patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,259,724 comments by 15,039 users - AmericanKulak, DOGEWontAmountToShit, ElYorsh, RWSGFY online now
3 simple questions for all you Gurus. ;)
invite response
2011 Jun 4, 12:50pm 16,189 views 46 comments
« First « Previous Comments 44 - 46 of 46 Search these comments
Schizlor
2011 Jun 7, 3:19am
sf_peasant says
had the big one, not all buildings were levelled
The ‘89 quake was in no way ‘the big one’ they speak of. The big one is going to be 9.0+, and probably shear off most of coastal southern CA and drop it into the Pacific.
Most people take this for granted, oh it is not going to happen in our lifetime but it can happen any day.
Just wait for the cataclysmic Mega-Earthquake brewing under Yellowstone to hit. If that baby touches off in our lifetime, we'll be living in APOCALYPSEFUCKland!!
Katy Perry
2011 Jun 7, 3:29am
and based on that logic–nobody should own any property in SF. never ever.
not everybody. Super fantastically rich people need tax right offs. I feel like all solvant SF LL's need to be so wealthy,.. That they don't even have to break even with rents. I feel like the numbers In SF are so out of whack, that only these people can for sure benefit financially. everyone else is just gambling it seem.
B.A.C.A.H.
2011 Jun 7, 1:04pm
89, when we (or i should say, they, as i wasnt here then) had the big one
you said all you need to said to say that you should not "buy" here.
1989 was a tremor, nothing more.
The destruction you observed (or didn't) was done only to places with shoddy practices like building on Bay fill, or old construction practices like unreinforced masonry foundations of Victorians, the long-obsolete design of the support structures for the Cypress Freeway, etc. that are not used any more.
Maybe you and your flat will survive a "real big one" unscathedbut you may be so shaken by it that you will want to leave SF or even the region, but owning that flat, if it's still there, will make it more difficult or expensive to leave. I knew a handful of non-locals like that after the 1989 tremor.
Just enjoy your time here as a renter and enjoy the Coolness and Hipness of the place without commitments.
One thing about all the Asian immigrants in these parts: many of them come from places where big quakes are part of life.
« First « Previous Comments 44 - 46 of 46 Search these comments
Hello,
I am new to Patrick.net and some what of a novice. I would appreciate any advice. A little vitriol is Ok too.
I have 3 questions that are somewhat related. The specific questions are in bold.
1. If you buy a condo unit or TIC (tenancy in common) and the building is built in 1930-1940 as most of San Francisco's housing stock is in the neighborhoods I like- and there is an eathquake- and the building has significant damage due to seismic activity- what does one do? I understand earthquake insurance is prohibitively expensive and has a massive deductable and only 10% of Californians get it.
Is that a personal loss of money or will the Fed/State/City Govt help home-owners? This worries me a bit.
2. I have my eyes on a 1 bedroom apartment for 400K (with parking), and wonder if it makes sense to put more downpayment (50% down) and get a shorter mortgage like 15 years or should one put less down(20% down) and get a longer 30 year mortgage. I prefer the former, as one would pay less interest over the span of the loan and build equity faster...HOWEVER if an earthquake were to take place (see #1 above), it would be sensible to have a smaller downpayment, so there is less loss and then the latter is prefered.
Any thoughts on this- % of downpayment?
3. My personal rule is that mortgage should be 2.5 x income, 3x at the most.Is there a ratio of mortgage to income?
Thank you.
sf_peasant
#housing