[quote=joec]bearishgurl, I think if you look at my message again, my point is that MR PROPERTIES ARE PROBABLY LOWER IN VALUE THAN ONES WITHOUT.[/quote]
Agreed, joec. So, why would someone want to put payments into nothing every month instead of use them for loan interest so they’re presumably paying for “value” (and also receiving a tax write-off for the interest?? Or use them at Home Depot to purchase “value” for the property.
[quote=joec]Yes, I meant to scream that at you. I said: “Places with higher MR, the house ends up cheaper, lower MR, higher house price…”[/quote]
[quote-ocrenter]the MR for stonebridge equals loss of $100k in buying power.[/quote]
Let’s take a look. I tried to use active comparables located in the SAME SCH DIST as Stonebridge with comparable sq. footage. I will assume that all Piggs interested in Stonebridge have 6-12 family members living with them “necessitating” 5000 sf, but I won’t judge here.
* denotes correct figure IF ALL CFD’s were properly accounted for in listing (I would not trust listing agent’s word here).
[quote=joec]If they can buy in La Jolla and Del Mar for the space, schools and location they want, you can bet they would.[/quote]
joec, I know you’re smart and didn’t fall off a turnip truck yesterday, but LJ AND DM (coastal/urban & suburban with few tracts) are NOT even in the same category as Stonebridge, Scripps Ranch, Poway or Rancho Bernardo, all of which are inland suburban and nearly entirely built on tract. You are comparing apples to oranges here, in both property type and buyer type, thus a buyer shopping in one type most likely would NOT be shopping in the other type.
Joec, is what you’re trying to say here that you would NOT consider purchasing an OLDER property unless it was in LJ or DM? And since these two areas are “out of reach” price-wise, you would only consider purchasing NEW(ER) property located inland (with MR)? Please elaborate.
