clairemont what say you?

[sdrealtor]

This one is for mi compadre sdddude. In 92117 Clairemont (not Bay Ho or Bay Park) there are 15 SFR’s on the market under $500K. Under $400K is virtually non-existant and to find it you are near the corner of Clairemont and Clairemont Mesa which locals will recognize as the Crown Jewel of CM;)

[sdrealtor]

If you throw in the portion of CM in 92111 you pick up 4 more houses under $500k.

[bearishgurl]

92111 Clairemont is a better location overall than MM (discussed on other recent threads), IMHO. In addition, the one-story houses on the “Mtn Sts” tend to be a little larger than one-story houses in MM and the many canyon-rim lots they are situated on certainly are bigger than the average MM lot. Quieter with less traffic and less parked vehicles on the side streets, more mature landscaping and an older, “stable” resident base make this area worth more than MM, IMO. I could certainly understand why there are not many current SFR listings there with asking prices <=$500K. There is a lot of equity in Clairemont but it is tied up in properties whose owners are endeavoring to live out the balance of their remaining lives peacefully :=] sdduuuude, I'm wondering why it is you have stated you want to move (to CV?) if Clairemont is your "hometown." Do I have this correct?? Why not try to score a canyon rim property in the coming months (if you don't already own one) and call it a day? If you already own there and can't get the price you want from your current home, consider renting it out. As you're probably aware, there is a great demand for rental homes in Clairemont. The grass is not always "greener" somewhere else. As flu stated a few moments ago, sometimes it is brown ... or "neon green," lol .... http://piggington.com/mira_mesa_on_fireprices_have_started_increasing

[an]

[quote=bearishgurl]92111 Clairemont is a better location overall than MM (discussed on other recent threads), IMHO. In addition, the one-story houses on the “Mtn Sts” tend to be a little larger than one-story houses in MM and the many canyon-rim lots they are situated on certainly are bigger than the average MM lot. Quieter with less traffic and less parked vehicles on the side streets, more mature landscaping and an older, “stable” resident base make this area worth more than MM, IMO. I could certainly understand why there are not many current SFR listings there with asking prices <=$500K. There is a lot of equity in Clairemont but it is tied up in properties whose owners are endeavoring to live out the balance of their remaining lives peacefully :=][/quote] Thanks for the laugh BG. Better location is debatable, but to say it's worth more because of its "stable" resident, didn't you read the MM thread you just linked to that say there's virtually nothing for sale in an area that have over 70k people living in it? Most people who live in MM bought their house for well under $200k 20+ years ago with mortgage payment that's cheaper than a 1/1 apartment. Which is why they're not selling and many probably don't intend to sell. How's that any different than CM? When's the last time you've been to MM and CM?

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN]Thanks for the laugh BG. Better location is debatable, but to say it’s worth more because of its “stable” resident, didn’t you read the MM thread you just linked to that say there’s virtually nothing for sale in an area that have over 70k people living in it? Most people who live in MM bought their house for well under $200k 20+ years ago with mortgage payment that’s cheaper than a 1/1 apartment. Which is why they’re not selling and many probably don’t intend to sell. How’s that any different than CM? When’s the last time you’ve been to MM and CM?[/quote]

AN, buying a property in MM +/- 20 years ago in MM is NOT the same thing as buying a property 50+ years ago in Clairemont and having it long paid off. Not only are these two vastly different equity positions (considering the difference in value between the areas), they are two different generations of original owners. MM was but a pipe dream when Clairemont was originally built.

FWIW, I’ve been to BOTH areas in the last few months. I stand by my assertion that MM has been congested from DAY ONE but it is doubly so now. I have nothing against you or your hometown, AN. But MM is too crowded to live in for a lot of people. Clairemont 92111 and even parts of 92117 are more like western Chula Vista (91910/91911) in that there are many more generous lots there (than the 5000 sf std) and a preponderance of SFR’s over condos and apartments. I’m speaking here of the eastern and southern (original) parts of MM and have not been to the *newest* tracts on the west side so have not seen the setbacks and parking situation there for myself. Obviously, many of these “elevation listing photos” shown online were taken while the agent was lying on his/her stomach across the street (to “improve” the look of the listing’s “setback”), lol. Maybe you can fill us in on this, AN.

