Business 2.0: Where Not to Buy
"These 10 overvalued cities have run their course, and home prices are expected to drop over the next year."
#1 Stockton
A huge price run-up in the past few years seems to be an outgrowth of the booming home markets all over California. But this agricultural-support city seems to have little reason for high housing prices otherwise. It has mostly low-paying industries and ample space for new development.#2 Merced
This is a small, sleepy San Joaquin Valley town that has also benefited from the general run up of California home prices. One big positive factor Merced has going for it is the opening of the 10th campus of the University of California.#4 Fresno
Yet another valley city with an economic base of low paid agricultural industry workers, Fresno real estate rang up impressive price hikes during the boom. Today, the potential for more growth seems very limited. The landscape is mostly uninspiring, the weather unfavorable and the cultural amenities negligible.#7 Bakersfield
Oil wells, cotton fields and pecan and almond growers, as well as country-western music, make this valley city seem more like an outpost of southeastern Texas than the left coast. It shares with that area many of the factors that work against high real estate prices: low paying jobs, hot summers, uninspiring scenery and plenty of room to expand.#8 Sacramento
California's capital city has a reputation for unexciting living. An erstwhile agricultural town that has outgrown its origins, Sacramento has transformed its outlying tomato fields into tract house developments. Searing summer heat, choking photo-chemical smog and a paucity of cultural life work against the town's ability to attract the affluent. Even the governor lives in Brentwood.Hat tip: Matrix
20 comments:
Re: Sacramento:
"Searing summer heat, choking photo-chemical smog and a paucity of cultural life work against the town's ability to attract the affluent."
Did John Saca approve this story??
"California's capital city has a reputation for unexciting living. An erstwhile agricultural town that has outgrown its origins, Sacramento has transformed its outlying tomato fields into tract house developments. Searing summer heat, choking photo-chemical smog and a paucity of cultural life work against the town's ability to attract the affluent. Even the governor lives in Brentwood."
C-L-A-S-S-I-C!!!!
I guess I should be proud that Stockton is first in something other than crime!
But never fear it is still just a "soft-landing" as seen in today's Stockton Record:
"S.J. County sales off 33 percent
BRUCE SPENCE
Record Staff Writer
Published Friday, Oct 27, 2006
In San Joaquin County, the housing market has been hit hard since last fall, after five-plus years of a boom that saw prices rise between 25 percent and 40 percent annually.
The latest quarterly study of new home sales in the county, released last week, indicated that sales took a nearly 33 percent dive from the third quarter of last year to the recent third quarter, but prices slipped 2.3 percent as buyers backed away from record-high prices.
The Gregory Group, a real estate information and consulting service in Folsom, reported 621 sales in the third quarter countywide, a nearly 21 percent drop from 783 in the previous quarter. That number was nearly 33 percent less than the 912 houses sold in the third quarter of 2005.
The average sales price last quarter of $541,070 stood below the record price of $553,715 in the third quarter of last year.
Home builders began offering real estate agents sales commissions for the first time in years and also have offered extras to buyers, ranging from free pools and flat-screen TVs to backyard landscaping and gift cards worth thousands of dollars, in an attempt to keep sales afloat.
Greg Paquin, president of the Gregory Group, said the market may have hit a "soft landing."
"All in all, given what's going on in the market, I don't think that's so bad," he said when the report was issued."
#7 - NO WAY.
We should be #1!
crispy&cole
Naturally occurring asbestos in Folsom should make Sacramento #1 with a rocket. Here is what UC Davis said about naturlly occurring asbestos.
Laurel Beckett, professor and vice chair of the UC Davis Department of Public Health Sciences and a study co-author, said the findings are important. "We showed that breathing asbestos in your community is not magically different from breathing asbestos in an industrial setting. It would have been a surprise to find otherwise."
The researchers found that the risk of developing malignant mesothelioma was directly related to residential proximity to a source of ultramafic rock. Specifically, the odds of having mesothelioma fell by 6.3 percent for every 10 kilometers (about 6.2 miles) farther a person lived from the nearest asbestos source.
So people in Folsom should be careful not to kick up the dust or let their kids eat any dirt. Naturally occurring asbestos is heavily concentrated in Folsom and El Dorado.
There is no level at which exposure to asbestos fibers is deemed to be free of risk. Since activities that disturb dust and soil that potentially contains NOA fibers will likely increase the concentration of fibers in the air, precautions should be taken to either minimize participation in the activity or to minimize dust disturbance for the activity, or both.
IF YOU LIVE IN FOLSOM I WOULD BE VERY CAREFUL. I WONDER IF THE DEVELOPERS TOOK THE NECESSARY PRECAUTIONS WITH THEIR EMPLOYEES WHEN THEY WERE DIGGING UP THIS STUFF IN FOLSOM TO BUILD ALL THOSE HOUSES. I AM SURE THEY DID. WHAT DO YOU THINK?
