I just want to re-emphasize that in the long-run, I think Temecula has promise. It’s a good location in a region that over the next couple of decades should see strong growth. If you look at the (relatively) unpopulated areas of Southern California, Temecula Valley is probably the most promising.
The problem is, what is someone moving into that $280K house going to do and how are they going to live NOW? Sure, telecommuting and alternative energy are going to improve the distance issue. I think we’re looking at at least a ten year window there, and in the meantime I think we’re going to see more Dec. 2007s than Dec. 2008s when it comes to fuel prices.
As for slums, sure, the Hemets and Perrises are in worse shape, and they aren’t slums. Well, not entirely…yet. The bubble JUST burst. It’s going to be years before the dust settles. As an example, look at Riverside and San Bernardino counties, and the wake of the 1990s real estate slump. There are a lot of areas there that turned pretty crappy pretty quickly. They re-expanded in the current bubble (and of course burst) but in the meantime the older parts (i.e., 1990 vintage) remained pretty rough around the edges. I can’t imagine how all of the current foreclosures are going to happen without some pretty serious effects on quality of life everywhere in the Inland Empire (and elsewhere, to a lesser extent).
I sincerely hope I am wrong about this. But even if I’m not, I think folks buying in the best areas with a 10+ year commitment to the region will do very well.
