[quote=sdduuuude (in reference to the OP)]
From my perspective, it seems they they bought something they aren’t going to use for 10 years. They bought 3 years ago. It’s 2 more years until they have kids, and 5 more after that before the first of those kids goes to school.
So, they put a down payment on a house in 2007 and lost it. For the last 3 years, they have been paying for a school district that they aren’t using and they still lost their downpayment and they still have a large payment.
Certainly they could find a similar sized house in a lower-priced but nice neighborhood that is priced lower due to the school quality. The premium paid for these schools is tremendous . . .
As you know, you can get easily find a 1800 sq. ft house with full 2-car gar on a 6000 sq. ft lot in Clairemont for $500K. Schools aren’t great, but they can move in 7 years when they need a good school.
[quote=lepetitangel]It also doesn’t make sense for us to live in Clairemont cuz it’s older and doesn’t provide us with anything. Bottom line is most people like to have stress-free commute. My husband works in RB so living in 4S is like a 1-mile commute for him. It’s a lot easier to rent our condo out in 4S ranch since young families renter would like to rent in areas wiht good school district. Thus I think buying in good area always makes more sense in buying in not-so-nice areas.
. . . After reading so many comments from fellow users on the forum, I think we’ll concentrate on SFHs that are built prior to 1990. I think in preparation for kids, it’s better to have a yard, and our own driveway instead of condo/townhomes.[/quote]
You know me – I like big lots and I cannot lie. I’d rather have a big yard for the 7 years at 500K than struggle to find something livable at 600K.[/quote] (emphasis added)
sdduuuude, I completely understand the wisdom you are trying to impart here but it seems it could be falling on deaf ears.
*************************************************
lepetitangel, can I offer you a little insight?
In CA coastal areas, the size of the lot and location of that lot are the biggest determiners of property value (yes, even moreso than the building which sits there or “percieved” quality of schools).
First, can you and your spouse actually qualify for a loan of say $500K or more while still owning your townhome? Are you aware that a lender will only give you monthly income-credit for about 75% of the annual rent as shown on your tenants’ already executed lease you present to them in the loan-qualification process? Many things can break and otherwise go wrong while your tenants are occupying your townhome (including vacancies), which you will have to have cash reserves immediately to remedy or fix. By your posts, it seems your carrying costs for the townhome are quite high.
Since your spouse works in RB, if it is a stable job, why don’t you consider marketing your townhome while looking for an eventual property to buy in older RB (92128?) at properties which were built PRIOR to the inception (in SD County) of the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Bonds (1987). These lots will tend to be 5000 sf or more with two-car garages facing the front and driveways long enough for a full-size car or truck. Keep in mind that this area is also (like Clairemont) comprised of many retired people.
I realize that Clairemont would not be a convenient area for your particular needs, but it seems you have a misconception about its desireability and convenience. Why don’t you drive all the way down Clairemont Drive some weekend, starting from say, Genessee and take a look around you to see all that is there and also directly adjacent, including the Fashion Valley Mall. I think you will be pleasantly surprised.
I’ve been around here a LONG TIME and CAN tell you that AGE of a property has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with its value in coastal CA. You are not alone in this misconception. It is generational.
