Mira Mesa: no longer affordable for <$200k

[bearishgurl]

[quote=flu][quote=spdrun]Good. A lot of overpaid ex-cops who retired before 50 at $100k+/yr will have to eat rice and beans. Problem?

Guess they’ll find out how the other half lives.[/quote]

100k is middle class. In high cost areas of SD, LA, BayArea, I would even argue if that’s middle of middle class.[/quote]

First of all, only the cops at the top of the “food chain” are currently receiving anywhere close to ~$100K per year in monthly pension payments. A $100K pension is the exception, not the rule in public pension payouts … at least among former city/county employees.

Below is a good example of a SoCal area where a lot of former “street cops” (and teachers, city/county workers and firemen, etc) are likely now “comfortably `retired.'” I saved this list of six SFR listings located in a popular East LA community back on 2/1/16 and re-checked them all last night. I thought for sure they would mostly be sold by now, albeit for 10-20% under asking price (except for the last one situated on >1/3 AC). All are smallish older homes which are very conveniently located (by LA standards). However, NONE have sold as of today, NONE appear to be “distress sales” and a couple of them have been languishing on the market for +/- one year. Four of them have had price reductions and all the sellers seem to be “hanging on.” The SFR inventory all over LA county has been very, very low for more than a year so this tells me that the few listings that are out there are in “strong hands,” as flu mentioned earlier on this thread. I have no doubt that three (or more) of these listings were originally purchased for <$20K by the current seller or their parent or grandparent. It is obvious to me that these sellers are just "testing the market" and will rent the property out if they can't get their price (or leave it on the market forever cuz it doesn't cost them anything to do so). The first two are in the attendance area of Eagle Rock HS which is a very good school but these asking prices are extremely high, IMO, for non-historic homes located in a predominately “working class” area:

On the market 387 days now with at least one price reduction and does not appear to a distress sale (SS):

http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/6850-N-Figueroa-St_Los-Angeles_CA_90042_M16253-38387

On the market 109 days now with one price reduction so far:

http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/5912-Great-Oak-Cir_Highland-Park_CA_90042_M24365-64639

On the market 85 days now and situated on a substandard lot:

http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/6239-Pine-Crest-Dr_Los-Angeles_CA_90042_M21414-94436

On the market 46 days now with one price reduction:

http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/160-S-Avenue-61_Los-Angeles_CA_90042_M17004-29262

On the market 324 days with no price reductions and situated on barely std-sized lot <3 ft from an apt bldg:

http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/350-S-Avenue-56_Los-Angeles_CA_90042_M12752-62123

On the market 46 days with one price reduction and situated on a >1/3 AC lot:

http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/349-S-Avenue-52_Los-Angeles_CA_90042_M19274-38862

It’s going to be interesting so see what these listings eventually sell for OR if they get taken off the market. I’m going to leave them in my “saved list” and check on them at the end of every month.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=bearishgurl] I have no doubt that three (or more) of these listings were originally purchased for <$20K by the current seller or their parent or grandparent. It is obvious to me that these sellers are just "testing the market" and will rent the property out if they can't get their price (or leave it on the market forever cuz it doesn't cost them anything to do so). [/quote] Dear BG, if you didn't use the Realtor sponsored site, and used a better competing site, you would know the previous purchase price without having to make assumptions. https://www.redfin.com/CA/Los-Angeles/6850-N-Figueroa-St-90042/home/7085401

[bearishgurl]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=bearishgurl] I have no doubt that three (or more) of these listings were originally purchased for <$20K by the current seller or their parent or grandparent. It is obvious to me that these sellers are just "testing the market" and will rent the property out if they can't get their price (or leave it on the market forever cuz it doesn't cost them anything to do so). [/quote] Dear BG, if you didn't use the Realtor sponsored site, and used a better competing site, you would know the previous purchase price without having to make assumptions. https://www.redfin.com/CA/Los-Angeles/6850-N-Figueroa-St-90042/home/7085401%5B/quote%5D

Okay, so, acc to Redfin, my first listing last closed escrow on 4/18/07 for 587,636 and it is now listed for $598K after one price reduction and listed as "active" for 387 days (NOT “contingent”).

Unless this listing’s owner has been ripped a new azzhole by their lender and is now paying on a 40-year mod, they have been chipping away at their mortgage since 2007. (Based upon the odd numbers in the purchase price, it is likely they didn’t pay cash for the property.) The refi/cash out party was over at the end of 2007, correct? Why hasn’t this seller been able to sell clean out of this property if they have owned it for ~7 years? Of course, I haven’t checked the LA County Recorder record, which IIRC, might still be closed to the public who isn’t paying for a subscription service.

I guess I should just join an aggregator like Redfin since the realtor site lost most of its search parameters after the new year (2016) due to its site being revamped.

[bearishgurl]

I still think all the listings I linked here have ridiculous asking prices except for the last one (w/ a very large, flat usable lot).

[FlyerInHi]

If there are plenty of existing houses and no new building is needed, then why the “ridiculous” prices?

