That's decidedly untrue. In many markets you can make the case that conservative assumptions result in a cheaper buy option. However, the Bay Area in particular throws that calculus in reverse for many neighborhoods and property types.
Your argument seems to rely on the premise that buying is monteraily cheaper in the long run as long as you're willing to put in nominal sweat equity and risk. And that labor buys you some sort of citizenship that money, for the same amount of tenure, does not. The Bay Area market does not reward that puritanical ethic.
Can you explain how buying in Bay Area can be more expensive than renting? The only reason I can think of is that there's an expectation that the property will appreciate greatly in the near term and can be sold for a profit, but eventually either the rents will raise to be above the buy option (in which case congrats to those who bought, well done) or someone will be left holding the bag.
So yes, I'll concede that in the temporary situation that buy is more expensive than rent, and there's a market correction coming, it's savvy to rent, but those aren't the folks that cry "Gentrification!".
And yes, owning a deed to your place or, even better, owning a business in the neighborhood, counts for more than just "having been there".
That's decidedly untrue. In many markets you can make the case that conservative assumptions result in a cheaper buy option. However, the Bay Area in particular throws that calculus in reverse for many neighborhoods and property types.
Your argument seems to rely on the premise that buying is monteraily cheaper in the long run as long as you're willing to put in nominal sweat equity and risk. And that labor buys you some sort of citizenship that money, for the same amount of tenure, does not. The Bay Area market does not reward that puritanical ethic.