North East Rancho Penasquitos

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN]How many people living in Chula Vista are like this couple? Can’t possibly be that many, or else Chula wouldn’t have been hit by this RE nearly as hard, like PQ.[/quote]

Yes, AN, there are MANY in 91910 and, to a lesser extent 91911.

The areas hard-hit by foreclosures were 91913 and 91915, and, to a lesser extent, 91914 (no MR).

The combination of the exorbitant MR, and one or more HOA’s, along with newer toxic loans drove many recent homeowners to the brink.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=bearishgurl] . . . The areas hard-hit by foreclosures were 91913 and 91915, and, to a lesser extent, 91914 (no MR). . . [/quote]

I stand corrected. 91914 encompasses MR areas (“Eastlake Greens” to be termed 2022 and “San Miguel Ranch” to be termed approx. 2035)

91914 Rolling Hills Ranch (“RHR”) and “Salt Creek” do NOT have MR.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=bearishgurl] . . . The areas hard-hit by foreclosures were 91913 and 91915, and, to a lesser extent, 91914 (no MR). . . [/quote]

I stand corrected. 91914 encompasses MR areas (“Eastlake Greens” to be termed 2022 and “San Miguel Ranch” to be termed approx. 2035)

91914 Rolling Hills Ranch (“RHR”) and “Salt Creek” do NOT have MR.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=bearishgurl] . . . The areas hard-hit by foreclosures were 91913 and 91915, and, to a lesser extent, 91914 (no MR). . . [/quote]

I stand corrected. 91914 encompasses MR areas (“Eastlake Greens” to be termed 2022 and “San Miguel Ranch” to be termed approx. 2035)

91914 Rolling Hills Ranch (“RHR”) and “Salt Creek” do NOT have MR.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=bearishgurl] . . . The areas hard-hit by foreclosures were 91913 and 91915, and, to a lesser extent, 91914 (no MR). . . [/quote]

I stand corrected. 91914 encompasses MR areas (“Eastlake Greens” to be termed 2022 and “San Miguel Ranch” to be termed approx. 2035)

91914 Rolling Hills Ranch (“RHR”) and “Salt Creek” do NOT have MR.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=bearishgurl] . . . The areas hard-hit by foreclosures were 91913 and 91915, and, to a lesser extent, 91914 (no MR). . . [/quote]

I stand corrected. 91914 encompasses MR areas (“Eastlake Greens” to be termed 2022 and “San Miguel Ranch” to be termed approx. 2035)

91914 Rolling Hills Ranch (“RHR”) and “Salt Creek” do NOT have MR.

[an]

[quote=bearishgurl]
“Bedroom” has to do with accessability to urban core and NOT population.[/quote]
Fair enough. By that definition, Eastlake and other eastern/newer area of Chula Vista are also bedroom communities. Since they’re about the same distance to Downtown as PQ.

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=AN]How many people living in Chula Vista are like this couple? Can’t possibly be that many, or else Chula wouldn’t have been hit by this RE nearly as hard, like PQ.[/quote]

Yes, AN, there are MANY in 91910 and, to a lesser extent 91911.[/quote]
Do you have data to back up your 65% or “many” assertion? I checked 91910 listings right now and they seem to be around 2000-2002 prices. Most of PQ are still at 2003-2004 price. That to me shows that there can’t be that MANY who have the kind of holding power you’re suggesting. I know a few who bought in MM in 92126 when it was new in the 80s and now have those houses almost paid for. Some have other investment properties as well. All of them are old and are set to retire. However, I can’t make a blanket statement that all of 92126 are like these people. However, I can point to the decline in the past 5 years to show that even 92126 held up better than 91910. Which means that 1)demand for houses in 92126 is higher 2)there are more people in 92126 who didn’t sell at the peak (we know those who bought at/near the peak are the one who are most vulnerable). BTW, how do you know 92129 doesn’t have people who have the nest eggs you’re talking about?

Also, what’s your take on my data of the different zip codes and their bread & butter segment of RE?

[an]

[quote=bearishgurl]
“Bedroom” has to do with accessability to urban core and NOT population.[/quote]
Fair enough. By that definition, Eastlake and other eastern/newer area of Chula Vista are also bedroom communities. Since they’re about the same distance to Downtown as PQ.

