where I mentioned that median rents in SF were around $3500. Here's
the latest: A new study by Zillow shows San Francisco's median rent
is now $4,225 a month and rents throughout the Bay Area are up an
average 15% over last year.

GAG! I'm glad I own my own home and don't need to deal with that.


--

sf

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> where I mentioned that median rents in SF were around $3500. Here's
> the latest: A new study by Zillow shows San Francisco's median rent
> is now $4,225 a month and rents throughout the Bay Area are up an
> average 15% over last year.
>
> GAG! I'm glad I own my own home and don't need to deal with that.
>
>
> --
>
> sf

I keep seeing articles saying these days it doesn't make sense to buy.
Yeah, right.

"taxed and spent" > wrote in message
...
>
> "sf" > wrote in message
> ...
>> where I mentioned that median rents in SF were around $3500. Here's
>> the latest: A new study by Zillow shows San Francisco's median rent
>> is now $4,225 a month and rents throughout the Bay Area are up an
>> average 15% over last year.
>>
>> GAG! I'm glad I own my own home and don't need to deal with that.
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> sf
>
> I keep seeing articles saying these days it doesn't make sense to buy.
> Yeah, right.

In many cases it doesn't, now. People who bought many years ago paid a heck
of a lot less! And the problem now is that jobs are not secure. You
wouldn't want to buy a house only to have to move out of state the next year
because you lost your job and couldn't find another locally.

On Fri, 29 May 2015 22:19:05 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

>
> "taxed and spent" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "sf" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> where I mentioned that median rents in SF were around $3500. Here's
> >> the latest: A new study by Zillow shows San Francisco's median rent
> >> is now $4,225 a month and rents throughout the Bay Area are up an
> >> average 15% over last year.
> >>
> >> GAG! I'm glad I own my own home and don't need to deal with that.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > I keep seeing articles saying these days it doesn't make sense to buy.
> > Yeah, right.
>
> In many cases it doesn't, now. People who bought many years ago paid a heck
> of a lot less! And the problem now is that jobs are not secure. You
> wouldn't want to buy a house only to have to move out of state the next year
> because you lost your job and couldn't find another locally.

If he bothered to read the article, job insecurity is one of the main
reasons why more people are renting.

--

sf

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 29 May 2015 22:19:05 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> "taxed and spent" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "sf" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> where I mentioned that median rents in SF were around $3500. Here's
>> >> the latest: A new study by Zillow shows San Francisco's median rent
>> >> is now $4,225 a month and rents throughout the Bay Area are up an
>> >> average 15% over last year.
>> >>
>> >> GAG! I'm glad I own my own home and don't need to deal with that.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > I keep seeing articles saying these days it doesn't make sense to buy.
>> > Yeah, right.
>>
>> In many cases it doesn't, now. People who bought many years ago paid a
>> heck
>> of a lot less! And the problem now is that jobs are not secure. You
>> wouldn't want to buy a house only to have to move out of state the next
>> year
>> because you lost your job and couldn't find another locally.
>
> If he bothered to read the article, job insecurity is one of the main
> reasons why more people are renting.
>

what article?

And job insecurity as a reason for renting not buying is a different topic
than the economics.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> where I mentioned that median rents in SF were around $3500. Here's
> the latest: A new study by Zillow shows San Francisco's median rent
> is now $4,225 a month and rents throughout the Bay Area are up an
> average 15% over last year.
>
> GAG! I'm glad I own my own home and don't need to deal with that.
>

There was something on the news here yesterday or the day before about $400
rent in Bellevue. This was for luxury 3 bedroom apartments! Here's the
story. Alas they were all taken immediately.

http://www.king5.com/story/news/loca...evue/28045801/

I only hope that they do keep these maintained and that they open more
places like this elsewhere. There is a real need!

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> where I mentioned that median rents in SF were around $3500. Here's
> the latest: A new study by Zillow shows San Francisco's median rent
> is now $4,225 a month and rents throughout the Bay Area are up an
> average 15% over last year.
>
> GAG! I'm glad I own my own home and don't need to deal with that.
>
>

And I just saw this:

http://www.citylab.com/housing/2015/...tm_source=SFFB

On Fri, 29 May 2015 21:43:45 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

>
> "sf" > wrote in message
> ...
> > where I mentioned that median rents in SF were around $3500. Here's
> > the latest: A new study by Zillow shows San Francisco's median rent
> > is now $4,225 a month and rents throughout the Bay Area are up an
> > average 15% over last year.
> >
> > GAG! I'm glad I own my own home and don't need to deal with that.
> >
> >
>
> And I just saw this:
>
> http://www.citylab.com/housing/2015/...tm_source=SFFB


Yikes!

--

sf

On Saturday, May 30, 2015 at 1:23:51 AM UTC-4, sf wrote:
> On Fri, 29 May 2015 21:43:45 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> > "sf" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > where I mentioned that median rents in SF were around $3500. Here's
> > > the latest: A new study by Zillow shows San Francisco's median rent
> > > is now $4,225 a month and rents throughout the Bay Area are up an
> > > average 15% over last year.
> > >
> > > GAG! I'm glad I own my own home and don't need to deal with that.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > And I just saw this:
> >
> > http://www.citylab.com/housing/2015/...tm_source=SFFB
>
>
> Yikes!
>

Shrug. In the flyover states, two minimum-wage jobs would do it.
When I was young and poor, I always had a roommate. And
scrupulously used birth control, because I knew I couldn't
afford to have a kid.

