[quote=FlyerInHi]BG, if San Diego has/had too many new developments, and if there’s a huge selection, shouldn’t prices be depressed?[/quote]No, even though the selection is much better at any given time in newer tracts, we have ~75% of homebuyers trying to bid each other out on heavily encumbered (MR/HOA) “mcmansions” situated 6-8 feet apart. They don’t even want the aging Poway rancher situated on 1/2 AC+ in the same (debt-riddled) school district (hopefully not run by incompetent, greedy clowns anymore but the damage is already done). The vast majority of these (Gen X-Y) homebuyers would rather have the crackerbox with stairs where they can carry heavy vacuums and their laundry up and downstairs and hear their neighbors’ toilet flush when they open a window :=0
The other 25% are buying in established areas and usually paying 70-100% cash for their home purchases. This is why the long-established areas in CA were not anywhere near as hard hit (with distressed property) as the newer tracts were from 2008 to 2012. Old-timers have good memories and the “rich” have good counsel and so therefore these groups traditionally make offers of well-priced properties situated in an excellent location, especially if the property has a view and/or “good bones” but can be had for an under-market price which makes sense to them … as they will often set aside cash to rehab it prior to moving in. And, of course, the longtime residents in these areas have tons of equity. On some blocks, over half of the homes are free and clear!
The 1st, 2nd and 3rd time family buyer with minor children in school usually must get a mortgage of 70% or more and don’t have the cash, time or expertise to do any major work to the property prior to moving in. They are often willing to up-bid each other and pay up to $300K more for the same house in a particular public school attendance area when a comparable house could be had up to $300K less and with a bigger lot in a different school attendance area in the same city.
It’s amazing to me that SD County parents are willing to prostrate themselves with huge mortgages and huge MR and in some cases, two or more monthly HOA dues obligations to live in an inferior location to the well-established communities when the CSU and UC don’t care where your kid went to HS. Yes, let me repeat that, they don’t care! As a matter of fact, all the CSU campuses but SDSU actually honor their agreements with neighboring school districts to allow in local freshman applicants with a ~3.1 GPA and a reasonable ~1100 SAT (excluding writing score). This is so these kids (many from lower and moderate-income homes) won’t have to live in the (now very pricey) campus housing their first year and it is as it should be. And the course, the UC “guarantees” admission (no choice of campus) to each and every applicant who meets the criteria for Eligibility in the Local Context:
For a “smart kid,” it’s far easier to be in the top 9% of one’s senior class in a HS rated a 7 or 8 than it is at a HS rated a 9 or 10. And those HS’s rated a 7 and 8 often have just as many AP offerings as the HS’s rated a 9 or 10. Some of them even offer the IB program where a HS rated 9 or 10 does not. And why would one pay all that extra money (more expensive home/high MR) so their kid could attend a “10” elementary/middle school when homes feeding into a school rated an 8 or 9 are much cheaper for the same type/size home, often have larger lots, more convenient locations and no MR? (Yes, they’re usually older.) CA public university admissions boards only considers transcripts from grades 10-11 (and transcripts from 1-3 classes from Grade 9) for admission purposes (and later re-vet the already-admitted freshman applicant thru their final transcript from Grade 12). Transcripts before Grade 9 are never sent for by CA public university admissions boards.
Families are wasting all this money up-bidding each other in the same housing tracts and paying MR thru the nose for decades for naught, IMO. They could be putting those thousands of dollars every year into their retirement accounts and college funds for their kids but many of them are no doubt too “house poor” to do this.
When push comes to shove and your kid is applying to a CA public university, it doesn’t matter in the end where they attended grades K-12 … only that they graduated and fulfilled all the requirements for entrance into that particular system (CSU or UC) and the degree program they are applying to. A kid who attended public schools rated 9-10 from K-12 could easily turned down for admission to their top 3 campuses of choice in favor of another freshman applicant who attended CA public schools rated a 5-7 and who had lesser qualifications than the first applicant … especially if the 2nd applicant met ELC requirements and thus is “guaranteed” admission. This is why I advise that a HS senior apply to at least four campuses of each system (CSU/UC), assuming they’re qualified to apply as a freshman to both systems.
[End of lecture] I’m beginning to sound like Elizabeth Warren here lamenting that having children (and insisting they live in certain school districts/attendance areas) is the biggest single reason for personal BK filings in the US. And I am actually fundamentally opposed to many of her views :=0