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=AN]How many people living in Chula Vista are like this couple? Can’t possibly be that many, or else Chula wouldn’t have been hit by this RE nearly as hard, like PQ.[/quote]

Yes, AN, there are MANY in 91910 and, to a lesser extent 91911.[/quote]
Do you have data to back up your 65% or “many” assertion? I checked 91910 listings right now and they seem to be around 2000-2002 prices. Most of PQ are still at 2003-2004 price. That to me shows that there can’t be that MANY who have the kind of holding power you’re suggesting. I know a few who bought in MM in 92126 when it was new in the 80s and now have those houses almost paid for. Some have other investment properties as well. All of them are old and are set to retire. However, I can’t make a blanket statement that all of 92126 are like these people. However, I can point to the decline in the past 5 years to show that even 92126 held up better than 91910. Which means that 1)demand for houses in 92126 is higher 2)there are more people in 92126 who didn’t sell at the peak (we know those who bought at/near the peak are the one who are most vulnerable). BTW, how do you know 92129 doesn’t have people who have the nest eggs you’re talking about?

Also, what’s your take on my data of the different zip codes and their bread & butter segment of RE?

[an]

[quote=bearishgurl]
“Bedroom” has to do with accessability to urban core and NOT population.[/quote]
Fair enough. By that definition, Eastlake and other eastern/newer area of Chula Vista are also bedroom communities. Since they’re about the same distance to Downtown as PQ.

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=AN]How many people living in Chula Vista are like this couple? Can’t possibly be that many, or else Chula wouldn’t have been hit by this RE nearly as hard, like PQ.[/quote]

Yes, AN, there are MANY in 91910 and, to a lesser extent 91911.[/quote]
Do you have data to back up your 65% or “many” assertion? I checked 91910 listings right now and they seem to be around 2000-2002 prices. Most of PQ are still at 2003-2004 price. That to me shows that there can’t be that MANY who have the kind of holding power you’re suggesting. I know a few who bought in MM in 92126 when it was new in the 80s and now have those houses almost paid for. Some have other investment properties as well. All of them are old and are set to retire. However, I can’t make a blanket statement that all of 92126 are like these people. However, I can point to the decline in the past 5 years to show that even 92126 held up better than 91910. Which means that 1)demand for houses in 92126 is higher 2)there are more people in 92126 who didn’t sell at the peak (we know those who bought at/near the peak are the one who are most vulnerable). BTW, how do you know 92129 doesn’t have people who have the nest eggs you’re talking about?

Also, what’s your take on my data of the different zip codes and their bread & butter segment of RE?

[an]

[quote=bearishgurl]
“Bedroom” has to do with accessability to urban core and NOT population.[/quote]
Fair enough. By that definition, Eastlake and other eastern/newer area of Chula Vista are also bedroom communities. Since they’re about the same distance to Downtown as PQ.

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=AN]How many people living in Chula Vista are like this couple? Can’t possibly be that many, or else Chula wouldn’t have been hit by this RE nearly as hard, like PQ.[/quote]

Yes, AN, there are MANY in 91910 and, to a lesser extent 91911.[/quote]
Do you have data to back up your 65% or “many” assertion? I checked 91910 listings right now and they seem to be around 2000-2002 prices. Most of PQ are still at 2003-2004 price. That to me shows that there can’t be that MANY who have the kind of holding power you’re suggesting. I know a few who bought in MM in 92126 when it was new in the 80s and now have those houses almost paid for. Some have other investment properties as well. All of them are old and are set to retire. However, I can’t make a blanket statement that all of 92126 are like these people. However, I can point to the decline in the past 5 years to show that even 92126 held up better than 91910. Which means that 1)demand for houses in 92126 is higher 2)there are more people in 92126 who didn’t sell at the peak (we know those who bought at/near the peak are the one who are most vulnerable). BTW, how do you know 92129 doesn’t have people who have the nest eggs you’re talking about?

Also, what’s your take on my data of the different zip codes and their bread & butter segment of RE?

[an]

[quote=bearishgurl]
“Bedroom” has to do with accessability to urban core and NOT population.[/quote]
Fair enough. By that definition, Eastlake and other eastern/newer area of Chula Vista are also bedroom communities. Since they’re about the same distance to Downtown as PQ.

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=AN]How many people living in Chula Vista are like this couple? Can’t possibly be that many, or else Chula wouldn’t have been hit by this RE nearly as hard, like PQ.[/quote]

Yes, AN, there are MANY in 91910 and, to a lesser extent 91911.[/quote]
Do you have data to back up your 65% or “many” assertion? I checked 91910 listings right now and they seem to be around 2000-2002 prices. Most of PQ are still at 2003-2004 price. That to me shows that there can’t be that MANY who have the kind of holding power you’re suggesting. I know a few who bought in MM in 92126 when it was new in the 80s and now have those houses almost paid for. Some have other investment properties as well. All of them are old and are set to retire. However, I can’t make a blanket statement that all of 92126 are like these people. However, I can point to the decline in the past 5 years to show that even 92126 held up better than 91910. Which means that 1)demand for houses in 92126 is higher 2)there are more people in 92126 who didn’t sell at the peak (we know those who bought at/near the peak are the one who are most vulnerable). BTW, how do you know 92129 doesn’t have people who have the nest eggs you’re talking about?