Cindy Hamilton

On Fri, 29 May 2015 21:43:45 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

>
>"sf" > wrote in message
.. .
>> where I mentioned that median rents in SF were around $3500. Here's
>> the latest: A new study by Zillow shows San Francisco's median rent
>> is now $4,225 a month and rents throughout the Bay Area are up an
>> average 15% over last year.
>>
>> GAG! I'm glad I own my own home and don't need to deal with that.
>>
>>
>
>And I just saw this:
>
>http://www.citylab.com/housing/2015/...tm_source=SFFB

And yet there were an estimated 18.5 million vacant homes back around
2011.

"Jeßus" > wrote in message
news
> On Fri, 29 May 2015 21:43:45 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>"sf" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> where I mentioned that median rents in SF were around $3500. Here's
>>> the latest: A new study by Zillow shows San Francisco's median rent
>>> is now $4,225 a month and rents throughout the Bay Area are up an
>>> average 15% over last year.
>>>
>>> GAG! I'm glad I own my own home and don't need to deal with that.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>And I just saw this:
>>
>>http://www.citylab.com/housing/2015/...tm_source=SFFB
>
> And yet there were an estimated 18.5 million vacant homes back around
> 2011.

I have no clue where you got that information from. Homes can be vacant for
many reasons. Perhaps they are unsafe. Like full of black mold or
something. Sometimes the seller is asking for too much money. They might
be located in a high crime area so people don't want to live there. Or in
the case of some cities/towns here, have no jobs in the area. Not even
anything available for a reasonable commute.

Your statement reminds me of a stupid argument that I had with my husband
when we lived on Cape Cod and I was unable to find a good job. He drove me
around pointing to businesses. His theory was that if there was a business,
there would have to be jobs. The problem with that was that the majority of
those businesses were little tiny places run by the owner, with no
employees.

On Sat, 30 May 2015 02:05:19 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

> I have no clue where you got that information from. Homes can be vacant for
> many reasons. Perhaps they are unsafe. Like full of black mold or
> something. Sometimes the seller is asking for too much money. They might
> be located in a high crime area so people don't want to live there. Or in
> the case of some cities/towns here, have no jobs in the area. Not even
> anything available for a reasonable commute.

They can be foreclosed homes and the bank isn't in any hurry to sell.
The owner can be in a home of some sort and the heirs want to wait
until they die to sell the house, due to high capital gains taxes. A
lot of the country is still recovering from the housing bust (look no
farther than where Jill lives to understand that). Entire bedroom
communities were bulldozed in fly over country a few years ago.

--

sf

Sf, where are the "entire bedroom communities" in flyover country bulldozed a few years ago?
Certainly nowhere around here that I know of....so I am just curious. I didn't see any articles
on activities like that close to Omaha, Chicago, St. Louis...i might not have been paying
attention.

N.

On Sat, 30 May 2015 02:05:19 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

>
>"Jeßus" > wrote in message
>news
>> On Fri, 29 May 2015 21:43:45 -0700, "Julie Bove"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"sf" > wrote in message
...
>>>> where I mentioned that median rents in SF were around $3500. Here's
>>>> the latest: A new study by Zillow shows San Francisco's median rent
>>>> is now $4,225 a month and rents throughout the Bay Area are up an
>>>> average 15% over last year.
>>>>
>>>> GAG! I'm glad I own my own home and don't need to deal with that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>And I just saw this:
>>>
>>>http://www.citylab.com/housing/2015/...tm_source=SFFB
>>
>> And yet there were an estimated 18.5 million vacant homes back around
>> 2011.
>
>I have no clue where you got that information from. Homes can be vacant for
>many reasons. Perhaps they are unsafe. Like full of black mold or
>something. Sometimes the seller is asking for too much money. They might
>be located in a high crime area so people don't want to live there. Or in
>the case of some cities/towns here, have no jobs in the area. Not even
>anything available for a reasonable commute.

That wasn't really the point, but okay.

>Your statement reminds me of a stupid argument that I had with my husband
>when we lived on Cape Cod and I was unable to find a good job. He drove me
>around pointing to businesses. His theory was that if there was a business,
>there would have to be jobs. The problem with that was that the majority of
>those businesses were little tiny places run by the owner, with no
>employees.

Yes, that would be the case with most small businesses.

On Sat, 30 May 2015 16:21:46 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:

>On Fri, 29 May 2015 21:43:45 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"sf" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> where I mentioned that median rents in SF were around $3500. Here's
>>> the latest: A new study by Zillow shows San Francisco's median rent
>>> is now $4,225 a month and rents throughout the Bay Area are up an
>>> average 15% over last year.
>>>
>>> GAG! I'm glad I own my own home and don't need to deal with that.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>And I just saw this:
>>
>>http://www.citylab.com/housing/2015/...tm_source=SFFB
>
>And yet there were an estimated 18.5 million vacant homes back around
>2011.

Many were either abandoned or foreclosed. The banks did not have the
infrastructure to deal with all that was happening. I know of woman
living in the house that she bought with her boyfriend that since
split. She has not paid taxes or mortgage for over two years, but the
bank it not kicking her out for another few months.

