patriarch < wrote:

> Well, in Houston, and Southern California, there are fewer geographic
> boundaries to suburb expansion, than in the Bay Area. In San Francisco's
> Bay Area, the options seem to be into the Central Valley, and some of the
> world's best ag land. Freeway and rail projects often take decades to
> catch up, so the choice is sometimes a three hour plus commute commitment.

The expansion is south into Morgan Hill (pretty mature now), east into
Tracy (even Modesto!), which is pretty mature but continues, and northeast
into Solano County, which had seemed pretty mature but has seen renewed
growth over the last few years. I'm down in the Cordelia part of Solano,
and we voted in a slow-growth initiative a while back which basically
preserves existing ag and greenbelt by limiting new subdividing to
incorporated areas. New construction today is basically right up to
the city limits in Fairfield, and there's not much land left there.

> Of course, in the Bay Area, the Silicon Valley crunch is a lot less taxing
> than it was in 1999. I could count on 90 minutes for 38 miles. Often
> longer in the evening. Nobody would schedule any critical face-to-face
> meetings before 10 am, because somebody would most likely be stuck
> somewhere.

Those were the days... not. I still habitually avoid the Sunol Grade
during commute time, but it's a lot better these days.

> That being said, I had the opportunity to repurchase the house I sold (June
> 1989) in June 1997, for only $10k offered price more than I'd sold it for.
> Bubbles happen here, too.

Sure. The South Bay seems to be a little more prone to popping once
in a while.

> Patriarch
> Q newbie

Whatcha cooked so far?

Dana