[quote=ocrenter]Heres the thing, the difference between a house with no MR and a comparable with MR would not be $840k vs $800k. Similar sized and upgraded and updated homes in established neighborhoods without MR are often times $100-150k above newer homes in MR communities. This differential of course is because of not just lack of MR, but also because of higher % of distress. In these situations, the MR payoff would be fraction of that price difference. Knowing that one can pay off the MR should open people up to buy in MR communities, not stay away from it. Insistence on steering clear from MR with complete disregard to the premium you would have to pay otherwise simply close you off from potential opportunities.[/quote]
I disagree with the emphasized statement, ocrenter. The properties in established areas tend to have a bigger lot, often a MUCH bigger lot. That land in conjunction with its location is what causes the properties in “established areas” have more value than the ones in newer-developed areas. It has nothing to do with the absence or presence of MR. The MR communities in SD County are situated within developer-formed CFD’s on land left over from the “prime land” which was already built upon. It wasn’t built on prior to a CFD formation and the resultant infusion of bond $$ for infrastruction because it was impractical for a developer to do so, mainly due to lack of roads and utilities at the ready.
I agree that the level of distress on a tract directly correlates to the presence of MR there and the amount of MR each parcel is encumbered with.
edit: another factor that adds value to an “established area” over a newer “MR-encumbered area” is mature landscaping. You can’t buy this with any amount of money so its value depends upon the value a particular buyer places upon it.
