California Vs Out of State (really, but why?)

[Osazee Edebiri]

I think the constant discussion of California vs anywhere else is intriguing. So I pose a question. Hypothetical, if a person had a  2 million dollars to invest, they purchased property with 1 million in California and 1 million in any other state, which would perform better after 15 years and why? 

This assumes anything and everything will happen, which is the real life case anyway.  I am not automatically assuming California will perform better just because I live here in the Bay Area. I think someone may have interesting incite to why another state could out perform California property in the next 15 years.

[Amit M.]

@Robert C. wistful thinking looking through that rear view mirror. ha ha! 

But in reality of course, we had no idea that RE was going to blow up like that 2020-2021. Remember we were on the edge of a major financial disaster mid 2020. Now it’ll be interesting to see how much of those gains in recent high flying states (AZ, FL, etc. etc.) will get rolled back as the economy slows down (recession) over the next 1-2 years. Although not the same circumstances, that was the case in the GFC of 2008-09.

So this takes us back to fundamentals, and having good properties in solid markets, without too much leverage is what will give you stability to ride out a slow economy. I can tell you that RE is going to seem a lot less sexy to people who made most of their money in the last 2 years.

For better or for worse, we’re definitely living in interesting times ;)

[Darius Ogloza]

@Bruce Woodruff 

I used to own 6 duplexes and 2 SFR's in Rochester NY and replacing roofs there seemed to be some kind of semi-annual event. Also, hot water heaters. I really question whether you can expect the same life span given the weather difference, but I concede I am no expert. In any event, as Jay points out above, the main point is the 2 versus 20.

People who pay $5,000-$5,500 to rent a house in the Bay Area tend to be pretty easy on the properties and tend to stay for longish periods of time. There is always a line of tenants ready to take over so transitions are minimal. We withhold listing properties that become vacant in order to make repairs/paint because in virtually every case we otherwise have folks inundating us with requests to move in as is. Folks who invest "by the door" tend to underestimate (sometimes vastly) the cost of tenant transitions, and with 20 apartments you are going to have running transitions even if you buy 5 multi's in lieu of 20 SFR's.

Moreover, I personally have not paid a penny due to California's "regulatory" costs.  My property taxes are predictable from year to year.  This is in contrast with  the rest of the states where each year is a surprise ( true in my experience ion Florida and NY - especially school tax).  In 25 years, not a single eviction or threatened eviction in CA.  In fact, judges here do not take kindly to folks who make good six figures not paying their rent. They do not come off as sympathetic litigants.   I had a much harder time in Rochester city court trying to get rid of the $550/month tenants who refused to pay (and there were more than a few) as every one had a sob story and was able to get multiple extensions.

Of course, there's no disputing the management cost issue.  Self-managing 20 units is one hell of a pain any way you slice the proverbial pie.   

[Carlos Ptriawan]

Quote from @Darius Ogloza:

@Bruce Woodruff 

I used to own 6 duplexes and 2 SFR's in Rochester NY and replacing roofs there seemed to be some kind of semi-annual event. Also, hot water heaters. I really question whether you can expect the same life span given the weather difference, but I concede I am no expert. In any event, as Jay points out above, the main point is the 2 versus 20.

People who pay $5,000-$5,500 to rent a house in the Bay Area tend to be pretty easy on the properties and tend to stay for longish periods of time. There is always a line of tenants ready to take over so transitions are minimal. We withhold listing properties that become vacant in order to make repairs/paint because in virtually every case we otherwise have folks inundating us with requests to move in as is. Folks who invest "by the door" tend to underestimate (sometimes vastly) the cost of tenant transitions, and with 20 apartments you are going to have running transitions even if you buy 5 multi's in lieu of 20 SFR's.

Moreover, I personally have not paid a penny due to California's "regulatory" costs.  My property taxes are predictable from year to year.  This is in contrast with  the rest of the states where each year is a surprise ( true in my experience ion Florida and NY - especially school tax).  In 25 years, not a single eviction or threatened eviction in CA.  In fact, judges here do not take kindly to folks who make good six figures not paying their rent. They do not come off as sympathetic litigants.   I had a much harder time in Rochester city court trying to get rid of the $550/month tenants who refused to pay (and there were more than a few) as every one had a sob story and was able to get multiple extensions.

Of course, there's no disputing the management cost issue.  Self-managing 20 units is one hell of a pain any way you slice the proverbial pie.   

