- This topic has 310 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 11 months ago by
CA renter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 21, 2010 at 2:16 PM #633716November 21, 2010 at 2:33 PM #632624
bearishgurl
Participant[quote=sdrealtor]You couldnt be more wrong in your statemetn that most distressed properties lie in CFD’s where newbie buyers got o purchase McCMansions. Please do research and bring data before spouting such falsehoods.[/quote]
-snip-
sdr, I’d like to see a breakdown of these properties in distress in October 2010 between SFR’s and condos. I believe that the vast majority of these “older” distressed properties are condos (in which the assn has problems so they are not easily “saleable”). Also, I’d like to study this same chart for months from 2006 forward. I maintain that distressed properties situated within the CFD’s not only led the downturn that we can’t seem to climb out of now, but actually DROVE it, for YEARS.
[quote=sdrealtor]70% of the distress is in the sub 1500 sq ft housing stock you dont find much of in the CFD’s.[/quote]
-snip-
What do you mean, “dont find much of in the CFD’s??” CFD’s are LOADED with condos and PUD’s with often multiple governing HOAs!
November 21, 2010 at 2:33 PM #632702Participant[quote=sdrealtor]You couldnt be more wrong in your statemetn that most distressed properties lie in CFD’s where newbie buyers got o purchase McCMansions. Please do research and bring data before spouting such falsehoods.[/quote]
-snip-
sdr, I’d like to see a breakdown of these properties in distress in October 2010 between SFR’s and condos. I believe that the vast majority of these “older” distressed properties are condos (in which the assn has problems so they are not easily “saleable”). Also, I’d like to study this same chart for months from 2006 forward. I maintain that distressed properties situated within the CFD’s not only led the downturn that we can’t seem to climb out of now, but actually DROVE it, for YEARS.
[quote=sdrealtor]70% of the distress is in the sub 1500 sq ft housing stock you dont find much of in the CFD’s.[/quote]
-snip-
What do you mean, “dont find much of in the CFD’s??” CFD’s are LOADED with condos and PUD’s with often multiple governing HOAs!
November 21, 2010 at 2:33 PM #633275Participant[quote=sdrealtor]You couldnt be more wrong in your statemetn that most distressed properties lie in CFD’s where newbie buyers got o purchase McCMansions. Please do research and bring data before spouting such falsehoods.[/quote]
-snip-
sdr, I’d like to see a breakdown of these properties in distress in October 2010 between SFR’s and condos. I believe that the vast majority of these “older” distressed properties are condos (in which the assn has problems so they are not easily “saleable”). Also, I’d like to study this same chart for months from 2006 forward. I maintain that distressed properties situated within the CFD’s not only led the downturn that we can’t seem to climb out of now, but actually DROVE it, for YEARS.
[quote=sdrealtor]70% of the distress is in the sub 1500 sq ft housing stock you dont find much of in the CFD’s.[/quote]
-snip-
What do you mean, “dont find much of in the CFD’s??” CFD’s are LOADED with condos and PUD’s with often multiple governing HOAs!
November 21, 2010 at 2:33 PM #633403Participant[quote=sdrealtor]You couldnt be more wrong in your statemetn that most distressed properties lie in CFD’s where newbie buyers got o purchase McCMansions. Please do research and bring data before spouting such falsehoods.[/quote]
-snip-
sdr, I’d like to see a breakdown of these properties in distress in October 2010 between SFR’s and condos. I believe that the vast majority of these “older” distressed properties are condos (in which the assn has problems so they are not easily “saleable”). Also, I’d like to study this same chart for months from 2006 forward. I maintain that distressed properties situated within the CFD’s not only led the downturn that we can’t seem to climb out of now, but actually DROVE it, for YEARS.
[quote=sdrealtor]70% of the distress is in the sub 1500 sq ft housing stock you dont find much of in the CFD’s.[/quote]
-snip-
What do you mean, “dont find much of in the CFD’s??” CFD’s are LOADED with condos and PUD’s with often multiple governing HOAs!