I visited the “Porcelain Collection” model homes with a friend (can’t remember the builder) around ’90 or ’91 when the first phase was completed. It was dusk and we could still see balloons bobbing in the air to the northeast. Even though only about 1-2 streets were completed at the time, I had the impression even back then that the homes were too close together and most of the driveways were shorter in comparison to what I was used to in South County. What is now the PQ reserve was not developed then and Mercy Road did not go through it. I’m sure the later development of the reserve boosted the property values in these tracts.

As you know, there are a lot of jobs in SV and MM, north and south of Miramar Rd and in the Golden Triangle. For these reasons, it is a convenient area to live in for a worker who works in these areas and wants to avoid the freeway in the daily commute. That’s why a current buyer will get less home for their money in MM than say, western Chula Vista. Historically (before SV really took off), western Chula Vista (91910) was more expensive than MM. In general, the lots in 91910 are bigger and the houses are better-built than in Mira Mesa. 91910 used to be considered “better located” than MM as well and it certainly is more convenient to dtn SD. When SV took off and SD was considered to have “arrived” on the “high-tech map,” MM slowly gained value over areas which were not close to thousands of white-collar jobs. Things change over time. That doesn’t make one area better or worse than another. “Retirees” could care less if they live near jobs. A peaceful and tidy neighborhood and access to great medical care nearby is more important to them than living two streets away from the latest “office park.” So housing choices and preferences depend on one’s station in life and financial resources. Notice that no one here is stating that UC, LJ or DM’s RE market is currently “on fire.” MM is presumably “on fire” because of its proximity to high tech jobs and affordability to workers just starting out. That’s the bottom line.

In young-family and entry-level areas (such as MM) of coastal CA counties, RE values are highly-dependent on nearby well-paying jobs. In “retiree” (WCV or Clairemont) or “wealthy” (LJ) areas, not so much.

Who knows? Perhaps Otay Mesa will later be developed into a mecca of office parks and attract companies with thousands more white-collar jobs to SD County. Then, all the “millenium boom” entry-level tracts down there with values currently in the toilet due to massive distress will suddenly JUMP in value because all the *new* worker bees will then consider these tracts “affordable” and convenient!

[an]

BG, I never claimed MM have big lot. So, I’m not sure why you’re bringing up lot size.

How is it any different, wrt to the “stable” home owners, when they either own their house for 50+ years and are nearing their death bed and those who either own their home out right for 30+ years to those who are 20 years into their 30 years loan? If anything, those 50+ years owners area might be more likely to have a flood of property hitting the market due to their owner dying vs an area where the owners are just starting to enter retirement. Regardless. Both areas have plenty of owners who are or soon to be retiring who have no plan on moving. Sounds pretty stable to me. I would say an area with owners starting to enter retirement are more stable than those area where its owners are nearing their death beds.

You do you the South East corner of MM is the worse part of MM, right? For you to compare the worse part of MM to a better part of CM? hmm… that’s a good comparison.

[quote=BG]91910 used to be considered “better located” than MM as well and it certainly is more convenient to dtn SD. When SV took off and SD was considered to have “arrived” on the “high-tech map,” MM slowly gained value over areas which were not close to thousands of white-collar jobs. Things change over time. That doesn’t make one area better or worse than another.[/quote] huh? So you started off saying 91910 used to be “better located”, i.e. it’s not better located anymore. Yet, you ended saying it doesn’t make one area better or worse than another?

I don’t know if UC, LJ or DM is on fire or not, but CV is pretty hot as well.

You had a pretty long post just to basically say, RE is all about location, location, location.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN]BG, I never claimed MM have big lot. So, I’m not sure why you’re bringing up lot size.[/quote]

I didn’t say you did AN, but lot size is indicative of value. In coastal CA counties, a larger lot usually means the property is worth more. RE is actually LAND. What is built on that land is secondary.