On 5/30/2015 8:10 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

> Many were either abandoned or foreclosed. The banks did not have the
> infrastructure to deal with all that was happening. I know of woman
> living in the house that she bought with her boyfriend that since
> split. She has not paid taxes or mortgage for over two years, but the
> bank it not kicking her out for another few months.

It's to their advantage to have someone living there. There's
a reason insurance premiums on an empty house are through
the roof.

Luckily for me, we didn't have a bunch of abandoned houses here
after 2008, some towns were hit hard.

nancy

"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 30 May 2015 16:21:46 +1000, Jeßus > wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 29 May 2015 21:43:45 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"sf" > wrote in message
...
>>>> where I mentioned that median rents in SF were around $3500. Here's
>>>> the latest: A new study by Zillow shows San Francisco's median rent
>>>> is now $4,225 a month and rents throughout the Bay Area are up an
>>>> average 15% over last year.
>>>>
>>>> GAG! I'm glad I own my own home and don't need to deal with that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>And I just saw this:
>>>
>>>http://www.citylab.com/housing/2015/...tm_source=SFFB
>>
>>And yet there were an estimated 18.5 million vacant homes back around
>>2011.
>
> Many were either abandoned or foreclosed. The banks did not have the
> infrastructure to deal with all that was happening. I know of woman
> living in the house that she bought with her boyfriend that since
> split. She has not paid taxes or mortgage for over two years, but the
> bank it not kicking her out for another few months.

The guy who owned the house next door to me had not made payments for a
couple of years. He waited until the bank literally kicked him out. Then
he illegally removed the fancy door he had installed and sold it and
probably some other things to get a plane ticket to Sweden where he now
lives.

On Fri, 29 May 2015 19:38:42 -0700, sf > wrote:

>where I mentioned that median rents in SF were around $3500. Here's
>the latest: A new study by Zillow shows San Francisco's median rent
>is now $4,225 a month and rents throughout the Bay Area are up an
>average 15% over last year.
>
>GAG! I'm glad I own my own home and don't need to deal with that.
>

Wages must be very good in that area. In many places people buy a
decent house and don't even earn $4225 a month.

On Sat, 30 May 2015 07:54:47 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

> On Fri, 29 May 2015 19:38:42 -0700, sf > wrote:
>
> >where I mentioned that median rents in SF were around $3500. Here's
> >the latest: A new study by Zillow shows San Francisco's median rent
> >is now $4,225 a month and rents throughout the Bay Area are up an
> >average 15% over last year.
> >
> >GAG! I'm glad I own my own home and don't need to deal with that.
> >
>
> Wages must be very good in that area. In many places people buy a
> decent house and don't even earn $4225 a month.

Prices like that can only exist if they are supported by commensurate
wages. It's one of many reasons why the ordinary worker doesn't get
rich living here even though they're making the kind of salary that
can afford a $4000 apartment.

--

sf

"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 29 May 2015 19:38:42 -0700, sf > wrote:
>
>>where I mentioned that median rents in SF were around $3500. Here's
>>the latest: A new study by Zillow shows San Francisco's median rent
>>is now $4,225 a month and rents throughout the Bay Area are up an
>>average 15% over last year.
>>
>>GAG! I'm glad I own my own home and don't need to deal with that.
>>
>
> Wages must be very good in that area. In many places people buy a
> decent house and don't even earn $4225 a month.

You'd have to earn a lot more than that to buy even a small starter house in
this area. And one thing that people don't take into consideration is
upkeep. I tried to tell my husband of this but he didn't believe me. He
actually thought we would call the mortgage company when something needed
fixed. Thought they would handle it! I think part of the problem was that
his dad just let things go. I don't know if he was always this way but in
the years that I knew him, if something broke, it mostly just stayed broken
and...oh well!

I grew up in a house where things were replaced before they broke. Of
course there were occasions where things did break. You can't always tell
when something is starting to go bad. But my parents tried to stay on top
of things.

I was shocked the other day. There is a house behind us that has had an
assortment of people living in it since we moved in. Changed owners several
times and often was used as a rental. Not sure who is living in there now.
For a long time, the gutters were literally hanging off the front of the
house. I was relieved to see that repaired last summer. But the other day
it was very sunny out and I saw the roof shining. I had to go closer to
look at it. It was a white roof, three tab shingles like mine. But so much
of the roofing material had worn off in spots that whatever is under those
little pebble looking things is now showing through.

Julie Bove wrote:
>Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>sf wrote:
>>
>>>where I mentioned that median rents in SF were around $3500. Here's
>>>the latest: A new study by Zillow shows San Francisco's median rent
>>>is now $4,225 a month and rents throughout the Bay Area are up an
>>>average 15% over last year.
>>>
>>>GAG! I'm glad I own my own home and don't need to deal with that.
>>>
>>
>> Wages must be very good in that area. In many places people buy a
>> decent house and don't even earn $4225 a month.
>
>You'd have to earn a lot more than that to buy even a small starter house in
>this area.