November 21, 2010 at 2:33 PM #633721Participant[quote=sdrealtor]You couldnt be more wrong in your statemetn that most distressed properties lie in CFD’s where newbie buyers got o purchase McCMansions. Please do research and bring data before spouting such falsehoods.[/quote]
-snip-
sdr, I’d like to see a breakdown of these properties in distress in October 2010 between SFR’s and condos. I believe that the vast majority of these “older” distressed properties are condos (in which the assn has problems so they are not easily “saleable”). Also, I’d like to study this same chart for months from 2006 forward. I maintain that distressed properties situated within the CFD’s not only led the downturn that we can’t seem to climb out of now, but actually DROVE it, for YEARS.
[quote=sdrealtor]70% of the distress is in the sub 1500 sq ft housing stock you dont find much of in the CFD’s.[/quote]
-snip-
What do you mean, “dont find much of in the CFD’s??” CFD’s are LOADED with condos and PUD’s with often multiple governing HOAs!
November 21, 2010 at 4:58 PM #632679CA renter
Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=sdduuuude] . . . Video Mentions Willowalk in Hemet:
Some observers say that these suburban communities could become the new slums of America. As baby boomers age, they won’t need McMansions and will want to live closer to urban centers. And Generation X and Y already prefer walkable residences, according to Arthur C. Nelson, a University of Utah professor who projects there could be 25 million more of these suburban homes by 2030 than are needed.
(emphasis added)
sdduuuude, I’ve thought this to be the case for a VERY long time. The areas hardest hit are WAY overbuilt. There has been so much overbuilding in the last decade that I don’t see any reason to build any more tracts near CA’s urban centers, ESP inland urban centers.
I’ve driven thru Fresno and Stockton and all of their “children communities” several times and have determined CA’s once bucolic central valley is now heavily overbuilt, including outer Modesto and surrounds, Turlock, Tracy and Salinas. Just drove all the way thru the (formerly) “tiny farm community” of Los Banos last month, which has now turned into several miles long of endless tracts and franchises, literally overnite . . . lol! And there are not near enough inland jobs to support all these homeowning households.
Riverside county is no exception and I don’t see this empty-property problem fixing itself any year soon as tenants have to work and commute also.
For today’s CA buyer, there’s plenty of resale inventory available in ALL areas and absolutely no need to seek out new construction in the far reaches of urban counties.
The reporter is absolutely correct in that baby boomers DO NOT want to live in an airplane hangar in the far reaches of outer Mongolia, located 4-6 feet from the next hangar. We are a HUGE RE buying demographic who typically have far less problems with our buying transactions due to savings and long-term stability so our wants and needs deserve to be heard and heeded by the RE community.
I’m completely against urban sprawl and always have been. It’s absolutely ruining our state and sucking up our limited resources, most importantly, water.
[end of “OT” rant][/quote]
But it’s not the sprawl that’s causing our water problems as much as it’s about **too many people** moving to California from other places. We cannot sustain all of the people who want to move here from somewhere else. It’s *people* who are causing our resource problems. Without all the people, there wouldn’t be any sprawl.
November 21, 2010 at 4:58 PM #632757Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=sdduuuude] . . . Video Mentions Willowalk in Hemet:
Some observers say that these suburban communities could become the new slums of America. As baby boomers age, they won’t need McMansions and will want to live closer to urban centers. And Generation X and Y already prefer walkable residences, according to Arthur C. Nelson, a University of Utah professor who projects there could be 25 million more of these suburban homes by 2030 than are needed.
(emphasis added)
sdduuuude, I’ve thought this to be the case for a VERY long time. The areas hardest hit are WAY overbuilt. There has been so much overbuilding in the last decade that I don’t see any reason to build any more tracts near CA’s urban centers, ESP inland urban centers.
