Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well that's interesting cause it appears you arent getting your money's worth if you are struggling so much with your Oakland properties while most other landords are actually seeing record returns on their Oakland investments.
Uh, never said I was "struggling" as I only have one property out of 7 in Oakland unrented ( a 2br/1bath if you're interested).
But even if I was, it's a good thing I'm getting 30% above market for my South Beach rentals to pick up the slack.
Uh, never said I was "struggling" as I only have one property in Oakland unrented ( a 2br/1bath if you're interested).
Well considering the fact that people apparently are apprehensive to live in your properties, hence 2-month long vacancies, I probably am apt to not recommend any of my friends look into substandard housing. Thanks anyway.
Quote:
But even if I was, it's a good thing I'm getting 30% above market for my South Beach rentals to pick up the slack.
But that's the whole point.
At this particular time, Oakland rents are actually rising faster so if you are the longtime Oakland investor you claim to be, then you are averaging in increase of 28% over the past 2 years vs 22% for SF.
Well considering the fact that people apparently are apprehensive to live in your properties, hence 2-month long vacancies, I probably am apt to not recommend any of my friends look into substandard housing. Thanks anyway.
But that's the whole point.
At this particular time, Oakland rents are actually rising faster so if you are the longtime Oakland investor you claim to be, then you are averaging in increase of 28% over the past 2 years vs 22% for SF.
#basic math.
I don't think it's a subpar property (unless you consider Upper Rockridge subpar), but it does get street noise from Broadway and 24, luckily I bought it at probate for $75,000 (similar units are going for $300,000+) and in terms of rent I already have recovered it's value over the past 3 years. I may drop the listing $100 to get someone in there. But this is getting off topic.
I rented a 2 bedroom (w/parking) in Rockridge last August. I had 6 people call in the first day, half of them overly qualified so it rented quick for $2,250 a month for a 12 month lease. Not bad by all accounts.
BUT, I have a single family home in Portrero (on the slope) that I rented late last year, fantastic skyline view, a remodeled 2/2 SFH with parking/driveway that I was able to get $4,500/month on a 24 month lease. Day 1 I had 60+ applicants, some of them even included a digital application with pictures and their life story, even pictures of their child. It was insane. Portrero isn't even as desirable as South Beach!
So as someone who has boots on the ground there is a huge difference between Oakland and S.F in desirability even in terms of comparable neighborhoods (Portrero vs Upper Rockridge). This is what a lot of other investors in the Bay Area re noticing as well.
Last edited by DocGoldstein; 02-03-2013 at 11:08 AM..
Also, answer this simple question, if Oakland is so desirable for people to live, why is it that Oakland is the ONLY large city in California where the overall population decreased from 2000-2010? The Bay Area is one of the most desirable places in the U.S to live, yet the population decreased over that decade, which experienced two tech booms.
Drilling into those facts is pretty interesting actually. The population decreased in some areas and increased in others. Most simply, the population decreased in the most marginal and high crime areas, and increased in the denser downtown areas and the middle class and up areas. So how do you explain that pattern. Oakland also saw a big influx of young (under 40) people, mostly well paid young (white) people. Census: Not quite '10K,' but Bay Area sees population spurt in some downtown areas - San Jose Mercury News
Oakland is becoming "less black" if you will. And in Oakland, while there are many affluent african-americans, many are poorer. And over the past 10 years Oakland has lost a ton of african-americans. To the tune of ~30k, leaving marginal neighborhoods in east Oakland for greener pastures or being priced out of the city.
Oakland's diversity is changing a bit over the past few years. Less black, more white and asian.
Additionally, Oakland is a horrible commute to the tech job centers in the Silicon Valley and peninsula. The good news, now that the tech boom is picking up in SF (and Oakland), more people are exploring Oakland as an option due to the easy commute. Lots of those trendy new startups are looking for different sort of office space (read not in a suburban office park) and Oakland and SF are the only places that qualify. And Oakland is an easy commute to downtown SF/SOMA, even when compared with many parts of SF. Take a look at the Oakland development thread for details on the office space vacancies in downtown Oakland. High quality buildings are at 98% occupancy all over downtown.
I'm not saying all of Oakland is Rwanda, but the First Friday Festival was a public event in Uptown, supposedly an up-and-up area of Oakland, and someone was gunned down after attending the event. That doesn't just happen in places where crime isn't a problem.
So let me get this straight...
-stabbings at the SF Halloween celebration in the upscale and touristy Castro district in 2006
-10 people shot at the SF Halloween celebration in the upscale and touristy Castro district in 2007 (the city now no longer holds the celebration due to violence)
-two people are shot, one of them dies, at the gay pride celebration in the upscale and touristy Castro district, in 2008
-5 innocent bystanders (mostly tourists) were hit in a shooting a block away from gay pride celebrations in downtown SF in 2009
-shootings, fights, stabbings at 49ers games
-robberies and even the occasional shootings/stabbings/murders happen even in nice/upscale/touristy areas of SF: fisherman's wharf (a teenage boy was shot there just last week), north beach, pacific heights, telegraph hill, union square (a German tourist was killed by a stray bullet at the edge of union square and the TL a couple year ago), the Castro, golden gate park, etc.
SF has a long history of violence at public events, which has even led to the end of former annual events that drew hundreds of thousands of people (Halloween in the Castro). Yet you ignore it all, and then act like Oakland is a literal warzone when the same thing happens there? Where's your concern about crime at public events and upscale areas in SF? It definitely happens, but you seem to have an obsession with complaining about Oakland, and only Oakland, while writing SF off just because it has a lower crime rate than Oakland.
There will always be more desirable areas for some... could be economic, climate, amenities, medical, etc.
