic standards
- See more at: http://www.kipp.org/faq#sthash.XEV2dkWY.dpuf


For the record but not to take this thread off track.

The only restriction is where the student lives geographically. I assume that is done to assure them a predominantly low income student population -- you don't wind up with almost 90 percent low income students randomly. And not to get too far off the point, CA does allow schools to limit eligibility based on income. Here's the admission standards for the Preuss school I mentioned early (www.preuss.ucsd.edu)

he Preuss School UCSD recruits and enrolls students entering the 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th grade from the greater San Diego area. Eligible applicants must meet three requirements, both at the time of application as well as at enrollment.

The three requirements are:

All families must meet income eligibility criteria as defined by federal guidelines [PDF].
The parents or chief guardians are not graduates of a four-year college or university.
Applicants must submit a completed application by the deadline.

Perhaps that is part of the charter at the school you mentioned in SoCal however it is not a KIPP requirement:

Are there admissions requirements at KIPP schools?
There is no application or selection process to enroll at KIPP. Any student can attend a local KIPP school, as long as they meet the residency requirements of the local school district and there is space available at their grade level.
- See more at: http://www.kipp.org/faq#sthash.XEV2dkWY.4QXzVQli.dpuf

Not to beat a dead horse, but I already said it must be the residency zones that keep KIPP almost entirely low income.

The horse is indeed dead! See residency requirements for SF:

A minor’s residence is presumed to be the legal residence of the parent(s) or guardian(s) who have physical custody of the minor. In order to be enrolled in SFUSD, the student’s parent/legal guardian must continually reside in San Francisco at the time of application and for the entire period of enrollment in SFUSD.

[Anonymous]

I grew up in the Bay Area. I would wait to buy. Neighborhoods vary a lot, and most people don't live in the city for various reasons.

People are correct that Oakland or Alameda can be a faster commute to downtown, since Muni runs infrequently.

The SF schools are also all assigned by lottery, so you could end up with a long school run as well. Moving south to San Mateo can give you better schools and more space, as well as access to CalTrain. I am a big advocate of city living, but SF had some unique challenges for families. The playgrounds are off the hook though. Equipment imported from Sweden.

FYI to the rest of you, charter school spots can only be awarded by lottery, as per federal law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I grew up in the Bay Area. I would wait to buy. Neighborhoods vary a lot, and most people don't live in the city for various reasons.

People are correct that Oakland or Alameda can be a faster commute to downtown, since Muni runs infrequently.

The SF schools are also all assigned by lottery, so you could end up with a long school run as well. Moving south to San Mateo can give you better schools and more space, as well as access to CalTrain. I am a big advocate of city living, but SF had some unique challenges for families. The playgrounds are off the hook though. Equipment imported from Sweden.

FYI to the rest of you, charter school spots can only be awarded by lottery, as per federal law.

Thanks. We know that. That wasn't the issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I grew up in the Bay Area. I would wait to buy. Neighborhoods vary a lot, and most people don't live in the city for various reasons.

People are correct that Oakland or Alameda can be a faster commute to downtown, since Muni runs infrequently.

The SF schools are also all assigned by lottery, so you could end up with a long school run as well. Moving south to San Mateo can give you better schools and more space, as well as access to CalTrain. I am a big advocate of city living, but SF had some unique challenges for families. The playgrounds are off the hook though. Equipment imported from Sweden.

FYI to the rest of you, charter school spots can only be awarded by lottery, as per federal law.

Except when the lottery is limited by income and whether parents went to college, see Preuss school up thread.

[Anonymous]

About SV, I wish it wasn't so suburban. The only reprieve is the perfect weather. Maybe it is because I am not a computer programmer, I don't know. I guess it would be an exciting place if I was one. I am not alone. Now Google and the other companies have to run those commuter buses from SF, because none of the young people these days want to live in SV. Even Jony Ive lives in SF and commutes an hour each way to and from Cupertino, every day, by car!

Californians just aren't as freaked out and spooked by commutes as East Coasters. It's a way of life for us, and a 45 minute to 1 hour car commute is normal, and you find ways to make the time pass productively. Not having to drive in thunderstorms and snowstorms ever helps too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

About SV, I wish it wasn't so suburban. The only reprieve is the perfect weather. Maybe it is because I am not a computer programmer, I don't know. I guess it would be an exciting place if I was one. I am not alone. Now Google and the other companies have to run those commuter buses from SF, because none of the young people these days want to live in SV. Even Jony Ive lives in SF and commutes an hour each way to and from Cupertino, every day, by car!

Californians just aren't as freaked out and spooked by commutes as East Coasters. It's a way of life for us, and a 45 minute to 1 hour car commute is normal, and you find ways to make the time pass productively. Not having to drive in thunderstorms and snowstorms ever helps too.

The days are also a little longer on the West Coast too. Sun sets in the West so you aren't always leaving in the dark and getting home in the dark like the East Coast.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

About SV, I wish it wasn't so suburban. The only reprieve is the perfect weather. Maybe it is because I am not a computer programmer, I don't know. I guess it would be an exciting place if I was one. I am not alone. Now Google and the other companies have to run those commuter buses from SF, because none of the young people these days want to live in SV. Even Jony Ive lives in SF and commutes an hour each way to and from Cupertino, every day, by car!