Most people don't exert much effort into real estate hunting... where
I live if one put in the effort there are very nice homes on large
properties, just have to be ready to move fast, found this listing
yesterday near where I have acreage, an excellent location:
http://peakrealtyny.idxbroker.com/id.../56-PANTING-RD

In article >, gravesend10
@verizon.net says...
> Subject: referring back to a previous sub- thread that went OT
> From: Brooklyn1 >
> Newsgroups: rec.food.cooking
>
> Julie Bove wrote:
> >Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> >>sf wrote:
> >>
> >>>where I mentioned that median rents in SF were around $3500. Here's
> >>>the latest: A new study by Zillow shows San Francisco's median rent
> >>>is now $4,225 a month and rents throughout the Bay Area are up an
> >>>average 15% over last year.
> >>>
> >>>GAG! I'm glad I own my own home and don't need to deal with that.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Wages must be very good in that area. In many places people buy a
> >> decent house and don't even earn $4225 a month.
> >
> >You'd have to earn a lot more than that to buy even a small starter house in
> >this area.
>
> Most people don't exert much effort into real estate hunting... where
> I live if one put in the effort there are very nice homes on large
> properties, just have to be ready to move fast, found this listing
> yesterday near where I have acreage, an excellent location:
> http://peakrealtyny.idxbroker.com/id.../56-PANTING-RD
>

LOL. Here's all you'd get for that price here

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-...-31893438.html

Janet UK

On 5/31/2015 8:52 AM, Janet wrote:
> In article >, gravesend10
> @verizon.net says...
>> Subject: referring back to a previous sub- thread that went OT
>> From: Brooklyn1 >
>> Newsgroups: rec.food.cooking
>>
>> Julie Bove wrote:
>>> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>> sf wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> where I mentioned that median rents in SF were around $3500. Here's
>>>>> the latest: A new study by Zillow shows San Francisco's median rent
>>>>> is now $4,225 a month and rents throughout the Bay Area are up an
>>>>> average 15% over last year.
>>>>>
>>>>> GAG! I'm glad I own my own home and don't need to deal with that.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wages must be very good in that area. In many places people buy a
>>>> decent house and don't even earn $4225 a month.
>>>
>>> You'd have to earn a lot more than that to buy even a small starter house in
>>> this area.
>>
>> Most people don't exert much effort into real estate hunting... where
>> I live if one put in the effort there are very nice homes on large
>> properties, just have to be ready to move fast, found this listing
>> yesterday near where I have acreage, an excellent location:
>> http://peakrealtyny.idxbroker.com/id.../56-PANTING-RD
>>
>
> LOL. Here's all you'd get for that price here
>
> http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-...-31893438.html
>
> Janet UK
>
I like that little bungalow much better!

I looked at the pics of the house Sheldon posted... is that little space
just off the staircase supposed to be the dining room? There's barely
room for that small table with four chairs. No way would my dining
table fit in that space.

Jill

On 5/31/2015 8:52 AM, Janet wrote:
> In article >, gravesend10
> @verizon.net says...

>> Most people don't exert much effort into real estate hunting... where
>> I live if one put in the effort there are very nice homes on large
>> properties, just have to be ready to move fast, found this listing
>> yesterday near where I have acreage, an excellent location:
>> http://peakrealtyny.idxbroker.com/id.../56-PANTING-RD
>>
>
> LOL. Here's all you'd get for that price here
>
> http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-...-31893438.html

You wouldn't get anything in my town for that price, but then I get
the allure of having 24 acres of property, in a place with a lower
cost of living.

nancy

On Sun, 31 May 2015 13:52:40 +0100, Janet > wrote:

>In article >, gravesend10
says...
>> Subject: referring back to a previous sub- thread that went OT
>> From: Brooklyn1 >
>> Newsgroups: rec.food.cooking
>>
>> Julie Bove wrote:
>> >Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> >>sf wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>where I mentioned that median rents in SF were around $3500. Here's
>> >>>the latest: A new study by Zillow shows San Francisco's median rent
>> >>>is now $4,225 a month and rents throughout the Bay Area are up an
>> >>>average 15% over last year.
>> >>>
>> >>>GAG! I'm glad I own my own home and don't need to deal with that.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Wages must be very good in that area. In many places people buy a
>> >> decent house and don't even earn $4225 a month.
>> >
>> >You'd have to earn a lot more than that to buy even a small starter house in
>> >this area.
>>
>> Most people don't exert much effort into real estate hunting... where
>> I live if one put in the effort there are very nice homes on large
>> properties, just have to be ready to move fast, found this listing
>> yesterday near where I have acreage, an excellent location:
>> http://peakrealtyny.idxbroker.com/id.../56-PANTING-RD

That's a very strange design IMO, all that extra trouble and cost with
the way the upstairs and roof is... at the same time makes very poor
use of space. Property is so cheap in the U.S compared to Aus though,
you wouldn't find a property like that here for that price.

> LOL. Here's all you'd get for that price here
>
> http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-...-31893438.html

Also in many parts of Aus too.

On Sun, 31 May 2015 13:52:40 +0100, Janet > wrote:

>LOL. Here's all you'd get for that price here
>
> http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-...-31893438.html
>
> Janet UK

A fellow from England I was working with a few years ago made an
interesting observation of America compared to England. He could not
believe the wide open spaces in America. He said all the space in
England is occupied by 400 year old structures. So, do you tear down
any old houses to build modern style houses?

