[quote=AN]Do you have data to back up your 65% or “many” assertion? I checked 91910 listings right now and they seem to be around 2000-2002 prices.[/quote]
Response to AN from NE PQ thread:
AN, I AM HERE! The properties owned by the often “wealthy” seniors are NOT FOR SALE because they are still occupying them! At least one half of my tract IS STILL OCCUPIED BY THE ORIGINAL OWNERS, circa 1949-1950. Several more are occupied by their (ret. or near ret.) heirs. I have not looked on the MLS or other listing sites recently. Perhaps you have found some cheap listings that are bank-owned, fixers or short-sale “hopefuls.” Except for two, which have now foreclosed, the rest who have purchased on my tract since 2001 were the children of neighborhood owners. About four are rental houses. Of course, this is just a microcosm of 91910.
There are also two huge sr.-citizen board and care, assisted living and independent living complexes less than one mile away. These are permanent homes whose occupants are registered voters.
When I lived in Bonita (pre-SR125 constr.), the traffic grew more and more heavy on the main thoroughfares every single year, due to residents of those new zips in CV taking “shortcuts” thru Bonita sts. to get home (many still do today because SR-125 in South Bay is a “toll-road).” The traffic thru Bonita is now 10x what it used to be. The main drag (and bus line) near me is practically a ghost town during the morning rush hour. Then, after merging onto the freeway, all the *NEW* Chula Vistans have your back. This tells me that the majority of residents of my area do not have anywhere to go in the early a.m.
[quote=AN]Most of PQ are still at 2003-2004 price. That to me shows that there can’t be that MANY who have the kind of holding power you’re suggesting. I know a few who bought in MM in 92126 when it was new in the 80s and now have those houses almost paid for. Some have other investment properties as well. All of them are old and are set to retire. However, I can’t make a blanket statement that all of 92126 are like these people. However, I can point to the decline in the past 5 years to show that even 92126 held up better than 91910. Which means that 1)demand for houses in 92126 is higher 2)there are more people in 92126 who didn’t sell at the peak (we know those who bought at/near the peak are the one who are most vulnerable). BTW, how do you know 92129 doesn’t have people who have the nest eggs you’re talking about?[/quote]
[quote=UCGal]I don’t think your described scenario is exclusive to Chula Vista – it’s common in many older neighborhoods in the county.[/quote]
UCGal, I couldn’t agree more. I was preparing a response to AN when you posted this on the NE PQ thread so it is your response also.
AN, age of population has a lot to do with the age of the housing stock. There can’t be as many sr. citizens in an newer area as opposed to an older area, except in a retirement community. I’m not saying there AREN’T “wealthy” seniors in ALL zip codes. There probably ARE but there are MORE in areas that are at least 50 years old. Most members of my parents’ generation did not move often and did not overextend themselves, due to early exposure to the Great Depression.
Re: investment properties, one of my (sr. citizen) neighbors owns and leases 12 commercial parking lots in CV that he bought for almost nothing in the olden days. So yes, some have other RE investments, too.
[quote=AN]Also, what’s your take on my data of the different zip codes and their bread & butter segment of RE?[/quote]
