Domusemptorophobia

[scaredyclassic]

Pomegranate

fig

persimmon

apricot

blackberry bushes

what does money matter in the end surrounded by so much fruit

[jpinpb]

I know I have no say, but I’m tossing my vote in for blueberries 😉

Lemons and grapes should grow well up there. Maybe you can make your own wine, even 🙂

[jpinpb]

I know I have no say, but I’m tossing my vote in for blueberries 😉

Lemons and grapes should grow well up there. Maybe you can make your own wine, even 🙂

[jpinpb]

I know I have no say, but I’m tossing my vote in for blueberries 😉

Lemons and grapes should grow well up there. Maybe you can make your own wine, even 🙂

[jpinpb]

I know I have no say, but I’m tossing my vote in for blueberries 😉

Lemons and grapes should grow well up there. Maybe you can make your own wine, even 🙂

[jpinpb]

I know I have no say, but I’m tossing my vote in for blueberries 😉

Lemons and grapes should grow well up there. Maybe you can make your own wine, even 🙂

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sdrealtor]It was for bearishgurl who was questioning his choice of living in Temecula. She has repeatedly stated that the problems are primarily the result of high MR and HOA fees in places that crashed hardest like Chula Vista and most of South Riverside county. I will admit that i thought she was probably right that the highest default rates were in those new high fee communities. That graph seems to throw cold water on that assumption.[/quote]

I have been out of town and now swamped and don’t intend to hijack this thread but will respond to sdr’s erroneous assertion since he seems to habitually troll around here following me in attempt to discredit anything I post.

Obviously, he has not studied the history of the legislation and thus is not aware that Chula Vista (Eastlake Shores/Hills) was where the MR bonds DEBUTED in SD County in 1986/87. Poway followed close behind in adopting the use of these bonds and a little later, Esco and communities within sdr’s “backyard” in gridlocked nirvana. In fact, there ARE many more NOD’s/NOS’s filed on Chula Vista properties built and first sold after mid-1986 than in the older communities. The Eastlake Hills community of “Rosewinds” in 91913 is the ONLY subdivision that has paid-off MR bonds (May 2007).

Foreclosure Radar’s “Chula Vista NOD/NOS Graph by Age” INCLUDES 91911 in which portions were annexed into Chula Vista from uninc Otay Mesa in 1977. To this day, several streets there STILL do not have street lights, sidewalks or storm drains (one subd located on a river bottom) and portions of this zip suffer from lack of zoning, where many SFR’s are situated in light industrial use areas and Type-A flood plains. Two very large subdivisions (650-700 units) built in 91911 in 1960 and 1961 currently have high foreclosure rates. They were built without attics, insulation, with 1/2″ drywall and in many cases with one-car drive-thru carports instead of garages (many have since been converted to garages).

The CV zip codes/areas that predate the MR bonds are western 91910 (70% of zip), western 91911 (90% of zip) and 91913 (5% of zip). The difference between the older construction in 91911 (vast majority slab) and the older construction in 91910 (mostly pier and post) is NIGHT and DAY in construction quality and also neighborhood quality. Western (west of 805) 91911 draws in young families and investors purchasing rentals. Western 91910 is inhabited by mostly age 55+ homeowners who have a lot of equity and there isn’t a lot on the market at any one time. The median price for an SFR in western 91911 has never been very high for any year (sub-$300K).

Foreclosure Radar did not have a graph breaking down the NOD’s/NOS’s by ZIP CODE which would have been much more telling and useful in a diverse city such as Chula Vista. 91913 was annexed into the City in approx 1968, 91914 in approx 1991 and 91915 in approx 2000. 91915 (with the MOST distressed properties) is located 8-12 miles from downtown CV and is a wholly different community in every way, shape and form. The combo of MR and (often multiple) HOA dues expense played a HUGE role in distressed properties in Chula Vista and will continue to do so.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sdrealtor]It was for bearishgurl who was questioning his choice of living in Temecula. She has repeatedly stated that the problems are primarily the result of high MR and HOA fees in places that crashed hardest like Chula Vista and most of South Riverside county. I will admit that i thought she was probably right that the highest default rates were in those new high fee communities. That graph seems to throw cold water on that assumption.[/quote]

I have been out of town and now swamped and don’t intend to hijack this thread but will respond to sdr’s erroneous assertion since he seems to habitually troll around here following me in attempt to discredit anything I post.