William

On 5/30/2015 9:14 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:

> Most people don't exert much effort into real estate hunting... where
> I live if one put in the effort there are very nice homes on large
> properties, just have to be ready to move fast, found this listing
> yesterday near where I have acreage, an excellent location:
> http://peakrealtyny.idxbroker.com/id.../56-PANTING-RD

It's really beautiful except for the stuffed heads. It makes me want to
sell and move in a heartbeat, but I doubt I'd get the same pay up there.

--
ღ.¸¸.œ«*¨`*œ¶
Cheryl

On Tue, 02 Jun 2015 22:57:51 -0400, Cheryl >
wrote:

>On 5/30/2015 9:14 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>
>> Most people don't exert much effort into real estate hunting... where
>> I live if one put in the effort there are very nice homes on large
>> properties, just have to be ready to move fast, found this listing
>> yesterday near where I have acreage, an excellent location:
>> http://peakrealtyny.idxbroker.com/id.../56-PANTING-RD
>
>It's really beautiful except for the stuffed heads. It makes me want to
>sell and move in a heartbeat, but I doubt I'd get the same pay up there.

Albany is the state capital with lots of all kinds of industry... pay
is better than in and around most large cities... that property is
only a straight half hour drive from downtown. I live a little more
than an hour away and many of my neighbors commute into Albany for
work, all kinds of jobs. NY's Capital district is booming... that
corridor between downtown and northwestern Albany county is where all
the professionals are now residing, as the farmers leave they move in.
I bought 91 acres of the most pristine farmland in Knox, it's the
highest point in the county with views that go on forever...
http://i61.tinypic.com/256usdc.jpg

On 5/30/2015 7:54 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

> On Fri, 29 May 2015 19:38:42 -0700, sf > wrote:
>
>> where I mentioned that median rents in SF were around $3500. Here's
>> the latest: A new study by Zillow shows San Francisco's median rent
>> is now $4,225 a month and rents throughout the Bay Area are up an
>> average 15% over last year.
>>
>> GAG! I'm glad I own my own home and don't need to deal with that.
>>
>
> Wages must be very good in that area. In many places people buy a
> decent house and don't even earn $4225 a month.
>
That always made me sad for my sister. Her credit was very bad and at
the end she had to have a co-signer, but she paid about 2x for rent on a
condo that I pay in mortgage for a house.

--
ღ.¸¸.œ«*¨`*œ¶
Cheryl

On Fri, 29 May 2015 19:38:42 -0700, sf > wrote:

>where I mentioned that median rents in SF were around $3500. Here's
>the latest: A new study by Zillow shows San Francisco's median rent
>is now $4,225 a month and rents throughout the Bay Area are up an
>average 15% over last year.

And typically that's for a small and grungy two-bedroom.

Actually, it may not be that much lower here in west LA for larger,
newer units, fortunately most of the older ones still go for a lot
less.

J.


>
>GAG! I'm glad I own my own home and don't need to deal with that.
>

On 5/29/2015 9:38 PM, sf wrote:
> where I mentioned that median rents in SF were around $3500. Here's
> the latest: A new study by Zillow shows San Francisco's median rent
> is now $4,225 a month and rents throughout the Bay Area are up an
> average 15% over last year.
>
> GAG! I'm glad I own my own home and don't need to deal with that.
>
>

What in the world are these skyrocketing values doing to your property
taxes? Yikes.

On Tue, 02 Jun 2015 12:49:45 -0500, Moe DeLoughan >
wrote:

> On 5/29/2015 9:38 PM, sf wrote:
> > where I mentioned that median rents in SF were around $3500. Here's
> > the latest: A new study by Zillow shows San Francisco's median rent
> > is now $4,225 a month and rents throughout the Bay Area are up an
> > average 15% over last year.
> >
> > GAG! I'm glad I own my own home and don't need to deal with that.
> >
> >
>
> What in the world are these skyrocketing values doing to your property
> taxes? Yikes.

Not a lot, thanks to prop 13. We (and the big businesses it was meant
to ultimately benefit) still haven't moved.

--

sf

On 6/2/2015 1:49 PM, Moe DeLoughan wrote:
> On 5/29/2015 9:38 PM, sf wrote:
>> where I mentioned that median rents in SF were around $3500. Here's
>> the latest: A new study by Zillow shows San Francisco's median rent
>> is now $4,225 a month and rents throughout the Bay Area are up an
>> average 15% over last year.
>>
>> GAG! I'm glad I own my own home and don't need to deal with that.
>>
>>
>
> What in the world are these skyrocketing values doing to your property
> taxes? Yikes.

If the property value goes up, the tax rate comes down. The budget
determines that. Individual properties may fluctuate the value increase
though.

On 02/06/2015 9:50 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 6/2/2015 1:49 PM, Moe DeLoughan wrote:
>> On 5/29/2015 9:38 PM, sf wrote:
>>> where I mentioned that median rents in SF were around $3500. Here's
>>> the latest: A new study by Zillow shows San Francisco's median rent
>>> is now $4,225 a month and rents throughout the Bay Area are up an
>>> average 15% over last year.
>>>
>>> GAG! I'm glad I own my own home and don't need to deal with that.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> What in the world are these skyrocketing values doing to your property
>> taxes? Yikes.
>
> If the property value goes up, the tax rate comes down.

