Saturday Stats - Santa Clara County Real Estate Market Data for June 2016

June 2016 - Market Snapshot - Santa Clara County

View The Full Report Here!

Santa Clara Unanimously Approves Related’s $6.7B City Center Project

Following a deliberation that lasted over four hours, the city council of Santa Clara gave the Related Companies the go-ahead it had been seeking for almost four years—the right to redevelop a 239-acre landfill in the northern part of the city into a mega development that at completion could include 5.4 million square feet of office, 1.1 million square feet of retail space, 1,680 residential units, 700 hotel rooms, 250,000 square feet of food & beverage space and 190,000 square feet of entertainment space. The City Center project promises to be the largest project the Silicon Valley city has ever embarked on, and the final meeting, not unlike the entire process that preceded it, was challenged to the very last minute.

The meeting opened with City Manager Rajeev Batra describing the project in some detail, outlining the process the developer has undertaken with the city, as well as providing a comprehensive overview of the fiscal benefits for the city. In all, the New York-based developer is looking to spend $6.7 billion in total development cost, of which approximately $5 billion would be for construction only. The city of Santa Clara stands to gain nearly $17 million annually in net general funding alone once the project is fully completed, according to Batra.

During Related’s portion of the presentation, the fiscal benefits were summarized at $114 million in total annual recurring revenue to various jurisdictions in Santa Clara at completion. That includes estimated annual allocations of $41 million to the city, $33 million to the school district, $17 million to the county and $14 million to the VTA in addition to an estimated growth in ridership of 52 percent.

“It’s very exciting times, I’m very pleased to present to you one of the biggest projects in the city of Santa Clara,” said Batra as he opened the meeting on Tuesday evening. His presentation to the council concluded with a resounding recommendation to the city council that that the project be approved.

That approval would come after four hours of discussions and evidence that a few lingering issues were still unresolved.

The city of San Jose, for one, sent one of its city attorney deputies to voice San Jose’s disproval of the project and object to the way Santa Clara managed the communications of the review process.

“There are significant environmental impacts,” said Senior Deputy City Attorney Vera Todorov during the public comment portion of the evening. “For example, the DDA that you’re considering tonight was first made public a couple of days ago. It’s 625 pages long.” Todorov explained that this was insufficient time for the public to review and comment on the project details. But that was just one of San Jose’s grievances.

“[Santa Clara’s] consideration of this project will create dramatically more jobs than housing units in a region that is already suffering from a serious housing shortage. It flies in the face of responsible planning and environmental stewardship,” said Todorov. “The project will require San Jose to bear the burden of providing housing and other municipal services to project employees.”

In closing, Todorov asked the city council to take a step back from the decision and review further options it could take with San Jose and neighboring municipalities.

Senior Planner at Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, Melissa Cerezo, also voiced her agency’s objections to the project

“VTA has provided consistent and clear input to the city regarding the projects implications for transportation and mobility. VTA submitted comment letters on the traffic and final environmental impact report, and provided public testimony at all five public City Place public sessions and the June 8th public planning commission hearing,” said Cerezo.

Cerezo went on to say that the VTA had been requesting from the city of Santa Clara to assist in transportation safety planning, signal monitoring and maintenance during the construction of the development. “VTA generally supports intensified development near core transit and works with agencies and the developers to help address transportation demands and impacts of redevelopment. However, VTA continues to have significant concerns that have not been addressed,” she added.

Cerezo went on to outline specifics around the transit center improvements that the VTA would like to see, including improved safety measures surrounding streets and direction of traffic.

The final looming issue was the amount of money the developer was willing to commit to the school district. Representatives from the Santa Clara Unified School District presented the to the city and the developer a counter offer letter to settle a number of open items, and voiced a general appreciation for the work Related had done up to that point.

“This is a tremendous project, things are not perfect, they’re not all what we’d like to be, but I think that we’re close enough,” said vice mayor Teresa O’Neill, concluding her remarks. “I’m going to be optimistic and say let’s go ahead and do this, but we have to realize there’s still many areas to work on.”

“The school district hired a consultant to do a study to figure out how many new students City Place would generate, and it was less than 30 students,” said council member Pat Kolstad. “The Related Corporation volunteered to give double the money that is required by law to the school district for their upfront funds.”

He outlined all the funds the district would be receiving in addition to the tax revenue they would receive annually. “This is more than fair and incredibly generous what this developer is doing for the schools, anything beyond that would be really egregious and unfair,” Kolstad concluded.

He also highlighted the money the VTA would be receiving from Related, which was pegged at $17.5 million in addition to the funding the transportation agency will be getting from property taxes and concluded that it would not be appropriate to put additional financial burdens on this single developer in one city.

Council member Kathy Watanabe added, “What I have appreciated over the years is how the Related Company has listened. Every time that a question has come or concern what direction to go, they made sure to reach out to so many of the community to be able to get feedback, and I think that’s really important. They’ve been transparent and open about their plans.”

“We’re doing our share,” said Mayor Lisa Gillmor. “We don’t have the housing imbalance [San Jose does]…but that was their choice, and that’s their community that they planned. We know Santa Clara is a very attractive community, we know over the years our forefathers and mothers put in the infrastructure in our city to encourage business. We can’t help that we’re so attractive!”

This project will be great project for city, she added. And while she acknowledged that San Jose officials have been communicative, she presented a thick file of documents that had been delivered to her office just hours before the meeting. It was the neighboring city’s last ditch effort to influence the decision and a project that will greatly benefit Santa Clara, and none of the council members seemed to appreciate that gesture by San Jose’s attorneys.

All the council members spoke in favor of the project and jointly praised Related for their efforts to close the gaps that were identified during the approval process. In the final minutes of the evening the council voted unanimously and approved the development.

Source: The Registry
http://news.theregistrysf.com/santa-clara-unanimously-approves-relateds-6-7b-city-center-project/

Saturday Stats

MLSListings Silicon Valley and Coastal Regions Housing Market Overview

(Monterey, San Benito, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz Counties)

San Mateo County Poised for Sizzling Summer

San Mateo County inventory for single-family homes rose 20% year-over-year for the month of May. Additionally, closed sales are up 5%, and median sale price increased by 4%.

In other home counties, single-family homes year-over-year inventory showed gains as well, with San Benito growing 64%, Monterey rising 26%, and Santa Clara up 13%. Santa Cruz County saw an 11% decline. Compared to April 2015, inventory grew 10% in San Benito, 8% in San Mateo, 6% in Santa Clara, 4% in Santa Cruz, and 2% in Monterey Counties.

