US Postal Service: Only 3.7% of Bay Area Address Changes are Out-of-State

[dimondpark]

I thought it would be much higher given all the media hysteria.

Only 4,000 out of 115,000 household and business address changes during the pandemic are out-of-state, that's 3.7%----1.0% moved to Washington State, and 0.6% moved to Texas.

Only 3.7% of the households and businesses that filed address changes in five Bay Area counties from March to November 2020 left California, a total of 4,264 move outs, according to the data.

% of movers who relocated out-of-state
6% San Francisco
5% Santa Clara
2% Alameda
2% Contra Costa
1% Marin
1% San Mateo

% of movers who relocated elsewhere in CA
37% Santa Clara
24% Alameda
19% Contra Costa
13% San Francisco
7% Marin
7% San Mateo

% of movers who relocate within the 9-county Bay Area
92% San Mateo
91% Marin
81% San Francisco
79% Contra Costa
74% Alameda
58% Santa Clara

The biggest county-to-county shift during this pandemic has not been from San Francisco to some out-of-state location but from Santa Clara to Sacramento and the Central Valley. That far outstrips any migration to Seattle or Austin or anywhere else, and that further perpetuates the connection between the Bay Area and it's outlying areas, which means the CSA is going to get bigger.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

I thought it would be much higher given all the media hysteria.

For reals. I posted an article along this similar vein some days ago.

The US media and conservatives LOVE to say that people are leaving California in droves. They've been saying this since at least the recession of the early 1990s.

Hehe it's funny because when I was at a restaurant on Sunday in LA, I overheard someone at another table saying something like "So supposedly there's this mass exodus out of California?" This was at the Farmers Market on Fairfax, which was fairly crowded. Haha!

[Pedestrian]

My address change is out of state and it's only my annual trek to the sun in winter. I remain a CA/SF permanent resident (but the Post Office wouldn't know that). Even some of the out of state changes may actually be only temporary like mine but for convenience, because I wasn't sure exactly when I was coming back, I told the P.O. it was permanent.

I actually think when the city opens back up--dining, entertainment, night life, high and low culture--a lot of people will be coming back.

[edale]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

The biggest county-to-county shift during this pandemic has not been from San Francisco to some out-of-state location but from Santa Clara to Sacramento and the Central Valley. That far outstrips any migration to Seattle or Austin or anywhere else, and that further perpetuates the connection between the Bay Area and it's outlying areas, which means the CSA is going to get bigger.

Seems like Sacramento is on its way to becoming the Bay Area's Inland Empire.


Also, while yes, conservatives and the US media generally does like to post sensational stories about a CA exodus, I'm puzzled why so many Californians appear to care about this. How many articles get posted to this forum gloating about the extreme prosperity of the Bay Area? California is a beautiful state that has an embarrassment of riches. It also has its share of problems, and the growth machine that has fueled the state since its inception is starting to slow down...those things are also worth noting. People complaining about this come off as thin skinned, imo.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by edale

the growth machine that has fueled the state since its inception is starting to slow down...those things are also worth noting.

First of all, this seems a self-correcting issue to me. IF it's slowing down, it's largely because of the relatively high cost of living in CA. IF it does slow down, that cost will become less extreme compared to other places and the growth will return because the things that produced it in the first place--the natural wonders of the CA coast and mountains, the cultural glories of the Bay Area and the prowess of the local universities--aren't going away.

But I'm not so sure it is going away. The story has long been that businesses are created in the Bay Area and some of them expand to other areas or move away entirely as they mature. But if you want to get in on the ground floor, or create a ground floor yourself, the Bay Area has long been the place to do it.

[Obadno]

"San Francisco isnt failing I promise!!!!!!"

I work with many San Francisco Landlords and they can't get their buildings filled.

This article may be correct but I doubt its telling the whole or accurate story

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by Obadno

"San Francisco isnt failing I promise!!!!!!"

I work with many San Francisco Landlords and they can't get their buildings filled.

The chart provides the proper rebuttal to your comment.

1 San Francisco itself might be losing population

2 but they arent really moving out-of-state to anywhere near the degree that the media has been reporting.