The taxes here are based on the market value of the property on June 1st
of the previous year. With the setbacks in the oil industry, my house
has dropped in value since then.
Graham

On Fri, 29 May 2015 19:38:42 -0700, sf > wrote:

>where I mentioned that median rents in SF were around $3500. Here's
>the latest: A new study by Zillow shows San Francisco's median rent
>is now $4,225 a month and rents throughout the Bay Area are up an
>average 15% over last year.
>
>GAG! I'm glad I own my own home and don't need to deal with that.
>

You read a story like the following link will take you to, and you say
to yourself, how can people go through life and be so incredibly
stupid by the time they reach retirement age? Some of them act like
they are playing the lottery with their homes.


http://bigstory.ap.org/article/39c19...d-housing-debt


Obviously, the Bankers act like pigs at the trough writing mortgages
to people who clearly are not qualified for the loans. If we put a few
thousand mortgage bankers in the Federal Penetentiary for 50 years
without possibility of parole, some of this idiotic monetary policy
will cease.


William

On 6/3/2015 8:35 AM, William wrote:

> You read a story like the following link will take you to, and you say
> to yourself, how can people go through life and be so incredibly
> stupid by the time they reach retirement age? Some of them act like
> they are playing the lottery with their homes.
>
>
> http://bigstory.ap.org/article/39c19...d-housing-debt
>
>
> Obviously, the Bankers act like pigs at the trough writing mortgages
> to people who clearly are not qualified for the loans. If we put a few
> thousand mortgage bankers in the Federal Penetentiary for 50 years
> without possibility of parole, some of this idiotic monetary policy
> will cease.
>
>
> William
>
>

Some is the fault of greedy bankers. Some is the fault of mortgage
brokers that lied about the applicants income. Most of the fault is the
homeowners that looked at their house as an ATM and kept taking cash
out. It was so easy to get a home equity loan or line of credit.

I'm not a financial wizard, but I did know that the house should be paid
for before retirement age and to be essentially debt free. It is dumb to
take equity money for a 2 week vacation and pay it back with interest
over the nest 10 or 20 years, but people did thing like that.

On 3/06/2015 10:58 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 6/3/2015 8:35 AM, William wrote:
>
>> You read a story like the following link will take you to, and you say
>> to yourself, how can people go through life and be so incredibly
>> stupid by the time they reach retirement age? Some of them act like
>> they are playing the lottery with their homes.
>>
>>
>> http://bigstory.ap.org/article/39c19...d-housing-debt
>>
>>
>>
>> Obviously, the Bankers act like pigs at the trough writing mortgages
>> to people who clearly are not qualified for the loans. If we put a few
>> thousand mortgage bankers in the Federal Penetentiary for 50 years
>> without possibility of parole, some of this idiotic monetary policy
>> will cease.
>>
>>
>> William
>>
>>
>
> Some is the fault of greedy bankers. Some is the fault of mortgage
> brokers that lied about the applicants income. Most of the fault is the
> homeowners that looked at their house as an ATM and kept taking cash
> out. It was so easy to get a home equity loan or line of credit.
>
> I'm not a financial wizard, but I did know that the house should be paid
> for before retirement age and to be essentially debt free. It is dumb to
> take equity money for a 2 week vacation and pay it back with interest
> over the nest 10 or 20 years, but people did thing like that.

People are still doing that! A couple we know borrowed $100,000 some 20
years back. They *still* owe $200,000 on the house now! As you
suggested, they used it as an ATM. The husband is now about 70 and still
has to work. His wife, who is about 55, is also working and it looks
like they will never be able to pay it off.

Two things here.. People need to learn how to set priorities. Then they
need to learn how to stick to their goals. When I borrowed money for a
housing loan in 1986, my critical priority was to get the housing loan
paid off. That was achieved in 13 years. By the way, we bought the bare
minimum that suited our needs - a small timber cottage. No McMansion for
us. Along the way we also invested in another house in a nearby street.
That one, whilst not a startling performer in the investment stakes,
took care of itself and, given recent rampant increases in house prices,
looks like it might turn out to be a capital gains win.

Bought an investment unit in 2000 which we sold in 2003 for a modest
gain. We have also sold our primary residence twice now, each time
getting a newer and larger house.

Sounds easy, doesn't it? Well, just after we bought our first home,
interest rates climbed through the roof during the 90s and, in order to
maintain our roof over our head, I took on part time jobs. When other
people were losing their homes, we managed to keep ours. Had I been
forced to sell, We would not be homeowners today.

One more thing people of today would be wise to do. That is, *buy what
you need*! Instead, too many people, the young especially, buy what they
want and, as always, what they want is way above their needs and their
affordability range.

We could have bought as our first home a nice new 4 bedroom brick home
in a new suburb as so many of our friends did. Instead we bought a run
down 2 bedroom timber cottage in need of renovation in a leafy
established urban area. We couldn't even afford to do any renovations
for 16 years until we had paid the mortgage off and divested ourselves
of the investment unit. We spent a mere $20,000 on renovating our home
over a two year span and sold it for 4.5 times more than we paid for it.
One of our friends who bought a nice new 4 bedroom home in a new suburb
didn't even make three times their original buy price when they sold
after a similar span of time and they spent a hell of a lot more on
extensions to their house - double garage, extra bedroom, etc.

Buy what you need and can afford, set priorities and stick to goals.
Simple? Obviously not given the number of people under mortgage stress
these days!

