Is my plan for buying a home in two years viable?

[bearishgurl]

I forgot to add that a condo owner has little control as to how much his/her unit is actually “worth” on the open market. That figure is tied up with the 3 “caveats” as mentioned above.

[spdrun]

Nit to pick: a co-op is not a condo, even in NY. In a condo, you own the tax lot on which the condo sits. In a co-op, you own a share in the corporation that owns the building.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=spdrun]Nit to pick: a co-op is not a condo, even in NY. In a condo, you own the tax lot on which the condo sits. In a co-op, you own a share in the corporation that owns the building.[/quote] Thank you spdrun. I understand that the ownership of a “coop” in Manhattan is based upon different criteria than “ownership” of condos in the western US.

[Jazzman]

[quote=bearishgurl]I spend 4 hrs a month just cleaning up after trees … planted on the City’s easements … no less. Sometimes I have to borrow an additional 90 gal yard waste can for the job. Homeownership can be ugly … a LOT of work. Not for the faint-hearted …

However, I don’t believe in HOAs. I don’t want to pay dues for the privilege of being told what I can and can’t do with my property.

You can’t have it both ways….

The good thing is, the City maintains their own trees (just not their fallout). Trying to get them out here in a timely manner is another matter, altogether, however …[/quote]
I used to think HOAs were the biggest rip-off out there. They do, however, have their redeeming features: collective responsibility for exterior maintenance, low cost insurance, security, lock up and leave, aesthetics. In the latter case, post 2000 produced some architecturally pleasing structures, and it is good that you can’t do what you want with your home. Most are clueless when it comes to design, which is why swathes of even upmarket neighborhoods resemble a bric-a-brac store. In fact, condos are my number one choice for investment at the moment. I believe more and more people will live in them, and they will be centered around community living.

[Jazzman]

[quote=bearishgurl]I agree with svelte, here, as it applies to CA. In buying an SFR in CA, you actually own the land your dwelling sits on. Like it or not (and regardless of what your local assessor says), THE VALUE OF THE LAND is what boosts property value in CA coastal counties. The closer to the coast your property sits, the higher your land value is in relation to your overall property value (market-wise) REGARDLESS of what the assessor says on your tax bill. This is ESPECIALLY TRUE for those properties situated within TWO MILES of the coast!
[/quote]
That seems a rather archaic way of looking at things, and a bit reminiscent of old conveyancing when agricultural values held sway. It isn’t the actual intrinsic value of land that boosts or undermines prices, but the lack (supply) thereof. It is not just the ground surface, but the space above it when occupied by a structure, which itself has intrinsic—and currently market inflated value—that determines value. A preference for living by the coast adds a premium due to cooler temperatures and better air quality. The land, in the mean time, remains the same; pretty useless for growing anything. But i guess you were implying all that.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=spdrun]Nit to pick: a co-op is not a condo, even in NY. In a condo, you own the tax lot on which the condo sits. In a co-op, you own a share in the corporation that owns the building.[/quote]

They should do co-ops in CA. That would prevent reassessment for property tax purposes because you’re just transferring some shares of stock. The corporation owns the property.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=spdrun]It’s not laziness. It’s prioritization. I’d rather be seeing the world than being a slave to a fucking box of ticky-tacky, because society expects me to.[/quote]

The downside to a condo is noise. Low-rise condos are stick built. You need steel and concrete for good sound insulation.

It’s annoying to hear neighbors drag chairs, etc…

[KristopherSD]

[quote=FormerSanDiegan]You are missing a key piece of information:

What are you current paying in rent.[/quote]

I currently pay less than $850 once split with my girlfriend to live in a small one bedroom cottage two blocks from the beach and restaurants in a nice area. Unfortunately we don’t have any laundry on site and no garage, but we’re making it work and can continue to do so for the next few years. Every rent vs. buy calculator tells me to keep renting forever at this rate.

I’ve also considered condos as some have mentioned, but don’t really like the reliance on others if the HOA goes to hell or issues arise. However i’ll keep an open mind as there are some nice condos for reasonable prices throughout San Diego in my price range.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Jazzman][quote=bearishgurl]I agree with svelte, here, as it applies to CA. In buying an SFR in CA, you actually own the land your dwelling sits on. Like it or not (and regardless of what your local assessor says), THE VALUE OF THE LAND is what boosts property value in CA coastal counties. The closer to the coast your property sits, the higher your land value is in relation to your overall property value (market-wise) REGARDLESS of what the assessor says on your tax bill. This is ESPECIALLY TRUE for those properties situated within TWO MILES of the coast![/quote]
That seems a rather archaic way of looking at things, and a bit reminiscent of old conveyancing when agricultural values held sway. It isn’t the actual intrinsic value of land that boosts or undermines prices, but the lack (supply) thereof. It is not just the ground surface, but the space above it when occupied by a structure, which itself has intrinsic—and currently market inflated value—that determines value. A preference for living by the coast adds a premium due to cooler temperatures and better air quality. The land, in the mean time, remains the same; pretty useless for growing anything. But i guess you were implying all that.[/quote]