3 In fact, 94% of people that left SF proper have relocated to other areas of California and 81% are moving to other Bay Area counties.

This article may be correct but I doubt its telling the whole or accurate story

Or the narrative being spread ad nauseum by the media is a gross exaggeration.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

First of all, this seems a self-correcting issue to me. IF it's slowing down, it's largely because of the relatively high cost of living in CA. IF it does slow down, that cost will become less extreme compared to other places and the growth will return because the things that produced it in the first place--the natural wonders of the CA coast and mountains, the cultural glories of the Bay Area and the prowess of the local universities--aren't going away.

Yeah, anyone who thinks California's economic growth is predicated on population growth doesnt understand the nature of the state economy. California's GDP is growing faster than Texas and Florida despite having far lower population growth.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by edale

Seems like Sacramento is on its way to becoming the Bay Area's Inland Empire.

Yes and no. In the sense that Sacramento continues to attract a lot of former Bay Area residents seeking less congestion, lower costs, etc. like the Inland Empire attracts a lot of former LA/OC residents, unquestionably yes. And Sacramento has been that for decades.

However, Sacramento is more than a receptacle for modern coastal metropolitan spillover. At the suburban margins, the region is much like the suburban Bay Area, but Sacramento has its own distinctive history, economy, pull factor, and identity separate from that of the Bay Area. Within California history, it was a substantial urban settlement as long as San Francisco has been. Through the state's largest inland port, it supplied the nearby gold and silver rushes that put California on the map. It was the western terminus of both the Pony Express and the first transcontinental railroad. And being California's capital city, it has always attracted the state's most ambitious policy-makers, bureaucrats, politicians--and the attendant staffers, researchers, lobbyists, and journalists who support and interact with them. Roughly 100,000 state employees work in downtown Sacramento alone. The region wouldn't be as populous as it is now without modern Bay Area spillover, but Sacramento was always distinct from the Bay Area and still is.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Obadno

"San Francisco isnt failing I promise!!!!!!"

I work with many San Francisco Landlords and they can't get their buildings filled.

This article may be correct but I doubt its telling the whole or accurate story

I remember 2000-2003. All the recent grads with tech jobs moved back home or somewhere else then too. By the mid-2000s they were coming back.

San Francisco has been like this for a long time--highly cyclical. This time is different in 2 ways that I can see: (1) The city's "other" big economic engine, tourism and hospitality (hotels, fine dining) is in worse shape than tech and (2) all the attractions of city living are gone, not just the jobs.

But it will all come back. When COVID is beaten, and it will be like every epidemic/pandemic in history has been, tourism, dining, art and culture, sports, entertainment and night life will come back and the city will be "fun" again and people, including probably some who moved elsewhere in CA, will want to live in it. The younger ones especially won't want to live in the city just for a short commute so I don't think it matters as much as some think whether they can work from home a large part of the time or not; but I also think they will be expected to show up in the office maybe half the time so the cummute will still matter.

Those unfilled buildings will fill up, just like the "Richmond Special" condos in SOMA that lingered unsold for a year or two in the early 2000s eventually sold for higher and higher prices (this time rentals may be more severely effected because of the tremendous loss of lower wage service jobs in the hospitality industry).

[Buckeye Native 001]

Originally Posted by craigs

Yes and no. In the sense that Sacramento continues to attract a lot of former Bay Area residents seeking less congestion, lower costs, etc. like the Inland Empire attracts a lot of former LA/OC residents, unquestionably yes. And Sacramento has been that for decades.

Yup, there's a "there" to Sacramento that San Bernardino and Riverside lack.

I'm as guilty as any Arizonan for blaming Californians (despite kinda/sorta being an ex-Californian myself) on my state's soaring house prices, but realistically, it's the lack of supply, lack of incentive to build and zoning issues that have caused Phoenix and Flagstaff's housing markets to skyrocket. Flagstaff was always a difficult place to afford a home (California prices at Arizona wages) but now Phoenix is seemingly out of reach for most of the [lower?] middle class unless you want to live on the extreme ends of the west and east valleys. I see a lot of California plates around Flagstaff (big state university), but most of them head back west after they complete college or get the opportunity to complete their undergrad education at a California university.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

For reals. I posted an article along this similar vein some days ago.