BG, if you don’t like the establishment, don’t support legacy Realtors, use competing services.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=FlyerInHi]If there are plenty of existing houses and no new building is needed, then why the “ridiculous” prices? . . . [/quote]LA County isn’t going to allow building on its many open-space designated natural preserves, wetlands or polluted (by drilling, etc) parcels. In addition, the remaining LA County farmers will likely never sell their land and in most cases are still using it for agricultural purposes. However, their “heirs” might one day sell it but Big Development will still have an uphill climb with LA County in attempting to subdivide it, IMO.

LA County did not pander to Big D as SD County and its cites did. That could be part of the reason for its high RE prices but in the case of my posted listings, I think the high asking prices have to do with that area’s close-in proximity to dtn LA and the fact that the west side (even condos) are out-of-reach for the vast majority of homebuyers and have been for the last 15+ years.

I still think those asking prices are 10-20% too high for what the first five of my linked listings actually are. I’m kind of surprised the sellers are holding out in there cuz I haven’t see too much “gentrification” around there yet. Maybe it’s coming and I’m unaware of this.

[FlyerInHi]

BG, so I take it that you concede that more home building is better for affordability. Supply and demand. In real estate, it’s often demand followed by supply.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=FlyerInHi]BG, so I take it that you concede that more home building is better for affordability. Supply and demand. In real estate, it’s often demand followed by supply.[/quote]Sure, but in CA coastal counties, it’s not going to happen. Even counties such as SD, who formerly regularly cratered to the whims of Big Development now no longer have the land available to keep rolling in the sheets with them.

Inland-but-urban counties such as San Bernardino, and, to a lesser extent, San Joaquin, may continue to pander to Big Development’s whim at their peril. Their county seats have both been forced in recent years to file for Chapter 9 bankruptcy protection which was directly caused by their allowing overbuilding and subsequently not being able to afford municipal services for the extra tens of thousands (100,000+?) in population their ill-thought-out decisions engendered. This problem was a direct result of their past poor decisions to grant too many subdivision permits for the size government they could afford to maintain.

And a LOT of of the rural and semi-rural counties in CA have had building moratoriams in place for decades, strict zoning against big box stores and the like as well as signage type and height restrictions …. including close-in Marin County. This will never change, nor should it.

If home buyers today think they need a 3000+ sf mcmansion on a 1/2+ AC lot, they can head on over to the Texas panhandle and southward from there (Lubbock to Abilene area). As far as the eye can see, there is “developable” scrub which is too dry for most agriculture uses. These new home buyers can pay Texas-size property taxes and have a nice life under a Big Sky parking all their toys and spreading out to their heart’s content. CA isn’t the place for these people anymore. The days of subdivision and CFD-forming are numbered in CA, at least on land which is worth anything at all (windblown Adelanto and Victor Valley excepted … for now, lol).

[The-Shoveler]

The really odd part of SoCal coastal is Ventura county,

A house with the same view same distance from the water is like $2 million in L.A. county, same house same type of location is like $500K 10-15 minutes away in Ventura county.

And they have LOTs of undeveloped land right on the coast.

Very Odd.

[bearishgurl]

Mira Mesa is a “working class” community of SD and has always been so. The only reason for its higher prices today is because of nearby large employers in the tech and biotech industry and the fact that the freeways around there are very congested during the long rush hours (2-3 hrs in the morning and 3+ hours in the afternoon/evening). The big older subdivisions and their micro areas in Mira Mesa are comparable with older areas of Lemon Grove, National City, Chula Vista and Linda Vista except they are slightly newer (mostly ’70’s and ’80’s) and have way more cars parked on their residential streets than do all the communities above except for Linda Vista. The quality of life isn’t “better” for someone living in MM than almost any other “working class” area of SD County but the daily commute is way less for MM-resident workers in the “north city job centers” than for the residents of other, more charming, “heavily treed” working class communities with bigger lots.

I have nothing against longtime residents of MM and realize that people like to live where they already have family in place but it is not for everyone cuz not everyone wants to live tightly packed like MM has become with all its *new* giant apt complexes. Again, MM is nothing special but it just so happened to be already situated in the “right place” when high tech and biotech employers decided to set up shop in SD. Good for them.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=The-Shoveler]The really odd part of SoCal coastal is Ventura county,

A house with the same view same distance from the water is like $2 million in L.A. county, same house same type of location is like $500K 10-15 minutes away in Ventura county.

And they have LOTs of undeveloped land right on the coast.

Very Odd.[/quote]Are you SURE that undeveloped land along the coast doesn’t belong to the Dept of Defense, shoveler?

I don’t recall coastal (Hwy 101) Ventura County communities which were <5 miles from the coast being 15 minutes away from LA. I would imagine it is regularly more than one hour away from about Burbank. Unless you mean 15 minutes from the LA County line and that is a BIG maybe.

[FlyerInHi]

BG, I know that you don’t drive much… but you should. Take a drive up to Playa Vista in LA.

