Apartment owner raises rent...

[clongirl]

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

This is what I don't get, either. People scream about rents but they push for the wrong solutions. They want government mandated "rent control" instead of finding ways to increase the housing supply, which keeps rents affordable.

But it doesn't. I don't know why, I don't know how. Building up here into nasty ugly new housing developments doesn't make anything more affordable. I've already discussed towns like San Ramon, Dublin, even Antioch/Pittsburg. Anywhere there's new housing (even in less popular areas, outrageous prices still prevail).

By your assessment, this kind of thing is supposed to make it "more affordable" since they literally started on the sprawl...and plenty of it. Ever been out there? All these biggish new houses with that Mediterranean look went up seemingly overnight....lower prices were never to be seen . Sure, less expensive..like low millions rather than 2-3mil, 'cause my husband and I felt that we had to look that far out when we moved back to the Bay Area and be able to "afford" something. 1.1 million for a new housing estate not in any way close to where my husband needed to be for work.

The thing is..not many people want to move to places like Richmond, Fairfield, Pittsburg, Brentwood, Hercules, Richmond, etc to commute to the job centers. They aren't that desirable...let's be honest here. Building up in the Bay Area has proven to be fruitless for people looking for affordability...and for natives...we don't want to see San Ramon sprawl all over Half Moon Bay. It wouldn't change a darn thing anyway unless you make our region very ugly and not desirable.

[rparz]

Originally Posted by clongirl

Ah, now. That's not really true. We all benefit from job growth..no doubt about it.

But I think our state/and the Bay Area in general is particularly notorious for a "Gold Rush" mentality and every decade brings a new influx of people, tons of congestion/traffic on the roads, more angst and stress levels, premium house/rental prices, complaining from newcomers that this or that should be done like "back home", and then suddenly everyone takes off because they've all lost their jobs again and they can't afford to live here on their unemployment benefits! It seems to be the way of things unfortunately.

Sucky sort of pattern, actually. I don't like it at all. It would be kinda nice to have stable and predictable job growth sometime with some people moving in, some moving out, and not this mad crazy rush of people all competing for the same things at the same time.

Isn't that the way things have always been in California? Why should it change, besides wishing, what's different?

Originally Posted by clongirl

But it doesn't. I don't know why, I don't know how. Building up here into nasty ugly new housing developments doesn't make anything more affordable. I've already discussed towns like San Ramon, Dublin, even Antioch/Pittsburg. Anywhere there's new housing (even in less popular areas, outrageous prices still prevail).

I guarantee that if developers had a couple 40 story high rise buildings that were empty for 6 months, you'd see prices drop like a rock.

Your analogy doesn't work because the supply that does come online doesn't even come close to meeting demand.

[clongirl]

Originally Posted by rparz

Isn't that the way things have always been in California? Why should it change, besides wishing, what's different?




I guarantee that if developers had a couple 40 story high rise buildings that were empty for 6 months, you'd see prices drop like a rock.

Your analogy doesn't work because the supply that does come online doesn't even come close to meeting demand.

What kind of idiot developer would want to build fancy high rises for the sudden masses so they can charge a below market rent on prime San Francisco real estate where many people will do what it takes to live here?

You really don't seem to understand the San Francisco market and it's history at all. Same for Paris and Manhattan. Prices remain high as long as people are willing to pay premium prices...and they do, time and time again.

[rparz]

The point is there is a happy medium, which you said yourself that people will pay exorbitant market rates for.

The crux of my issue is that the people who ***** the most about being pushed out of the area are the same group of people who oppose new development projects.
You make your own bed.

[HockeyMac18]

Originally Posted by clongirl

But it doesn't. I don't know why, I don't know how. Building up here into nasty ugly new housing developments doesn't make anything more affordable. I've already discussed towns like San Ramon, Dublin, even Antioch/Pittsburg. Anywhere there's new housing (even in less popular areas, outrageous prices still prevail).

By your assessment, this kind of thing is supposed to make it "more affordable" since they literally started on the sprawl...and plenty of it. Ever been out there? All these biggish new houses with that Mediterranean look went up seemingly overnight....lower prices were never to be seen . Sure, less expensive..like low millions rather than 2-3mil, 'cause my husband and I felt that we had to look that far out when we moved back to the Bay Area and be able to "afford" something. 1.1 million for a new housing estate not in any way close to where my husband needed to be for work.

The thing is..not many people want to move to places like Richmond, Fairfield, Pittsburg, Brentwood, Hercules, Richmond, etc to commute to the job centers. They aren't that desirable...let's be honest here. Building up in the Bay Area has proven to be fruitless for people looking for affordability...and for natives...we don't want to see San Ramon sprawl all over Half Moon Bay. It wouldn't change a darn thing anyway unless you make our region very ugly and not desirable.

I think part of it too is in the type of buildings that are constructed. For whatever reason, developers have this tendency when building new to make everything "luxury" or "high end". As an example, look at basically every single building built in the SOMA in the last decade. They're all luxury condos or luxury apartment buildings. Everything has stainless steal appliances, they all have huge gyms, pools, hottubs, and extraneous amenities. What ends up happening is even if these units reduce some of the pressure on the limited supply, of course they're not going to price these units low or in any range that is affordable by anyone in the middle class.

Can't they just build a normal apartment building that's decent but doesn't have all of this extra fluff that the majority of people don't want or need? I guess developers want to maximize their investment (I'm guessing luxury units have a high ROI), but in a region so inaccessible to the middle class, it would be nice to see some decent and relatively bare bones apartments being constructed.

[rparz]

SF Vacany rate: 3.2% (lowest since tech bubble)
The Bay Area Rental Bubble – And Why Buying Might be Better - Sonoma News - News 2012 - Sonoma, CA

Rent increase over last year: 15%
Rents keep rising, while home prices inch higher - Jul. 3, 2012



No problem guise, no need to build. God forbid we ruin the views.

Wait, why are all the native being priced out?

[rparz]

Originally Posted by HockeyMac18

I think part of it too is in the type of buildings that are constructed. For whatever reason, developers have this tendency when building new to make everything "luxury" or "high end". As an example, look at basically every single building built in the SOMA in the last decade. They're all luxury condos or luxury apartment buildings. Everything has stainless steal appliances, they all have huge gyms, pools, hottubs, and extraneous amenities. What ends up happening is even if these units reduce some of the pressure on the limited supply, of course they're not going to price these units low or in any range that is affordable by anyone in the middle class.

Higher profit margins on the 'luxury' type units, with better tenants that are more reliable as well.

You can hope that with enough built, that will free up a more reasonable unit as someone who was unable to get a primo unit can now 'upgrade' to the new building.

Can't they just build a normal apartment building that's decent but doesn't have all of this extra fluff that the majority of people don't want or need? I guess developers want to maximize their investment (I'm guessing luxury units have a high ROI), but in a region so inaccessible to the middle class, it would be nice to see some decent and relatively bare bones apartments being constructed.

Only the government thinks like this. If it's my money, I want the biggest and fastest returns on it. I'm greedy like that. Yes, I said it.
(You gotta be if you want to be able to afford rent around here, being nice doesn't pay the bills)