San Diego Housing Market News and Analysis

If you throw in the portion of CM in 92111 you pick up 4 more houses under $500k.

92111 Clairemont is a better location overall than MM (discussed on other recent threads), IMHO. In addition, the one-story houses on the "Mtn Sts" tend to be a little larger than one-story houses in MM and the many canyon-rim lots they are situated on certainly are bigger than the average MM lot. Quieter with less traffic and less parked vehicles on the side streets, more mature landscaping and an older, "stable" resident base make this area worth more than MM, IMO. I could certainly understand why there are not many current SFR listings there with asking prices <=$500K.

There is a lot of equity in Clairemont but it is tied up in properties whose owners are endeavoring to live out the balance of their remaining lives peacefully :=]

sdduuuude, I'm wondering why it is you have stated you want to move (to CV?) if Clairemont is your "hometown." Do I have this correct?? Why not try to score a canyon rim property in the coming months (if you don't already own one) and call it a day? If you already own there and can't get the price you want from your current home, consider renting it out. As you're probably aware, there is a great demand for rental homes in Clairemont.

The grass is not always "greener" somewhere else. As flu stated a few moments ago, sometimes it is brown ... or "neon green," lol ....

http://piggington.com/mira_mesa_on_firep...

AN, buying a property in MM +/- 20 years ago in MM is NOT the same thing as buying a property 50+ years ago in Clairemont and having it long paid off. Not only are these two vastly different equity positions (considering the difference in value between the areas), they are two different generations of original owners. MM was but a pipe dream when Clairemont was originally built.

FWIW, I've been to BOTH areas in the last few months. I stand by my assertion that MM has been congested from DAY ONE but it is doubly so now. I have nothing against you or your hometown, AN. But MM is too crowded to live in for a lot of people. Clairemont 92111 and even parts of 92117 are more like western Chula Vista (91910/91911) in that there are many more generous lots there (than the 5000 sf std) and a preponderance of SFR's over condos and apartments. I'm speaking here of the eastern and southern (original) parts of MM and have not been to the *newest* tracts on the west side so have not seen the setbacks and parking situation there for myself. Obviously, many of these "elevation listing photos" shown online were taken while the agent was lying on his/her stomach across the street (to "improve" the look of the listing's "setback"), lol. Maybe you can fill us in on this, AN.

I visited the "Porcelain Collection" model homes with a friend (can't remember the builder) around '90 or '91 when the first phase was completed. It was dusk and we could still see balloons bobbing in the air to the northeast. Even though only about 1-2 streets were completed at the time, I had the impression even back then that the homes were too close together and most of the driveways were shorter in comparison to what I was used to in South County. What is now the PQ reserve was not developed then and Mercy Road did not go through it. I'm sure the later development of the reserve boosted the property values in these tracts.

As you know, there are a lot of jobs in SV and MM, north and south of Miramar Rd and in the Golden Triangle. For these reasons, it is a convenient area to live in for a worker who works in these areas and wants to avoid the freeway in the daily commute. That's why a current buyer will get less home for their money in MM than say, western Chula Vista. Historically (before SV really took off), western Chula Vista (91910) was more expensive than MM. In general, the lots in 91910 are bigger and the houses are better-built than in Mira Mesa. 91910 used to be considered "better located" than MM as well and it certainly is more convenient to dtn SD. When SV took off and SD was considered to have "arrived" on the "high-tech map," MM slowly gained value over areas which were not close to thousands of white-collar jobs. Things change over time. That doesn't make one area better or worse than another. "Retirees" could care less if they live near jobs. A peaceful and tidy neighborhood and access to great medical care nearby is more important to them than living two streets away from the latest "office park." So housing choices and preferences depend on one's station in life and financial resources. Notice that no one here is stating that UC, LJ or DM's RE market is currently "on fire." MM is presumably "on fire" because of its proximity to high tech jobs and affordability to workers just starting out. That's the bottom line.

In young-family and entry-level areas (such as MM) of coastal CA counties, RE values are highly-dependent on nearby well-paying jobs. In "retiree" (WCV or Clairemont) or "wealthy" (LJ) areas, not so much.

