patrick.net

From Groundwork starting to pay off in Oakland:
But in the second half of last year, the frequency of violent crime around the city began to ebb. There are still huge challenges ahead, but crime statistics suggest things are slowly getting better....
I don't usually buy government-generated buzz about renaissance and revitalization, and this is an election year, but there's something different at work here. If you consider sheer construction volume alone and the investment it represents, it carries an unfamiliar ring of credibility.
"This is not by accident - we're reaping the benefits of the 10K initiative, the benefits of art and culture," Blackwell said.

controllio said: The [PRoB] school district is a bit dysfunctional...
I don't disagree. They started "house cleaning" at the elementary school level over a decade ago and it's working its way through the system. The culture at the high school is just starting to change and it will take a while to turn things around. At the middle school level, approximately 50% of the students are eligible for free/reduced lunch; there are many challenges with such a diverse student body.

I think it's great that Carolyn C likes her town so much. We don't see enough of that; it's usually "I live here and it's so expensive and I hate it." So, while Oakland isn't for everyone, it's great for Carolyn. Good for you!

(to be clear, this is not sarcastic, snarky, or anything like that. Just pure, unadulterated, naïve, happiness.)

corntrollio says

The other thing about crime in Oakland is that it's often criminal-on-criminal crime (gang/drug stuff). In San Francisco, the crime more often involves innocents and is often in the nice areas too (especially since some of the nicer areas have projects located within them or nearby).

Check your facts. I think you'll find the two cities are more similar in that way than you suggest. I say this having regularly read a police blog for the Bayview/Potrero Hill area since that's where I live. That area, typical of San Francisco, has a police station that covers areas of extreme socioeconomic conditions. It is alarming when the crime happens outside of gang violence, but by percentage it still looks like the people who have the most to worry about are the people with less money.

http://www.bayviewpolicestation.org/apps/blog

FunTime says

I say this having regularly read a police blog for the Bayview/Potrero Hill area since that's where I live.

How does saying "poor people in less nice neighborhoods of SF face crime too" negate "in San Francisco, the crime more often involves innocents and is often in the nice areas too"? Explain that one.

corntrollio says

How does saying "poor people in less nice neighborhoods of SF face crime too" negate "in San Francisco, the crime more often involves innocents and is often in the nice areas too"? Explain that one.

I don't know. Who wrote your first quote?

FunTime says

corntrollio says

How does saying "poor people in less nice neighborhoods of SF face crime too" negate "in San Francisco, the crime more often involves innocents and is often in the nice areas too"? Explain that one.

I don't know. Who wrote your first quote?

It's a paraphrase of what you said in post #99 above. Your argument is "it still looks like the people who have the most to worry about are the people with less money." That wouldn't negate what I said at all, even if it were true.

Oh, right. My point was that the mix of people involved in violence in San Francisco is much like that of Oakland. So your idea that "SF crime more often involves innocents and is often in nice areas too" isn't the case unless it's also the case for Oakland. I don't think it's the case either place. Actually if I read what you wrote to mean "more often than Oakland" I might agree with you. I think I read it to mean "crime in SF happens more often in the nicer neighborhoods than the not nice neighborhoods" which I realize now wouldn't make sense by definition. Although, SF and Oakland can be kind of strange that way. I think I get you. Thanks for explaining, pointing it out.

This came across my Facebook newsfeed this morning.

http://news.kron4.com/features/people-that-endanger-other-people-in-oakland-behave-badly/

I am also glad Carolyn C likes her city. I would not like to live someplace where this happens. I am glad I have the choice not to live there.

I guess from a purely economic standpoint, maybe you could make money paying the price that the OP notes for a rental property. I don't think I would enjoy being a landlord there.

I can't believe how this thread has devolved. People like what they like. Different strokes and all that.

One of my best buddies who lives out in *yuk* Danville keeps telling me what a cesspool Oakland is and that I am crazy to buy there. But he and his wife spend 3+ hours a day commuting to/from SF for work. That is crazy. But he appreciates living in the land of BMWs and strip malls - I don't begrudge him of his choice.

We all can agree Oakland has some expansive sketchy areas. But there are some really nice areas too. I'd love to live near 580 or 24 and have a nice short commute either by car or by BART to my job in the financial district.

That is what I value. Maybe you value something else. Why argue about it? Why resort to name-calling?

Moreover, I've learned you don't really know what an area is like until you live there. You can't really know anything for sure until you have boots on the ground (which Carolyn does). I would more likely trust the opinion about an area from someone who lives in an area than from someone who does not live in that area.

Malkovich! I am in a similar boat. I have had good down payment money for a long time. I wish I had just bought a couple years ago when prices were somewhat low, but everything felt rigged even then. At this point, I'm turning from sort of a social democrat to a communist, I don't think people should be able to profit on any item that is a necessity: medicine, housing, basic food. The housing market is just plain nuts. I was born and raised in Palo Alto, lived most of my adult life in SF, there is nothing I can afford that is not an extreme fixer upper, and I don't have the skills, money or know-how to do the fixing. Meanwhile my cash has sat for years, not earning interest, because at heart I am not a gambler. I'm a hard worker, a sensible person, but I don't have the balls to gamble what it's taken 35 years of work (mainly as a seamstress/costume designer) to accumulate. It's all very distressing.