If Oakland is the third worst in the country that is proof positive how good we have it.
As an aside... I have always found it interesting that the city of Piedmont is contained 100% inside the borders of Oakland... makes me wonder how the very desirable city Piedmont does it... they don't have fortified walls, moats or check points and yet they are 100% surrounded by the third rank nationally highest crime city in America.
Just goes to show in a city as large as Oakland... no one descriptive applies to the entire city.
I hear often how bad the schools are in Oakland... yet, seldom to people give credit to Oakland's top schools... both public and private.
Many of the Physicians where I work do not live in Oakland... yet, they send their children from Piedmont, Orinda, Lafayette, Castro Valley, Moraga, etc to High Schools in Oakland.
Kind of ironic one of the Docs moved his family to Orinda because she was wary of Skyline High School and now both of her kids attend Head-Royce on Lincoln. The children of 6 co-workers attend Head-Royce and tow others send their children to Bishop O'Dowd on 98th and Stearns...
Why would these well to do families "Risk" sending their children to Oakland schools where they could be gunned down waiting for the bus?
The simple answer is the media perception is not reality for most and those with means could easily avoid any Oakland school if desired.
I do realize it is difficult for those looking in from the outside to make informed decisions based on media Headlines... it is not their fault... parents want the best for their families and this is only human nature.
I remember growing up in Oakland and the praise of San Leandro was non-stop... well, time changes all and don't hear that anymore... same for Hayward of the 60's...
So many of my neighbors cashed out during the Real Estate Boom... they bought new homes in Tracy, Salida, Elk Grove, Fairfield and Valejo... they wanted new homes and much of Oakland housing dates from the 1920's and 1930's...
I keep in touch with many and everyone has confided the move to the big new house in the suburbs didn't quite work out the way they had planned it... crime is a problem, commute costs are staggering, utility costs are staggering and they feel stuck.... those that didn't walk away.
One of the nurses I work with had her Toler Heights home paid for... her sister had been after her for years to get out of Oakland... sister wanted her to move to Tracy and she did... she regrets her move on every level...
Again... there are plenty of less expensive places to live in the Bay Area and it might very well be that Oakland isn't the city for you.
Drilling into those facts is pretty interesting actually. The population decreased in some areas and increased in others. Most simply, the population decreased in the most marginal and high crime areas, and increased in the denser downtown areas and the middle class and up areas. So how do you explain that pattern. Oakland also saw a big influx of young (under 40) people, mostly well paid young (white) people. Census: Not quite '10K,' but Bay Area sees population spurt in some downtown areas - San Jose Mercury News
Oakland is becoming "less black" if you will. And in Oakland, while there are many affluent african-americans, many are poorer. And over the past 10 years Oakland has lost a ton of african-americans. To the tune of ~30k, leaving marginal neighborhoods in east Oakland for greener pastures or being priced out of the city.
Oakland's diversity is changing a bit over the past few years. Less black, more white and asian.
Additionally, Oakland is a horrible commute to the tech job centers in the Silicon Valley and peninsula. The good news, now that the tech boom is picking up in SF (and Oakland), more people are exploring Oakland as an option due to the easy commute. Lots of those trendy new startups are looking for different sort of office space (read not in a suburban office park) and Oakland and SF are the only places that qualify. And Oakland is an easy commute to downtown SF/SOMA, even when compared with many parts of SF. Take a look at the Oakland development thread for details on the office space vacancies in downtown Oakland. High quality buildings are at 98% occupancy all over downtown.
I'm not sure Oakland "becoming less black" is such a good thing considering that most of the culture of Oakland originates from within that community.
I'm not sure Oakland "becoming less black" is such a good thing considering that most of the culture of Oakland originates from within that community.
I've always thought the Asian influence was just as significant... for over a century, Oakland's China Town was central to lives of those throughout the East Bay and beyond.
Then the Fruitvale district as an up-and-comer for Spanish Speaking Culture.
Oakland's diversity is changing a bit over the past few years. Less black, more white and asian.
Yes, Oakland is already the most racially diverse large US city according to Brown University, and that is expanding.
Also as far as the deciannual decline in population-we saw lots of growth in all racial groups except Blacks and the reason is because Blacks are leaving Oakland at an accelerated rate, most moving to less expensive suburban areas our outlying central valley exurban areas. This is exactly what Whites did 50 years ago when they fled urban areas for suburbia.
Otherwise, Oakland gained in population from every other racial group.
Oakland 2000-2010
Entire City: -1.9%
Some other Race +58.3%
Native Hawaiian/Pac. Islander +39.0%
Two or More Races +14.0%
Hispanic +11.4%
Non Hispanic White +11.0%
Asian +10.2%
American Indian +2.1% Black -36.8%
Furthermore, Downtown Oakland's population skyrocketed by 30% between 2000-2010.
Times are changing in our city, and its interesting that crime is rising despite all the positive things that are occuring concurrently as we diversify and become a hub of art, culture, counter-culture, nightlife, dining and entertainment.
I'm not sure Oakland "becoming less black" is such a good thing considering that most of the culture of Oakland originates from within that community.
Oakland has been a hub of all kinds of diversity for a long time, although it has been known as the "west coast hub" of black culture since approximately the mid 20th century. Considering the state of CA is rapidly losing black residents, it is not surprising this trend is continuing in Oakland. Of course land use policies in SF and Oakland have also aimed to reduce the black population by things like freeway placement, zoning and eminent domain....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Day 1 I had 60+ applicants, some of them even included a digital application with pictures and their life story, even pictures of their child. It was insane. Portrero isn't even as desirable as South Beach!
between 2000-2010.