 Thank you !!!

This is one of the best post ever.

you should write this in 2019 :) 

[Tony Kim]

Quote from @Carlos Ptriawan:

Quote from @Darius Ogloza:

@Bruce Woodruff 

I used to own 6 duplexes and 2 SFR's in Rochester NY and replacing roofs there seemed to be some kind of semi-annual event. Also, hot water heaters. I really question whether you can expect the same life span given the weather difference, but I concede I am no expert. In any event, as Jay points out above, the main point is the 2 versus 20.

People who pay $5,000-$5,500 to rent a house in the Bay Area tend to be pretty easy on the properties and tend to stay for longish periods of time. There is always a line of tenants ready to take over so transitions are minimal. We withhold listing properties that become vacant in order to make repairs/paint because in virtually every case we otherwise have folks inundating us with requests to move in as is. Folks who invest "by the door" tend to underestimate (sometimes vastly) the cost of tenant transitions, and with 20 apartments you are going to have running transitions even if you buy 5 multi's in lieu of 20 SFR's.

Moreover, I personally have not paid a penny due to California's "regulatory" costs.  My property taxes are predictable from year to year.  This is in contrast with  the rest of the states where each year is a surprise ( true in my experience ion Florida and NY - especially school tax).  In 25 years, not a single eviction or threatened eviction in CA.  In fact, judges here do not take kindly to folks who make good six figures not paying their rent. They do not come off as sympathetic litigants.   I had a much harder time in Rochester city court trying to get rid of the $550/month tenants who refused to pay (and there were more than a few) as every one had a sob story and was able to get multiple extensions.

Of course, there's no disputing the management cost issue.  Self-managing 20 units is one hell of a pain any way you slice the proverbial pie.   

 Thank you !!!

This is one of the best post ever.

you should write this in 2019 :) 

As someone who used to invest OOS, I can positively state that the above pretty much mirrors my experience. There was an earlier post that mentioned Toledo...which is exactly where some of my units were located. OK, great price to rent ratios, but spot on about the never-ending capex. Never had an issue with California's dreaded tenant-friendly laws either. As a matter of fact, I'm actually a big beneficiary of them.

I hardly hear a peep from my local tenants and each of them keep my properties in beautiful condition. There is a huge difference between the kind of tenant you will get in area where rent/price ratios are good vs. Prime Socal.

Also, god help anyone who's highly levered in LV or Phoenix. 

[Chris John]

We completely got hosed on two of our California rentals during Corona.  Thanks, Gavin.

Additionally, multifamily properties are listed as if they are generating market rent, but in reality the rents are half of market rent.  You get the "opportunity" to bring them to market rents to make a tidy profit (even though there's now rent control and it would cost you a fortune in cash for keys or an eternity of 8% yearly increases to actually do that).

Not all of California is the Bay Area with tenants who apparently take care of everything.  The valley is hot and has many neglectful tenants that don't make turnovers easy or cheap.

We've definitely made more money through appreciation, but it's nice to have cashflow to not have to come out of pocket to realize it.

[Bruce Woodruff]

Quote from @Darius Ogloza:

People who pay $5,000-$5,500 to rent a house in the Bay Area tend to be pretty easy on the properties and tend to stay for longish periods of time.  There is always a line of tenants ready to take over so transitions are minimal.  We withhold listing properties that become vacant in order to make repairs/paint because in virtually every case we otherwise have folks inundating us with requests to move in as is.

Well, ok, I can't argue that having rentals in the most expensive city in the world is a bad thing. I cannot dispute that. And I doubt you have any problems with tenants, never need to evict, blah, blah.....

But isn't this thread really about where people should generally invest? Not a super-rich section of a super-rich city? Of course that always wins, hands down.

They call that cherry-picking I believe...

But I'm genuinely glad it works for you... :-)

[Carlos Ptriawan]

Quote from @Bruce Woodruff:

Quote from @Darius Ogloza:

People who pay $5,000-$5,500 to rent a house in the Bay Area tend to be pretty easy on the properties and tend to stay for longish periods of time.  There is always a line of tenants ready to take over so transitions are minimal.  We withhold listing properties that become vacant in order to make repairs/paint because in virtually every case we otherwise have folks inundating us with requests to move in as is.

