News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Bay Area wages soaring but still can’t keep up with housi... by ChuckMcM on Sunday September 25, 2016 @03:11PM (#12576844)
I toured an open house in Sunnyvale yesterday to have a look at what $1.7M buys you these days. 1900 sq ft, four bedrooms, two and a half baths, a nicely remodeled kitchen and a small patch of yard. And I asked the realtors if they expected to get any offers. They already had offers but they are waiting until Monday to sit down and sift through them. And then the big question, could they describe the type of people buying these houses?

The answer was couples where both parents worked in the tech industry with a combined income of over $300,000. Usually one child and often one on the way, many have houses already further away (Livermore, Gilroy, Morgan Hill) that they are selling.

Now that is unscientific, it is the experience of one broker who is sitting in one open house, showing the house to prospective buyers and gently quizzing them on their financials in order to understand if they are good prospects or not. But I can see other evidence that its probably accurate, the folks moving into my neighborhood fit that profile. A lot of people looking for "good schools" because if you don't pay private school tuition that saves you $15,000 per kid per year you can put into house payments.

My point being that the houses are being listed and sold in a short time frame. That suggests that the housing market is pricing appropriately for the buyers. That there are more buyers than houses pushes up the price and pushes out the buyers who do not earn as much. However, unlike San Francisco, there is a lot of residential building being put up on the peninsula and south toward San Jose. Across a wide spectrum from apartments to condos to single family attached, and single family detached. Sunnyvale has a ballot measure (https://sunnyvalepubliclandsact.com/) that is seeking to limit how the city can transfer park land to developers to turn into houses (or hotels, or office parks). That measure is an artifact of all the building that is going on.

Re:Bay Area wages soaring but still can’t keep up with housi... by sandworm101 on Sunday September 25, 2016 @03:18PM (#12576876)
>> My point being that the houses are being listed and sold in a short time frame. That suggests that the housing market is pricing appropriately for the buyers.

I'd call that a seller's market. Houses may be selling quickly because of a lack of supply and elite buyers are moving asap. A buyer's market would be one where buyers are not in a hurry, one where houses stay on the market for a while, negating any need to bid high and fast.

I'm currently in the ultimate seller's market (Vancouver, north shore) with a <1% rental vacancy rate and houses selling within hours. I laugh a little at the prices in the OP. 1.7m won't get you much in my neck of the woods. Some 35 new apartments (2Br 2Bath) in west van just pre-sold for 7.5m each. And they haven't even broken ground on the building. The city/province is starting to take drastic steps as the young flee and shops close. The market is in a bit of a panic, but that is what drastic steps were meant to do.

Re:Bay Area wages soaring but still can’t keep up with housi... by boulos on Sunday September 25, 2016 @04:43PM (#12577315)
I was with you until the "unlike San Francisco" about building. Unless you mean single family homes, San Francisco is seemingly permitting and building about the same per person as Santa Clara County (http://my.paragon-re.com/Docs/General/SixtyFortyImages/New-C... from http://www.paragon-re.com/San_Francisco_Housing_Development_...) while San Mateo is way underweight: with almost the same population as San Francisco, San Mateo county approved about half as many units. So while it's true that most of the new units are in SOMA, I think they still count ;).
Re:Bay Area wages soaring but still can’t keep up with housi... by ChuckMcM on Sunday September 25, 2016 @06:19PM (#12577759)
A fair point, and I was not aware they had approved as much housing as they had in San Francisco of late.
Re:Bay Area wages soaring but still can’t keep up with housi... by runamok on Sunday September 25, 2016 @07:41PM (#12578088)
By conventional standards a couple making 300k should have a loan of about 3x that income. So 900k. Perhaps that is the case coming in with an existing property but do they really think they will have 30 years of prosperity and one parent won't take some time off to raise their kids? I can't help but assume many people are going to lose their everything come the next recession...
Re:Bay Area wages soaring but still can’t keep up with housi... by usaar333 on Monday September 26, 2016 @02:33AM (#12579694)
Prior property isn't needed and I'm not sure where the 3x rule comes from. Non-housing costs need not scale linearly with income.

$300,000 a year is $190,000 post-tax.