A dog residing in a home built on exposed tremolite asbestos deposits in an area of NOA (El Dorado, California [see map] ) from age 1 to 9 years died in 2003, at age 13 years, and his lungs were examined using light microscopy and electron microscopy. The results confirmed extremely high concentrations of asbestos fibers in his lungs [see preliminary figure]. [Mr. Terry Trent's encouragement and assistance with this investigation has been greatly appreciated, and Bryan Burnett has done much additional SEM/EDS analysis.]
Thanks for providing this list.
I'm not surprised that "the usual suspects" are on it.
The "8 Best Reasons" those with NO LIFE should move to The Capitol City !
Sacramento is slowly changing. I actually like the area. It may not have as much to do as places like the Bay Area, but it's not as expensive either and the people here are way more friendly and relaxed. The main reason why affluent people cannot move here is because it involves a conscious decision to make less money and instead live a slower pace of life. The less money one makes is typically even less than the cost of living difference from the Bay Area, so that's why you tend to only have people that have "made it big" move here out of choice.
If we had better paying jobs here, we'd have a lot more people moving here.
Why else would they call this place "Sack of Tomatoes"?
"that's why you tend to only have people that have "made it big" move here out of choice."
Why would you move to Sac if you've made it big? So you can reduce your standard of living? Because you like being trapped in your air-conditioned house for six months of the year? Because you like the view?
There are many things I like about Sac, but if I make it big, I'm going to move to SF, NYC, or an area close to those cities.
So you admit you bury the stuff under two feet of dirt. Have you ever heard of swimming pools. They dig up way more than two feet and will spread that stuff all over the place.
So the goverment mitgates State/Federal approved way to "mitigate" any sections of serpentine we run into?
The government is their to help, now I can sleep well at night.
I can't believe he admits to just burying the stuff. I would just not build on it.
You did read where UCD found that breathing asbestos in your community is not magically different from breathing asbestos in an industrial setting. It would have been a surprise to find otherwise."
Please post the study where ag burning is FAR more deleterious to the Sac population than natural asbestos.
"There are many things I like about Sac, but if I make it big, I'm going to move to SF, NYC, or an area close to those cities."
Because you have plenty of time to raise kids. And by "making it big" I meant being able to cash out on your home in a more expensive locale like the Bay Area, move to place like Sacramento and own your home outright. Then you don't really care how much money you make.
Hey anon 6:49 can you please explain how the dog's lungs in anon 8:20 got filled with asbestos fibers just hanging out in the yard.
Maybe it has to do with the risk of developing malignant mesothelioma was directly related to residential proximity to a source of ultramafic rock. Specifically, the odds of having mesothelioma fell by 6.3 percent for every 10 kilometers (about 6.2 miles) farther a person lived from the nearest asbestos source.
Maybe you should live in home that is built on ultramorphic rock and in twenty years we can do a study of you and all your neighbors. I think all your neighbors within 10 kilometers should do the trick.
Oh by the way what is up with the racist comment.
Anon 9:16
I'm not sure where you lived in the "Bay Area" but I grew up in Sac but have lived in the city of San Francisco (read: not Richmond or any other city that is on or remotely close to the Bay. Doesn't Sac county touch a slice of the bay too)I have to say people are friendlier here or at worst the same. When I visit the folks in Sac I find a lot dirty looks from complete strangers at the grocery store, I have had "faggot" yelled at me and my wife from passing four by fours while walking down J St. etc. That is kind of Sacs "thing." But you do make a very good observation, Moving "from close to San Francisco" to Sacramento now leaves you with much less money and a lower quality of life if you have any intention on working in Sacramento. Sacramento was a great place to live.. when you could buy a house in a good area for less than 200k. Because as every Sac defender mentions.. it's close to places you'd actually like to be like the mountains and the ocean but with half million dollar houses in carmichael you may as well go live where you want to instead.
happyinsf:
generalizing about negative experiences you had in sac doesn't necessarily reinforce your point; those experiences are not unique to sac, rather they are common in any medium to large size city (SF included). While sac is certainly no comparison to SF from a cultural perspective (how many cities are for that matter?), it is definitely improving. Part of the problem, I suspect, is that those who are doing the judging are not the ones participating in the cultural and social activities. Hit up the Park downtown and if you still have the same criticisms, so be it - at least your assessment would have a bit of rationality to it.
Anon:
Huh? Should I use somebody elses 24 years of experience living in Sacramento to compare it with other cities? Sorry, but as far as judging the personality of a town I can only use my own. I do realize this is highly subjective but I still stand by it. 24 years is a long time, and I lived downtown for for 6 of those years. I'm not sure how you can dispute my point that value was one of Sacramento's finest attributes and if that is gone why should one not choose to go live somewhere more affordable or metropolitan or rural. Whatever you're into. I mean rents are only a few hundred dollars apart between Sac and SF..come on! I'm sorry you find it an irrational point that I believe that Sacramento jobs do not afford a 2500-3000 dollar mortgage. Where do you work? Next time you see me on the street, just smile and wave from your monster truck. Please? O.K. broseph?
Post a Comment