[quote=temeculaguy]We don’t have traditional mello roos here but most houses are in an assessment district. . . I have more traditional mello roos, specifically a water bond to pay for the installation of the water/sewage system. I paid less in purchase price because of it, so it was baked into the cake in my opinion.[/quote]
TG, if your (or the orig. owner of your property’s) purchase price was lowered by the developer because of the of a 30yr(?) $3K a yr water bond, then amount of the bond for each homeowner comes to about 90K. So the price of properties within the “Water Bond CFD” was originally artificially lowered 90K to make the 3K a year water bond payments palatable to buyers of new construction at the time of buildout. The 3K a year you are paying for the water bond, in cash, is NOT wrapped into your mortgage over 15 or 30 years and is NOT tax deductible. Nor does it increase the value of the properties by 90K or any amount because the 3K a year will be passed on to the new owners upon sale until the bonds are paid off. I know you are not claiming here that your water bond is a sales asset or anything, but IMO, it is actually a detriment to future marketability of the properties that lie within this CFD until it is paid off.
[quote=temeculaguy]Most Temecula houses have a fixed dollar amount to pay for certain things, they are itemized on the tax bill. Each tract can vary, but these things include . . . This bill can vary between 1k a year and 2k a year for the average house. Certain areas, like redhawk, have big waterfalls and lots of landscaping, they pay a bit more than a neighborhood with less landscaping. On the reverse, the hoa is extremely low, just $30 a month, because the hoa doesnt do the landscaping. My current hood has that stupid water bond and is in the county, so my yearly tab is 3k fixed plus 1% and I don’t get my trash included.
Everyone pays 1%, plus their fixed assesment district tab, which some parts will never go away, they aren’t bonds, they are ongoing expenses. . . So don’t think of it as a tax rate, everyone pays 1% plus a fixed annual fee, which can vary by neighborhood, but for the most part is about $1500 a year.[/quote](emphasis added)
TG, this $1-2K “extra assessment” on those properties in TV (presumed NOT to be within your water bond CFD) appears to be over and above the Prop 13 allocation of 1% of assessed value. It makes no difference how much one pays for a property if the fixed assessments are the same for everyone. You math above illustrates that those who paid more (not necessarily wisely) are paying LESS of a PERCENTAGE of their purchase price (not necessarily value) out in fixed assessments but it doesn’t change the fact that the assessments are still there, mandatory, and factor into the carrying costs of the property.
TG, even with school construction bonds added in the tax bills, examination of the SFR tax bills in those “less desireable areas” I previously mentioned (excepting annexed-in Chula Vista) will reflect .08 to .24 added to the 1% Prop. 13 base, making their overall tax rate 1.08% to 1.24%, with FREE trash p/u within the City of SD and, except in rare situations, $0 HOA dues. I feel this alone would make my “less desireable area” properties cash flow better as rentals than a highly taxed SFR in TV.
I’m not trying to trash the area or bully Piggs who like TV as I know nothing about it. I’m just trying to find out why some Piggs are saying it’s a better investment to live in TV (or buying in TV will get them “further and faster down the road” to retirement) with all factors taken into consideration.
I didn’t realize redfin had TV listings until late last night and was unfamiliar with it. If you have time, could you still point me to the listings as I do not know the market up there and would not know if something was a “good buy,” under high-power lines or overpriced, etc. Thanks.
