BG, no, lot size is not indicative of value. Location is indicative of value. You can increase your lot size, but you can’t change the zip code or the latitude and longitude of your lot. That’s why the RE mantra is, location location location. Not lot size, lot size, lot size. If this is true:
[quote=BG] In coastal CA counties, a larger lot usually means the property is worth more.[/quote]Then those houses in Ramona with 1/2+ lot would cost more than your cracker box, 0 lot line, detached condo in Carmel Valley. To take this to an extreme, tell me, how big is the lot of this house: http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-120003963-2430_Oceanfront_Ave_Del_Mar_CA_92014? Do you think most houses on many acre (even in RSF) would be more expensive than this one?
I didn’t say 1/1 in MM. Based on the prices from the 70s and 80s, most of the mortgage(if not refied to take cash out) would be around $300-700/month. That’s probably cheaper than most 1/1 anywhere in San Diego County. So, I’d say, a 60 year old with a free and clear house or a 50 year old with 10 year left on their mortgage of about $550 would be more stable than those in their 80s with failing health. Try making repair when you’re on fixed income and your health start failing. Maintain your house would probably be pretty low on your priority list.
BTW, how can you own a house for 50-55 years if you’re only 73? Are you suggesting people who bought in the best area of CM bought when they’re 18-23 years old? I’m not that old, but maybe you’d know something I don’t.
There’s no apple to apple comparison between CM and MM. So, you’re trying to compare something that’s not comparable. Now, if you want to compare the whole area, then if you’re going to pick the best of CM, then it would make sense to compare with the best of MM.