Well, ok, I can't argue that having rentals in the most expensive city in the world is a bad thing. I cannot dispute that. And I doubt you have any problems with tenants, never need to evict, blah, blah.....

But isn't this thread really about where people should generally invest? Not a super-rich section of a super-rich city? Of course that always wins, hands down.

They call that cherry-picking I believe...

But I'm genuinely glad it works for you... :-)

 I think he just shared his experience and wisdom and overall folks are having similar experiences. Without this kind of sharing, we investor are blurred by the realtor that keeps saying "hey we have a gold rush in our market"-type of answer which is pretty much BSsss LOL. 

I guess one big hard lesson in real estate some of us investors didn't really consider hidden variable cost factors when investing. Even my developer guy in Alabama said the same thing, he said many investors that used to invest in snowy region wanna move to the South because of the maintenance factor.

[Robert C.]

Quote from @Bruce Woodruff:

Quote from @Darius Ogloza:

People who pay $5,000-$5,500 to rent a house in the Bay Area tend to be pretty easy on the properties and tend to stay for longish periods of time.  There is always a line of tenants ready to take over so transitions are minimal.  We withhold listing properties that become vacant in order to make repairs/paint because in virtually every case we otherwise have folks inundating us with requests to move in as is.

Well, ok, I can't argue that having rentals in the most expensive city in the world is a bad thing. I cannot dispute that. And I doubt you have any problems with tenants, never need to evict, blah, blah.....

But isn't this thread really about where people should generally invest? Not a super-rich section of a super-rich city? Of course that always wins, hands down.

They call that cherry-picking I believe...

But I'm genuinely glad it works for you... :-)

In all honesty, this just shows how different a world it is over here. $5,000 - $5,500 to rent a house is not a super rich section of a super rich city... That's a house in any number of neighborhoods throughout the region. In the super rich section, the house would be more like $15k-$20k per month, and $5k will get you a one or two bedroom apartment. 

No doubt, there are many different parts of California as diverse as the whole nation socioeconomically. However, the LA metro and SF metro areas are massive sprawls that have been enriched over decades. I did a cross country drive over the summer and toured some of the hot markets - Charlotte, Nashville, Dallas, Austin, for example. I could see why they are interesting, but they are urban centers with not a lot of stuff in between. 

[Robert C.]

Quote from @Amit M.:

@Robert C. wistful thinking looking through that rear view mirror. ha ha! 

But in reality of course, we had no idea that RE was going to blow up like that 2020-2021. Remember we were on the edge of a major financial disaster mid 2020. Now it’ll be interesting to see how much of those gains in recent high flying states (AZ, FL, etc. etc.) will get rolled back as the economy slows down (recession) over the next 1-2 years. Although not the same circumstances, that was the case in the GFC of 2008-09.

So this takes us back to fundamentals, and having good properties in solid markets, without too much leverage is what will give you stability to ride out a slow economy. I can tell you that RE is going to seem a lot less sexy to people who made most of their money in the last 2 years.

For better or for worse, we’re definitely living in interesting times ;)

 Beating myself up over "woulda, shoulda, coulda" is one of my favorite pastimes as an investor!

[Becca F.]

@Darius Ogloza

I appreciate your perspective about the Bay Area and that someone paying $5000 a month rent is most likely to be easier on the rental house than someone paying much less in rent. I'm going to go with California on the appreciation. I'm a Bay Area and Midwest investor. With my California investor friends here, those of us who acquired the property before 2010 are cash flowing positive with fewer properties than my Indiana investor friends. My Indiana house went up in value about 70% ($110,000) in 7 years, based on comps from realtors and the non-stop calls I got with buyers lined up in 2020 to 2021. I'm going to guess from 2013 to 2020 any Bay Area SFH went up in value much more. The Midwest is landlord friendly and I've had great tenants. I would say it's a Class A neighborhood with a great suburban school district. I bought the house for a low price already upgraded with a low interest rate so I'm keeping it for now. My property taxes went up up more than 150% because I lost the homeowner exemption (I used to live in the house until 2018) so this is why the cash flow is okay but not great anymore. It took the county about 2 years to figure out that it was being rented out. There's no Prop 13 or anything similar in Indiana.

With the Bay Area, I'm reading the landlord-tenant laws carefully. I have a renter in my SFH that I know personally so I haven't had to deal with tenant issues so far To maximize cash flow, there would need to be roommates. I would say it's a Class A neighborhood.

