[quote=SK in CV]In 1960, National City and Chula Vista were bedroom communities, unlike most of the newer developments, with their own commercial districts.
My apologies, the “CV” I was referring to as a higher income area was Carmel Valley. I should have made that clear.
Price wise, correct me if I’m wrong, new Chula Vista is all over the place. Everything from starter condos to homes that sold for well over $1M, no?
(and I think you’re jaded by your disdain for “those people” who ruined Chula Vista. I don’t doubt it was as you say, I just doubt that those same circumstances were near as common across the rest of the state as you think.)[/quote]
OK, SK, if you say so, but NC and ChulaV’s commercial districts are quite old (perhaps 50-80 yrs old). Perhaps you and I have a different version of what a “commercial district” is.
Yes, Eastlake Vistas (91915) had a few blocks of ~3000 sf homes built after 2000 which sold new for $600-$700K. The vast majority of them were foreclosed on or sold short. Even though some had been heavily remodeled and landscaped by 2010, the average sold price for that subdivision in early 2012 was about $530K.
Perhaps you are thinking about the over $1M homes build in Eastlake and Rancho Del Rey custom areas by 1992. I could be wrong, but I don’t think there were any like that built after 2000 in the South County.
Yes, SK, the phenomenon of lower/moderate-income families buying into lower-tier new subdivisions happened all over the state.
Tracy, Stockton, Merced, Fresno, Modesto, Paso Robles, Sacramento and surrounds, Victorville, Palmdale, Adelanto, the Temecula Valley, and Chula Vista, to name a few.
This population was only able to buy into these subdivisions because of developer assistance, and, in recent years, were assisted by developer salespeople in signing up for 100% NINA mortgages and PM second trust deeds (carried back by seller/developers and cities).
Obviously, no thought was given by buyers OR sellers reps as to how these buyers were going to afford the HOA/MR and mtg rate hikes for the long haul.
In addition, developers specifically pandered to this population via radio and billboard advertising in select low-income urban and suburban areas of CA.
Had this “recipe for disaster” not been set up for them at the builder’s sales offices, the masses of low and moderate income buyers who became ensnared into buying in these substandard developments would have stayed put.
I blame Big Development for the mess but most of all, I blame the elected leaders of CA’s various cities and counties who gave Big D carte blanche to turn HUGE swaths of CA’s undeveloped land into a grossly-overbuilt eyesore full of “McHomes” . . . that is, after “rolling in the sheets” with them for YEARS :=0
