[quote=CA renter][quote=all][quote=Happs]I would argue that macro and quantifiable conditions such as the economy, number of foreclosures in an area, crime statistics, quality of school district, the CC&R’s and especially an HOA’s balance sheet and monthly dues vs services rendered take precedent over exterior looks when purchasing a house.[/quote]
You should probably ask the ladies on the board to comment. In our case my wife was interested in schools and crime statistics (sex offenders in particular), the neighborhood look&feel&walkability and the house itself. I had to hit all four – any developing nation looking neighborhoods (e.g. utility poles with overhead power lines along the street) was out of question.
The price, MR and HOA fees were part of ‘can we afford it’, not ‘do we want it’ discussion.[/quote]
^^^this^^^
Like it or not, most houses are chosen by women, and it’s pretty well known that right after location (overall geography and also general socio-economic level of the majority of nearby residents), curb appeal is one of the main factors in how much a house will sell for. You can have tiny, outdated houses with weird layouts, but if the yards are beautifully landscaped, and the general location is highly desirable, these houses will sell for more than larger houses with good layouts on larger lots in “less desirable” areas.[/quote]
I agree with the emphasized portion of CAR’s statement. However, I don’t think women alone (or men) or any half of a buying couple should “choose” a house to buy, unilaterally. If something were to go wrong with the particular house or neighborhood down the road, they would likely be blamed by their partner as, “You got us into this. I went along with this purchase because you wanted it. Now look what we’re up against.”
A joint RE purchase decision is HUGE and should be completely mutual, IMHO, and if it is not, the couple should not purchase it.
[quote-CA renter]Crime is a HUGE factor in determining housing prices. It is closely related to the general educational and professional status of nearby residents, and people will pay a very large premium to live in safer, cleaner neighborhoods with more highly-educated residents. It’s what people are talking about when they mention “location, location, location,” and it’s almost as important as geographical features like views, proximity to oceans/lakes, etc. (which, because of their desirability, will tend to be priced higher, so will draw mostly wealthier, better-educated buyers).[/quote]
Again, the presence or absence of one or more PC 290 registrants living within an urban square mile in CA has little to no affect the crime rate of that area. These individual’s cases are already adjudicated and in some cases, they have already served their time. The vast majority are trying to quietly make a living and pay back any restitution they owe and mind their own business. Perhaps if there were 12 or more registrants in that same square mile and 1-2 living within 1-2 blocks of where a “listing of interest lies,” it would be prudent for a prospective buyer to check the record for the closest one’s “story” before making an offer (if there is time to do so) or for the buyer to write in a time-sensitive contingency on their offer that they will satisfy themselves as to the safety of their children given the presence of sex offender registrant(s) residing in the area. (In any case, it seems as if most sellers would just counter this out or reject the offer outright.)
I think we all need to remember here that “wealth” and “better-educated” do not always go hand in hand. What many of these young families are unwittingly? choosing is an inferior location, sometimes grossly inferior, in order to obtain newer construction. In CA, newer construction doesn’t make an area more “valuable.” Location does. For the same price, these same buyers could have had an older, possibly smaller home in a far more desirable location (sans MR and possibly HOA) but instead they typically shun the older, more valuable location in favor of the newer, inferior location.
[quote=CA renter]A clean, safe, well-kept neighborhood connotes higher-class/better-educated residents, and this is what most families will pay a premium for.[/quote]
Primarily because of Props 13, 58 and 193, and, to a lesser extent, the existence of a large entertainment industry, I don’t feel “education of owners” has anything to do with how “valuable” a residential property is in an established area of coastal CA counties. Many hundreds of thousands of the most valuable properties situated in the most sought after, well-established coastal enclaves in coastal CA counties are owned by longtime owners, heirs and assorted “celebrities” who may or may not possess an Associate’s or Bachelor’s Degree or even a high school diploma or GED! Surprise, surprise! If you don’t believe me, you can take a walking poll on SD’s finest streets and see who answers the door, observe how old some of them are and see what they tell you re: their “educational attainment.” Their “lack of formal education” doesn’t mean, however, that they are somehow “classless,” don’t know how to keep up their lots or garden and don’t know how to maintain their properties. In fact, the opposite is usually true. Since they’re not a commuting “worker bee” for 9+ hrs per day, they have a lot more free time to pay attention to their “curb appeal.”
Indeed, the RE “caste system” in CA has no regard for “educational attainment.” Here, the ownership and control of the most valuable properties and the *most* income properties in the most sought-after locales is primarily based upon family residential longevity and staying power over decades … namely, tenacity, due to good money mgmt over the years. It’s as simple as that.
If young families today wish to “pay a premium” for “perceived neighborhood educational attainment,” they are free to do so but they should just be aware that a subdivision they buy into which is full of “presumably successful” worker bees tends to be a virtual ghost town eight hours per day, five days per week. THIS is what gives property criminals their greatest opportunities.
I’m not trying to put down people who profess to be highly educated but am stating that educational attainment, in and of itself, should be viewed in its proper perspective. Educational attainment of present and future neighbors is another condition that no buyer or resident has any control over.