Also, what’s your take on my data of the different zip codes and their bread & butter segment of RE?

[UCGal]

[quote=bearishgurl]
Conversely, there is the quintessential CV couple in their mid-eighties who drive a 15-yr-old Lexus. (Came over to Ellis Island as children [TRUE].) Have pd. for home in MC/lower-MC area in perfect cond. inside and out as is their car. Too old to travel but active and content. Still LOADED with $$ so as not to be a burden on their children. THERE ARE LOTS OF THESE OWNERS STILL ALIVE IN SD, sdr. “Wealth” has many different faces.[/quote]

I would say there are a lot of “quintessential CV couples” in other parts of the county. University City (the south part) is full of them. As is Clairemont. In fact any neighborhood that was developed in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s probably are full of older couples with paid off houses, paid off cars, and decent wealth in the bank.

My dad was one of them till he downsized and sold to us (and moved in with his wife who’s also got a paid off house.).

My next door neighbors ON BOTH SIDES are in this camp… one bought new in 64, the other didn’t buy till the mid 70’s… both have 100% equity, no loans.

I don’t think your described scenario is exclusive to Chula Vista – it’s common in many older neighborhoods in the county.

[UCGal]

[quote=bearishgurl]
Conversely, there is the quintessential CV couple in their mid-eighties who drive a 15-yr-old Lexus. (Came over to Ellis Island as children [TRUE].) Have pd. for home in MC/lower-MC area in perfect cond. inside and out as is their car. Too old to travel but active and content. Still LOADED with $$ so as not to be a burden on their children. THERE ARE LOTS OF THESE OWNERS STILL ALIVE IN SD, sdr. “Wealth” has many different faces.[/quote]

I would say there are a lot of “quintessential CV couples” in other parts of the county. University City (the south part) is full of them. As is Clairemont. In fact any neighborhood that was developed in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s probably are full of older couples with paid off houses, paid off cars, and decent wealth in the bank.

My dad was one of them till he downsized and sold to us (and moved in with his wife who’s also got a paid off house.).

My next door neighbors ON BOTH SIDES are in this camp… one bought new in 64, the other didn’t buy till the mid 70’s… both have 100% equity, no loans.

I don’t think your described scenario is exclusive to Chula Vista – it’s common in many older neighborhoods in the county.

[UCGal]

[quote=bearishgurl]
Conversely, there is the quintessential CV couple in their mid-eighties who drive a 15-yr-old Lexus. (Came over to Ellis Island as children [TRUE].) Have pd. for home in MC/lower-MC area in perfect cond. inside and out as is their car. Too old to travel but active and content. Still LOADED with $$ so as not to be a burden on their children. THERE ARE LOTS OF THESE OWNERS STILL ALIVE IN SD, sdr. “Wealth” has many different faces.[/quote]

I would say there are a lot of “quintessential CV couples” in other parts of the county. University City (the south part) is full of them. As is Clairemont. In fact any neighborhood that was developed in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s probably are full of older couples with paid off houses, paid off cars, and decent wealth in the bank.

My dad was one of them till he downsized and sold to us (and moved in with his wife who’s also got a paid off house.).

My next door neighbors ON BOTH SIDES are in this camp… one bought new in 64, the other didn’t buy till the mid 70’s… both have 100% equity, no loans.

I don’t think your described scenario is exclusive to Chula Vista – it’s common in many older neighborhoods in the county.

[UCGal]

[quote=bearishgurl]
Conversely, there is the quintessential CV couple in their mid-eighties who drive a 15-yr-old Lexus. (Came over to Ellis Island as children [TRUE].) Have pd. for home in MC/lower-MC area in perfect cond. inside and out as is their car. Too old to travel but active and content. Still LOADED with $$ so as not to be a burden on their children. THERE ARE LOTS OF THESE OWNERS STILL ALIVE IN SD, sdr. “Wealth” has many different faces.[/quote]

I would say there are a lot of “quintessential CV couples” in other parts of the county. University City (the south part) is full of them. As is Clairemont. In fact any neighborhood that was developed in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s probably are full of older couples with paid off houses, paid off cars, and decent wealth in the bank.

My dad was one of them till he downsized and sold to us (and moved in with his wife who’s also got a paid off house.).

My next door neighbors ON BOTH SIDES are in this camp… one bought new in 64, the other didn’t buy till the mid 70’s… both have 100% equity, no loans.

I don’t think your described scenario is exclusive to Chula Vista – it’s common in many older neighborhoods in the county.

[Author]

Posts