Assuming 20% down, a $1.7M home would cost somewhere in the range of $8,000 a month after factoring in the mortgage income tax deduction.

That leaves $94,000 a year disposable, which is a lot anywhere. This family can readily get a full-time nanny for the early children years, ensuring no parent needs to take time off.

Re:Bay Area wages soaring but still can’t keep up with housi... by runamok on Monday September 26, 2016 @03:24PM (#12584793)
Right. Until one person gets laid off, has a car accident, wants a divorce, etc. 8000 in 12 months is 96000 so now one salary goes only to the mortgage...

Now make those salaries for the next 30 years.

Your point is valid in that as you make more money more of it can go to housing because a smaller portion is required for things like food, clothing, gas, transportation, etc.

3x gross income was the conventional rule of thumb but truthfully that was back when interest rates were 7% or so. However, just because you can afford something doesn't mean you should.

Re:Bay Area wages soaring but still can’t keep up with housi... by dcosson on Monday September 26, 2016 @01:39AM (#12579480)
That rule of thumb was probably intended for more "middle class" wages though, no? Above a certain level your other basic costs like food, clothing, travel (especially if you're having kids and can't do much traveling or fine dining) don't have to increase with your income so you can afford to spend a higher percentage of your pay on housing if you want/need to.
Re:Bay Area wages soaring but still can’t keep up with housi... by 11thEarlOfMar on Sunday September 25, 2016 @03:22PM (#12576896)
It's not exactly a reply, but in nearby Fremont, there's more going on than Californians relocating from nearby commuting communities. There is a non-trivial amount of money coming in from other countries to bid up property as well. Offering my own anecdote, I received a flyer in the mail about a year ago from a local realtor who is well known and has a sizable business (I don't want to promote him by naming him here). He explicitly stated in his flyer that sellers should dress their homes specifically to market to Indian buyers, because Indians made up 90% of his buyers at the time.
Re:Bay Area wages soaring but still can’t keep up with housi... by mahyarm on Monday September 26, 2016 @12:23AM (#12579212)
In fremont i dont think its foreign money but indian immigrants working in tech more likely. They are not independently wealthy and income is from the local economy.
Re:Bay Area wages soaring but still can’t keep up with housi... by tamana on Sunday September 25, 2016 @06:16PM (#12577747)
Indians buying from India, or Indian-Americans?

Usually when people mention foreigners in real estate, they are talking about nonresident investors (often Chinese citizens). Calling out mere ethnicity of homebuyers is weird.

Re:Bay Area wages soaring but still can’t keep up with housi... by ChuckMcM on Sunday September 25, 2016 @03:37PM (#12576986)
" There is a non-trivial amount of money coming in from other countries to bid up property as well."

That is true and one of my neighbors was a realtor for 20 years and has a number of friends who advertise in foreign countries that they can find you an investment property in California. Typically though, those buyers seem to be "status invested" rather than simply buying a house. So they look for places in San Francisco, or Palo Alto, or Saratoga (places where there is some status associated with owning a home there) rather than say Sunnyvale or Santa Clara.

That said, my neighbor came to the US on an H1B with his wife and daughter, is working for a local tech company, and his parents gave him the money for a 20% down payment on his house. That saved him the more typical path it seems of getting a starter house, building a bit of equity and then trading up to a larger house. I expect that being foreign nationals they don't have the gift tax burden that US parents do.

On the one hand that is foreign capital fueling higher house prices but at the same time my wife and I got a loan from her parents to help buy our original house, so I don't consider it out of the ordinary if the parents can help out.

Re:Bay Area wages soaring but still can’t keep up with housi... by tamana on Sunday September 25, 2016 @06:17PM (#12577755)
There is no gift tax burden (except a little paperwork) on the first $5 million of lifetime gifting. Plenty for a house down payment.
Re:Bay Area wages soaring but still can’t keep up with housi... by WillPostForFood on Sunday September 25, 2016 @07:38PM (#12578073)
There is a burden in that the $5 million lowers your estate tax exemption. Whereas you can give $14k a year with no tax impact.
Re:Bay Area wages soaring but still can’t keep up with housi... by ori_b on Sunday September 25, 2016 @03:34PM (#12576967)
> * There is a non-trivial amount of money coming in from other countries to bid up property as well.

