patrick.net

JH says

RentingForHalfTheCost says

In California even the homeless have a few hundred thousand in the bank. They made that from just washing windshields at stop lights.

What street corner? I want a piece of that! All the bums on street corners where I lived aren't getting shit. Everyone is broke. Except for the few that aren't...the few who bought in 80s or 90s.

http://www.outhousedaily.com/2013/05/worlds-richest-bum-offering-panhandling.html

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-man-is-homeless-by-choice-He-has-a-2833486.php

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/23/shane-warren-speegle-says_n_1694577.html

We are the stupid ones. Actually working trying to get ahead.

jdubbs29 says

8 cars an hour for 12 hours

They showed him in action. He plucked money from the cars pretty fast, basically to make him go away. They also showed him on the phone calling the Atlantic City express.

It is a high risk endeavor. I would imagine just one angry person getting out of a car and kicking the crap out of him and putting him into the emergency room.

jdubbs29 says

Ceffer says

Don't laugh. A couple of years ago, they had a news show and one of the features was a street guy who would forcibly and unsolicited start cleaning windows of cars stopped at intersections in New York City until people gave him money.

He estimated he cleared tax free 80k to 100k a year. He would make money up to a point, then go to a pay phone, call a limousine to pick him up to take him to Atlantic City, where he would gamble until he lost the amount.

Then being a good loser, the casino would comp him a limousine to take him back to his street corner to make more money.

To make $100K tax free, you would have to clear about $273 a day. At a generous $3 a car, you would have to clean 91 cars every day (or about 8 cars an hour for 12 hours) for 365 days a year.

Unlikely.

Sit on a corner in SF and watch the amount of money getting exchanged. I have, and it would surprise you. Your vision as a car driver is just a 3 minute stop at the light. If you see one exchange each light then that is 20/hr.

I am pretty close your your situation. Always made sense to rent.

One option would be to buy a cheap 2nd home somewhere that you guys might be able to escape to on the weekends- if you guys like the mountains or something like that. Wine country? You can improve it over the years etc. Anyway, I rent my primary and bought a 2nd home that I do all my fun stuff at.

Best choice I made.

jdubbs29 says

Hey I've considered East Bay, but every time I go over there, I just...don't like it. I like living in the city.

I'm willing to live in other parts of the city (close to where I am now), and well aware of the earthquake situation. Just making it simple to say Marina, could be Russian Hill or Pac Heights.

How much time have you actually spent in the east bay? As in did you go for dinner or something? The thing about the east bay is that its HUGE. Its actually more diverse in terms of geography, type of neighborhood, age, demographics, and weather than SF. IMHO, you are at this point over-paying for your rent now. Perhaps it wouldn't hurt to consider renting somewhere in the east bay, and spend a good 6 months to a year feeling it out. To be honest, when I first moved to the east bay i didn't like it either. Then I discovered another area I liked a lot and that's where I bought my house 2 years ago.

Should you buy in SF?

I approach this in the exact same way that I approach in buying anywhere else.

If your annual rent exceeds 6-7% of the price of the house, it's OK to buy. 9+ percent means great buy. And less than 6% is an absolute no go.

Keep in mind that reaching 6% in SF isn't common...

Best of luck.

You mean the ghetto calculator. The higher the %, the more ghetto and more ok?

SFace says

You mean the ghetto calculator. The higher the %, the more ghetto and more ok?

While it's true that there is a correlation between rent:buy ratios and how ghetto a city/zip code/neighborhood is, it still has to make sense on some level to buy vs rent.

The original question is should the thread starter buy in SF. I'm not saying he should look for rent:buy ratios that match East Oakland or Vallejo (>10%), but you never know what the future holds in terms of job loss or financial distress. If I can't at least break even on my mortgage with rent on any given property, I really have to think twice if it is a move I want to make.

If you can't make money renting, then you are banking on the value of the house rising. With this latest bubble, I'm not sure that's a bet I'd want to make, at least for the not too distant future.

Of course there is the counter argument that if you are ready to buy, and you can afford it, and you have/want to start a family, and there's value for you in being in SF, then by all means...