[quote=AN]How is it any different, wrt to the “stable” home owners, when they either own their house for 50+ years and are nearing their death bed and those who either own their home out right for 30+ years to those who are 20 years into their 30 years loan? If anything, those 50+ years owners area might be more likely to have a flood of property hitting the market due to their owner dying vs an area where the owners are just starting to enter retirement. Regardless. Both areas have plenty of owners who are or soon to be retiring who have no plan on moving. Sounds pretty stable to me. I would say an area with owners starting to enter retirement are more stable than those area where its owners are nearing their death beds.[/quote]

AN, the vast majority of original owners still living in their Clairemont properties aren’t “on their deathbeds.” They are in their early to mid-seventies. You stated “mature” owners in MM have monthly mortgage payments which are “cheaper than a 1/1 apartment.” What does a 1 br apt rent for in MM, AN? About $1200 mo perhaps? Could it be that the “mature” owner base in MM is about my age?? My PI is currently <$1200 for a 2200 sf house on a larger-than-std lot! WHO is more "stable?" A <59.5 yo with +/- $1200 mo mortgage payments with 10-15 years left to pay on it who is ineligible to collect SS or their retirement funds OR a 73 yo with a free-and-clear personal residence, monthly SS coming in, Medicare coverage and unfettered access to all their retirement funds?? AN, are you aware of how fast a 50-65 year old can go through their liquid assets if they lose steady employment and health coverage and still have any mortgage at all to pay? What do you think happens to their "budget" when their UI runs out and they STILL can't get hired anywhere and can't touch their retirement funds without a large penalty? Which of these subsets of longtime owners do you think can better afford to make necessary repairs on their homes (fence, roof, painting, etc) which would be visible from the street and thus affect neighboring property values? [quote=AN]You do you the South East corner of MM is the worse part of MM, right? For you to compare the worse part of MM to a better part of CM? hmm... that's a good comparison.[/quote] Both the east side of MM and Clairemont areas are "older." Why would I compare 1990's "stucco box" construction with tile roofs with properties in 50-55 yo Clairemont (92111)? I was trying to keep it an "apples to apples" comparison of the housing stock as much as possible. It IS a good comparison and Clairemont 92111 wins on all counts, IMHO. [quote=AN]Yet, you ended saying it doesn't make one area better or worse than another?[/quote] Better or worse for WHO? That is the $64M question. By far, it is the percentage of free and clear owners who determine the level of “stability” of a micro-area. Why?? Because these owners can NEVER be distressed. The worst that can happen to them is they will qualify for and obtain “senior discounts” on utilities and could get flagged for a tax sale by the assessor if they miss 10 installments and a full five years has elapsed since their last tax installment was paid (very unlikely for longtime owners protected by “Prop 13”). If they are dumb enough to take out a (very expensive) reverse mortgage and there is no knowledgeable family member or friend available to talk them out of it, the “equity stripping” and subsequent resale of their property by the reverse mortgage-lender would not happen until after their death. This could not really be considered to be a “distress sale,” per se, but this kind of sale on a modest MM or Clairemont property would likely leave little to no equity for heirs (if any) to divide.

[Coronita]

My head hurts.

[flyer]

We have friends who lived there years ago and loved the area, then turned their homes into rentals when they moved on.

There are many nice areas in Clairemont, but, it seems that you now have to search a little harder to find them. If its your chosen destination, I’d say it’s well worth spending the time searching.

As far as arguing about which area of town is
best–I really think it boils down to your chosen lifestyle.

Some of us prefer a quiet country-setting near the ocean that is still close to everything we need and want, others enjoy being in the center of a a busy area for work, school and convenience. One person wants one school district, another wants another school district, and on and on and on.

In my opinion, if you have the life YOU and YOUR family want, it really doesn’t matter what anyone else has or does. We’ve always been grateful that we got exactly what we wanted, and we hope everyone else does too!!