And how many of them were engineers moving over for jobs? It's not just Californians relocating from nearby communities, sure -- I moved from Canada (via a few years in New York), for example. But it's unlikely to be some foreign absentee landlord.

Re:Bay Area wages soaring but still can’t keep up with housi... by tamana on Sunday September 25, 2016 @06:20PM (#12577762)
In my experience foreign absentee landlords aren't even very bad, because they care mainly about parking their assets outside of China, more than maximizing or even collecting rent.
Re:Bay Area wages soaring but still can’t keep up with housi... by ajmurmann on Monday September 26, 2016 @12:17AM (#12579192)
Not caring about collecting rent often leads to empty houses that now nobody can live in. That's about the worst that can happen if we want to get housing costs down.
Re:Bay Area wages soaring but still can’t keep up with housi... by imtringued on Monday September 26, 2016 @02:28AM (#12579678)
Developers prioritise luxury apartments which they primariy sell to those chinese landlords.
Re:Bay Area wages soaring but still can’t keep up with housi... by JustSomeNobody on Sunday September 25, 2016 @06:18PM (#12577758)
Combined income of $300K, Looking at $1.7M? What are these people thinking? That's a lot of debt.
Re:Bay Area wages soaring but still can’t keep up with housi... by rayiner on Sunday September 25, 2016 @07:13PM (#12577968)
The issue is, in these areas, there isn't much choice. Here in DC, couples max out their mortgage because prices in any area with a good school district and less than an hour commute are exorbitant. And we're not talking luxury houses here. A 1,200 square foot 3BR in Bethesda that was last renovated in the 1950s will run you $600k.

In the DC area this results in a weird trend. There are almost no 3 bedrooms in Georgetown below a million. That'll buy you about 1,200 square feet. $2 million will buy you an actual urban mansion with triple the square footage and wood paneled walls. The price is entirely driven by what ~$300k HHI couples can "afford" maxing out their mortgage eligibility. Once you get above that, demand drops precipitously.

Re:Bay Area wages soaring but still can’t keep up with housi... by WWLink on Sunday September 25, 2016 @09:24PM (#12578557)
Sounds like the 'south bay' in los angeles. $3k/month buys you a crappy 1950s tract house. $4k/month gets you a nearly twice as big house.
Re:Bay Area wages soaring but still can’t keep up with housi... by base698 on Monday September 26, 2016 @01:11AM (#12579373)
They could rent and probably squirrel enough away in a few years to retire or buy in cash the houses in foreclosure after the crash :)
Re:Bay Area wages soaring but still can’t keep up with housi... by rayiner on Monday September 26, 2016 @07:46AM (#12581007)
Rents are very high too, and at that income range you're leaving a ton of money on the table by not taking advantage of the mortgage interest deduction.
Re:Bay Area wages soaring but still can’t keep up with housi... by refurb on Sunday September 25, 2016 @06:49PM (#12577874)
I looked at a house in SF that was listed for $2M (probably go for $2.2M). At 20% down, that's $500K upfront, then ~$9,000 per month all in for mortgage and property taxes.

If you assume you shouldn't spend more than 1/3 of your gross income on a house, that would mean the homeowners should be making $325K/year (and already have $500K saved they can plow into a house).

Wow.

Re:Bay Area wages soaring but still can’t keep up with housi... by neffy on Sunday September 25, 2016 @07:06PM (#12577936)
Not so hard if you assume it's their second house, and they bought the previous one a few years back. Once you're on the housing ladder, you're protected to some extent from the increase in the price of the house you want to buy, by the increase in the price of the one you already have.
Re:Bay Area wages soaring but still can’t keep up with housi... by billhathaway on Sunday September 25, 2016 @09:05PM (#12578460)
Exactly: we bought in San Jose in Sept 2011 and have seen our townhouse's value increase by approx 60% since then (which seems ridiculous to me). We really lucked out on our timing.

The seller who had originally owned our home sold for a ~20% loss over their purchase price (purchased in 2007).