--

Xeno.

"Xeno" > wrote in message
...
> On 3/06/2015 10:58 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 6/3/2015 8:35 AM, William wrote:
>>
>>> You read a story like the following link will take you to, and you say
>>> to yourself, how can people go through life and be so incredibly
>>> stupid by the time they reach retirement age? Some of them act like
>>> they are playing the lottery with their homes.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://bigstory.ap.org/article/39c19...d-housing-debt
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Obviously, the Bankers act like pigs at the trough writing mortgages
>>> to people who clearly are not qualified for the loans. If we put a few
>>> thousand mortgage bankers in the Federal Penetentiary for 50 years
>>> without possibility of parole, some of this idiotic monetary policy
>>> will cease.
>>>
>>>
>>> William
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Some is the fault of greedy bankers. Some is the fault of mortgage
>> brokers that lied about the applicants income. Most of the fault is the
>> homeowners that looked at their house as an ATM and kept taking cash
>> out. It was so easy to get a home equity loan or line of credit.
>>
>> I'm not a financial wizard, but I did know that the house should be paid
>> for before retirement age and to be essentially debt free. It is dumb to
>> take equity money for a 2 week vacation and pay it back with interest
>> over the nest 10 or 20 years, but people did thing like that.
>
> People are still doing that! A couple we know borrowed $100,000 some 20
> years back. They *still* owe $200,000 on the house now! As you suggested,
> they used it as an ATM. The husband is now about 70 and still has to work.
> His wife, who is about 55, is also working and it looks like they will
> never be able to pay it off.

We bought our house so late in life we probably will never pay it off. But
we couldn't have bought a house any sooner because of my husband having to
move so frequently.
>
> Two things here.. People need to learn how to set priorities. Then they
> need to learn how to stick to their goals. When I borrowed money for a
> housing loan in 1986, my critical priority was to get the housing loan
> paid off. That was achieved in 13 years. By the way, we bought the bare
> minimum that suited our needs - a small timber cottage. No McMansion for
> us. Along the way we also invested in another house in a nearby street.
> That one, whilst not a startling performer in the investment stakes, took
> care of itself and, given recent rampant increases in house prices, looks
> like it might turn out to be a capital gains win.
>
> Bought an investment unit in 2000 which we sold in 2003 for a modest gain.
> We have also sold our primary residence twice now, each time getting a
> newer and larger house.
>
> Sounds easy, doesn't it? Well, just after we bought our first home,
> interest rates climbed through the roof during the 90s and, in order to
> maintain our roof over our head, I took on part time jobs. When other
> people were losing their homes, we managed to keep ours. Had I been forced
> to sell, We would not be homeowners today.
>
> One more thing people of today would be wise to do. That is, *buy what you
> need*! Instead, too many people, the young especially, buy what they want
> and, as always, what they want is way above their needs and their
> affordability range.

Oh gawd! There is a Bothell community group on Facebook. At least once a
week, a young person will post that they are moving out and they need...and
then they post a list of all the things that they need. They don't want to
buy them. They want these things to be given to them. Furniture, dishes,
you name it! Sometimes they aren't picky. But a recent list included a
cream colored bedroom set and espresso colored living room furniture.
Another woman asked for beds and other things for her kids, for free and in
excellent condition. The weird thing is that they often *get* these things!
When I moved out, I had my bed, dresser, some floor pillows and kitchen
things.
>
> We could have bought as our first home a nice new 4 bedroom brick home in
> a new suburb as so many of our friends did. Instead we bought a run down 2
> bedroom timber cottage in need of renovation in a leafy established urban
> area. We couldn't even afford to do any renovations for 16 years until we
> had paid the mortgage off and divested ourselves of the investment unit.
> We spent a mere $20,000 on renovating our home over a two year span and
> sold it for 4.5 times more than we paid for it. One of our friends who
> bought a nice new 4 bedroom home in a new suburb didn't even make three
> times their original buy price when they sold after a similar span of time
> and they spent a hell of a lot more on extensions to their house - double
> garage, extra bedroom, etc.
>
> Buy what you need and can afford, set priorities and stick to goals.
> Simple? Obviously not given the number of people under mortgage stress
> these days!

These days, younger people want it all and want it now.

On Wed, 3 Jun 2015 15:35:51 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

>We bought our house so late in life we probably will never pay it off. But
>we couldn't have bought a house any sooner because of my husband having to
>move so frequently.

What happened to your husband's income during those years? No savings
to purchase outright or at least keep any borrowing to a minimum?
Didn't you say previously that you own a 2014 model car?
If so, I think I see the problem...

>These days, younger people want it all and want it now.

Your post suggests it isn't just young people.