Obviously, he has not studied the history of the legislation and thus is not aware that Chula Vista (Eastlake Shores/Hills) was where the MR bonds DEBUTED in SD County in 1986/87. Poway followed close behind in adopting the use of these bonds and a little later, Esco and communities within sdr’s “backyard” in gridlocked nirvana. In fact, there ARE many more NOD’s/NOS’s filed on Chula Vista properties built and first sold after mid-1986 than in the older communities. The Eastlake Hills community of “Rosewinds” in 91913 is the ONLY subdivision that has paid-off MR bonds (May 2007).

Foreclosure Radar’s “Chula Vista NOD/NOS Graph by Age” INCLUDES 91911 in which portions were annexed into Chula Vista from uninc Otay Mesa in 1977. To this day, several streets there STILL do not have street lights, sidewalks or storm drains (one subd located on a river bottom) and portions of this zip suffer from lack of zoning, where many SFR’s are situated in light industrial use areas and Type-A flood plains. Two very large subdivisions (650-700 units) built in 91911 in 1960 and 1961 currently have high foreclosure rates. They were built without attics, insulation, with 1/2″ drywall and in many cases with one-car drive-thru carports instead of garages (many have since been converted to garages).

The CV zip codes/areas that predate the MR bonds are western 91910 (70% of zip), western 91911 (90% of zip) and 91913 (5% of zip). The difference between the older construction in 91911 (vast majority slab) and the older construction in 91910 (mostly pier and post) is NIGHT and DAY in construction quality and also neighborhood quality. Western (west of 805) 91911 draws in young families and investors purchasing rentals. Western 91910 is inhabited by mostly age 55+ homeowners who have a lot of equity and there isn’t a lot on the market at any one time. The median price for an SFR in western 91911 has never been very high for any year (sub-$300K).

Foreclosure Radar did not have a graph breaking down the NOD’s/NOS’s by ZIP CODE which would have been much more telling and useful in a diverse city such as Chula Vista. 91913 was annexed into the City in approx 1968, 91914 in approx 1991 and 91915 in approx 2000. 91915 (with the MOST distressed properties) is located 8-12 miles from downtown CV and is a wholly different community in every way, shape and form. The combo of MR and (often multiple) HOA dues expense played a HUGE role in distressed properties in Chula Vista and will continue to do so.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sdrealtor]It was for bearishgurl who was questioning his choice of living in Temecula. She has repeatedly stated that the problems are primarily the result of high MR and HOA fees in places that crashed hardest like Chula Vista and most of South Riverside county. I will admit that i thought she was probably right that the highest default rates were in those new high fee communities. That graph seems to throw cold water on that assumption.[/quote]

I have been out of town and now swamped and don’t intend to hijack this thread but will respond to sdr’s erroneous assertion since he seems to habitually troll around here following me in attempt to discredit anything I post.

Obviously, he has not studied the history of the legislation and thus is not aware that Chula Vista (Eastlake Shores/Hills) was where the MR bonds DEBUTED in SD County in 1986/87. Poway followed close behind in adopting the use of these bonds and a little later, Esco and communities within sdr’s “backyard” in gridlocked nirvana. In fact, there ARE many more NOD’s/NOS’s filed on Chula Vista properties built and first sold after mid-1986 than in the older communities. The Eastlake Hills community of “Rosewinds” in 91913 is the ONLY subdivision that has paid-off MR bonds (May 2007).

Foreclosure Radar’s “Chula Vista NOD/NOS Graph by Age” INCLUDES 91911 in which portions were annexed into Chula Vista from uninc Otay Mesa in 1977. To this day, several streets there STILL do not have street lights, sidewalks or storm drains (one subd located on a river bottom) and portions of this zip suffer from lack of zoning, where many SFR’s are situated in light industrial use areas and Type-A flood plains. Two very large subdivisions (650-700 units) built in 91911 in 1960 and 1961 currently have high foreclosure rates. They were built without attics, insulation, with 1/2″ drywall and in many cases with one-car drive-thru carports instead of garages (many have since been converted to garages).

The CV zip codes/areas that predate the MR bonds are western 91910 (70% of zip), western 91911 (90% of zip) and 91913 (5% of zip). The difference between the older construction in 91911 (vast majority slab) and the older construction in 91910 (mostly pier and post) is NIGHT and DAY in construction quality and also neighborhood quality. Western (west of 805) 91911 draws in young families and investors purchasing rentals. Western 91910 is inhabited by mostly age 55+ homeowners who have a lot of equity and there isn’t a lot on the market at any one time. The median price for an SFR in western 91911 has never been very high for any year (sub-$300K).