I’ve driven thru Fresno and Stockton and all of their “children communities” several times and have determined CA’s once bucolic central valley is now heavily overbuilt, including outer Modesto and surrounds, Turlock, Tracy and Salinas. Just drove all the way thru the (formerly) “tiny farm community” of Los Banos last month, which has now turned into several miles long of endless tracts and franchises, literally overnite . . . lol! And there are not near enough inland jobs to support all these homeowning households.
Riverside county is no exception and I don’t see this empty-property problem fixing itself any year soon as tenants have to work and commute also.
For today’s CA buyer, there’s plenty of resale inventory available in ALL areas and absolutely no need to seek out new construction in the far reaches of urban counties.
The reporter is absolutely correct in that baby boomers DO NOT want to live in an airplane hangar in the far reaches of outer Mongolia, located 4-6 feet from the next hangar. We are a HUGE RE buying demographic who typically have far less problems with our buying transactions due to savings and long-term stability so our wants and needs deserve to be heard and heeded by the RE community.
I’m completely against urban sprawl and always have been. It’s absolutely ruining our state and sucking up our limited resources, most importantly, water.
[end of “OT” rant][/quote]
But it’s not the sprawl that’s causing our water problems as much as it’s about **too many people** moving to California from other places. We cannot sustain all of the people who want to move here from somewhere else. It’s *people* who are causing our resource problems. Without all the people, there wouldn’t be any sprawl.
November 21, 2010 at 4:58 PM #633330Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=sdduuuude] . . . Video Mentions Willowalk in Hemet:
Some observers say that these suburban communities could become the new slums of America. As baby boomers age, they won’t need McMansions and will want to live closer to urban centers. And Generation X and Y already prefer walkable residences, according to Arthur C. Nelson, a University of Utah professor who projects there could be 25 million more of these suburban homes by 2030 than are needed.
(emphasis added)
sdduuuude, I’ve thought this to be the case for a VERY long time. The areas hardest hit are WAY overbuilt. There has been so much overbuilding in the last decade that I don’t see any reason to build any more tracts near CA’s urban centers, ESP inland urban centers.
I’ve driven thru Fresno and Stockton and all of their “children communities” several times and have determined CA’s once bucolic central valley is now heavily overbuilt, including outer Modesto and surrounds, Turlock, Tracy and Salinas. Just drove all the way thru the (formerly) “tiny farm community” of Los Banos last month, which has now turned into several miles long of endless tracts and franchises, literally overnite . . . lol! And there are not near enough inland jobs to support all these homeowning households.
Riverside county is no exception and I don’t see this empty-property problem fixing itself any year soon as tenants have to work and commute also.
For today’s CA buyer, there’s plenty of resale inventory available in ALL areas and absolutely no need to seek out new construction in the far reaches of urban counties.
The reporter is absolutely correct in that baby boomers DO NOT want to live in an airplane hangar in the far reaches of outer Mongolia, located 4-6 feet from the next hangar. We are a HUGE RE buying demographic who typically have far less problems with our buying transactions due to savings and long-term stability so our wants and needs deserve to be heard and heeded by the RE community.
I’m completely against urban sprawl and always have been. It’s absolutely ruining our state and sucking up our limited resources, most importantly, water.
[end of “OT” rant][/quote]
But it’s not the sprawl that’s causing our water problems as much as it’s about **too many people** moving to California from other places. We cannot sustain all of the people who want to move here from somewhere else. It’s *people* who are causing our resource problems. Without all the people, there wouldn’t be any sprawl.
November 21, 2010 at 4:58 PM #633458Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=sdduuuude] . . . Video Mentions Willowalk in Hemet:
Some observers say that these suburban communities could become the new slums of America. As baby boomers age, they won’t need McMansions and will want to live closer to urban centers. And Generation X and Y already prefer walkable residences, according to Arthur C. Nelson, a University of Utah professor who projects there could be 25 million more of these suburban homes by 2030 than are needed.
(emphasis added)
sdduuuude, I’ve thought this to be the case for a VERY long time. The areas hardest hit are WAY overbuilt. There has been so much overbuilding in the last decade that I don’t see any reason to build any more tracts near CA’s urban centers, ESP inland urban centers.
