[quote=Ren] . . . To each his own. Is that clearer? Just because someone doesn’t agree with your definition of a good piece of property doesn’t make them stupid, and I’m sick of you insinuating that it does.[/quote]
No one is calling anyone “stupid,” here, Ren. Perhaps you have a “chip” on your shoulder.
The houses you are describing with small kitchens and substandard (less than 8′) ceilings (listings that you viewed or perhaps you rented them??) are obviously longtime rentals and/or lower-end homes (under about $350K). Both of these things can be fixed. A substandard lot encumbered by $4K of MR annually cannot be fixed.
For the record, I am not against HOA’s. I realize condo complexes need them. They also serve a purpose on SFR tracts IF their dues are less than $500 annually. These types of assns keep up appearances on the tract and minimally intrude on each owners property rights. I DO feel that neighborhood stability and resalability is threatened, however, if the dues on an SFR tract are more than $100 mo and/or if there is more than one HOA encumbering the same tract.
Ren, I would be curious if you have ever viewed older homes which are (currently) priced $450K to $850K. If you had, you would find they don’t have “tiny kitchens” and “substandard ceilings” unless they are 0-4 bl from the ocean (it’s not likely any of these are available anymore).
The best pieces of property (investment-wise) are always in the best locations. The location, “, ” doctrine has never changed. These properties, if situated in CA coastal counties, are almost always older (unless it is a more recent infill “spec” home). No one can fix this. It will always be so.