Foreclosure Radar did not have a graph breaking down the NOD’s/NOS’s by ZIP CODE which would have been much more telling and useful in a diverse city such as Chula Vista. 91913 was annexed into the City in approx 1968, 91914 in approx 1991 and 91915 in approx 2000. 91915 (with the MOST distressed properties) is located 8-12 miles from downtown CV and is a wholly different community in every way, shape and form. The combo of MR and (often multiple) HOA dues expense played a HUGE role in distressed properties in Chula Vista and will continue to do so.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sdrealtor]It was for bearishgurl who was questioning his choice of living in Temecula. She has repeatedly stated that the problems are primarily the result of high MR and HOA fees in places that crashed hardest like Chula Vista and most of South Riverside county. I will admit that i thought she was probably right that the highest default rates were in those new high fee communities. That graph seems to throw cold water on that assumption.[/quote]

I have been out of town and now swamped and don’t intend to hijack this thread but will respond to sdr’s erroneous assertion since he seems to habitually troll around here following me in attempt to discredit anything I post.

Obviously, he has not studied the history of the legislation and thus is not aware that Chula Vista (Eastlake Shores/Hills) was where the MR bonds DEBUTED in SD County in 1986/87. Poway followed close behind in adopting the use of these bonds and a little later, Esco and communities within sdr’s “backyard” in gridlocked nirvana. In fact, there ARE many more NOD’s/NOS’s filed on Chula Vista properties built and first sold after mid-1986 than in the older communities. The Eastlake Hills community of “Rosewinds” in 91913 is the ONLY subdivision that has paid-off MR bonds (May 2007).

Foreclosure Radar’s “Chula Vista NOD/NOS Graph by Age” INCLUDES 91911 in which portions were annexed into Chula Vista from uninc Otay Mesa in 1977. To this day, several streets there STILL do not have street lights, sidewalks or storm drains (one subd located on a river bottom) and portions of this zip suffer from lack of zoning, where many SFR’s are situated in light industrial use areas and Type-A flood plains. Two very large subdivisions (650-700 units) built in 91911 in 1960 and 1961 currently have high foreclosure rates. They were built without attics, insulation, with 1/2″ drywall and in many cases with one-car drive-thru carports instead of garages (many have since been converted to garages).

The CV zip codes/areas that predate the MR bonds are western 91910 (70% of zip), western 91911 (90% of zip) and 91913 (5% of zip). The difference between the older construction in 91911 (vast majority slab) and the older construction in 91910 (mostly pier and post) is NIGHT and DAY in construction quality and also neighborhood quality. Western (west of 805) 91911 draws in young families and investors purchasing rentals. Western 91910 is inhabited by mostly age 55+ homeowners who have a lot of equity and there isn’t a lot on the market at any one time. The median price for an SFR in western 91911 has never been very high for any year (sub-$300K).

Foreclosure Radar did not have a graph breaking down the NOD’s/NOS’s by ZIP CODE which would have been much more telling and useful in a diverse city such as Chula Vista. 91913 was annexed into the City in approx 1968, 91914 in approx 1991 and 91915 in approx 2000. 91915 (with the MOST distressed properties) is located 8-12 miles from downtown CV and is a wholly different community in every way, shape and form. The combo of MR and (often multiple) HOA dues expense played a HUGE role in distressed properties in Chula Vista and will continue to do so.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sdrealtor]It was for bearishgurl who was questioning his choice of living in Temecula. She has repeatedly stated that the problems are primarily the result of high MR and HOA fees in places that crashed hardest like Chula Vista and most of South Riverside county. I will admit that i thought she was probably right that the highest default rates were in those new high fee communities. That graph seems to throw cold water on that assumption.[/quote]

I have been out of town and now swamped and don’t intend to hijack this thread but will respond to sdr’s erroneous assertion since he seems to habitually troll around here following me in attempt to discredit anything I post.

Obviously, he has not studied the history of the legislation and thus is not aware that Chula Vista (Eastlake Shores/Hills) was where the MR bonds DEBUTED in SD County in 1986/87. Poway followed close behind in adopting the use of these bonds and a little later, Esco and communities within sdr’s “backyard” in gridlocked nirvana. In fact, there ARE many more NOD’s/NOS’s filed on Chula Vista properties built and first sold after mid-1986 than in the older communities. The Eastlake Hills community of “Rosewinds” in 91913 is the ONLY subdivision that has paid-off MR bonds (May 2007).