Re:Bay Area wages soaring but still can’t keep up with housi... by ChuckMcM on Sunday September 25, 2016 @07:41PM (#12578087)
This was my experience, the small house my wife and I bought originally, then after a few years we were vested in our options and had some equity in our house, the combination let up step up to a larger house with essentially the same payment (rates had come down, our down payment was bigger).
Re:Bay Area wages soaring but still can’t keep up with housi... by refurb on Sunday September 25, 2016 @07:52PM (#12578138)
I don't disagree. If you've been owning in SF for the last 20 years, you're good. But how many people in SF arrived in the last 5-10 years?
Re:Bay Area wages soaring but still can’t keep up with housi... by frutiger on Sunday September 25, 2016 @05:03PM (#12577423)
> I toured an open house in Sunnyvale yesterday to have a look at what $1.7M buys you these days. 1900 sq ft, four bedrooms, two and a half baths...

That seems quite cheap compared to Manhattan[0][1][2][3], and only one of those is in an relatively desirable neighbourhood.

0. http://streeteasy.com/building/richmond-condominium/9a?featu...

1. http://streeteasy.com/building/439-east-51-street-new_york/6...

2. http://streeteasy.com/building/355-east-19-street-new_york/3

3. http://streeteasy.com/building/circa-central-park/5g

Re:Bay Area wages soaring but still can’t keep up with housi... by TuringNYC on Sunday September 25, 2016 @05:51PM (#12577651)
The comparison is really apples and oranges: 1. One is in the center of a job district where you can often walk to work (Manhattan) and the other (Sunnyvale) has some jobs but is generally 30min to 120min from the center-of-gravity of jobs. 2. How much do you value your time? I'd pay that much in Manhattan because it would allow me to spend 2.5h more per day with my family (when I worked in Manhattan, i strolled to work) 3. Property taxes are generally higher in CA, as is upkeep and insurance on these homes 4. You need 2 cars in Sunnyvale generally, but in Manhattan you can live very comfortably w/o cars and overspend on the apartment.

There are so many things that make this an apples-to-oranges comparison, the above list is not comprehensive.

Re:Bay Area wages soaring but still can’t keep up with housi... by ChuckMcM on Sunday September 25, 2016 @06:16PM (#12577749)
I actually agree with your general point, which is that Manhattan presents a much more single car friendly work environment but disagree with your characterization of Sunnyvale.

I chose to buy my house in Sunnyvale because it was near the "center" of things (and for a time that was a bit more literal than I expected). Within ~30 minutes of downtown Sunnyvale by bike you can work at Apple, Google, LinkedIn, HP, Yahoo!, NetApp, Intel, AMD, and Amazon. Not walkable but not particularly bad either.

Re:Bay Area wages soaring but still can’t keep up with housi... by TuringNYC on Sunday September 25, 2016 @06:23PM (#12577776)
I do stand corrected on Sunnyvale's centrality (i'm actually looking for a place to move to, so this discussion is superb) -- but wouldn't you be 90+min away from all the SF jobs? Perhaps I'm not weighting this correctly, but the center of gravity seemed to reside somewhere between Palo Alto and SF west of PA and east of SF...thoughts? Is there a good visualization on this?

BTW, Manhattan presents something even better than single car friendly -- zero-car friendly. We only temporarily got a car once we had infants, since carrying around car-seats was a pain. Most other times, we've been just-in-time with Uber or just plain walking/subway.

Re:Bay Area wages soaring but still can’t keep up with housi... by ChuckMcM on Sunday September 25, 2016 @07:37PM (#12578067)
Like most things it is a bit nuanced. San Francisco is a bit over 40 miles north of "Silicon Valley[1]". The "big" companies often have large campuses closer to Silicon Valley than San Francisco as it is generally possible to build on larger lots and less expensively (outward rather than upward). The big new Apple campus? In Cupertino which is further south than Sunnyvale. The big new Google campus? Near Moffett field and Mountain View, a bit north of Sunnyvale. The Facebook campus, Menlo Park (north of Sunnyvale, about 1/4 of the way to San Francisco).

However, there are a bunch of startups actually in San Francisco, Uber and AirBnB being ones that get a lot of airtime, and Twitter (which is no longer a startup). There are lots and lots of pre-revenue 2 - 15 employee companies there as well. YCombinator is in Mountain View which is right next to Sunnyvale, and about 36 miles from San Francisco.