I’ve driven thru Fresno and Stockton and all of their “children communities” several times and have determined CA’s once bucolic central valley is now heavily overbuilt, including outer Modesto and surrounds, Turlock, Tracy and Salinas. Just drove all the way thru the (formerly) “tiny farm community” of Los Banos last month, which has now turned into several miles long of endless tracts and franchises, literally overnite . . . lol! And there are not near enough inland jobs to support all these homeowning households.
Riverside county is no exception and I don’t see this empty-property problem fixing itself any year soon as tenants have to work and commute also.
For today’s CA buyer, there’s plenty of resale inventory available in ALL areas and absolutely no need to seek out new construction in the far reaches of urban counties.
The reporter is absolutely correct in that baby boomers DO NOT want to live in an airplane hangar in the far reaches of outer Mongolia, located 4-6 feet from the next hangar. We are a HUGE RE buying demographic who typically have far less problems with our buying transactions due to savings and long-term stability so our wants and needs deserve to be heard and heeded by the RE community.
I’m completely against urban sprawl and always have been. It’s absolutely ruining our state and sucking up our limited resources, most importantly, water.
[end of “OT” rant][/quote]
But it’s not the sprawl that’s causing our water problems as much as it’s about **too many people** moving to California from other places. We cannot sustain all of the people who want to move here from somewhere else. It’s *people* who are causing our resource problems. Without all the people, there wouldn’t be any sprawl.
November 21, 2010 at 4:58 PM #633778Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=sdduuuude] . . . Video Mentions Willowalk in Hemet:
Some observers say that these suburban communities could become the new slums of America. As baby boomers age, they won’t need McMansions and will want to live closer to urban centers. And Generation X and Y already prefer walkable residences, according to Arthur C. Nelson, a University of Utah professor who projects there could be 25 million more of these suburban homes by 2030 than are needed.
(emphasis added)
sdduuuude, I’ve thought this to be the case for a VERY long time. The areas hardest hit are WAY overbuilt. There has been so much overbuilding in the last decade that I don’t see any reason to build any more tracts near CA’s urban centers, ESP inland urban centers.
I’ve driven thru Fresno and Stockton and all of their “children communities” several times and have determined CA’s once bucolic central valley is now heavily overbuilt, including outer Modesto and surrounds, Turlock, Tracy and Salinas. Just drove all the way thru the (formerly) “tiny farm community” of Los Banos last month, which has now turned into several miles long of endless tracts and franchises, literally overnite . . . lol! And there are not near enough inland jobs to support all these homeowning households.
Riverside county is no exception and I don’t see this empty-property problem fixing itself any year soon as tenants have to work and commute also.
For today’s CA buyer, there’s plenty of resale inventory available in ALL areas and absolutely no need to seek out new construction in the far reaches of urban counties.
The reporter is absolutely correct in that baby boomers DO NOT want to live in an airplane hangar in the far reaches of outer Mongolia, located 4-6 feet from the next hangar. We are a HUGE RE buying demographic who typically have far less problems with our buying transactions due to savings and long-term stability so our wants and needs deserve to be heard and heeded by the RE community.
I’m completely against urban sprawl and always have been. It’s absolutely ruining our state and sucking up our limited resources, most importantly, water.
[end of “OT” rant][/quote]
But it’s not the sprawl that’s causing our water problems as much as it’s about **too many people** moving to California from other places. We cannot sustain all of the people who want to move here from somewhere else. It’s *people* who are causing our resource problems. Without all the people, there wouldn’t be any sprawl.
November 21, 2010 at 6:21 PM #632694Participant[quote=CA renter]But it’s not the sprawl that’s causing our water problems as much as it’s about **too many people** moving to California from other places. We cannot sustain all of the people who want to move here from somewhere else. It’s *people* who are causing our resource problems. Without all the people, there wouldn’t be any sprawl.[/quote]
Totally agree, CAR. But all these “people” wouldn’t come if the number of housing units was finite. They came because there were endless sources of “cheaper” housing being built within CFD’s that they can move to and still be in CA.
