San Franciscans Fleeing Pricey Housing Fuel Boom to the East

[dimondpark]

As an addendum to this article, the number of commuters from Sacramento to the Bay Area increased 50% from 2000-2010 and that has most likely intensified since 2010.

San Franciscans Fleeing Pricey Housing Fuel Boom to the East

By Romy Varghese
June 15, 2017, 2:00 AM PDT
June 15, 2017, 10:47 AM PDT

As the cost of daily life tests the bounds of gravity in San Francisco, a beneficiary has emerged 90 miles away.

Sacramento, the California capital whose last flirtation with national prominence arguably was during the 19th-century Gold Rush, is seeing its property-tax base and revenue surge. Drawn by its lower cost of living, people priced out of the San Francisco area by the flood of cash from the tech boom are heading inland, helping to make it the state’s fastest-growing big city...

Sacramento’s median home price was $299,000 in May, about one-fourth what it was in San Francisco, according to Redfin. The capital city was the most popular search destination for San Francisco residents looking to leave in the first quarter this year, according to the online real estate brokerage. Its population rose 1.4 percent last year to 493,025, the fastest among California’s biggest cities and higher than the state average, according to California data...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...llo-sacramento

[mhays]

1.4% is a boom? And rents are only growing "faster than the nation"? Not much to see here.

On the flip side, maybe Sacramento will START being a larger destination in the future. For example if tech hits a critical mass that could draw more tech.

[coyotetrickster]

Originally Posted by mhays

1.4% is a boom? And rents are only growing "faster than the nation"? Not much to see here.

On the flip side, maybe Sacramento will START being a larger destination in the future. For example, if tech hits a critical mass that could draw more tech.

The lure, according to Bloomberg, is the median price of a single-family home. Great if you want a family. Otherwise, I've been to the vast strip mall that is Sacramento on many occasions. It's a larger version of Modesto, but with better restaurants.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by coyotetrickster

The lure, according to Bloomberg, is the median price of a single-family home. Great if you want a family. Otherwise, I've been to the vast strip mall that is Sacramento on many occasions. It's a larger version of Modesto, but with better restaurants.

LOL before I moved there for 3 years I thought the same...but it turns out Sacramento has genuinely nice neighborhoods and some high quality suburbs with good schools and I think that's more important to most folks.

I appreciate this article because the media usually reports that everyone is moving out of state yet actual statistical trends and in my experience, most people I know in the Bay Area that move are simply moving within Northern CA.

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by mhays

1.4% is a boom? And rents are only growing "faster than the nation"? Not much to see here.

On the flip side, maybe Sacramento will START being a larger destination in the future. For example if tech hits a critical mass that could draw more tech.

It's a lot considering Sacramento doesn't build any new housing either.

[mhays]

If there's a lot of growth pressure countered by supply restrictions, why haven't prices risen more quickly? The stats don't support the story very much.

[urbanadvocate]

Originally Posted by coyotetrickster

The lure, according to Bloomberg, is the median price of a single-family home. Great if you want a family. Otherwise, I've been to the vast strip mall that is Sacramento on many occasions. It's a larger version of Modesto, but with better restaurants.

Ha! You sure you were actually in Sacramento and not some suburb? Or just the outskirts of the city? I find the core to be super pedestrian friendly, more reminiscient of my old home town of Portland. Although for parts of the year both cities, due to weather, kill the walkability. Rain/snow in Portland and heatwaves in Sac. SF sure has both beat in regards to weather!

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by mhays

1.4% is a boom? And rents are only growing "faster than the nation"? Not much to see here.

On the flip side, maybe Sacramento will START being a larger destination in the future. For example if tech hits a critical mass that could draw more tech.

Rent is growing at almost 10% a year I think, whereas new housing construction is at 0.7% a year and vacancy around 3%.

[austlar1]

The core of Sacramento has some nice bones including a walkable grid and some leafy turn-of-the-century neighborhoods. Close-in 20th Century development is also not bad. I am sure that a big influx of gentrifying types (including more than a few "property rich" retiring boomers with reduced retirement incomes who need to cash out of San Francisco real estate and are not eager to leave the region) will turn Sacramento into something rather nice. I understand the process is well underway actually. I have a close friend who is considering this option. His fairly modest Sunset home is worth about $1.4 million. He needs the money, and he and his husband can find something nice for less than half of that in a decent part of central Sacramento.

[Vlajos]

I was recently in Sacramento for my first time. Very nice little city. Much better than expected.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by mhays

If there's a lot of growth pressure countered by supply restrictions, why haven't prices risen more quickly? The stats don't support the story very much.

Well until the latest census estimates were released, the Bay Area had had positive domestic growth since 2010 so the notion of people moving wasnt really a topic of discussion.

