Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: energyplay who wrote (18190)	5/11/2007 8:07:08 PM
From: 8bits	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 220194

San Francisco, California 4 under 250 K 25 under 300 K Even those figures are skewed, since I've been helping a friend try to buy a place in SF (I tried to talk her out of it.. although I think she will eventually see my point of view..) I know the market pretty well there. If you look at the fine print at least one third of the less than 300K market is restricted... either you have to be 55 or above or it is a set aside for the San Francisco low income lottery. (On average 200 people apply for each low income set aside property in SF... you can have an income above a certain amount and you must be a first time home buyer..) The balance of the areas are in marginal to really bad areas and have little living space. For the same amount that someone would pay for just HOA fees and taxes of the sub 300K, I am renting (17 miles away) and getting double the square footage, with off street parking, with 3 forms of public transit, walking distance to shops and restaurants, in one of the safest cities in California. Admittedly I don't have people driving through my neighborhood playing their stereos at deafening volumes nor does anyone urinate on my front door stoop as was common when I lived in SF. Alas some of the downsides of suburban living. I'll take a pass on buying in SF for the moment.