On 4/06/2015 8:35 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
>
> "Xeno" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 3/06/2015 10:58 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> On 6/3/2015 8:35 AM, William wrote:
>>>
>>>> You read a story like the following link will take you to, and you say
>>>> to yourself, how can people go through life and be so incredibly
>>>> stupid by the time they reach retirement age? Some of them act like
>>>> they are playing the lottery with their homes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://bigstory.ap.org/article/39c19...d-housing-debt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Obviously, the Bankers act like pigs at the trough writing mortgages
>>>> to people who clearly are not qualified for the loans. If we put a few
>>>> thousand mortgage bankers in the Federal Penetentiary for 50 years
>>>> without possibility of parole, some of this idiotic monetary policy
>>>> will cease.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> William
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Some is the fault of greedy bankers. Some is the fault of mortgage
>>> brokers that lied about the applicants income. Most of the fault is the
>>> homeowners that looked at their house as an ATM and kept taking cash
>>> out. It was so easy to get a home equity loan or line of credit.
>>>
>>> I'm not a financial wizard, but I did know that the house should be paid
>>> for before retirement age and to be essentially debt free. It is dumb to
>>> take equity money for a 2 week vacation and pay it back with interest
>>> over the nest 10 or 20 years, but people did thing like that.
>>
>> People are still doing that! A couple we know borrowed $100,000 some
>> 20 years back. They *still* owe $200,000 on the house now! As you
>> suggested, they used it as an ATM. The husband is now about 70 and
>> still has to work. His wife, who is about 55, is also working and it
>> looks like they will never be able to pay it off.
>
> We bought our house so late in life we probably will never pay it off.
> But we couldn't have bought a house any sooner because of my husband
> having to move so frequently.

That's a bit of a furphy. You could have just as easily bought an
investment property, rented it out and allowed it to pay itself off, for
the most part, then moved in when your "moving" circumstances altered
and allowed it. That would have allowed you to keep up with the housing
market.
>>
>> Two things here.. People need to learn how to set priorities. Then
>> they need to learn how to stick to their goals. When I borrowed money
>> for a housing loan in 1986, my critical priority was to get the
>> housing loan paid off. That was achieved in 13 years. By the way, we
>> bought the bare minimum that suited our needs - a small timber
>> cottage. No McMansion for us. Along the way we also invested in
>> another house in a nearby street. That one, whilst not a startling
>> performer in the investment stakes, took care of itself and, given
>> recent rampant increases in house prices, looks like it might turn out
>> to be a capital gains win.
>>
>> Bought an investment unit in 2000 which we sold in 2003 for a modest
>> gain. We have also sold our primary residence twice now, each time
>> getting a newer and larger house.
>>
>> Sounds easy, doesn't it? Well, just after we bought our first home,
>> interest rates climbed through the roof during the 90s and, in order
>> to maintain our roof over our head, I took on part time jobs. When
>> other people were losing their homes, we managed to keep ours. Had I
>> been forced to sell, We would not be homeowners today.
>>
>> One more thing people of today would be wise to do. That is, *buy what
>> you need*! Instead, too many people, the young especially, buy what
>> they want and, as always, what they want is way above their needs and
>> their affordability range.
>
> Oh gawd! There is a Bothell community group on Facebook. At least once
> a week, a young person will post that they are moving out and they
> need...and then they post a list of all the things that they need. They
> don't want to buy them. They want these things to be given to them.
> Furniture, dishes, you name it! Sometimes they aren't picky. But a
> recent list included a cream colored bedroom set and espresso colored
> living room furniture. Another woman asked for beds and other things for
> her kids, for free and in excellent condition. The weird thing is that
> they often *get* these things! When I moved out, I had my bed, dresser,
> some floor pillows and kitchen things.

When I moved out at age 21 I took nothing from home with me apart from
what was mine. Besides, I was traveling and that type of accoutrement
was more than a little difficult to carry. When I married at age 28 and
settled down, my mother gave me a few items of cutlery, crockery and
some beaten up old pots and pans. That was it. We STILL have many of
those items of cutlery in our day to day use drawer. When we married I
bought some cheap furniture at a sale and had an old dining table given
to us. The cheap chairs didn't last but the dining table was with us
until we moved in here 2 years ago. I tried to give it away but had not
takers so I eventually cut it up. We borrowed a fridge for the first
year and bought a new one in 1987. We still had that fridge until the
27/05/2015. Yes, just a few days back! The old fridge, a Kelvinator, was
still working after 34 years but its time was nigh. It was not an auto
defrost so was a pain since moving here into this high humidity area and
required a manual defrost every month or so. As well, it was showing
signs of needing new capacitors in the compressor and was losing
efficiency. I had to keep the temp setting at 8.5 on a scale of 9 just
to keep icecream from getting mushy so that told me our old faithful
fridge had earned its retirement (recycling).

I have never been one to buy new where SH was just as good nor have I
been one to toss out appliances and the like that are still serviceable.
>>
>> We could have bought as our first home a nice new 4 bedroom brick home
>> in a new suburb as so many of our friends did. Instead we bought a run
>> down 2 bedroom timber cottage in need of renovation in a leafy
>> established urban area. We couldn't even afford to do any renovations
>> for 16 years until we had paid the mortgage off and divested ourselves
>> of the investment unit. We spent a mere $20,000 on renovating our home
>> over a two year span and sold it for 4.5 times more than we paid for
>> it. One of our friends who bought a nice new 4 bedroom home in a new
>> suburb didn't even make three times their original buy price when they
>> sold after a similar span of time and they spent a hell of a lot more
>> on extensions to their house - double garage, extra bedroom, etc.
>>
>> Buy what you need and can afford, set priorities and stick to goals.
>> Simple? Obviously not given the number of people under mortgage stress
>> these days!
>
> These days, younger people want it all and want it now.

Blame the marketing gurus for that. They have it down to a fine art,
brand image and all that! ;-)

--

Xeno.