[quote=zk][quote=bearishgurl]flyer is right. Wise buyers who make “tradeoffs” because they can’t and won’t tolerate living near a freeway downgrade in size of home they will accept in order to be able to get accepted offers on homes which will never be affected by freeway noise and the additional traffic and air pollution it generates to the surrounding area (especially near its entrances and exits). These homes, more often than not, will NOT be new construction but will be in long-established areas. It has nothing to do with being “rich” as freeway construction occurs in areas of all socioeconomic levels. It has to do with being a smart buyer and buying right … at the right time (if possible) and certainly in as good of an area as the buyer can afford.[/quote]Wise buyers? Really? You guys say you understand the tradeoff thing, and then proceed to demonstrate that you don’t. Some people may only be able to afford that school district near a freeway, regardless of home size. Some people may have 6 kids and need the bigger house and can’t afford one not near a freeway. Some people might care more about a yard for their kids than noise and pollution, and can’t afford a big yard not near a freeway in that schoold district. Etcetera. Everybody has their own priorities, and for many, living near a freeway gets them something they otherwise wouldn’t have gotten. You not agreeing with their priorities does not make them unwise buyers. And, of course it has to do with “rich.” If you’re rich, you don’t have to make any of these tradeoffs.[/quote]
zk, almost every single one of your sentences (above) has the words “school district” in it. You must know that individual school performance varies widely in a single school district. In addition, “preferred school district” is highly subjective to a homebuyer. My youngest just graduated from a “top 3” Sweetwater school (it may currently be the top ONE but the top 3 are always in very close competition with one another) whose class of 2014 had 48 graduates who stood on the stage in June to receive their IB Diplomas. (I erred here when I previously stated there were 43 candidates):
. . . I was reviewing the program at the time of making that post but all of them weren’t listed there.) Can you name any other local HS’s you are aware of which can top that? How about in micro-areas you are familiar with where the average home recently sold for ~$1M?? A typical ~2400 sf home costs ~$100K+ less in the attendance area of this SUHSD school than ~2400 sf homes in most of the PUSD, has an average lot size of 14K sf and only one side of two streets (abt 35 backyards) border SR-54 and one side of one street (abt 30 backyards) have (distant) fwy noise (from the toll SR-125 connector extension to the Otay border crossing). This is out of approx 5300 total single-family housing units. However, this area is but a microcosm of the entire county. There are many South, East and North County areas as well as SD central areas in which the vast majority of their single-family housing stock is not affected by freeway noise. I don’t buy the “tradeoff” argument. SD County homebuyers have always had many choices and do not have to buy a home exposed to incessant freeway noise.
I go on … and on, listing examples located all over the county of MANY EXCELLENT school attendance areas which are free from nearly free from freeway noise. The truth is that the sun does not rise and set on the PUSD. The reality is that the PUSD is going to be forced into BK at some point in the (near?) future (or will it wait until 2033-34, when the ball drops??) solely due to its p!ss poor (and hopefully, past) leadership. This doesn’t bode well for future home values there, because Cal Taxation Code section 2270 et seq provides for an increase in property taxes which could ostensibly be used to keep a bankrupt school district running.
[quote=AN]Very well said zk. I agree 100%. I can understand it coming from flyer, since he can afford almost any house in San Diego, so it’s a little hard for him to understand. However, it’s hilarious coming from bearishgurl. She lives in an area that screams tradeoff.[/quote]
AN, ~35 years ago, I would have said that homebuyers were making the tradeoff from cooler weather to heat in order to buy new or newer construction in MM. Now it seems that they are trading off cooler weather to heat AND massive congestion over same-priced areas within SD, South and East County with a lot more breathing room (and parking space) in favor of living in MM (most of which is no longer “newer”) to live nearer to specific job centers. I WOULD refer to MM as M***** Mesa (as San Diegans have commonly referred to it for decades), but I’m trying to keep it classy here. FWIW, one CAN still buy an “old” house in MM (~40 yrs old). Break out your neck brace, ceiling scraper and goggles, folks, they DO exist up there … even with “glitter” mixed in the acoustical ceilings, lol ….
Given its propensity for heat combined with today’s massive congestion there, MM, to me, absolutely screams “tradeoff.”
And uh, zk, the “rich” don’t typically buy tract homes located in CA subdivisions for their personal residences. They buy custom homes (or heavily remodeled former “tract” homes) far, far away from any possible freeway noise.
I’m with flyer in that I would never purchase a property near a freeway, especially one which was subject to unrelenting freeway noise 24/7. If a property owner can’t have any peace living in his own property (or his/her tenants can’t have it and thus keep turning over), then what is the point of owning or renting the property? The size of the house doesn’t matter because the price to live there will always be too high. That price is the act of giving up daily peace and tranquility. Yes, it’s a personal preference but it is also a fact that properties with freeway noise have a built-in “economic obsolescence” that cannot be cured and this is a salability issue.
The affected property may have not had this issue when it was built but over the years/decades acquired it due to later nearby freeway, underpass, overpass or ramp construction. At one point when the freeway construction was nearly underway, an owner may have gotten compensated by the govm’t for that economic obsolescence but that does nothing for subsequent owners. Therefore, in my mind, there is no reason to purchase a property for residential purposes which has this problem (even for an investment).