[an]

BG, no, lot size is not indicative of value. Location is indicative of value. You can increase your lot size, but you can’t change the zip code or the latitude and longitude of your lot. That’s why the RE mantra is, location location location. Not lot size, lot size, lot size. If this is true:
[quote=BG] In coastal CA counties, a larger lot usually means the property is worth more.[/quote]Then those houses in Ramona with 1/2+ lot would cost more than your cracker box, 0 lot line, detached condo in Carmel Valley. To take this to an extreme, tell me, how big is the lot of this house: http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-120003963-2430_Oceanfront_Ave_Del_Mar_CA_92014? Do you think most houses on many acre (even in RSF) would be more expensive than this one?

I didn’t say 1/1 in MM. Based on the prices from the 70s and 80s, most of the mortgage(if not refied to take cash out) would be around $300-700/month. That’s probably cheaper than most 1/1 anywhere in San Diego County. So, I’d say, a 60 year old with a free and clear house or a 50 year old with 10 year left on their mortgage of about $550 would be more stable than those in their 80s with failing health. Try making repair when you’re on fixed income and your health start failing. Maintain your house would probably be pretty low on your priority list.

BTW, how can you own a house for 50-55 years if you’re only 73? Are you suggesting people who bought in the best area of CM bought when they’re 18-23 years old? I’m not that old, but maybe you’d know something I don’t.

There’s no apple to apple comparison between CM and MM. So, you’re trying to compare something that’s not comparable. Now, if you want to compare the whole area, then if you’re going to pick the best of CM, then it would make sense to compare with the best of MM.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN]BG, no, lot size is not indicative of value. Location is indicative of value. You can increase your lot size, but you can’t change the zip code or the latitude and longitude of your lot. That’s why the RE mantra is, location location location. Not lot size, lot size, lot size. If this is true:
[quote=BG] In coastal CA counties, a larger lot usually means the property is worth more.[/quote]Then those houses in Ramona with 1/2+ lot would cost more than your cracker box, 0 lot line, detached condo in Carmel Valley. To take this to an extreme, tell me, how big is the lot of this house: http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-120003963-2430_Oceanfront_Ave_Del_Mar_CA_92014? Do you think most houses on many acre (even in RSF) would be more expensive than this one?[/quote]

Of course it’s location first and then lot size (within a location). Clairemont wins both contests over MM (no offense intended).

[quote=AN]I didn’t say 1/1 in MM. Based on the prices from the 70s and 80s, most of the mortgage(if not refied to take cash out) would be around $300-700/month. That’s probably cheaper than most 1/1 anywhere in San Diego County. So, I’d say, a 60 year old with a free and clear house or a 50 year old with 10 year left on their mortgage of about $550 would be more stable than those in their 80s with failing health. Try making repair when you’re on fixed income and your health start failing. Maintain your house would probably be pretty low on your priority list.[/quote]

$300 to $700 in the 70’s was PITI. Remember that if they bought in or before April 1978 and still own the property, their taxes are held down by Prop 13. And 20-year mortgages were prevalent prior to the late 50’s.

Actually, many, many of this age group are NOT on a “fixed income.” They have investment income. Even if they are in so-so or failing health, they STILL have home healthcare workers and people to come over and do landscaping, cleaning and other errands (whether paid or family members).

AN, you bring up an interesting topic, here. I think it would be very time-consuming to cull the public records for this info, but I’ve often wondered which zip codes in the county have the most free and clear homeowners. I know the current 70-90+ age group who still own properties they bought 50-70 years ago have likely never taken “cash out” of it. How do I know it? Because their properties were likely paid off by the 70’s (at the latest) and “cash-out” was virtually unheard of back then unless it was an FHA 203k (purchase/rehab) mortgage. This would have given them a very large portion of their monthly income since that payoff decades ago to live mortgage-free and save for retirement. This would be true unless they found it necessary at some point to take out a reverse mortgage.