Foreclosure Radar’s “Chula Vista NOD/NOS Graph by Age” INCLUDES 91911 in which portions were annexed into Chula Vista from uninc Otay Mesa in 1977. To this day, several streets there STILL do not have street lights, sidewalks or storm drains (one subd located on a river bottom) and portions of this zip suffer from lack of zoning, where many SFR’s are situated in light industrial use areas and Type-A flood plains. Two very large subdivisions (650-700 units) built in 91911 in 1960 and 1961 currently have high foreclosure rates. They were built without attics, insulation, with 1/2″ drywall and in many cases with one-car drive-thru carports instead of garages (many have since been converted to garages).

The CV zip codes/areas that predate the MR bonds are western 91910 (70% of zip), western 91911 (90% of zip) and 91913 (5% of zip). The difference between the older construction in 91911 (vast majority slab) and the older construction in 91910 (mostly pier and post) is NIGHT and DAY in construction quality and also neighborhood quality. Western (west of 805) 91911 draws in young families and investors purchasing rentals. Western 91910 is inhabited by mostly age 55+ homeowners who have a lot of equity and there isn’t a lot on the market at any one time. The median price for an SFR in western 91911 has never been very high for any year (sub-$300K).

Foreclosure Radar did not have a graph breaking down the NOD’s/NOS’s by ZIP CODE which would have been much more telling and useful in a diverse city such as Chula Vista. 91913 was annexed into the City in approx 1968, 91914 in approx 1991 and 91915 in approx 2000. 91915 (with the MOST distressed properties) is located 8-12 miles from downtown CV and is a wholly different community in every way, shape and form. The combo of MR and (often multiple) HOA dues expense played a HUGE role in distressed properties in Chula Vista and will continue to do so.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=walterwhite]what about trees. i have this vision of planting a lot of olive trees. i feel good if I just think about the trees.

also this place is low tax, 1% no mr or hoa fee. no neighbors even, really. also, the bank seems to be responding very quickly. i have been a getting a flurry of emails. The bank appears to be all over the file and expressed optimism to the other realtor. Is it because (a) i bid way too much or (b) since they cannto foreclose they might as well short sell? Should I be negotiating down based on that?

Think of the olive trees. peaceful olive trees. they take a very long time to mature. . . [/quote]

scaredy, it sounds like you’re finally in the running for some very nice secluded property on some land. I wish you all the best in your negotiations!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=walterwhite]what about trees. i have this vision of planting a lot of olive trees. i feel good if I just think about the trees.

also this place is low tax, 1% no mr or hoa fee. no neighbors even, really. also, the bank seems to be responding very quickly. i have been a getting a flurry of emails. The bank appears to be all over the file and expressed optimism to the other realtor. Is it because (a) i bid way too much or (b) since they cannto foreclose they might as well short sell? Should I be negotiating down based on that?

Think of the olive trees. peaceful olive trees. they take a very long time to mature. . . [/quote]

scaredy, it sounds like you’re finally in the running for some very nice secluded property on some land. I wish you all the best in your negotiations!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=walterwhite]what about trees. i have this vision of planting a lot of olive trees. i feel good if I just think about the trees.

also this place is low tax, 1% no mr or hoa fee. no neighbors even, really. also, the bank seems to be responding very quickly. i have been a getting a flurry of emails. The bank appears to be all over the file and expressed optimism to the other realtor. Is it because (a) i bid way too much or (b) since they cannto foreclose they might as well short sell? Should I be negotiating down based on that?

Think of the olive trees. peaceful olive trees. they take a very long time to mature. . . [/quote]

scaredy, it sounds like you’re finally in the running for some very nice secluded property on some land. I wish you all the best in your negotiations!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=walterwhite]what about trees. i have this vision of planting a lot of olive trees. i feel good if I just think about the trees.

also this place is low tax, 1% no mr or hoa fee. no neighbors even, really. also, the bank seems to be responding very quickly. i have been a getting a flurry of emails. The bank appears to be all over the file and expressed optimism to the other realtor. Is it because (a) i bid way too much or (b) since they cannto foreclose they might as well short sell? Should I be negotiating down based on that?

Think of the olive trees. peaceful olive trees. they take a very long time to mature. . . [/quote]

scaredy, it sounds like you’re finally in the running for some very nice secluded property on some land. I wish you all the best in your negotiations!

[Author]

Posts