San Francisco is urban and hip and all of that, and a lot of people want to live there. Then they take bespoke busses and ride down the peninsula to places in the "south bay" (the collective term for the communities at the southern end of San Francisco bay). That is part of the issue that SF residents have, which is people who live in SF but work somewhere else, they are able to pay higher prices and the bus eliminates the commute disincentive.

On either side of the bay between these two loci are a number of vibrant and interesting places as well, on the west side you have the peninsula cities of Burlingame, San Mateo, Redwood City, San Carlos, and on the eastern side you have Oakland, Hayward, Berkeley, and Richmond.

Somewhat remarkably they have their own micro-climates so you get different weather depending on where you are.

Cities in the north and on the east of the bay have BART service, cities on the south and west of the bay have CalTrain service. There are three major airports one east (Oakland), one south (San Jose), and one west (SFO). Efforts to turn Hamilton Air Force base in Marin county into a northern airport have been rebuffed several times.

If you are not working at a company that is actually located in San Francisco you will have a shorter/easier commute if you live outside of San Francisco (typically on the east or west side of the bay that your company is on). You will also pay less for an apartment/house.

[1] Which is nominally the Santa Clara Valley where all of the semiconductor companies were located.

Re:Bay Area wages soaring but still can’t keep up with housi... by foobarian on Sunday September 25, 2016 @11:48PM (#12579092)
Appreciate all comments in this thread. I never lived on the west coast (Boston mostly) but I was always puzzled by how many of my acquaintances who moved there over the years to work for $BIG_TECH_CO chose to live in San Francisco proper. This usually meant at least an hour commute each way. The typical explanation was that SF was a "fun" place to live with much better leisure options than the desolate office parks and suburbs of the SV towns.
Re:Bay Area wages soaring but still can’t keep up with housi... by yarou on Monday September 26, 2016 @12:26AM (#12579225)
> The typical explanation was that SF was a "fun" place to live with much better leisure options than the desolate office parks and suburbs of the SV towns.

Depends on your definition of fun - being harassed constantly by both homeless people and SFPD? If so, then a paradise awaits you.

Re:Bay Area wages soaring but still can’t keep up with housi... by Hydraulix989 on Monday September 26, 2016 @09:30AM (#12581614)
Everything in SF closes at 10 PM. Even the bars shut down at midnight. Not very fun.
Re:Bay Area wages soaring but still can’t keep up with housi... by dragonwriter on Monday September 26, 2016 @09:33AM (#12581641)
Now, it's been a few years sin e I've bothered with SF nightlife (having lived near, but not in, the city) but has it really changed that much? Because I remember there being plenty open much later, and many times starting at 10 or later.
Re:Bay Area wages soaring but still can’t keep up with housi... by webrender on Tuesday September 27, 2016 @11:28AM (#12590306)
This is inaccurate. Most bars in SF are open until 2am, and The Endup is open all night and into the morning.
Re:Bay Area wages soaring but still can’t keep up with housi... by astrange on Monday September 26, 2016 @02:08AM (#12579572)
> On either side of the bay between these two loci are a number of vibrant and interesting places as well

I wouldn't call them either of those things; they're very nice suburbs on the Peninsula (west side) and less nice suburbs in East Bay. The northeastern ones (Danville, Oakland, Berkeley, Richmond) are too far to commute to South Bay from. And none of them are interesting.

There's also public transit up and down the Peninsula but it's very unreliable because the governments here refuse to invest in anything, or build anything, in the hopes it'll make everyone leave again.