Who knows? Perhaps Otay Mesa will later be developed into a mecca of office parks and attract companies with thousands more white-collar jobs to SD County. Then, all the "millenium boom" entry-level tracts down there with values currently in the toilet due to massive distress will suddenly JUMP in value because all the *new* worker bees will then consider these tracts "affordable" and convenient!

BG, I never claimed MM have big lot. So, I'm not sure why you're bringing up lot size.

How is it any different, wrt to the "stable" home owners, when they either own their house for 50+ years and are nearing their death bed and those who either own their home out right for 30+ years to those who are 20 years into their 30 years loan? If anything, those 50+ years owners area might be more likely to have a flood of property hitting the market due to their owner dying vs an area where the owners are just starting to enter retirement. Regardless. Both areas have plenty of owners who are or soon to be retiring who have no plan on moving. Sounds pretty stable to me. I would say an area with owners starting to enter retirement are more stable than those area where its owners are nearing their death beds.

You do you the South East corner of MM is the worse part of MM, right? For you to compare the worse part of MM to a better part of CM? hmm... that's a good comparison.

I don't know if UC, LJ or DM is on fire or not, but CV is pretty hot as well.

You had a pretty long post just to basically say, RE is all about location, location, location.

I didn't say you did AN, but lot size is indicative of value. In coastal CA counties, a larger lot usually means the property is worth more. RE is actually LAND. What is built on that land is secondary.

AN, the vast majority of original owners still living in their Clairemont properties aren't "on their deathbeds." They are in their early to mid-seventies. You stated "mature" owners in MM have monthly mortgage payments which are "cheaper than a 1/1 apartment." What does a 1 br apt rent for in MM, AN? About $1200 mo perhaps? Could it be that the "mature" owner base in MM is about my age?? My PI is currently <$1200 for a 2200 sf house on a larger-than-std lot! WHO is more "stable?" A <59.5 yo with +/- $1200 mo mortgage payments with 10-15 years left to pay on it who is ineligible to collect SS or their retirement funds OR a 73 yo with a free-and-clear personal residence, monthly SS coming in, Medicare coverage and unfettered access to all their retirement funds??

AN, are you aware of how fast a 50-65 year old can go through their liquid assets if they lose steady employment and health coverage and still have any mortgage at all to pay? What do you think happens to their "budget" when their UI runs out and they STILL can't get hired anywhere and can't touch their retirement funds without a large penalty?

Which of these subsets of longtime owners do you think can better afford to make necessary repairs on their homes (fence, roof, painting, etc) which would be visible from the street and thus affect neighboring property values?

Both the east side of MM and Clairemont areas are "older." Why would I compare 1990's "stucco box" construction with tile roofs with properties in 50-55 yo Clairemont (92111)? I was trying to keep it an "apples to apples" comparison of the housing stock as much as possible. It IS a good comparison and Clairemont 92111 wins on all counts, IMHO.

Better or worse for WHO? That is the $64M question.

By far, it is the percentage of free and clear owners who determine the level of "stability" of a micro-area. Why?? Because these owners can NEVER be distressed. The worst that can happen to them is they will qualify for and obtain "senior discounts" on utilities and could get flagged for a tax sale by the assessor if they miss 10 installments and a full five years has elapsed since their last tax installment was paid (very unlikely for longtime owners protected by "Prop 13"). If they are dumb enough to take out a (very expensive) reverse mortgage and there is no knowledgeable family member or friend available to talk them out of it, the "equity stripping" and subsequent resale of their property by the reverse mortgage-lender would not happen until after their death. This could not really be considered to be a "distress sale," per se, but this kind of sale on a modest MM or Clairemont property would likely leave little to no equity for heirs (if any) to divide.

My head hurts.

We have friends who lived there years ago and loved the area, then turned their homes into rentals when they moved on.

There are many nice areas in Clairemont, but, it seems that you now have to search a little harder to find them. If its your chosen destination, I'd say it's well worth spending the time searching.