Droves of people aren’t moving to the Hawaiian Islands because the number available housing units is finite there (and what is available is expensive because of this), even though it’s considered “paradise.” People aren’t moving in droves to the City and County of San Francisco for the same reason, even though its pay scale for workers is among the highest in the nation and its cultural opportunities are bar none.. Its population has been stable for many years. There’s nowhere to build on a “rock” or “collection of rocks,” . . . lol, except maybe to turn the occasional two-family flat into a 3-family flat!
If all these CFD’s weren’t created in the middle of nowhere, the only people that would move from elsewhere to take jobs in CA coastal urban centers would be those who made enough money to live in nearby existing housing or those that already live here.
Yeah, we wouldn’t have the property tax base but we ALSO wouldn’t need expanded government to provide services to far-flung locales.
Part of the problem stems from SD County’s huge geographical size in relation to other CA coastal urban counties, leaving a lot of marginal outlying areas subject to being eaten up as building sites.
This whole discussion is really about water that’s already run under the bridge and horses that have left the barn long ago. CA decided to leave the barn door open to rampant unchecked growth when its legislature passed the Mello-Roos CFD Act in 1982.
I’m simply saying that this issue was discussed a LOT in the RE community before it was passed by the legislature but later marketed so heavily to voters to form these CFD’s under the guise of “paying for themselves.” The largely “uninitiated” voting blocs were “tricked” into voting the CFD’s in, not realizing the ramifications of what they were voting for years down the road.
The ballot arguments FOR the CFD’s were always in the vein that they were to be completely financially “self-sustaining,” . . . lol :={
November 21, 2010 at 6:21 PM #632772Participant[quote=CA renter]But it’s not the sprawl that’s causing our water problems as much as it’s about **too many people** moving to California from other places. We cannot sustain all of the people who want to move here from somewhere else. It’s *people* who are causing our resource problems. Without all the people, there wouldn’t be any sprawl.[/quote]
Totally agree, CAR. But all these “people” wouldn’t come if the number of housing units was finite. They came because there were endless sources of “cheaper” housing being built within CFD’s that they can move to and still be in CA.
Droves of people aren’t moving to the Hawaiian Islands because the number available housing units is finite there (and what is available is expensive because of this), even though it’s considered “paradise.” People aren’t moving in droves to the City and County of San Francisco for the same reason, even though its pay scale for workers is among the highest in the nation and its cultural opportunities are bar none.. Its population has been stable for many years. There’s nowhere to build on a “rock” or “collection of rocks,” . . . lol, except maybe to turn the occasional two-family flat into a 3-family flat!
If all these CFD’s weren’t created in the middle of nowhere, the only people that would move from elsewhere to take jobs in CA coastal urban centers would be those who made enough money to live in nearby existing housing or those that already live here.
Yeah, we wouldn’t have the property tax base but we ALSO wouldn’t need expanded government to provide services to far-flung locales.
Part of the problem stems from SD County’s huge geographical size in relation to other CA coastal urban counties, leaving a lot of marginal outlying areas subject to being eaten up as building sites.
This whole discussion is really about water that’s already run under the bridge and horses that have left the barn long ago. CA decided to leave the barn door open to rampant unchecked growth when its legislature passed the Mello-Roos CFD Act in 1982.
I’m simply saying that this issue was discussed a LOT in the RE community before it was passed by the legislature but later marketed so heavily to voters to form these CFD’s under the guise of “paying for themselves.” The largely “uninitiated” voting blocs were “tricked” into voting the CFD’s in, not realizing the ramifications of what they were voting for years down the road.
The ballot arguments FOR the CFD’s were always in the vein that they were to be completely financially “self-sustaining,” . . . lol :={
November 21, 2010 at 6:21 PM #633345Participant[quote=CA renter]But it’s not the sprawl that’s causing our water problems as much as it’s about **too many people** moving to California from other places. We cannot sustain all of the people who want to move here from somewhere else. It’s *people* who are causing our resource problems. Without all the people, there wouldn’t be any sprawl.[/quote]
Totally agree, CAR. But all these “people” wouldn’t come if the number of housing units was finite. They came because there were endless sources of “cheaper” housing being built within CFD’s that they can move to and still be in CA.