Re:Bay Area wages soaring but still can’t keep up with housi... by frutiger on Sunday September 25, 2016 @06:13PM (#12577738)
Thanks - I stand corrected. I've been to SF and much further south, I didn't quite realise/remember that the suburbs start so close to the bay.
Re:Bay Area wages soaring but still can’t keep up with housi... by freyir on Monday September 26, 2016 @12:38AM (#12579273)
Sunnyvale seems much closer to the true "center of gravity" of Bay Area tech jobs than SF. SF has startup jobs, but those are staffed mostly by 20-somethings who can't afford houses anyway.
Re:Bay Area wages soaring but still can’t keep up with housi... by ChuckMcM on Monday September 26, 2016 @03:08PM (#12584688)
I think that was certainly true for the last 30 years but as more things start up further away, some of those things can grow into their own "centers". For example when IBM decided to build a west coast center for Watson they chose 505 Howard in San Francisco over space in San Jose or one of the Peninsula cities. At one time they owned two reasonably sized buildings that corner of El Camino and Page Mill Road in Palo Alto. So they felt that some of the center of gravity had shifted.
Re:Bay Area wages soaring but still can’t keep up with housi... by WillPostForFood on Sunday September 25, 2016 @06:48PM (#12577871)
Most people in NYC can't live close enough to work to walk - only about 318k. And they walk on average 32min a day.
Re:Bay Area wages soaring but still can’t keep up with housi... by api_or_ipa on Sunday September 25, 2016 @07:40PM (#12578079)
To be fair, 32 mins of walking every day is significantly more enjoyable than 32 minutes of car driving. In general given a similar duration, walking > biking == transit > driving.
Re:Bay Area wages soaring but still can’t keep up with housi... by massysett on Sunday September 25, 2016 @10:27PM (#12578826)
Not always. I used to walk 25 minutes to work from one part of DC to another. Walking along a busy commuter road, crossing several busy streets with turning vehicles and others that run red lights, passing the graffiti-tagged building and homeless people in a tunnel under the railroad track, too loud to listen to anything through most headphones, but you better not turn your headphones up too loud because you have to keep your wits about you. And that's when it's not raining or snowing--snow? Of course people don't shovel snow and the plows push it onto the sidewalk. I bought a full rain suit for wet days.

I now have a longer drive and I am much happier. Having been to Manhattan I doubt walking there is much more pleasant either. Walking in a small town would be nice. Not in big cities.

Re:Bay Area wages soaring but still can’t keep up with housi... by tracker1 on Monday September 26, 2016 @02:14AM (#12579606)
speak for yourself... my own ideal is about a half hour commute in mostly freeway traffic. I live pretty centrally in Phoenix, and my commute is usually against traffic both ways. I enjoy driving so much that most of my vacations the past few years have been road trips. Been up the Pacific Coast a few times, straight up through AZ-UT-WY-ID and back, etc.

I find driving relaxing, it's got just enough attention to be a distraction from the stray thoughts, and with music, enjoyable enough to work past any driving frustrations.

Re:Bay Area wages soaring but still can’t keep up with housi... by WillPostForFood on Sunday September 25, 2016 @08:50PM (#12578391)
Sometimes it is, maybe not in the snow or rain, or on the hottest days of summer. I think the value is in short commutes, regardless of mode.
Re:Bay Area wages soaring but still can’t keep up with housi... by phamilton on Sunday September 25, 2016 @05:14PM (#12577485)
Yes, but Manhattan isn't suburbia like Sunnyvale is.
Re:Bay Area wages soaring but still can’t keep up with housi... by mrexroad on Monday September 26, 2016 @04:48AM (#12580278)
> My point being that the houses are being listed and sold in a short time frame. That suggests that the housing market is pricing appropriately for the buyers.

i live in sunnyvale. along the ~0.6mi route between my house and the kids' school, 3 houses in past month or two come to market and each sold after just a single weekend of open house. i've actually been surprised at the speed of sales in recent weeks.

> Sunnyvale has a ballot measure (https://sunnyvalepubliclandsact.com/) that is seeking to limit how the city can transfer park land to developers to turn into houses (or hotels, or office parks). That measure is an artifact of all the building that is going on.

kinda. this is more about what happened w/ raynor park after selling the adjacent school, but there are a few other deals in sunnyvale (e.g. city buildings). i spend a lot of time over at raynor with our little league, and my biggest issue is that a private school now has priority use of the fields during specific hours. oh, that and they paved over one of the baseball fields (well, backstop + grass) after the city gave away the small strip of land along the school. over in santa clara there's been some f'd up tactics around Levi's stadium to get park land (using term loosely) developed. BMX track and soccer fields will be missed.

Re:Bay Area wages soaring but still can’t keep up with housi... by sliverstorm on Sunday September 25, 2016 @06:40PM (#12577848)
...that is seeking to limit how the city can transfer park land to developers to turn into houses

Christ, are they already doing that?