Quote from @Dan H.
On a long term hold, the rent growth is much more important than the initial rent growth.
If I invested $100k in the year 2000 using the same leverage and no extraction of value in both San Diego and Cleveland, which investments do you think would have the better cash flow over the hold? Which do you think would have appreciated more? If the answer is not obvious, remember the relationship between appreciation and rent growth so the answer is the same for both questions.
The point is that San Francisco RE is likely to do outstanding overs long hold period.
good luck
I completely agree. Coastal CA (Bay Area, LA, San Diego) has land constraints and it's very difficult to build new and continues to have high demand, despite the 300,000+ people who have left CA. The property values have dipped with San Francisco since COVID when people left to move to the suburbs, but the prices are still high. There are some people coming back because there's a segment of the population who love living in the city and being walking distance to restaurants, stores etc.
San Jose and Santa Clara are in high demand since they're in Silicon Valley. Prices will be extremely high - I don't think most investors are buying in these areas unless you have a lot of money and plan to house hack. In general the Peninsula will be higher priced than the East Bay. Some East Bay cities I've seen with more reasonable prices are: Concord, San Leandro, Hayward, El Cerrito, Pinole. These are all on the BART line to S.F. The last two cities I did see move in ready SFHs listed for around $650,000 to $700,000 in 2022 or early 2023. They were snapped up quickly by primary home buyers, I would guess.
I'm keeping my Bay Area properties because of the appreciation and passing on generational wealth to my kids. My kids are old enough to understand RE investing. When I die, they can keep renting out the properties or move into the SFH, or take the step up basis and sell it with not as high of a capital gains tax hit (I hope they wouldn't choose the 3rd option). I may consider selling off my Indianapolis area SFHs to 1031 exchange to Nevada (Reno or Vegas, looking at those 2 markets) - I think my kids would rather have another home in Nevada (future primary, vacation home or rental) vs dealing with rentals 2000 miles away. Those goals are very specific to my situation and not necessarily applicable to other investors.
I recently talked to a Bay Area investor who sold her SFHs around 2020 to buy OOS (I think her markets were Dallas, Atlanta, and a few other cities) and now she's regretting the selling those. Most of the CA investors (Bay Area and SoCal) I know have kept their properties. There are a few that sold them and bought OOS. My own thoughts are that you can own fewer properties in CA to built long term wealth vs. buy a lot more properties in other states. There's not one right answer for everyone since we all have different financial situations, different ages, timelines, family situations, risk tolerances etc..