Single-family home sales rose year-over-year in all counties except Santa Cruz and San Benito, which saw an 11% and 2% decline, respectively. San Mateo County showed the largest gain of 5%, Santa Clara County rose 3%, and Monterey County 2%. May sales showed gains over April except in San Benito County which fell 7% and Monterey County which dropped 3%. San Mateo County grew 19%, Santa Clara County increased 9%, and Santa Cruz County was up 1%.

Compared to May 2015, Santa Cruz County median sales price showed the most strength, growing 16%, with the counties of Santa Clara up 10%, San Benito up 8%, San Mateo up 4%, and Monterey up 2%. Compared to April,
San Mateo County median price grew 5%, both Monterey and Santa Cruz Counties rose 3%, Santa Clara rose 1%,
and San Benito County remained flat to last year.

The year-over-year percent of list price to sale price dropped 4% in both San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties, and 1% in Monterey and San Benito Counties. There was no change in Santa Cruz County. Compared to last month, percent of list to sale price dropped 1% in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties but remained flat in Monterey, San Benito, and
Santa Cruz Counties.





Source: MLS Listings
http://www.mlslistings.com/Portals/0/2016/MLSL_MarketDataReport_SFH_May2016_final_061016.pdf?ver=2016-06-10-171104-643

San Jose councilman reverses support of homeless housing project

A San Jose City Councilman has come up with the "genius" idea for a homeless camp in a neighborhood close on Senter Road near Tully. As you can imagine many residences complained and raised bloody hell with the city so the project is a no-go for the moment. But in my opinion this is a classic example of NIMBY. Part of the nimbyism is due to the fact that a homeless camp in the neighborhood will almost certainly bring down property values.



SAN JOSE -- After being hammered by a storm of public pressure including threats of a civil grand jury complaint, Councilman Tam Nguyen has reversed his support of a homeless housing project on Senter Road.

Nguyen, who in January supported rezoning the land for a transitional housing community, said Friday the project doesn't have enough safeguards and neighbors weren't engaged. Now, he wants the city to treat homeless housing like medical marijuana dispensaries -- keep them away from schools, churches and liquor stores. San Jose's pot ordinance limits collectives to 1 percent of the city, mostly industrial sites.

Coincidentally, Nguyen's district has the most medical cannabis shops.

The proposed development, called the Renascent Place, is a 162-unit complex for chronically homeless individuals. It would be built on county-owned land at 2500 Senter Road that's inside city limits. Santa Clara County teamed up with Charities Housing, a nonprofit housing developer, to propose the project.

A team of eight to 12 employees would provide supportive services on site and the facility would have 24-hour security, according to planning documents. The lease would be for 85 years. The city's Planning Commission in April unanimously approved the project permit, but a group of neighbors appealed. The City Council on Tuesday will consider whether to deny the appeal.

Nguyen thinks the city should uphold the appeal. But Mayor Sam Liccardo, Councilmen Charles "Chappie" Jones and Johnny Khamis support the project, while calling for a plan to increase community engagement. Nguyen criticized the project managers for a lack of outreach and not having a "safety plan" to protect residents. Though Nguyen's January memo supporting the land-use change cited on-site managers and 24/7 security as important safety tools, he now says that's not enough.

"The way they are doing it does not provide a safe environment for the homeless or the neighborhood," Nguyen said. "They did not consider other criteria like crime activity and dumping." City housing officials counter by saying having "more eyes on the street" will actually deter crime and improve safety in the neighborhood.

"We know that activation of sites and providing more eyes can make the neighborhood safer," said Ray Bramson, San Jose's homeless response manager. "The potential of the project is not only benefitting the residents that are living there but improving the entire area."

Nguyen said public pressure didn't factor into his decision to oppose the project, but emails show a group of residents threatening to file a civil grand jury complaint against the councilman unless he met with them.

The threat came from Delbert Ng, a retired electrical engineer who lives on Albany Circle, not far from the project's property line.

"The main concern is the size of the project and high concentration of the most problematic chronic homeless," Ng said. "These are severely mentally ill and drug and alcohol addicted individuals. And it's not a lockdown facility, so they can come out into the community."

Patricia Ramos-Anderson, who doesn't live near the site but said her parents own property there, said the community wasn't informed about the new development. But city records show there were at least five community meetings with more than 100 attendees.

Homeless advocate Jennifer Loving, who directs the nonprofit Destination: Home, says building more homeless housing is the only solution to end homelessness.

"People are speaking out against things that haven't even happened yet," Loving said. "We need to do projects if we want to end homelessness. The council asks for solutions and we deliver responses to end homelessness and people don't like them. But the projects that are being proposed are good, solid projects."

Nguyen, who just returned from a trip to Portland where he slept in an outdoor tent city, says that experience taught him the importance of keeping homeless housing projects away from neighbors.

"The neighbors want to protect the value of their property -- that's natural," Nguyen said.

But Bramson said the focus should be to transition people back into the community. Affordable housing needs to be near transit and services to be successful, he added.

"Residents are less likely to have vehicles and need to be in places to access what they need for everyday life -- things like shopping for groceries or getting to a pharmacy," he said.

If the housing project is approved Tuesday, city leaders will also ask to apply for a $14 million grant under the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program to improve transit, trails and other infrastructure.

Source: Mercury News, Ramona Giwargis
http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_30007401/san-jose-councilman-opposes-homeless-housing-project-ahead

Silicon Valley’s High Rents Keep People in Toxic Relationships

When she met him, a cute out-of-towner at the bar, she could already picture their life together. An ensuing long-distance courtship kindled the notion into reality. On the one-way drive from her hometown in Washington to his in Silicon Valley, that imagined future began to take shape.

She transferred her course credits to San Jose State University and worked three jobs to save up while living with his overbearing mom for a year-and-a-half. By 2014, they had enough to move into a one-bedroom Japantown flat.

For a month—a brief, blissful month—she could breathe. She felt at home. He felt like family.

“That’s all I got,” says Amanda, 26, an environmental science major who asked to withhold her name for fear of eviction. “One whole month of happiness.”

Before long, her boyfriend went from affectionate to detached. He got cagey. Stress over his new job, she figured. He locked his phone and began impulsively tilting the screen away from her line of sight. She didn’t dwell on it. School and work kept her busy from dawn to 10 most nights.