As far as home price appreciation, I hope it stays cheap out there.

I already knew that Stockton and Sacramento were the top destinations( By far) for most people leaving the Bay, but news articles seem to focus on where techies and millenials are moving to-but that'a a relatively small group.

[llamaorama]

Sacramento kind of looks like Austin in the 90's, except it has more big city infrastructure like an extensive light rail network and downtown NBA arena. A small downtown with a handful of mid rise towers and of course a large state capitol complex. All flanked by nice leafy traditional neighborhoods that quickly give way to sprawl.

It seems like a city with unrealized potential.

[Shawn]

Have fun driving down and up 80 every work day, suckers. My brother did that for a little less than 2 years (Davis to downtown SF) and he says this specific drive - along with the ridiculous fees / taxes the state applies at every conceivable opportunity - is the main cause for his planned move to Seattle. "California has the weather and landscape going for it and literally nothing else."

(plus the Davis house appreciated to the point where it would be silly not to cash out)

Spending 4 hours a day in your car commuting is a sad way to slither through life.

[SLO]

Originally Posted by Shawn

Have fun driving down and up 80 every work day, suckers. My brother did that for a little less than 2 years (Davis to downtown SF) and he says this specific drive - along with the ridiculous fees / taxes the state applies at every conceivable opportunity - is the main cause for his planned move to Seattle. "California has the weather and landscape going for it and literally nothing else."

(plus the Davis house appreciated to the point where it would be silly not to cash out)

Spending 4 hours a day in your car commuting is a sad way to slither through life.

Damn liberals!!

Honestly though the bay area and SF in particular have always had outbound pressure due to high prices. Diamondpark mentioned Stockton/Modesto as the top destination probably because the commute is a tad easier. Sacramento is more of a destination city, but if you move to Sacramento you aren't going to find super high paying tech jobs and as you mentioned the commute is going to hurt bad.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by Shawn

Have fun driving down and up 80 every work day, suckers. My brother did that for a little less than 2 years (Davis to downtown SF) and he says this specific drive - along with the ridiculous fees / taxes the state applies at every conceivable opportunity - is the main cause for his planned move to Seattle. "California has the weather and landscape going for it and literally nothing else."

Haha weather is a big deal to lots of people.

http://m.sfgate.com/local/article/Th...t-11174771.php

(plus the Davis house appreciated to the point where it would be silly not to cash out)

Spending 4 hours a day in your car commuting is a sad way to slither through life.

I agree and NorCal needs a first rate bullet train imo, but tens of thousands of people, and growing, are making that awful commute every day.

Seattle and Portland seem to be a last resort...

[mhays]

Not a last resort at all. Seattle (not really Portland) gives companies access to a lot of talent that refuses to live in the SF area. And a lot of people from SF are refusing to pay its prices. According to some reports we're the first resort for those leaving, not the last one.

A SF company leasing 100,000 is hardly news anymore. It's news when they lease multiple buildings.

[dc_denizen]

Flee! Flee while you still can!!!!!

[pdxtex]

oregon is full. please consider idaho or south dakota.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by mhays

Not a last resort at all. Seattle (not really Portland) gives companies access to a lot of talent that refuses to live in the SF area.

"refuses"=can't afford it

And a lot of people from SF are refusing to pay its prices.

See above.

And that's their prerogative, but the top selling point Seattle has over the Bay Area is that it's wayyyyy cheaper. Everything else is peripheral.

According to some reports we're the first resort for those leaving, not the last one. A SF company leasing 100,000 is hardly news anymore. It's news when they lease multiple buildings.

Bay Area companies have a major presence in cities around the globe. This in not news.

[Shawn]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

"refuses"=can't afford it

That's not it though for lots of people in tech and ad tech. I've refused two separate offers for relocation to the Bay Area, which included appropriate adjustments to my comp package. But these adjustments don't offset the qualitative losses in lifestyle my wife and I would suffer due to overall increases in the cost of living (and I say that after living in Tokyo for nearly two decades, which should say something about SF's unaffordability). The weather premium just doesn't matter enough to us I guess.

My brother is a managing partner at one of the Big Three accounting firms - he can absolutely afford to stay living in the Bay Area. But relocating to Seattle and Washington State increases his quality of life: a slight reduction in salary but a substantial reduction in costs.

Not all tech workers fall either into the "engineer capped at $100k a year" or the "founder flushed with VC cash" multi-millionaire dichotomy. I'd much rather be making $220k a year and living in Seattle than making $280k a year and living in the Bay Area. That extra $60k isn't worth it. (arbitrary numbers, not necessarily reflective of the actual cost of living differences)