As far as arguing about which area of town is
best--I really think it boils down to your chosen lifestyle.

Some of us prefer a quiet country-setting near the ocean that is still close to everything we need and want, others enjoy being in the center of a a busy area for work, school and convenience. One person wants one school district, another wants another school district, and on and on and on.

In my opinion, if you have the life YOU and YOUR family want, it really doesn't matter what anyone else has or does. We've always been grateful that we got exactly what we wanted, and we hope everyone else does too!!

BG, no, lot size is not indicative of value. Location is indicative of value. You can increase your lot size, but you can't change the zip code or the latitude and longitude of your lot. That's why the RE mantra is, location location location. Not lot size, lot size, lot size. If this is true:

I didn't say 1/1 in MM. Based on the prices from the 70s and 80s, most of the mortgage(if not refied to take cash out) would be around $300-700/month. That's probably cheaper than most 1/1 anywhere in San Diego County. So, I'd say, a 60 year old with a free and clear house or a 50 year old with 10 year left on their mortgage of about $550 would be more stable than those in their 80s with failing health. Try making repair when you're on fixed income and your health start failing. Maintain your house would probably be pretty low on your priority list.

BTW, how can you own a house for 50-55 years if you're only 73? Are you suggesting people who bought in the best area of CM bought when they're 18-23 years old? I'm not that old, but maybe you'd know something I don't.

There's no apple to apple comparison between CM and MM. So, you're trying to compare something that's not comparable. Now, if you want to compare the whole area, then if you're going to pick the best of CM, then it would make sense to compare with the best of MM.

Of course it's location first and then lot size (within a location). Clairemont wins both contests over MM (no offense intended).

$300 to $700 in the 70's was PITI. Remember that if they bought in or before April 1978 and still own the property, their taxes are held down by Prop 13. And 20-year mortgages were prevalent prior to the late 50's.

Actually, many, many of this age group are NOT on a "fixed income." They have investment income. Even if they are in so-so or failing health, they STILL have home healthcare workers and people to come over and do landscaping, cleaning and other errands (whether paid or family members).

AN, you bring up an interesting topic, here. I think it would be very time-consuming to cull the public records for this info, but I've often wondered which zip codes in the county have the most free and clear homeowners. I know the current 70-90+ age group who still own properties they bought 50-70 years ago have likely never taken "cash out" of it. How do I know it? Because their properties were likely paid off by the 70's (at the latest) and "cash-out" was virtually unheard of back then unless it was an FHA 203k (purchase/rehab) mortgage. This would have given them a very large portion of their monthly income since that payoff decades ago to live mortgage-free and save for retirement. This would be true unless they found it necessary at some point to take out a reverse mortgage.

I have no proof but believe (anecdotally) that the majority of "cash out" was taken by owners who have purchased their property since 1990, the vast majority since about 2003.

Thus, it would lead one to believe that the older the area is, the more free-and-clear owners it has. So even though this "older area," at first blush may look "modest" by today's "mcmansion" standards, most of the residents there likely have a higher net worth than those in newer "mcmansion" tracts.

In short, yes. It was commonplace at that time to get married, buy a house and start a family all before the age of 22-23. The models on the Mt Streets of Clairemont cost approx $11K to $18K new in 1961-ish, depending on lot size, location and square footage and most originally sold VA/FHA.

AN, even the "best of MM" doesn't compare with the "best of Clairemont" (92111) due to lot size, topography, setback, very mature landscaping, proximity to ocean/bay, weather ... many factors.

It is what it is.

Save for one grade school, the public schools in Clairemont range from average to awful. Save for one person, everybody I've met that owns in Clairemont either sends their kids to private school or ends up choicing their kids into a UC school (since the aging demographics there have twice as much capacity in south UC than students that live there).

This is why Mira Mesa might be a lot more attractive to some people.

This is good to know, Rhett. I long suspected the population of the UC SFR's (south UC) didn't have enough students to fill the schools there and even posted this a few weeks ago on another thread. It's good to know that CHOICE is more easily available to attend UC schools from Clairemont and other nearby communities.

