[quote=sdrealtor]In a market like Temecula there should be a very good pool of tenants as long as you have a nice newer home. There are lots of well employed folks up there that had to walk away from deeply underwater homes. I know firefighters, teachers, doctors, nurses, policeman, retirees on good pensions and yes Realtors who have done so. With the exception of the realtors they all have great recession proof incomes. What they dont have any more is good enough credit to buy homes so they will be renters for many years to come. If they could buy they would be buying some of the nicest homes up there but they cant. Thats why they dont want paramount’s smallish old house. They want nice newer homes in places like Wolf Creek and Harveston as rentals.[/quote]
The paragraph above illustrates perfectly the pandemic disease of materialism that exists in southern California.
A nice newer home? What is a newer home? If a home is 10 years old, should it be torn down and replaced with a new home? Are homes like cars now, after 5 years/100k time to get rid of it? This mentality makes no sense to me. Older homes often have better locations; perfect examples of this are Wolf Creek and particularly Harveston (both newer homes/communities in less desirable locations).
And these so-called well employed people are the primary reason I’m so underwater, not to mention the considerable damage they’ve done to the economy.
They should never be allowed to own a house again, but we all know it’s just about as easy to get a mortgage now as it was 7 years ago. They win, I lose. Well not quite, because I have no intention of letting those fools take me down with them.
What these so-called well employed fools need is a reality check. But they feel entitled to a McMansion.
Yah, I want a house in Morgan Hill looking down on the proletariat – but of course I live within my means so I don’t.