On a rare evening off, she invited her closest friend to the apartment to bake jam-topped cookies over wine, cheese and gossip. Amanda’s usually sullen boyfriend suddenly seemed sociable, taking a keen interest in the visitor, who happened to have dated a close friend of his.

“We’re hanging out and he keeps filling our wine glasses,” Amanda says. “Mostly, he just flirted with her, looking through her overnight bag and jokingly telling her to put makeup on him. They’re laughing and I’m sitting there uncomfortably.”

Confused and feeling disrespected, she told her boyfriend to leave them alone. Some sense of guilt prompted her to call him back, as long he behaved. The trio called an awkward truce and watched a movie, with Amanda in the middle. Then, her boyfriend reached across to caress her friend, who kissed Amanda’s cheek.

“What is happening right now?” Amanda recalls asking, jerking herself away from the unwelcome attempt at a three-way.

She marched into the bathroom to cry, half-hoping one of them would come after her to apologize. Nothing. Sobbing, she packed a bag. On her way to the front door she saw her friend straddling her boyfriend. In a few-minute span, he fucked and finished. He later expressed remorse, but more for the brevity than the infidelity.

In a sane world, that would merit a clean break. But there is nothing sane about Silicon Valley’s astronomical housing costs. Amanda couch-surfed, scoured ads for a room to rent on her meager budget and spent one night sleeping in a Wal-Mart parking lot.

With classes and an internship to worry about, she resolved to tough it out with her ex for another 18 months and counting.

Put Up or Shut Up

The cost of living in Silicon Valley takes more than just a financial toll—it’s often deeply, painfully personal. Skyrocketing rents give the housing market a compulsory family planning effect.

People limit the number of kids they have or hold off entirely. Couples delay moving in together for fear of losing a rent-controlled unit. Or they shack up too quickly because of a rent hike. They never leave the house or move back in with parents, doubling or tripling generations in a single home. People put up with smaller, stranger accommodations, such as shared rooms, converted sheds, backyard tents and couches or subdivided common areas.

If a relationship falls apart, there’s often nowhere else to go for months, even years. Exes demoted to housemates have to navigate a post-breakup reality that prevents them from moving on. That can become more than just awkward. Increasingly, people put up with toxic relationships or outright physical, financial or emotional abuse because they simply can’t afford to leave.

“Ten years ago, we didn’t need to be housing experts,” says Colsaria Henderson, program director for Next Door Solutions to Domestic Violence. “But housing has become the key issue with our survivors. I would say it’s paramount. We never really anticipated seeing survivors priced out of everything, or seeing so many of them make that decision to remain with an abuser or risk homelessness.”

Next Door Solutions, Santa Clara County’s largest service provider for victims of domestic violence, turned away 77 women and 87 children from its battered women’s shelter in April.

“These are all women we would have taken into our shelter, these are people who have exhausted all their options,” she says. “There’s just no room.”



Rent Controlled

Katie Taylor, 28, has achieved a tense equilibrium with her ex by creating some emotional distance despite their physical proximity.

“We try to work together to help each other out and to be friends,” says Taylor, a Michigan transplant who lives in one of downtown San Jose’s myriad subdivided Victorians. “I get free food from work but I don’t have a car, so I barter with him by giving him food for a ride. But when we’re in the car together, we’ll argue again.”

At least she moved out, she says, even if she didn’t get that far. Last fall, she left their shared room—where they spent months aggravating seven housemates with late-night shouting matches that sometimes descended into physical fights—for a $425-a-month space on the second floor. It wasn’t her first choice.

“I was telling myself for a really long time that I wasn’t staying there because I needed a place to live,” Taylor says. “I kept telling myself that I could leave if I wanted to.”

Scouting for a new home, however, made it all but impossible to live in denial. The only options within her price range included dank, windowless basements for $650 a month or party houses with washed-up townies or 19-year-old college students.

“After months of looking for somewhere to live, it all came crashing down,” she says. “I realized that I’m totally fucked. I got really depressed. I would lay in bed all day and cry.”

San Jose rents rose to historic heights in the last decade, while million-dollar homes became commonplace.

The average going rate for a two-bedroom apartment went from $1,775 in 2010 to $2,960 this past February, according to Rent Jungle. That’s a 67 percent jump. The average one-bedroom saw a 77 percent increase from $1,330 to $2,362 in the same timeframe.

More than half of the city’s renters are considered “rent burdened,” which means they spend at least a third of their income on rent. Among those, 27 percent pay at least half of their earnings to keep a roof over their heads.

As a cook at a grocery store, there’s no chance Taylor would be able to afford anything but a place with a partner or several roommates, or both. Regardless, her more immediate anxieties involve cohabiting with an erstwhile lover, which she says prevents her from bringing a date home. The last time a guy spent the night led to a weird, tearful encounter in the bathroom.

On the bright side, the less-than-ideal housing arrangement has forced her to become more diplomatic. “I’m learning good communication skills,” she says. “Now I’m the person who’s saying, ‘OK, let’s work together to clean this place up,’ maybe get on the landlord’s good side.”

Melanie Cauble, a family therapist based in Willow Glen, says there’s a cultural expectation that breaking up means ceasing all contact. For people with kids, divorcees with mutual property or live-in partners who can’t up and leave, a clean break can be all but impossible.

“Sometimes you have to learn how to cope,” she says. “People have this mentality that when they break up they never talk to each other again, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be that way. We’re in this stage in our society where it doesn’t have to be black and white, where exes can be friends or at least remain civil with each other.”

Cauble would know. For a year after divorcing her husband of two years and partner of 10, they lived in the same house. She managed to date and live the single life while summoning the financial wherewithal to strike it out on her own.

“It’s challenging,” she says. “And it doesn’t always work.”

Pity Rent

On the flip side of these unwanted relationships is Paul Gee, a 39-year-old local  landlord who lives with his ex two years after the split.

“I actually feel guilty about how the rental market is, so I let her stay,” he says. “She can’t really afford to move out. I know that. But it’s awkward, there’s always tension and it wasn’t a completely friendly breakup.”

In a two-bedroom cottage, they share a bathroom and, if they can stand it, the living room. To avoid each other they often stay in their own rooms. Underscoring the absurdity of the situation, Gee says, he’s grateful for long work hours and snarled commutes that keep him out of the house.

Though he owns the place, he’s just as stuck.

“Neither one of us can move forward,” Gee says. “I can’t even imagine bringing anyone else over. I’m basically in this impossible situation where I have nowhere to go and she has nowhere to go. But I also totally get where she’s coming from.”

The predicament clouds his future.