Well, Jazzman, having “shopped” for real estate in several markets along the CA coast, you must be aware that the vast majority of condos cost half or less than a comparably-sized SFR in the same micro-area …. that is, assuming the SFR micro-area is even zoned for condos at all. The very best SFR enclaves along the CA coast either do not have any zoning in place for condos or relegate condos to a lesser, often more densely-zoned area of that zip code or smaller micro-market. The City of Coronado in SD County is a good example of this. An area must also be zoned for townhomes (avg 2500 sf lot) or PUDs (3000-3500 sf lot) or the developer must successfully obtain a variance for that type of (often “zero-lot-line”) housing at the time of application for their subdivision map. Both of those lot sizes are considered “substandard” in SD County, offering little more than a fenced-in front and/or back patio area to the owner of each individual unit, thus their lower (often much lower) price for the same living space as their nearby SFRs. (5K sf is the “standard-size” lot in the City of SD.) The “standard-size” lot is larger than SD’s in many other CA cities.

There are good reasons why CA coastal land is expensive and the reasons you mention above are minor in comparison to land use, views, zoning (including allowed density or lack thereof) and easements affecting the property. Yes, those pesky “archaic” RE doctrines of the “highest and best use,” the “right of use and enjoyment” and the “limitations on right of use” (or lack thereof) are all still alive and well in CA and always will be! I’ve seen plenty of both heavy and cosmetic “fixers” over the years situated in SD within two miles of the coast (some with extraordinary views from the dwelling and/or lot) which ended up selling for land value only. In nearly all cases, the new owners promptly razed the house down to the studs after paying $800K to $1.4M for the “land.” In almost all cases, the lot involved was 7400 sf to 14K sf. These buying opportunities are rapidly disappearing. There aren’t very many lots that large in tracts constructed since 2000 and those tracts with larger lots certainly aren’t located anywhere near the coast.

The closer to the coast a residential lot is situated and the bigger that lot is, the less the actual “value” of the dwelling matters in determining the property’s true market value, because coastal property in CA is a finite resource.

I understand that you had a problem with this concept when hunting for a retirement home up and down the CA coast in some of the Golden State’s most coveted and prestigious locales during the “recession” years (2010-2011?). IIRC, you became disenchanted with the dwellings themselves on properties which were in your price range and thus didn’t end up buying anything. The reality is that it doesn’t matter much what sits on coastal property. Whatever it is won’t affect its market value much unless it has a completely remodeled, luxurious new or newer home sitting on it. It doesn’t matter what the county assessor lists as its “land value” on its tax bill. And it doesn’t matter what the prevailing mortgage interest rates are in coastal markets.

Market value of CA coastal properties is based upon the value of the lot and its zoning, primarily. This is especially true of coastal view properties.

No one can fix this and so we must all accept it, Jazzman. If one wants to own a CA coastal property (esp a view property) in this day and age, they better be willing to pay 50% or more of the agreed-upon purchase price in cash (preferably all in cash) in order to have a chance at getting their offer accepted and not quibble too much during escrow about the condition of the dwelling which sits on it.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=KristopherSD][quote=FormerSanDiegan]You are missing a key piece of information:

What are you current paying in rent.[/quote]

I currently pay less than $850 once split with my girlfriend to live in a small one bedroom cottage two blocks from the beach and restaurants in a nice area. Unfortunately we don’t have any laundry on site and no garage, but we’re making it work and can continue to do so for the next few years. Every rent vs. buy calculator tells me to keep renting forever at this rate.

I’ve also considered condos as some have mentioned, but don’t really like the reliance on others if the HOA goes to hell or issues arise. However i’ll keep an open mind as there are some nice condos for reasonable prices throughout San Diego in my price range.[/quote]

Kris, $1700? is very reasonable rent for a cottage two blocks from the beach with restaurants/retail, etc within walking distance. You likely aren’t going to get even five miles from the beach if you end up buying. If you have reliable street parking available that you don’t have to constantly fight over, I would stay put if I were you. Especially, if you like living near the beach.

[joec]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=KristopherSD][quote=FormerSanDiegan]You are missing a key piece of information:

What are you current paying in rent.[/quote]

I currently pay less than $850 once split with my girlfriend to live in a small one bedroom cottage two blocks from the beach and restaurants in a nice area. Unfortunately we don’t have any laundry on site and no garage, but we’re making it work and can continue to do so for the next few years. Every rent vs. buy calculator tells me to keep renting forever at this rate.

