[quote=carlsbadworker]bearishgurl, I am a number person, so don’t assume that I have not used my calculator.
I actually don’t have the long-term water/sewer bond that TG has. My overall property tax rate is about 1.2%. So have you thought about the property tax savings might actually offset the utility costs by living in TV?
I have lived in Oceanside, San Marcos, Vista and Carlsbad before. And I have other family reasons to move to Temecula rather than staying in NC. But that’s beside the point. The point is, if you have read my previous posts, I have never claimed that buying in TV is the best investment that one can make. In fact, I have been arguing that it depends on the long-term appreciation potential of the neighborhood which I don’t have a crystal ball to forecast.
But all the Temecula haters seem to get so focused on all the negative points of living in Temecula that they refuse to see the different view points offered by the TV residents to correct those bias.
. . . While commuting and listening to educational CDs, I was actually able to move my career path in a direction that I want. Because my commute-time-as-office-time was spent on areas where my development is needed rather than being dragged in the direction that my co-workers expect me when I am in the office.
Again, if you want to understand “the psychology behind RE buyers who favor long-distance commuting”, that’s what I can offer. In the end, it is a very low-risk bet to buy in TV at the moment. Things may not work out (as for paramount), but so what? We have not yet seen evidences that he was financially wrecked by the decision to buy in TV. In fact, if one is a number person, it is hard to be financially destroyed by RE purchase that can be cash flow positive. I am not saying that it is not possible. Life is unpredictable and that’s the beauty of it. Yes, there are many factors which may or may not be within our control. But, the risk is considerably smaller because the math checks out, and you can rent out the property so it won’t be a drag in your financial reality when these unknown factors come in. There are of course factors that you can not react to with the best planning, but that doesn’t mean that we are not making rational decision based on the most likely scenarios.[/quote](emphasis added)
Thank you for your input, CW. By your “other family reasons to move to Temecula,” I take it you have other family members there you wanted to live near?
Listening to educational or self-development CD’s is a great way to spend commuting time, IMO.
If you think your property would “cash-flow” if you had to move out and couldn’t sell it for what you wanted and you didn’t need your downpayment back out of it to purchase another property, then I guess it would be hard to consider your purchase a “mistake.” The only drawback I see to this is trying to manage your old (now rented) TV property yourself from a distance – this could be problematic . . . but otherwise, I can see your point.
I’ve never been a “Temecula hater” but I shook my head a lot throughout the nineties and early 2000’s when a few of my co-workers were buying a residence in Temecula when there were perfectly good properties available in their home neighborhoods and adjacent areas <15 miles from work. After moving, many would frequently call into work late in the mornings stating they were "stuck in traffic." duh!!
As a licensee who has only listed and sold in conveniently located SD County urban (and a few close-in suburban) areas, I often wondered what exactly was "drawing" buyers who, in the past, would have purchased within areas I was familiar with, to far-flung areas with MR and often, HOA dues as well.
I can understand why TV residents often feel they need to correct certain "biases" about living there so I'll take this opportunity for "correction." All these San Diego County (conveniently located) "dumps," "pits" and "other-worldly" communities (as referred to by some Piggs here) are occupied by many, many thousands of taxpayers (thousands of "professionals" incl) whose children are being admitted to top colleges around the country. In addition, due to age of these "dumpy" communities and thus age of landowners, many of their residents have multiple holdings in local residential and commercial RE, much of it owned outright (read: free and clear) that they have managed themselves for 40-50 years, yet they all choose to remain living in their "pitted dump" of a community and laughing all the way to the bank (ex. Nat'l City branch), where they have been well-known by its employees for years! :=]
I'd rather continue "slumming" down here in the "other world" in my large 4/2 house located 10 mi. from dtn. SD (on surface sts) than pay all that extra nonsense to live out in BFE . . . stick with the devil I know . . . that's it. To each his own.
Both on and off this board, I have (over the last 15 yrs or so) witnessed a widespread "stigma" (among mostly newer SD transplants) attached to remaining in SD (or close by) to live, raise their families or retire. Just wondering WHY??
I couldn't and wouldn't (in good conscience) even show or recommend a property in Chula Vista (where I live & work) to a young(ish) first-time buyer if it still had exorbitant MR and HOA tied to it for ten yrs or more, knowing full well how this would eventually adversely affect them. If my buyer insisted on considering ONLY these types of properties, I would refer them to another agent for a small fee upon closing. I have never believed in hamstringing RE buyers to the point where they will almost certainly be eventually trapped. But that's just me . . . I've never depended solely on RE commissions for a living, either.
