[quote=Ren][quote=as]Sorry to hear your bad rental experience, paramount. I am worrying about that part, too.
[/quote]
His situation is very different from yours. Maintenance issues would seem like a nightmare to a landlord who is barely breaking even. With significant cash flow (which you would likely have), it wouldn’t be so stressful, and you can choose a newer property that won’t have immediate big expenses like heating/AC/roof/flooring/fencing/etc.[/quote]
TG, I just saw your lengthy posting about the large tract sales in 2009 and recent sales of model matches in Morgan Hill. I have a couple of observations.
1. Tenants who are seeking a 1500 sf rental home (such as paramount’s) are a completely different lot than tenants who are seeking a 3100 sf rental home.
2. I can’t tell from your old $330K sold comps because of no pics, but your recent sold comp for $370K that DID have pics shows custom paint & windowcoverings, crown moulding (not sure if that was there orig), stamped back patio, travertine MBR floor, wrought iron room divider and what appears to be a separate gazebo in the BY. And this is only what I could surmise from the pics.
We also don’t know if the 2009 sales were distress sales and if they were dirty and/or stripped with kicked in doors and holes in the walls, for example.
Not only did these (VERY underwater) sellers of the $370K recent sale put their own (or HELOC’d) cash into the property ($25-$30K over the years?) but they ended up short-selling the property for $228K less than they paid in 2006.
TG, how much would one of these 3100 sf models rent for today (if in decent condition) and if purchased today at $370K, would the buyer have a positive cash flow every month? More importantly, do you think there are enough potential tenants seeking rentals in TV who are qualified to rent such a property?
I don’t know but I would think it would be much easier to rent paramount’s (1500 sf) house than a 3100 sf home. It seems like folks who would be able to rent a 3100 sf home would be able to buy it, unless of course, lots of former underwater SD County home-debtors who still have good jobs but lost their properties to foreclosure/SS in recent years are truly flocking to Temecula to rent, as sdr is indicating.
edit: paramount’s Redfin graph for Temecula looks as though values there have remained relatively flat since spring of ’09. Good for TG to have recently gotten out of his PMI! Perhaps his new (larger) appraisal was due to what HE did to his property since he purchased it rather than overall values there actually rising. That was the point I was trying to make here.
