Easy Palo Alto, Belle Haven Why did they not boom generation ago

[Anonymous]

These neighborhoods are along the bay and have magnificent water views, easy commute to hi Tech companies and have been around in the bay area since the 80s. Thanks Sun was in Belle Haven And is the current Facebook campus.

With such amazing geography, easy access to Jon centers, and of course the great weather of the peninsula, why have these errors persisted as ‘bad’neighborhoods with crime and gangs?

I know they have gender find some in the last five years, but why didn’t this happen with the earlier booms have been rampant in the valley?

[Anonymous]

Oh Siri, you did your best effort. Sorry for the typos and odd word substitutions

[Anonymous]

Schools, for one. Belle Haven and North Fair Oaks are unincorporated and do not have the same access to services that the neighboring cities do. East Palo Alto is incorporated but is not by any means a wealthy community so can't necessarily fund the same things the adjacent cities can. All three were primarily industrial areas until relatively recently, and people who can afford other options often don't want to live near heavy industry. Even today, you can see the history as working class, industrial communities in the housing stock and development patterns, so the areas don't have as much draw as more suburban communities on the Peninsula or the "streetcar suburbs" closer in. (That said, I'd argue that EPA has gentrified considerably in the last 15 years--it just started from a different point than someplace like Redwood City.)

Tech campuses in Silicon Valley really only began to have an impact on local real estate in the last 10-20 years. The dot com companies did not draw the same work forces at the salaries of today, and did not concentrate jobs on the Peninsula in the way that the tech sector does today. That change is very recent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Schools, for one. Belle Haven and North Fair Oaks are unincorporated and do not have the same access to services that the neighboring cities do. East Palo Alto is incorporated but is not by any means a wealthy community so can't necessarily fund the same things the adjacent cities can. All three were primarily industrial areas until relatively recently, and people who can afford other options often don't want to live near heavy industry. Even today, you can see the history as working class, industrial communities in the housing stock and development patterns, so the areas don't have as much draw as more suburban communities on the Peninsula or the "streetcar suburbs" closer in. (That said, I'd argue that EPA has gentrified considerably in the last 15 years--it just started from a different point than someplace like Redwood City.)

Tech campuses in Silicon Valley really only began to have an impact on local real estate in the last 10-20 years. The dot com companies did not draw the same work forces at the salaries of today, and did not concentrate jobs on the Peninsula in the way that the tech sector does today. That change is very recent.

Great post. I lived in that area 15 years ago and travel back. The changes to the Peninsula are pretty dramatic. As you note, the area close to the bay has historically been industrial, with working class housing stock. It's not just EPA/Belle Haven, almost everything from South San Francisco to Mountain View along the bay was primarily industrial and small, working class houses.

The area, especially in the southern Peninsula near Palo Alto/Menlo Park/Mountain View is much changed with all of the job centers that have popped up. It used to be primarily residential. Now there are so many more people commuting into the area and so much more demand for housing that every nearby community has seen prices spike. The area is also much less pleasant, IMO, just because it's packed with traffic even in the middle of the day

[Anonymous]

30 years ago middle class families could easily afford to live in San Mateo, Burlingame, Belmont. They offered an easy commute into SF on Caltrain, where many of the jobs were. East Palo Alto was a pocket of poverty and crime. There was no reason to develop it then, as there was not the same demand for housing.

[Anonymous]

So good investment opportunity?

[Anonymous]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/a-semi-feudal-society-in-east-palo-alto-the-influx-of-tech-companies-pushes-residents-to-a-breaking-point-over-gentrification/2018/11/02/03e1004c-d17c-11e8-b2d2-f397227b43f0_story.html?utm_term=.85cc9c8f0fb5

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:With such amazing geography, easy access to Jon centers, and of course the great weather of the peninsula, why have these errors persisted as ‘bad’neighborhoods with crime and gangs?

You know who lives in East Palo Alto, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:With such amazing geography, easy access to Jon centers, and of course the great weather of the peninsula, why have these errors persisted as ‘bad’neighborhoods with crime and gangs?

You know who lives in East Palo Alto, right?

You know who lives in SE DC, and Bay Area had far exceeded DC real estate market.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So good investment opportunity?

If you want to rent to Chinese and Indians. That will be all who will be renters in the area n 10 years. THe white liberal elite, walled themselves into the high=priced real estate a generation ago.