Californians just aren't as freaked out and spooked by commutes as East Coasters. It's a way of life for us, and a 45 minute to 1 hour car commute is normal, and you find ways to make the time pass productively. Not having to drive in thunderstorms and snowstorms ever helps too.

The days are also a little longer on the West Coast too. Sun sets in the West so you aren't always leaving in the dark and getting home in the dark like the East Coast.

Don't think this is true. certainly nwasn't any noticeable difference when I lived in California.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

About SV, I wish it wasn't so suburban. The only reprieve is the perfect weather. Maybe it is because I am not a computer programmer, I don't know. I guess it would be an exciting place if I was one. I am not alone. Now Google and the other companies have to run those commuter buses from SF, because none of the young people these days want to live in SV. Even Jony Ive lives in SF and commutes an hour each way to and from Cupertino, every day, by car!

Californians just aren't as freaked out and spooked by commutes as East Coasters. It's a way of life for us, and a 45 minute to 1 hour car commute is normal, and you find ways to make the time pass productively. Not having to drive in thunderstorms and snowstorms ever helps too.

The days are also a little longer on the West Coast too. Sun sets in the West so you aren't always leaving in the dark and getting home in the dark like the East Coast.

Don't think this is true. certainly nwasn't any noticeable difference when I lived in California.

It is true. Right now it's not dark until 9pm in SF. In the winter, it doesn't get pitch black until 6pm, whereas in the Northeast, it's pitch black by 4:30pm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

About SV, I wish it wasn't so suburban. The only reprieve is the perfect weather. Maybe it is because I am not a computer programmer, I don't know. I guess it would be an exciting place if I was one. I am not alone. Now Google and the other companies have to run those commuter buses from SF, because none of the young people these days want to live in SV. Even Jony Ive lives in SF and commutes an hour each way to and from Cupertino, every day, by car!

Californians just aren't as freaked out and spooked by commutes as East Coasters. It's a way of life for us, and a 45 minute to 1 hour car commute is normal, and you find ways to make the time pass productively. Not having to drive in thunderstorms and snowstorms ever helps too.

The days are also a little longer on the West Coast too. Sun sets in the West so you aren't always leaving in the dark and getting home in the dark like the East Coast.

Don't think this is true. certainly nwasn't any noticeable difference when I lived in California.

It is true. Right now it's not dark until 9pm in SF. In the winter, it doesn't get pitch black until 6pm, whereas in the Northeast, it's pitch black by 4:30pm.

Doesn't this have to do with latitude? And not longitude. I have never heard that days are longer in SF

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

About SV, I wish it wasn't so suburban. The only reprieve is the perfect weather. Maybe it is because I am not a computer programmer, I don't know. I guess it would be an exciting place if I was one. I am not alone. Now Google and the other companies have to run those commuter buses from SF, because none of the young people these days want to live in SV. Even Jony Ive lives in SF and commutes an hour each way to and from Cupertino, every day, by car!

Californians just aren't as freaked out and spooked by commutes as East Coasters. It's a way of life for us, and a 45 minute to 1 hour car commute is normal, and you find ways to make the time pass productively. Not having to drive in thunderstorms and snowstorms ever helps too.

The days are also a little longer on the West Coast too. Sun sets in the West so you aren't always leaving in the dark and getting home in the dark like the East Coast.

Don't think this is true. certainly nwasn't any noticeable difference when I lived in California.

It is true. Right now it's not dark until 9pm in SF. In the winter, it doesn't get pitch black until 6pm, whereas in the Northeast, it's pitch black by 4:30pm.

Doesn't this have to do with latitude? And not longitude. I have never heard that days are longer in SF

Yup, I agree with this. The difference is minimal, akin to the difference between Boston and Miami.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Knowing the history of the SF Housing Market and inventory (or lack thereof) is why people are saying it won't go down. Their has been an upward progression for many year prior to the "tech" industry and it has been difficult to buy a nice house at a bargain price in SF city limits since before many of the techies were born.

Prices plunged after the 1989 earthquake. If another one of those happens, you'll see that again.

It still wasn't so low that they were virtually giving away houses. And that was primarily in the areas hardest hit by the earthquake like North Beach. SF Natives were not swayed by an earthquake (excuse the pun). If anything the housing prices were higher than ever when they did go up again.

SF and SV were booming soon after (remember the 90s). I agree SF is a very nice place to live, but can they weather his job going with the pop when they are clearly over extending if looking at a $1M budget. If they can buy, and then buy again even without selling the first place bc they have to move for a new job then that's fine. This looks like a big bet on a new job in a new city simply because of FOMO.

There are busts even in SF. There were a few dead years after the 2001 internet crash.

Yep, and we were one of the few that sold during that time. stupid stupid stupid!! argh!

[Anonymous]

Don't assume you will have a short commute from that neighborhood. My coworker lives there; takes 45 minutes to an hour to commute to our office in the Financial District. I commute from a far flung suburb at the end of a BART line in 1 hr 10 minutes. (FWIW, single family homes in my neighborhood from 1600-2400 square feet are in the 900k - 1.2 M range).

Also depending on the age of your kids - school dropoff and pickup can add a LOT of time to your morning schedule. Schools are assigned by lottery; you're likely to end up in a school well outside your neighborhood.