I was leaning towards a Midwest property for my next rental property since price points for SFH or duplexes are high in the Bay Area, especially now with the interest rates. I've heard good and bad things about going further out to Antioch, Stockton, Modesto and up to Sacramento. My thoughts were if people are leaving the Bay Area for Stockton or Sacramento those could be good potential rental markets or is this not a good plan? Someone also suggested Las Vegas to me and do an AirBnb. Would I cash flow more in those areas than in the Midwest?

[Darius Ogloza]

Strictly speaking (and I stand to lose money if my prediction holds with two flips in progress), I believe that if you hang out a bit longer, say until next spring/summer, you might be able to pick up more core Bay Area properties for considerably less than today's prices.  I personally would go to the Midwest before Antioch or Stockton et al. I can't say I have dug down all that deeply into the numbers but our strategy has always been to focus on premium properties in good areas.  Stockton around UOP may have some promise as there are nice areas around there for our strategy but those areas have been depressed for a long, long time.  

[Carlos Ptriawan]

- If you want cash flow you can go Midwest or Antioch/Modesto route. Actually, a class C duplex in Antioch is performing and cash flow better than Class A/B in Midwest. Class C Antioch has a higher cap rate than Class A in Kansas City as of today.  The only thing that you have to watch in Antioch and Stockton also is the crime and the specific block. The better house in Antioch is on the south side of the highway.
- You're catching the trend too late when trying to catch Sacramento now. But you can wait until 2023-2024 to get a better price in Sacramento/Fairfield/Elk-Grove area.

[Brad S.]

Well, I have an interesting real life example, pretty close to the original scenario presented by the OP.

Feb 2006
Sold a CA rental for $835k, after it more than doubled in value in about 3 years. 

May 2006
Purchased 5 rentals (3 different TX markets)

Sep 2022 Estimated Values
CA property - $1,650,000
vs
TX properties (all 5) - $2,215,000

Unfortunately, I did not get the full benefit of all the appreciation, as I sold 2 of the better TX properties 8 years ago, due to personal circumstances. But, if I add in those 2 sale prices, to the other 3 TX properties I still have, I am about even with the 1 CA property value today. And I would've probably been better off holding on to the CA property and pull money out to buy the TX properties (or some of them). But, I am not sure how comfortable I would've been with the leverage.

Interesting info to chew on!

I haven't done the cashflow analysis yet, but I think that'd be interesting to see. I may do that and put it all in a new thread, since this one has been around.

[Account Closed]

Location, Location, Location = California wins in 10, 15, 20 years....

[Carlos Ptriawan]

Quote from @Account Closed:

Location, Location, Location = California wins in 10, 15, 20 years....

 If we use the data from only three months ago, California lost the battle , it's one of the state/city that experienced the most price reduction.

As of August 2021, US nationwide home prices experienced price reductions. CA is one of the worst. 95% other cities also experience price reductions.

But there's this 5% zip code that still appreciates againts gravity hahaha LOL: it's STR market outside mainland USA.

[Bruce Woodruff]

Quote from @Account Closed:

Location, Location, Location = California wins in 10, 15, 20 years....

California in 15/20 years will not be the California we know now. So I suspect your thinking will be proven wrong if you're talking Cali overall.

Although I doubt a beach area property in SoCal ever becomes not highly desirable.... :-)

[Amit M.]

I agree completely with @Darius Ogloza on the tenant hassle factor. Maybe when you’re starting out you’re more willing to deal with tenant management hassles. But once you’ve been at this for awhile, that quickly becomes the least attractive factor of RE investing imo.

And this even goes for expensive locations like core Bay Area. During market upswings you invest in up and coming areas hoping they will become more prime. Like Hayward, Redwood City, or the southeast neighborhoods of San Francisco. And once the market starts turning, your tenant base may go backwards in quality. So it’s always a tricky calculus. In my case I did very well in some areas of SF, which are very solid and I keep those long term. In another case I took strong profits and exited in 2021, which was great timing. At this stage I’d rather keep great core properties with no debt/minimal tenant management, then have more properties (some in lesser locations) with debt, and ALOT more tenant management issues. Life is short. If you reach your number, secure the gain and…take the money and run!