The US media and conservatives LOVE to say that people are leaving California in droves. They've been saying this since at least the recession of the early 1990s.

Hehe it's funny because when I was at a restaurant on Sunday in LA, I overheard someone at another table saying something like "So supposedly there's this mass exodus out of California?" This was at the Farmers Market on Fairfax, which was fairly crowded. Haha!

Don't California my Texas lmao
It's always been over blown.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

The chart provides the proper rebuttal to your comment.

1 San Francisco itself might be losing population

2 but they arent really moving out-of-state to anywhere near the degree that the media has been reporting.

3 In fact, 94% of people that left SF proper have relocated to other areas of California and 81% are moving to other Bay Area counties.


Or the narrative being spread ad nauseum by the media is a gross exaggeration.

It's funny , those same people take incredible offense when you tell them it's a small percentage of leaving the state. They want it to be like 25 percent or somr crap.
Why do they even care so much in the first place?

[TWAK]

Originally Posted by LA21st

It's funny , those same people take incredible offense when you tell them it's a small percentage of leaving the state. They want it to be like 25 percent or somr crap.
Why do they even care so much in the first place?

They are moving to cheaper areas of CA...which means....CA might be affordable .

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by TWAK

They are moving to cheaper areas of CA...which means....CA might be affordable .

Until the wild fires force them back...

[TWAK]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Until the wild fires force them back...

To other affordable areas that aren't in fire danger? I didn't know the affordability of some parts of CA could strike such a nerve.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by TWAK

To other affordable areas that aren't in fire danger? I didn't know the affordability of some parts of CA could strike such a nerve.

In CA, "affordability" tends to be proportional to "enjoyability". The CV is cheap because it's flat, boring, hot and subject to depressing Thule fog in winter. The coast and mountains are not so cheap because they have better climates and much better scenery. The coast is most expensive because it tends to have many more jobs, more entertainment and dining options, night life and high culture. In the foothills and mountains it's just the outdoor lifestyle which is enough, maybe exactly what they want, for some people.

There are bargain enclaves. Pacifica used to be unusually cheap for the Bay Area. I don't think it is any more but I haven't checked lately. I'm sure there are little towns in the northern part of the state--yeah, fire country--that are also bargains. But generally you get what you pay for in CA real estate and housing prices.

[DCReid]

You haven't provided stats for southern California. I think the LA metro may be suffering a bigger exodus, although much of it could be to the Inland Empire.

[jd3189]

I’ve thought about leaving California after medical school but it’s hard to find a place that has at least half of the benefits I have here. The main flaw here is that I have no family here. Thus, NYS or GA/ FL would be my best bets but each only has a few things that makes them a tad better than CA while missing the other benefits.

Like what was mentioned, other parts of the state more inland (ex. IE, CV, Desert areas, northern third south of Oregon) are cheaper and aren’t too far from the “desirable” coastal cities with their homeless issues.

If I can live below my means while still making more than I would in the South and benefit from being close to mountains, beaches, world-class city/cultural offerings, I might as well stay here.

But family is the biggest thing, and unless I find a wife out here or people I know from the East make it out here, moving back will seem more favorable.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

For reals. I posted an article along this similar vein some days ago.

The US media and conservatives LOVE to say that people are leaving California in droves. They've been saying this since at least the recession of the early 1990s.

Hehe it's funny because when I was at a restaurant on Sunday in LA, I overheard someone at another table saying something like "So supposedly there's this mass exodus out of California?" This was at the Farmers Market on Fairfax, which was fairly crowded. Haha!

On the flip side, there seems to be this idea among liberals that everyone on Earth wants to live there. This girl in one of my classes said "you'll have an impossible task getting people to leave California"...my response..." Ummmm, ask Texans about that."

Californians are leaving the state in high numbers, but they have international growth and natural growth to make up the difference. This isn't some conspiracy theory.