“It’s hard to see beyond this,” he says. “I don’t see a way out.”

Nowhere to Turn

For Darlisha Matthews, coping was no longer an option. For a decade, she endured beatings, sexual assault and emotional abuse at the hands of her boyfriend because she had nowhere else to go with four kids and a single income. Affordable housing is tapped out, public subsidies come with 12-year waiting lists and emergency shelters exceed capacity.

Two-and-a-half years ago, Matthews evicted her abuser after he threatened to kill her. But without his portion of the rent, she could no longer afford $1,450 a month. Her landlord was unsympathetic.

In the thick of a white-hot rental market and the wake of her grandmother’s death, Matthews made what she calls “a terrible choice that no one should have to make.” With her two young daughters and one son—the other went to live with his dad—she bunked in their Honda Odyssey or shelters, when there was room. If she scraped together enough cash, she rented cheap motel rooms so they could stretch their legs. Too many nights spent sleeping upright causes the calves to swell, painfully and sometimes permanently.

Most days, Matthews had no clue where they would sleep, where they would shower. Some days, she wanted to die. Despite the chaos, she kept her kids in school and landed a part-time job. She filled out countless applications for apartment waiting lists, shelters and services that might get her family off the streets.

“I was just praying, because I couldn’t take it anymore,” she says. “I would ask the Lord, I would ask my grandmother, ‘What can I do? Where can I get help? Where are you going to guide me to?’”

Finally, she went to HomeFirst, the South Bay’s largest homeless services provider, which found her a subsidized apartment. Since March, her family has had some semblance of stability.

“It takes some getting used to,” says Matthews, 32, from the dining room table of her sunlit breakfast nook. “Some days I wake up and tell the girls, ‘Get up, we got to leave, we got to go.’ And they’re like, ‘No we don’t, mom.’”

It takes a conscious effort to keep her mind from racing and calmly tell her kids, “good morning,” instead of “hurry up, wake up, get going.” However, unless HomeFirst extends their lease, Matthews will need to find a new place within two years.



Most domestic violence shelters limit stays from one to a few months and transitional housing to a year or two. But finding a room or apartment to rent often requires a year or more of searching, according to domestic violence nonprofits.

Women, like Matthews, fall into what’s called the “shelter shuffle,” making the circuit from one nonprofit to the other to stay off the streets. Meanwhile, short-term apartments have run out of room as people slated to move out extend their stay for lack of options.

“Transitional housing, in many cases, is no longer transitional,” says Perla Flores, program director for Community Solutions, another local nonprofit that helps abuse survivors. “They’re permanent, or indefinite, which is good for the people who have them but difficult for everyone else.”

It can take years for people in abusive relationships to summon the strength to leave, Matthews says, but faced with the prospect of homelessness, they can lose their resolve.

“Everyone tells you to leave,” she says. “But when you’re finally ready to take that step, nobody knows where you can go.”

People in controlling relationships tend to have bad credit, rental and job histories as a result of their abuse. Factor in a host of inequities, like the gender pay gap that limits a woman’s spending power, and it’s little wonder that women and other marginalized groups are disproportionately impacted by rental-relationship woes.

About half of all homeless women say violence at home forced them onto the streets, according to a 2013 survey by the National Center on Family Homelessness. Among homeless mothers with children, that figure rises to more than 80 percent.

Women in Silicon Valley fare far worse than the rest of the country. While the national homeless population counts three times as many men as women, the South Bay’s is evenly divided between genders with women more likely to experience persistent homelessness. That local gender disparity only recently came to light in a 2015 study by housing nonprofit Destination: Home, which urged policymakers to investigate the region’s unusually high female homeless population.

“As a movement, we built shelters to provide a safe place for people to get on their feet,” says Henderson, who has worked in the field for the better part of two decades. “We were a little blindsided by the woman who wanted to leave her abuser but couldn’t.”

Until policymakers stitch up gaping holes in the social safety net, domestic violence victims will continue to weigh their abuse against the prospect of losing shelter. “People do what they can to survive,” says Nohemi Nogueda, a coordinator for Next Door Solution who worked with a single mom criminally prosecuted for trading sex for shelter. “There’s a lot of pressure when you feel you have no choice.”

Nogueda doesn’t know whether the landlord got busted for what legally amounts to prostitution. But a quick scroll through Craigslist shows plenty of men in Silicon Valley trying to capitalize on down-and-out women looking for a cheap place to stay.

The GF Experience

Market forces that keep exes together long after they break up also compel people to strike up relationships they would never consider otherwise. This creates a type of sex work that flourishes in a housing crisis.

Most of the sex-for-rent ads on Craigslist’s South Bay listings seek female roommates and a selfie. One asks for “young, big, well-built, live-in house boy.” Some openly solicit “tenants with benefits.”

“I don’t want to rent to just anyone,” a self-described “sober/professional” landlord in San Jose wrote in a Craigslist ad. “I would prefer a ‘mutually beneficial arrangement.’”

I responded to a few ads to learn about what these landlords expect from sex-for-rent deals. One of them tells me he owns an auto dealership on Stevens Creek Boulevard. He wants to talk about the arrangement in person but can only meet after 9pm at his office or an upscale wine bar in Santana Row. Others say they won’t disclose the details until I send them a selfie.

A guy from Willow Glen sends a photo of himself first, angling for reciprocation. He says he’s 49 years old and lives alone in a clean, quaint second-story apartment with an orange tabby named Hugo.

“There’s only one bedroom,” he says, apologetically. “But I was hoping for more of a live-in girlfriend, just so we’re clear.”

If someone bites, he continues, this would be the second time in the past few years that he’s offered shelter for “the girlfriend experience.”

“She was young and beautiful and horny all the time,” he says. “But she was also a thief. Found $500 of mine in her purse so I cut her loose. … I chalked it up to experience.”

“Yeah,” I reply, “seems like a gamble, taking in strangers.”

“Loneliness makes one do incredibly stupid things,” he admits. “But just having someone to come home to at night and cuddle with would make it all worth it.”

I ask what he’s looking for in a tenant-with-benefits. One of two types of women, he answers: someone his age or “a young, cute girl who just loves sex.”

“But I’m a realistic thinking person,” he continues, “and I know my limitations and capabilities, so I don’t get my hopes up too high. It would be nice to trade in a little reality sometimes for a little fantasy.”

At the First Presbyterian Church San Jose’s Women’s Gathering Place, which offers meals and a living room-like space for unsheltered women to rest during the day, the attendees tell each other to look out for sex-for-shelter ads.