————

my2c

[Osazee Edebiri]

Quote from @Becca F.:

@Darius Ogloza

I appreciate your perspective about the Bay Area and that someone paying $5000 a month rent is most likely to be easier on the rental house than someone paying much less in rent. I'm going to go with California on the appreciation. I'm a Bay Area and Midwest investor. With my California investor friends here, those of us who acquired the property before 2010 are cash flowing positive with fewer properties than my Indiana investor friends. My Indiana house went up in value about 70% ($110,000) in 7 years, based on comps from realtors and the non-stop calls I got with buyers lined up in 2020 to 2021. I'm going to guess from 2013 to 2020 any Bay Area SFH went up in value much more. The Midwest is landlord friendly and I've had great tenants. I would say it's a Class A neighborhood with a great suburban school district. I bought the house for a low price already upgraded with a low interest rate so I'm keeping it for now. My property taxes went up up more than 150% because I lost the homeowner exemption (I used to live in the house until 2018) so this is why the cash flow is okay but not great anymore. It took the county about 2 years to figure out that it was being rented out. There's no Prop 13 or anything similar in Indiana.

With the Bay Area, I'm reading the landlord-tenant laws carefully. I have a renter in my SFH that I know personally so I haven't had to deal with tenant issues so far To maximize cash flow, there would need to be roommates. I would say it's a Class A neighborhood.

I was leaning towards a Midwest property for my next rental property since price points for SFH or duplexes are high in the Bay Area, especially now with the interest rates. I've heard good and bad things about going further out to Antioch, Stockton, Modesto and up to Sacramento. My thoughts were if people are leaving the Bay Area for Stockton or Sacramento those could be good potential rental markets or is this not a good plan? Someone also suggested Las Vegas to me and do an AirBnb. Would I cash flow more in those areas than in the Midwest?

I would say Sacramento over Antioch, Pittsburgh or Stockton.

Not that you can’t do well in those cites, but it’s a ratio of crime vs metro. 

You can also look at Brentwood where our office is, which has blown and is still in the Bay.

[Becca F.]

@Amit M.

Thanks for the feedback. I'm a bit apprehensive about Antioch and Stockton. So far I have great core properties (in Bay Area and Indiana) and great tenants and definitely don't want to deal with crime and tenant management issues. The price points are still high to me. I looked at a few houses in the East Bay but were over $650,000 and needing work. 

A turn key property in the Midwest is do-able for me in the low $200,000 to $300,000 range (haven't done any rental calculator analysis yet, just searches and talking to my Indianapolis area realtor). I'm afraid of buying something that needs a lot of work but $100,000 to $150,000 is a low price range. I don't want to rush into a purchase but the interest rates keep going up. I haven't hit my number yet and my goal is to retire early/quit my full time job - I don't want to work at this stressful job for more than 3 to 5 years. 

[Pauline Choi]

@Osazee Edebiri

I am a newbie here on BP. I can speak from experience living in Southern, Ca. I have been living in Southern Ca.for over 20 years. I can say I will not move out of California. It's been wonderful to buy and live in Irvine, Ca. The weather is amazing, we have 360 days outdoors. We are active people and love to enjoy the outdoors. We are 15 minutes from the beach, 10 -15 minutes from tons of trails to run, and 30-40 minutes to the mountain in the winter. Our first home in 2001 @ 425K and sold in 2006 for 800K. We were waiting for the bubble to burst in 2008-2011, which did not happen in Irvine, Ca. We decided we better buy again. We finally got an offer accepted after we had offered 8-10 homes. We bought 550 K in 2011 and sold 657 K in 2013. In 2013 bought our primary home 890K, now estimated at 1.8 mils. We love the appreciation in Southern Ca. In 13 years and with the luck of the market during those years we went from 425K to 890 K home. I am not sure of other areas but Southern Ca has an amazing appreciation. My friends are all holding their investments in Southern Ca. When I talk to my neighbors it seems everyone got at least 1-3 properties in our areas and is not selling them anytime soon. We are very late in RE investing but now we are ready. The numbers just don't make sense to buy SFR now and rent it out with the current interest rate and high market $ in Southern Ca. We are looking outside California at this time. We wished we learn RE investment sooner, we would have been able to get a few properties in Ca with the equity we have on our current home. We are hoping our oldest daughter will go to San Diego for grad school next year (but her first choice is San Francisco) then we will buy a small place there for her to house hack and can buy with her as a first-time home buyer.