I have no proof but believe (anecdotally) that the majority of “cash out” was taken by owners who have purchased their property since 1990, the vast majority since about 2003.

Thus, it would lead one to believe that the older the area is, the more free-and-clear owners it has. So even though this “older area,” at first blush may look “modest” by today’s “mcmansion” standards, most of the residents there likely have a higher net worth than those in newer “mcmansion” tracts.

[quote=AN]BTW, how can you own a house for 50-55 years if you’re only 73? Are you suggesting people who bought in the best area of CM bought when they’re 18-23 years old? I’m not that old, but maybe you’d know something I don’t.[/quote]

In short, yes. It was commonplace at that time to get married, buy a house and start a family all before the age of 22-23. The models on the Mt Streets of Clairemont cost approx $11K to $18K new in 1961-ish, depending on lot size, location and square footage and most originally sold VA/FHA.

[quote]There’s no apple to apple comparison between CM and MM. So, you’re trying to compare something that’s not comparable. Now, if you want to compare the whole area, then if you’re going to pick the best of CM, then it would make sense to compare with the best of MM.[/quote]

AN, even the “best of MM” doesn’t compare with the “best of Clairemont” (92111) due to lot size, topography, setback, very mature landscaping, proximity to ocean/bay, weather … many factors.

It is what it is.

[Rhett]

Save for one grade school, the public schools in Clairemont range from average to awful. Save for one person, everybody I’ve met that owns in Clairemont either sends their kids to private school or ends up choicing their kids into a UC school (since the aging demographics there have twice as much capacity in south UC than students that live there).

This is why Mira Mesa might be a lot more attractive to some people.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Rhett]Save for one grade school, the public schools in Clairemont range from average to awful. Save for one person, everybody I’ve met that owns in Clairemont either sends their kids to private school or ends up choicing their kids into a UC school (since the aging demographics there have twice as much capacity in south UC than students that live there).

This is why Mira Mesa might be a lot more attractive to some people.[/quote]

This is good to know, Rhett. I long suspected the population of the UC SFR’s (south UC) didn’t have enough students to fill the schools there and even posted this a few weeks ago on another thread. It’s good to know that CHOICE is more easily available to attend UC schools from Clairemont and other nearby communities.

I would suspect that young families in residence are in the minority in South Clairemont (92111) but not 92117 (which is less expensive overall and has more multifamily units).

I also suspect that Clairemont buyers of today likely don’t have school age children or went to the local schools themselves and thus aren’t biased against them.

API scores mean next-to-nothing to young-parent locals who want to raise their kids near other relatives.

[bearishgurl]

btw, Rhett, did you and Scarlett ever buy a home? I remember you were considering both Clairemont and UC at one time.

[an]

[quote=bearishgurl]$300 to $700 in the 70’s was PITI.[/quote]$300-$700 are for people who bought in the 80s to mid 90s. Those who bought in the 70s should have PITI <$300. I've seen houses in MM with tax of $800/year, so, assuming it's paid for, since they bought it in the 70s, their PITI is <$150/month. [quote=bearishgurl]In short, yes. It was commonplace at that time to get married, buy a house and start a family all before the age of 22-23. The models on the Mt Streets of Clairemont cost approx $11K to $18K new in 1961-ish, depending on lot size, location and square footage and most originally sold VA/FHA.[/quote]That's interesting to know. Didn't know people can save up that quick back then. [quote=bearishgurl]AN, even the "best of MM" doesn't compare with the "best of Clairemont" (92111) due to lot size, topography, setback, very mature landscaping, proximity to ocean/bay, weather ... many factors.[/quote]I agree, best of CM (92117 not 92111) is better than MM. They have some great bay views there. Although, this is the best of MM: http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-120017711-5938_Shaw_Lopez_Row_San_Diego_CA_92121. Way over priced IMHO.

BTW, if lot size, topography and setback are high on your importance list, MM have some lots that are superior than any CM have to offer (except for those with bay views). How does .4+ flat usable acre with 90-330 degrees canyon view sound?

[Author]

Posts