“The men think they can get a woman who’s desperate but still looks like a model,” says Sally Claridge, 65, who’s lived on the streets since being priced out of her Willow Glen apartment of two decades in 2012. “That’s what they’re looking for.”

Granted, they’ll take what they can get, she says. A year ago, still naïve to the catch, she responded to one such ad.

“Over the phone, he says, ‘It’s yours if you pee on my face,’” she says. “I said, ‘Oh no,’ and hung up.”

Another homeless woman, 59-year-old Frenchie Rogers, laughs at the absurdity but urges caution. At least an escort can leave her client at the end of the hour, she says, but a live-in sex-on-demand tenant?

“Trapped,” she says, shaking her head. “I tell other women about Craigslist. I tell them, ‘You gotta be careful out there. You gotta be safe.’”

Break Free

Next year, Amanda graduates. She hopes to land a better job with better pay that could finally give her the economic dependency to break free of the failed relationship that tethers her to an apartment.

Though she lost friendships and a love interest, she feels more resilient for what she’s been through.

“I’m mostly a lone wolf,” Amanda says. When she broke up with her boyfriend, she tried to change that by going out by herself, meeting new people, forming a social life without him.

“I mean, you do feel like your life's on hold,” she says. “I’ve survived each day with this person, I wake up with this person just trying to avoid an argument. But I’ve learned to be happy elsewhere.

“I can see the light.”


Source: San Jose Inside, Jennifer Wadsworth
http://www.sanjoseinside.com/2016/05/26/silicon-valleys-high-rents-keep-people-in-toxic-relationships/

Saturday Stats - Silicon Valley Real Estate Market Statistics

MLSListings Silicon Valley and Coastal Regions Housing Market Overview

(Monterey, San Benito, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz Counties)

Silicon Valley Condo/Townhome Market Heats up before Summer

Closing Times Lowest Since January

Closing times for condos and townhouses have been dropping this year in the counties of Santa Clara and San Mateo, from 26 days in January to 14 days in April. Compared to April 2015, Days on Market (DOM) dropped 72% in Santa Cruz, 49% in Monterey, 41% in San Benito County, 22% in Santa Clara County, and 18% in San Mateo Counties. When compared to March, DOM dropped 22% in Santa Cruz, 21% in San Mateo, 14% in Santa Clara, 8% in Monterey, and 6% in San Benito Counties.

Both San Mateo and Santa Cruz County median price grew 25% compared to April 2015, with Monterey and San Benito growing by 21% and 9%, respectively. Santa Clara County dropped 2%. Monterey County median sales price showed the most strength in April up 18% in comparison with March, with San Mateo County up 12%, and Santa Cruz up 9%. San Benito County dropped 10% and Santa Clara County dropped 3%.

Compared to March 2015, Santa Clara County median sales price showed the most strength up 13%, while Santa Cruz County rose 7%, with San Benito County up 6%. San Mateo County fell 6%, and Monterey County was down 4%. Median sales price rose 11% in Santa Clara County, 6% in San Benito County, and 1% in San Mateo County. Monterey County dropped 1% while Santa Cruz County remained flat.

Year-over-year common interest home sales grew 65% in Monterey and 14% in Santa Clara Counties, but fell 75% in San Benito, 22% in Santa Cruz, and 11% in San Mateo Counties. In relation to March, Santa Clara County sales rose 17%, Monterey County sales rose 15%, and San Mateo County was up 14%. San Benito County remained flat and Santa Cruz County dropped 13%.

Month-to-month inventory showed gains in all five counties except in San Benito which remained flat. Monterey County was up 8%, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties both rose 6%, and Santa Cruz County grew 4%. Data indicates inventory grew 200% in San Benito, 16% in Santa Clara, 15% in San Mateo, and 11% in Monterey Counties compared to April 2015, but fell 21% in Santa Cruz County.





Source: MLSListings, Inc.
http://www.mlslistings.com/media-center/resources/-market-data-reports/udt_931_param_detail/263

'Double agent?' A rift over how real estate is bought and sold reaches the California Supreme Court

Here in the Silicon Valley I can't count the number of times where I came across another agent's listing that ended up "double ending." Double ending a real estate deal is when an agent represents both the buyer and seller in a real estate transaction. I can think of a number of agents, whose name will remain nameless, who use this as their primary business model. I prefer to stay away from double ending my real estate deals because their is too much potential for conflict of interest and what-not.



When Martin Welc asks his real estate classes at Saddleback College if one agent should represent both the buyer and the seller in a negotiation over a house, the students widely disagree.

"We ask them: 'Dual agent or double agent?'" said Welc, co-chairman of the college's real estate program, in encouraging the students to play devil's advocate. "We look at all of the pros and cons. We say, 'Can this be done?'"

It is done, but the controversy over its fairness to buyers and sellers goes beyond a homework assignment. Real estate agents, lawyers and consumer advocates all have opinions about it. Now a rift involving what's known as "dual agency" has reached the California Supreme Court.

Those on both sides of the argument know the high court's decision in the case — pitting a Malibu homebuyer against brokerage Coldwell Banker — could shake up the industry.

"There is a great deal of concern about this ruling in the California real estate community," said Bob Hunt, a San Clemente agent and a director of the California Association of Realtors, of the appellate court's conclusion. "It runs counter to the way — rightly or wrongly — that agents and brokers have thought things were."

A FINE LINE

A dual agent must walk a fine line, careful not to favor the buyer or seller. There are details that cannot be shared — for example, the agent can't tell the buyer the seller is frantic to unload the house because of a divorce or job change. Nor can the agent share with the seller how much the buyer privately said she's willing to pay.

Lee Stimmel, a San Francisco attorney who opposes double-ending deals, said the rules create a conflict of interest for the lone agent, who must serve two masters as a "superhuman."

But as Hunt and many other agents see it, a dual agent, privy to what's motivating each side, is in a position to more swiftly and efficiently get a deal done.

"Hiring a real estate salesperson is not the same as buying a burger," the association says in court papers. "It is all about the relationship ... The real estate salesperson is the equivalent of a therapist, a bartender, a friend."

In California and many other states, the law mandates that a broker must have a fiduciary responsibility to clients. But laws in about two dozen states have allowed agents to act as "facilitators" or "transaction brokers" without fiduciary loyalties, according to a report on Inman, a real estate industry site, titled "Buyer and Seller Beware: Your agent may not represent your best interests."