I would suspect that young families in residence are in the minority in South Clairemont (92111) but not 92117 (which is less expensive overall and has more multifamily units).

I also suspect that Clairemont buyers of today likely don't have school age children or went to the local schools themselves and thus aren't biased against them.

API scores mean next-to-nothing to young-parent locals who want to raise their kids near other relatives.

btw, Rhett, did you and Scarlett ever buy a home? I remember you were considering both Clairemont and UC at one time.

BTW, if lot size, topography and setback are high on your importance list, MM have some lots that are superior than any CM have to offer (except for those with bay views). How does .4+ flat usable acre with 90-330 degrees canyon view sound?

We just moved out of Clairemont 92111 (Fox Run) back in early April. I would say that the majority of people we knew did send their kids to Holmes Elementary (the local elementary for that part of Clairemont). We knew a few who sent their kids to a charter school or private/parochial school as well.

For middle school and HS, some seemed to send their kids to either Standley MS/UC High School. There were also several kids who went to Cathedral Catholic. I know of only one girl who attended Clairemont HS (and even that was strange because we were technically in the Madison HS district. However, Clairemont is probably about the same distance or even closer).

Just to clarify there are homes in 92117 with great bay views but they are in Bay Park not Clairemont. The highest concentration of high paying jobs in SD are in MM and based upon trends will continue to be so for a long time. As much as I never got MM before I get it now and wish I had invested in it long ago. CM is centrally located but is mostly a blue collar community and will continue as such for a long time. Nowhere do you see more construction vehicles parked on streets, side yards and front yards than there in central SD. There are amazing canyon view lots in MM as big and as good as any in CM also. A client closed on one recently.

Yes, there are amazing canyon view lots in MM, and as you and I both saw, there are a few with over .4 acre flat usable lots too. But those still can't be compare to Bay view lots in Bay Park/Bay Ho.

Fwiw, 92111 is partially Linda Vista and partially CM. zip codes are postal boundaries and don't always match city/community boundaries

Ironically - I live in UC and am in the Curie neighborhood. I've got my kids (2nd son moves starting next year) at Hawthorne Elementary in Clairemont. On paper Curie looks fabulous and Hawthorne looks awful. In reality - the teachers are what counts and the seminar program at Hawthorne is beyond exceptional. Seriously, it's an amazing program, better than the seminar program at Spreckels in the UC cluster... This is entirely because of the two teachers there and the parent foundation - plus a great principal that really puts the students needs above all. My son has been much better served by a "crappy" Clairemont school with a great schools rating of 6 than by our neighborhood school that has a great schools rating of 10.

I have quite a few friends with kids at Holmes - including another UC family who moved the child because Curie violated the IEP. Holmes is a very good school in Clairemont.

That said - probably 25-30% of the kids at Curie are from Clairemont.

I like Clairemont. First house I lived in (from coming home from the hospital after birth) was on a Mt. street. Obviously, I like south UC too - bought the house I grew up in (that we'd moved to from Clairemont) from my parents when I moved back to San Diego.

You have to look at more than just the paper ratings when looking at schools. Especially if your child is exceptional in any way at all. If there are special needs (of any kind - GATE/Seminar, ADHD, whatever... anything at all non-typical) you need to look at what each school provides to serve those needs.

Ok - off my high horse.

No, never "clumped." Got two good friends in Bay Ho (92117) and KNOW the difference. One of their BY's looks out over Sea World Tower. I am a person who shopped at Costco at the end of Rose Cyn when it was the Price Club, lol :=0 I KNOW the difference and KNOW the hoods up there. HOWEVER, the quality of construction varies wildly in 92117. Near sdr's "fav corner" (lol) of Clairemont Drive and Clairemont Mesa Blvd, the residential construction is bad, just ba-a-a-ad, IMO. Another "bad construction" area is just west of I-805 and north of Clairemont Mesa Blvd.

Quality of construction IS worth something. Especially if one intends to buy an older home or occupy a newer home more than ten years. You can't imagine how much shoddy grading, construction or plumbing can cost a homeowner over the long haul. Not to mention the cost and inconvenience of thin walls, zero or inadequate insulation, substandard electrical service, leaky windows and on and on.

I think buyers (esp FT buyers) get wrapped up in stucco boxes with "archways," tile roofs, or a certain neighborhood "look" without realizing that what's actually under the hood is horribly inferior to the '50's ranch. They're hung up on the wrapping paper (which likely has been patched and painted over as well).

And don't laugh at those small mid-century houses in Linda Vista. Most are built very, very well built :=]

Quality construction is worth something, but floor plan also is worth something. Quality construct would be worthless if the floor plan is so horrible that you'd have to tear down all the walls and reconstruct it to modern standards. You're making blanket statements about construction superiority for areas you've never been to? Just because they're newer, they new be built like crap? I'm sure houses that are standing without major problem after 30-40 years were built pretty well.

Talking about thin walls and inadequate insulations, aren't the older houses that tend to have thin walls and inadequate insulations? I'm pretty sure some really old houses don't even have insulations. Talking about substandard electrical service, the new houses now have the house prewired for ethernet and have a 220 Volt main breaker vs older houses with 110 Volt and no ethernet. Which is substandard when the standard today is a computer or TV in every room and those devices need to talk to each other over ethernet? I would assume there's a higher chance of old windows leaking than new ones. But you might know something I don't.

haha... I heard that one before. It's like "refudiate" and "nukular". I heard someone use "spurt" to mean splurge.

That is exactly the plan, bg. Rent out our current canyon home and move to CV. Let the kids live in it during college, if we can afford to let them live there rent-free.

Tucson is my hometown :)

I'm looking for a question in there and don't see it so I get to ramble.

Definitely the housing stock in 92117 between 400K and 500K is poor compared to what it was even a year ago. The redfin chart is pretty interesting. Sold prices following listing prices up quite clearly, though the discrepancy is still really big.

92117 = Clairemont zip code. Contains nicer stuff in Bay Ho and Bay Park as well as the crappy 1-car-garage houses in the "Crown Jewel" area.

92111 = Linda Vista zip code. Has Clairemont and Linda Vista 'hoods.

Real-estate people always say 92111 is definitely less desireable than 92117, even for comparable homes. Stupid, I agree, but that's the deal. So, Mt. Streets south of Balboa are "Clairemont" if you are selling and "Linda Vista" if you are buying.

Redfin shows 49 homes for sale in 92117. In 2004 I was showing my parents around. There were 11 SFRs for sale in the whole zip code.

I prefer Clairemont to MM because of its proximity to the beach, La Jolla, downtown, Fashion Valley and freeway access from all sides. Dealing with Mira Mesa or Miramar as the only corridors with the military base to the south and the canyon to the north blocking access in either direction is very confining to me. I would guess Clairemont is a little cooler, too. We get good breeze from the canyons. I like the 50's housing stock, too - fir timber, you know.

No question intended. Just wanted to give your hood equal time. The headline was a nod to Lee Hamilton.

No need to get off your high horse - that's useful. Holmes is what I meant by the good school. But really, I wasn't talking about grade schools - I was talking middle and high school, and I've heard a lot of anecdotal stories that go along with the test scores. Do you plan on sending your kids to Madison when the time comes?

bearishgurl: have not yet bought, and Clairemont is still in the game.

Buyer or seller, I have never heard anyone refer to any of the Mtn. Streets, or anything to the north of where Tecolote Canyon crosses Genesee just south of Mesa College, as "Linda Vista". It just isn't correct. It's not a blurry line; that canyon is a very clear geographical boundary between the two neighborhoods.

On the other hand, I did have ONE pizza delivery place (on Clairemont Mesa Blvd) refuse to deliver to me because I lived in 92111 south of Balboa. They said "92117 only". Of course I never gave them a dime of my business.

Aaahh, another transplanted "Aridzonian." (They don't call 'em that for nothing, you know ;=])

So if CM Drive at CMB and north of CMB just west of 805 is bad, where is the really good construction in CM? People seem to like the Mt. streets...are those places well made?