Patrick.net

Surprised? SF is 2nd least affordable city to buy

By tovarichpeter   Follow   Wed, 15 Aug 2012, 6:44pm   984 views   6 comments
In South San Francisco CA 94080   Watch (2)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

http://blog.sfgate.com/ontheblock/2012/08/15/surprised-sf-is-2nd-least-affordable-city-to-buy/

Viewing Comments 1-6 of 6     Last »     See most liked comments

1. tovarichpeter Follow Befriend (1) 6,709 threads 46 comments South San Francisco, CA Premium

   1   6:47pm Wed 15 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   This article is not terribly significant. Actually my reason for posting it is to as if anyone here uses an ipad and has been able to drag the Submit button to the IPAD bookmarks toolbar? Thanks

2. FortWayne Follow Befriend (13) 107 threads 3,865 comments

   2   10:02pm Wed 15 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   I'm not surprised a bit, aren't at least half of patrick.net users from SF? CA seems generally like a place that is ripe for either a huge fall, or what is more likely a really slow prolonged decline.

3. bmwman91 Follow Befriend (8) 38 threads 1,606 comments Mountain View, CA bmwman91's website Premium

   3   10:37pm Wed 15 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Oh FortWayne, don't you know? It's DIFFERENT here!

4. 1sfrenter Follow Befriend (1) 11 threads 224 comments San Francisco, CA

   4   10:52pm Wed 15 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Yeah, it is different. It's more friggin' expensive. Food, gas, rents, parking tickets, everything.The only place that is more expensive is NYC. I used to live there, too. Unfortunately I love both cities. Champagne tastes? Oh well. I have only one life to live: I'd rather live it here in SF than in Youngstown, Ohio. To each his own. I am willing to pay more to live here, even though I grumble about it. This is my home. For me, the quality of life is more than just how much money you can save or invest.

5. thomaswong.1986 Follow Befriend 15 threads 3,093 comments

   5   12:02am Thu 16 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   FortWayne says or what is more likely a really slow prolonged decline. Much over the years was based on lot of hype! many people forget how AFFORDABLE SF used to be...mid 90s. Of course SF has been around for many many decades. but also many are trying to compare SF with some metropolitan global city.. which it isnt.. It was a big name but affordable....below is a news clip BEFORE the new building boom we saw hit SF CITY. Typical HH income was 50K. http://www.nytimes.com/1997/04/27/realestate/live-work-law-for-artists-roils-san-franciscans.html Live-Work Law for Artists Roils San Franciscans report released this month by the National Association of Home Builders put San Francisco's median residential price for 1996 at $285,000. With prices beginning at $175,000 to $200,000, lofts are the cheapest nonsubsidized units on the market, according to David Becker, a broker with Ritchie Commercial Real Estate. They are, nonetheless, still too expensive for the artists for whom they were intended, Ms. Hestor said.

6. thomaswong.1986 Follow Befriend 15 threads 3,093 comments

   6   12:06am Thu 16 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   1sfrenter says I am willing to pay more to live here why ? everyone else who was here certainly didnt. Frankly they would call you insane if you did.. but I will gladly sell you the GG bridge if it suites you as well. What is it with the east coast people anyway ? So now a herd of New Yerkers come flying over and inflate prices even higer making the area too expensive for our employers to make our industries competitive.. so now we all lose our jobs. Gosh! why are we shipping jobs to other states and overseas..