THE CASE

At the core of the case before the state Supreme Court is a discrepancy about the size of a Malibu manse.

Hong Kong multimillionaire Hiroshi Horiike bought the Tuscan-style home overlooking the Pacific Ocean for $12.25 million in cash in 2007. A high-profile listing agent provided him with a brochure stating the house had 15,000 square feet of living space, but county records said the residence actually was under 9,500 square feet.

The difference in square footage was complicated by Malibu using a different metric than elsewhere, extending the measurements to garages and other spaces beyond the primary residence.

Both Horiike's agent and the listing agent worked for Coldwell Banker, so the brokerage was the dual agent of the buyer and seller, as confirmed in the disclosure forms Horiike signed.

A couple of years later, when seeking a permit to remodel a room, Horiike discovered the house wasn't as large as he thought. In 2010, he sued the listing agent, Chris Cortazzo, and Coldwell Banker, stating they violated their fiduciary duty to him. (He did not sue his own Coldwell Banker agent, however.)

The jury disagreed that the listing agent had a fiduciary duty to the buyer or that the broker was liable for a breach of fiduciary duty based on the agent's acts.

Horiike prevailed on appeal. The justices found that Cortazzo "did not add a handwritten note of advice to hire a qualified specialist to verify the square footage of the home" to a visual inspection disclosure, as he had done with a previous prospective buyer.

"A trier of fact could conclude that although Cortazzo did not intentionally conceal the information, Cortazzo breached his fiduciary duty by failing to communicate all of the material information he knew about the square footage," the justices wrote in their decision.

They also stated, "When a broker is the dual agent of both the buyer and the seller ... the salespersons acting under the broker have the same fiduciary duty to the buyer and the seller as the broker."

And they cited a finding in another case about confusion in the industry:

"Salespersons commonly believe that there is no dual representation if one salesperson 'represents' one party to the transaction and another salesperson employed by the same broker 'represents' another party to the transaction. The real estate industry has sought to establish salepersons as 'independent contractors' for tax purposes and this concept has enhanced the misunderstanding of salespersons."

FRIENDS OF THE COURT

Some compare a dual agent to an attorney representing opposing sides in a legal claim, which is not allowed.

"Use common sense ... you have fiduciary duty to both. How do you do that? Could you be a lawyer for both?" said Stimmel, the San Francisco lawyer.

Besides, he said, it gives the real estate industry a bad reputation: "Most real estate agents are honest, and I don't think they understand how much their integrity is undermined by dual agency."

Hunt maintains that a real estate deal isn't necessarily adversarial; instead of winding up with a winner and a loser, as in a court proceeding, the goal is to satisfy both sides.

Other agents add that often the seller can benefit because a dual agent will reduce the commission; the standard 6 percent doesn't have to be split with a buyer's agent.

The National Association of Exclusive Buyer Agents, which opposes double-ending deals, has filed an amicus — or friend of the court — brief before the state Supreme Court. The California Association of Realtors has filed its own brief, asking the court to reject the appellate ruling and uphold the jury's verdict.

As both sides watch closely, "It is certainly possible that dual agency, as it is now commonly practiced in California, will become untenable," Hunt wrote in an article for RealtyTimes, a trade site.

The high court could add further rules or disclosure requirements. But, noting that the state generally has been strict about matters involving fiduciary duty, Stimmel hopes the argument over double ending doesn't end there.

"If any state is going to stop it," he said, "it's going to be California."

Source: San Jose Mercury News, Marilyn Kalfus
http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_29839736/double-agent-rift-over-how-real-estate-is

The 20 Hottest Housing Markets This Spring

Two of the top housing markets in the United States are in the Bay Area, one of which is in the Silicon Valley; San Jose. Great news for our market here. Great news if you are a seller!

The 20 Hottest Housing Markets This Spring
California continues to dominate the latest list of some of the busiest housing markets across the country. The Golden State boasts 13 of the 20 top markets. Some Eastern markets like Boston and Raleigh, N.C. are also making a comeback.

Realtor.com® identified the 20 hottest medium- to large-size housing markets for March. They analyzed the number of listing views per market (to show demand) and median days on the market (to show supply). According to their preliminary site data, housing inventory is down 2 percent year-over-year, which is making things quite competitive in many markets.

“Listings are growing as they normally do this time of the year, but because demand has been growing faster than supply, homes are selling faster,” says Jonathan Smoke, chief economist of realtor.com. “So the monthly trend is the normal seasonal pattern, but the year-over-year decline is reflective of demand being stronger than supply for more than a year, which is resulting in fewer homes available and faster-moving inventory.”

This ranking shows the 20 markets where listings are getting two to five times more views than the national average and homes are selling one to two months faster than in the rest of the country:

Source: Realtor Mag Online > Realtor.com
http://realtormag.realtor.org/daily-news/2016/03/31/20-hottest-housing-markets-spring?om_rid=AAFmZk&om_mid=_BW-ZpfB9MRHMlq&om_ntype=RMODaily

San Jose third costliest North American housing market -- if you believe the rankings

Here they come down the final stretch, folks! It's San Francisco in first, followed by Manhattan -- yes, Donald Trump's Manhattan -- close behind in the second spot! And -- look out -- that's San Jose in third place!

Real estate rankings are like overlapping horse races, with one finish line replacing the next as data crunchers continually spew out their latest findings.

This week's new joint analysis by the Point2homes.com and PropertyShark websites points to San Francisco as the costliest housing market in the U.S. and Canada, with a median home price of $1,085,000. Manhattan captured the No. 2 position ($1,059,000), while San Jose ($700,000) took the third spot, followed by Brooklyn in fourth place, Los Angeles in fifth and Vancouver in sixth.

Those are the top finishers in what's billed as North America's Superstar Housing Markets.

"These kinds of headlines aren't good for our workforce," said Jacky Morales-Ferrand, San Jose's housing director. "When you get housing prices that are so expensive, it makes it very challenging for people's kids, for grandparents and for companies to recruit here," she said.

She called the obsession with rankings "a sign of this recovery." "Because the latest recession was all about housing and its prices, and we now have this recovering market. But how high can it go again? When it reaches its cap, it's going to deflate. It's going to have to go down," she added.

Sometimes it's hard to make sense of all the number crunching from competing sources. Just as an example, the Demographia housing affordability index recently named Vancouver as the third most expensive city in the world, after Hong Kong and Sydney, while Point2homes.com ranks it as the sixth most expensive market in North America.