[Osazee Edebiri]

Quote from @Pauline Choi:

@Osazee Edebiri

I am a newbie here on BP. I can speak from experience living in Southern, Ca. I have been living in Southern Ca.for over 20 years. I can say I will not move out of California. It's been wonderful to buy and live in Irvine, Ca. The weather is amazing, we have 360 days outdoors. We are active people and love to enjoy the outdoors. We are 15 minutes from the beach, 10 -15 minutes from tons of trails to run, and 30-40 minutes to the mountain in the winter. Our first home in 2001 @ 425K and sold in 2006 for 800K. We were waiting for the bubble to burst in 2008-2011, which did not happen in Irvine, Ca. We decided we better buy again. We finally got an offer accepted after we had offered 8-10 homes. We bought 550 K in 2011 and sold 657 K in 2013. In 2013 bought our primary home 890K, now estimated at 1.8 mils. We love the appreciation in Southern Ca. In 13 years and with the luck of the market during those years we went from 425K to 890 K home. I am not sure of other areas but Southern Ca has an amazing appreciation. My friends are all holding their investments in Southern Ca. When I talk to my neighbors it seems everyone got at least 1-3 properties in our areas and is not selling them anytime soon. We are very late in RE investing but now we are ready. The numbers just don't make sense to buy SFR now and rent it out with the current interest rate and high market $ in Southern Ca. We are looking outside California at this time. We wished we learn RE investment sooner, we would have been able to get a few properties in Ca with the equity we have on our current home. We are hoping our oldest daughter will go to San Diego for grad school next year (but her first choice is San Francisco) then we will buy a small place there for her to house hack and can buy with her as a first-time home buyer.

 Completely agree Pauline.

I used to work for Irvine Company, I am certain you have heard of them haha. I used to get flown down there about every other quarter, this was prior to becoming a Realtor on The David Greene Team. I love that area, definitely wish I owned property there. City planning and development are absolutely on point.

If your daughter does end up coming out here to the Bay reach out and I would love to help you out. I would say about 50% of my transactions our House Hacks, and of course I am house hack currently in San Jose. So I am all for it!

[Carlos Ptriawan]

Quote from @Osazee Edebiri:

Quote from @Becca F.:

@Darius Ogloza

Not that you can’t do well in those cites, but it’s a ratio of crime vs metro. 

You can also look at Brentwood where our office is, which has blown and is still in the Bay.

 This is also great advice. I'd rather Brentwood than Sacramento.

[Osazee Edebiri]

Quote from @Carlos Ptriawan:

Quote from @Osazee Edebiri:

Quote from @Becca F.:

@Darius Ogloza

Not that you can’t do well in those cites, but it’s a ratio of crime vs metro. 

You can also look at Brentwood where our office is, which has blown and is still in the Bay.

 This is also great advice. I'd rather Brentwood than Sacramento.

 Thanks Carlos.

Sacramento is good, but You need to get the right areas. Brentwood you can basically purchase anywhere. 

That should actually be something that we thing of as a future goal, when repositioning properties. 

Get what you can to get started then, shift your portfolio to cities where the whole city is a good investment. Probably almost a fail proof strategy.

[Carlos Ptriawan]

Sacramento is good, but You need to get the right areas. Brentwood you can basically purchase anywhere. 

That should actually be something that we thing of as a future goal, when repositioning properties. 

Get what you can to get started then, shift your portfolio to cities where the whole city is a good investment. Probably almost a fail proof strategy.

Yes, Brentwood is pretty much a newer city and has more 'modern' vibes, Sacramento has these old city vibes (like San Jose).
Brentwood is good because we can reach most major employers that are located in East Bay. 

Btw, 10 to 15 years ago, I never thought that Brentwood would be so developed. 

[Osazee Edebiri]

Quote from @Carlos Ptriawan:

Sacramento is good, but You need to get the right areas. Brentwood you can basically purchase anywhere. 

That should actually be something that we thing of as a future goal, when repositioning properties. 

Get what you can to get started then, shift your portfolio to cities where the whole city is a good investment. Probably almost a fail proof strategy.

Yes, Brentwood is pretty much a newer city and has more 'modern' vibes, Sacramento has these old city vibes (like San Jose).
Brentwood is good because we can reach most major employers that are located in East Bay. 

Btw, 10 to 15 years ago, I never thought that Brentwood would be so developed. 

 10 to 15 years ago, I didn't know Brentwood existed.