We could easily replace the old stuff lining Santa Monica Blvd or Hollywood Blvd with new stuff. That’s happening but slowly. Santa Monica has dense mid-rise developments.

Less nimbyism would be good.

Since this thread is about Mira Mesa, I can see a redo of Mira Mesa mall with a trolley center linking the area to UTC and condos in high rise buildings. That would make Mira Mesa a good extension to La Jolla/UTC and provide housing for UCSD and the various institutions and business surrounding.

I actually like UTC/La Jolla near UTC (poor La Jolla) and the density there. I’m looking forward to when they finish the new mall, new condo and trolley. Mira Mesa can be like that too. Santa Monica is fairly dense… It’s it located on the beach.. but why not build more neighborhoods like that, but not necessarily by the beach? Higher buildings with more shops would bring more livability and excitement for younger and old residents.

I would love to have a Trader Joes/Bodega, coffee shop, restaurants, etc.. in the same complex where I live (by that I mean down the elevator). If and when there are condos above UTC, I’ll be one of the first ones to put a deposit.

[The-Shoveler]

A lot of it is Farm land some of it is military but they have 3000 sqf homes going between 500 and 600K walking distance from the beach.

They are there and available.

Yea county line, but on the L.A. county line there are homes going for between 2-12 million with similar distance from the beach,

That’s the odd part. and you could get to L.A. in about a hour from either location.

[an]

[quote=FlyerInHi]BG, I know that you don’t drive much… but you should. Take a drive up to Playa Vista in LA.

We could easily replace the old stuff lining Santa Monica Blvd or Hollywood Blvd with new stuff. That’s happening but slowly. Santa Monica has dense mid-rise developments.

Less nimbyism would be good.

Since this thread is about Mira Mesa, I can see a redo of Mira Mesa mall with a trolley center linking the area to UTC and condos in high rise buildings. That would make Mira Mesa a good extension to La Jolla/UTC and provide housing for UCSD and the various institutions and business surrounding.

I actually like UTC/La Jolla near UTC (poor La Jolla) and the density there. I’m looking forward to when they finish the new mall, new condo and trolley. Mira Mesa can be like that too. Santa Monica is fairly dense… It’s it located on the beach.. but why not build more neighborhoods like that, but not necessarily by the beach? Higher buildings with more shops would bring more livability and excitement for younger and old residents.

I would love to have a Trader Joes/Bodega, coffee shop, restaurants, etc.. in the same complex where I live (by that I mean down the elevator). If and when there are condos above UTC, I’ll be one of the first ones to put a deposit.[/quote]What you’re wishing for is in the works. Once the blue line extension is completed to UTC, it’ll be extended to Mira Mesa. This will be a mix-used mid to high density development. Here’s some info for you: http://miramesatowncouncil.org/doc/Plangrp/Stone%20Creek/StoneCreekUpdate2016Jan.pdf

[bearishgurl]

[quote=FlyerInHi]BG, I know that you don’t drive much… but you should. Take a drive up to Playa Vista in LA.

We could easily replace the old stuff lining Santa Monica Blvd or Hollywood Blvd with new stuff. That’s happening but slowly. Santa Monica has dense mid-rise developments.

Less nimbyism would be good.

Since this thread is about Mira Mesa, I can see a redo of Mira Mesa mall with a trolley center linking the area to UTC and condos in high rise buildings. That would make Mira Mesa a good extension to La Jolla/UTC and provide housing for UCSD and the various institutions and business surrounding.

I actually like UTC/La Jolla near UTC (poor La Jolla) and the density there. I’m looking forward to when they finish the new mall, new condo and trolley. Mira Mesa can be like that too. Santa Monica is fairly dense… It’s it located on the beach.. but why not build more neighborhoods like that, but not necessarily by the beach? Higher buildings with more shops would bring more livability and excitement for younger and old residents.[/quote]FIH, I actually do go to LA about once every two months but am usually on the east side. For every Santa Monica aging apt bldg which is sold and torn down to build “modern high-rise apts,” it loses a few dozen formerly “rent-controlled” units, which displaces a lot of longtime residents and increases the COL around there exponentially.

I do think the older large condo complexes (built 1976-1982, around the time UTC went in) in LJ south of LJVD are among the very best condo complexes in the entire city. Even though most of them have 3 levels (incl stairs down to the garages which I hate) they have mostly large rooms, largish private courtyards and oversized two-car garages. They also have ample room in the garage easements to make a comfortable quarter turn with a full-size vehicle into the garages. They are the closest condos to SFR living that I’ve ever seen in SD and are very nice for entertaining …. especially the 1700-1800 sf floor plans. UTC and southward is a very nice area to live in and has had every service imaginable available nearby for its residents as soon as it started to fill up with condos.

The condo complexes around there built after that era typically had smaller units and were more tightly packed onto the land after those first few “golden years” of condo construction, imho.

If I was willing to pay monthly HOA dues (I’m not), I wouldn’t mind “retiring” around there in an older, larger condo as it is among the most convenient areas of all in SD.

[Author]

Posts