At times contradictory, the rankings are a confusing aspect of contemporary culture, celebrating the fact that entire markets are now out of reach of ordinary pocketbooks. But people are fascinated, anyway. It's something like a new turn on the old joke by Groucho Marx, who said, "I don't want to belong to any club that will have me as a member" -- the inference being that he envied the razzle-dazzle lifestyles that seemed beyond his own comfort zone and reach.

Oakland didn't make the Top 15 of the Point2homes.com ranking. But fear not, it appears on another new list: The Top 30 Hipster Zips for Home Flips, compiled by RealtyTrac. It ranks Oakland's 94606 ZIP code -- where 28.1 percent of the population is aged 20-34 -- in the 17th position nationally, with a $185,000 average gross profit per home flip. (A flip is defined as the purchase and re-sale of a house within a 12-month period.) That represents a 74 percent return on investment.

San Francisco and San Jose didn't even make that list, probably because most millennials can't afford to buy a dirt lot in those cities.

Housing officials, affordability proponents and real estate agents cull from a gazillion sources across academia and the nonprofit and commercial worlds. Some of the big brokerages and real estate franchises crunch their own numbers.

This newspaper often relies on CoreLogic, the real estate information service whose February data analysis showed the median price for a single-family home in the nine-county Bay Area to be $635,000 -- though that wouldn't mean much if you live in San Mateo County (where the median was $1,001,000) or Santa Clara County ($830,000).

Boring down by ZIP code, there is even more variability: like the Bay Area weather, real estate is about microclimates.

In January, RealFacts reported that Bay Area landlords pushed rents up by nearly 10 percent across the region in 2015. In San Jose, the average monthly price for an apartment rose to $2,436 -- a 9.4 percent increase over the fourth quarter of 2014. In Oakland, the rise was even steeper: up 13.7 percent to $2,806, RealFacts said.

More recently, the Abodo apartment search website reported that rental costs for one-bedroom units in San Jose fell 11 percent from January to February this year, said to be the biggest decline in the nation. But when Abodo tabulated the 10 largest declines from February to March, San Jose wasn't on the list, though Sacramento ranked second (down 16 percent) and San Francisco ranked ninth (down 6 percent).

Is your head spinning yet?

Just wondering.

Because Zumper, the apartment rental website, has just reported that the median rent for a one-bedroom house in San Francisco last month was $3,590, making it (yet again) the costliest rental market in the United States. Commenting on San Francisco's continued reign, the Curbed SF real estate blog noted that for $3,950, "you could rent a house in Zumper's cheapest city (Wichita, Kansas, $450 a month) and have enough left over to buy a monthly bottle of Napa's Screaming Eagle cabernet sauvignon, the ninth most expensive wine on the market today."

Meanwhile, the blog continued, Oakland "climbed to the survey's number four spot in February," with a median rent of $2,250. That just barely dislodges San Jose from number four; a one-bedroom there is also $2,250, but for Oakland that number is a record, rising 2.3 percent and breaking the previous Oakland Zumper high of $2,210 back in December."

But that soon will be old news. Who's in first place right now?

Stay tuned.

Source: San Jose Mercury News, Richard Scheinin
http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_29628585/san-jose-third-costliest-north-american-housing-market

Santa Clara County Market Data for Feb

Saturday Stats

MLSListings Silicon Valley and Coastal Regions Housing Market Overview

(Monterey, San Benito, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz Counties)

Home Sales Take a Leap in the Region, Inventory Stalls Year-Over-Year

Compared to January 2015, median sales price in January 2016 rose 18% in Monterey County, 12% in San Benito County, 11% in San Mateo County, 9% in Santa Clara County, and 3% in Santa Cruz County. Compared to December 2015, it’s a different story. Median sales price is showing signs of flattening with San Mateo up 7%, Monterey up 5%, Santa Clara zero change, San Benito down 2%, and Santa Cruz County down 6%.

Single family home year-over-year sales made gains in all MLSListings counties, compared to January 2015. San Benito showed the largest gain of 52%, San Mateo 36%, Santa Clara , Santa Cruz 7%, and Monterey 5%. January sales fell well below December levels in four of the five MLSListings counties: San Mateo and Santa Clara sales dropped 59%, Santa Cruz 58%, and Monterey 20%. San Benito showed the only gain with 15%.

Month-to-month inventory shows slight gains in three of the five counties, with San Mateo up 7%, Santa Clara up 6%, and Monterey up 3%. Santa Cruz and San Benito Counties inventory dropped 5% and 2%, respectively. Inventory is split among the counties compared to 2015, with San Mateo up 9%, Monterey up 3%, and San Benito up 1%. Santa Cruz is down 23%, and Santa Clara is down 7%.

Compared to last year, Total Dollar Volume rose 69% in San Benito County, 44% in Monterey County, 20% in San Mateo County, 11% in Santa Clara County, and 10% in Santa Cruz County. Compared to a strong December, sales Volume dropped 80% in San Mateo County, 74% in Santa Cruz, 71% in Santa Clara, and 39% in Monterey County. Only San Benito County showed growth with a gain of 16%.




Printable PDF version of report


Source: mlslistings.com

Santa Clara County Local Area Market Update for February 11th 2016

Happy Friday everyone! Great real estate market data for our area.

The fate of Santa Clara County Fairground

The Santa Clara County Fairgrounds has been a historic icon of the Silicon Valley for many years, but now it seems there are those who want to put the land to better use. Many who have grown up in this area have gone to the fair grounds at lease once are also the biggest supporters of keeping the fairgrounds as it is due to it being something of a landmark and their fond memories there. Be that as it may, the supporters of progress will likely win out because there is just too much demand for housing in this valley. Afterall, Apple, Google and Facebook need more housing for their many workers.

Prime real estate: Santa Clara Co. disputes Fairgrounds' future
Santa Clara Co., Calif. (KTVU) - It's a huge lot of land in San Jose considered rundown, underutilized and an eyesore. On Thursday, county leaders shared plans for the future of the Santa Clara County Fairgrounds.

A lot of people in the South Bay remember the fairgrounds in its heyday. It has declined over the years, where it now holds small events here and there. The county wants something grand, but many people at Thursday's meeting want it to stay as is.

The Santa Clara County Fairgrounds has a long history in the South Bay, well known for its annual County Fair. However, over the years, the 150-acre prime piece of land has lost its luster and quite frankly is falling apart.

"The board has been very clear they want to accomplish something that people will be really proud of," said Santa Clara County Director of Asset Bruce Knopf. "Something that's iconic and creates a lot of buzz and excitement."