I lived in Oakland. The ice cream shop I used to frequent when I was younger now has an armed guard at the entrance. This is in the "nice part" of Oakland, too. Time for Oakland residents to stop apologizing for the thugs and do something about them.

Jemaho says

Malkovich! I am in a similar boat. I have had good down payment money for a long time. I wish I had just bought a couple years ago when prices were somewhat low, but everything felt rigged even then. At this point, I'm turning from sort of a social democrat to a communist, I don't think people should be able to profit on any item that is a necessity: medicine, housing, basic food. The housing market is just plain nuts. I was born and raised in Palo Alto, lived most of my adult life in SF, there is nothing I can afford that is not an extreme fixer upper, and I don't have the skills, money or know-how to do the fixing. Meanwhile my cash has sat for years, not earning interest, because at heart I am not a gambler. I'm a hard worker, a sensible person, but I don't have the balls to gamble what it's taken 35 years of work (mainly as a seamstress/costume designer) to accumulate. It's all very distressing.

Thanks for commiserating. I hope you don't also have a friend who thinks he is a financial genius because he was lucky enough to buy in those magical two years. It rubs salt in the wound. =)

RE your down payment money: You may want to put that in some conservative mutual funds. My banker has earned a boring yet solid 10-12% on my money for the last three years. She has my money spread out in about 10 different funds and has set it up so I can liquidate with minimal costs (class B shares, etc. - my eyes glaze over when she starts explaining it all - I just want to see the bottom line).

Thanks so much, Malkovich. I know I should be smarter with my money. I have a much needed lull in workload, and I am hacking away at my to do list, and I will put that on it. I think about Portland, certainly lurk on real estate sites as if they were porn sites and I an addict. Portland has also gone up like crazy, but it is still doable for me. However, I would have to flood my house with sun lamps and hope not to get suicidal. I wish you luck.

wave9x says

I lived in Oakland. The ice cream shop I used to frequent when I was younger now has an armed guard at the entrance. This is in the "nice part" of Oakland, too. Time for Oakland residents to stop apologizing for the thugs and do something about them.

Wow, that doesn't sound like the parts of Oakland I usually frequent (Temescal, Rockridge, Piedmont Ave, Grand/Lakeshore Ave, Park Blvd).

What street is this ice cream shop on?

No disagreements on Oak residents being fed up with their city's leadership. Then again, I have some pretty big problems with SF gov't too.

Jemaho says

I think about Portland, certainly lurk on real estate sites as if they were porn sites and I an addict. Portland has also gone up like crazy, but it is still doable for me. However, I would have to flood my house with sun lamps and hope not to get suicidal. I wish you luck.

Agreed. I go to visit friends in Portland every year. Though I always go in August when the weather is perfect. I thought about Portland a lot too (it really is the only place an SF-er can go) but, yes, the weather is a deal-breaker.

Jemaho says

Portland has also gone up like crazy, but it is still doable for me. However, I
would have to flood my house with sun lamps and hope not to get suicidal. I wish
you luck.

As stated before, I was born and raised there. I recently looked up the house that I grew up in (from age 3 till 15). I did know that my parents bought it in 1956, from Zillow I recently learned that it had been built in 1919. I know my parents bought it for $12,000 back then. When I checked on Zillow, it was now appraised at over $450,000. Yeah, Portland isn't all that cheap anymore.

Malkovich says

Agreed. I go to visit friends in Portland every year. Though I always go in
August when the weather is perfect.

Two seasons up there - the rainy season and August.

Jemaho,

With the fiat money system, many governments tends to print money. Hence, long term, money is fast depreciating and is preferably to hold real asset such as real estate. It is not gambling, merely hedging against inflation (depreciation of money). If you can't afford real estate, the best vehicle is dollar-cost averaging purchase of a near no-load index fund such as one based on S&P 500. Not to rain on Malkovich, the average annual return of such an index fund over the last three years is 15%-20% depending on when you start investing.

You may wish to read up on what is meant by dollar cost averaging, no load and pros/cons of an index fund (ask you agent or simply do a web search).

hanera says

With the fiat money system, many governments tends to print money. Hence, long term, money is fast depreciating and is preferably to hold real asset such as real estate.

A few questions flow from that:

Are real estate markets really not subject to the whims of governments? If government money-printing, as you call it, causes economic downfall, how do you know that real estate in that country will be insulated from that chaos?

Similarly, since your alternative is an S&P 500 fund, what makes you think that an economic downfall wouldn't affect your stock withholdings?

corntrollio says

hanera says

With the fiat money system, many governments tends to print money. Hence, long term, money is fast depreciating and is preferably to hold real asset such as real estate.

A few questions flow from that:

Are real estate markets really not subject to the whims of governments? If government money-printing, as you call it, causes economic downfall, how do you know that real estate in that country will be insulated from that chaos?

Similarly, since your alternative is an S&P 500 fund, what makes you think that an economic downfall wouldn't affect your stock withholdings?

I'm referring to long term and not talking about economic downfall, in fact, talking about going through many economic cycles (booms and downfalls).