I’ve also considered condos as some have mentioned, but don’t really like the reliance on others if the HOA goes to hell or issues arise. However i’ll keep an open mind as there are some nice condos for reasonable prices throughout San Diego in my price range.[/quote]

Kris, $1700? is very reasonable rent for a cottage two blocks from the beach with restaurants/retail, etc within walking distance. You likely aren’t going to get even five miles from the beach if you end up buying. If you have reliable street parking available that you don’t have to constantly fight over, I would stay put if I were you. Especially, if you like living near the beach.[/quote]

Yeah, since this is your “g/f” and not even your wife and you don’t even feel the money paid is combined, I’d probably not even bother buying much of anything. Just seems like a problem and more to think about unless you plan to put a ring on it…As others have mentioned, most wives would never want to stay in your bachelor pad or if someone else picked the place, they definitely won’t want to stay there (too many memories).

I don’t see many benefits for young, unmarried people to buy if they are renting a cheap price place.

Buying makes more sense to me to diversify (if you are wealthy with tons of other assets like stocks) and you hate renting.

As others have said, living blocks to the beach will be impossible to buy at the same price point so it’s not really a fair comparison. Of course, you have no garage or laundry which feels like living in the ghetto…Just depends where you are in your life/relationship and what you want. No way you can do a “fair” comparison I feel and I’d assume your place is pretty old, etc…

Plenty of my neighbors rent for 3800/month in an econobox with kids and wife and seem quite happy to pay that…

For those people, it probably makes more sense.

[spdrun]

Since when is no garage “living in the ghetto?”

[bearishgurl]

[quote=spdrun]Since when is no garage “living in the ghetto?”[/quote]
Thank you. More than half the houses within two blocks of OB in SD either have useless 1 car garages which can only fit a Mini Cooper or Miata or no garage at all.

Has any Pigg priced one of them lately?

[bearishgurl]

If you don’t mind my asking, joec, why don’t you think Kris’ “gf”/roommate shouldn’t pay half the rent?

And why would someone necessarily “combine” money with a partner just because they decide to get married, regardless of gender?

And why do you think a “gf” wouldn’t mind living in a small beach cottage but a “wife” would?

I can tell you right now that I’d be furious if my “spouse” told me that he could only be happy renting a “$3800 mo econobox” (assuming I was married and we were tenants). That’s a HUGE waste of money out of any household that I’m part of.

Are you implying here that all “wives” are extremely demanding and must be “taken care of” (financially) and must have everything material that they want without being expected to contribute financially to the household?

Yeah, parking might be an issue for Kris if they do not have off-street parking available to them. But a washer and dryer a “necessity” for a single or couple? Uhhh …. no. Having a washer/dryer is nice for a 1-2 person household but I do very little laundry for myself…. possibly 1-2 loads month clothing and 1 load linens? I also do 1-2 loads month of pet blankets but a lot of people don’t have pets (most tenants don’t).

Living alone, I could care less if I had to go the laundry. It’s not “ghetto” not to have your own laundry machines. Most laundries are pretty nice and Kris’ “beach community” no doubt has one nearby.

I apologize if I’m seeming to put you on the spot here, Joe, but the way I read your latest remarks, they seem a bit sexist and categorize all “wives” into some kind of a demanding monster.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=joec]Yeah, since this is your “g/f” and not even your wife and you don’t even feel the money paid is combined, I’d probably not even bother buying much of anything. Just seems like a problem and more to think about unless you plan to put a ring on it…As others have mentioned, most wives would never want to stay in your bachelor pad or if someone else picked the place, they definitely won’t want to stay there (too many memories).

I don’t see many benefits for young, unmarried people to buy if they are renting a cheap price place.

Buying makes more sense to me to diversify (if you are wealthy with tons of other assets like stocks) and you hate renting.

As others have said, living blocks to the beach will be impossible to buy at the same price point so it’s not really a fair comparison. Of course, you have no garage or laundry which feels like living in the ghetto…Just depends where you are in your life/relationship and what you want. No way you can do a “fair” comparison I feel and I’d assume your place is pretty old, etc…

Plenty of my neighbors rent for 3800/month in an econobox with kids and wife and seem quite happy to pay that…

For those people, it probably makes more sense.[/quote]

Joe, there are just as many or almost as many “single homeowners” in CA as there are owners who took title in joint tenancy (usually married co-owners) or tenants in common (not generally married co-owners). Whether this occurred due to death of a joint tenant, post-death title transfer, divorce or the single person simply purchased their own residence by themselves (this happens quite often, btw), the truth is that single people want (and deserve) to be homeowners just as much as married people do.

I could care less if the new partner I moved in with had another spouse/gf/sick mom/kids or second cousin at one time living with them in their house … or even if one of their parents died there.

I don’t look at RE that way.

[Author]

Posts