On Thursday, the county unveiled a new vision for the fairgrounds, where half of the land would be used for sports. The other would be a park similar to Golden Gate Park or New York's Central Park on a much smaller scale.
"If this leaves, if they take this away," said Joan Schramm of Los Gatos. "We probably can't exist."

Joan Schramm is with the Santa Clara Valley Gem and Mineral Society. Her community group has used the fairgrounds for 60 years. She's among the many people against change at the packed meeting.

"It would be a lot cheaper to fix what they got than to build this elaborate system," said Ben Schramm of Los Gatos.

4-H clubs are also concerned.

"I like showing my animals at the fair and a lot of people spend thousands of dollars on their animals," said Brandon Vandercook of the Hilltop 4-H club.

To that end, the county is considering carving 30 acres for an event center to hold the fair or relocating it all together.

"Our fair is already so small every year it's shrinking with the amount of vendors," said Ilona Mauro of the Hilltop 4-H club. "I don't have a lot of public showing up anymore so it's important to keep what we have."

All this is tentative. One of sports teams interested in the land is the minor league team the San Jose Giants. Any of the major professional teams are unlikely to relocate at the Fairgrounds.

"There were rumors some time ago seeking the Raiders," said Knopf. "It was nothing more than a rumor and you can see how long San Jose has been attracting the A's."

One thing the fairgrounds won't be converted to is housing. The county tried that approach a few years back and the developer backed out. Realistically, it's still in its early stages. The plans will be presented to the Board of Supervisors later this month.

Source: KTVU.com
http://www.ktvu.com/news/70855893-story

Beware of crooks posing as Realtors

This article is in reference to Teton Valley, but it's message is still relevant to the Silicon Valley because there have been numerous instances of Craigslist real estate scams going on. One such example is when an unsuspecting individual or couple responds to an online ads posted by someone pretending to be a Realtor, advertising for a property unbeknownst to the owner, they collect a deposit without showing the property and they disappear. The victims will never see their money again. If they are a legit Realtor, there should have their BRE (Baeurau of Real Estate) # readily available. You can look up their license status on the BRE's website. Be suspicious of they ask for a deposit up front without showing you the property And lastly, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

Sheriff's Office warns: Beware of Craigslist real estate scams
The sheriff’s department has received several reports recently of fraudulent advertisements on Craigslist. In some of these instances, a person will post an advertisement for a property for sale or rent and pose as a real estate agent to gather personal information from prospective buyers.

Teton County Sheriff Tony Liford said such online ads make more sense in large cities where there are thousands of housing options, but in a place as small as Teton Valley, there’s no reason not to use a real realtor.

“Craigslist is not the place to go,” Liford said. “What started out as a good thing has turned into a criminal’s delight.”

The sheriff’s department advises those looking for housing to go through a licensed real estate agent, and always to view the property before transferring any personal information or money.

Source: Teton Valley News, Teresa Mull 
http://www.tetonvalleynews.net/news/sheriff-s-office-warns-beware-of-craigslist-real-estate-scams/article_ecb8353c-aff7-11e5-b8d9-577327d8a9ba.html

My New Listing on 801 S. Winchester Blvd. #6205

801 S. Winchester Blvd. #6205, San Jose, CA. 95128

What a luxury lifestyle! Beautiful gated 10 years young Villa Cortina community conveniently located close to Santana Row, Valley Fair, freeway, schools and park. The complex offers security gates, restricted vehicle access, recreational facility, elevators, pool, playground, BBQ area. Second floor unit facing the garden, featuring large dual pane windows, fresh paint, granite counter tops in kitchen and bath and nice floor plan. NOT ON MLS YET!

Agents and buyers please call or email for more information 408-569-3808 | mimi@mimhomes.com

• 1 Bed
• 1 Bath
• 692 Sq. Ft.
• Year Built: 2005
• Central Heating & A/C
• Granite Counter Tops
• Laminate Flooring in Kitchen
• Double Pane Windows
• In Unit Washer & Dryer

Asking: $458,000

Saturday Stats

MLSListings Silicon Valley and Coastal Regions Housing Market Overview

(Monterey, San Benito, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz Counties)

Holiday Housing Market Proving Naughty and Nice

Year-Over-Year Gains with Seasonal Slowdowns

Single-family homes inventory made substantial gains compared to 2014. By county, San Mateo single-family home inventory grew 72%, Santa Clara 48%, Monterey 18%, San Benito 11%, and Santa Cruz 8%. Month-to-month inventory tells a different story, going through a cyclical drop compared to October 2015 in all counties except in San Benito, which grew 1%. Inventory dropped 24% in Santa Clara County, 20% in Santa Cruz County, 19% in San Mateo County, and 8% in Monterey County.

Single-family home sales in November 2015 remain above last year’s levels in four of the five MLSListings counties, with San Mateo showing the only decline at 3%. Monterey County sales rose 17%, Santa Cruz 8%, San Benito 7%, and Santa Clara up 3%. Compared to October 2015, sales dropped by double digits in all counties. San Benito had the largest drop at 53%, Santa Cruz 23%, Santa Clara 22%, Monterey 21%, and San Mateo sales fell 12%.

Finally, compared to 2014, the median sales price remains relatively positive, with the counties of San Benito up 19%, Santa Clara up 13%, San Mateo and Monterey up 9%, and Santa Cruz up 3%. Compared to last month, the median price dropped 5% in Santa Cruz County, up 5% in San Benito County, 4% in Monterey County, and up just 1% in both San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties.



Source: MLSListings, Inc
http://www.mlslistings.com/media-center/resources/-market-data-reports/udt_931_param_detail/228

Santa Clara County South Bay Events for November 2015

Santa Clara County October 2015 Events

Santa Clara County Market Snapshot for August

A camp for the homeless - coming to a neighborhood near you!

The City Of San Jose is chewing over the idea of using a county owned parking lot at the corner of Camden Ave and Almaden Expressway as a camp for homeless people who live in their car. 

Sounds well and good, but it's right next to a residential neighborhood, the Almaden Valley community. Looking at it from the perspective of a Realtor and homeowner, putting a homeless camp in this relatively high median home value neighborhood is going piss the residences off greatly because of increased crime, neighborhood blight, and lower property values. The crime issue is especially a soar point with residences here because the area has already been suffering increased break ins and other crimes due to cutbacks San Jose has made to its police force, particularly its robbery division. The city is set to vote on the issue Sept 15th. 

Santa Clara County Considers $26M Homeless Plan