No. Why would I live in a high cost of living, low quality of life, low performing and actually financially floundering school district.

Answer any part of that question, I’ll change my mind.

Otherwise, there is Sacramento and better Nevada.

Oakland is a city of 400K with incredibly affluent neighborhoods and working class neighborhoods and everything in between. Parts of Oakland have always been wealthy and desirable.

I would do Oakland over East Palo Alto. East Palo Alto, Foster City and the area near the airport may be underwater in 20-30 years. It won’t happen over night and flooding will become an issue. There is a lot of low income apartments in East Palo Alto that aren’t going anywhere.

Oakland is more vibrant IMO. It’s well located with BART and at some point CALTRAIN should hook up.

Not limited to Oakland but no, nobody knows yet.

WFH may or not remain the default for knowledge workers.

Urban areas may or may not benefit from WFH. People in some parts of DC are reporting a booming lunch and evening scene driven by people who WFH and want to go out to lunch, walk their dogs, get drinks after work because they have time from not commuting. But other parts of the city that depended solely on the office lunch crowd are having trouble. Meanwhile the suburban carry out places are doing great business during WFH because people want to take a break to grab lunch, but the sit-down places are struggling; unclear how that will change when covid restrictions ease, maybe they will do better with WFH or maybe not.

No one has any opinions on Oakland?

The last decade, places like Oakland, East Palo Alto, have seen an influx of people trying to work in tech and find affordable houses, boosting values there and pressuring schools to improve.

Now that WFH is more widespread will these improvements continue or will people leap frog to further out neighborhood or even other cities like Miami?