[quote=AN]BG, I never claimed MM have big lot. So, I’m not sure why you’re bringing up lot size.[/quote]
I didn’t say you did AN, but lot size is indicative of value. In coastal CA counties, a larger lot usually means the property is worth more. RE is actually LAND. What is built on that land is secondary.
[quote=AN]How is it any different, wrt to the “stable” home owners, when they either own their house for 50+ years and are nearing their death bed and those who either own their home out right for 30+ years to those who are 20 years into their 30 years loan? If anything, those 50+ years owners area might be more likely to have a flood of property hitting the market due to their owner dying vs an area where the owners are just starting to enter retirement. Regardless. Both areas have plenty of owners who are or soon to be retiring who have no plan on moving. Sounds pretty stable to me. I would say an area with owners starting to enter retirement are more stable than those area where its owners are nearing their death beds.[/quote]
AN, the vast majority of original owners still living in their Clairemont properties aren’t “on their deathbeds.” They are in their early to mid-seventies. You stated “mature” owners in MM have monthly mortgage payments which are “cheaper than a 1/1 apartment.” What does a 1 br apt rent for in MM, AN? About $1200 mo perhaps? Could it be that the “mature” owner base in MM is about my age?? My PI is currently <$1200 for a 2200 sf house on a larger-than-std lot! WHO is more "stable?" A <59.5 yo with +/- $1200 mo mortgage payments with 10-15 years left to pay on it who is ineligible to collect SS or their retirement funds OR a 73 yo with a free-and-clear personal residence, monthly SS coming in, Medicare coverage and unfettered access to all their retirement funds??
AN, are you aware of how fast a 50-65 year old can go through their liquid assets if they lose steady employment and health coverage and still have any mortgage at all to pay? What do you think happens to their "budget" when their UI runs out and they STILL can't get hired anywhere and can't touch their retirement funds without a large penalty?
Which of these subsets of longtime owners do you think can better afford to make necessary repairs on their homes (fence, roof, painting, etc) which would be visible from the street and thus affect neighboring property values?
[quote=AN]You do you the South East corner of MM is the worse part of MM, right? For you to compare the worse part of MM to a better part of CM? hmm... that's a good comparison.[/quote]
Both the east side of MM and Clairemont areas are "older." Why would I compare 1990's "stucco box" construction with tile roofs with properties in 50-55 yo Clairemont (92111)? I was trying to keep it an "apples to apples" comparison of the housing stock as much as possible. It IS a good comparison and Clairemont 92111 wins on all counts, IMHO.
[quote=AN]Yet, you ended saying it doesn't make one area better or worse than another?[/quote]
Better or worse for WHO? That is the $64M question.
By far, it is the percentage of free and clear owners who determine the level of “stability” of a micro-area. Why?? Because these owners can NEVER be distressed. The worst that can happen to them is they will qualify for and obtain “senior discounts” on utilities and could get flagged for a tax sale by the assessor if they miss 10 installments and a full five years has elapsed since their last tax installment was paid (very unlikely for longtime owners protected by “Prop 13”). If they are dumb enough to take out a (very expensive) reverse mortgage and there is no knowledgeable family member or friend available to talk them out of it, the “equity stripping” and subsequent resale of their property by the reverse mortgage-lender would not happen until after their death. This could not really be considered to be a “distress sale,” per se, but this kind of sale on a modest MM or Clairemont property would likely leave little to no equity for heirs (if any) to divide.