Droves of people aren’t moving to the Hawaiian Islands because the number available housing units is finite there (and what is available is expensive because of this), even though it’s considered “paradise.” People aren’t moving in droves to the City and County of San Francisco for the same reason, even though its pay scale for workers is among the highest in the nation and its cultural opportunities are bar none.. Its population has been stable for many years. There’s nowhere to build on a “rock” or “collection of rocks,” . . . lol, except maybe to turn the occasional two-family flat into a 3-family flat!
If all these CFD’s weren’t created in the middle of nowhere, the only people that would move from elsewhere to take jobs in CA coastal urban centers would be those who made enough money to live in nearby existing housing or those that already live here.
Yeah, we wouldn’t have the property tax base but we ALSO wouldn’t need expanded government to provide services to far-flung locales.
Part of the problem stems from SD County’s huge geographical size in relation to other CA coastal urban counties, leaving a lot of marginal outlying areas subject to being eaten up as building sites.
This whole discussion is really about water that’s already run under the bridge and horses that have left the barn long ago. CA decided to leave the barn door open to rampant unchecked growth when its legislature passed the Mello-Roos CFD Act in 1982.
I’m simply saying that this issue was discussed a LOT in the RE community before it was passed by the legislature but later marketed so heavily to voters to form these CFD’s under the guise of “paying for themselves.” The largely “uninitiated” voting blocs were “tricked” into voting the CFD’s in, not realizing the ramifications of what they were voting for years down the road.
The ballot arguments FOR the CFD’s were always in the vein that they were to be completely financially “self-sustaining,” . . . lol :={
November 21, 2010 at 6:21 PM #633473Participant[quote=CA renter]But it’s not the sprawl that’s causing our water problems as much as it’s about **too many people** moving to California from other places. We cannot sustain all of the people who want to move here from somewhere else. It’s *people* who are causing our resource problems. Without all the people, there wouldn’t be any sprawl.[/quote]
Totally agree, CAR. But all these “people” wouldn’t come if the number of housing units was finite. They came because there were endless sources of “cheaper” housing being built within CFD’s that they can move to and still be in CA.
Droves of people aren’t moving to the Hawaiian Islands because the number available housing units is finite there (and what is available is expensive because of this), even though it’s considered “paradise.” People aren’t moving in droves to the City and County of San Francisco for the same reason, even though its pay scale for workers is among the highest in the nation and its cultural opportunities are bar none.. Its population has been stable for many years. There’s nowhere to build on a “rock” or “collection of rocks,” . . . lol, except maybe to turn the occasional two-family flat into a 3-family flat!
If all these CFD’s weren’t created in the middle of nowhere, the only people that would move from elsewhere to take jobs in CA coastal urban centers would be those who made enough money to live in nearby existing housing or those that already live here.
Yeah, we wouldn’t have the property tax base but we ALSO wouldn’t need expanded government to provide services to far-flung locales.
Part of the problem stems from SD County’s huge geographical size in relation to other CA coastal urban counties, leaving a lot of marginal outlying areas subject to being eaten up as building sites.
This whole discussion is really about water that’s already run under the bridge and horses that have left the barn long ago. CA decided to leave the barn door open to rampant unchecked growth when its legislature passed the Mello-Roos CFD Act in 1982.
I’m simply saying that this issue was discussed a LOT in the RE community before it was passed by the legislature but later marketed so heavily to voters to form these CFD’s under the guise of “paying for themselves.” The largely “uninitiated” voting blocs were “tricked” into voting the CFD’s in, not realizing the ramifications of what they were voting for years down the road.
The ballot arguments FOR the CFD’s were always in the vein that they were to be completely financially “self-sustaining,” . . . lol :={
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.