Home prices inch up; rents rise, sales ebb [SFGate]
Eviction ruling favors landlords [SFGate]

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by Phil

    Great, so now we get crunched on both the rental AND purchase markets. Any predictions on how long it will take for the purchase market to soften enough that buying becomes more attractive, leading to some leveling off or decrease in the rentals? Or have we hit the point where everyone who makes below $70K simply must consign themselves to eternal post-collegiate communal living? It seems that there are really no good options left for singles or young people in The City.

  2. Posted by David Troup

    You could look at the bright side… rents are still quite a bit lower than they were five years ago. They’ve still got a ways to go before returning to where they were then.
    Voters in SF have repeatedly voted down initiatives which would have created more entry-level home ownership opportunities, and SF does its best to make it impossible for property owners to sell individual units to renters who might like to buy… so the only housing stock available is far from “entry-level.” The Board of Supervisors panders to tenant activists by preventing tenants from becoming owners. Why do people think this is a good thing?

  3. Posted by BullMarket

    Do people who make under $70,000 let alone under $100,000 really believe they are entitled to own? Let’s be real now. First year workers out of UNDERGRAD are making $70-100,000 nowadays in many professions such as management consulting, banking, etc.
    We’ve always known that rents would start increasing, and they have all year. Prices will stay sky high, and once Bernanke stops raising rates, WATCH OUT! Property prices are going to soar again. You see the 10-yr yield still only at 5.04% vs. the FF at 5.25%.
    It’s all good for homeowners.

  4. Posted by Phil

    No, I don’t necessarily think that people who make under 100K a year are “entitled” (interesting choice of words there, btw), to own, but I do think they are “entitled” to afford decent living conditions in areas other than the worst of the Tenderloin or Mission. My boyfriend currently makes around $45K a year as a video editor and music producer, and does not see any time in the near future when he will be able to afford renting a studio on his own in this city, nor have we been able to find anything we can afford even on our combined incomes that would be suitable for a two person living situation. Thus, our constant discussions regarding moving elsewhere, where we can enjoy a decent standard of living.
    I’ve seen far too many people who are not bankers, management consultants, etc., leave this city, and we are all the worse for it. And the arrogance of those who so enthusiastically applaud the soaring price of housing, rental or purchased, because it benefits them at the cost of driving out young people and those who are not as consumed with worshipping Mammon, is something to be despised.

  5. Posted by BullMarket

    Phil (but u r a girl according to ur post) –
    The simple solution is for you to move out of the city and live in the suburbs like Fremont, Tracy, Antioch etc if you cannot afford SF. You can always come and visit.
    PRices aren’t pushing out young people. It’s young people who are pushing prices up. You should check out the profile of buyers. Very many in their late 20’s and early 30’s with no problems affording at all.
    BM
    [Editor's Note: Having a boyfriend doesn't necessarily make you a girl...]

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *