DH and I are arguing much DH and I are arguing much about this, he almost was going to sign up to Piggington so he could start this poll. But he’s got too many projects going on, so I’m going to do it. I know ideally both, but if you were forced to pick which is more important what would it be?
jpinpb
July 22, 2011 @
7:31 AM
So he signed up anyway. Come So he signed up anyway. Come on. I need some help people. Break this tie and cast your vote!
jimmyle
July 22, 2011 @
7:55 AM
Do you have school-age Do you have school-age children? If yes then better schools is more important.
an
July 22, 2011 @
7:58 AM
You can put your kids in You can put your kids in private schools but you can’t add a private view 🙂
rent4now
July 22, 2011 @
8:09 AM
Agree with AN..
You can put Agree with AN..
You can put your kids in a better school but you can’t move your house to a better view!
pemeliza
July 22, 2011 @
8:39 AM
They are both important. In They are both important. In our situation, we settled for a situation with some of each. We have a great private canyon view but it is obviously not on par with the big ocean view that many want. Likewise our school district is great for K-8 but suspect at the high school level. Since our kids are young we figure that we will worry about the situation later and perhaps look into district transfer when the time comes.
I guess I am a have your cake and eat it too person so I would say try to find a lot with a decent view and decent schools and maybe give up on something else like house size.
bearishgurl
July 22, 2011 @
10:00 AM
pemeliza wrote:They are both [quote=pemeliza]They are both important. In our situation, we settled for a situation with some of each. We have a great private canyon view but it is obviously not on par with the big ocean view that many want. Likewise our school district is great for K-8 but suspect at the high school level. Since our kids are young we figure that we will worry about the situation later and perhaps look into district transfer when the time comes.
I guess I am a have your cake and eat it too person so I would say try to find a lot with a decent view and decent schools and maybe give up on something else like house size.[/quote]
pemeliza, you will have many options for high school, most notably High Tech High, which treats students like young adults in the work world. I know two science students at UCSB who are both HTH graduates. One is currently a senior. I believe they both will be VERY successful.
Anonymous
July 22, 2011 @
7:57 AM
Ok folks, I’m not getting Ok folks, I’m not getting sucked in here like the DW but would you rather grow old with a nice view from your deck or be stuck in a place like four-s with a view of more track homes from your deck just for the Poway school district ? Ok you say I’ll sell when they graduate and then move to a place with a few, Really ? So if you sell after they graduate, then I guess the view “is” more important.
Good school districts don’t guarantee good grades or an acceptance to a prized four year college, they do guarantee a false piece of mind though. I guess you pigs figured out my vote.
Jp’s DH
bearishgurl
July 22, 2011 @
9:55 AM
Jpinpbs DH wrote:Ok folks, [quote=Jpinpbs DH]Ok folks, I’m not getting sucked in here like the DW but would you rather grow old with a nice view from your deck or be stuck in a place like four-s with a view of more track homes from your deck just for the Poway school district ? Ok you say I’ll sell when they graduate and then move to a place with a few, Really ? So if you sell after they graduate, then I guess the view “is” more important.
Good school districts don’t guarantee good grades or an acceptance to a prized four year college, they do guarantee a false piece of mind though. I guess you pigs figured out my vote.
Jp’s DH[/quote]
DH, I agree that it is the STUDENT motivation, not the SCHOOL which determines the student’s grades and thus future opportunities. I also believe that “API scores” (that so many are willing to financially prostrate themselves for) are overrated when determining how your individual student will do in school.
Something I think is important which you didn’t bring up is, “How much will that view property cost after my kids leave the nest, IF they ever do??” For many Piggs, we’re talking 20+ years here.
My opinion is, if what you REALLY want is a view, then BUY it ASAP, even if it is currently a shell of a house in your opinion. You can always move your toaster oven/micro/mini fridge and air mattress in plus your ladder and power tools and work on it in your off-hours :=0. Or use what’s there for a few years until you get more $$ behind you, then move from room to room :=]
Meanwhile, you can set up your telescope next to your wine cooler and enjoy! It’s “portable” :=D
familyguy
July 22, 2011 @
10:28 AM
bearishgurl wrote:…You can [quote=bearishgurl]…You can always move your toaster oven/micro/mini fridge and air mattress in plus your ladder and power tools and work on it in your off-hours…[/quote]
BG I mean no disrespect so please don’t take this the wrong way; I enjoy reading your well written and entertaining posts. (Aside from your disdain of Stonebridge and your view of junior enlisted military personnel being less deserving of a nice home because they only have a high school education or a young wife with a GED. lol )
My question is, have you ever lived in a house that’s being renovated? You seem to have a common theme to many of your posts that suggests most families should buy a shack and simply fix it up. Aside from the hassle involved, most families with two working adults simply don’t have the time. By the time the work day is done, dinner is taken care of, and quality time is spent with the kids doing homework, or other activities (soccer, tee ball, etc.) there is simply not enough time in the day for many families to take on a major renovation project. So I’m just curious how you juggled all this in order to be such an advocate of buying a fixer upper.
bearishgurl
July 22, 2011 @
11:11 AM
familyguy, I am old and the familyguy, I am old and the “quintessential fixer-upper” (all in SD) is the reason I am able to be “semi-retired” today. Yes, I have children (just one remaining at home). We put them in their swings/playpen while we worked (often until midnight on a work night) on fixing up “cosmetic fixers” we purchased from govm’t REO programs. I also worked cleaning and scraping properties on many weekends when all my friends were at our fav Crown Point fire-ring or on their boats celebrating whatever. I worked FT outside of the home all my life up until 2006, taking brief maternity leaves. Both my former spouse and I were/are handy and unafraid to tackle projects and cleaning that others would shy away from. When our children got older, they would help us. We purchased our properties all in the same or neighboring zip codes.
I am a realist and know that there is no free lunch. Persons who believe owners of properties in PRIME SD locations are going to accept less than their land is worth (never mind if there is some kind of a dwelling on it) are suffering from a delusion. I have seen a LOT of cycles and know that the BEST areas of town will only go up in value. Good local job availability HAS LITTLE TO NOTHING to do with this.
My ex-spouse retired from the military in SD in 1995. Upon retirement, our monthly VHA + BAQ (now “housing allowance” was $688. For his rank, the local allowance is now (give-or-take) $2500 mo. I believe the VHA was initially given to service members to give them a “leg up” in rental assistance when the military offered many different complexes to choose from and still does. The military DOESN’T OWE active-duty family members a certain neighborhood, zip code or school attendance area. It must only provide safe, clean housing large enough to comfortably accommodate the service member and his/her dependents. The Navy has owned nearly ALL the land in SD County its military quarters sits on for more than 60 years. As a spouse with TDS orders, you should already be aware of this. If you are living in the wide open spaces of TX (or wherever), know you would not like an urban lifestyle and have no other means by which to support yourself, you should NOT relocate to SD and then whine. You should stay home and await your spouse’s return from deployment. [end of rant]
I believe the housing allowance was gradually quadrupled in recent years to aid in retention, due to back-to-back deployments in war-torn areas. But at what cost? How is it that a new 19 year-old (often-pregnant) military spouse qualifies to move from rural Tennessee directly to Coronado, CA??
I was at the dtn marriage license office last week during lunchtime on business. In every booth but one sat young jr enlisted men in uniform and their equally-young girlfriends seeking to get a marriage licenses. Tell me, familyguy, do you think if these young men were NOT in the military they would be seeking marriage licenses?? What’s the “draw,” here. From the few convo’s I could hear with the deputy clerks, at least two were getting ready to immediately deploy. What’s the rush?? The “rush” is the BIG GOV’T ID in the sky for the spouse with which she can do SO MANY THINGS.
Do you think new very young transplants should be given enough $$ to rent in SD’s best areas when longtime working San Diegans cannot afford to do so??
Back in “my day,” anything more than a sailor’s seabag was considered unwieldy and superfluous to his/her career. Guess times have changed :=0
sdrealtor
July 22, 2011 @
11:37 AM
I think this poll really I think this poll really comes down to one simple question.
Do you put your kids first (schools) or yourself first (view)?
For me its kids first as that is the way i was raised and the way my kids are being raised. Living in a schools first neighborhood surrounds me with neighbors who beleive in most of the same things I do regarding family and I like that.
Everyone comes from a different background and personal situation in this world and has the right to choose between “schools or views”. neither is right nor wrong.
jpinpb
July 22, 2011 @
11:45 AM
sdrealtor wrote:I think this [quote=sdrealtor]I think this poll really comes down to one simple question.
Do you put your kids first (schools) or yourself first (view)?
For me its kids first as that is the way i was raised and the way my kids are being raised. Living in a schools first neighborhood surrounds me with neighbors who beleive in most of the same things I do regarding family and I like that.
Everyone comes from a different background and personal situation in this world and has the right to choose between “schools or views”. neither is right nor wrong.[/quote]
I think it is more than kids first, though. One can, as suggested, send a kid to private school. It is the community of people who want to be in a good school district. And not just that, as I stated, for there are people who buy in a good school district for resale value, even if they don’t have kids. So that means people still consider the value of living in a good school district and purchase accordingly.
But DH thinks the view trumps schools. Judging from the votes so far, looks like he’s right. I’m surprised.
bearishgurl
July 22, 2011 @
11:51 AM
jpinpb wrote:. . . But DH [quote=jpinpb]. . . But DH thinks the view trumps schools. Judging from the votes so far, looks like he’s right. I’m surprised.[/quote]
I wouldn’t have thought it 25 years ago, but a sit-down panoramic city view in 92106 is now worth a minimum of $300K. These views, from the proper angle, cannot be duplicated anywhere in the world. If able to obtain one of these properties at a fair price (condition be damned), it would be VERY financially prudent to do so, IMO!
briansd1
July 22, 2011 @
12:18 PM
it’s not so much the school it’s not so much the school but the neighborhood. plenty of views in lesser neighborhoods.
Better neighborhoods don’t necessarily have good schools if there aren’t many children.
njtosd
July 22, 2011 @
1:26 PM
sdrealtor wrote:
For me its [quote=sdrealtor]
For me its kids first as that is the way i was raised and the way my kids are being raised. Living in a schools first neighborhood surrounds me with neighbors who beleive in most of the same things I do regarding family and I like that.
[/quote]
I think that statement hits the nail on the head. If you want your kids to be surrounded by peers who value education and take it seriously, you are more likely to find those kids in schools that have high reputations, high API scores, etc. The parents who send their kids to those schools also tend to be well educated, take school seriously, make time to volunteer, etc. I don’t really think it’s the school as much as the educational culture that certain schools attract. And teachers compete for jobs at schools where the kids like to learn and the parents support the education process, so the good teachers tend to gravitate toward the high performing schools. So I think you end up with a self reinforcing system.
But, if I didn’t have kids, I’d definitely go for the view :).
For me its kids first as that is the way i was raised and the way my kids are being raised. Living in a schools first neighborhood surrounds me with neighbors who beleive in most of the same things I do regarding family and I like that.
[/quote]
I think that statement hits the nail on the head. If you want your kids to be surrounded by peers who value education and take it seriously, you are more likely to find those kids in schools that have high reputations, high API scores, etc. The parents who send their kids to those schools also tend to be well educated, take school seriously, make time to volunteer, etc. I don’t really think it’s the school as much as the educational culture that certain schools attract. And teachers compete for jobs at schools where the kids like to learn and the parents support the education process, so the good teachers tend to gravitate toward the high performing schools. So I think you end up with a self reinforcing system.
But, if I didn’t have kids, I’d definitely go for the view :).[/quote]
I think that it’s more about socio-economics and being around people who share your values.
Approval of peers and family is important also.
jpinpb
July 22, 2011 @
5:58 PM
sdcellar – thanks for the sdcellar – thanks for the encouraging words. You are right that DH and I often discuss topics on Piggington and this morning he was very entertained by the thought of having the Piggs decide. Now he’s amused that he has the majority vote and is enjoying feeling vindicated 🙂
sdcellar and AN, FWIW, I think Calle Isabelino will sell before Pershing b/c of the school. Pershing has been on the market for a while and not moving. I like Pershing way better and agree w/BG that w/Mills Act there is greater value, but I’m not the average Pooh bear. The big picture is there are a lot of families buying in 4S and it’s b/c of turnkey new house in the best school district. Many are tiny, crammed lots w/a view of your neighbor’s bathroom. I could never do it, even if I had kids. I’d be the one sending them to private or figuring out some other way. But there is not a shortage of people that want to live there. I can’t understand it and the only thing I keep hearing is it’s b/c of the schools.
So maybe Piggs voting for view over schools are higher minded and when I was saying school is more important than view, I was thinking that the average person would take that position. By that last statement, I do not mean to suggest school isn’t important. Just seems that the average person places greater value on school versus view and if they had to give up one over the other, they would forego view to be in a better school district.
sdcellar
July 22, 2011 @
6:29 PM
jpinpb, maybe a better metric jpinpb, maybe a better metric (than your poll) would be to mine the data that is Piggington posts and see how many discuss schools, APIs, Carmel Valley and Carmel Valley versus views.
Bet we’d see a slightly different result.
Part of the problem (I think) is that the term “view” is simply too ambiguous. It conjures to mind many a thing and also comes dangerously close to the term “location”, which we know are the first, second and third most important things to consider when buying a house. And also factors in schools. Dammit. Now we’ve got a circular reference. This is never going to work!
Anyway, that’s my sense and I think it’s just something else I’m thinking we’d agree on.
AN wants to agree, or at least that’s how he voted with his home buying dollars (and continual references to MM API scores). He just doesn’t know it, I guess.
bearishgurl
July 22, 2011 @
6:38 PM
sdcellar wrote:jpinpb, maybe [quote=sdcellar]jpinpb, maybe a better metric (than your poll) would be to mine the data that is Piggington posts and see how many discuss schools, APIs, Carmel Valley and Carmel Valley versus views.
Bet we’d see a slightly different result.
Part of the problem (I think) is that the term “view” is simply too ambiguous. It conjures to mind many a thing and also comes dangerously close to the term “location”, which we know are the first, second and third most important things to consider when buying a house. And also factors in schools. Dammit. Now we’ve got a circular reference. This is never going to work!
Anyway, that’s my sense and I think it’s just something else I’m thinking we’d agree on…[/quote]
I agree that “view” should be more specific. It should state, “ocean, city or bay view.” Those are the universal favorites. I seriously doubt canyon or mountain view (in SD County) commands very much of a premium.
You can mine all you want here, sdcellar. I do believe you will find CV, CV and CV (as in “Carmel Valley”) are the preferred areas to buy in (with armpit Poway coming in at a close second). HOWEVER, do you think the Piggs who post here are representative of the entire home-buying public??
sdcellar
July 22, 2011 @
6:44 PM
bg, in some ways I think the bg, in some ways I think the Piggs are (representative) and in some ways not. I’m pretty sure we’re not as cool as we think we are.
Right now, we’re consistent with the sheeple in that we’re saying one thing and doing another. You agree that it’s nothing but GD CV here sometimes and somehow schools are losing this poll?!!!! Many somebodies actions (votes) aren’t consistent with their words. Certainly a common human foible.
For me its kids first as that is the way i was raised and the way my kids are being raised. Living in a schools first neighborhood surrounds me with neighbors who beleive in most of the same things I do regarding family and I like that.
[/quote]
I think that statement hits the nail on the head. If you want your kids to be surrounded by peers who value education and take it seriously, you are more likely to find those kids in schools that have high reputations, high API scores, etc. The parents who send their kids to those schools also tend to be well educated, take school seriously, make time to volunteer, etc. I don’t really think it’s the school as much as the educational culture that certain schools attract. And teachers compete for jobs at schools where the kids like to learn and the parents support the education process, so the good teachers tend to gravitate toward the high performing schools. So I think you end up with a self reinforcing system.
But, if I didn’t have kids, I’d definitely go for the view :).[/quote]
Though it sounds terrible, a lot of teachers are attracted to the high-performing schools because it’s an easier job. The parents in high-performing schools tend to be more of a pain, and the kids often have bratty attitudes vs. kids and parents in the poorer neighborhoods. That being said, since teacher success is so closely tied to test scores, teachers want to go where the high-performing students are — those whose parents tend to have higher I.Q.s, college degrees, more money (for tutoring and other extracurricular activities), etc.
You’d be absolutely amazed at the difference between students entering kindergarten in a “good” school district vs. those entering kindergarten in a “bad” school district. In many cases, their future is already mapped out well before they enter their first year of school. The importance of good parenting skills and genetics cannot be overstated, IMHO.
CA renter
July 23, 2011 @
2:49 AM
Back on topic…
IMHO, the Back on topic…
IMHO, the choice between schools and views is subjective but, in general, the schools affect the value of a neighborhood while the views affect the value of a house.
It’s usually better to buy the beater home in a good neighborhood than to buy the most amazing home in a beater neighborhood. By prioritizing schools over views, it’s easier to buy the beater in a good neighborhood.
Even though we homeschool, we prefer to live in an area with good schools because we want to live in the type of neighborhood that surrounds good schools. We like to live around other people who value education/family values, maintain their homes (without needing an HOA to tell them to do it), are involved in the community, and prioritize safety and cleanliness in the neighborhood. For the most part, that type of neighborhood is likely to be found around schools that have higher scores (and local students — not bussed in).
FWIW, we like flat yards and easy-walking neighborhoods, so views are not a priority for us. We wouldn’t pay much of a premium for one unless it was truly a one-of-a-kind view.
pemeliza
July 23, 2011 @
6:52 AM
In my neighborhood a big flat In my neighborhood a big flat backyard is extremely rare and will cost big $$$ (as much if not more than a panoramic view lot!) especially if you want a good street. Most of the lots are 4-6k sq. ft. which is big enough for the house, the garage, and a small grassy/entertaining area.
This house has a big back yard for the area. The lot size is 7500 sq. ft which is tiny by suburb standards.
The wooded area in Point Loma is one of the few urban areas I can think of that has the big flat back yards (a quarter of an acre or more). Fleetridge has some nice lots too.
pemeliza wrote:In my [quote=pemeliza]In my neighborhood a big flat backyard is extremely rare and will cost big $$$ (as much if not more than a panoramic view lot!) especially if you want a good street. Most of the lots are 4-6k sq. ft. which is big enough for the house, the garage, and a small grassy/entertaining area.
This house has a big back yard for the area. The lot size is 7500 sq. ft which is tiny by suburb standards.
The wooded area in Point Loma is one of the few urban areas I can think of that has the big flat back yards (a quarter of an acre or more). Fleetridge has some nice lots too.
The PL Woods addition added space to the Richards design but rather decimated the original lines of the house. All in all, it is a nice lot with the original Richards landscape design still intact.
I agree PL Woods is a very good area for families. I believe there is an HOA there but not clear if all streets belong to it. However, these houses/lots are too large and labor-intensive for the boomer/retired set, IMHO.
CA renter
July 23, 2011 @
6:29 PM
pemeliza wrote:In my [quote=pemeliza]In my neighborhood a big flat backyard is extremely rare and will cost big $$$ (as much if not more than a panoramic view lot!) especially if you want a good street. Most of the lots are 4-6k sq. ft. which is big enough for the house, the garage, and a small grassy/entertaining area.
This house has a big back yard for the area. The lot size is 7500 sq. ft which is tiny by suburb standards.
The wooded area in Point Loma is one of the few urban areas I can think of that has the big flat back yards (a quarter of an acre or more). Fleetridge has some nice lots too.
CA renter wrote:Back on [quote=CA renter]Back on topic…
IMHO, the choice between schools and views is subjective but, in general, the schools affect the value of a neighborhood while the views affect the value of a house.
It’s usually better to buy the beater home in a good neighborhood than to buy the most amazing home in a beater neighborhood. By prioritizing schools over views, it’s easier to buy the beater in a good neighborhood.
Even though we homeschool, we prefer to live in an area with good schools because we want to live in the type of neighborhood that surrounds good schools. We like to live around other people who value education/family values, maintain their homes (without needing an HOA to tell them to do it), are involved in the community, and prioritize safety and cleanliness in the neighborhood. For the most part, that type of neighborhood is likely to be found around schools that have higher scores (and local students — not bussed in).
FWIW, we like flat yards and easy-walking neighborhoods, so views are not a priority for us. We wouldn’t pay much of a premium for one unless it was truly a one-of-a-kind view.[/quote]
Once again, very good point. I’ve always maintained API is a rough gauge of the general attitude of the students in that particular school. If the overall environment is one of learning, it is less likely that a student will dropout and start smoking weed at 13. This is not to say the higher API will guarantee success. Just merely your child’s peers will also be more into getting into college, so chances of your child’s friend from school calling about what college to apply to is higher than calling about which street corner has the best weed.
And this is not to say a child will not succeed going to a lower tier school. But merely the child will have to go against the grain in that environment.
sdrealtor
July 23, 2011 @
9:08 AM
ocrenter wrote:CA renter [quote=ocrenter][quote=CA renter]Back on topic…
IMHO, the choice between schools and views is subjective but, in general, the schools affect the value of a neighborhood while the views affect the value of a house.
It’s usually better to buy the beater home in a good neighborhood than to buy the most amazing home in a beater neighborhood. By prioritizing schools over views, it’s easier to buy the beater in a good neighborhood.
Even though we homeschool, we prefer to live in an area with good schools because we want to live in the type of neighborhood that surrounds good schools. We like to live around other people who value education/family values, maintain their homes (without needing an HOA to tell them to do it), are involved in the community, and prioritize safety and cleanliness in the neighborhood. For the most part, that type of neighborhood is likely to be found around schools that have higher scores (and local students — not bussed in).
FWIW, we like flat yards and easy-walking neighborhoods, so views are not a priority for us. We wouldn’t pay much of a premium for one unless it was truly a one-of-a-kind view.[/quote]
Once again, very good point. I’ve always maintained API is a rough gauge of the general attitude of the students in that particular school. If the overall environment is one of learning, it is less likely that a student will dropout and start smoking weed at 13. This is not to say the higher API will guarantee success. Just merely your child’s peers will also be more into getting into college, so chances of your child’s friend from school calling about what college to apply to is higher than calling about which street corner has the best weed.
And this is not to say a child will not succeed going to a lower tier school. But merely the child will have to go against the grain in that environment.[/quote]
Spot on both CAR and OCR.
OCR,
Loved the quote about “chances of your child’s friend from school calling about what college to apply to is higher than calling about which street corner has the best weed.”
I’m gonna steal that one and use it often
bearishgurl
July 23, 2011 @
9:29 AM
ocrenter wrote:…And this is [quote=ocrenter]…And this is not to say a child will not succeed going to a lower tier school. But merely the child will have to go against the grain in that environment.[/quote]
ocrenter and CAR, I don’t agree that parents in a “lower-tier school” aren’t involved. Just because a parent is “lower income” does not mean they are not involved in their child’s education and don’t come to parent-teacher conferences and other school functions.
I think the reverse is true. Both parents in a “higher-tier” school are often working FT and then have varying commutes to/from home. Why? To pay their ridiculously high mtg, taxes, MR and HOA duesthat they chose to do.
A child has a more stable life and is better off if their parents aren’t constantly pressured to meet the costs of shelter (often exceeding $100 day). There is no room for error in this scenario. There is no time for extended unpaid maternity leave or leave without pay for extra vacation days for either parent.
A bonus for a young child would be to live within walking distance of other relatives (grandparents, uncles and aunts). It takes a village these days to raise a child. These older relatives typically DO NOT live within high-cost newer HOA’s. Many grandparents and great-grandparents need to remain on or near bus/trolley lines and medical care.
bearishgurl
July 23, 2011 @
9:51 AM
CA renter wrote:Back on [quote=CA renter]Back on topic…
IMHO, the choice between schools and views is subjective but, in general, the schools affect the value of a neighborhood while the views affect the value of a house.
It’s usually better to buy the beater home in a good neighborhood than to buy the most amazing home in a beater neighborhood. By prioritizing schools over views, it’s easier to buy the beater in a good neighborhood…[/quote]
Agreed, but need to add this: If a potential buyer is HIGHLY familiar with a particular area, is READY TO BUY and also very PATIENT, he/she may very well be able to score a “beater” property with an amazing view :=}
Piggs, how ELSE will you obtain an amazing view?
[quote=ocrenter]Once again, very good point. I’ve always maintained API is a rough gauge of the general attitude of the students in that particular school. If the overall environment is one of learning, it is less likely that a student will dropout and start smoking weed at 13. This is not to say the higher API will guarantee success. Just merely your child’s peers will also be more into getting into college, so chances of your child’s friend from school calling about what college to apply to is higher than calling about which street corner has the best weed…[/quote]
Uhh . . . hmmm, the kids calling friends about the “best weed,” best crystal, etc are the ones with $$ (Read: Coronado High, Poway High, etc.) The kids from “poor families” don’t have any $$ for that. Remember, they’re eligible for the “free lunch program,” free bus transportation and free “after-school care.” They often have under $1 on them or nothing at all, are wearing “uniforms” and the younger kids don’t even have cell phones.
It’s the “unsupervised kids” with both parents working all day after throwing them a $10 or $20 every morning before school who have “weed money.”
pemeliza
July 23, 2011 @
10:09 AM
“Agreed, but need to add “Agreed, but need to add this: If a potential buyer is HIGHLY familiar with a particular area, is READY TO BUY and also very PATIENT, he/she may very well be able to score a “beater” property with an amazing view :=}”
Especially given the current market conditions. The problem is that you will likely have to compete with cash investors looking for similar opportunities.
bearishgurl
July 23, 2011 @
10:15 AM
pemeliza wrote:”Agreed, but [quote=pemeliza]”Agreed, but need to add this: If a potential buyer is HIGHLY familiar with a particular area, is READY TO BUY and also very PATIENT, he/she may very well be able to score a “beater” property with an amazing view :=}”
Especially given the current market conditions. The problem is that you will likely have to compete with cash investors looking for similar opportunities.[/quote]
pem, this won’t be a problem for me. When/if I’m in the market for my coveted Fleetridge view-fixer in a few years, I will be a cash purchaser. Not only am I a master (mistress?, lol) of contracts, I will be undeterred by a property’s less-than-completely-habitable condition :=]
pemeliza
July 23, 2011 @
10:18 AM
BG, at the rate Point Loma is BG, at the rate Point Loma is dropping, you may be able to afford La Playa 🙂
bearishgurl
July 23, 2011 @
10:23 AM
pemeliza wrote:BG, at the [quote=pemeliza]BG, at the rate Point Loma is dropping, you may be able to afford La Playa :)[/quote]
Lol :=)
I kind of like the higher views in Fleetridge, though. I’ve had the same 4 streets picked out since ’94.
As you may surmise, 2014 can’t come fast enough for me :=]
njtosd
July 23, 2011 @
11:04 AM
bearishgurl wrote:
Uhh . . . [quote=bearishgurl]
Uhh . . . hmmm, the kids calling friends about the “best weed,” best crystal, etc are the ones with $$ (Read: Coronado High, Poway High, etc.) The kids from “poor families” don’t have any $$ for that. Remember, they’re eligible for the “free lunch program,” free bus transportation and free “after-school care.” [/quote]
I went to a high school that had kids from both ends of the economic spectrum. Some had parents that were senior execs at the auto companies; others lived in rickety housing and didn’t have warm clothes to wear in the winter. It was my impression that both the rich kids and the poor ones had their share of druggies – as did the group in between. The poor kids who “don’t have any $$ for that” became dealers to support their habits, but the rich kids dealt, too. Lack of supervision might make matters worse, but I think some people are just more susceptible to getting hooked.
Uhh . . . hmmm, the kids calling friends about the “best weed,” best crystal, etc are the ones with $$ (Read: Coronado High, Poway High, etc.) The kids from “poor families” don’t have any $$ for that. Remember, they’re eligible for the “free lunch program,” free bus transportation and free “after-school care.” [/quote]
I went to a high school that had kids from both ends of the economic spectrum. Some had parents that were senior execs at the auto companies; others lived in rickety housing and didn’t have warm clothes to wear in the winter. It was my impression that both the rich kids and the poor ones had their share of druggies – as did the group in between. The poor kids who “don’t have any $$ for that” became dealers to support their habits, but the rich kids dealt, too. Lack of supervision might make matters worse, but I think some people are just more susceptible to getting hooked.[/quote]
I understand, njtosd, but times have changed… dramatically. We had an open campus and weed, hash and cigarettes were smoked everywhere, every day on my HS grounds back in the day. And lots of students had various forms of acid in their possession.
Sweetwater Union HSD, for instance, currently has a zero-tolerance policy for possession and dealing. The punishment for the first offense is expulsion from the entire district, forever. These kids can’t do this on or next to school grounds (as previous generations did) if they want to graduate. These campuses are now locked down with 1-2 (supervised) entrances in the morning. A visiting parent has to go thru the office and identify themselves. Many schools are putting textbooks online and don’t have lockers anymore. The ones that still have lockers require the students to purchase their lock from school EVERY year and at the same time, leave the combo to it with school officials during orientation. Any privately-purchased locks are promptly cut off by school security.
As a SUHSD student, if you are busted for possession/sale by school security, you will find yourself earning a GED in “adult-school,” in private school (if your parents can afford it) or attempting to transfer out of district (good luck with that). A parent or their lawyer will not be able to get the student readmitted after a hearing on the matter as the hearing officer will believe the security officer’s testimony. The school will also dig up other students to testify against your kid.
No, my kid(s) have never taken drugs or sold, but some of their classmates will never be back. It’s as it should be.
Uhh . . . hmmm, the kids calling friends about the “best weed,” best crystal, etc are the ones with $$ (Read: Coronado High, Poway High, etc.) The kids from “poor families” don’t have any $$ for that. Remember, they’re eligible for the “free lunch program,” free bus transportation and free “after-school care.” [/quote]
I went to a high school that had kids from both ends of the economic spectrum. Some had parents that were senior execs at the auto companies; others lived in rickety housing and didn’t have warm clothes to wear in the winter. It was my impression that both the rich kids and the poor ones had their share of druggies – as did the group in between. The poor kids who “don’t have any $$ for that” became dealers to support their habits, but the rich kids dealt, too. Lack of supervision might make matters worse, but I think some people are just more susceptible to getting hooked.[/quote]
I understand, njtosd, but times have changed… dramatically. We had an open campus and weed, hash and cigarettes were smoked everywhere, every day on my HS grounds back in the day. And lots of students had various forms of acid in their possession.
Sweetwater Union HSD, for instance, currently has a zero-tolerance policy for possession and dealing. The punishment for the first offense is expulsion from the entire district, forever. These kids can’t do this on or next to school grounds (as previous generations did) if they want to graduate. These campuses are now locked down with 1-2 (supervised) entrances in the morning. A visiting parent has to go thru the office and identify themselves. Many schools are putting textbooks online and don’t have lockers anymore. The ones that still have lockers require the students to purchase their lock from school EVERY year and at the same time, leave the combo to it with school officials during orientation. Any privately-purchased locks are promptly cut off by school security.
As a SUHSD student, if you are busted for possession/sale by school security, you will find yourself earning a GED in “adult-school,” in private school (if your parents can afford it) or attempting to transfer out of district (good luck with that). A parent or their lawyer will not be able to get the student readmitted after a hearing on the matter as the hearing officer will believe the security officer’s testimony. The school will also dig up other students to testify against your kid.
No, my kid(s) have never taken drugs or sold, but some of their classmates will never be back. It’s as it should be.[/quote]
I don’t see how this addresses your suggestion that rich kids do more drugs. I’m happy to know that schools are enforcing a zero tolerance policy, but my guess is that that policy is enforced at all high schools, including Poway and Coronado.
bearishgurl
July 23, 2011 @
1:12 PM
njtosd wrote:I don’t see how [quote=njtosd]I don’t see how this addresses your suggestion that rich kids do more drugs. I’m happy to know that schools are enforcing a zero tolerance policy, but my guess is that that policy is enforced at all high schools, including Poway and Coronado.[/quote]
The general consensus of this board seems to be that Chula Vista is predominately “low income” (lol). The school district in Chula Vista is SUHSD.
I don’t know what the drug policies are in the other school districts.
Kids have the oppt’y to experiment with drugs if they have the money and also lack of supervision. It doesn’t matter WHERE they go to school. Even LJ Country Day and Bishops students have that oppt’y.
You stated you believe the poorer kids just deal to support their “habits.” Maybe that worked in your day but they can’t deal to make money in or around the campuses in SUHSD for fear of someone ratting on them. The consequences are too great. They would have to do this in a home or backyard. There are likely more adults at home all hours of the day in “poorer” areas (due to unemployment and lack of education).
It wasn’t as important “back in the day” to graduate HS or go to college as it is now. Back then, you could just graduate, get a GED or get a certificate from ROP or trade school, go to work, get an apt, get married, have kids (not necessarily in that order) and live happily ever after (if you didn’t screw up your mind and body with drug use).
Those days are long gone.
ocrenter
July 23, 2011 @
12:00 PM
Seem like someone need to Seem like someone need to change their handle to ANTI-HOA/MRgirl
bearishgurl
July 23, 2011 @
12:03 PM
ocrenter wrote:Seem like [quote=ocrenter]Seem like someone need to change their handle to ANTI-HOA/MRgirl[/quote]
At least you can’t accuse me of being “inconsistent.” :=}
jpinpb
July 23, 2011 @
2:06 PM
ocrenter wrote:Seem like [quote=ocrenter]Seem like someone need to change their handle to ANTI-HOA/MRgirl[/quote]
I’ll be her runner up.
flyer
July 23, 2011 @
6:54 PM
As an older member of this As an older member of this forum, I’d just like to share some thoughts based on our experiences as parents.
We happened to have raised our kids in Del Mar, and, for us, it was the best of both worlds–great schools, a home with a view, and we’ve now turned that house into a rental.
That said, my wife and I come from fairly large families, most of whom have lived in the San Diego area for years. We have relatives who raised their families in Mission Hills, Point Loma, La Jolla, Del Mar, Sunset Cliffs, and other locations around town.
Some of our kids went to private, some went to public schools and most all of them turned out great, so, my guess is, although “schools” and “views” might matter, the real success factor may have been the parenting skills, and it sounds like the contributors to this forum have earned an A+ in that department.
IMHO, education, or any of the tools we give our kids to succeed in this world are really only a means to an end. For us, our goal as parents, was to produce happy, well-rounded, independent individuals who could support themselves in living the lives they want to live.
Getting them to that point involved far more than education alone could provide, but seeing our kids (now in their late 20’s) create and pretty much live the lives of their dreams was definitely worth all of the effort.
CA renter
July 23, 2011 @
7:02 PM
bearishgurl wrote:CA renter [quote=bearishgurl][quote=CA renter]Back on topic…
IMHO, the choice between schools and views is subjective but, in general, the schools affect the value of a neighborhood while the views affect the value of a house.
It’s usually better to buy the beater home in a good neighborhood than to buy the most amazing home in a beater neighborhood. By prioritizing schools over views, it’s easier to buy the beater in a good neighborhood…[/quote]
Agreed, but need to add this: If a potential buyer is HIGHLY familiar with a particular area, is READY TO BUY and also very PATIENT, he/she may very well be able to score a “beater” property with an amazing view :=}
Piggs, how ELSE will you obtain an amazing view?
[quote=ocrenter]Once again, very good point. I’ve always maintained API is a rough gauge of the general attitude of the students in that particular school. If the overall environment is one of learning, it is less likely that a student will dropout and start smoking weed at 13. This is not to say the higher API will guarantee success. Just merely your child’s peers will also be more into getting into college, so chances of your child’s friend from school calling about what college to apply to is higher than calling about which street corner has the best weed…[/quote]
Uhh . . . hmmm, the kids calling friends about the “best weed,” best crystal, etc are the ones with $$ (Read: Coronado High, Poway High, etc.) The kids from “poor families” don’t have any $$ for that. Remember, they’re eligible for the “free lunch program,” free bus transportation and free “after-school care.” They often have under $1 on them or nothing at all, are wearing “uniforms” and the younger kids don’t even have cell phones.
It’s the “unsupervised kids” with both parents working all day after throwing them a $10 or $20 every morning before school who have “weed money.”[/quote]
Agree with you about the lack of good* supervision being the #1 reason kids get into trouble, but from my experience in both low-income and high-income schools, it’s the high-income schools that tend to have more stay-at-home parents, and the parents who stay home in these high-income areas tend to be the kind of “good” parents who honestly supervise and help their kids.
In the lower-income areas, you tend to see many dual-income families, and they often work two or more jobs. In general, they are poor because they earn less money, not because they’re unemployed (though that can always be a factor, too). Those that DO stay home in these areas tend to be the kind of people who should NOT be in charge of kids. They often drink or do drugs, have questionable “friends” around the house, and pay very little attention to their kids.
Again, there are always exceptions to everything, but this seems to be the general trend from what I’ve seen.
sdrealtor
July 23, 2011 @
8:28 PM
What is likely influencing What is likely influencing the results of the poll is who is left on the blog. Most of the piggs with young kids had more motivation to get settled in a nice home with good schools so they have bought homes and moved on. The proportion of piggs that arent concerned with schools is much higher now.
Market, Pamplemouse, Blanca, West, Arterra, Savory, Paon, Blue Ribbon Pizza just to name a few. 10 years ago there wasnt much up here but that isnt true anymore. We have fabulous restaurants up here now. I seldom drive south of Del Mar for dinner anymore.
CA renter
July 23, 2011 @
10:56 PM
sdrealtor wrote:What is [quote=sdrealtor]What is likely influencing the results of the poll is who is left on the blog. Most of the piggs with young kids had more motivation to get settled in a nice home with good schools so they have bought homes and moved on. The proportion of piggs that arent concerned with schools is much higher now.
Market, Pamplemouse, Blanca, West, Arterra, Savory, Paon, Blue Ribbon Pizza just to name a few. 10 years ago there wasnt much up here but that isnt true anymore. We have fabulous restaurants up here now. I seldom drive south of Del Mar for dinner anymore.[/quote]
Firefly 🙂
temeculaguy
July 23, 2011 @
11:00 PM
Why are the choices confined Why are the choices confined to view and good schools. Are all houses in areas with good schools on flat land. The actual apples to apples question is “lot size” vs “view.” There are plenty of crappy views in older areas, in fact, older areas are more prone to view obstruction, like power poles, billboards and hobos digging in your trash.
Most areas with views are built on uneven land, hillsides usually, with one house on each side of the street. Because views are obstructed by flat lots, generally the larger lots are on the non-view side of the street. I’ve lived in a few of each type in the same school district, so for me, it boiled down to the age of my kids. When my kids were little, big lots with no view were better, medium sized kids, same thing, but add in a pool, older kids with cars and one foot out the door, view is my choice. Do we really have to decide on a particular type of housing for life?
I think the actual poll should be view vs. lot size and also another poll for school district vs. location. When I get to the empty nester stage in three years, school district becomes irrelevent to me, view is a completely different animal, I think I’ll always want a view from now on, regardless of house size, community or school district. Generally, not always, but usually, the sacrifice is lot size and proximity of neighbors, when looking at cost equivalent properties.
sdrealtor
July 24, 2011 @
12:01 AM
FWIW I grew up in an upper FWIW I grew up in an upper middle class area. My older brother was a big time addict as we had access to lots of things. I was not. He is also one of the pre-eminent glaucoma specialists in the world and left his addictions in the rear view mirror 20+ years ago. Some things you leave behind and some things stay with you. i’ll leave it to BG and here B&W world to figure out which.
bearishgurl
July 24, 2011 @
10:29 AM
sdrealtor wrote:FWIW I grew [quote=sdrealtor]FWIW I grew up in an upper middle class area. My older brother was a big time addict as we had access to lots of things. I was not. He is also one of the pre-eminent glaucoma specialists in the world and left his addictions in the rear view mirror 20+ years ago. Some things you leave behind and some things stay with you. i’ll leave it to BG and here B&W world to figure out which.[/quote]
That’s swell about your brother, sdr, but lots of people (boomers especially) who tried with all their might to “leave their addictions behind 20 (or more) years ago” are still affected by their former “addictions.” No, they are not using anymore but their past transgressions with their health have come back to bite them in several ways.
I agree that kids growing up in an “upper middle class” area have access to “lots of things” a poorer kid with a used backback, pencil, a free-lunch card and three school uniforms does not.
njtosd
July 24, 2011 @
4:12 PM
bearishgurl wrote:sdrealtor [quote=bearishgurl][quote=sdrealtor]FWIW I grew up in an upper middle class area. My older brother was a big time addict as we had access to lots of things. I was not. He is also one of the pre-eminent glaucoma specialists in the world and left his addictions in the rear view mirror 20+ years ago. Some things you leave behind and some things stay with you. i’ll leave it to BG and here B&W world to figure out which.[/quote]
That’s swell about your brother, sdr, but lots of people (boomers especially) who tried with all their might to “leave their addictions behind 20 (or more) years ago” are still affected by their former “addictions.” No, they are not using anymore but their past transgressions with their health have come back to bite them in several ways.
I agree that kids growing up in an “upper middle class” area have access to “lots of things” a poorer kid with a used backback, pencil, a free-lunch card and three school uniforms does not.[/quote]
BG – people who study these things seem to disagree with you. For example, an article entitled “Are adolescents with high socioeconomic status more likely to engage in alcohol and illicit drug use in early adulthood?” published in Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2010; 5: 19, states the following (I’ve omitted some irrelevant data):
Goodman and Huang . . . found that having low SES (socioeconomic status) was associated with greater alcohol use and with greater cigarette and cocaine use among white teenagers. . . . Friestad and colleagues [3] found that low parental education and moderate household income was associated with greater rates of smoking in adolescents. Reinherz and colleagues [4], examining 360 respondents followed from 1977-2000, found that low family SES and larger family size were associated with increased probability of substance abuse disorders in early adulthood. An analysis by Hamilton and colleagues [5], of the Ontario Student Drug Use Survey, found that adolescents (ages 12-19) with college-educated parents were less likely to engage in hazardous or harmful drinking or illicit drug use.
bearishgurl
July 24, 2011 @
5:16 PM
njtosd wrote:BG – people who [quote=njtosd]BG – people who study these things seem to disagree with you. For example, an article entitled “Are adolescents with high socioeconomic status more likely to engage in alcohol and illicit drug use in early adulthood?” published in Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2010; 5: 19, states the following (I’ve omitted some irrelevant data):
Goodman and Huang . . . found that having low SES (socioeconomic status) was associated with greater alcohol use and with greater cigarette and cocaine use among white teenagers. . . . Friestad and colleagues [3] found that low parental education and moderate household income was associated with greater rates of smoking in adolescents. Reinherz and colleagues [4], examining 360 respondents followed from 1977-2000, found that low family SES and larger family size were associated with increased probability of substance abuse disorders in early adulthood. An analysis by Hamilton and colleagues [5], of the Ontario Student Drug Use Survey, found that adolescents (ages 12-19) with college-educated parents were less likely to engage in hazardous or harmful drinking or illicit drug use.[/quote]
njtosd, you haven’t included a link here. Even though your “study” was presumably published in 2010, it is referring to its “study-subjects” as being “examined” from 1977-2000. Your “drug-use survey” was taken in Canada. A LOT has changed since then. Namely:
1) “Poor people” in America no longer live in wood shacks or dilapidated trailers raised up over rice paddies with wild pigs sleeping underneath. Nor do they live in “hollers” anymore without utilities or running water. (And yes, I’ve been on the road in this “great” country of ours and they DID as late as the early nineties.) They now have modern, subsidized apartments or Section 8 vouchers with which to rent single-family homes.
3) In the last decade, many “college educated parents” are out of work and some have been unemployed for an extended length of time which could have been half of a child’s minority, or more. This has had the effect of lessening the economic divide between college-educated parents and non college-educated parents.
4) Schools have taken it upon themselves to equalize or minimize the difference in economic status of their students:
For instance: (a)free lunch swipe-cards look the same for a free-lunch recipient as they do for one that pays; (b) all students now use the same lunch line to get lunch so there is not stigma for the free-lunch recipients waiting in a separate line; (c) free bus passes are handled the same way (so the students don’t know who is “free” and who is not); (d) the wearing of respectful low-cost “uniforms” is a requirement by many schools (partly to prevent the kid with $100 sneakers from distracting everyone and “showing off”); and (e) school supplies are provided (many times on the sly, by teachers) to hardworking students who can’t afford them.
(5) TANF (formerly “AFDC”) and the Dept of Agriculture EBT card program (formerly “food stamps”) has been greatly expanded since then and these customers do not (embarrassingly) hold up grocery lines anymore with special procedures;
(6) Parents receiving TANF are now offered free childcare, if needed, while attending college or trade school. They are also placed in gov’t offices as “temps” to receive work experiences and obtain future recommendations for employment.
(7) there is a LOT more mandatory drug education in the public schools than there was then, starting with 1st grade and pummeling students with info every year after that;
(8) public school districts have cracked down on drug possession, use and sales on and around school property with harsh penalties, including expulsion;
(9) many kids who may have repeatedly witnessed their parents or other relatives strung out have seen the consequences and decided that’s not what they want for their lives;
(10) strong cigarette warnings on pkgs and education as early as the primary grades now warn kids never to start smoking; and,
(11) many more kids are covered by medical and dental insurance due to programs such as Medi-Cal and Healthy Families.
(12) low-cost after school care is now available in communities (free for TANF families) up thru the 8th grade. It features homework help and sports (to keep kids off the streets).
I think the greatest cause of depression (leading to drug use) and suicide today among the youth is being bullied by their peers, feeling like they don’t have the right look, clothes, etc (among girls) and feeling constant pressure from parents to produce grades to increase their chances for admission into particular college(s). This is often the parent’s and not the child’s wish.
I think the kids in greatest danger of becoming addicted to drugs are those who have the money and unsupervised free time to experiment, along with their similarly-situated peer group.
njtosd
July 24, 2011 @
5:27 PM
bearishgurl wrote:njtosd [quote=bearishgurl][quote=njtosd]BG – people who study these things seem to disagree with you. For example, an article entitled “Are adolescents with high socioeconomic status more likely to engage in alcohol and illicit drug use in early adulthood?” published in Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2010; 5: 19, states the following (I’ve omitted some irrelevant data):
Goodman and Huang . . . found that having low SES (socioeconomic status) was associated with greater alcohol use and with greater cigarette and cocaine use among white teenagers. . . . Friestad and colleagues [3] found that low parental education and moderate household income was associated with greater rates of smoking in adolescents. Reinherz and colleagues [4], examining 360 respondents followed from 1977-2000, found that low family SES and larger family size were associated with increased probability of substance abuse disorders in early adulthood. An analysis by Hamilton and colleagues [5], of the Ontario Student Drug Use Survey, found that adolescents (ages 12-19) with college-educated parents were less likely to engage in hazardous or harmful drinking or illicit drug use.[/quote]
njtosd, you haven’t included a link here. Even though your “study” was presumably published in 2010, it is referring to its “study-subjects” as being “examined” from 1977-2000. Your “drug-use survey” was taken in Canada. A LOT has changed since then. Namely:
1) “Poor people” in America no longer live in wood shacks or dilapidated trailers raised up over rice paddies with wild pigs sleeping underneath. Nor do they live in “hollers” anymore without utilities or running water. (And yes, I’ve been on the road in this “great” country of ours and they DID as late as the early nineties.) They now have modern, subsidized apartments or Section 8 vouchers with which to rent single-family homes.
3) In the last decade, many “college educated parents” are out of work and some have been unemployed for an extended length of time which could have been half of a child’s minority, or more. This has had the effect of lessening the economic divide between college-educated parents and non college-educated parents.
4) Schools have taken it upon themselves to equalize or minimize the difference in economic status of their students:
For instance: (a)free lunch swipe-cards look the same for a free-lunch recipient as they do for one that pays; (b) all students now use the same lunch line to get lunch so there is not stigma for the free-lunch recipients waiting in a separate line; (c) free bus passes are handled the same way (so the students don’t know who is “free” and who is not); (d) the wearing of respectful low-cost “uniforms” is a requirement by many schools (partly to prevent the kid with $100 sneakers from distracting everyone and “showing off”); and (e) school supplies are provided (many times on the sly, by teachers) to hardworking students who can’t afford them.
(5) TANF (formerly “AFDC”) and the Dept of Agriculture EBT card program (formerly “food stamps”) has been greatly expanded since then and these customers do not (embarrassingly) hold up grocery lines anymore with special procedures;
(6) Parents receiving TANF are now offered free childcare, if needed, while attending college or trade school. They are also placed in gov’t offices as “temps” to receive work experiences and obtain future recommendations for employment.
(7) there is a LOT more mandatory drug education in the public schools than there was then, starting with 1st grade and pummeling students with info every year after that;
(8) public school districts have cracked down on drug possession, use and sales on and around school property with harsh penalties, including expulsion;
(9) many kids who may have repeatedly witnessed their parents or other relatives strung out have seen the consequences and decided that’s not what they want for their lives;
(10) strong cigarette warnings on pkgs and education as early as the primary grades now warn kids never to start smoking; and,
(11) many more kids are covered by medical and dental insurance due to programs such as Medi-Cal and Healthy Families.
(12) low-cost after school care is now available in communities (free for TANF families) up thru the 8th grade. It features homework help and sports (to keep kids off the streets).
I think the greatest cause of depression (leading to drug use) and suicide today among the youth is being bullied by their peers, feeling like they don’t have the right look, clothes, etc (among girls) and feeling constant pressure from parents to produce grades to increase their chances for admission into particular college(s). This is often the parent’s and not the child’s wish.
I think the kids in greatest danger of becoming addicted to drugs are those who have the money and unsupervised free time to experiment, along with their similarly-situated peer group.[/quote]
BG – I thought you would be able to interpret the citation that I provided (which clearly indicated the study was published in 2010), but if you need a link, here it is:
So any arguments that the data is out of data aren’t really well taken. I am confused about your need for quotes around the word “study,””examined,” etc. And I’m a little amused by your suggestion that I ever used the word “holler.”
Just in case you were wondering, the cites that support the information in the article can be found at the end. For example, the Goodman article was published in Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine. 2002;156:448–453.
If you have actual data that support your position, I’d be interested in seeing it.
an
July 24, 2011 @
9:48 AM
TG, school, view and lot size TG, school, view and lot size are all important to me. You can get all three in some areas if you’re willing to shell out between 700-900k.
bearishgurl
July 24, 2011 @
11:15 AM
temeculaguy wrote:Why are the [quote=temeculaguy]Why are the choices confined to view and good schools. Are all houses in areas with good schools on flat land. The actual apples to apples question is “lot size” vs “view.” There are plenty of crappy views in older areas, in fact, older areas are more prone to view obstruction, like power poles, billboards and hobos digging in your trash.
Most areas with views are built on uneven land, hillsides usually, with one house on each side of the street. Because views are obstructed by flat lots, generally the larger lots are on the non-view side of the street. I’ve lived in a few of each type in the same school district, so for me, it boiled down to the age of my kids. When my kids were little, big lots with no view were better, medium sized kids, same thing, but add in a pool, older kids with cars and one foot out the door, view is my choice. Do we really have to decide on a particular type of housing for life?
I think the actual poll should be view vs. lot size and also another poll for school district vs. location. When I get to the empty nester stage in three years, school district becomes irrelevent to me, view is a completely different animal, I think I’ll always want a view from now on, regardless of house size, community or school district. Generally, not always, but usually, the sacrifice is lot size and proximity of neighbors, when looking at cost equivalent properties.[/quote]
TG, I think the majority of *newer* properties below the $550K sales price (middle to upper middle income) have view obstructions due to zero lot lines, back yards abutting, 3′ side yards, substandard setback (so short you cannot park a mid-size to full-size vehicle in the driveway) and room for only ONE car on the street/easement in front of your house/PUD unit (blocking your entire frontage view). If you will compare these tight areas to say, Clairemont 92111 (same price-range houses) you will find Clairemont has many quarter-turn driveways, an actual driveway encroachment into the curb, often a backyard overlooking a canyon, many lots over 7K in size, sometimes up to 12’+ side yards, very often 35’+ deep backyards, mature vegetation blocking a neighbor’s view of your property, etc.
Schools aside, young families don’t seem to be attracted to “Clairemont” due to the average house size of about 1650 sf and the average house age of 45 years old. For the same price, they can get over 2000 sf (on two “train-car style” floors, of course) crammed into a 3500 to 4500 sf lot. Never mind the development is over 30 miles out of the city center. They don’t realize they’re sick of commuting with their captive audience until the deal is done and their daily grind has taken its toll. By then, they’re often underwater and can’t sell. They’re just stuck.
Had they bought the Clairemont “shack” (as familyguy put it) and did a little bit of cosmetic repair not even all at once, they wouldn’t have tired so easily of this convenient location with cool breezes and also may have later discovered that their property would actually bear their “fixer-upper” purchase price plus the cost of their DIY projects …. perhaps even more!
Young families of today seem to think they “need” formal dining rooms and both a LR and FR and later find out they don’t really use up to a third of their house with all of these rooms. Then they get their winter utility bills for their 13′ vaulted ceiling, compare it with their old rental house/condo and are shocked. If you just take the four bedrooms and 1-3/4 bath of a Clairemont “shack” of 1650 to 1800 sf, you really have everything you truly need. It’s less to dust, less to clean, maybe more to water/mow, lol and you don’t have wasted space for stairs. Not to mention the gas and aggravation savings.
Believe me, I’ve had houses with formal LR’s, formal DR’s, wet bars, swimming pools, vaulted ceilings, two or more full baths, etc. My current house has a formal DR and the two full baths. I never have used all this space and never will (yes, even when I had kids at home).
And one of the points of my CV questions (above) was that I don’t believe the “representative buyer” in SD to be a DINC family with young children. Perhaps the DINC family is representative of Piggs. Today, the “representative buyers” are the ones who can qualify to buy. DINC families often have too much debt to qualify. It is a self-made phenomenon because their “must-haves” for themselves and their children are far more (and more expensive) than the “must-haves” of past generations. The persons who are qualifying for loans today are those with clean credit, little to zero consumer debt and all-cash buyers. Whether or not they are a FT “working stiff” in the true sense of the word has nothing to do with their “qualifications” to purchase.
jpinpb
July 24, 2011 @
1:04 PM
temeculaguy wrote: When I get [quote=temeculaguy] When I get to the empty nester stage in three years, school district becomes irrelevent to me, view is a completely different animal, I think I’ll always want a view from now on, regardless of house size, community or school district. [/quote]
That makes me ask the question of demographics and how many baby boomers (age range 46-64) and older Gen Xers (age range 28-45 years ) out there who might be empty nesters already or soon about to be. As TG said, he will find school districts irrelevant.
Maybe this is what my DH is trying to say. A view is generally desired. Some day, people won’t need to be in a coveted school district. Will the young Gen Yers (somewhere in the range of 9-20 years of age) be able to afford CV/4$ for them and their kids when the time comes, since now they actually have to qualify and unemployment is so high? How long can they be career students when considering the ever rising costs of education. I won’t address Gen M.
There are so many options out there for the younger future buyers and their kids. They can home school and/or when factoring in MR and HOAs, they can send kids to private school. Heck, w/the way they keep cutting education and the continued advancement in technology, maybe kids will just be taught online.
faterikcartman
July 26, 2011 @
1:55 PM
jpinpb wrote: w/the way they [quote=jpinpb] w/the way they keep cutting education[/quote]
I seem to remember reading a study putting American students about 25th in the world for core subjects and funding having pretty much zero influence on the results. In other words, throwing more money at education doesn’t make Johnny and Jane any better educated.
jpinpb
July 26, 2011 @
2:16 PM
faterikcartman wrote:jpinpb [quote=faterikcartman][quote=jpinpb] w/the way they keep cutting education[/quote]
I seem to remember reading a study putting American students about 25th in the world for core subjects and funding having pretty much zero influence on the results. In other words, throwing more money at education doesn’t make Johnny and Jane any better educated.[/quote]
Do you think that maybe funding takes a while to catch up w/the studies/percentile? Just wondering if maybe the studies could be off based on whatever previous years’ funding and the percentiles could get worse w/every year that funding diminishes.
ocrenter
July 26, 2011 @
3:22 PM
jpinpb wrote:faterikcartman [quote=jpinpb][quote=faterikcartman][quote=jpinpb] w/the way they keep cutting education[/quote]
I seem to remember reading a study putting American students about 25th in the world for core subjects and funding having pretty much zero influence on the results. In other words, throwing more money at education doesn’t make Johnny and Jane any better educated.[/quote]
Do you think that maybe funding takes a while to catch up w/the studies/percentile? Just wondering if maybe the studies could be off based on whatever previous years’ funding and the percentiles could get worse w/every year that funding diminishes.[/quote]
UT had a recent article showing there is no connection between funding level and success. Poway Unified had one of the lower funding per student ratio. Students in Asian countries routinely are packed into classes of 50 per teacher and they end up doing much better academically than the US.
faterikcartman
July 26, 2011 @
3:22 PM
jpinpb wrote:faterikcartman [quote=jpinpb][quote=faterikcartman][quote=jpinpb] w/the way they keep cutting education[/quote]
I seem to remember reading a study putting American students about 25th in the world for core subjects and funding having pretty much zero influence on the results. In other words, throwing more money at education doesn’t make Johnny and Jane any better educated.[/quote]
Do you think that maybe funding takes a while to catch up w/the studies/percentile? Just wondering if maybe the studies could be off based on whatever previous years’ funding and the percentiles could get worse w/every year that funding diminishes.[/quote]
No. One can track funding over time in foreign locals (low per-student spending) and match the numbers to a track record of academic success. Conversely, one can look at histories of exorbitant spending tied to stagnant or falling test scores — see http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-298.html
Clearly, the problem lies elsewhere. But we, as a people and country, are in denial.
bearishgurl
July 24, 2011 @
12:59 PM
sdrealtor wrote:. . . 10 [quote=sdrealtor]. . . 10 years ago there wasnt much up here but that isnt true anymore. We have fabulous restaurants up here now. I seldom drive south of Del Mar for dinner anymore.[/quote]
What?? No more driving all the way down to my ‘lil “neck in the woods” for a “sandwich?” ;=]
faterikcartman
July 26, 2011 @
2:06 PM
ocrenter wrote:CA renter [quote=ocrenter][quote=CA renter]Back on topic…
IMHO, the choice between schools and views is subjective but, in general, the schools affect the value of a neighborhood while the views affect the value of a house.
It’s usually better to buy the beater home in a good neighborhood than to buy the most amazing home in a beater neighborhood. By prioritizing schools over views, it’s easier to buy the beater in a good neighborhood.
Even though we homeschool, we prefer to live in an area with good schools because we want to live in the type of neighborhood that surrounds good schools. We like to live around other people who value education/family values, maintain their homes (without needing an HOA to tell them to do it), are involved in the community, and prioritize safety and cleanliness in the neighborhood. For the most part, that type of neighborhood is likely to be found around schools that have higher scores (and local students — not bussed in).
FWIW, we like flat yards and easy-walking neighborhoods, so views are not a priority for us. We wouldn’t pay much of a premium for one unless it was truly a one-of-a-kind view.[/quote]
Once again, very good point. I’ve always maintained API is a rough gauge of the general attitude of the students in that particular school. If the overall environment is one of learning, it is less likely that a student will dropout and start smoking weed at 13. This is not to say the higher API will guarantee success. Just merely your child’s peers will also be more into getting into college, so chances of your child’s friend from school calling about what college to apply to is higher than calling about which street corner has the best weed.
And this is not to say a child will not succeed going to a lower tier school. But merely the child will have to go against the grain in that environment.[/quote]
Great points. Derbyshire, in the book referenced above, asserts that how your kid turns out will be based 2% on genetics and 98% on their peers. I don’t seem to remember him giving too much weight to parenting skills, unless one considers their influence on controlling the kid’s peer group! But I can’t help but envision a chicken and egg issue — are the peer group kids a good influence because they are around other good kids (one can see how this can become circular as we try to figure out where the good influence started if we consider a closed group of kids)? Or does there need to be a starting point kid group or individual — and how did that kid become good? Genes, or maybe parenting? Maybe that’s an academic exercise. I think controlling who your kid hangs around is a great start.
Of course some people are just bad — starting at childhood. So you won’t be helping your bad kid at all and, rather, will just be screwing the other parents’ kid!
ocrenter
July 23, 2011 @
7:07 AM
CA renter wrote:
Though it [quote=CA renter]
Though it sounds terrible, a lot of teachers are attracted to the high-performing schools because it’s an easier job. The parents in high-performing schools tend to be more of a pain, and the kids often have bratty attitudes vs. kids and parents in the poorer neighborhoods. That being said, since teacher success is so closely tied to test scores, teachers want to go where the high-performing students are — those whose parents tend to have higher I.Q.s, college degrees, more money (for tutoring and other extracurricular activities), etc.
You’d be absolutely amazed at the difference between students entering kindergarten in a “good” school district vs. those entering kindergarten in a “bad” school district. In many cases, their future is already mapped out well before they enter their first year of school. The importance of good parenting skills and genetics cannot be overstated, IMHO.[/quote]
excellent point. And even though the parents are high maintenance, the fact that they are INVOLVED is the point. This versus a situation where finding the parents would be the most difficult part of the job.
another point I’ll add on is the teacher’s sense of personal gratification. It is always more gratifying to teach to children that come to school already ingrained with the attitude that education is important. Children do follow their peers. So if the majority of peers are serious students, they will at least pay attention. Homeworks are done on time and parents show up to parent-teacher conferences. The teacher teaches, and there’s the expected feedback.
It is like a dentist that tells his patients to floss their teeth. In areas with higher income, which often coincide with better schools, the patients will floss more often and return with better gums. In low income areas, the dentist’s words are completely ignored and the patients typically come back in 5 years with a complete mess. Which dentist has a more rewarding job?
CA renter
July 23, 2011 @
6:50 PM
ocrenter wrote:CA renter [quote=ocrenter][quote=CA renter]
Though it sounds terrible, a lot of teachers are attracted to the high-performing schools because it’s an easier job. The parents in high-performing schools tend to be more of a pain, and the kids often have bratty attitudes vs. kids and parents in the poorer neighborhoods. That being said, since teacher success is so closely tied to test scores, teachers want to go where the high-performing students are — those whose parents tend to have higher I.Q.s, college degrees, more money (for tutoring and other extracurricular activities), etc.
You’d be absolutely amazed at the difference between students entering kindergarten in a “good” school district vs. those entering kindergarten in a “bad” school district. In many cases, their future is already mapped out well before they enter their first year of school. The importance of good parenting skills and genetics cannot be overstated, IMHO.[/quote]
excellent point. And even though the parents are high maintenance, the fact that they are INVOLVED is the point. This versus a situation where finding the parents would be the most difficult part of the job.
another point I’ll add on is the teacher’s sense of personal gratification. It is always more gratifying to teach to children that come to school already ingrained with the attitude that education is important. Children do follow their peers. So if the majority of peers are serious students, they will at least pay attention. Homeworks are done on time and parents show up to parent-teacher conferences. The teacher teaches, and there’s the expected feedback.
It is like a dentist that tells his patients to floss their teeth. In areas with higher income, which often coincide with better schools, the patients will floss more often and return with better gums. In low income areas, the dentist’s words are completely ignored and the patients typically come back in 5 years with a complete mess. Which dentist has a more rewarding job?[/quote]
Actually, many teachers find it more gratifying to teach the kids from the low-income areas, especially the ones who don’t get any support from home. When you get a kid like this who goes from not knowing anything at all (some don’t even know their proper names — just their nicknames, don’t know their colors, shapes, any numbers or letters, have never been read to — ever!) to working at grade level or better, nothing in this world compares.
UCGal
July 25, 2011 @
11:43 AM
CA renter wrote:
Though it [quote=CA renter]
Though it sounds terrible, a lot of teachers are attracted to the high-performing schools because it’s an easier job. The parents in high-performing schools tend to be more of a pain, and the kids often have bratty attitudes vs. kids and parents in the poorer neighborhoods. That being said, since teacher success is so closely tied to test scores, teachers want to go where the high-performing students are — those whose parents tend to have higher I.Q.s, college degrees, more money (for tutoring and other extracurricular activities), etc.
You’d be absolutely amazed at the difference between students entering kindergarten in a “good” school district vs. those entering kindergarten in a “bad” school district. In many cases, their future is already mapped out well before they enter their first year of school. The importance of good parenting skills and genetics cannot be overstated, IMHO.[/quote]
This is true at my kids elementary school – teachers try hard to get to this school because they’ll look like heros because the kids test well. The kids test well because of the demographics of the neighborhood (lots of PhD’s and engineers, huge percentage of households with both parents college educated, etc). Also there’s a very involved PTA and parent volunteer base.
That said – as a parent, I haven’t been impressed by some of the teachers… I’m having to do an incredible amount of work, outside school hours, to bring my one son up to where he should be. The teachers teach in a cookie cutter fashion… and this son isn’t thriving. There are some excellent teachers… but most of the teachers think they’re great, and are mediocre at best. They’re skating by because the kids (even my son) *test* well.
Though it sounds terrible, a lot of teachers are attracted to the high-performing schools because it’s an easier job. The parents in high-performing schools tend to be more of a pain, and the kids often have bratty attitudes vs. kids and parents in the poorer neighborhoods. That being said, since teacher success is so closely tied to test scores, teachers want to go where the high-performing students are — those whose parents tend to have higher I.Q.s, college degrees, more money (for tutoring and other extracurricular activities), etc.
You’d be absolutely amazed at the difference between students entering kindergarten in a “good” school district vs. those entering kindergarten in a “bad” school district. In many cases, their future is already mapped out well before they enter their first year of school. The importance of good parenting skills and genetics cannot be overstated, IMHO.[/quote]
This is true at my kids elementary school – teachers try hard to get to this school because they’ll look like heros because the kids test well. The kids test well because of the demographics of the neighborhood (lots of PhD’s and engineers, huge percentage of households with both parents college educated, etc). Also there’s a very involved PTA and parent volunteer base.
[/quote]
FWIW – my mom was a science teacher in the Detroit school system long before the advent of teachers being evaluated based on student performance. Even then, teachers sought out the schools where the cultural values of the community made teaching easier. She moved from a school where education wasn’t valued highly to one where it was, and said the new job was like a vacation. I know there will be people who say times have changed, but I’m not so sure.
familyguy
July 22, 2011 @
10:19 AM
Jpinpbs DH wrote:Good school [quote=Jpinpbs DH]Good school districts don’t guarantee good grades or an acceptance to a prized four year college, they do guarantee a false piece of mind though. I guess you pigs figured out my vote.
Jp’s DH[/quote]
I couldn’t agree more. We are in the highly coveted Poway district and I can say without a doubt that the work done with the kids at home is as, if not more important that what goes on in the classroom. With 24-26 kids per class there is only so much a teacher can do, regardless of district.
I have volunteered to read with the kids on occasion in the class; to do their weekly reading assessment. I notice a pronounced difference from one student to the next regarding not only reading ability, but also comprehension. Of course there will always be one or two kids that are ahead of the others, but the difference is astonishing. By the end of the year several of the kids were reading well above grade level, however; many of them were reading only at or in some cases below grade level. The teacher this year was fantastic so in my mind it really came down to which parents used the evenings and weekends for educational / family enrichment and which ones puts their kids in front of the TV. My point is, a great school district is only as good as the parents’ commitment to their kids education. Of course, I am completely off topic here but if I were to vote I would say, go with the view and spend more time in front of that view reading and doing math with your kids! 🙂
jpinpb
July 22, 2011 @
10:58 AM
familyguy wrote:I couldn’t [quote=familyguy]I couldn’t agree more. We are in the highly coveted Poway district…….[/quote]
Yet you chose to live in the Poway district. Was it b/c it is the best school district?
[quote=familyguy]BG I mean no disrespect so please don’t take this the wrong way; I enjoy reading your well written and entertaining posts. (Aside from your disdain of Stonebridge and your view of junior enlisted military personnel being less deserving of a nice home because they only have a high school education or a young wife with a GED. lol )
My question is, have you ever lived in a house that’s being renovated? You seem to have a common theme to many of your posts that suggests most families should buy a shack and simply fix it up. Aside from the hassle involved, most families with two working adults simply don’t have the time. By the time the work day is done, dinner is taken care of, and quality time is spent with the kids doing homework, or other activities (soccer, tee ball, etc.) there is simply not enough time in the day for many families to take on a major renovation project. So I’m just curious how you juggled all this in order to be such an advocate of buying a fixer upper.[/quote]
We bought a fixer and we both work. I can say the quality time is now shared in fixing the house and making trips to HD. Plenty of heated discussions about how things should be, but rewarding to do it how we want it. If we were to purchase a turnkey house in this area, we would have paid considerably more, even if we factor in remodling costs. I won’t even go into buying a new home in a new neighborhood w/HOAs and MR. We’ve already saved so much by not having that.
[quote=Rhett]This poll is missing option 3:
I wish that I’d be able to afford either option, but unfortunately we’re limited to houses without a view, in average or below school districts.[/quote]
Sorry for leaving out option 3. But the discussion we’re having is which would people prefer, kids or no kids. So if you had the money, which would you rather buy, a home w/a view or a home in a good school district.
I think that many people are more inclinded to buy in a good school district, even if they don’t have kids, b/c they know it will be easier to sell to those w/kids who want to be in the best school district.
We are not in the best school district b/c we do not have kids and it didn’t matter to us personally. But I think generaly that is a factor in home buying decisions, more so than view. 4-S squeezed together many homes they’ve had no problem selling while riding that wave.
Scarlett
July 22, 2011 @
11:49 AM
If I wouldn’t have kids, then If I wouldn’t have kids, then I would pay more for a view rather than a better school. Of course ideally the schools also wouldn’t be abyssmal.
I think that can be very rewarding to fix up your house and it is quality time for the couple.
But I am on with familyguy – with kids and both parents working, and with no other family help, a fixer upper would not work for us because of NO time. We don’t have time as it is and meals are rushed, kids are in rush too, and not always quite healthy homemade meals, and wish I could spend more time with the kids – if I had any spare time. Really,that would be the upside if I am let go from my job. 🙂
Anonymous
July 27, 2011 @
9:49 AM
familyguy wrote:Jpinpbs DH [quote=familyguy][quote=Jpinpbs DH]Good school districts don’t guarantee good grades or an acceptance to a prized four year college, they do guarantee a false piece of mind though. I guess you pigs figured out my vote.
Jp’s DH[/quote]
I couldn’t agree more. We are in the highly coveted Poway district and I can say without a doubt that the work done with the kids at home is as, if not more important that what goes on in the classroom. With 24-26 kids per class there is only so much a teacher can do, regardless of district.
I have volunteered to read with the kids on occasion in the class; to do their weekly reading assessment. I notice a pronounced difference from one student to the next regarding not only reading ability, but also comprehension. Of course there will always be one or two kids that are ahead of the others, but the difference is astonishing. By the end of the year several of the kids were reading well above grade level, however; many of them were reading only at or in some cases below grade level. The teacher this year was fantastic so in my mind it really came down to which parents used the evenings and weekends for educational / family enrichment and which ones puts their kids in front of the TV. My point is, a great school district is only as good as the parents’ commitment to their kids education. Of course, I am completely off topic here but if I were to vote I would say, go with the view and spend more time in front of that view reading and doing math with your kids! :)[/quote]
Hi all.
I may be repeating what many have said, but school district is relevant if you have school age children, otherwise one should go for view.
I can tell from personal experience that though a good school district helps, the key are the parents. When I was young, my father was struck with an illness that pretty much wiped us clean. So he moved the family to the inner city, Euclid, Horace Mann & Crawford were my schools. Though the schools were well below mediocre in terms of API test scores etc, he made sure each day after school we did all our homework, read, and kept us busy with school activities. On Sunday we were sent to a Buddhist youth group program for 7 hours that taught us, a foreign language, all subjects relating to girl/boy scouts, meditation, how to deal with conflicts/self esteem, etc.
To make the long story short, there are six kids in our family. My father kept this up till he saved enough money years down the line to move us to Scripps Ranch where three of my youngest siblings went to Scripps Ranch High. Today we have all graduated from top schools, and some have masters, while a couple are still working on their graduate degrees. I myself went to UCLA had an awesome career, but more importantly I learned from my father things like perseverance, hard work, integrity, and the ability to ‘be in the moment’ from 17 years of Buddhism school. He also has many friends that live in some of SD’s best school districts but their children weren’t doing quite as well or in some cases not at all.
My father figured out a way to supplement what my schools and environment didn’t have. He was aware and gave much attention to all of our friends and who they were. He knows what type of kids they are and almost at all times knew what we were up to. He talked to us on a regular basis and spent all his free time being with us.
So schools I think does count a great deal (good teachers, better facilities, more opportunities, peers, PTA involvement, etc) but I think more important are the lessons you teach your kids along the way and the time you spend with them.
If you are going to rely mostly on the system for your child’s education then by all means, choose the schools. If I have an option, I would go with partial views and a decent school, but get supplemental education from places like Kumon, Sylvan, etc. IF I have NO kids, then VIEW for sure.
CA renter
July 27, 2011 @
5:22 PM
KinaBalu wrote:familyguy [quote=KinaBalu][quote=familyguy][quote=Jpinpbs DH]Good school districts don’t guarantee good grades or an acceptance to a prized four year college, they do guarantee a false piece of mind though. I guess you pigs figured out my vote.
Jp’s DH[/quote]
I couldn’t agree more. We are in the highly coveted Poway district and I can say without a doubt that the work done with the kids at home is as, if not more important that what goes on in the classroom. With 24-26 kids per class there is only so much a teacher can do, regardless of district.
I have volunteered to read with the kids on occasion in the class; to do their weekly reading assessment. I notice a pronounced difference from one student to the next regarding not only reading ability, but also comprehension. Of course there will always be one or two kids that are ahead of the others, but the difference is astonishing. By the end of the year several of the kids were reading well above grade level, however; many of them were reading only at or in some cases below grade level. The teacher this year was fantastic so in my mind it really came down to which parents used the evenings and weekends for educational / family enrichment and which ones puts their kids in front of the TV. My point is, a great school district is only as good as the parents’ commitment to their kids education. Of course, I am completely off topic here but if I were to vote I would say, go with the view and spend more time in front of that view reading and doing math with your kids! :)[/quote]
Hi all.
I may be repeating what many have said, but school district is relevant if you have school age children, otherwise one should go for view.
I can tell from personal experience that though a good school district helps, the key are the parents. When I was young, my father was struck with an illness that pretty much wiped us clean. So he moved the family to the inner city, Euclid, Horace Mann & Crawford were my schools. Though the schools were well below mediocre in terms of API test scores etc, he made sure each day after school we did all our homework, read, and kept us busy with school activities. On Sunday we were sent to a Buddhist youth group program for 7 hours that taught us, a foreign language, all subjects relating to girl/boy scouts, meditation, how to deal with conflicts/self esteem, etc.
To make the long story short, there are six kids in our family. My father kept this up till he saved enough money years down the line to move us to Scripps Ranch where three of my youngest siblings went to Scripps Ranch High. Today we have all graduated from top schools, and some have masters, while a couple are still working on their graduate degrees. I myself went to UCLA had an awesome career, but more importantly I learned from my father things like perseverance, hard work, integrity, and the ability to ‘be in the moment’ from 17 years of Buddhism school. He also has many friends that live in some of SD’s best school districts but their children weren’t doing quite as well or in some cases not at all.
My father figured out a way to supplement what my schools and environment didn’t have. He was aware and gave much attention to all of our friends and who they were. He knows what type of kids they are and almost at all times knew what we were up to. He talked to us on a regular basis and spent all his free time being with us.
So schools I think does count a great deal (good teachers, better facilities, more opportunities, peers, PTA involvement, etc) but I think more important are the lessons you teach your kids along the way and the time you spend with them.
If you are going to rely mostly on the system for your child’s education then by all means, choose the schools. If I have an option, I would go with partial views and a decent school, but get supplemental education from places like Kumon, Sylvan, etc. IF I have NO kids, then VIEW for sure.[/quote]
That was an awesome post, KinaBalu. Glad to know that your father made it through the illness, and was able to guide you through all those years.
LAAFTERHOURS
July 22, 2011 @
8:15 PM
Jpinpbs DH wrote:Ok folks, [quote=Jpinpbs DH]Ok folks, I’m not getting sucked in here like the DW but would you rather grow old with a nice view from your deck or be stuck in a place like four-s with a view of more track homes from your deck just for the Poway school district ? Ok you say I’ll sell when they graduate and then move to a place with a few, Really ? So if you sell after they graduate, then I guess the view “is” more important.
Good school districts don’t guarantee good grades or an acceptance to a prized four year college, they do guarantee a false piece of mind though. I guess you pigs figured out my vote.
Jp’s DH[/quote]
Well said
Rhett
July 22, 2011 @
10:44 AM
This poll is missing option This poll is missing option 3:
I wish that I’d be able to afford either option, but unfortunately we’re limited to houses without a view, in average or below school districts.
mp7444
July 22, 2011 @
10:58 AM
If after you put the money If after you put the money for a premium lot with view, you still have more savings left to put your kids in a good private school – then YES. Otherwise I would put my kids in a good school, then when they’re out of school, we can move to a smaller house with a nice view if we still have the money. I guess we wouldn’t need a big house for four bedrooms then.
cvmom
July 22, 2011 @
12:37 PM
mp7444 wrote:If after you put [quote=mp7444]If after you put the money for a premium lot with view, you still have more savings left to put your kids in a good private school – then YES. Otherwise I would put my kids in a good school, then when they’re out of school, we can move to a smaller house with a nice view if we still have the money. I guess we wouldn’t need a big house for four bedrooms then.[/quote]
I second mp7444’s view…education is critical.
an
July 22, 2011 @
1:08 PM
They both have their own They both have their own premium. They’re not mutually exclusive. It also depend on how many kid(s) you have. If you have 1, it might be more cost effect to buy in a cheaper area w/ a view and send your kids to private school.
For me, I rather buy in an area that have 9/10 of the best school for several hundred thousand less and take that money and send my kids to private preK-6th grade. I personally don’t think private school have that much of an advantage in a 6th-12th grade. Especially when you can afford to have one parent staying at home due to the fact you’re buying a less expensive house.
If school is really that big of a factor, then areas covered by Poway school district should be getting much cheaper than they have been in the past, since their test scores are declining. Also, Carlsbad area wouldn’t be holding a premium over areas like Mira Mesa if schools is that important. Here are some API scores and rank:
Westview High – 851 (9)
Mt. Carmel High – 818 (9)
Rancho Bernardo High – 854 (9)
Poway High – 856(9)
Scripps Ranch High – 877 (10)
Mira Mesa High – 824 (9)
University City High – 797 (8)
La Costa Canyon High – 815 (8)
San Dieguito High Academy – 845 (9)
Carlsbad High – 812 (8)
poorgradstudent
July 22, 2011 @
1:44 PM
Personally I think the Personally I think the evidence is there that most of the score effect of “good schools” comes from good, involved parents. There certainly are “bad” schools that allow students from weaker backgrounds to flounder. But there isn’t a lot of evidence that a student from a strong family background wouldn’t produce fairly similar results from a “good” school or “just ok” school. In fact, I’d argue there may be some advantages for a student to go to a middle of the road high school and graduate near the top of their class rather than graduating in the middle of their class at a school full of the kids of professionals.
bearishgurl
July 22, 2011 @
1:52 PM
poorgradstudent [quote=poorgradstudent]Personally I think the evidence is there that most of the score effect of “good schools” comes from good, involved parents. There certainly are “bad” schools that allow students from weaker backgrounds to flounder. But there isn’t a lot of evidence that a student from a strong family background wouldn’t produce fairly similar results from a “good” school or “just ok” school. In fact, I’d argue there may be some advantages for a student to go to a middle of the road high school and graduate near the top of their class rather than graduating in the middle of their class at a school full of the kids of professionals.[/quote]
Yes, poorgradstudent. You must know that it’s easier to get accepted to top public universities in CA if your GPA is at or near the top of your (HS) graduating class!
paramount
July 22, 2011 @
2:20 PM
Views are for those who are Views are for those who are emotional, rich or both.
And, while were at it a view of what?
A view of Yosemite Valley? Sure.
A view of San Diego? BFD.
No, a ‘good’ school district won’t guarantee anything, but it can’t hurt.
In fact, one could argue that living in a good school district would add more value than a view.
sdcellar
July 22, 2011 @
3:36 PM
okay, several things on this okay, several things on this thread.
First, AWESOME that jpinpb actually sucked her DH onto Piggington’s. I’m sure they’ve had plenty of discussions over the piggs, but this is the first thing that forced his hand. And to you, jp’s DH, welcome!
Second, I love the phrasing of the questions. It was immediately clear to me which side jpinpb came down on.
Third, and maybe it’s just the engineer in me, but jp’s right that the rest of you who picked view are silly. (and still, welcome jp DH! I mean no offense). If you step back and look at things solely from a ROI perspective, you’re generally going to come out ahead in a better school district versus an area with a better view.
Now part of that is due in no small part to one’s definition of “view”, but in general, there are decidedly blighted areas with fantastic views. So view doesn’t equal overall attractiveness of a property.
On the other hand, most areas that have good schools fetch higher prices for their homes, all other things being equal.
There are exceptions I’m sure and it’s also not uncommon for areas to lose their luster over time even if the schools remain strong, but that pales in comparison to a blighted district’s ability to dig itself out of its hole. Major gentrification helps, but unfortunately for home buyers today, that can be sort of random (and can also decline following a surge, so you’ve got the same dynamic as good school districts in aging areas).
The short of what I’m saying is that I suspect that people who prioritize good views are thinking of them in good areas (which in turn still have good schools).
scaredyclassic
July 22, 2011 @
3:58 PM
I misread the post and I misread the post and thought the question was whether I’d pay more for a view of a good school. Why should I pay for a view of a good school?
UCGal
July 22, 2011 @
4:13 PM
If it’s a binary choice – If it’s a binary choice – which in real life it’s not – then school district. For some of the reasons mentioned: better resale, etc.
But, just as important is commute, in my book. Your kid can be in a great school district, but if the parents are on the road pre-dawn to post dusk because their job is too far away… the kid isn’t going to have much success in school.
And good view is variable. I’ve got a view of San Clemente canyon and Mt. Soledad… Not an ocean view, but I like it. But it also has that dreaded freeway noise – because 52 runs through San Clemente canyon… for some that would be a deal killer.
Lots of homes in Clairemont, including my step mom’s have views of the bay/ocean… but have I-5 noise. (She lives above Costco).
I also STRONGLY agree with the idea that APIs do not guarantee anything. My kids go to a high testing school… but I’ve been disappointed with the teaching. I can control what happens at home… but not in the class. And trust me, I’m a hands on mom when it comes to school work, etc.
That said – it’s a sought after cluster, so I could sell my home for more than a lesser testing school.
A home purchase should be about more than ROI, school district, view, etc. It’s about whether the home meets your needs at a price you can afford. If you find a house that satisfies your lifestyle and family needs, that you can afford, and that you will be happy living in… then it’s the right house. It’s not a binary decision of view vs school district.
Oh – and if you want view and school district – Del Mar, baby. (Assuming you have $$$$)
an
July 22, 2011 @
4:31 PM
I agree with UCGal that it’s I agree with UCGal that it’s not binary. There are many different variation of view and many different variation of good schools. It’s all part of a set of many different variables. Here are some extreme examples:
Bad school but killer view, asking for $2.9M: http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-110000075-1727_S_Pacific_St_Oceanside_CA_92054
Both of the house above are similar size and lot size. The one in Carmel Valley is also newer. So, when we’re taking it to the extreme, view will have a much larger premium than school.
If school make that big if a difference, than you’d expect the house in North Park to be much cheaper than the Carmel Valley one.
sdcellar
July 22, 2011 @
4:54 PM
AN, it is binary, because it AN, it is binary, because it was a binary question. Your examples don’t work either because you’re ignoring other factors as well as what different people might consider a “view”.
The North Park example is a perfect example of your boat missing. People will pay a premium for houses of a certain age or character that can’t be re-created. We’ve had the discussion before (and you missed it then too). Just because you don’t see the value doesn’t mean it isn’t there.
It’s also *not* one of the binary choices. We can’t vote for neither, which is what you said it qualifies for. Personally, I think it could be argued that Pershing has some “view” value, but that’s a moot point, you stated it has neither (yet it’s still got a decent listing price, hmmmm, there must be more to it).
sdcellar
July 22, 2011 @
5:00 PM
Oh and premiums don’t mean Oh and premiums don’t mean jack. Of course, certain homes demand premiums and for a variety of reasons. Price and value (and ROI) are different things.
I’d have to spend more time than I care to in order to research the truth, but I’m not sure the O-side beauty on the beach is worth the premium they’re demanding, at least from an ROI perspective.
bearishgurl
July 22, 2011 @
6:05 PM
sdcellar wrote:Oh and [quote=sdcellar]Oh and premiums don’t mean jack. Of course, certain homes demand premiums and for a variety of reasons. Price and value (and ROI) are different things.
I’d have to spend more time than I care to in order to research the truth, but I’m not sure the O-side beauty on the beach is worth the premium they’re demanding, at least from an ROI perspective.[/quote]
sdcellar, I agree with you that certain homes demand (sales price) premiums for a variety of reasons. I also agree that the O’side beauty may not be worth $2.9M. In this type of property, price is subjective. It’s whatever a buyer will pay. If its a fairly new listing, they will soon have a better idea when/if offers came in/are coming in.
I do NOT agree that nondescript tracts (where every 3rd, 5th or 6th home is identical or a mirror image on the exterior) situated on substandard lots are worth any sort of “premium” in CA unless located on an “island” (such as Coronado or Balboa Island in the OC). There is no real exclusivity of 92130 and it is not even coastal. Buyers there must believe the proximity to SV and its public school attendance area is worth the $250K to $600K sales-price premiums they are paying over and above other comparably built tracts in the county.
I don’t think every buyer cares about an ROI. Of course every buyer strives to make the best deal possible at the time they are purchasing, but if you have found a property to buy that you will be happy in until you die, why does an ROI matter?
an
July 22, 2011 @
5:08 PM
sdcellar wrote:AN, it is [quote=sdcellar]AN, it is binary, because it was a binary question. Your examples don’t work either because you’re ignoring other factors as well as what different people might consider a “view”.
The North Park example is a perfect example of your boat missing. People will pay a premium for houses of a certain age or character that can’t be re-created. We’ve had the discussion before (and you missed it then too). Just because you don’t see the value doesn’t mean it isn’t there.
It’s also *not* one of the binary choices. We can’t vote for neither, which is what you said it qualifies for. Personally, I think it could be argued that Pershing has some “view” value, but that’s a moot point, you stated it has neither (yet it’s still got a decent listing price, hmmmm, there must be more to it).[/quote]
No duh Sherlock. I wasn’t the one who vote for schools. You did. I know about the MANY other variables. That’s why I gave the North Park example. If It’s all about school, the North Park wouldn’t be at the price it’s at. But it is, even when the school is bad.
If you learn to read, you’ll noticed I said there are many different variables and many different shades of gray when it comes to view or what would be good school. If you say the North Park property has a “view” value, and It’s binary like you said, then view > school, as I stated.
sdcellar
July 22, 2011 @
5:14 PM
No, the price for North Park No, the price for North Park must have something to do with _more_ than schools. If it was in an awesome school district, it would fetch an even higher price (and I mean a lot higher).
I dig the way you spin your stories though. It’s super fun picking them apart.
an
July 22, 2011 @
5:27 PM
Again, no duh Sherlock. Your Again, no duh Sherlock. Your reading comprehension is getting worse every day. Let me help jog your memory, since it seems like you’re having a little amnesia as well:
[quote=sdcellar]Third, and maybe it’s just the engineer in me, but jp’s right that the rest of you who picked view are silly. (and still, welcome jp DH! I mean no offense). If you step back and look at things solely from a ROI perspective, you’re generally going to come out ahead in a better school district versus an area with a better view.[/quote]
BTW, just to prevent you from stray off topic and adding variables to try and prove your point, we’re not talking about other variables that add to desirability of an area. We’re talking strictly about View vs Schools. Try your hardest to stay on topic please.
Dude, I couldn’t be more on Dude, I couldn’t be more on topic, that was my point Mr. non-binary! (and you said that, not me).
Jog my memory? I’ve been sticking to my story all along. Are you trying to fault me because I acknowledge that view adds some value? I don’t have my head in the sand. I thought that was a good thing.
Strictly going by the ROI lift of view versus schools, schools win out and I’m sticking/stuck/stacking to it.
an
July 22, 2011 @
5:42 PM
sdcellar wrote:Dude, I [quote=sdcellar]Dude, I couldn’t be more on topic, that was my point Mr. non-binary! (and you said that, not me).
Jog my memory? I’ve been sticking to my story all along. Are you trying to fault me because I acknowledge that view adds some value? I don’t have my head in the sand. I thought that was a good thing.
Strictly going by the ROI lift of view versus schools, schools win out and I’m sticking/stuck/stacking to it.[/quote]
No, I tried to fault you for trying to stray from the topic and bringing in other variables. But that’s too difficult for you to understand. So, I’ll stop. I’m glad you stated you’re stock on your view of School > View. My North Park vs Point Loma example just prove you wrong. Thanks for being stuck. BTW, that’s what I’d call having your head in the said.
sdcellar
July 22, 2011 @
6:00 PM
AN. Sigh. I brought up other AN. Sigh. I brought up other variables because you said it was a non-binary choice. I think that means other variables. So, I discussed other variables to demonstrate my understanding of the concept of “other variables”, from where I could begin to respond to whatever the heck it is that you think you’re talking about.
I’ll take a peek at your (off topic) example of North Park versus Point Loma. Again, off topic because you stated (squarely) that North Park has neither views nor schools (at least not in quantity enough to influence, well, the topic, at least according to you, to whom I am trying to respond). Shall I proceed?
an
July 22, 2011 @
6:10 PM
sdcellar wrote:AN. Sigh. I [quote=sdcellar]AN. Sigh. I brought up other variables because you said it was a non-binary choice. I think that means other variables. So, I discussed other variables to demonstrate my understanding of the concept of “other variables”, from where I could begin to respond to whatever the heck it is that you think you’re talking about.
I’ll take a peek at your (off topic) example of North Park versus Point Loma. Again, off topic because you stated (squarely) that North Park has neither views nor schools (at least not in quantity enough to influence, well, the topic, at least according to you, to whom I am trying to respond). Shall I proceed?[/quote]
Yes, I did say it’s non-binary. But JP’s post only gave us two choice, so, since I’m not the OP, it doesn’t matter what I think and the Poll is binary.
I should have compare NP vs PL instead of NP vs CV. Would that make it closer to apple vs apple comparison?
bearishgurl
July 22, 2011 @
6:15 PM
AN wrote:…I should have [quote=AN]…I should have compare NP vs PL instead of NP vs CV. Would that make it closer to apple vs apple comparison?[/quote]
Yes, if you stay away from view-premium properties in PL.
an
July 22, 2011 @
6:28 PM
bearishgurl wrote:AN [quote=bearishgurl][quote=AN]…I should have compare NP vs PL instead of NP vs CV. Would that make it closer to apple vs apple comparison?[/quote]
Yes, if you stay away from view-premium properties in PL.[/quote]
Great, so, let see if sdcellar can come up with some example in NP vs PL to prove his point that school > view (hopefully, it’s view of downtown instead of view of other roofs).
I know I mentioned this on I know I mentioned this on another thread, but I have some friends who own a house in Hillcrest, but decided to rent that house out and they are living in a rental in LJ b/c they think their kids will have a better education attending schools there. I’m saying this to stress that people give greater value to education and make whatever sacrifices for the good of their kids’ education. So that’s why I think a view is secondary.
pemeliza
July 22, 2011 @
6:25 PM
jp, if you don’t mind me jp, if you don’t mind me asking are her kids in HS or K-8?
I don’t remember if Hillcrest is in the Grant boundary or not.
bearishgurl
July 22, 2011 @
6:29 PM
pemeliza wrote:jp, if you [quote=pemeliza]jp, if you don’t mind me asking are her kids in HS or K-8?
I don’t remember if Hillcrest is in the Grant boundary or not.[/quote]
Hillcrest is Florence … is it not?
pemeliza
July 22, 2011 @
6:34 PM
I think you are correct BG I think you are correct BG and I have heard that Grant is difficult to transfer your kid into because it is a pretty small school.
jpinpb
July 22, 2011 @
6:48 PM
pemeliza wrote:jp, if you [quote=pemeliza]jp, if you don’t mind me asking are her kids in HS or K-8?
I don’t remember if Hillcrest is in the Grant boundary or not.[/quote]
They have been in K-8 (LJ Country Day) and now continue. They have not moved out of LJ. Kids are in high school now.
sdcellar – yes, I agree that maybe my term of view is ambiguous and many would see “view” and associate w/location. But, I’ll give a for instance. There are many new homes in Chula Vista and I’m sure plenty w/nice views. I will say this and it is not to rattle BG’s cage. This would be a good example. Same new house, same size, same MR and/or HOA’s. People will pick Carmel Valley and or 4S over Chula Vista. Chula Vista has some very nice view homes. Chula Vista costs less. People will pick a lesser house in 4S w/no view just for the school district. Another example would be the view homes in Clairemont or Bay Park. Many would rather be in 4S for the schools.
[quote=bearishgurl]HOWEVER, do you think the Piggs who post here are representative of the entire home-buying public??[/quote]
I think that’s why I stated maybe Piggington is higher minded and not a true respresentation of the average person.
bearishgurl
July 22, 2011 @
7:10 PM
jpinpb wrote:…sdcellar – [quote=jpinpb]…sdcellar – yes, I agree that maybe my term of view is ambiguous and many would see “view” and associate w/location. But, I’ll give a for instance. There are many new homes in Chula Vista and I’m sure plenty w/nice views. I will say this and it is not to rattle BG’s cage. This would be a good example. Same new house, same size, same MR and/or HOA’s. People will pick Carmel Valley and or 4S over Chula Vista. Chula Vista has some very nice view homes. Chula Vista costs less. People will pick a lesser house in 4S w/no view just for the school district. Another example would be the view homes in Clairemont or Bay Park. Many would rather be in 4S for the schools.[/quote]
My cage isn’t rattled. Those newer Chula Vista REOs and short sales in Otay Ranch and Eastlake ARE selling. Rapidly. The main audience for these homes are buyers who grew up in the immediate area or nearby and some active-duty military. There are still many homes in the “distress pipeline.” Some potential local buyers who watched the tracts being built are still waiting for the exact model they want to come on the market and there are frequently several bidders on some models, from what I hear from local agents. I haven’t noticed any of this huge population posting on Piggington – at least not openly identifying themselves as living in Chula Vista. Chula Vista has a population of about 273K!
briansd1
July 23, 2011 @
12:35 PM
jpinpb wrote:
sdcellar – [quote=jpinpb]
sdcellar – yes, I agree that maybe my term of view is ambiguous and many would see “view” and associate w/location. But, I’ll give a for instance. There are many new homes in Chula Vista and I’m sure plenty w/nice views. I will say this and it is not to rattle BG’s cage. This would be a good example. Same new house, same size, same MR and/or HOA’s. People will pick Carmel Valley and or 4S over Chula Vista. Chula Vista has some very nice view homes. Chula Vista costs less. People will pick a lesser house in 4S w/no view just for the school district. Another example would be the view homes in Clairemont or Bay Park. Many would rather be in 4S for the schools. [/quote]
I think it’s a combination of things.
I think that people want new houses first. I’m sure that if the houses in Clairemont were new, the buyers of 4S would reconsider.
You and I might want to remodel a house, but few buyers have the inclination to do so (other than painting and little things).
– Location
– peers and friends
– schools (for those how have kids)
– Age and condition of house
BTW, I’m with Pameliza. I’d much rather be in Mission Hills than Carmel Valley and Encinitas, no matter what the view.
Mission Hills is centrally located and more fun. Up north, you’re isolated and have to drive down just for dinner. There’s nothing up there but suburbia.
I think the people who buy further north like the newer larger houses with better amenities. Plus, if your peers are already there, then all the more reason to choose that location.
sdcellar
July 22, 2011 @
6:37 PM
AN wrote:I should have [quote=AN]I should have compare NP vs PL instead of NP vs CV. Would that make it closer to apple vs apple comparison?[/quote]Uno mas tiempo, NP has neither view nor schools according to you.
It’s not about apples vs. apples. It’s view vs. schools – cage match!
earlyretirement
July 26, 2011 @
5:47 PM
I totally agree with the I totally agree with the others it all depends if you personally have kids. I answered the question for my situation (2 young kids) but if I didn’t have any kids with no plans to I’m sure I would have gone for the view as I wouldn’t have cared what the school district was like for the most part.
Having young kids with possibly having more….living in a good school District was one of the biggest factors for us. We still looked at other factors of communities we really liked.
We bought in the Poway School District and bought a home in Santaluz. I agree with some that there is NO way I’d buy a house in 4S Ranch (at least the parts that I saw). Houses didn’t look like they were high quality and most of it looked high density. And they all had Mello Roos. I figured that if I was going to pay MR, at least I’d be in a great community that was gorgeous and the homes were beautiful.
I’d say School District alone wouldn’t be enough for me but definitely for those with kids, good school district is one of the most important factors. But I just didn’t understand people spending that kind of money to live in 4S Ranch….
Also, another example of great school district alone not being enough. We looked at many nice houses in Carmel Valley. Our budget was $1.1 million or less. And all the homes we looked at in Carmel Valley were over $1 million. And even at that price point, the density level was just too high. Many houses we looked at had absolutely NO privacy at all. All your neighbors could see into your backyard as well as your house. One house we saw literally had 5 neighbors that could easily see into your house.
While Carmel Valley has great schools and it’s a great location. I just couldn’t stomach spending a million bucks on such a high density area. We really loved the fact Santaluz was lower density, had rolling hills, immaculately maintained, security was amazing, homes were higher end, AND it was in a great school district. I didn’t see anything else quite like it in our home search.
I agree having a great view can be priceless. But funny I was more concerned about an amazing view for vacation rental properties vs. the place where I lived. Whenever I buy investment properties that I will rent out, I always try to buy in properties with breathtaking views as it’s always helped get a high rental yield and occupancy rates.
faterikcartman
July 26, 2011 @
5:53 PM
Earlyretirement — I assume Earlyretirement — I assume you visited many newer areas where the tallest fence/wall allowed was 5′. Who the hell thinks this stuff up? I’ve yet to understand why/how having everyone 6′ and taller being able to easily look into your backyard to watch, for example, your kids, your daughter sunbathing, you and your wife in the hot tub, etc., is a good thing.
earlyretirement
July 26, 2011 @
10:36 PM
faterikcartman [quote=faterikcartman]Earlyretirement — I assume you visited many newer areas where the tallest fence/wall allowed was 5′. Who the hell thinks this stuff up? I’ve yet to understand why/how having everyone 6′ and taller being able to easily look into your backyard to watch, for example, your kids, your daughter sunbathing, you and your wife in the hot tub, etc., is a good thing.[/quote]
Yeah, I can’t recall the exact height in the fences of the places we saw but definitely you could EASILY see over them. Especially the places in Carmel Valley which were all in newer areas/developments.
One had a jacuzzi/hot tub in the back yard and my wife said there was no way she would even use it with 5 neighbors being able to see onto the back yard area.
But not only the back yard but they can easily see directly into the house unless you always kept your blinds closed 24/7. I don’t see that as any way to live life. The density was just too darn high.
In these kinds of instances…..even where the schools are good..I say no thanks. We are thrilled with our decision to buy in Santaluz.
CA renter
July 22, 2011 @
11:56 PM
sdcellar wrote:AN, it is [quote=sdcellar]AN, it is binary, because it was a binary question. Your examples don’t work either because you’re ignoring other factors as well as what different people might consider a “view”.
The North Park example is a perfect example of your boat missing. People will pay a premium for houses of a certain age or character that can’t be re-created. We’ve had the discussion before (and you missed it then too). Just because you don’t see the value doesn’t mean it isn’t there.
It’s also *not* one of the binary choices. We can’t vote for neither, which is what you said it qualifies for. Personally, I think it could be argued that Pershing has some “view” value, but that’s a moot point, you stated it has neither (yet it’s still got a decent listing price, hmmmm, there must be more to it).[/quote]
Absolutely. The old, custom homes in our area sell for a premium, on a s.f. basis, compared to the newer tract homes.
Though it’s not your style, AN, there are a lot of us who would pay extra for an older, ranch-style home with character — enough of us to keep these prices propped up for far longer than I had hoped, unfortunately. 😉
SK in CV
July 22, 2011 @
6:37 PM
bearishgurl wrote:
Yes, [quote=bearishgurl]
Yes, poorgradstudent. You must know that it’s easier to get accepted to top public universities in CA if your GPA is at or near the top of your (HS) graduating class![/quote]
I’m not sure that’s true. At least one (maybe more, I have no idea) of the top high schools in this county don’t publish class rankings and have no valedictorian. And though I found it a bit astounding, I was told by the principle that in my daughter’s class, 94% of the graduates were going on to college. I do know there is extra financial aid, and in some cases preference given to students at low performing schools, but I suspect that doesn’t affect very many students.
bearishgurl
July 22, 2011 @
6:52 PM
SK in CV wrote:bearishgurl [quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl]
Yes, poorgradstudent. You must know that it’s easier to get accepted to top public universities in CA if your GPA is at or near the top of your (HS) graduating class![/quote]
I’m not sure that’s true. At least one (maybe more, I have no idea) of the top high schools in this county don’t publish class rankings and have no valedictorian. And though I found it a bit astounding, I was told by the principle that in my daughter’s class, 94% of the graduates were going on to college. I do know there is extra financial aid, and in some cases preference given to students at low performing schools, but I suspect that doesn’t affect very many students.[/quote]
More students (from 4% today to 9% under the proposal) will be guaranteed admission by virtue of their high performance within their own school. This improves UC’s reach among high schools in many geographic regions of the state, and is supported by research which indicates that high school rank is not only a strong predictor of college success but also catalyzes college preparation in the schools.
… and:
With the elimination of SAT Subject Test scores, the remaining test scores and grades required for students to be in the portion of the statewide graduating high school class that is guaranteed admission will rise. The Academic Senate estimates that students who are guaranteed admission either by falling in the top 9% of the state or top 9% of their own class will have an average GPA that is 0.17 points higher, and an average SAT score 17 points higher, than students in the current eligibility pool.
But numbers alone do not define high achievement. The policy enables more students who fall outside the guaranteed pools to have their applications fully reviewed (as long as they meet the GPA minimum in UC-required courses by the end of 11th grade). Those judged to have the highest levels of achievement and promise will be offered a place at a UC campus.
(emphasis added)
scaredyclassic
July 22, 2011 @
7:02 PM
A nice view. All schools A nice view. All schools suck.
faterikcartman
July 22, 2011 @
7:08 PM
walterwhite wrote:A nice [quote=walterwhite]A nice view. All schools suck.[/quote]
I’m with Scaredy.
If you can afford the view you can afford private school.
And please don’t mention “socialization”. The socialization offered at school is what we’re trying to avoid and get control of.[/quote]
IIRC, scaredy’s family homeschools, as well.
bearishgurl
July 22, 2011 @
7:13 PM
faterikcartman wrote:… And [quote=faterikcartman]… And please don’t mention “socialization”. The socialization offered at school is what we’re trying to avoid and get control of.[/quote]
fat erik, I don’t know if you’re “there” yet, but you won’t be able to eradicate all your kid(s) 367 “facebook buddies” …. even if you homeschool :={
jpinpb
July 22, 2011 @
7:18 PM
BG – I don’t mean to suggest BG – I don’t mean to suggest that there isn’t a demand for Chula Vista. I mean, during the bubble they pretty much built the whole town of Eastlake and managed to sell them all. But I think the house size and lots are probably bigger than those in 4S and cost much less in CV than 4S. So I would think the explanation would be the schools. There is so much emphasis on schools. That seems to be such a selling point, more than view. And still the school is getting more votes on this thread.
bearishgurl
July 22, 2011 @
7:31 PM
jpinpb wrote:BG – I don’t [quote=jpinpb]BG – I don’t mean to suggest that there isn’t a demand for Chula Vista. I mean, during the bubble they pretty much built the whole town of Eastlake and managed to sell them all. But I think the house size and lots are probably bigger than those in 4S and cost much less in CV than 4S. So I would think the explanation would be the schools. There is so much emphasis on schools. That seems to be such a selling point, more than view. And still the school is getting more votes on this thread.[/quote]
I know you didn’t, jp. Otay Ranch (primarily 91915) is actually the community that sold like hotcakes during the recent “bubble.” Eastlake was already built out, except for the “Trails.” The oldest parts of Eastlake are now 24 years old. There are many substandard lots in Otay Ranch, as well (not in Eastlake Trails SFR’s). The schools down there are decent, even outstanding! Perhaps Piggs should study the API scores of newer Chula Vista schools – especially at the elementary school level. Their high school buildings and facilities are to die for (built entirely from MR bonds). Besides the obvious distance to SV, perhaps it’s just ignorance that is preventing some young Pigg families from considering newer construction in Chula Vista. It certainly is a better value in comparison with North County MR communities.
I just read on the API site that the ’10/11 CA public school scores are coming out in August instead of September.
mp7444
July 26, 2011 @
5:00 PM
jpinpb wrote:BG – I don’t [quote=jpinpb]BG – I don’t mean to suggest that there isn’t a demand for Chula Vista. I mean, during the bubble they pretty much built the whole town of Eastlake and managed to sell them all. But I think the house size and lots are probably bigger than those in 4S and cost much less in CV than 4S. So I would think the explanation would be the schools. There is so much emphasis on schools. That seems to be such a selling point, more than view. And still the school is getting more votes on this thread.[/quote]
Hi jp,
I know I would take this off topic a little, but I think your impression that 4S houses are cramp together is only true in some area there. Of course many houses have *very* small backyard (or almost none), but many of the new homes in the north (and older ones in the south 4S) have pretty okay space (8 sqft in average) I guess it depends on where in 4S ranch you’re looking into.
pemeliza
July 22, 2011 @
7:26 PM
BG, in Mission Hills there is BG, in Mission Hills there is a premium on the nice lush canyon situated lots such as:
We love the privacy and expansive feeling of living on a lush canyon lot and it is nice to look at a bunch of green landscaping that you never have to water or maintain!
bearishgurl
July 22, 2011 @
7:41 PM
pemeliza wrote:BG, in Mission [quote=pemeliza]BG, in Mission Hills there is a premium on the nice lush canyon situated lots such as:
We love the privacy and expansive feeling of living on a lush canyon lot and it is nice to look at a bunch of green landscaping that you never have to water or maintain![/quote]
pem, I can’t open the link so I’ll see it on SDL. I’ve been on several SOHO tours over the years in your area and I KNOW the canyon lots (mostly below the house level) are beautiful to have and look at and impart both the outdoors and privacy at the same time to the home. It’s almost as if the outside is coming right into the home, especially if quality picture windows are installed. I’ve even seen some canyon lots with ponds and walk-bridges. Yes, those lots would command a premium over a flat backyard :=)
edit: Oh, I can’t open it become I’m not a “registered user,” lol!
For whatever reason the canyons in Mission Hills are lush and green. Not like the lunar landscapes you find further east.[/quote]
WOW, those are some nice picture windows on Witherby! I want to throw a penny in the pond!
bearishgurl
July 22, 2011 @
1:48 PM
AN, I think it’s going to be AN, I think it’s going to be interesting seeing the published results of the local API scores for the 10/11 school year to be released in September – whether particular school scores went up, down or stayed the same. I am already privy to some of the scores for the Sweetwater District.
I find it interesting that so many potential buyers will pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in sales price premiums plus added MR in order to buy property located in certain school attendance districts. This extra $$ they are plunking down has nothing to do with the property’s build-quality, lot size, or the desirability of its location – ONLY school attendance area.
Question: How much continuity is there for a student who attends, say, ONE “highly ranked” elementary school for seven years where MANY of his classmates over the years have moved away due to their parent’s foreclosure, deed in lieu or short sale?
Let’s use 4-Closure Ranch, here, for starters, shall we?
The-Shoveler
July 22, 2011 @
4:09 PM
Currently charter schools are Currently charter schools are starting to offer charter schools on line , so I vote for View as I see special school districts being less and less important (relevant).
But neighborhoods will still matter greatly unless your really really out in the boonies then you will have to bus you kids to see their buddies anyway .
Or they will have online buddies most likely.
pemeliza
July 22, 2011 @
4:18 PM
I don’t know common this but I don’t know common this but a friend of mine who lives in south carlsbad is putting their daughter into Torrey Pines HS via an interdistrict transfer. Although La Costa Canyon HS has an excellent reputation, she said that TPHS has better SAT scores. Of course, they do have to get her to the school but the dad works in sorrento valley anyway.
This got me to wondering if a determined parent couldn’t get their kid in their district school of choice especially at the high school level. For example, maybe in our case we might just drive our kids to La Jolla high school. Certainly beats paying for a private school. Again, I don’t know how common this is but this is not the first time I have heard of it happening.
UCGal
July 25, 2011 @
11:46 AM
pemeliza wrote:I don’t know [quote=pemeliza]I don’t know common this but a friend of mine who lives in south carlsbad is putting their daughter into Torrey Pines HS via an interdistrict transfer. Although La Costa Canyon HS has an excellent reputation, she said that TPHS has better SAT scores. Of course, they do have to get her to the school but the dad works in sorrento valley anyway.
This got me to wondering if a determined parent couldn’t get their kid in their district school of choice especially at the high school level. For example, maybe in our case we might just drive our kids to La Jolla high school. Certainly beats paying for a private school. Again, I don’t know how common this is but this is not the first time I have heard of it happening.[/quote]
Pemeliza –
I’m sure you know… but in case you don’t. LJ schools are part of SDUSD. And you can choice in, if you’re lucky. I know several people who won the “choice” lottery and their kids are going to La Jolla schools. Pay close attention to deadlines – and get your paperwork in. It doesn’t hurt to apply. Choice enrollment opens up 11/1/11 this year. http://www.sandi.net/20451072011450793/site/default.asp
It’s free – which makes it a lot cheaper than buying into the La Jolla school boundaries.
bearishgurl
July 22, 2011 @
5:27 PM
Agree with sdcellar about Agree with sdcellar about Pershing. Located on a “Historic Row” near the border of South Park, this charming 1924 Craftsman has Mills Act potential. That, in itself, will be VERY valuable to the next buyer who will waitlist it for later acceptance into the program (when the City reopens application acceptance … and they eventually will). SD High IS a good school with a renowned International Baccalaureate Program. In addition, I believe they have an Academic Decathalon Team. I know kids from PB to MH to even Lemon Grove that have transferred in there.
The two properties AN brought up in 92130 are packed tightly on substandard (sub 5000 sf lots). This type of property appeals only to a particular subset of the population. Other than TPHS (and it’s feeder schools) and proximity to SV, there are no other redeeming qualities in these properties over homes in other county middle-income tracts ($350K to $550K asking prices), IMO.
AN’s O’side property is a well-appointed custom virtually ON the sand. You can’t compare this to a nondescript tract home … anywhere. If the owner died and left me this property in his/her will, I’d figure out a way not only to keep it but I’d try to entice my remaining kid to enroll in school up there. Why would I CARE what its API score was?? I can assure you that my kid wouldn’t :=]
an
July 22, 2011 @
5:29 PM
BG, hope you read my post BG, hope you read my post correctly but I did say more than once that View > school. Which is why I brought up the O’side property. Even if you tear down the CV house and build a custom home to the same quality as the O’side home to have a closer apple-to-apple comparison, I still think the O’side house will sell for much more because of the View(which is not only ocean view but view of the sand a few steps away).
bearishgurl
July 22, 2011 @
5:38 PM
AN wrote:BG, hope you read my [quote=AN]BG, hope you read my post correctly but I did say more than once that View > school. Which is why I brought up the O’side property. Even if you tear down the CV house and build a custom home to the same quality as the O’side home to have a closer apple-to-apple comparison, I still think the O’side house will sell for much more because of the View(which is not only ocean view but view of the sand a few steps away).[/quote]
Agree with you that location and view trumps all, with respect to value.
pemeliza
July 22, 2011 @
5:42 PM
AN, that first home in PL is AN, that first home in PL is under the flight path whereas the second house is not.
an
July 22, 2011 @
5:45 PM
pemeliza wrote:AN, that first [quote=pemeliza]AN, that first home in PL is under the flight path whereas the second house is not.[/quote]
Sorry for not knowing which area of PL is under the flight path. How about these?
Honestly, I don’t know what Honestly, I don’t know what is going on over in Point Loma. I believe it is one of the harder hit areas in this downturn. Frankly, I am beginning to wonder if the increased traffic from liberty station hasn’t fundamentally shifted the values down in that area.
This sale, for example, was 12% below the 2001 price.
pemeliza wrote:Honestly, I [quote=pemeliza]Honestly, I don’t know what is going on over in Point Loma. I believe it is one of the harder hit areas in this downturn. Frankly, I am beginning to wonder if the increased traffic from liberty station hasn’t fundamentally shifted the values down in that area.
This sale, for example, was 12% below the 2001 price.
Yeah, I saw that. I meant to put it in the PL thread, but am a little busy w/work on the house. Trumbull really surprised me. Thanks for reminding me.
bearishgurl
July 22, 2011 @
6:09 PM
jpinpb wrote:pemeliza [quote=jpinpb][quote=pemeliza]Honestly, I don’t know what is going on over in Point Loma. I believe it is one of the harder hit areas in this downturn. Frankly, I am beginning to wonder if the increased traffic from liberty station hasn’t fundamentally shifted the values down in that area.
This sale, for example, was 12% below the 2001 price.
Yeah, I saw that. I meant to put it in the PL thread, but am a little busy w/work on the house. Trumbull really surprised me. Thanks for reminding me.[/quote]
Yeah, I saw that property listed a while back and it is totally me! What a great price for a gorgeous quality-built and very well-located home!
bearishgurl
July 22, 2011 @
5:37 PM
I think it would be helpful I think it would be helpful if we had a CA Regent Pigg or State College Entrance Board member Pigg on this forum to educate Piggs on the criteria they use for both freshman and junior public university admissions (since only a small percentage of applicants are actually admitted to each campus). I think it would be enlightening. Perhaps after hearing the “ins and outs” of CA college admissions, more Piggs would realize that it does NOT MATTER WHICH HS (or homeschool) your kid graduated from … as long as it is accredited.
Anonymous
July 25, 2011 @
3:33 PM
bearishgurl wrote:Perhaps [quote=bearishgurl]Perhaps after hearing the “ins and outs” of CA college admissions, more Piggs would realize that it does NOT MATTER WHICH HS (or homeschool) your kid graduated from … as long as it is accredited.[/quote]
This is correct. I was in the middle of my ‘prestiguous’ private HS class, but did very well on the SAT and got into a top 10 university. People at the top of my HS class, with lower SAT scores, went to much lower ranked colleges. Put simply, the test scores and AP classes were just about the only thing that mattered.
Which is why I voted “view” on this poll.
an
July 25, 2011 @
10:15 PM
Based on the houses I see, Based on the houses I see, your pedestrian “view” will only give you $10-20k premium. So, when you compare top school vs bad school, it would look like school affect price more. However, when you start talking about killer view (unobstructed ocean view for example), the view can add millions. Not even Carmel Valley (the best school district in SD) can claim it adds million to the value of a comparable home. Here’s one example that was posted in the coveted zip code thread: linky. Even if it close at $2M, which is $795k less than its asking price, I can make a safe assumption that it’s still $1M more than a comparable home in PL (2/3 2000 sq-ft with a 5k sq-ft lot and no view). Or this one. How much do you think a 3800 sq-ft house in PL would cost w/out a view?
bearishgurl
July 25, 2011 @
10:46 PM
AN wrote:. . . Here’s one [quote=AN]. . . Here’s one example that was posted in the coveted zip code thread: linky. Even if it close at $2M, which is $795k less than its asking price, I can make a safe assumption that it’s still $1M more than a comparable home in PL (2/3 2000 sq-ft with a 5k sq-ft lot and no view). Or this one. How much do you think a 3800 sq-ft house in PL would cost w/out a view?[/quote]
AN, location and design trump square feet in an area such as Pt Loma where a particular location (such as the La Playa waterfront) or angle on a hill with a city view merits 2-5 times the price of nearby homes without views. Your “linky” above is a Richards. He was a renowned mid-century architect in San Diego who is now deceased. No one took over his design work so whatever is remaining of his legacy which has been kept to his original roof lines, interior appointments and landscaping has a “Richards” premium attached to it.
It is what it is and can’t be duplicated now, especially with the particular materials used at the time of construction (mid-20th century). Your “linky” above depicts one of 34 homes with (interior or “bayside”) “beach rights” in La Playa (which rarely, if ever, come on the market).
bearishgurl wrote:AN, [quote=bearishgurl]AN, location and design trump square feet in an area such as Pt Loma where a particular location (such as the La Playa waterfront) or angle on a hill with a city view merits 2-5 times the price of nearby homes without views. Your “linky” above is a Richards. He was a renowned mid-century architect in San Diego who is now deceased. No one took over his design work so whatever is remaining of his legacy which has been kept to his original roof lines, interior appointments and landscaping has a “Richards” premium attached to it.
It is what it is and can’t be duplicated now, especially with the particular materials used at the time of construction (mid-20th century). Your “linky” above depicts one of 34 homes with (interior or “bayside”) “beach rights” in La Playa (which rarely, if ever, come on the market).
http://sohosandiego.org/reflections/2007_2/sbr.htm%5B/quote%5D
I didn’t even mention sq-ft since you can find comparable sq-ft in other part of PL. So, it really come down to location and to some extent, design. I would say location plays a much bigger role, but I can never prove that.
bearishgurl
July 25, 2011 @
11:26 PM
AN wrote:I didn’t even [quote=AN]I didn’t even mention sq-ft since you can find comparable sq-ft in other part of PL. So, it really come down to location and to some extent, design. I would say location plays a much bigger role, but I can never prove that.[/quote]
AN, I would MUCH prefer a higher, sit-down panoramic city view, such as those found looking out some SE-facing backyards of Fleetridge and Roseville (92106). HOWEVER, the fact that your “linky” was a Richards of well-preserved and impeccable design and had its own “beach rights” was why I chose it. For me, the Richards design trumps the city view, so in my case, design wins. In a well-located diverse “custom” community, such as Pt Loma, value or “worth” is completely subjective and in the eye of the beholder-buyer.
an
July 26, 2011 @
12:43 PM
bearishgurl wrote:AN, I would [quote=bearishgurl]AN, I would MUCH prefer a higher, sit-down panoramic city view, such as those found looking out some SE-facing backyards of Fleetridge and Roseville (92106). HOWEVER, the fact that your “linky” was a Richards of well-preserved and impeccable design and had its own “beach rights” was why I chose it. For me, the Richards design trumps the city view, so in my case, design wins. In a well-located diverse “custom” community, such as Pt Loma, value or “worth” is completely subjective and in the eye of the beholder-buyer.[/quote]
So, you’re saying you’d still pay $2M+ for a 2000 sq-ft Richards’ home on a 5k sq-ft nondescript lot w/ no view. Since you know this architect and this area well, do you have an example of a Richards’ home on a nondescript lot with no view?
bearishgurl
July 22, 2011 @
5:41 PM
Sorry in that I don’t have Sorry in that I don’t have enough (or the right kind) of education to know what “binary” means :={
CAwireman
July 22, 2011 @
8:12 PM
We paid a premium to get a We paid a premium to get a view. But, it wasn’t too bad.
But, having said that, we couldn’t afford the area we wanted (which had better schools, CV) so we moved much further north to a more affordable property, which, as a bonus, has a view.
We are big on our kids making the most of whatever school they attend. Its a launching pad for college. And a BS is a launching pad for graduate school, if that’s even in the cards. Ultimately its about how much fire’s in the student, not what school they attend.
jpinpb
July 23, 2011 @
10:49 AM
I have to say one thing that I have to say one thing that I do agree w/BG about. My DH’s oldest, now 19, confessed to us that many, many kids at Westview are doing various forms of drugs. They do have the money and often not supervised. Drugs are in any schools and how you raise your kids will determine if your kids do them.
In any case, view is still getting more votes than schools. Husband is telling me so 🙂
pemeliza
July 23, 2011 @
11:12 AM
“I’ve had the same 4 streets “I’ve had the same 4 streets picked out since ’94.”
I hope we don’t go back to ’94 prices 🙂
I know this probably isn’t one of your top 4 streets but we really wanted this house back in 2004 but couldn’t get the seller to go anywhere near the price we wanted to pay 🙂
That city view must be off of a roof top deck because you don’t get it from the living room (blocked by neighboring property trees). If so, then they added it after they bought in 2004.
If you like mid century modern than the house is fabulous. Looks like whoever bought it turned it into a vacation rental.
I still like the views down in La Playa better because you got more of the bay and reflections of the night lights onto the water.
bearishgurl
July 23, 2011 @
12:31 PM
pemeliza wrote:”I’ve had the [quote=pemeliza]”I’ve had the same 4 streets picked out since ’94.”
I hope we don’t go back to ’94 prices 🙂
I know this probably isn’t one of your top 4 streets but we really wanted this house back in 2004 but couldn’t get the seller to go anywhere near the price we wanted to pay 🙂
That city view must be off of a roof top deck because you don’t get it from the living room (blocked by neighboring property trees). If so, then they added it after they bought in 2004.
If you like mid century modern than the house is fabulous. Looks like whoever bought it turned it into a vacation rental. . . [/quote]
pem, I don’t see us going back to ’94 prices!
I love mid-century modern and this is a beautiful home, albeit a bit too large for my needs.
Savoy Street (not Circle) IS one of my four streets but only the south and east-facing side on the bottom 2/3 (curved st). I DO have an issue with overhead line and metal-pole junction easements on that street, however. I believe SDGE is currently still in MH and also in Loma Portal and the “PL flats” slowly installing buried cable street by street. If purchasing on that street, it would probably be prudent to do so BEFORE SDGE comes through with buried cable. After those utility easements are gone, I believe Savoy’s values will increase much more!
edit: sorry, I did mean “Circle,” not Street.
bearishgurl
July 23, 2011 @
11:14 AM
jpinpb wrote:I have to say [quote=jpinpb]I have to say one thing that I do agree w/BG about. My DH’s oldest, now 19, confessed to us that many, many kids at Westview are doing various forms of drugs. They do have the money and often not supervised. Drugs are in any schools and how you raise your kids will determine if your kids do them…[/quote]
6:30 a.m. Thursday, September 29, 2011:
Parent: “Here’s $20, `Muffy’ (sorry, davelj, I couldn’t resist). I see you have a `minimum day’ today. Oh, you’re going to the `Bagel Bar’ again? Have a nice day and call your brother at 4:00 to make sure he got home safe (and don’t do anything I wouldn’t do)! Take the trash out and I’ll see you at 6:30!”
carli
July 23, 2011 @
2:46 PM
Fascinating poll and thread, Fascinating poll and thread, even if entirely subjective and fraught with variables. Still, in my opinion, sdcellar, sdrealtor, CAR and OCR have all made the best case here.
And to answer someone’s question about whether or not the Piggs’ opinions re: Carmel Valley are representative of the general population, we can look to relative home prices among various locations for an estimate of what the general population values. Follow the money.
Carmel Valley is the place here that often comes up as most highly coveted, and lo and behold, that is also the area in SD County where people are probably paying the “most” for a home in highest concentrations. Obviously, this is a generalization and I’d love to see the data on housing prices per capita…maybe sdrealtor has that? (EDIT: I don’t think I mean “per capita”…what is the right measurement for price per square foot of people/houses in a given zip code?) RSF, La Jolla, Del Mar, Coronado, all have mega-pricey homes, but for sheer packed-in volume of expensive homes, I think Carmel Valley is the place that the masses seem to covet, and the prices there bear that out.
So, we don’t really have to guess at whether Piggs’ opinions follow general population trends in this area, we just have to see where people spend their housing dollars. Carmel Valley is not my cup of tea, but seems to be what most others DO value.
And, interestingly enough, Carmel Valley homes rarely have views yet have the “best” (meaning highest scoring) school district in SD County.
So, as imperfect as the poll is and as equally imperfect as my analogy is, I think this is a decent illustration of how school district generally trumps view.
Yes, as has been said here, of course a kid can get a great education in any district, and maybe we should all home-school our kids anyway, and maybe a kid even has a better chance of getting into competitive colleges out of a middle-of-the-road or poorer district, and possibly will stay drug-free at the inferior district, etc, etc, etc…all interesting but off-topic! But, this is not about my personal opinion regarding what I value more…if we simply answer the question on the topic of pure housing investment ROI, it’s my opinion that school district generally trumps view.
P.S. Of course, there are the outlier homes with drop-dead view in a crappy district, but my opinion is meant to be a generalization.
jpinpb
July 23, 2011 @
2:58 PM
I’m getting the idea many I’m getting the idea many people posting comments on this thread are saying school is more important, but the poll is showing more people are valuing the view more than the school. Since I personally don’t have kids, then I’d rather have the view, regardless of the effect of resale value not being in a good school district. That is not how I voted, though. I think the average person does not think that way. That’s what I was trying to explain to my DH. Despite all that, DH reminds me I’m behind in the poll 😉
carli
July 23, 2011 @
3:18 PM
Hi jpinpg, and hello and Hi jpinpg, and hello and welcome to your DH! Thanks for starting this interesting discussion.
I think the issue you describe above is due to the phrasing of your poll question, which you probably already figured out.
Your poll asks, “Would YOU pay more for a view or better schools?” so people are answering the question from their own personal perspective, but I think what you were actually trying to determine is what the general house-hunting population values in terms of school district vs. views.
I answered the question more from what I believed the overall housing-hunting population’s perspective would be, not my own personal perspective, but in fact, that wasn’t really what the poll was asking (which I realized after posting).
Hope that boosts your position in your DH’s eyes but somehow I don’t think it’s going to work. 😉
jpinpb
July 23, 2011 @
3:30 PM
Yeah. I see that is another Yeah. I see that is another flaw in my poll. People are personalizing the question. Perhaps I should have asked whether the average person values school over view. But I value the opinion of folks on Pigginton and what they personally value is a good indicator to me also. I just figured most people have kids and want to be in a good school district and would choose that over view. And even those w/out kids would pick school for resale. I thought this was a no-brainer easy win for me 😉 Guess I’m losing this bet.
carli
July 23, 2011 @
4:57 PM
Don’t concede too early. The Don’t concede too early. The people who have responded so far might be those prone to sitting at home on their computers, enjoying some sort of view, while those who value a good school district are out running around with their kids. Just wait and see. 😉
bearishgurl
July 23, 2011 @
5:19 PM
carli wrote:And to answer [quote=carli]And to answer someone’s question about whether or not the Piggs’ opinions re: Carmel Valley are representative of the general population, we can look to relative home prices among various locations for an estimate of what the general population values. Follow the money.
Carmel Valley is the place here that often comes up as most highly coveted, and lo and behold, that is also the area in SD County where people are probably paying the “most” for a home in highest concentrations…[/quote]
carli, I realize you stated this is a “generalization,” but you must know that there are MANY locations in SD County which have high “relative home prices” and which the “general population” values.
I just have some probing questions here, food for thought, if you will (not necessarily for carli):
1) Who is the general homebuying public? IOW, which demographic, familial makeup, income level, is MOST representative of a RE buyer in 2011 in SD County, overall? How about over a span of the last 10 years? The ten years before that?
2) What is the population of Carmel Valley? How many housing units does it have? How many are SFR’s/PUDs and how many are condos? How many rental units are there?
3) How do Carmel Valley’s population numbers compare with other zip codes’ (which would be considered “affluent”) population numbers.
4) Which three communities (zip codes) in the county do you think actually had the highest average sales prices in 2010? What is the demographic of these areas/zip codes?
5) If Carmel Valley were ten years older, do you think there would be as many listings/sales as there are today?
6) Is Carmel Valley built out?
7) What is the demographic of the average Pigg? What type of work do they do? Where do they work? What is the percentage of Piggs who are actually retired or semi-retired?
8) What is the demographic of the average potential homebuyer in the county? What type of work do they do? Where do they work? What is the percentage of potential homebuyers in the county who are retired or semi-retired?
9) What is the percentage of potential homebuyers in the county who actually have minor children living at home?
10) What was the percentage of all-cash sales in 92130 for 2010? How about for 92118? 92106? 92037? 92014? How about 91935, 91902 or 91914? Shocked yet?
11) For 2010, what was the percentage of foreign homebuyers in SD County? How many of those moved here to work? What was the percentage of out-of-state buyers in SD County? How many of those moved here to work? What was the percentage of out-of-county homebuyers in SD? How many of these moved here to work?
**************************************************
I’m sure we don’t quite have the “data-mining” capability to get all the answers we need here. And I don’t believe MOST potential home buyers in the county (or even 15% of them) even consider Carmel Valley. Many have never heard of it and for some it is out of their price range. For those potential buyers that are ABLE to buy in Carmel Valley, they have many, many options which are a better value and have a better location.
Most Piggs who post about real estate and buying options here appear to fit the “FT-working-stiff-parent-of-young-children” model. And that’s okay :=]
I just don’t believe the Pigg RE buying population is representative of the “general RE buying population.”
jpinpb
July 23, 2011 @
5:34 PM
BG – those are some excellent BG – those are some excellent questions and I wish we had some stats on that.
I can say for me, back in the day, I bought in Carmel Valley b/c I wanted to be somewhat coastal and it was known to have a pretty good school district (in case I had a kid) and it was still somewhat rural. It was actually relatively speaking, less expensive than PB.
But they managed to develop Carmel Valley so much since that freeway went in. Too many other issues going on that forced my hand to sell. I liked it when I bought it b/c it had a country feel along the coast. That’s changed dramatically and the appeal for me to be in Carmel Valley is gone. And w/no kids, no reason to be there for schools and I am not concerned about resale. Maybe I should be, but I’m not.
Now, I know perhaps the response to this next statement will be the circle I travel in. Most of my friends live in Central San Diego and some have kids, but have NO interest to be in CV or 4S. Some people I work w/are in the Poway SD. So for the most part, it is a pretty good mix of both.
Now that I got done saying that, I realize my neighbor, who has 3 children, raised them in my hood which is not a reknown school district. She sent their kids to private schools. Her kids are all honor students. The oldest graduated UCSD w/a degree in economics. She wanted the view. She could’ve easily lived in CV or 4S. In fact, she and her husband both commute inland for work.
bearishgurl
July 24, 2011 @
9:19 PM
I never argued with the date I never argued with the date it was published … only that it’s study subjects were “examined” in another era (not relevant to today) and its “drug use survey” was conducted in Canada, NOT the US.
Goodman and Huang . . . found that having low SES (socioeconomic status) was associated with greater alcohol use and with greater cigarette and cocaine use among white teenagers. . . .
The above quote was why I used elevated “shacks” on stilts (State of LA) AND the term “hollers” (South/Blue Ridge Mtns). Your study referred to US? “white teenagers” having “low SES” (socioeconomic status). These types of living conditions among “poor whites” (or any other race, for that matter) do not exist in the US anymore. Improved living conditions for poor teenagers since then and more confidence among them due to schools efforts to ameliorate the effects of poverty among students which bode well for better mental health among them and less susceptibility for falling into drug use.
njtosd
July 24, 2011 @
9:40 PM
bearishgurl wrote:I never [quote=bearishgurl]I never argued with the date it was published … only that it’s study subjects were “examined” in another era (not relevant to today) and its “drug use survey” was conducted in Canada, NOT the US.
Goodman and Huang . . . found that having low SES (socioeconomic status) was associated with greater alcohol use and with greater cigarette and cocaine use among white teenagers. . . .
The above quote was why I used elevated “shacks” on stilts (State of LA) AND the term “hollers” (South/Blue Ridge Mtns). Your study referred to US? “white teenagers” having “low SES” (socioeconomic status). These types of living conditions among “poor whites” (or any other race, for that matter) do not exist in the US anymore. Improved living conditions for poor teenagers since then and more confidence among them due to schools efforts to ameliorate the effects of poverty among students which bode well for better mental health among them and less susceptibility for falling into drug use.[/quote]
As I said, please provide something other than your own opinion (i.e. published reports, studies, etc.) if you want this to be about something other than your opinion.
ocrenter
July 25, 2011 @
7:26 AM
going to attempt to redirect going to attempt to redirect debate a bit.
specifically, what is the premium for good schools. And here we talk about perception as much as reality, based on apple to apple comparison.
4S vs East Lake. both are housing bubble babies, very similar new homes on zero lot lines. most without views. and filled with foreclosures and folks drowning in MR and HOA (threw that in just for BG).
API for Del Norte is 855, API for Eastlake is 787. Does not seem that far apart, but remember, API DO NOT TELL THE WHOLE STORY!!! When you look at UC acceptance rate, 47% of graduating seniors in Westview (no data yet for Del Norte) applied to at least one school within the UC system, and 95% were accepted. Only 19% of Eastlake students even bothered with applying to an UC school. And despite having less seniors apply to UCs, the acceptance rate was lower at 91%.
So what’s the difference in housing cost in these similar aged, similar styled communities?
92127 median $/sqft is $251/sqft
91915 median $/sqft is $158/sqft
so there you have it. the education premium is essentially at $100/sqft.
njtosd
July 25, 2011 @
10:09 AM
ocrenter wrote:going to [quote=ocrenter]going to attempt to redirect debate a bit.
specifically, what is the premium for good schools. And here we talk about perception as much as reality, based on apple to apple comparison.
4S vs East Lake. both are housing bubble babies, very similar new homes on zero lot lines. most without views. and filled with foreclosures and folks drowning in MR and HOA (threw that in just for BG).
API for Del Norte is 855, API for Eastlake is 787. Does not seem that far apart, but remember, API DO NOT TELL THE WHOLE STORY!!! When you look at UC acceptance rate, 47% of graduating seniors in Westview (no data yet for Del Norte) applied to at least one school within the UC system, and 95% were accepted. Only 19% of Eastlake students even bothered with applying to an UC school. And despite having less seniors apply to UCs, the acceptance rate was lower at 91%.
So what’s the difference in housing cost in these similar aged, similar styled communities?
92127 median $/sqft is $251/sqft
91915 median $/sqft is $158/sqft
so there you have it. the education premium is essentially at $100/sqft.[/quote]
That’s interesting – we’ve been looking for homes (north county coastal) and came to the (very unscientific) conclusion that among the houses that we are looking at, the view costs about $100,000. For a 3000 sq. ft. house, that works out to $33 a sq. ft. (or about 1/3 of what you’re finding for schools). Has anyone else looked at this?
DataAgent
July 25, 2011 @
10:48 AM
“That’s interesting – we’ve “That’s interesting – we’ve been looking for homes (north county coastal) and came to the (very unscientific) conclusion that among the houses that we are looking at, the view costs about $100,000. For a 3000 sq. ft. house, that works out to $33 a sq. ft. (or about 1/3 of what you’re finding for schools). Has anyone else looked at this?”
I’ve seen that number before. $100k for a decent view in NCC is probably about right.
scaredyclassic
July 25, 2011 @
11:11 AM
A good view is more conducive A good view is more conducive to long intimate outdoor family meals for stealthily inculcating parental values into unsuspecting kids.
bearishgurl
July 25, 2011 @
11:50 AM
walterwhite wrote:A good view [quote=walterwhite]A good view is more conducive to long intimate outdoor family meals for stealthily inculcating parental values into unsuspecting kids.[/quote]
Lol, scaredy!!!
ocrenter
July 25, 2011 @
1:27 PM
DataAgent wrote:”That’s [quote=DataAgent]”That’s interesting – we’ve been looking for homes (north county coastal) and came to the (very unscientific) conclusion that among the houses that we are looking at, the view costs about $100,000. For a 3000 sq. ft. house, that works out to $33 a sq. ft. (or about 1/3 of what you’re finding for schools). Has anyone else looked at this?”
I’ve seen that number before. $100k for a decent view in NCC is probably about right.[/quote]
$100k for view is about right.
In regard to BG’s questions regarding other Chula Vista schools, here’s a couple more UC application rate and success rate:
This compared to 44% application rate and 95% success rate for Westview, the druggie school. I wonder what they are smoking over there, that’s some really good sh!t!!!
masayako
July 25, 2011 @
1:50 PM
View > School. View > School.
CBad
July 25, 2011 @
3:22 PM
View, but take my opinion for View, but take my opinion for what it’s worth since I’m never planning on sending my kids to public school here. With that said, I’d never want a view in a crap area so the school district would probably be good anyway. And the view would have to be pretty spectacular for me to pay a real premium for it. I’m not the type to sit around and stare at a view so I’d probably end up taking it for granted unless it was a truly fantastic view.
bearishgurl
July 25, 2011 @
10:38 AM
ocrenter wrote:going to [quote=ocrenter]going to attempt to redirect debate a bit.
specifically, what is the premium for good schools. And here we talk about perception as much as reality, based on apple to apple comparison.
4S vs East Lake. both are housing bubble babies, very similar new homes on zero lot lines. most without views. and filled with foreclosures and folks drowning in MR and HOA (threw that in just for BG).
API for Del Norte is 855, API for Eastlake is 787. Does not seem that far apart, but remember, API DO NOT TELL THE WHOLE STORY!!! When you look at UC acceptance rate, 47% of graduating seniors in Westview (no data yet for Del Norte) applied to at least one school within the UC system, and 95% were accepted. Only 19% of Eastlake students even bothered with applying to an UC school. And despite having less seniors apply to UCs, the acceptance rate was lower at 91%.
So what’s the difference in housing cost in these similar aged, similar styled communities?
92127 median $/sqft is $251/sqft
91915 median $/sqft is $158/sqft
so there you have it. the education premium is essentially at $100/sqft.[/quote]
ocrenter, I think you need to go back to the drawing board, here.
“Eastlake” is not the HS serving Otay Ranch (91915), however it may have a few space-available “zone transfers” from Otay Ranch. “Eastlake” (91913, 91914) is not a “housing bubble-baby” community. The bulk of it was developed and first sold between 1987 and 1992. Nor are most “Eastlake” residents “drowning in MR and HOA.” An Eastlake community of 600-700 (over 2100 sf SFR’s) paid off their MR in 2007. The next wave of MR for Eastlake SFR’s will be paid off between 2016 and 2017. In addition, Eastlake MR obligations are substantially smaller than 92127 MR.
Are you referring here to the same “Westview High” that jpinpb’s DH’s son confessed (to them) that “many, many kids (were) doing various forms of drugs?”
For the record, Eastlake High’s actual 2010 API is 814, NOT 787.
For the record, the high schools serving Otay Ranch are Olympian (816 API), Otay Ranch (797 API) and Bonita Vista (834 API).
I haven’t checked your cost-per-sf reporting to determine its accuracy, but if it is close to accurate, we can extrapolate from that that *newer* housing is Otay Ranch is a much better value than that in 92127, considering that the schools are comparable 🙂
And what is your source of info regarding the percentage of students in a CA school who apply to UC?
nla
July 25, 2011 @
10:51 PM
bearishgurl wrote:
“Eastlake” [quote=bearishgurl]
“Eastlake” is not the HS serving Otay Ranch (91915), however it may have a few space-available “zone transfers” from Otay Ranch. “Eastlake” (91913, 91914) is not a “housing bubble-baby” community. The bulk of it was developed and first sold between 1987 and 1992. Nor are most “Eastlake” residents “drowning in MR and HOA.” An Eastlake community of 600-700 (over 2100 sf SFR’s) paid off their MR in 2007. The next wave of MR for Eastlake SFR’s will be paid off between 2016 and 2017. In addition, Eastlake MR obligations are substantially smaller than 92127 MR.
[/quote]
There are parts of Eastlake that’s on zip code 91915: Eastlake Greens, Trails and Vista. In fact zip code 91915 is mostly Eastlake. The only community that’s part of zip code 91915 that’s not Eastlake is Windingwalk, which is part of the collosal Otay Ranch.
There are parts of Eastlake that were built during the bubble: most of Eastlake Vista, Eastlake Trails North and Eastlake Woods were built from 2004 to 2010. Eastlake Trails North and Woods are in zip code 91914.
bearishgurl
July 25, 2011 @
11:12 PM
nla wrote:bearishgurl [quote=nla][quote=bearishgurl]
“Eastlake” is not the HS serving Otay Ranch (91915), however it may have a few space-available “zone transfers” from Otay Ranch. “Eastlake” (91913, 91914) is not a “housing bubble-baby” community. The bulk of it was developed and first sold between 1987 and 1992. Nor are most “Eastlake” residents “drowning in MR and HOA.” An Eastlake community of 600-700 (over 2100 sf SFR’s) paid off their MR in 2007. The next wave of MR for Eastlake SFR’s will be paid off between 2016 and 2017. In addition, Eastlake MR obligations are substantially smaller than 92127 MR.
[/quote]
There are parts of Eastlake that’s on zip code 91915: Eastlake Greens, Trails and Vista. In fact zip code 91915 is mostly Eastlake. The only community that’s part of zip code 91915 that’s not Eastlake is Windingwalk, which is part of the collosal Otay Ranch.
There are parts of Eastlake that were built during the bubble: most of Eastlake Vista, Eastlake Trails North and Eastlake Woods were built from 2004 to 2010. Eastlake Trails North and Woods are in zip code 91914.[/quote]
I was referring to Eastlake Shores, Eastlake Hills and the Eastlake Woods which was/were first sold between 1987 and 1992. Perhaps some of the “Woods” on the south end (towards Otay Ranch Mall) was built later in the ’90’s or early 2000’s. However, the area around Clubhouse Drive (near Eastlake HS) and around the golf course was built out by late 1992.
Yes, the “Trails” is newer as well as Eastlake Vista (customs?).
Thank you for the clarification, nla.
It does not change the fact that Otay Ranch, predominately in 91915, was built after 2000 (most of it from 2002 forward. Olympian HS and Otay Ranch HS are both fairly new and were both opened to underclassmen in the last +/- 7 years.
Prior to their opening, the high schools serving Otay Ranch were (then overcrowded) Bonita Vista and Eastlake.
I have never lived in 91913, 91914 or 91915. I am from 91902 and currently reside in 91910. Both of these areas are 40-75 years old.
faterikcartman
July 26, 2011 @
1:38 PM
ocrenter wrote:going to [quote=ocrenter]going to attempt to redirect debate a bit.
specifically, what is the premium for good schools. And here we talk about perception as much as reality, based on apple to apple comparison.
4S vs East Lake. both are housing bubble babies, very similar new homes on zero lot lines. most without views. and filled with foreclosures and folks drowning in MR and HOA (threw that in just for BG).
API for Del Norte is 855, API for Eastlake is 787. Does not seem that far apart, but remember, API DO NOT TELL THE WHOLE STORY!!! When you look at UC acceptance rate, 47% of graduating seniors in Westview (no data yet for Del Norte) applied to at least one school within the UC system, and 95% were accepted. Only 19% of Eastlake students even bothered with applying to an UC school. And despite having less seniors apply to UCs, the acceptance rate was lower at 91%.
So what’s the difference in housing cost in these similar aged, similar styled communities?
92127 median $/sqft is $251/sqft
91915 median $/sqft is $158/sqft
so there you have it. the education premium is essentially at $100/sqft.[/quote]
I think people are paying $100/sqft more to live in amongst “Ice People” rather than “Sun People”. John Derbyshire in his book “We Are Doomed” has a compelling breakdown of how this influences housing costs and school performance. As others have noted, I think it is much more the students and the culture of the students and their families than anything to do with teachers. I’m sure here and there there are teachers who manage to overcome culture and genetics, but I’m even more sure they are too few and far between to make a difference in the calculations we’re discussing.
bearishgurl
July 25, 2011 @
10:06 AM
njtosd wrote:…As I said, [quote=njtosd]…As I said, please provide something other than your own opinion (i.e. published reports, studies, etc.) if you want this to be about something other than your opinion.[/quote]
Please provide a “study” that is relevant to this region and this era and it might have more credibility.
Anonymous
July 25, 2011 @
3:42 PM
Speaking from my experience Speaking from my experience last week on this very issue, I say “view” over “schools” – easily. I’m buying vacant land, based almost entirely on the quality of the view.
There is an absurd premium on getting into the high quality school areas, and you are still sending the kids to public school. The better option is to ignore the public schools, buy your house for other purposes (such as views) in cheaper ares, and use the money you save to send your kids to private school.
Edit: A big part of why certain schools get better rankings is because the kids tend to belong to parents who really care about their education (which is why they live in that district in the first place). It’s not so much that the school is higher quality, as it is that the students are higher quality.
poorgradstudent
July 26, 2011 @
12:40 PM
wooga wrote:Edit: A big part [quote=wooga]Edit: A big part of why certain schools get better rankings is because the kids tend to belong to parents who really care about their education (which is why they live in that district in the first place). It’s not so much that the school is higher quality, as it is that the students are higher quality.[/quote]
Yeah, most of the rankings I’ve seen, especially those that rely heavily on test scores, seem to have cause-effect relationships confused. For example, the high schools in the Poway district all have excellent test scores, but also draw from a more affluent community with a much lower percentage of students on free/reduced lunch (the best apples-to-apples comparison) and higher levels of parental education. So while Rancho Bernardo high and Westview high have great scores, they actually are pretty mediocre based on the quality of pupils coming in. Mt. Carmel High is exceptionally mediocre; it has scores slightly lower than Mira Mesa yet has a much more affluent and educated student base. La Jolla High is another example of a school that has good scores but is relatively underperforming based on the population it draws from.
Yeah, I probably wouldn’t want my future children going to Hoover or Lincoln. There’s going to be some luxuries provided by more affluent schools that don’t come out in test scores (access to music programs, activities that lead to a “well rounded education”). But I’m just not convinced there’s too much of a difference between the “top” schools and second tier schools. Admittedly given my own blue collar childhood there’s a part of me that would prefer my future children go to school with a few more middle class students than some of the schools from richer neighborhoods have.
bearishgurl
July 26, 2011 @
12:55 PM
poorgradstudent wrote:wooga [quote=poorgradstudent][quote=wooga]Edit: A big part of why certain schools get better rankings is because the kids tend to belong to parents who really care about their education (which is why they live in that district in the first place). It’s not so much that the school is higher quality, as it is that the students are higher quality.[/quote]
Yeah, most of the rankings I’ve seen, especially those that rely heavily on test scores, seem to have cause-effect relationships confused. For example, the high schools in the Poway district all have excellent test scores, but also draw from a more affluent community with a much lower percentage of students on free/reduced lunch (the best apples-to-apples comparison) and higher levels of parental education. So while Rancho Bernardo high and Westview high have great scores, they actually are pretty mediocre based on the quality of pupils coming in. Mt. Carmel High is exceptionally mediocre; it has scores slightly lower than Mira Mesa yet has a much more affluent and educated student base. La Jolla High is another example of a school that has good scores but is relatively underperforming based on the population it draws from.
Yeah, I probably wouldn’t want my future children going to Hoover or Lincoln. There’s going to be some luxuries provided by more affluent schools that don’t come out in test scores (access to music programs, activities that lead to a “well rounded education”). But I’m just not convinced there’s too much of a difference between the “top” schools and second tier schools. Admittedly given my own blue collar childhood there’s a part of me that would prefer my future children go to school with a few more middle class students than some of the schools from richer neighborhoods have.[/quote]
poorgradstudent, I can’t speak for the Poway schools but LJ High draws from a very diverse population base. A large percentage of students there are attending on the VEEP program. These deserving students DO qualify for free/reduced-price lunch and usually ride the city bus or carpool in there every day from “Lincoln and Hoover” and other local school attendance areas with a more “disadvantaged” student population.
Obviously, there has not been enough high-school age children residing in 92037 to fill this school for many years. This may be the only way it can remain open. These VEEP students must maintain a certain GPA to remain in the school and be free of disciplinary action.
Have you actually taken a drive by the *new* “Lincoln Prep” lately? If not, you should! I think you would be quite surprised! In recent years, SDUSD spent in excess of $50M rebuilding it and it has every amenity :=]
July 22, 2011 @ 7:23 AM
DH and I are arguing much
DH and I are arguing much about this, he almost was going to sign up to Piggington so he could start this poll. But he’s got too many projects going on, so I’m going to do it. I know ideally both, but if you were forced to pick which is more important what would it be?
July 22, 2011 @ 7:31 AM
So he signed up anyway. Come
So he signed up anyway. Come on. I need some help people. Break this tie and cast your vote!
July 22, 2011 @ 7:55 AM
Do you have school-age
Do you have school-age children? If yes then better schools is more important.
July 22, 2011 @ 7:58 AM
You can put your kids in
You can put your kids in private schools but you can’t add a private view 🙂
July 22, 2011 @ 8:09 AM
Agree with AN..
You can put
Agree with AN..
You can put your kids in a better school but you can’t move your house to a better view!
July 22, 2011 @ 8:39 AM
They are both important. In
They are both important. In our situation, we settled for a situation with some of each. We have a great private canyon view but it is obviously not on par with the big ocean view that many want. Likewise our school district is great for K-8 but suspect at the high school level. Since our kids are young we figure that we will worry about the situation later and perhaps look into district transfer when the time comes.
I guess I am a have your cake and eat it too person so I would say try to find a lot with a decent view and decent schools and maybe give up on something else like house size.
July 22, 2011 @ 10:00 AM
pemeliza wrote:They are both
[quote=pemeliza]They are both important. In our situation, we settled for a situation with some of each. We have a great private canyon view but it is obviously not on par with the big ocean view that many want. Likewise our school district is great for K-8 but suspect at the high school level. Since our kids are young we figure that we will worry about the situation later and perhaps look into district transfer when the time comes.
I guess I am a have your cake and eat it too person so I would say try to find a lot with a decent view and decent schools and maybe give up on something else like house size.[/quote]
pemeliza, you will have many options for high school, most notably High Tech High, which treats students like young adults in the work world. I know two science students at UCSB who are both HTH graduates. One is currently a senior. I believe they both will be VERY successful.
July 22, 2011 @ 7:57 AM
Ok folks, I’m not getting
Ok folks, I’m not getting sucked in here like the DW but would you rather grow old with a nice view from your deck or be stuck in a place like four-s with a view of more track homes from your deck just for the Poway school district ? Ok you say I’ll sell when they graduate and then move to a place with a few, Really ? So if you sell after they graduate, then I guess the view “is” more important.
Good school districts don’t guarantee good grades or an acceptance to a prized four year college, they do guarantee a false piece of mind though. I guess you pigs figured out my vote.
Jp’s DH
July 22, 2011 @ 9:55 AM
Jpinpbs DH wrote:Ok folks,
[quote=Jpinpbs DH]Ok folks, I’m not getting sucked in here like the DW but would you rather grow old with a nice view from your deck or be stuck in a place like four-s with a view of more track homes from your deck just for the Poway school district ? Ok you say I’ll sell when they graduate and then move to a place with a few, Really ? So if you sell after they graduate, then I guess the view “is” more important.
Good school districts don’t guarantee good grades or an acceptance to a prized four year college, they do guarantee a false piece of mind though. I guess you pigs figured out my vote.
Jp’s DH[/quote]
DH, I agree that it is the STUDENT motivation, not the SCHOOL which determines the student’s grades and thus future opportunities. I also believe that “API scores” (that so many are willing to financially prostrate themselves for) are overrated when determining how your individual student will do in school.
Something I think is important which you didn’t bring up is, “How much will that view property cost after my kids leave the nest, IF they ever do??” For many Piggs, we’re talking 20+ years here.
My opinion is, if what you REALLY want is a view, then BUY it ASAP, even if it is currently a shell of a house in your opinion. You can always move your toaster oven/micro/mini fridge and air mattress in plus your ladder and power tools and work on it in your off-hours :=0. Or use what’s there for a few years until you get more $$ behind you, then move from room to room :=]
Meanwhile, you can set up your telescope next to your wine cooler and enjoy! It’s “portable” :=D
July 22, 2011 @ 10:28 AM
bearishgurl wrote:…You can
[quote=bearishgurl]…You can always move your toaster oven/micro/mini fridge and air mattress in plus your ladder and power tools and work on it in your off-hours…[/quote]
BG I mean no disrespect so please don’t take this the wrong way; I enjoy reading your well written and entertaining posts. (Aside from your disdain of Stonebridge and your view of junior enlisted military personnel being less deserving of a nice home because they only have a high school education or a young wife with a GED. lol )
My question is, have you ever lived in a house that’s being renovated? You seem to have a common theme to many of your posts that suggests most families should buy a shack and simply fix it up. Aside from the hassle involved, most families with two working adults simply don’t have the time. By the time the work day is done, dinner is taken care of, and quality time is spent with the kids doing homework, or other activities (soccer, tee ball, etc.) there is simply not enough time in the day for many families to take on a major renovation project. So I’m just curious how you juggled all this in order to be such an advocate of buying a fixer upper.
July 22, 2011 @ 11:11 AM
familyguy, I am old and the
familyguy, I am old and the “quintessential fixer-upper” (all in SD) is the reason I am able to be “semi-retired” today. Yes, I have children (just one remaining at home). We put them in their swings/playpen while we worked (often until midnight on a work night) on fixing up “cosmetic fixers” we purchased from govm’t REO programs. I also worked cleaning and scraping properties on many weekends when all my friends were at our fav Crown Point fire-ring or on their boats celebrating whatever. I worked FT outside of the home all my life up until 2006, taking brief maternity leaves. Both my former spouse and I were/are handy and unafraid to tackle projects and cleaning that others would shy away from. When our children got older, they would help us. We purchased our properties all in the same or neighboring zip codes.
I am a realist and know that there is no free lunch. Persons who believe owners of properties in PRIME SD locations are going to accept less than their land is worth (never mind if there is some kind of a dwelling on it) are suffering from a delusion. I have seen a LOT of cycles and know that the BEST areas of town will only go up in value. Good local job availability HAS LITTLE TO NOTHING to do with this.
My ex-spouse retired from the military in SD in 1995. Upon retirement, our monthly VHA + BAQ (now “housing allowance” was $688. For his rank, the local allowance is now (give-or-take) $2500 mo. I believe the VHA was initially given to service members to give them a “leg up” in rental assistance when the military offered many different complexes to choose from and still does. The military DOESN’T OWE active-duty family members a certain neighborhood, zip code or school attendance area. It must only provide safe, clean housing large enough to comfortably accommodate the service member and his/her dependents. The Navy has owned nearly ALL the land in SD County its military quarters sits on for more than 60 years. As a spouse with TDS orders, you should already be aware of this. If you are living in the wide open spaces of TX (or wherever), know you would not like an urban lifestyle and have no other means by which to support yourself, you should NOT relocate to SD and then whine. You should stay home and await your spouse’s return from deployment. [end of rant]
I believe the housing allowance was gradually quadrupled in recent years to aid in retention, due to back-to-back deployments in war-torn areas. But at what cost? How is it that a new 19 year-old (often-pregnant) military spouse qualifies to move from rural Tennessee directly to Coronado, CA??
I was at the dtn marriage license office last week during lunchtime on business. In every booth but one sat young jr enlisted men in uniform and their equally-young girlfriends seeking to get a marriage licenses. Tell me, familyguy, do you think if these young men were NOT in the military they would be seeking marriage licenses?? What’s the “draw,” here. From the few convo’s I could hear with the deputy clerks, at least two were getting ready to immediately deploy. What’s the rush?? The “rush” is the BIG GOV’T ID in the sky for the spouse with which she can do SO MANY THINGS.
Do you think new very young transplants should be given enough $$ to rent in SD’s best areas when longtime working San Diegans cannot afford to do so??
Back in “my day,” anything more than a sailor’s seabag was considered unwieldy and superfluous to his/her career. Guess times have changed :=0
July 22, 2011 @ 11:37 AM
I think this poll really
I think this poll really comes down to one simple question.
Do you put your kids first (schools) or yourself first (view)?
For me its kids first as that is the way i was raised and the way my kids are being raised. Living in a schools first neighborhood surrounds me with neighbors who beleive in most of the same things I do regarding family and I like that.
Everyone comes from a different background and personal situation in this world and has the right to choose between “schools or views”. neither is right nor wrong.
July 22, 2011 @ 11:45 AM
sdrealtor wrote:I think this
[quote=sdrealtor]I think this poll really comes down to one simple question.
Do you put your kids first (schools) or yourself first (view)?
For me its kids first as that is the way i was raised and the way my kids are being raised. Living in a schools first neighborhood surrounds me with neighbors who beleive in most of the same things I do regarding family and I like that.
Everyone comes from a different background and personal situation in this world and has the right to choose between “schools or views”. neither is right nor wrong.[/quote]
I think it is more than kids first, though. One can, as suggested, send a kid to private school. It is the community of people who want to be in a good school district. And not just that, as I stated, for there are people who buy in a good school district for resale value, even if they don’t have kids. So that means people still consider the value of living in a good school district and purchase accordingly.
But DH thinks the view trumps schools. Judging from the votes so far, looks like he’s right. I’m surprised.
July 22, 2011 @ 11:51 AM
jpinpb wrote:. . . But DH
[quote=jpinpb]. . . But DH thinks the view trumps schools. Judging from the votes so far, looks like he’s right. I’m surprised.[/quote]
I wouldn’t have thought it 25 years ago, but a sit-down panoramic city view in 92106 is now worth a minimum of $300K. These views, from the proper angle, cannot be duplicated anywhere in the world. If able to obtain one of these properties at a fair price (condition be damned), it would be VERY financially prudent to do so, IMO!
July 22, 2011 @ 12:18 PM
it’s not so much the school
it’s not so much the school but the neighborhood. plenty of views in lesser neighborhoods.
Better neighborhoods don’t necessarily have good schools if there aren’t many children.
July 22, 2011 @ 1:26 PM
sdrealtor wrote:
For me its
[quote=sdrealtor]
For me its kids first as that is the way i was raised and the way my kids are being raised. Living in a schools first neighborhood surrounds me with neighbors who beleive in most of the same things I do regarding family and I like that.
[/quote]
I think that statement hits the nail on the head. If you want your kids to be surrounded by peers who value education and take it seriously, you are more likely to find those kids in schools that have high reputations, high API scores, etc. The parents who send their kids to those schools also tend to be well educated, take school seriously, make time to volunteer, etc. I don’t really think it’s the school as much as the educational culture that certain schools attract. And teachers compete for jobs at schools where the kids like to learn and the parents support the education process, so the good teachers tend to gravitate toward the high performing schools. So I think you end up with a self reinforcing system.
But, if I didn’t have kids, I’d definitely go for the view :).
July 22, 2011 @ 4:38 PM
njtosd wrote:sdrealtor
[quote=njtosd][quote=sdrealtor]
For me its kids first as that is the way i was raised and the way my kids are being raised. Living in a schools first neighborhood surrounds me with neighbors who beleive in most of the same things I do regarding family and I like that.
[/quote]
I think that statement hits the nail on the head. If you want your kids to be surrounded by peers who value education and take it seriously, you are more likely to find those kids in schools that have high reputations, high API scores, etc. The parents who send their kids to those schools also tend to be well educated, take school seriously, make time to volunteer, etc. I don’t really think it’s the school as much as the educational culture that certain schools attract. And teachers compete for jobs at schools where the kids like to learn and the parents support the education process, so the good teachers tend to gravitate toward the high performing schools. So I think you end up with a self reinforcing system.
But, if I didn’t have kids, I’d definitely go for the view :).[/quote]
I think that it’s more about socio-economics and being around people who share your values.
Approval of peers and family is important also.
July 22, 2011 @ 5:58 PM
sdcellar – thanks for the
sdcellar – thanks for the encouraging words. You are right that DH and I often discuss topics on Piggington and this morning he was very entertained by the thought of having the Piggs decide. Now he’s amused that he has the majority vote and is enjoying feeling vindicated 🙂
sdcellar and AN, FWIW, I think Calle Isabelino will sell before Pershing b/c of the school. Pershing has been on the market for a while and not moving. I like Pershing way better and agree w/BG that w/Mills Act there is greater value, but I’m not the average Pooh bear. The big picture is there are a lot of families buying in 4S and it’s b/c of turnkey new house in the best school district. Many are tiny, crammed lots w/a view of your neighbor’s bathroom. I could never do it, even if I had kids. I’d be the one sending them to private or figuring out some other way. But there is not a shortage of people that want to live there. I can’t understand it and the only thing I keep hearing is it’s b/c of the schools.
So maybe Piggs voting for view over schools are higher minded and when I was saying school is more important than view, I was thinking that the average person would take that position. By that last statement, I do not mean to suggest school isn’t important. Just seems that the average person places greater value on school versus view and if they had to give up one over the other, they would forego view to be in a better school district.
July 22, 2011 @ 6:29 PM
jpinpb, maybe a better metric
jpinpb, maybe a better metric (than your poll) would be to mine the data that is Piggington posts and see how many discuss schools, APIs, Carmel Valley and Carmel Valley versus views.
Bet we’d see a slightly different result.
Part of the problem (I think) is that the term “view” is simply too ambiguous. It conjures to mind many a thing and also comes dangerously close to the term “location”, which we know are the first, second and third most important things to consider when buying a house. And also factors in schools. Dammit. Now we’ve got a circular reference. This is never going to work!
Anyway, that’s my sense and I think it’s just something else I’m thinking we’d agree on.
AN wants to agree, or at least that’s how he voted with his home buying dollars (and continual references to MM API scores). He just doesn’t know it, I guess.
July 22, 2011 @ 6:38 PM
sdcellar wrote:jpinpb, maybe
[quote=sdcellar]jpinpb, maybe a better metric (than your poll) would be to mine the data that is Piggington posts and see how many discuss schools, APIs, Carmel Valley and Carmel Valley versus views.
Bet we’d see a slightly different result.
Part of the problem (I think) is that the term “view” is simply too ambiguous. It conjures to mind many a thing and also comes dangerously close to the term “location”, which we know are the first, second and third most important things to consider when buying a house. And also factors in schools. Dammit. Now we’ve got a circular reference. This is never going to work!
Anyway, that’s my sense and I think it’s just something else I’m thinking we’d agree on…[/quote]
I agree that “view” should be more specific. It should state, “ocean, city or bay view.” Those are the universal favorites. I seriously doubt canyon or mountain view (in SD County) commands very much of a premium.
You can mine all you want here, sdcellar. I do believe you will find CV, CV and CV (as in “Carmel Valley”) are the preferred areas to buy in (with armpit Poway coming in at a close second). HOWEVER, do you think the Piggs who post here are representative of the entire home-buying public??
July 22, 2011 @ 6:44 PM
bg, in some ways I think the
bg, in some ways I think the Piggs are (representative) and in some ways not. I’m pretty sure we’re not as cool as we think we are.
Right now, we’re consistent with the sheeple in that we’re saying one thing and doing another. You agree that it’s nothing but GD CV here sometimes and somehow schools are losing this poll?!!!! Many somebodies actions (votes) aren’t consistent with their words. Certainly a common human foible.
Prove me wrong Piggs, turn this poll around!
July 23, 2011 @ 1:43 AM
njtosd wrote:sdrealtor
[quote=njtosd][quote=sdrealtor]
For me its kids first as that is the way i was raised and the way my kids are being raised. Living in a schools first neighborhood surrounds me with neighbors who beleive in most of the same things I do regarding family and I like that.
[/quote]
I think that statement hits the nail on the head. If you want your kids to be surrounded by peers who value education and take it seriously, you are more likely to find those kids in schools that have high reputations, high API scores, etc. The parents who send their kids to those schools also tend to be well educated, take school seriously, make time to volunteer, etc. I don’t really think it’s the school as much as the educational culture that certain schools attract. And teachers compete for jobs at schools where the kids like to learn and the parents support the education process, so the good teachers tend to gravitate toward the high performing schools. So I think you end up with a self reinforcing system.
But, if I didn’t have kids, I’d definitely go for the view :).[/quote]
Though it sounds terrible, a lot of teachers are attracted to the high-performing schools because it’s an easier job. The parents in high-performing schools tend to be more of a pain, and the kids often have bratty attitudes vs. kids and parents in the poorer neighborhoods. That being said, since teacher success is so closely tied to test scores, teachers want to go where the high-performing students are — those whose parents tend to have higher I.Q.s, college degrees, more money (for tutoring and other extracurricular activities), etc.
You’d be absolutely amazed at the difference between students entering kindergarten in a “good” school district vs. those entering kindergarten in a “bad” school district. In many cases, their future is already mapped out well before they enter their first year of school. The importance of good parenting skills and genetics cannot be overstated, IMHO.
July 23, 2011 @ 2:49 AM
Back on topic…
IMHO, the
Back on topic…
IMHO, the choice between schools and views is subjective but, in general, the schools affect the value of a neighborhood while the views affect the value of a house.
It’s usually better to buy the beater home in a good neighborhood than to buy the most amazing home in a beater neighborhood. By prioritizing schools over views, it’s easier to buy the beater in a good neighborhood.
Even though we homeschool, we prefer to live in an area with good schools because we want to live in the type of neighborhood that surrounds good schools. We like to live around other people who value education/family values, maintain their homes (without needing an HOA to tell them to do it), are involved in the community, and prioritize safety and cleanliness in the neighborhood. For the most part, that type of neighborhood is likely to be found around schools that have higher scores (and local students — not bussed in).
FWIW, we like flat yards and easy-walking neighborhoods, so views are not a priority for us. We wouldn’t pay much of a premium for one unless it was truly a one-of-a-kind view.
July 23, 2011 @ 6:52 AM
In my neighborhood a big flat
In my neighborhood a big flat backyard is extremely rare and will cost big $$$ (as much if not more than a panoramic view lot!) especially if you want a good street. Most of the lots are 4-6k sq. ft. which is big enough for the house, the garage, and a small grassy/entertaining area.
This house has a big back yard for the area. The lot size is 7500 sq. ft which is tiny by suburb standards.
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-110020440-4324_Witherby_St_San_Diego_CA_92103
The wooded area in Point Loma is one of the few urban areas I can think of that has the big flat back yards (a quarter of an acre or more). Fleetridge has some nice lots too.
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-110022818-3640_Dudley_St_San_Diego_CA_92106
July 23, 2011 @ 9:37 AM
pemeliza wrote:In my
[quote=pemeliza]In my neighborhood a big flat backyard is extremely rare and will cost big $$$ (as much if not more than a panoramic view lot!) especially if you want a good street. Most of the lots are 4-6k sq. ft. which is big enough for the house, the garage, and a small grassy/entertaining area.
This house has a big back yard for the area. The lot size is 7500 sq. ft which is tiny by suburb standards.
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-110020440-4324_Witherby_St_San_Diego_CA_92103
The wooded area in Point Loma is one of the few urban areas I can think of that has the big flat back yards (a quarter of an acre or more). Fleetridge has some nice lots too.
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-110022818-3640_Dudley_St_San_Diego_CA_92106
[/quote]
pem, the Witherby Spanish is an absolute gem.
The PL Woods addition added space to the Richards design but rather decimated the original lines of the house. All in all, it is a nice lot with the original Richards landscape design still intact.
I agree PL Woods is a very good area for families. I believe there is an HOA there but not clear if all streets belong to it. However, these houses/lots are too large and labor-intensive for the boomer/retired set, IMHO.
July 23, 2011 @ 6:29 PM
pemeliza wrote:In my
[quote=pemeliza]In my neighborhood a big flat backyard is extremely rare and will cost big $$$ (as much if not more than a panoramic view lot!) especially if you want a good street. Most of the lots are 4-6k sq. ft. which is big enough for the house, the garage, and a small grassy/entertaining area.
This house has a big back yard for the area. The lot size is 7500 sq. ft which is tiny by suburb standards.
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-110020440-4324_Witherby_St_San_Diego_CA_92103
The wooded area in Point Loma is one of the few urban areas I can think of that has the big flat back yards (a quarter of an acre or more). Fleetridge has some nice lots too.
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-110022818-3640_Dudley_St_San_Diego_CA_92106%5B/quote%5D
Beautiful homes, especially the first one.
July 23, 2011 @ 7:20 AM
CA renter wrote:Back on
[quote=CA renter]Back on topic…
IMHO, the choice between schools and views is subjective but, in general, the schools affect the value of a neighborhood while the views affect the value of a house.
It’s usually better to buy the beater home in a good neighborhood than to buy the most amazing home in a beater neighborhood. By prioritizing schools over views, it’s easier to buy the beater in a good neighborhood.
Even though we homeschool, we prefer to live in an area with good schools because we want to live in the type of neighborhood that surrounds good schools. We like to live around other people who value education/family values, maintain their homes (without needing an HOA to tell them to do it), are involved in the community, and prioritize safety and cleanliness in the neighborhood. For the most part, that type of neighborhood is likely to be found around schools that have higher scores (and local students — not bussed in).
FWIW, we like flat yards and easy-walking neighborhoods, so views are not a priority for us. We wouldn’t pay much of a premium for one unless it was truly a one-of-a-kind view.[/quote]
Once again, very good point. I’ve always maintained API is a rough gauge of the general attitude of the students in that particular school. If the overall environment is one of learning, it is less likely that a student will dropout and start smoking weed at 13. This is not to say the higher API will guarantee success. Just merely your child’s peers will also be more into getting into college, so chances of your child’s friend from school calling about what college to apply to is higher than calling about which street corner has the best weed.
And this is not to say a child will not succeed going to a lower tier school. But merely the child will have to go against the grain in that environment.
July 23, 2011 @ 9:08 AM
ocrenter wrote:CA renter
[quote=ocrenter][quote=CA renter]Back on topic…
IMHO, the choice between schools and views is subjective but, in general, the schools affect the value of a neighborhood while the views affect the value of a house.
It’s usually better to buy the beater home in a good neighborhood than to buy the most amazing home in a beater neighborhood. By prioritizing schools over views, it’s easier to buy the beater in a good neighborhood.
Even though we homeschool, we prefer to live in an area with good schools because we want to live in the type of neighborhood that surrounds good schools. We like to live around other people who value education/family values, maintain their homes (without needing an HOA to tell them to do it), are involved in the community, and prioritize safety and cleanliness in the neighborhood. For the most part, that type of neighborhood is likely to be found around schools that have higher scores (and local students — not bussed in).
FWIW, we like flat yards and easy-walking neighborhoods, so views are not a priority for us. We wouldn’t pay much of a premium for one unless it was truly a one-of-a-kind view.[/quote]
Once again, very good point. I’ve always maintained API is a rough gauge of the general attitude of the students in that particular school. If the overall environment is one of learning, it is less likely that a student will dropout and start smoking weed at 13. This is not to say the higher API will guarantee success. Just merely your child’s peers will also be more into getting into college, so chances of your child’s friend from school calling about what college to apply to is higher than calling about which street corner has the best weed.
And this is not to say a child will not succeed going to a lower tier school. But merely the child will have to go against the grain in that environment.[/quote]
Spot on both CAR and OCR.
OCR,
Loved the quote about “chances of your child’s friend from school calling about what college to apply to is higher than calling about which street corner has the best weed.”
I’m gonna steal that one and use it often
July 23, 2011 @ 9:29 AM
ocrenter wrote:…And this is
[quote=ocrenter]…And this is not to say a child will not succeed going to a lower tier school. But merely the child will have to go against the grain in that environment.[/quote]
ocrenter and CAR, I don’t agree that parents in a “lower-tier school” aren’t involved. Just because a parent is “lower income” does not mean they are not involved in their child’s education and don’t come to parent-teacher conferences and other school functions.
I think the reverse is true. Both parents in a “higher-tier” school are often working FT and then have varying commutes to/from home. Why? To pay their ridiculously high mtg, taxes, MR and HOA dues that they chose to do.
A child has a more stable life and is better off if their parents aren’t constantly pressured to meet the costs of shelter (often exceeding $100 day). There is no room for error in this scenario. There is no time for extended unpaid maternity leave or leave without pay for extra vacation days for either parent.
A bonus for a young child would be to live within walking distance of other relatives (grandparents, uncles and aunts). It takes a village these days to raise a child. These older relatives typically DO NOT live within high-cost newer HOA’s. Many grandparents and great-grandparents need to remain on or near bus/trolley lines and medical care.
July 23, 2011 @ 9:51 AM
CA renter wrote:Back on
[quote=CA renter]Back on topic…
IMHO, the choice between schools and views is subjective but, in general, the schools affect the value of a neighborhood while the views affect the value of a house.
It’s usually better to buy the beater home in a good neighborhood than to buy the most amazing home in a beater neighborhood. By prioritizing schools over views, it’s easier to buy the beater in a good neighborhood…[/quote]
Agreed, but need to add this: If a potential buyer is HIGHLY familiar with a particular area, is READY TO BUY and also very PATIENT, he/she may very well be able to score a “beater” property with an amazing view :=}
Piggs, how ELSE will you obtain an amazing view?
[quote=ocrenter]Once again, very good point. I’ve always maintained API is a rough gauge of the general attitude of the students in that particular school. If the overall environment is one of learning, it is less likely that a student will dropout and start smoking weed at 13. This is not to say the higher API will guarantee success. Just merely your child’s peers will also be more into getting into college, so chances of your child’s friend from school calling about what college to apply to is higher than calling about which street corner has the best weed…[/quote]
Uhh . . . hmmm, the kids calling friends about the “best weed,” best crystal, etc are the ones with $$ (Read: Coronado High, Poway High, etc.) The kids from “poor families” don’t have any $$ for that. Remember, they’re eligible for the “free lunch program,” free bus transportation and free “after-school care.” They often have under $1 on them or nothing at all, are wearing “uniforms” and the younger kids don’t even have cell phones.
It’s the “unsupervised kids” with both parents working all day after throwing them a $10 or $20 every morning before school who have “weed money.”
July 23, 2011 @ 10:09 AM
“Agreed, but need to add
“Agreed, but need to add this: If a potential buyer is HIGHLY familiar with a particular area, is READY TO BUY and also very PATIENT, he/she may very well be able to score a “beater” property with an amazing view :=}”
Especially given the current market conditions. The problem is that you will likely have to compete with cash investors looking for similar opportunities.
July 23, 2011 @ 10:15 AM
pemeliza wrote:”Agreed, but
[quote=pemeliza]”Agreed, but need to add this: If a potential buyer is HIGHLY familiar with a particular area, is READY TO BUY and also very PATIENT, he/she may very well be able to score a “beater” property with an amazing view :=}”
Especially given the current market conditions. The problem is that you will likely have to compete with cash investors looking for similar opportunities.[/quote]
pem, this won’t be a problem for me. When/if I’m in the market for my coveted Fleetridge view-fixer in a few years, I will be a cash purchaser. Not only am I a master (mistress?, lol) of contracts, I will be undeterred by a property’s less-than-completely-habitable condition :=]
July 23, 2011 @ 10:18 AM
BG, at the rate Point Loma is
BG, at the rate Point Loma is dropping, you may be able to afford La Playa 🙂
July 23, 2011 @ 10:23 AM
pemeliza wrote:BG, at the
[quote=pemeliza]BG, at the rate Point Loma is dropping, you may be able to afford La Playa :)[/quote]
Lol :=)
I kind of like the higher views in Fleetridge, though. I’ve had the same 4 streets picked out since ’94.
As you may surmise, 2014 can’t come fast enough for me :=]
July 23, 2011 @ 11:04 AM
bearishgurl wrote:
Uhh . . .
[quote=bearishgurl]
Uhh . . . hmmm, the kids calling friends about the “best weed,” best crystal, etc are the ones with $$ (Read: Coronado High, Poway High, etc.) The kids from “poor families” don’t have any $$ for that. Remember, they’re eligible for the “free lunch program,” free bus transportation and free “after-school care.” [/quote]
I went to a high school that had kids from both ends of the economic spectrum. Some had parents that were senior execs at the auto companies; others lived in rickety housing and didn’t have warm clothes to wear in the winter. It was my impression that both the rich kids and the poor ones had their share of druggies – as did the group in between. The poor kids who “don’t have any $$ for that” became dealers to support their habits, but the rich kids dealt, too. Lack of supervision might make matters worse, but I think some people are just more susceptible to getting hooked.
July 23, 2011 @ 11:44 AM
njtosd wrote:bearishgurl
[quote=njtosd][quote=bearishgurl]
Uhh . . . hmmm, the kids calling friends about the “best weed,” best crystal, etc are the ones with $$ (Read: Coronado High, Poway High, etc.) The kids from “poor families” don’t have any $$ for that. Remember, they’re eligible for the “free lunch program,” free bus transportation and free “after-school care.” [/quote]
I went to a high school that had kids from both ends of the economic spectrum. Some had parents that were senior execs at the auto companies; others lived in rickety housing and didn’t have warm clothes to wear in the winter. It was my impression that both the rich kids and the poor ones had their share of druggies – as did the group in between. The poor kids who “don’t have any $$ for that” became dealers to support their habits, but the rich kids dealt, too. Lack of supervision might make matters worse, but I think some people are just more susceptible to getting hooked.[/quote]
I understand, njtosd, but times have changed… dramatically. We had an open campus and weed, hash and cigarettes were smoked everywhere, every day on my HS grounds back in the day. And lots of students had various forms of acid in their possession.
Sweetwater Union HSD, for instance, currently has a zero-tolerance policy for possession and dealing. The punishment for the first offense is expulsion from the entire district, forever. These kids can’t do this on or next to school grounds (as previous generations did) if they want to graduate. These campuses are now locked down with 1-2 (supervised) entrances in the morning. A visiting parent has to go thru the office and identify themselves. Many schools are putting textbooks online and don’t have lockers anymore. The ones that still have lockers require the students to purchase their lock from school EVERY year and at the same time, leave the combo to it with school officials during orientation. Any privately-purchased locks are promptly cut off by school security.
As a SUHSD student, if you are busted for possession/sale by school security, you will find yourself earning a GED in “adult-school,” in private school (if your parents can afford it) or attempting to transfer out of district (good luck with that). A parent or their lawyer will not be able to get the student readmitted after a hearing on the matter as the hearing officer will believe the security officer’s testimony. The school will also dig up other students to testify against your kid.
No, my kid(s) have never taken drugs or sold, but some of their classmates will never be back. It’s as it should be.
July 23, 2011 @ 12:44 PM
bearishgurl wrote:njtosd
[quote=bearishgurl][quote=njtosd][quote=bearishgurl]
Uhh . . . hmmm, the kids calling friends about the “best weed,” best crystal, etc are the ones with $$ (Read: Coronado High, Poway High, etc.) The kids from “poor families” don’t have any $$ for that. Remember, they’re eligible for the “free lunch program,” free bus transportation and free “after-school care.” [/quote]
I went to a high school that had kids from both ends of the economic spectrum. Some had parents that were senior execs at the auto companies; others lived in rickety housing and didn’t have warm clothes to wear in the winter. It was my impression that both the rich kids and the poor ones had their share of druggies – as did the group in between. The poor kids who “don’t have any $$ for that” became dealers to support their habits, but the rich kids dealt, too. Lack of supervision might make matters worse, but I think some people are just more susceptible to getting hooked.[/quote]
I understand, njtosd, but times have changed… dramatically. We had an open campus and weed, hash and cigarettes were smoked everywhere, every day on my HS grounds back in the day. And lots of students had various forms of acid in their possession.
Sweetwater Union HSD, for instance, currently has a zero-tolerance policy for possession and dealing. The punishment for the first offense is expulsion from the entire district, forever. These kids can’t do this on or next to school grounds (as previous generations did) if they want to graduate. These campuses are now locked down with 1-2 (supervised) entrances in the morning. A visiting parent has to go thru the office and identify themselves. Many schools are putting textbooks online and don’t have lockers anymore. The ones that still have lockers require the students to purchase their lock from school EVERY year and at the same time, leave the combo to it with school officials during orientation. Any privately-purchased locks are promptly cut off by school security.
As a SUHSD student, if you are busted for possession/sale by school security, you will find yourself earning a GED in “adult-school,” in private school (if your parents can afford it) or attempting to transfer out of district (good luck with that). A parent or their lawyer will not be able to get the student readmitted after a hearing on the matter as the hearing officer will believe the security officer’s testimony. The school will also dig up other students to testify against your kid.
No, my kid(s) have never taken drugs or sold, but some of their classmates will never be back. It’s as it should be.[/quote]
I don’t see how this addresses your suggestion that rich kids do more drugs. I’m happy to know that schools are enforcing a zero tolerance policy, but my guess is that that policy is enforced at all high schools, including Poway and Coronado.
July 23, 2011 @ 1:12 PM
njtosd wrote:I don’t see how
[quote=njtosd]I don’t see how this addresses your suggestion that rich kids do more drugs. I’m happy to know that schools are enforcing a zero tolerance policy, but my guess is that that policy is enforced at all high schools, including Poway and Coronado.[/quote]
The general consensus of this board seems to be that Chula Vista is predominately “low income” (lol). The school district in Chula Vista is SUHSD.
I don’t know what the drug policies are in the other school districts.
Kids have the oppt’y to experiment with drugs if they have the money and also lack of supervision. It doesn’t matter WHERE they go to school. Even LJ Country Day and Bishops students have that oppt’y.
You stated you believe the poorer kids just deal to support their “habits.” Maybe that worked in your day but they can’t deal to make money in or around the campuses in SUHSD for fear of someone ratting on them. The consequences are too great. They would have to do this in a home or backyard. There are likely more adults at home all hours of the day in “poorer” areas (due to unemployment and lack of education).
It wasn’t as important “back in the day” to graduate HS or go to college as it is now. Back then, you could just graduate, get a GED or get a certificate from ROP or trade school, go to work, get an apt, get married, have kids (not necessarily in that order) and live happily ever after (if you didn’t screw up your mind and body with drug use).
Those days are long gone.
July 23, 2011 @ 12:00 PM
Seem like someone need to
Seem like someone need to change their handle to ANTI-HOA/MRgirl
July 23, 2011 @ 12:03 PM
ocrenter wrote:Seem like
[quote=ocrenter]Seem like someone need to change their handle to ANTI-HOA/MRgirl[/quote]
At least you can’t accuse me of being “inconsistent.” :=}
July 23, 2011 @ 2:06 PM
ocrenter wrote:Seem like
[quote=ocrenter]Seem like someone need to change their handle to ANTI-HOA/MRgirl[/quote]
I’ll be her runner up.
July 23, 2011 @ 6:54 PM
As an older member of this
As an older member of this forum, I’d just like to share some thoughts based on our experiences as parents.
We happened to have raised our kids in Del Mar, and, for us, it was the best of both worlds–great schools, a home with a view, and we’ve now turned that house into a rental.
That said, my wife and I come from fairly large families, most of whom have lived in the San Diego area for years. We have relatives who raised their families in Mission Hills, Point Loma, La Jolla, Del Mar, Sunset Cliffs, and other locations around town.
Some of our kids went to private, some went to public schools and most all of them turned out great, so, my guess is, although “schools” and “views” might matter, the real success factor may have been the parenting skills, and it sounds like the contributors to this forum have earned an A+ in that department.
IMHO, education, or any of the tools we give our kids to succeed in this world are really only a means to an end. For us, our goal as parents, was to produce happy, well-rounded, independent individuals who could support themselves in living the lives they want to live.
Getting them to that point involved far more than education alone could provide, but seeing our kids (now in their late 20’s) create and pretty much live the lives of their dreams was definitely worth all of the effort.
July 23, 2011 @ 7:02 PM
bearishgurl wrote:CA renter
[quote=bearishgurl][quote=CA renter]Back on topic…
IMHO, the choice between schools and views is subjective but, in general, the schools affect the value of a neighborhood while the views affect the value of a house.
It’s usually better to buy the beater home in a good neighborhood than to buy the most amazing home in a beater neighborhood. By prioritizing schools over views, it’s easier to buy the beater in a good neighborhood…[/quote]
Agreed, but need to add this: If a potential buyer is HIGHLY familiar with a particular area, is READY TO BUY and also very PATIENT, he/she may very well be able to score a “beater” property with an amazing view :=}
Piggs, how ELSE will you obtain an amazing view?
[quote=ocrenter]Once again, very good point. I’ve always maintained API is a rough gauge of the general attitude of the students in that particular school. If the overall environment is one of learning, it is less likely that a student will dropout and start smoking weed at 13. This is not to say the higher API will guarantee success. Just merely your child’s peers will also be more into getting into college, so chances of your child’s friend from school calling about what college to apply to is higher than calling about which street corner has the best weed…[/quote]
Uhh . . . hmmm, the kids calling friends about the “best weed,” best crystal, etc are the ones with $$ (Read: Coronado High, Poway High, etc.) The kids from “poor families” don’t have any $$ for that. Remember, they’re eligible for the “free lunch program,” free bus transportation and free “after-school care.” They often have under $1 on them or nothing at all, are wearing “uniforms” and the younger kids don’t even have cell phones.
It’s the “unsupervised kids” with both parents working all day after throwing them a $10 or $20 every morning before school who have “weed money.”[/quote]
Agree with you about the lack of good* supervision being the #1 reason kids get into trouble, but from my experience in both low-income and high-income schools, it’s the high-income schools that tend to have more stay-at-home parents, and the parents who stay home in these high-income areas tend to be the kind of “good” parents who honestly supervise and help their kids.
In the lower-income areas, you tend to see many dual-income families, and they often work two or more jobs. In general, they are poor because they earn less money, not because they’re unemployed (though that can always be a factor, too). Those that DO stay home in these areas tend to be the kind of people who should NOT be in charge of kids. They often drink or do drugs, have questionable “friends” around the house, and pay very little attention to their kids.
Again, there are always exceptions to everything, but this seems to be the general trend from what I’ve seen.
July 23, 2011 @ 8:28 PM
What is likely influencing
What is likely influencing the results of the poll is who is left on the blog. Most of the piggs with young kids had more motivation to get settled in a nice home with good schools so they have bought homes and moved on. The proportion of piggs that arent concerned with schools is much higher now.
Market, Pamplemouse, Blanca, West, Arterra, Savory, Paon, Blue Ribbon Pizza just to name a few. 10 years ago there wasnt much up here but that isnt true anymore. We have fabulous restaurants up here now. I seldom drive south of Del Mar for dinner anymore.
July 23, 2011 @ 10:56 PM
sdrealtor wrote:What is
[quote=sdrealtor]What is likely influencing the results of the poll is who is left on the blog. Most of the piggs with young kids had more motivation to get settled in a nice home with good schools so they have bought homes and moved on. The proportion of piggs that arent concerned with schools is much higher now.
Market, Pamplemouse, Blanca, West, Arterra, Savory, Paon, Blue Ribbon Pizza just to name a few. 10 years ago there wasnt much up here but that isnt true anymore. We have fabulous restaurants up here now. I seldom drive south of Del Mar for dinner anymore.[/quote]
Firefly 🙂
July 23, 2011 @ 11:00 PM
Why are the choices confined
Why are the choices confined to view and good schools. Are all houses in areas with good schools on flat land. The actual apples to apples question is “lot size” vs “view.” There are plenty of crappy views in older areas, in fact, older areas are more prone to view obstruction, like power poles, billboards and hobos digging in your trash.
Most areas with views are built on uneven land, hillsides usually, with one house on each side of the street. Because views are obstructed by flat lots, generally the larger lots are on the non-view side of the street. I’ve lived in a few of each type in the same school district, so for me, it boiled down to the age of my kids. When my kids were little, big lots with no view were better, medium sized kids, same thing, but add in a pool, older kids with cars and one foot out the door, view is my choice. Do we really have to decide on a particular type of housing for life?
I think the actual poll should be view vs. lot size and also another poll for school district vs. location. When I get to the empty nester stage in three years, school district becomes irrelevent to me, view is a completely different animal, I think I’ll always want a view from now on, regardless of house size, community or school district. Generally, not always, but usually, the sacrifice is lot size and proximity of neighbors, when looking at cost equivalent properties.
July 24, 2011 @ 12:01 AM
FWIW I grew up in an upper
FWIW I grew up in an upper middle class area. My older brother was a big time addict as we had access to lots of things. I was not. He is also one of the pre-eminent glaucoma specialists in the world and left his addictions in the rear view mirror 20+ years ago. Some things you leave behind and some things stay with you. i’ll leave it to BG and here B&W world to figure out which.
July 24, 2011 @ 10:29 AM
sdrealtor wrote:FWIW I grew
[quote=sdrealtor]FWIW I grew up in an upper middle class area. My older brother was a big time addict as we had access to lots of things. I was not. He is also one of the pre-eminent glaucoma specialists in the world and left his addictions in the rear view mirror 20+ years ago. Some things you leave behind and some things stay with you. i’ll leave it to BG and here B&W world to figure out which.[/quote]
That’s swell about your brother, sdr, but lots of people (boomers especially) who tried with all their might to “leave their addictions behind 20 (or more) years ago” are still affected by their former “addictions.” No, they are not using anymore but their past transgressions with their health have come back to bite them in several ways.
I agree that kids growing up in an “upper middle class” area have access to “lots of things” a poorer kid with a used backback, pencil, a free-lunch card and three school uniforms does not.
July 24, 2011 @ 4:12 PM
bearishgurl wrote:sdrealtor
[quote=bearishgurl][quote=sdrealtor]FWIW I grew up in an upper middle class area. My older brother was a big time addict as we had access to lots of things. I was not. He is also one of the pre-eminent glaucoma specialists in the world and left his addictions in the rear view mirror 20+ years ago. Some things you leave behind and some things stay with you. i’ll leave it to BG and here B&W world to figure out which.[/quote]
That’s swell about your brother, sdr, but lots of people (boomers especially) who tried with all their might to “leave their addictions behind 20 (or more) years ago” are still affected by their former “addictions.” No, they are not using anymore but their past transgressions with their health have come back to bite them in several ways.
I agree that kids growing up in an “upper middle class” area have access to “lots of things” a poorer kid with a used backback, pencil, a free-lunch card and three school uniforms does not.[/quote]
BG – people who study these things seem to disagree with you. For example, an article entitled “Are adolescents with high socioeconomic status more likely to engage in alcohol and illicit drug use in early adulthood?” published in Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2010; 5: 19, states the following (I’ve omitted some irrelevant data):
Goodman and Huang . . . found that having low SES (socioeconomic status) was associated with greater alcohol use and with greater cigarette and cocaine use among white teenagers. . . . Friestad and colleagues [3] found that low parental education and moderate household income was associated with greater rates of smoking in adolescents. Reinherz and colleagues [4], examining 360 respondents followed from 1977-2000, found that low family SES and larger family size were associated with increased probability of substance abuse disorders in early adulthood. An analysis by Hamilton and colleagues [5], of the Ontario Student Drug Use Survey, found that adolescents (ages 12-19) with college-educated parents were less likely to engage in hazardous or harmful drinking or illicit drug use.
July 24, 2011 @ 5:16 PM
njtosd wrote:BG – people who
[quote=njtosd]BG – people who study these things seem to disagree with you. For example, an article entitled “Are adolescents with high socioeconomic status more likely to engage in alcohol and illicit drug use in early adulthood?” published in Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2010; 5: 19, states the following (I’ve omitted some irrelevant data):
Goodman and Huang . . . found that having low SES (socioeconomic status) was associated with greater alcohol use and with greater cigarette and cocaine use among white teenagers. . . . Friestad and colleagues [3] found that low parental education and moderate household income was associated with greater rates of smoking in adolescents. Reinherz and colleagues [4], examining 360 respondents followed from 1977-2000, found that low family SES and larger family size were associated with increased probability of substance abuse disorders in early adulthood. An analysis by Hamilton and colleagues [5], of the Ontario Student Drug Use Survey, found that adolescents (ages 12-19) with college-educated parents were less likely to engage in hazardous or harmful drinking or illicit drug use.[/quote]
njtosd, you haven’t included a link here. Even though your “study” was presumably published in 2010, it is referring to its “study-subjects” as being “examined” from 1977-2000. Your “drug-use survey” was taken in Canada. A LOT has changed since then. Namely:
1) “Poor people” in America no longer live in wood shacks or dilapidated trailers raised up over rice paddies with wild pigs sleeping underneath. Nor do they live in “hollers” anymore without utilities or running water. (And yes, I’ve been on the road in this “great” country of ours and they DID as late as the early nineties.) They now have modern, subsidized apartments or Section 8 vouchers with which to rent single-family homes.
3) In the last decade, many “college educated parents” are out of work and some have been unemployed for an extended length of time which could have been half of a child’s minority, or more. This has had the effect of lessening the economic divide between college-educated parents and non college-educated parents.
4) Schools have taken it upon themselves to equalize or minimize the difference in economic status of their students:
For instance: (a)free lunch swipe-cards look the same for a free-lunch recipient as they do for one that pays; (b) all students now use the same lunch line to get lunch so there is not stigma for the free-lunch recipients waiting in a separate line; (c) free bus passes are handled the same way (so the students don’t know who is “free” and who is not); (d) the wearing of respectful low-cost “uniforms” is a requirement by many schools (partly to prevent the kid with $100 sneakers from distracting everyone and “showing off”); and (e) school supplies are provided (many times on the sly, by teachers) to hardworking students who can’t afford them.
(5) TANF (formerly “AFDC”) and the Dept of Agriculture EBT card program (formerly “food stamps”) has been greatly expanded since then and these customers do not (embarrassingly) hold up grocery lines anymore with special procedures;
(6) Parents receiving TANF are now offered free childcare, if needed, while attending college or trade school. They are also placed in gov’t offices as “temps” to receive work experiences and obtain future recommendations for employment.
(7) there is a LOT more mandatory drug education in the public schools than there was then, starting with 1st grade and pummeling students with info every year after that;
(8) public school districts have cracked down on drug possession, use and sales on and around school property with harsh penalties, including expulsion;
(9) many kids who may have repeatedly witnessed their parents or other relatives strung out have seen the consequences and decided that’s not what they want for their lives;
(10) strong cigarette warnings on pkgs and education as early as the primary grades now warn kids never to start smoking; and,
(11) many more kids are covered by medical and dental insurance due to programs such as Medi-Cal and Healthy Families.
(12) low-cost after school care is now available in communities (free for TANF families) up thru the 8th grade. It features homework help and sports (to keep kids off the streets).
I think the greatest cause of depression (leading to drug use) and suicide today among the youth is being bullied by their peers, feeling like they don’t have the right look, clothes, etc (among girls) and feeling constant pressure from parents to produce grades to increase their chances for admission into particular college(s). This is often the parent’s and not the child’s wish.
I think the kids in greatest danger of becoming addicted to drugs are those who have the money and unsupervised free time to experiment, along with their similarly-situated peer group.
July 24, 2011 @ 5:27 PM
bearishgurl wrote:njtosd
[quote=bearishgurl][quote=njtosd]BG – people who study these things seem to disagree with you. For example, an article entitled “Are adolescents with high socioeconomic status more likely to engage in alcohol and illicit drug use in early adulthood?” published in Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2010; 5: 19, states the following (I’ve omitted some irrelevant data):
Goodman and Huang . . . found that having low SES (socioeconomic status) was associated with greater alcohol use and with greater cigarette and cocaine use among white teenagers. . . . Friestad and colleagues [3] found that low parental education and moderate household income was associated with greater rates of smoking in adolescents. Reinherz and colleagues [4], examining 360 respondents followed from 1977-2000, found that low family SES and larger family size were associated with increased probability of substance abuse disorders in early adulthood. An analysis by Hamilton and colleagues [5], of the Ontario Student Drug Use Survey, found that adolescents (ages 12-19) with college-educated parents were less likely to engage in hazardous or harmful drinking or illicit drug use.[/quote]
njtosd, you haven’t included a link here. Even though your “study” was presumably published in 2010, it is referring to its “study-subjects” as being “examined” from 1977-2000. Your “drug-use survey” was taken in Canada. A LOT has changed since then. Namely:
1) “Poor people” in America no longer live in wood shacks or dilapidated trailers raised up over rice paddies with wild pigs sleeping underneath. Nor do they live in “hollers” anymore without utilities or running water. (And yes, I’ve been on the road in this “great” country of ours and they DID as late as the early nineties.) They now have modern, subsidized apartments or Section 8 vouchers with which to rent single-family homes.
3) In the last decade, many “college educated parents” are out of work and some have been unemployed for an extended length of time which could have been half of a child’s minority, or more. This has had the effect of lessening the economic divide between college-educated parents and non college-educated parents.
4) Schools have taken it upon themselves to equalize or minimize the difference in economic status of their students:
For instance: (a)free lunch swipe-cards look the same for a free-lunch recipient as they do for one that pays; (b) all students now use the same lunch line to get lunch so there is not stigma for the free-lunch recipients waiting in a separate line; (c) free bus passes are handled the same way (so the students don’t know who is “free” and who is not); (d) the wearing of respectful low-cost “uniforms” is a requirement by many schools (partly to prevent the kid with $100 sneakers from distracting everyone and “showing off”); and (e) school supplies are provided (many times on the sly, by teachers) to hardworking students who can’t afford them.
(5) TANF (formerly “AFDC”) and the Dept of Agriculture EBT card program (formerly “food stamps”) has been greatly expanded since then and these customers do not (embarrassingly) hold up grocery lines anymore with special procedures;
(6) Parents receiving TANF are now offered free childcare, if needed, while attending college or trade school. They are also placed in gov’t offices as “temps” to receive work experiences and obtain future recommendations for employment.
(7) there is a LOT more mandatory drug education in the public schools than there was then, starting with 1st grade and pummeling students with info every year after that;
(8) public school districts have cracked down on drug possession, use and sales on and around school property with harsh penalties, including expulsion;
(9) many kids who may have repeatedly witnessed their parents or other relatives strung out have seen the consequences and decided that’s not what they want for their lives;
(10) strong cigarette warnings on pkgs and education as early as the primary grades now warn kids never to start smoking; and,
(11) many more kids are covered by medical and dental insurance due to programs such as Medi-Cal and Healthy Families.
(12) low-cost after school care is now available in communities (free for TANF families) up thru the 8th grade. It features homework help and sports (to keep kids off the streets).
I think the greatest cause of depression (leading to drug use) and suicide today among the youth is being bullied by their peers, feeling like they don’t have the right look, clothes, etc (among girls) and feeling constant pressure from parents to produce grades to increase their chances for admission into particular college(s). This is often the parent’s and not the child’s wish.
I think the kids in greatest danger of becoming addicted to drugs are those who have the money and unsupervised free time to experiment, along with their similarly-situated peer group.[/quote]
BG – I thought you would be able to interpret the citation that I provided (which clearly indicated the study was published in 2010), but if you need a link, here it is:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2924306/
So any arguments that the data is out of data aren’t really well taken. I am confused about your need for quotes around the word “study,””examined,” etc. And I’m a little amused by your suggestion that I ever used the word “holler.”
Just in case you were wondering, the cites that support the information in the article can be found at the end. For example, the Goodman article was published in Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine. 2002;156:448–453.
If you have actual data that support your position, I’d be interested in seeing it.
July 24, 2011 @ 9:48 AM
TG, school, view and lot size
TG, school, view and lot size are all important to me. You can get all three in some areas if you’re willing to shell out between 700-900k.
July 24, 2011 @ 11:15 AM
temeculaguy wrote:Why are the
[quote=temeculaguy]Why are the choices confined to view and good schools. Are all houses in areas with good schools on flat land. The actual apples to apples question is “lot size” vs “view.” There are plenty of crappy views in older areas, in fact, older areas are more prone to view obstruction, like power poles, billboards and hobos digging in your trash.
Most areas with views are built on uneven land, hillsides usually, with one house on each side of the street. Because views are obstructed by flat lots, generally the larger lots are on the non-view side of the street. I’ve lived in a few of each type in the same school district, so for me, it boiled down to the age of my kids. When my kids were little, big lots with no view were better, medium sized kids, same thing, but add in a pool, older kids with cars and one foot out the door, view is my choice. Do we really have to decide on a particular type of housing for life?
I think the actual poll should be view vs. lot size and also another poll for school district vs. location. When I get to the empty nester stage in three years, school district becomes irrelevent to me, view is a completely different animal, I think I’ll always want a view from now on, regardless of house size, community or school district. Generally, not always, but usually, the sacrifice is lot size and proximity of neighbors, when looking at cost equivalent properties.[/quote]
TG, I think the majority of *newer* properties below the $550K sales price (middle to upper middle income) have view obstructions due to zero lot lines, back yards abutting, 3′ side yards, substandard setback (so short you cannot park a mid-size to full-size vehicle in the driveway) and room for only ONE car on the street/easement in front of your house/PUD unit (blocking your entire frontage view). If you will compare these tight areas to say, Clairemont 92111 (same price-range houses) you will find Clairemont has many quarter-turn driveways, an actual driveway encroachment into the curb, often a backyard overlooking a canyon, many lots over 7K in size, sometimes up to 12’+ side yards, very often 35’+ deep backyards, mature vegetation blocking a neighbor’s view of your property, etc.
Schools aside, young families don’t seem to be attracted to “Clairemont” due to the average house size of about 1650 sf and the average house age of 45 years old. For the same price, they can get over 2000 sf (on two “train-car style” floors, of course) crammed into a 3500 to 4500 sf lot. Never mind the development is over 30 miles out of the city center. They don’t realize they’re sick of commuting with their captive audience until the deal is done and their daily grind has taken its toll. By then, they’re often underwater and can’t sell. They’re just stuck.
Had they bought the Clairemont “shack” (as familyguy put it) and did a little bit of cosmetic repair not even all at once, they wouldn’t have tired so easily of this convenient location with cool breezes and also may have later discovered that their property would actually bear their “fixer-upper” purchase price plus the cost of their DIY projects …. perhaps even more!
Young families of today seem to think they “need” formal dining rooms and both a LR and FR and later find out they don’t really use up to a third of their house with all of these rooms. Then they get their winter utility bills for their 13′ vaulted ceiling, compare it with their old rental house/condo and are shocked. If you just take the four bedrooms and 1-3/4 bath of a Clairemont “shack” of 1650 to 1800 sf, you really have everything you truly need. It’s less to dust, less to clean, maybe more to water/mow, lol and you don’t have wasted space for stairs. Not to mention the gas and aggravation savings.
Believe me, I’ve had houses with formal LR’s, formal DR’s, wet bars, swimming pools, vaulted ceilings, two or more full baths, etc. My current house has a formal DR and the two full baths. I never have used all this space and never will (yes, even when I had kids at home).
And one of the points of my CV questions (above) was that I don’t believe the “representative buyer” in SD to be a DINC family with young children. Perhaps the DINC family is representative of Piggs. Today, the “representative buyers” are the ones who can qualify to buy. DINC families often have too much debt to qualify. It is a self-made phenomenon because their “must-haves” for themselves and their children are far more (and more expensive) than the “must-haves” of past generations. The persons who are qualifying for loans today are those with clean credit, little to zero consumer debt and all-cash buyers. Whether or not they are a FT “working stiff” in the true sense of the word has nothing to do with their “qualifications” to purchase.
July 24, 2011 @ 1:04 PM
temeculaguy wrote: When I get
[quote=temeculaguy] When I get to the empty nester stage in three years, school district becomes irrelevent to me, view is a completely different animal, I think I’ll always want a view from now on, regardless of house size, community or school district. [/quote]
That makes me ask the question of demographics and how many baby boomers (age range 46-64) and older Gen Xers (age range 28-45 years ) out there who might be empty nesters already or soon about to be. As TG said, he will find school districts irrelevant.
Maybe this is what my DH is trying to say. A view is generally desired. Some day, people won’t need to be in a coveted school district. Will the young Gen Yers (somewhere in the range of 9-20 years of age) be able to afford CV/4$ for them and their kids when the time comes, since now they actually have to qualify and unemployment is so high? How long can they be career students when considering the ever rising costs of education. I won’t address Gen M.
There are so many options out there for the younger future buyers and their kids. They can home school and/or when factoring in MR and HOAs, they can send kids to private school. Heck, w/the way they keep cutting education and the continued advancement in technology, maybe kids will just be taught online.
July 26, 2011 @ 1:55 PM
jpinpb wrote: w/the way they
[quote=jpinpb] w/the way they keep cutting education[/quote]
I seem to remember reading a study putting American students about 25th in the world for core subjects and funding having pretty much zero influence on the results. In other words, throwing more money at education doesn’t make Johnny and Jane any better educated.
July 26, 2011 @ 2:16 PM
faterikcartman wrote:jpinpb
[quote=faterikcartman][quote=jpinpb] w/the way they keep cutting education[/quote]
I seem to remember reading a study putting American students about 25th in the world for core subjects and funding having pretty much zero influence on the results. In other words, throwing more money at education doesn’t make Johnny and Jane any better educated.[/quote]
Do you think that maybe funding takes a while to catch up w/the studies/percentile? Just wondering if maybe the studies could be off based on whatever previous years’ funding and the percentiles could get worse w/every year that funding diminishes.
July 26, 2011 @ 3:22 PM
jpinpb wrote:faterikcartman
[quote=jpinpb][quote=faterikcartman][quote=jpinpb] w/the way they keep cutting education[/quote]
I seem to remember reading a study putting American students about 25th in the world for core subjects and funding having pretty much zero influence on the results. In other words, throwing more money at education doesn’t make Johnny and Jane any better educated.[/quote]
Do you think that maybe funding takes a while to catch up w/the studies/percentile? Just wondering if maybe the studies could be off based on whatever previous years’ funding and the percentiles could get worse w/every year that funding diminishes.[/quote]
UT had a recent article showing there is no connection between funding level and success. Poway Unified had one of the lower funding per student ratio. Students in Asian countries routinely are packed into classes of 50 per teacher and they end up doing much better academically than the US.
July 26, 2011 @ 3:22 PM
jpinpb wrote:faterikcartman
[quote=jpinpb][quote=faterikcartman][quote=jpinpb] w/the way they keep cutting education[/quote]
I seem to remember reading a study putting American students about 25th in the world for core subjects and funding having pretty much zero influence on the results. In other words, throwing more money at education doesn’t make Johnny and Jane any better educated.[/quote]
Do you think that maybe funding takes a while to catch up w/the studies/percentile? Just wondering if maybe the studies could be off based on whatever previous years’ funding and the percentiles could get worse w/every year that funding diminishes.[/quote]
No. One can track funding over time in foreign locals (low per-student spending) and match the numbers to a track record of academic success. Conversely, one can look at histories of exorbitant spending tied to stagnant or falling test scores — see http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-298.html
Clearly, the problem lies elsewhere. But we, as a people and country, are in denial.
July 24, 2011 @ 12:59 PM
sdrealtor wrote:. . . 10
[quote=sdrealtor]. . . 10 years ago there wasnt much up here but that isnt true anymore. We have fabulous restaurants up here now. I seldom drive south of Del Mar for dinner anymore.[/quote]
What?? No more driving all the way down to my ‘lil “neck in the woods” for a “sandwich?” ;=]
July 26, 2011 @ 2:06 PM
ocrenter wrote:CA renter
[quote=ocrenter][quote=CA renter]Back on topic…
IMHO, the choice between schools and views is subjective but, in general, the schools affect the value of a neighborhood while the views affect the value of a house.
It’s usually better to buy the beater home in a good neighborhood than to buy the most amazing home in a beater neighborhood. By prioritizing schools over views, it’s easier to buy the beater in a good neighborhood.
Even though we homeschool, we prefer to live in an area with good schools because we want to live in the type of neighborhood that surrounds good schools. We like to live around other people who value education/family values, maintain their homes (without needing an HOA to tell them to do it), are involved in the community, and prioritize safety and cleanliness in the neighborhood. For the most part, that type of neighborhood is likely to be found around schools that have higher scores (and local students — not bussed in).
FWIW, we like flat yards and easy-walking neighborhoods, so views are not a priority for us. We wouldn’t pay much of a premium for one unless it was truly a one-of-a-kind view.[/quote]
Once again, very good point. I’ve always maintained API is a rough gauge of the general attitude of the students in that particular school. If the overall environment is one of learning, it is less likely that a student will dropout and start smoking weed at 13. This is not to say the higher API will guarantee success. Just merely your child’s peers will also be more into getting into college, so chances of your child’s friend from school calling about what college to apply to is higher than calling about which street corner has the best weed.
And this is not to say a child will not succeed going to a lower tier school. But merely the child will have to go against the grain in that environment.[/quote]
Great points. Derbyshire, in the book referenced above, asserts that how your kid turns out will be based 2% on genetics and 98% on their peers. I don’t seem to remember him giving too much weight to parenting skills, unless one considers their influence on controlling the kid’s peer group! But I can’t help but envision a chicken and egg issue — are the peer group kids a good influence because they are around other good kids (one can see how this can become circular as we try to figure out where the good influence started if we consider a closed group of kids)? Or does there need to be a starting point kid group or individual — and how did that kid become good? Genes, or maybe parenting? Maybe that’s an academic exercise. I think controlling who your kid hangs around is a great start.
Of course some people are just bad — starting at childhood. So you won’t be helping your bad kid at all and, rather, will just be screwing the other parents’ kid!
July 23, 2011 @ 7:07 AM
CA renter wrote:
Though it
[quote=CA renter]
Though it sounds terrible, a lot of teachers are attracted to the high-performing schools because it’s an easier job. The parents in high-performing schools tend to be more of a pain, and the kids often have bratty attitudes vs. kids and parents in the poorer neighborhoods. That being said, since teacher success is so closely tied to test scores, teachers want to go where the high-performing students are — those whose parents tend to have higher I.Q.s, college degrees, more money (for tutoring and other extracurricular activities), etc.
You’d be absolutely amazed at the difference between students entering kindergarten in a “good” school district vs. those entering kindergarten in a “bad” school district. In many cases, their future is already mapped out well before they enter their first year of school. The importance of good parenting skills and genetics cannot be overstated, IMHO.[/quote]
excellent point. And even though the parents are high maintenance, the fact that they are INVOLVED is the point. This versus a situation where finding the parents would be the most difficult part of the job.
another point I’ll add on is the teacher’s sense of personal gratification. It is always more gratifying to teach to children that come to school already ingrained with the attitude that education is important. Children do follow their peers. So if the majority of peers are serious students, they will at least pay attention. Homeworks are done on time and parents show up to parent-teacher conferences. The teacher teaches, and there’s the expected feedback.
It is like a dentist that tells his patients to floss their teeth. In areas with higher income, which often coincide with better schools, the patients will floss more often and return with better gums. In low income areas, the dentist’s words are completely ignored and the patients typically come back in 5 years with a complete mess. Which dentist has a more rewarding job?
July 23, 2011 @ 6:50 PM
ocrenter wrote:CA renter
[quote=ocrenter][quote=CA renter]
Though it sounds terrible, a lot of teachers are attracted to the high-performing schools because it’s an easier job. The parents in high-performing schools tend to be more of a pain, and the kids often have bratty attitudes vs. kids and parents in the poorer neighborhoods. That being said, since teacher success is so closely tied to test scores, teachers want to go where the high-performing students are — those whose parents tend to have higher I.Q.s, college degrees, more money (for tutoring and other extracurricular activities), etc.
You’d be absolutely amazed at the difference between students entering kindergarten in a “good” school district vs. those entering kindergarten in a “bad” school district. In many cases, their future is already mapped out well before they enter their first year of school. The importance of good parenting skills and genetics cannot be overstated, IMHO.[/quote]
excellent point. And even though the parents are high maintenance, the fact that they are INVOLVED is the point. This versus a situation where finding the parents would be the most difficult part of the job.
another point I’ll add on is the teacher’s sense of personal gratification. It is always more gratifying to teach to children that come to school already ingrained with the attitude that education is important. Children do follow their peers. So if the majority of peers are serious students, they will at least pay attention. Homeworks are done on time and parents show up to parent-teacher conferences. The teacher teaches, and there’s the expected feedback.
It is like a dentist that tells his patients to floss their teeth. In areas with higher income, which often coincide with better schools, the patients will floss more often and return with better gums. In low income areas, the dentist’s words are completely ignored and the patients typically come back in 5 years with a complete mess. Which dentist has a more rewarding job?[/quote]
Actually, many teachers find it more gratifying to teach the kids from the low-income areas, especially the ones who don’t get any support from home. When you get a kid like this who goes from not knowing anything at all (some don’t even know their proper names — just their nicknames, don’t know their colors, shapes, any numbers or letters, have never been read to — ever!) to working at grade level or better, nothing in this world compares.
July 25, 2011 @ 11:43 AM
CA renter wrote:
Though it
[quote=CA renter]
Though it sounds terrible, a lot of teachers are attracted to the high-performing schools because it’s an easier job. The parents in high-performing schools tend to be more of a pain, and the kids often have bratty attitudes vs. kids and parents in the poorer neighborhoods. That being said, since teacher success is so closely tied to test scores, teachers want to go where the high-performing students are — those whose parents tend to have higher I.Q.s, college degrees, more money (for tutoring and other extracurricular activities), etc.
You’d be absolutely amazed at the difference between students entering kindergarten in a “good” school district vs. those entering kindergarten in a “bad” school district. In many cases, their future is already mapped out well before they enter their first year of school. The importance of good parenting skills and genetics cannot be overstated, IMHO.[/quote]
This is true at my kids elementary school – teachers try hard to get to this school because they’ll look like heros because the kids test well. The kids test well because of the demographics of the neighborhood (lots of PhD’s and engineers, huge percentage of households with both parents college educated, etc). Also there’s a very involved PTA and parent volunteer base.
That said – as a parent, I haven’t been impressed by some of the teachers… I’m having to do an incredible amount of work, outside school hours, to bring my one son up to where he should be. The teachers teach in a cookie cutter fashion… and this son isn’t thriving. There are some excellent teachers… but most of the teachers think they’re great, and are mediocre at best. They’re skating by because the kids (even my son) *test* well.
July 25, 2011 @ 2:52 PM
UCGal wrote:CA renter
[quote=UCGal][quote=CA renter]
Though it sounds terrible, a lot of teachers are attracted to the high-performing schools because it’s an easier job. The parents in high-performing schools tend to be more of a pain, and the kids often have bratty attitudes vs. kids and parents in the poorer neighborhoods. That being said, since teacher success is so closely tied to test scores, teachers want to go where the high-performing students are — those whose parents tend to have higher I.Q.s, college degrees, more money (for tutoring and other extracurricular activities), etc.
You’d be absolutely amazed at the difference between students entering kindergarten in a “good” school district vs. those entering kindergarten in a “bad” school district. In many cases, their future is already mapped out well before they enter their first year of school. The importance of good parenting skills and genetics cannot be overstated, IMHO.[/quote]
This is true at my kids elementary school – teachers try hard to get to this school because they’ll look like heros because the kids test well. The kids test well because of the demographics of the neighborhood (lots of PhD’s and engineers, huge percentage of households with both parents college educated, etc). Also there’s a very involved PTA and parent volunteer base.
[/quote]
FWIW – my mom was a science teacher in the Detroit school system long before the advent of teachers being evaluated based on student performance. Even then, teachers sought out the schools where the cultural values of the community made teaching easier. She moved from a school where education wasn’t valued highly to one where it was, and said the new job was like a vacation. I know there will be people who say times have changed, but I’m not so sure.
July 22, 2011 @ 10:19 AM
Jpinpbs DH wrote:Good school
[quote=Jpinpbs DH]Good school districts don’t guarantee good grades or an acceptance to a prized four year college, they do guarantee a false piece of mind though. I guess you pigs figured out my vote.
Jp’s DH[/quote]
I couldn’t agree more. We are in the highly coveted Poway district and I can say without a doubt that the work done with the kids at home is as, if not more important that what goes on in the classroom. With 24-26 kids per class there is only so much a teacher can do, regardless of district.
I have volunteered to read with the kids on occasion in the class; to do their weekly reading assessment. I notice a pronounced difference from one student to the next regarding not only reading ability, but also comprehension. Of course there will always be one or two kids that are ahead of the others, but the difference is astonishing. By the end of the year several of the kids were reading well above grade level, however; many of them were reading only at or in some cases below grade level. The teacher this year was fantastic so in my mind it really came down to which parents used the evenings and weekends for educational / family enrichment and which ones puts their kids in front of the TV. My point is, a great school district is only as good as the parents’ commitment to their kids education. Of course, I am completely off topic here but if I were to vote I would say, go with the view and spend more time in front of that view reading and doing math with your kids! 🙂
July 22, 2011 @ 10:58 AM
familyguy wrote:I couldn’t
[quote=familyguy]I couldn’t agree more. We are in the highly coveted Poway district…….[/quote]
Yet you chose to live in the Poway district. Was it b/c it is the best school district?
[quote=familyguy]BG I mean no disrespect so please don’t take this the wrong way; I enjoy reading your well written and entertaining posts. (Aside from your disdain of Stonebridge and your view of junior enlisted military personnel being less deserving of a nice home because they only have a high school education or a young wife with a GED. lol )
My question is, have you ever lived in a house that’s being renovated? You seem to have a common theme to many of your posts that suggests most families should buy a shack and simply fix it up. Aside from the hassle involved, most families with two working adults simply don’t have the time. By the time the work day is done, dinner is taken care of, and quality time is spent with the kids doing homework, or other activities (soccer, tee ball, etc.) there is simply not enough time in the day for many families to take on a major renovation project. So I’m just curious how you juggled all this in order to be such an advocate of buying a fixer upper.[/quote]
We bought a fixer and we both work. I can say the quality time is now shared in fixing the house and making trips to HD. Plenty of heated discussions about how things should be, but rewarding to do it how we want it. If we were to purchase a turnkey house in this area, we would have paid considerably more, even if we factor in remodling costs. I won’t even go into buying a new home in a new neighborhood w/HOAs and MR. We’ve already saved so much by not having that.
[quote=Rhett]This poll is missing option 3:
I wish that I’d be able to afford either option, but unfortunately we’re limited to houses without a view, in average or below school districts.[/quote]
Sorry for leaving out option 3. But the discussion we’re having is which would people prefer, kids or no kids. So if you had the money, which would you rather buy, a home w/a view or a home in a good school district.
I think that many people are more inclinded to buy in a good school district, even if they don’t have kids, b/c they know it will be easier to sell to those w/kids who want to be in the best school district.
We are not in the best school district b/c we do not have kids and it didn’t matter to us personally. But I think generaly that is a factor in home buying decisions, more so than view. 4-S squeezed together many homes they’ve had no problem selling while riding that wave.
July 22, 2011 @ 11:49 AM
If I wouldn’t have kids, then
If I wouldn’t have kids, then I would pay more for a view rather than a better school. Of course ideally the schools also wouldn’t be abyssmal.
I think that can be very rewarding to fix up your house and it is quality time for the couple.
But I am on with familyguy – with kids and both parents working, and with no other family help, a fixer upper would not work for us because of NO time. We don’t have time as it is and meals are rushed, kids are in rush too, and not always quite healthy homemade meals, and wish I could spend more time with the kids – if I had any spare time. Really,that would be the upside if I am let go from my job. 🙂
July 27, 2011 @ 9:49 AM
familyguy wrote:Jpinpbs DH
[quote=familyguy][quote=Jpinpbs DH]Good school districts don’t guarantee good grades or an acceptance to a prized four year college, they do guarantee a false piece of mind though. I guess you pigs figured out my vote.
Jp’s DH[/quote]
I couldn’t agree more. We are in the highly coveted Poway district and I can say without a doubt that the work done with the kids at home is as, if not more important that what goes on in the classroom. With 24-26 kids per class there is only so much a teacher can do, regardless of district.
I have volunteered to read with the kids on occasion in the class; to do their weekly reading assessment. I notice a pronounced difference from one student to the next regarding not only reading ability, but also comprehension. Of course there will always be one or two kids that are ahead of the others, but the difference is astonishing. By the end of the year several of the kids were reading well above grade level, however; many of them were reading only at or in some cases below grade level. The teacher this year was fantastic so in my mind it really came down to which parents used the evenings and weekends for educational / family enrichment and which ones puts their kids in front of the TV. My point is, a great school district is only as good as the parents’ commitment to their kids education. Of course, I am completely off topic here but if I were to vote I would say, go with the view and spend more time in front of that view reading and doing math with your kids! :)[/quote]
Hi all.
I may be repeating what many have said, but school district is relevant if you have school age children, otherwise one should go for view.
I can tell from personal experience that though a good school district helps, the key are the parents. When I was young, my father was struck with an illness that pretty much wiped us clean. So he moved the family to the inner city, Euclid, Horace Mann & Crawford were my schools. Though the schools were well below mediocre in terms of API test scores etc, he made sure each day after school we did all our homework, read, and kept us busy with school activities. On Sunday we were sent to a Buddhist youth group program for 7 hours that taught us, a foreign language, all subjects relating to girl/boy scouts, meditation, how to deal with conflicts/self esteem, etc.
To make the long story short, there are six kids in our family. My father kept this up till he saved enough money years down the line to move us to Scripps Ranch where three of my youngest siblings went to Scripps Ranch High. Today we have all graduated from top schools, and some have masters, while a couple are still working on their graduate degrees. I myself went to UCLA had an awesome career, but more importantly I learned from my father things like perseverance, hard work, integrity, and the ability to ‘be in the moment’ from 17 years of Buddhism school. He also has many friends that live in some of SD’s best school districts but their children weren’t doing quite as well or in some cases not at all.
My father figured out a way to supplement what my schools and environment didn’t have. He was aware and gave much attention to all of our friends and who they were. He knows what type of kids they are and almost at all times knew what we were up to. He talked to us on a regular basis and spent all his free time being with us.
So schools I think does count a great deal (good teachers, better facilities, more opportunities, peers, PTA involvement, etc) but I think more important are the lessons you teach your kids along the way and the time you spend with them.
If you are going to rely mostly on the system for your child’s education then by all means, choose the schools. If I have an option, I would go with partial views and a decent school, but get supplemental education from places like Kumon, Sylvan, etc. IF I have NO kids, then VIEW for sure.
July 27, 2011 @ 5:22 PM
KinaBalu wrote:familyguy
[quote=KinaBalu][quote=familyguy][quote=Jpinpbs DH]Good school districts don’t guarantee good grades or an acceptance to a prized four year college, they do guarantee a false piece of mind though. I guess you pigs figured out my vote.
Jp’s DH[/quote]
I couldn’t agree more. We are in the highly coveted Poway district and I can say without a doubt that the work done with the kids at home is as, if not more important that what goes on in the classroom. With 24-26 kids per class there is only so much a teacher can do, regardless of district.
I have volunteered to read with the kids on occasion in the class; to do their weekly reading assessment. I notice a pronounced difference from one student to the next regarding not only reading ability, but also comprehension. Of course there will always be one or two kids that are ahead of the others, but the difference is astonishing. By the end of the year several of the kids were reading well above grade level, however; many of them were reading only at or in some cases below grade level. The teacher this year was fantastic so in my mind it really came down to which parents used the evenings and weekends for educational / family enrichment and which ones puts their kids in front of the TV. My point is, a great school district is only as good as the parents’ commitment to their kids education. Of course, I am completely off topic here but if I were to vote I would say, go with the view and spend more time in front of that view reading and doing math with your kids! :)[/quote]
Hi all.
I may be repeating what many have said, but school district is relevant if you have school age children, otherwise one should go for view.
I can tell from personal experience that though a good school district helps, the key are the parents. When I was young, my father was struck with an illness that pretty much wiped us clean. So he moved the family to the inner city, Euclid, Horace Mann & Crawford were my schools. Though the schools were well below mediocre in terms of API test scores etc, he made sure each day after school we did all our homework, read, and kept us busy with school activities. On Sunday we were sent to a Buddhist youth group program for 7 hours that taught us, a foreign language, all subjects relating to girl/boy scouts, meditation, how to deal with conflicts/self esteem, etc.
To make the long story short, there are six kids in our family. My father kept this up till he saved enough money years down the line to move us to Scripps Ranch where three of my youngest siblings went to Scripps Ranch High. Today we have all graduated from top schools, and some have masters, while a couple are still working on their graduate degrees. I myself went to UCLA had an awesome career, but more importantly I learned from my father things like perseverance, hard work, integrity, and the ability to ‘be in the moment’ from 17 years of Buddhism school. He also has many friends that live in some of SD’s best school districts but their children weren’t doing quite as well or in some cases not at all.
My father figured out a way to supplement what my schools and environment didn’t have. He was aware and gave much attention to all of our friends and who they were. He knows what type of kids they are and almost at all times knew what we were up to. He talked to us on a regular basis and spent all his free time being with us.
So schools I think does count a great deal (good teachers, better facilities, more opportunities, peers, PTA involvement, etc) but I think more important are the lessons you teach your kids along the way and the time you spend with them.
If you are going to rely mostly on the system for your child’s education then by all means, choose the schools. If I have an option, I would go with partial views and a decent school, but get supplemental education from places like Kumon, Sylvan, etc. IF I have NO kids, then VIEW for sure.[/quote]
That was an awesome post, KinaBalu. Glad to know that your father made it through the illness, and was able to guide you through all those years.
July 22, 2011 @ 8:15 PM
Jpinpbs DH wrote:Ok folks,
[quote=Jpinpbs DH]Ok folks, I’m not getting sucked in here like the DW but would you rather grow old with a nice view from your deck or be stuck in a place like four-s with a view of more track homes from your deck just for the Poway school district ? Ok you say I’ll sell when they graduate and then move to a place with a few, Really ? So if you sell after they graduate, then I guess the view “is” more important.
Good school districts don’t guarantee good grades or an acceptance to a prized four year college, they do guarantee a false piece of mind though. I guess you pigs figured out my vote.
Jp’s DH[/quote]
Well said
July 22, 2011 @ 10:44 AM
This poll is missing option
This poll is missing option 3:
I wish that I’d be able to afford either option, but unfortunately we’re limited to houses without a view, in average or below school districts.
July 22, 2011 @ 10:58 AM
If after you put the money
If after you put the money for a premium lot with view, you still have more savings left to put your kids in a good private school – then YES. Otherwise I would put my kids in a good school, then when they’re out of school, we can move to a smaller house with a nice view if we still have the money. I guess we wouldn’t need a big house for four bedrooms then.
July 22, 2011 @ 12:37 PM
mp7444 wrote:If after you put
[quote=mp7444]If after you put the money for a premium lot with view, you still have more savings left to put your kids in a good private school – then YES. Otherwise I would put my kids in a good school, then when they’re out of school, we can move to a smaller house with a nice view if we still have the money. I guess we wouldn’t need a big house for four bedrooms then.[/quote]
I second mp7444’s view…education is critical.
July 22, 2011 @ 1:08 PM
They both have their own
They both have their own premium. They’re not mutually exclusive. It also depend on how many kid(s) you have. If you have 1, it might be more cost effect to buy in a cheaper area w/ a view and send your kids to private school.
For me, I rather buy in an area that have 9/10 of the best school for several hundred thousand less and take that money and send my kids to private preK-6th grade. I personally don’t think private school have that much of an advantage in a 6th-12th grade. Especially when you can afford to have one parent staying at home due to the fact you’re buying a less expensive house.
If school is really that big of a factor, then areas covered by Poway school district should be getting much cheaper than they have been in the past, since their test scores are declining. Also, Carlsbad area wouldn’t be holding a premium over areas like Mira Mesa if schools is that important. Here are some API scores and rank:
Westview High – 851 (9)
Mt. Carmel High – 818 (9)
Rancho Bernardo High – 854 (9)
Poway High – 856(9)
Scripps Ranch High – 877 (10)
Mira Mesa High – 824 (9)
University City High – 797 (8)
La Costa Canyon High – 815 (8)
San Dieguito High Academy – 845 (9)
Carlsbad High – 812 (8)
July 22, 2011 @ 1:44 PM
Personally I think the
Personally I think the evidence is there that most of the score effect of “good schools” comes from good, involved parents. There certainly are “bad” schools that allow students from weaker backgrounds to flounder. But there isn’t a lot of evidence that a student from a strong family background wouldn’t produce fairly similar results from a “good” school or “just ok” school. In fact, I’d argue there may be some advantages for a student to go to a middle of the road high school and graduate near the top of their class rather than graduating in the middle of their class at a school full of the kids of professionals.
July 22, 2011 @ 1:52 PM
poorgradstudent
[quote=poorgradstudent]Personally I think the evidence is there that most of the score effect of “good schools” comes from good, involved parents. There certainly are “bad” schools that allow students from weaker backgrounds to flounder. But there isn’t a lot of evidence that a student from a strong family background wouldn’t produce fairly similar results from a “good” school or “just ok” school. In fact, I’d argue there may be some advantages for a student to go to a middle of the road high school and graduate near the top of their class rather than graduating in the middle of their class at a school full of the kids of professionals.[/quote]
Yes, poorgradstudent. You must know that it’s easier to get accepted to top public universities in CA if your GPA is at or near the top of your (HS) graduating class!
July 22, 2011 @ 2:20 PM
Views are for those who are
Views are for those who are emotional, rich or both.
And, while were at it a view of what?
A view of Yosemite Valley? Sure.
A view of San Diego? BFD.
No, a ‘good’ school district won’t guarantee anything, but it can’t hurt.
In fact, one could argue that living in a good school district would add more value than a view.
July 22, 2011 @ 3:36 PM
okay, several things on this
okay, several things on this thread.
First, AWESOME that jpinpb actually sucked her DH onto Piggington’s. I’m sure they’ve had plenty of discussions over the piggs, but this is the first thing that forced his hand. And to you, jp’s DH, welcome!
Second, I love the phrasing of the questions. It was immediately clear to me which side jpinpb came down on.
Third, and maybe it’s just the engineer in me, but jp’s right that the rest of you who picked view are silly. (and still, welcome jp DH! I mean no offense). If you step back and look at things solely from a ROI perspective, you’re generally going to come out ahead in a better school district versus an area with a better view.
Now part of that is due in no small part to one’s definition of “view”, but in general, there are decidedly blighted areas with fantastic views. So view doesn’t equal overall attractiveness of a property.
On the other hand, most areas that have good schools fetch higher prices for their homes, all other things being equal.
There are exceptions I’m sure and it’s also not uncommon for areas to lose their luster over time even if the schools remain strong, but that pales in comparison to a blighted district’s ability to dig itself out of its hole. Major gentrification helps, but unfortunately for home buyers today, that can be sort of random (and can also decline following a surge, so you’ve got the same dynamic as good school districts in aging areas).
The short of what I’m saying is that I suspect that people who prioritize good views are thinking of them in good areas (which in turn still have good schools).
July 22, 2011 @ 3:58 PM
I misread the post and
I misread the post and thought the question was whether I’d pay more for a view of a good school. Why should I pay for a view of a good school?
July 22, 2011 @ 4:13 PM
If it’s a binary choice –
If it’s a binary choice – which in real life it’s not – then school district. For some of the reasons mentioned: better resale, etc.
But, just as important is commute, in my book. Your kid can be in a great school district, but if the parents are on the road pre-dawn to post dusk because their job is too far away… the kid isn’t going to have much success in school.
And good view is variable. I’ve got a view of San Clemente canyon and Mt. Soledad… Not an ocean view, but I like it. But it also has that dreaded freeway noise – because 52 runs through San Clemente canyon… for some that would be a deal killer.
Lots of homes in Clairemont, including my step mom’s have views of the bay/ocean… but have I-5 noise. (She lives above Costco).
I also STRONGLY agree with the idea that APIs do not guarantee anything. My kids go to a high testing school… but I’ve been disappointed with the teaching. I can control what happens at home… but not in the class. And trust me, I’m a hands on mom when it comes to school work, etc.
That said – it’s a sought after cluster, so I could sell my home for more than a lesser testing school.
A home purchase should be about more than ROI, school district, view, etc. It’s about whether the home meets your needs at a price you can afford. If you find a house that satisfies your lifestyle and family needs, that you can afford, and that you will be happy living in… then it’s the right house. It’s not a binary decision of view vs school district.
Oh – and if you want view and school district – Del Mar, baby. (Assuming you have $$$$)
July 22, 2011 @ 4:31 PM
I agree with UCGal that it’s
I agree with UCGal that it’s not binary. There are many different variation of view and many different variation of good schools. It’s all part of a set of many different variables. Here are some extreme examples:
Bad school but killer view, asking for $2.9M:
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-110000075-1727_S_Pacific_St_Oceanside_CA_92054
Best school in San Diego but no view at all, asking for $700k:
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-110010056-13059_Brixton_Pl_San_Diego_CA_92130
Both of the house above are similar size and lot size. The one in Carmel Valley is also newer. So, when we’re taking it to the extreme, view will have a much larger premium than school.
Here’s another example:
Bad school and no view, asking $745k:
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100063046-3593_Pershing_Ave_San_Diego_CA_92104
Much better school and no view, asking $730k:
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-110038634-4208_Calle_Isabelino_San_Diego_CA_92130
If school make that big if a difference, than you’d expect the house in North Park to be much cheaper than the Carmel Valley one.
July 22, 2011 @ 4:54 PM
AN, it is binary, because it
AN, it is binary, because it was a binary question. Your examples don’t work either because you’re ignoring other factors as well as what different people might consider a “view”.
The North Park example is a perfect example of your boat missing. People will pay a premium for houses of a certain age or character that can’t be re-created. We’ve had the discussion before (and you missed it then too). Just because you don’t see the value doesn’t mean it isn’t there.
It’s also *not* one of the binary choices. We can’t vote for neither, which is what you said it qualifies for. Personally, I think it could be argued that Pershing has some “view” value, but that’s a moot point, you stated it has neither (yet it’s still got a decent listing price, hmmmm, there must be more to it).
July 22, 2011 @ 5:00 PM
Oh and premiums don’t mean
Oh and premiums don’t mean jack. Of course, certain homes demand premiums and for a variety of reasons. Price and value (and ROI) are different things.
I’d have to spend more time than I care to in order to research the truth, but I’m not sure the O-side beauty on the beach is worth the premium they’re demanding, at least from an ROI perspective.
July 22, 2011 @ 6:05 PM
sdcellar wrote:Oh and
[quote=sdcellar]Oh and premiums don’t mean jack. Of course, certain homes demand premiums and for a variety of reasons. Price and value (and ROI) are different things.
I’d have to spend more time than I care to in order to research the truth, but I’m not sure the O-side beauty on the beach is worth the premium they’re demanding, at least from an ROI perspective.[/quote]
sdcellar, I agree with you that certain homes demand (sales price) premiums for a variety of reasons. I also agree that the O’side beauty may not be worth $2.9M. In this type of property, price is subjective. It’s whatever a buyer will pay. If its a fairly new listing, they will soon have a better idea when/if offers came in/are coming in.
I do NOT agree that nondescript tracts (where every 3rd, 5th or 6th home is identical or a mirror image on the exterior) situated on substandard lots are worth any sort of “premium” in CA unless located on an “island” (such as Coronado or Balboa Island in the OC). There is no real exclusivity of 92130 and it is not even coastal. Buyers there must believe the proximity to SV and its public school attendance area is worth the $250K to $600K sales-price premiums they are paying over and above other comparably built tracts in the county.
I don’t think every buyer cares about an ROI. Of course every buyer strives to make the best deal possible at the time they are purchasing, but if you have found a property to buy that you will be happy in until you die, why does an ROI matter?
July 22, 2011 @ 5:08 PM
sdcellar wrote:AN, it is
[quote=sdcellar]AN, it is binary, because it was a binary question. Your examples don’t work either because you’re ignoring other factors as well as what different people might consider a “view”.
The North Park example is a perfect example of your boat missing. People will pay a premium for houses of a certain age or character that can’t be re-created. We’ve had the discussion before (and you missed it then too). Just because you don’t see the value doesn’t mean it isn’t there.
It’s also *not* one of the binary choices. We can’t vote for neither, which is what you said it qualifies for. Personally, I think it could be argued that Pershing has some “view” value, but that’s a moot point, you stated it has neither (yet it’s still got a decent listing price, hmmmm, there must be more to it).[/quote]
No duh Sherlock. I wasn’t the one who vote for schools. You did. I know about the MANY other variables. That’s why I gave the North Park example. If It’s all about school, the North Park wouldn’t be at the price it’s at. But it is, even when the school is bad.
If you learn to read, you’ll noticed I said there are many different variables and many different shades of gray when it comes to view or what would be good school. If you say the North Park property has a “view” value, and It’s binary like you said, then view > school, as I stated.
July 22, 2011 @ 5:14 PM
No, the price for North Park
No, the price for North Park must have something to do with _more_ than schools. If it was in an awesome school district, it would fetch an even higher price (and I mean a lot higher).
I dig the way you spin your stories though. It’s super fun picking them apart.
July 22, 2011 @ 5:27 PM
Again, no duh Sherlock. Your
Again, no duh Sherlock. Your reading comprehension is getting worse every day. Let me help jog your memory, since it seems like you’re having a little amnesia as well:
[quote=sdcellar]Third, and maybe it’s just the engineer in me, but jp’s right that the rest of you who picked view are silly. (and still, welcome jp DH! I mean no offense). If you step back and look at things solely from a ROI perspective, you’re generally going to come out ahead in a better school district versus an area with a better view.[/quote]
BTW, just to prevent you from stray off topic and adding variables to try and prove your point, we’re not talking about other variables that add to desirability of an area. We’re talking strictly about View vs Schools. Try your hardest to stay on topic please.
Some more examples that’s more relevant to the original questions:
North Park (Bad school, no view, built in 1924, 2200 sq-ft):
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100063046-3593_Pershing_Ave_San_Diego_CA_92104
vs Point Loma(Good school, no view, built in 1947, 2500 sq-ft, no view):
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100050707-3626_Elliott_St_San_Diego_CA_92106
vs Point Loma(Good school, great view, built in 1941, 2300 sq-ft):
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100059171-3029_Nichols_St_San_Diego_CA_92106
July 22, 2011 @ 5:33 PM
Dude, I couldn’t be more on
Dude, I couldn’t be more on topic, that was my point Mr. non-binary! (and you said that, not me).
Jog my memory? I’ve been sticking to my story all along. Are you trying to fault me because I acknowledge that view adds some value? I don’t have my head in the sand. I thought that was a good thing.
Strictly going by the ROI lift of view versus schools, schools win out and I’m sticking/stuck/stacking to it.
July 22, 2011 @ 5:42 PM
sdcellar wrote:Dude, I
[quote=sdcellar]Dude, I couldn’t be more on topic, that was my point Mr. non-binary! (and you said that, not me).
Jog my memory? I’ve been sticking to my story all along. Are you trying to fault me because I acknowledge that view adds some value? I don’t have my head in the sand. I thought that was a good thing.
Strictly going by the ROI lift of view versus schools, schools win out and I’m sticking/stuck/stacking to it.[/quote]
No, I tried to fault you for trying to stray from the topic and bringing in other variables. But that’s too difficult for you to understand. So, I’ll stop. I’m glad you stated you’re stock on your view of School > View. My North Park vs Point Loma example just prove you wrong. Thanks for being stuck. BTW, that’s what I’d call having your head in the said.
July 22, 2011 @ 6:00 PM
AN. Sigh. I brought up other
AN. Sigh. I brought up other variables because you said it was a non-binary choice. I think that means other variables. So, I discussed other variables to demonstrate my understanding of the concept of “other variables”, from where I could begin to respond to whatever the heck it is that you think you’re talking about.
I’ll take a peek at your (off topic) example of North Park versus Point Loma. Again, off topic because you stated (squarely) that North Park has neither views nor schools (at least not in quantity enough to influence, well, the topic, at least according to you, to whom I am trying to respond). Shall I proceed?
July 22, 2011 @ 6:10 PM
sdcellar wrote:AN. Sigh. I
[quote=sdcellar]AN. Sigh. I brought up other variables because you said it was a non-binary choice. I think that means other variables. So, I discussed other variables to demonstrate my understanding of the concept of “other variables”, from where I could begin to respond to whatever the heck it is that you think you’re talking about.
I’ll take a peek at your (off topic) example of North Park versus Point Loma. Again, off topic because you stated (squarely) that North Park has neither views nor schools (at least not in quantity enough to influence, well, the topic, at least according to you, to whom I am trying to respond). Shall I proceed?[/quote]
Yes, I did say it’s non-binary. But JP’s post only gave us two choice, so, since I’m not the OP, it doesn’t matter what I think and the Poll is binary.
I should have compare NP vs PL instead of NP vs CV. Would that make it closer to apple vs apple comparison?
July 22, 2011 @ 6:15 PM
AN wrote:…I should have
[quote=AN]…I should have compare NP vs PL instead of NP vs CV. Would that make it closer to apple vs apple comparison?[/quote]
Yes, if you stay away from view-premium properties in PL.
July 22, 2011 @ 6:28 PM
bearishgurl wrote:AN
[quote=bearishgurl][quote=AN]…I should have compare NP vs PL instead of NP vs CV. Would that make it closer to apple vs apple comparison?[/quote]
Yes, if you stay away from view-premium properties in PL.[/quote]
Great, so, let see if sdcellar can come up with some example in NP vs PL to prove his point that school > view (hopefully, it’s view of downtown instead of view of other roofs).
Here’s a property in O’side with no view west of the 5 (similar place to the other O’side place):
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-110031626-416_N_Ditmar_St_Oceanside_CA_92054
July 22, 2011 @ 6:16 PM
I know I mentioned this on
I know I mentioned this on another thread, but I have some friends who own a house in Hillcrest, but decided to rent that house out and they are living in a rental in LJ b/c they think their kids will have a better education attending schools there. I’m saying this to stress that people give greater value to education and make whatever sacrifices for the good of their kids’ education. So that’s why I think a view is secondary.
July 22, 2011 @ 6:25 PM
jp, if you don’t mind me
jp, if you don’t mind me asking are her kids in HS or K-8?
I don’t remember if Hillcrest is in the Grant boundary or not.
July 22, 2011 @ 6:29 PM
pemeliza wrote:jp, if you
[quote=pemeliza]jp, if you don’t mind me asking are her kids in HS or K-8?
I don’t remember if Hillcrest is in the Grant boundary or not.[/quote]
Hillcrest is Florence … is it not?
July 22, 2011 @ 6:34 PM
I think you are correct BG
I think you are correct BG and I have heard that Grant is difficult to transfer your kid into because it is a pretty small school.
July 22, 2011 @ 6:48 PM
pemeliza wrote:jp, if you
[quote=pemeliza]jp, if you don’t mind me asking are her kids in HS or K-8?
I don’t remember if Hillcrest is in the Grant boundary or not.[/quote]
They have been in K-8 (LJ Country Day) and now continue. They have not moved out of LJ. Kids are in high school now.
sdcellar – yes, I agree that maybe my term of view is ambiguous and many would see “view” and associate w/location. But, I’ll give a for instance. There are many new homes in Chula Vista and I’m sure plenty w/nice views. I will say this and it is not to rattle BG’s cage. This would be a good example. Same new house, same size, same MR and/or HOA’s. People will pick Carmel Valley and or 4S over Chula Vista. Chula Vista has some very nice view homes. Chula Vista costs less. People will pick a lesser house in 4S w/no view just for the school district. Another example would be the view homes in Clairemont or Bay Park. Many would rather be in 4S for the schools.
[quote=bearishgurl]HOWEVER, do you think the Piggs who post here are representative of the entire home-buying public??[/quote]
I think that’s why I stated maybe Piggington is higher minded and not a true respresentation of the average person.
July 22, 2011 @ 7:10 PM
jpinpb wrote:…sdcellar –
[quote=jpinpb]…sdcellar – yes, I agree that maybe my term of view is ambiguous and many would see “view” and associate w/location. But, I’ll give a for instance. There are many new homes in Chula Vista and I’m sure plenty w/nice views. I will say this and it is not to rattle BG’s cage. This would be a good example. Same new house, same size, same MR and/or HOA’s. People will pick Carmel Valley and or 4S over Chula Vista. Chula Vista has some very nice view homes. Chula Vista costs less. People will pick a lesser house in 4S w/no view just for the school district. Another example would be the view homes in Clairemont or Bay Park. Many would rather be in 4S for the schools.[/quote]
My cage isn’t rattled. Those newer Chula Vista REOs and short sales in Otay Ranch and Eastlake ARE selling. Rapidly. The main audience for these homes are buyers who grew up in the immediate area or nearby and some active-duty military. There are still many homes in the “distress pipeline.” Some potential local buyers who watched the tracts being built are still waiting for the exact model they want to come on the market and there are frequently several bidders on some models, from what I hear from local agents. I haven’t noticed any of this huge population posting on Piggington – at least not openly identifying themselves as living in Chula Vista. Chula Vista has a population of about 273K!
July 23, 2011 @ 12:35 PM
jpinpb wrote:
sdcellar –
[quote=jpinpb]
sdcellar – yes, I agree that maybe my term of view is ambiguous and many would see “view” and associate w/location. But, I’ll give a for instance. There are many new homes in Chula Vista and I’m sure plenty w/nice views. I will say this and it is not to rattle BG’s cage. This would be a good example. Same new house, same size, same MR and/or HOA’s. People will pick Carmel Valley and or 4S over Chula Vista. Chula Vista has some very nice view homes. Chula Vista costs less. People will pick a lesser house in 4S w/no view just for the school district. Another example would be the view homes in Clairemont or Bay Park. Many would rather be in 4S for the schools. [/quote]
I think it’s a combination of things.
I think that people want new houses first. I’m sure that if the houses in Clairemont were new, the buyers of 4S would reconsider.
You and I might want to remodel a house, but few buyers have the inclination to do so (other than painting and little things).
– Location
– peers and friends
– schools (for those how have kids)
– Age and condition of house
BTW, I’m with Pameliza. I’d much rather be in Mission Hills than Carmel Valley and Encinitas, no matter what the view.
Mission Hills is centrally located and more fun. Up north, you’re isolated and have to drive down just for dinner. There’s nothing up there but suburbia.
I think the people who buy further north like the newer larger houses with better amenities. Plus, if your peers are already there, then all the more reason to choose that location.
July 22, 2011 @ 6:37 PM
AN wrote:I should have
[quote=AN]I should have compare NP vs PL instead of NP vs CV. Would that make it closer to apple vs apple comparison?[/quote]Uno mas tiempo, NP has neither view nor schools according to you.
It’s not about apples vs. apples. It’s view vs. schools – cage match!
July 26, 2011 @ 5:47 PM
I totally agree with the
I totally agree with the others it all depends if you personally have kids. I answered the question for my situation (2 young kids) but if I didn’t have any kids with no plans to I’m sure I would have gone for the view as I wouldn’t have cared what the school district was like for the most part.
Having young kids with possibly having more….living in a good school District was one of the biggest factors for us. We still looked at other factors of communities we really liked.
We bought in the Poway School District and bought a home in Santaluz. I agree with some that there is NO way I’d buy a house in 4S Ranch (at least the parts that I saw). Houses didn’t look like they were high quality and most of it looked high density. And they all had Mello Roos. I figured that if I was going to pay MR, at least I’d be in a great community that was gorgeous and the homes were beautiful.
I’d say School District alone wouldn’t be enough for me but definitely for those with kids, good school district is one of the most important factors. But I just didn’t understand people spending that kind of money to live in 4S Ranch….
Also, another example of great school district alone not being enough. We looked at many nice houses in Carmel Valley. Our budget was $1.1 million or less. And all the homes we looked at in Carmel Valley were over $1 million. And even at that price point, the density level was just too high. Many houses we looked at had absolutely NO privacy at all. All your neighbors could see into your backyard as well as your house. One house we saw literally had 5 neighbors that could easily see into your house.
While Carmel Valley has great schools and it’s a great location. I just couldn’t stomach spending a million bucks on such a high density area. We really loved the fact Santaluz was lower density, had rolling hills, immaculately maintained, security was amazing, homes were higher end, AND it was in a great school district. I didn’t see anything else quite like it in our home search.
I agree having a great view can be priceless. But funny I was more concerned about an amazing view for vacation rental properties vs. the place where I lived. Whenever I buy investment properties that I will rent out, I always try to buy in properties with breathtaking views as it’s always helped get a high rental yield and occupancy rates.
July 26, 2011 @ 5:53 PM
Earlyretirement — I assume
Earlyretirement — I assume you visited many newer areas where the tallest fence/wall allowed was 5′. Who the hell thinks this stuff up? I’ve yet to understand why/how having everyone 6′ and taller being able to easily look into your backyard to watch, for example, your kids, your daughter sunbathing, you and your wife in the hot tub, etc., is a good thing.
July 26, 2011 @ 10:36 PM
faterikcartman
[quote=faterikcartman]Earlyretirement — I assume you visited many newer areas where the tallest fence/wall allowed was 5′. Who the hell thinks this stuff up? I’ve yet to understand why/how having everyone 6′ and taller being able to easily look into your backyard to watch, for example, your kids, your daughter sunbathing, you and your wife in the hot tub, etc., is a good thing.[/quote]
Yeah, I can’t recall the exact height in the fences of the places we saw but definitely you could EASILY see over them. Especially the places in Carmel Valley which were all in newer areas/developments.
One had a jacuzzi/hot tub in the back yard and my wife said there was no way she would even use it with 5 neighbors being able to see onto the back yard area.
But not only the back yard but they can easily see directly into the house unless you always kept your blinds closed 24/7. I don’t see that as any way to live life. The density was just too darn high.
In these kinds of instances…..even where the schools are good..I say no thanks. We are thrilled with our decision to buy in Santaluz.
July 22, 2011 @ 11:56 PM
sdcellar wrote:AN, it is
[quote=sdcellar]AN, it is binary, because it was a binary question. Your examples don’t work either because you’re ignoring other factors as well as what different people might consider a “view”.
The North Park example is a perfect example of your boat missing. People will pay a premium for houses of a certain age or character that can’t be re-created. We’ve had the discussion before (and you missed it then too). Just because you don’t see the value doesn’t mean it isn’t there.
It’s also *not* one of the binary choices. We can’t vote for neither, which is what you said it qualifies for. Personally, I think it could be argued that Pershing has some “view” value, but that’s a moot point, you stated it has neither (yet it’s still got a decent listing price, hmmmm, there must be more to it).[/quote]
Absolutely. The old, custom homes in our area sell for a premium, on a s.f. basis, compared to the newer tract homes.
Though it’s not your style, AN, there are a lot of us who would pay extra for an older, ranch-style home with character — enough of us to keep these prices propped up for far longer than I had hoped, unfortunately. 😉
July 22, 2011 @ 6:37 PM
bearishgurl wrote:
Yes,
[quote=bearishgurl]
Yes, poorgradstudent. You must know that it’s easier to get accepted to top public universities in CA if your GPA is at or near the top of your (HS) graduating class![/quote]
I’m not sure that’s true. At least one (maybe more, I have no idea) of the top high schools in this county don’t publish class rankings and have no valedictorian. And though I found it a bit astounding, I was told by the principle that in my daughter’s class, 94% of the graduates were going on to college. I do know there is extra financial aid, and in some cases preference given to students at low performing schools, but I suspect that doesn’t affect very many students.
July 22, 2011 @ 6:52 PM
SK in CV wrote:bearishgurl
[quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl]
Yes, poorgradstudent. You must know that it’s easier to get accepted to top public universities in CA if your GPA is at or near the top of your (HS) graduating class![/quote]
I’m not sure that’s true. At least one (maybe more, I have no idea) of the top high schools in this county don’t publish class rankings and have no valedictorian. And though I found it a bit astounding, I was told by the principle that in my daughter’s class, 94% of the graduates were going on to college. I do know there is extra financial aid, and in some cases preference given to students at low performing schools, but I suspect that doesn’t affect very many students.[/quote]
See: “Eligibility in the local context”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California#Eligibility_in_the_Local_Context
It has been recently revamped and expanded:
see: http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/eligibilitychanges/faqs.html
… and:
(emphasis added)
July 22, 2011 @ 7:02 PM
A nice view. All schools
A nice view. All schools suck.
July 22, 2011 @ 7:08 PM
walterwhite wrote:A nice
[quote=walterwhite]A nice view. All schools suck.[/quote]
I’m with Scaredy.
If you can afford the view you can afford private school.
Our choice will be HOMESCHOOLING!
(http://www.robinsoncurriculum.com/)
If you can’t afford this you can’t afford children.
And please don’t mention “socialization”. The socialization offered at school is what we’re trying to avoid and get control of.
July 22, 2011 @ 7:11 PM
faterikcartman
[quote=faterikcartman][quote=walterwhite]A nice view. All schools suck.[/quote]
I’m with Scaredy.
If you can afford the view you can afford private school.
Our choice will be HOMESCHOOLING!
(http://www.robinsoncurriculum.com/)
If you can’t afford this you can’t afford children.
And please don’t mention “socialization”. The socialization offered at school is what we’re trying to avoid and get control of.[/quote]
IIRC, scaredy’s family homeschools, as well.
July 22, 2011 @ 7:13 PM
faterikcartman wrote:… And
[quote=faterikcartman]… And please don’t mention “socialization”. The socialization offered at school is what we’re trying to avoid and get control of.[/quote]
fat erik, I don’t know if you’re “there” yet, but you won’t be able to eradicate all your kid(s) 367 “facebook buddies” …. even if you homeschool :={
July 22, 2011 @ 7:18 PM
BG – I don’t mean to suggest
BG – I don’t mean to suggest that there isn’t a demand for Chula Vista. I mean, during the bubble they pretty much built the whole town of Eastlake and managed to sell them all. But I think the house size and lots are probably bigger than those in 4S and cost much less in CV than 4S. So I would think the explanation would be the schools. There is so much emphasis on schools. That seems to be such a selling point, more than view. And still the school is getting more votes on this thread.
July 22, 2011 @ 7:31 PM
jpinpb wrote:BG – I don’t
[quote=jpinpb]BG – I don’t mean to suggest that there isn’t a demand for Chula Vista. I mean, during the bubble they pretty much built the whole town of Eastlake and managed to sell them all. But I think the house size and lots are probably bigger than those in 4S and cost much less in CV than 4S. So I would think the explanation would be the schools. There is so much emphasis on schools. That seems to be such a selling point, more than view. And still the school is getting more votes on this thread.[/quote]
I know you didn’t, jp. Otay Ranch (primarily 91915) is actually the community that sold like hotcakes during the recent “bubble.” Eastlake was already built out, except for the “Trails.” The oldest parts of Eastlake are now 24 years old. There are many substandard lots in Otay Ranch, as well (not in Eastlake Trails SFR’s). The schools down there are decent, even outstanding! Perhaps Piggs should study the API scores of newer Chula Vista schools – especially at the elementary school level. Their high school buildings and facilities are to die for (built entirely from MR bonds). Besides the obvious distance to SV, perhaps it’s just ignorance that is preventing some young Pigg families from considering newer construction in Chula Vista. It certainly is a better value in comparison with North County MR communities.
I just read on the API site that the ’10/11 CA public school scores are coming out in August instead of September.
July 26, 2011 @ 5:00 PM
jpinpb wrote:BG – I don’t
[quote=jpinpb]BG – I don’t mean to suggest that there isn’t a demand for Chula Vista. I mean, during the bubble they pretty much built the whole town of Eastlake and managed to sell them all. But I think the house size and lots are probably bigger than those in 4S and cost much less in CV than 4S. So I would think the explanation would be the schools. There is so much emphasis on schools. That seems to be such a selling point, more than view. And still the school is getting more votes on this thread.[/quote]
Hi jp,
I know I would take this off topic a little, but I think your impression that 4S houses are cramp together is only true in some area there. Of course many houses have *very* small backyard (or almost none), but many of the new homes in the north (and older ones in the south 4S) have pretty okay space (8 sqft in average) I guess it depends on where in 4S ranch you’re looking into.
July 22, 2011 @ 7:26 PM
BG, in Mission Hills there is
BG, in Mission Hills there is a premium on the nice lush canyon situated lots such as:
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-110040246-4222_Witherby_St_San_Diego_CA_92103
We love the privacy and expansive feeling of living on a lush canyon lot and it is nice to look at a bunch of green landscaping that you never have to water or maintain!
July 22, 2011 @ 7:41 PM
pemeliza wrote:BG, in Mission
[quote=pemeliza]BG, in Mission Hills there is a premium on the nice lush canyon situated lots such as:
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-110040246-4222_Witherby_St_San_Diego_CA_92103
We love the privacy and expansive feeling of living on a lush canyon lot and it is nice to look at a bunch of green landscaping that you never have to water or maintain![/quote]
pem, I can’t open the link so I’ll see it on SDL. I’ve been on several SOHO tours over the years in your area and I KNOW the canyon lots (mostly below the house level) are beautiful to have and look at and impart both the outdoors and privacy at the same time to the home. It’s almost as if the outside is coming right into the home, especially if quality picture windows are installed. I’ve even seen some canyon lots with ponds and walk-bridges. Yes, those lots would command a premium over a flat backyard :=)
edit: Oh, I can’t open it become I’m not a “registered user,” lol!
July 22, 2011 @ 7:54 PM
BG, here is another
BG, here is another example:
http://tempo5.sandicor.com/SNDImages/166/090052518_601_73.jpg
July 22, 2011 @ 8:01 PM
pemeliza wrote:BG, here is
[quote=pemeliza]BG, here is another example:
http://tempo5.sandicor.com/SNDImages/166/090052518_601_73.jpg
[/quote]
Nice!! Is that looking northward? Do I detect part of USD in the background?
July 22, 2011 @ 8:09 PM
Yes, USD is to the left.
Here
Yes, USD is to the left.
Here are some pictures of the listing that is pending on Witherby that you could not access.
http://tempo5.sandicor.com/SNDImages/182/110040246_M01_73.jpg
http://tempo5.sandicor.com/SNDImages/182/110040246_L01_14.jpg
http://tempo5.sandicor.com/SNDImages/182/110040246_I01_53.jpg
http://tempo5.sandicor.com/SNDImages/182/110040246_H01_73.jpg
For whatever reason the canyons in Mission Hills are lush and green. Not like the lunar landscapes you find further east.
July 22, 2011 @ 9:05 PM
pemeliza wrote:Yes, USD is to
[quote=pemeliza]Yes, USD is to the left.
Here are some pictures of the listing that is pending on Witherby that you could not access.
http://tempo5.sandicor.com/SNDImages/182/110040246_M01_73.jpg
http://tempo5.sandicor.com/SNDImages/182/110040246_L01_14.jpg
http://tempo5.sandicor.com/SNDImages/182/110040246_I01_53.jpg
http://tempo5.sandicor.com/SNDImages/182/110040246_H01_73.jpg
For whatever reason the canyons in Mission Hills are lush and green. Not like the lunar landscapes you find further east.[/quote]
WOW, those are some nice picture windows on Witherby! I want to throw a penny in the pond!
July 22, 2011 @ 1:48 PM
AN, I think it’s going to be
AN, I think it’s going to be interesting seeing the published results of the local API scores for the 10/11 school year to be released in September – whether particular school scores went up, down or stayed the same. I am already privy to some of the scores for the Sweetwater District.
I find it interesting that so many potential buyers will pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in sales price premiums plus added MR in order to buy property located in certain school attendance districts. This extra $$ they are plunking down has nothing to do with the property’s build-quality, lot size, or the desirability of its location – ONLY school attendance area.
Question: How much continuity is there for a student who attends, say, ONE “highly ranked” elementary school for seven years where MANY of his classmates over the years have moved away due to their parent’s foreclosure, deed in lieu or short sale?
Let’s use 4-Closure Ranch, here, for starters, shall we?
July 22, 2011 @ 4:09 PM
Currently charter schools are
Currently charter schools are starting to offer charter schools on line , so I vote for View as I see special school districts being less and less important (relevant).
But neighborhoods will still matter greatly unless your really really out in the boonies then you will have to bus you kids to see their buddies anyway .
Or they will have online buddies most likely.
July 22, 2011 @ 4:18 PM
I don’t know common this but
I don’t know common this but a friend of mine who lives in south carlsbad is putting their daughter into Torrey Pines HS via an interdistrict transfer. Although La Costa Canyon HS has an excellent reputation, she said that TPHS has better SAT scores. Of course, they do have to get her to the school but the dad works in sorrento valley anyway.
This got me to wondering if a determined parent couldn’t get their kid in their district school of choice especially at the high school level. For example, maybe in our case we might just drive our kids to La Jolla high school. Certainly beats paying for a private school. Again, I don’t know how common this is but this is not the first time I have heard of it happening.
July 25, 2011 @ 11:46 AM
pemeliza wrote:I don’t know
[quote=pemeliza]I don’t know common this but a friend of mine who lives in south carlsbad is putting their daughter into Torrey Pines HS via an interdistrict transfer. Although La Costa Canyon HS has an excellent reputation, she said that TPHS has better SAT scores. Of course, they do have to get her to the school but the dad works in sorrento valley anyway.
This got me to wondering if a determined parent couldn’t get their kid in their district school of choice especially at the high school level. For example, maybe in our case we might just drive our kids to La Jolla high school. Certainly beats paying for a private school. Again, I don’t know how common this is but this is not the first time I have heard of it happening.[/quote]
Pemeliza –
I’m sure you know… but in case you don’t. LJ schools are part of SDUSD. And you can choice in, if you’re lucky. I know several people who won the “choice” lottery and their kids are going to La Jolla schools. Pay close attention to deadlines – and get your paperwork in. It doesn’t hurt to apply. Choice enrollment opens up 11/1/11 this year.
http://www.sandi.net/20451072011450793/site/default.asp
It’s free – which makes it a lot cheaper than buying into the La Jolla school boundaries.
July 22, 2011 @ 5:27 PM
Agree with sdcellar about
Agree with sdcellar about Pershing. Located on a “Historic Row” near the border of South Park, this charming 1924 Craftsman has Mills Act potential. That, in itself, will be VERY valuable to the next buyer who will waitlist it for later acceptance into the program (when the City reopens application acceptance … and they eventually will). SD High IS a good school with a renowned International Baccalaureate Program. In addition, I believe they have an Academic Decathalon Team. I know kids from PB to MH to even Lemon Grove that have transferred in there.
The two properties AN brought up in 92130 are packed tightly on substandard (sub 5000 sf lots). This type of property appeals only to a particular subset of the population. Other than TPHS (and it’s feeder schools) and proximity to SV, there are no other redeeming qualities in these properties over homes in other county middle-income tracts ($350K to $550K asking prices), IMO.
AN’s O’side property is a well-appointed custom virtually ON the sand. You can’t compare this to a nondescript tract home … anywhere. If the owner died and left me this property in his/her will, I’d figure out a way not only to keep it but I’d try to entice my remaining kid to enroll in school up there. Why would I CARE what its API score was?? I can assure you that my kid wouldn’t :=]
July 22, 2011 @ 5:29 PM
BG, hope you read my post
BG, hope you read my post correctly but I did say more than once that View > school. Which is why I brought up the O’side property. Even if you tear down the CV house and build a custom home to the same quality as the O’side home to have a closer apple-to-apple comparison, I still think the O’side house will sell for much more because of the View(which is not only ocean view but view of the sand a few steps away).
July 22, 2011 @ 5:38 PM
AN wrote:BG, hope you read my
[quote=AN]BG, hope you read my post correctly but I did say more than once that View > school. Which is why I brought up the O’side property. Even if you tear down the CV house and build a custom home to the same quality as the O’side home to have a closer apple-to-apple comparison, I still think the O’side house will sell for much more because of the View(which is not only ocean view but view of the sand a few steps away).[/quote]
Agree with you that location and view trumps all, with respect to value.
July 22, 2011 @ 5:42 PM
AN, that first home in PL is
AN, that first home in PL is under the flight path whereas the second house is not.
July 22, 2011 @ 5:45 PM
pemeliza wrote:AN, that first
[quote=pemeliza]AN, that first home in PL is under the flight path whereas the second house is not.[/quote]
Sorry for not knowing which area of PL is under the flight path. How about these?
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-110039083-3345_Curtis_St_San_Diego_CA_92106
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-110007836-3314_Talbot_St_San_Diego_CA_92106
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-110035905-3647_Hyacinth_Dr_San_Diego_CA_92106
July 22, 2011 @ 6:01 PM
Honestly, I don’t know what
Honestly, I don’t know what is going on over in Point Loma. I believe it is one of the harder hit areas in this downturn. Frankly, I am beginning to wonder if the increased traffic from liberty station hasn’t fundamentally shifted the values down in that area.
This sale, for example, was 12% below the 2001 price.
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100057056-3368_Trumbull_St_San_Diego_CA_92106
July 22, 2011 @ 6:05 PM
pemeliza wrote:Honestly, I
[quote=pemeliza]Honestly, I don’t know what is going on over in Point Loma. I believe it is one of the harder hit areas in this downturn. Frankly, I am beginning to wonder if the increased traffic from liberty station hasn’t fundamentally shifted the values down in that area.
This sale, for example, was 12% below the 2001 price.
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100057056-3368_Trumbull_St_San_Diego_CA_92106%5B/quote%5D
Yeah, I saw that. I meant to put it in the PL thread, but am a little busy w/work on the house. Trumbull really surprised me. Thanks for reminding me.
July 22, 2011 @ 6:09 PM
jpinpb wrote:pemeliza
[quote=jpinpb][quote=pemeliza]Honestly, I don’t know what is going on over in Point Loma. I believe it is one of the harder hit areas in this downturn. Frankly, I am beginning to wonder if the increased traffic from liberty station hasn’t fundamentally shifted the values down in that area.
This sale, for example, was 12% below the 2001 price.
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100057056-3368_Trumbull_St_San_Diego_CA_92106
[/quote]
Yeah, I saw that. I meant to put it in the PL thread, but am a little busy w/work on the house. Trumbull really surprised me. Thanks for reminding me.[/quote]
Yeah, I saw that property listed a while back and it is totally me! What a great price for a gorgeous quality-built and very well-located home!
July 22, 2011 @ 5:37 PM
I think it would be helpful
I think it would be helpful if we had a CA Regent Pigg or State College Entrance Board member Pigg on this forum to educate Piggs on the criteria they use for both freshman and junior public university admissions (since only a small percentage of applicants are actually admitted to each campus). I think it would be enlightening. Perhaps after hearing the “ins and outs” of CA college admissions, more Piggs would realize that it does NOT MATTER WHICH HS (or homeschool) your kid graduated from … as long as it is accredited.
July 25, 2011 @ 3:33 PM
bearishgurl wrote:Perhaps
[quote=bearishgurl]Perhaps after hearing the “ins and outs” of CA college admissions, more Piggs would realize that it does NOT MATTER WHICH HS (or homeschool) your kid graduated from … as long as it is accredited.[/quote]
This is correct. I was in the middle of my ‘prestiguous’ private HS class, but did very well on the SAT and got into a top 10 university. People at the top of my HS class, with lower SAT scores, went to much lower ranked colleges. Put simply, the test scores and AP classes were just about the only thing that mattered.
Which is why I voted “view” on this poll.
July 25, 2011 @ 10:15 PM
Based on the houses I see,
Based on the houses I see, your pedestrian “view” will only give you $10-20k premium. So, when you compare top school vs bad school, it would look like school affect price more. However, when you start talking about killer view (unobstructed ocean view for example), the view can add millions. Not even Carmel Valley (the best school district in SD) can claim it adds million to the value of a comparable home. Here’s one example that was posted in the coveted zip code thread: linky. Even if it close at $2M, which is $795k less than its asking price, I can make a safe assumption that it’s still $1M more than a comparable home in PL (2/3 2000 sq-ft with a 5k sq-ft lot and no view). Or this one. How much do you think a 3800 sq-ft house in PL would cost w/out a view?
July 25, 2011 @ 10:46 PM
AN wrote:. . . Here’s one
[quote=AN]. . . Here’s one example that was posted in the coveted zip code thread: linky. Even if it close at $2M, which is $795k less than its asking price, I can make a safe assumption that it’s still $1M more than a comparable home in PL (2/3 2000 sq-ft with a 5k sq-ft lot and no view). Or this one. How much do you think a 3800 sq-ft house in PL would cost w/out a view?[/quote]
AN, location and design trump square feet in an area such as Pt Loma where a particular location (such as the La Playa waterfront) or angle on a hill with a city view merits 2-5 times the price of nearby homes without views. Your “linky” above is a Richards. He was a renowned mid-century architect in San Diego who is now deceased. No one took over his design work so whatever is remaining of his legacy which has been kept to his original roof lines, interior appointments and landscaping has a “Richards” premium attached to it.
It is what it is and can’t be duplicated now, especially with the particular materials used at the time of construction (mid-20th century). Your “linky” above depicts one of 34 homes with (interior or “bayside”) “beach rights” in La Playa (which rarely, if ever, come on the market).
see:
http://www.modernsandiego.com/SimBruceRichards.html
http://sohosandiego.org/reflections/2007_2/sbr.htm
July 25, 2011 @ 10:59 PM
bearishgurl wrote:AN,
[quote=bearishgurl]AN, location and design trump square feet in an area such as Pt Loma where a particular location (such as the La Playa waterfront) or angle on a hill with a city view merits 2-5 times the price of nearby homes without views. Your “linky” above is a Richards. He was a renowned mid-century architect in San Diego who is now deceased. No one took over his design work so whatever is remaining of his legacy which has been kept to his original roof lines, interior appointments and landscaping has a “Richards” premium attached to it.
It is what it is and can’t be duplicated now, especially with the particular materials used at the time of construction (mid-20th century). Your “linky” above depicts one of 34 homes with (interior or “bayside”) “beach rights” in La Playa (which rarely, if ever, come on the market).
see:
http://www.modernsandiego.com/SimBruceRichards.html
http://sohosandiego.org/reflections/2007_2/sbr.htm%5B/quote%5D
I didn’t even mention sq-ft since you can find comparable sq-ft in other part of PL. So, it really come down to location and to some extent, design. I would say location plays a much bigger role, but I can never prove that.
July 25, 2011 @ 11:26 PM
AN wrote:I didn’t even
[quote=AN]I didn’t even mention sq-ft since you can find comparable sq-ft in other part of PL. So, it really come down to location and to some extent, design. I would say location plays a much bigger role, but I can never prove that.[/quote]
AN, I would MUCH prefer a higher, sit-down panoramic city view, such as those found looking out some SE-facing backyards of Fleetridge and Roseville (92106). HOWEVER, the fact that your “linky” was a Richards of well-preserved and impeccable design and had its own “beach rights” was why I chose it. For me, the Richards design trumps the city view, so in my case, design wins. In a well-located diverse “custom” community, such as Pt Loma, value or “worth” is completely subjective and in the eye of the beholder-buyer.
July 26, 2011 @ 12:43 PM
bearishgurl wrote:AN, I would
[quote=bearishgurl]AN, I would MUCH prefer a higher, sit-down panoramic city view, such as those found looking out some SE-facing backyards of Fleetridge and Roseville (92106). HOWEVER, the fact that your “linky” was a Richards of well-preserved and impeccable design and had its own “beach rights” was why I chose it. For me, the Richards design trumps the city view, so in my case, design wins. In a well-located diverse “custom” community, such as Pt Loma, value or “worth” is completely subjective and in the eye of the beholder-buyer.[/quote]
So, you’re saying you’d still pay $2M+ for a 2000 sq-ft Richards’ home on a 5k sq-ft nondescript lot w/ no view. Since you know this architect and this area well, do you have an example of a Richards’ home on a nondescript lot with no view?
July 22, 2011 @ 5:41 PM
Sorry in that I don’t have
Sorry in that I don’t have enough (or the right kind) of education to know what “binary” means :={
July 22, 2011 @ 8:12 PM
We paid a premium to get a
We paid a premium to get a view. But, it wasn’t too bad.
But, having said that, we couldn’t afford the area we wanted (which had better schools, CV) so we moved much further north to a more affordable property, which, as a bonus, has a view.
We are big on our kids making the most of whatever school they attend. Its a launching pad for college. And a BS is a launching pad for graduate school, if that’s even in the cards. Ultimately its about how much fire’s in the student, not what school they attend.
July 23, 2011 @ 10:49 AM
I have to say one thing that
I have to say one thing that I do agree w/BG about. My DH’s oldest, now 19, confessed to us that many, many kids at Westview are doing various forms of drugs. They do have the money and often not supervised. Drugs are in any schools and how you raise your kids will determine if your kids do them.
In any case, view is still getting more votes than schools. Husband is telling me so 🙂
July 23, 2011 @ 11:12 AM
“I’ve had the same 4 streets
“I’ve had the same 4 streets picked out since ’94.”
I hope we don’t go back to ’94 prices 🙂
I know this probably isn’t one of your top 4 streets but we really wanted this house back in 2004 but couldn’t get the seller to go anywhere near the price we wanted to pay 🙂
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1405-Savoy-Cir-San-Diego-CA-92107/48181085_zpid/#{scid=hdp-site-map-bubble-address}
That city view must be off of a roof top deck because you don’t get it from the living room (blocked by neighboring property trees). If so, then they added it after they bought in 2004.
If you like mid century modern than the house is fabulous. Looks like whoever bought it turned it into a vacation rental.
I still like the views down in La Playa better because you got more of the bay and reflections of the night lights onto the water.
July 23, 2011 @ 12:31 PM
pemeliza wrote:”I’ve had the
[quote=pemeliza]”I’ve had the same 4 streets picked out since ’94.”
I hope we don’t go back to ’94 prices 🙂
I know this probably isn’t one of your top 4 streets but we really wanted this house back in 2004 but couldn’t get the seller to go anywhere near the price we wanted to pay 🙂
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1405-Savoy-Cir-San-Diego-CA-92107/48181085_zpid/#{scid=hdp-site-map-bubble-address}
That city view must be off of a roof top deck because you don’t get it from the living room (blocked by neighboring property trees). If so, then they added it after they bought in 2004.
If you like mid century modern than the house is fabulous. Looks like whoever bought it turned it into a vacation rental. . . [/quote]
pem, I don’t see us going back to ’94 prices!
I love mid-century modern and this is a beautiful home, albeit a bit too large for my needs.
Savoy Street (not Circle) IS one of my four streets but only the south and east-facing side on the bottom 2/3 (curved st). I DO have an issue with overhead line and metal-pole junction easements on that street, however. I believe SDGE is currently still in MH and also in Loma Portal and the “PL flats” slowly installing buried cable street by street. If purchasing on that street, it would probably be prudent to do so BEFORE SDGE comes through with buried cable. After those utility easements are gone, I believe Savoy’s values will increase much more!
edit: sorry, I did mean “Circle,” not Street.
July 23, 2011 @ 11:14 AM
jpinpb wrote:I have to say
[quote=jpinpb]I have to say one thing that I do agree w/BG about. My DH’s oldest, now 19, confessed to us that many, many kids at Westview are doing various forms of drugs. They do have the money and often not supervised. Drugs are in any schools and how you raise your kids will determine if your kids do them…[/quote]
6:30 a.m. Thursday, September 29, 2011:
July 23, 2011 @ 2:46 PM
Fascinating poll and thread,
Fascinating poll and thread, even if entirely subjective and fraught with variables. Still, in my opinion, sdcellar, sdrealtor, CAR and OCR have all made the best case here.
And to answer someone’s question about whether or not the Piggs’ opinions re: Carmel Valley are representative of the general population, we can look to relative home prices among various locations for an estimate of what the general population values. Follow the money.
Carmel Valley is the place here that often comes up as most highly coveted, and lo and behold, that is also the area in SD County where people are probably paying the “most” for a home in highest concentrations. Obviously, this is a generalization and I’d love to see the data on housing prices per capita…maybe sdrealtor has that? (EDIT: I don’t think I mean “per capita”…what is the right measurement for price per square foot of people/houses in a given zip code?) RSF, La Jolla, Del Mar, Coronado, all have mega-pricey homes, but for sheer packed-in volume of expensive homes, I think Carmel Valley is the place that the masses seem to covet, and the prices there bear that out.
So, we don’t really have to guess at whether Piggs’ opinions follow general population trends in this area, we just have to see where people spend their housing dollars. Carmel Valley is not my cup of tea, but seems to be what most others DO value.
And, interestingly enough, Carmel Valley homes rarely have views yet have the “best” (meaning highest scoring) school district in SD County.
So, as imperfect as the poll is and as equally imperfect as my analogy is, I think this is a decent illustration of how school district generally trumps view.
Yes, as has been said here, of course a kid can get a great education in any district, and maybe we should all home-school our kids anyway, and maybe a kid even has a better chance of getting into competitive colleges out of a middle-of-the-road or poorer district, and possibly will stay drug-free at the inferior district, etc, etc, etc…all interesting but off-topic! But, this is not about my personal opinion regarding what I value more…if we simply answer the question on the topic of pure housing investment ROI, it’s my opinion that school district generally trumps view.
P.S. Of course, there are the outlier homes with drop-dead view in a crappy district, but my opinion is meant to be a generalization.
July 23, 2011 @ 2:58 PM
I’m getting the idea many
I’m getting the idea many people posting comments on this thread are saying school is more important, but the poll is showing more people are valuing the view more than the school. Since I personally don’t have kids, then I’d rather have the view, regardless of the effect of resale value not being in a good school district. That is not how I voted, though. I think the average person does not think that way. That’s what I was trying to explain to my DH. Despite all that, DH reminds me I’m behind in the poll 😉
July 23, 2011 @ 3:18 PM
Hi jpinpg, and hello and
Hi jpinpg, and hello and welcome to your DH! Thanks for starting this interesting discussion.
I think the issue you describe above is due to the phrasing of your poll question, which you probably already figured out.
Your poll asks, “Would YOU pay more for a view or better schools?” so people are answering the question from their own personal perspective, but I think what you were actually trying to determine is what the general house-hunting population values in terms of school district vs. views.
I answered the question more from what I believed the overall housing-hunting population’s perspective would be, not my own personal perspective, but in fact, that wasn’t really what the poll was asking (which I realized after posting).
Hope that boosts your position in your DH’s eyes but somehow I don’t think it’s going to work. 😉
July 23, 2011 @ 3:30 PM
Yeah. I see that is another
Yeah. I see that is another flaw in my poll. People are personalizing the question. Perhaps I should have asked whether the average person values school over view. But I value the opinion of folks on Pigginton and what they personally value is a good indicator to me also. I just figured most people have kids and want to be in a good school district and would choose that over view. And even those w/out kids would pick school for resale. I thought this was a no-brainer easy win for me 😉 Guess I’m losing this bet.
July 23, 2011 @ 4:57 PM
Don’t concede too early. The
Don’t concede too early. The people who have responded so far might be those prone to sitting at home on their computers, enjoying some sort of view, while those who value a good school district are out running around with their kids. Just wait and see. 😉
July 23, 2011 @ 5:19 PM
carli wrote:And to answer
[quote=carli]And to answer someone’s question about whether or not the Piggs’ opinions re: Carmel Valley are representative of the general population, we can look to relative home prices among various locations for an estimate of what the general population values. Follow the money.
Carmel Valley is the place here that often comes up as most highly coveted, and lo and behold, that is also the area in SD County where people are probably paying the “most” for a home in highest concentrations…[/quote]
carli, I realize you stated this is a “generalization,” but you must know that there are MANY locations in SD County which have high “relative home prices” and which the “general population” values.
I just have some probing questions here, food for thought, if you will (not necessarily for carli):
1) Who is the general homebuying public? IOW, which demographic, familial makeup, income level, is MOST representative of a RE buyer in 2011 in SD County, overall? How about over a span of the last 10 years? The ten years before that?
2) What is the population of Carmel Valley? How many housing units does it have? How many are SFR’s/PUDs and how many are condos? How many rental units are there?
3) How do Carmel Valley’s population numbers compare with other zip codes’ (which would be considered “affluent”) population numbers.
4) Which three communities (zip codes) in the county do you think actually had the highest average sales prices in 2010? What is the demographic of these areas/zip codes?
5) If Carmel Valley were ten years older, do you think there would be as many listings/sales as there are today?
6) Is Carmel Valley built out?
7) What is the demographic of the average Pigg? What type of work do they do? Where do they work? What is the percentage of Piggs who are actually retired or semi-retired?
8) What is the demographic of the average potential homebuyer in the county? What type of work do they do? Where do they work? What is the percentage of potential homebuyers in the county who are retired or semi-retired?
9) What is the percentage of potential homebuyers in the county who actually have minor children living at home?
10) What was the percentage of all-cash sales in 92130 for 2010? How about for 92118? 92106? 92037? 92014? How about 91935, 91902 or 91914? Shocked yet?
11) For 2010, what was the percentage of foreign homebuyers in SD County? How many of those moved here to work? What was the percentage of out-of-state buyers in SD County? How many of those moved here to work? What was the percentage of out-of-county homebuyers in SD? How many of these moved here to work?
**************************************************
I’m sure we don’t quite have the “data-mining” capability to get all the answers we need here. And I don’t believe MOST potential home buyers in the county (or even 15% of them) even consider Carmel Valley. Many have never heard of it and for some it is out of their price range. For those potential buyers that are ABLE to buy in Carmel Valley, they have many, many options which are a better value and have a better location.
Most Piggs who post about real estate and buying options here appear to fit the “FT-working-stiff-parent-of-young-children” model. And that’s okay :=]
I just don’t believe the Pigg RE buying population is representative of the “general RE buying population.”
July 23, 2011 @ 5:34 PM
BG – those are some excellent
BG – those are some excellent questions and I wish we had some stats on that.
I can say for me, back in the day, I bought in Carmel Valley b/c I wanted to be somewhat coastal and it was known to have a pretty good school district (in case I had a kid) and it was still somewhat rural. It was actually relatively speaking, less expensive than PB.
But they managed to develop Carmel Valley so much since that freeway went in. Too many other issues going on that forced my hand to sell. I liked it when I bought it b/c it had a country feel along the coast. That’s changed dramatically and the appeal for me to be in Carmel Valley is gone. And w/no kids, no reason to be there for schools and I am not concerned about resale. Maybe I should be, but I’m not.
Now, I know perhaps the response to this next statement will be the circle I travel in. Most of my friends live in Central San Diego and some have kids, but have NO interest to be in CV or 4S. Some people I work w/are in the Poway SD. So for the most part, it is a pretty good mix of both.
Now that I got done saying that, I realize my neighbor, who has 3 children, raised them in my hood which is not a reknown school district. She sent their kids to private schools. Her kids are all honor students. The oldest graduated UCSD w/a degree in economics. She wanted the view. She could’ve easily lived in CV or 4S. In fact, she and her husband both commute inland for work.
July 24, 2011 @ 9:19 PM
I never argued with the date
I never argued with the date it was published … only that it’s study subjects were “examined” in another era (not relevant to today) and its “drug use survey” was conducted in Canada, NOT the US.
The above quote was why I used elevated “shacks” on stilts (State of LA) AND the term “hollers” (South/Blue Ridge Mtns). Your study referred to US? “white teenagers” having “low SES” (socioeconomic status). These types of living conditions among “poor whites” (or any other race, for that matter) do not exist in the US anymore. Improved living conditions for poor teenagers since then and more confidence among them due to schools efforts to ameliorate the effects of poverty among students which bode well for better mental health among them and less susceptibility for falling into drug use.
July 24, 2011 @ 9:40 PM
bearishgurl wrote:I never
[quote=bearishgurl]I never argued with the date it was published … only that it’s study subjects were “examined” in another era (not relevant to today) and its “drug use survey” was conducted in Canada, NOT the US.
The above quote was why I used elevated “shacks” on stilts (State of LA) AND the term “hollers” (South/Blue Ridge Mtns). Your study referred to US? “white teenagers” having “low SES” (socioeconomic status). These types of living conditions among “poor whites” (or any other race, for that matter) do not exist in the US anymore. Improved living conditions for poor teenagers since then and more confidence among them due to schools efforts to ameliorate the effects of poverty among students which bode well for better mental health among them and less susceptibility for falling into drug use.[/quote]
As I said, please provide something other than your own opinion (i.e. published reports, studies, etc.) if you want this to be about something other than your opinion.
July 25, 2011 @ 7:26 AM
going to attempt to redirect
going to attempt to redirect debate a bit.
specifically, what is the premium for good schools. And here we talk about perception as much as reality, based on apple to apple comparison.
4S vs East Lake. both are housing bubble babies, very similar new homes on zero lot lines. most without views. and filled with foreclosures and folks drowning in MR and HOA (threw that in just for BG).
API for Del Norte is 855, API for Eastlake is 787. Does not seem that far apart, but remember, API DO NOT TELL THE WHOLE STORY!!! When you look at UC acceptance rate, 47% of graduating seniors in Westview (no data yet for Del Norte) applied to at least one school within the UC system, and 95% were accepted. Only 19% of Eastlake students even bothered with applying to an UC school. And despite having less seniors apply to UCs, the acceptance rate was lower at 91%.
So what’s the difference in housing cost in these similar aged, similar styled communities?
92127 median $/sqft is $251/sqft
91915 median $/sqft is $158/sqft
so there you have it. the education premium is essentially at $100/sqft.
July 25, 2011 @ 10:09 AM
ocrenter wrote:going to
[quote=ocrenter]going to attempt to redirect debate a bit.
specifically, what is the premium for good schools. And here we talk about perception as much as reality, based on apple to apple comparison.
4S vs East Lake. both are housing bubble babies, very similar new homes on zero lot lines. most without views. and filled with foreclosures and folks drowning in MR and HOA (threw that in just for BG).
API for Del Norte is 855, API for Eastlake is 787. Does not seem that far apart, but remember, API DO NOT TELL THE WHOLE STORY!!! When you look at UC acceptance rate, 47% of graduating seniors in Westview (no data yet for Del Norte) applied to at least one school within the UC system, and 95% were accepted. Only 19% of Eastlake students even bothered with applying to an UC school. And despite having less seniors apply to UCs, the acceptance rate was lower at 91%.
So what’s the difference in housing cost in these similar aged, similar styled communities?
92127 median $/sqft is $251/sqft
91915 median $/sqft is $158/sqft
so there you have it. the education premium is essentially at $100/sqft.[/quote]
That’s interesting – we’ve been looking for homes (north county coastal) and came to the (very unscientific) conclusion that among the houses that we are looking at, the view costs about $100,000. For a 3000 sq. ft. house, that works out to $33 a sq. ft. (or about 1/3 of what you’re finding for schools). Has anyone else looked at this?
July 25, 2011 @ 10:48 AM
“That’s interesting – we’ve
“That’s interesting – we’ve been looking for homes (north county coastal) and came to the (very unscientific) conclusion that among the houses that we are looking at, the view costs about $100,000. For a 3000 sq. ft. house, that works out to $33 a sq. ft. (or about 1/3 of what you’re finding for schools). Has anyone else looked at this?”
I’ve seen that number before. $100k for a decent view in NCC is probably about right.
July 25, 2011 @ 11:11 AM
A good view is more conducive
A good view is more conducive to long intimate outdoor family meals for stealthily inculcating parental values into unsuspecting kids.
July 25, 2011 @ 11:50 AM
walterwhite wrote:A good view
[quote=walterwhite]A good view is more conducive to long intimate outdoor family meals for stealthily inculcating parental values into unsuspecting kids.[/quote]
Lol, scaredy!!!
July 25, 2011 @ 1:27 PM
DataAgent wrote:”That’s
[quote=DataAgent]”That’s interesting – we’ve been looking for homes (north county coastal) and came to the (very unscientific) conclusion that among the houses that we are looking at, the view costs about $100,000. For a 3000 sq. ft. house, that works out to $33 a sq. ft. (or about 1/3 of what you’re finding for schools). Has anyone else looked at this?”
I’ve seen that number before. $100k for a decent view in NCC is probably about right.[/quote]
$100k for view is about right.
In regard to BG’s questions regarding other Chula Vista schools, here’s a couple more UC application rate and success rate:
Bonita Vista
23% applied to UC, 86% success rate
Otay Ranch
18% applied to UC, 92% success rate
from http://statfinder.ucop.edu/reports/schoolreports/default.aspx
This compared to 44% application rate and 95% success rate for Westview, the druggie school. I wonder what they are smoking over there, that’s some really good sh!t!!!
July 25, 2011 @ 1:50 PM
View > School.
View > School.
July 25, 2011 @ 3:22 PM
View, but take my opinion for
View, but take my opinion for what it’s worth since I’m never planning on sending my kids to public school here. With that said, I’d never want a view in a crap area so the school district would probably be good anyway. And the view would have to be pretty spectacular for me to pay a real premium for it. I’m not the type to sit around and stare at a view so I’d probably end up taking it for granted unless it was a truly fantastic view.
July 25, 2011 @ 10:38 AM
ocrenter wrote:going to
[quote=ocrenter]going to attempt to redirect debate a bit.
specifically, what is the premium for good schools. And here we talk about perception as much as reality, based on apple to apple comparison.
4S vs East Lake. both are housing bubble babies, very similar new homes on zero lot lines. most without views. and filled with foreclosures and folks drowning in MR and HOA (threw that in just for BG).
API for Del Norte is 855, API for Eastlake is 787. Does not seem that far apart, but remember, API DO NOT TELL THE WHOLE STORY!!! When you look at UC acceptance rate, 47% of graduating seniors in Westview (no data yet for Del Norte) applied to at least one school within the UC system, and 95% were accepted. Only 19% of Eastlake students even bothered with applying to an UC school. And despite having less seniors apply to UCs, the acceptance rate was lower at 91%.
So what’s the difference in housing cost in these similar aged, similar styled communities?
92127 median $/sqft is $251/sqft
91915 median $/sqft is $158/sqft
so there you have it. the education premium is essentially at $100/sqft.[/quote]
ocrenter, I think you need to go back to the drawing board, here.
“Eastlake” is not the HS serving Otay Ranch (91915), however it may have a few space-available “zone transfers” from Otay Ranch. “Eastlake” (91913, 91914) is not a “housing bubble-baby” community. The bulk of it was developed and first sold between 1987 and 1992. Nor are most “Eastlake” residents “drowning in MR and HOA.” An Eastlake community of 600-700 (over 2100 sf SFR’s) paid off their MR in 2007. The next wave of MR for Eastlake SFR’s will be paid off between 2016 and 2017. In addition, Eastlake MR obligations are substantially smaller than 92127 MR.
Are you referring here to the same “Westview High” that jpinpb’s DH’s son confessed (to them) that “many, many kids (were) doing various forms of drugs?”
For the record, Eastlake High’s actual 2010 API is 814, NOT 787.
For the record, the high schools serving Otay Ranch are Olympian (816 API), Otay Ranch (797 API) and Bonita Vista (834 API).
I haven’t checked your cost-per-sf reporting to determine its accuracy, but if it is close to accurate, we can extrapolate from that that *newer* housing is Otay Ranch is a much better value than that in 92127, considering that the schools are comparable 🙂
And what is your source of info regarding the percentage of students in a CA school who apply to UC?
July 25, 2011 @ 10:51 PM
bearishgurl wrote:
“Eastlake”
[quote=bearishgurl]
“Eastlake” is not the HS serving Otay Ranch (91915), however it may have a few space-available “zone transfers” from Otay Ranch. “Eastlake” (91913, 91914) is not a “housing bubble-baby” community. The bulk of it was developed and first sold between 1987 and 1992. Nor are most “Eastlake” residents “drowning in MR and HOA.” An Eastlake community of 600-700 (over 2100 sf SFR’s) paid off their MR in 2007. The next wave of MR for Eastlake SFR’s will be paid off between 2016 and 2017. In addition, Eastlake MR obligations are substantially smaller than 92127 MR.
[/quote]
There are parts of Eastlake that’s on zip code 91915: Eastlake Greens, Trails and Vista. In fact zip code 91915 is mostly Eastlake. The only community that’s part of zip code 91915 that’s not Eastlake is Windingwalk, which is part of the collosal Otay Ranch.
There are parts of Eastlake that were built during the bubble: most of Eastlake Vista, Eastlake Trails North and Eastlake Woods were built from 2004 to 2010. Eastlake Trails North and Woods are in zip code 91914.
July 25, 2011 @ 11:12 PM
nla wrote:bearishgurl
[quote=nla][quote=bearishgurl]
“Eastlake” is not the HS serving Otay Ranch (91915), however it may have a few space-available “zone transfers” from Otay Ranch. “Eastlake” (91913, 91914) is not a “housing bubble-baby” community. The bulk of it was developed and first sold between 1987 and 1992. Nor are most “Eastlake” residents “drowning in MR and HOA.” An Eastlake community of 600-700 (over 2100 sf SFR’s) paid off their MR in 2007. The next wave of MR for Eastlake SFR’s will be paid off between 2016 and 2017. In addition, Eastlake MR obligations are substantially smaller than 92127 MR.
[/quote]
There are parts of Eastlake that’s on zip code 91915: Eastlake Greens, Trails and Vista. In fact zip code 91915 is mostly Eastlake. The only community that’s part of zip code 91915 that’s not Eastlake is Windingwalk, which is part of the collosal Otay Ranch.
There are parts of Eastlake that were built during the bubble: most of Eastlake Vista, Eastlake Trails North and Eastlake Woods were built from 2004 to 2010. Eastlake Trails North and Woods are in zip code 91914.[/quote]
I was referring to Eastlake Shores, Eastlake Hills and the Eastlake Woods which was/were first sold between 1987 and 1992. Perhaps some of the “Woods” on the south end (towards Otay Ranch Mall) was built later in the ’90’s or early 2000’s. However, the area around Clubhouse Drive (near Eastlake HS) and around the golf course was built out by late 1992.
Yes, the “Trails” is newer as well as Eastlake Vista (customs?).
Thank you for the clarification, nla.
It does not change the fact that Otay Ranch, predominately in 91915, was built after 2000 (most of it from 2002 forward. Olympian HS and Otay Ranch HS are both fairly new and were both opened to underclassmen in the last +/- 7 years.
Prior to their opening, the high schools serving Otay Ranch were (then overcrowded) Bonita Vista and Eastlake.
I have never lived in 91913, 91914 or 91915. I am from 91902 and currently reside in 91910. Both of these areas are 40-75 years old.
July 26, 2011 @ 1:38 PM
ocrenter wrote:going to
[quote=ocrenter]going to attempt to redirect debate a bit.
specifically, what is the premium for good schools. And here we talk about perception as much as reality, based on apple to apple comparison.
4S vs East Lake. both are housing bubble babies, very similar new homes on zero lot lines. most without views. and filled with foreclosures and folks drowning in MR and HOA (threw that in just for BG).
API for Del Norte is 855, API for Eastlake is 787. Does not seem that far apart, but remember, API DO NOT TELL THE WHOLE STORY!!! When you look at UC acceptance rate, 47% of graduating seniors in Westview (no data yet for Del Norte) applied to at least one school within the UC system, and 95% were accepted. Only 19% of Eastlake students even bothered with applying to an UC school. And despite having less seniors apply to UCs, the acceptance rate was lower at 91%.
So what’s the difference in housing cost in these similar aged, similar styled communities?
92127 median $/sqft is $251/sqft
91915 median $/sqft is $158/sqft
so there you have it. the education premium is essentially at $100/sqft.[/quote]
I think people are paying $100/sqft more to live in amongst “Ice People” rather than “Sun People”. John Derbyshire in his book “We Are Doomed” has a compelling breakdown of how this influences housing costs and school performance. As others have noted, I think it is much more the students and the culture of the students and their families than anything to do with teachers. I’m sure here and there there are teachers who manage to overcome culture and genetics, but I’m even more sure they are too few and far between to make a difference in the calculations we’re discussing.
July 25, 2011 @ 10:06 AM
njtosd wrote:…As I said,
[quote=njtosd]…As I said, please provide something other than your own opinion (i.e. published reports, studies, etc.) if you want this to be about something other than your opinion.[/quote]
Please provide a “study” that is relevant to this region and this era and it might have more credibility.
July 25, 2011 @ 3:42 PM
Speaking from my experience
Speaking from my experience last week on this very issue, I say “view” over “schools” – easily. I’m buying vacant land, based almost entirely on the quality of the view.
There is an absurd premium on getting into the high quality school areas, and you are still sending the kids to public school. The better option is to ignore the public schools, buy your house for other purposes (such as views) in cheaper ares, and use the money you save to send your kids to private school.
Edit: A big part of why certain schools get better rankings is because the kids tend to belong to parents who really care about their education (which is why they live in that district in the first place). It’s not so much that the school is higher quality, as it is that the students are higher quality.
July 26, 2011 @ 12:40 PM
wooga wrote:Edit: A big part
[quote=wooga]Edit: A big part of why certain schools get better rankings is because the kids tend to belong to parents who really care about their education (which is why they live in that district in the first place). It’s not so much that the school is higher quality, as it is that the students are higher quality.[/quote]
Yeah, most of the rankings I’ve seen, especially those that rely heavily on test scores, seem to have cause-effect relationships confused. For example, the high schools in the Poway district all have excellent test scores, but also draw from a more affluent community with a much lower percentage of students on free/reduced lunch (the best apples-to-apples comparison) and higher levels of parental education. So while Rancho Bernardo high and Westview high have great scores, they actually are pretty mediocre based on the quality of pupils coming in. Mt. Carmel High is exceptionally mediocre; it has scores slightly lower than Mira Mesa yet has a much more affluent and educated student base. La Jolla High is another example of a school that has good scores but is relatively underperforming based on the population it draws from.
Yeah, I probably wouldn’t want my future children going to Hoover or Lincoln. There’s going to be some luxuries provided by more affluent schools that don’t come out in test scores (access to music programs, activities that lead to a “well rounded education”). But I’m just not convinced there’s too much of a difference between the “top” schools and second tier schools. Admittedly given my own blue collar childhood there’s a part of me that would prefer my future children go to school with a few more middle class students than some of the schools from richer neighborhoods have.
July 26, 2011 @ 12:55 PM
poorgradstudent wrote:wooga
[quote=poorgradstudent][quote=wooga]Edit: A big part of why certain schools get better rankings is because the kids tend to belong to parents who really care about their education (which is why they live in that district in the first place). It’s not so much that the school is higher quality, as it is that the students are higher quality.[/quote]
Yeah, most of the rankings I’ve seen, especially those that rely heavily on test scores, seem to have cause-effect relationships confused. For example, the high schools in the Poway district all have excellent test scores, but also draw from a more affluent community with a much lower percentage of students on free/reduced lunch (the best apples-to-apples comparison) and higher levels of parental education. So while Rancho Bernardo high and Westview high have great scores, they actually are pretty mediocre based on the quality of pupils coming in. Mt. Carmel High is exceptionally mediocre; it has scores slightly lower than Mira Mesa yet has a much more affluent and educated student base. La Jolla High is another example of a school that has good scores but is relatively underperforming based on the population it draws from.
Yeah, I probably wouldn’t want my future children going to Hoover or Lincoln. There’s going to be some luxuries provided by more affluent schools that don’t come out in test scores (access to music programs, activities that lead to a “well rounded education”). But I’m just not convinced there’s too much of a difference between the “top” schools and second tier schools. Admittedly given my own blue collar childhood there’s a part of me that would prefer my future children go to school with a few more middle class students than some of the schools from richer neighborhoods have.[/quote]
poorgradstudent, I can’t speak for the Poway schools but LJ High draws from a very diverse population base. A large percentage of students there are attending on the VEEP program. These deserving students DO qualify for free/reduced-price lunch and usually ride the city bus or carpool in there every day from “Lincoln and Hoover” and other local school attendance areas with a more “disadvantaged” student population.
Obviously, there has not been enough high-school age children residing in 92037 to fill this school for many years. This may be the only way it can remain open. These VEEP students must maintain a certain GPA to remain in the school and be free of disciplinary action.
Have you actually taken a drive by the *new* “Lincoln Prep” lately? If not, you should! I think you would be quite surprised! In recent years, SDUSD spent in excess of $50M rebuilding it and it has every amenity :=]