Middle Class Migration Out Of California

[spdrun]

Not having to own a car and drive it day-to-day. Interesting places with interesting people within walking distance, cafes, etc.

Serendipity. Randomness and some level of chaos on the street. Being able to have interesting conversations at random, not going from bubble to bubble (i.e. home-car-workplace).

Being in a place where kids can be somewhat independent starting at age 10 or so, not somewhere where encourages helichopper parenting.

Not having a large, grassy yard around my house. Maybe a veggie garden and deck in back. But mowing grass or paying some neighborhood sprog to do so for you is a big waste of life and effort. So is maintaining the outside of a house when you can pay an HOA to do that for you (or just have a brick, semi-attached house in the city where mx is minimal).

A large non-American population. People not born here tend to have a different, often more pleasant, perspective on life.

Four real seasons. No thanks to a namby-pamby Southern “winter” for me. Bad enough that it’s 50F on x-mess this year.

[FlyerInHi]

haha, spd, the middle-class migrating out of California, or out of NY before, is looking for exactly what you don’t like. So good riddance to them. More for you!

It used to be called White flight.

But there’s an interesting trend of White professional, liberal groups (young and empty nesters) moving back to the city center. They are dissatisfied with urban sprawl.

In Houston, a lot of people now want to live within the first beltway.

In San Diego, North Park used to be the hood, almost. Now it’s hot. Incredible price appreciation.

[The-Shoveler]

I still say all the hype about intercity revival is way over hyped and over rated.

The intercity thing is just a small percentage but way over hyped so is the “middle-class migrating out of California”

Very few of the boomers I know are planning to move out of the SoCal burbs the few that are, are planning to relocate to Florida or Costa Rica.

[flyer]

I agree that very few “Boomers” are moving out of SoCal–we’re boomers–and no one we know is. From what I’ve read, it’s many younger people who can’t afford to stay, are tired of being one of the 7 million+ and growing, renters, and/or find better job options elsewhere.

CA has always been a double-edged sword when it comes to housing. Most people enjoy seeing double digit appreciation for themselves, but it doesn’t work out as well when their kids want to buy homes. Probably why almost 3 million young adults in CA–some into their 30’s are living at home–with no end to this trend in sight.

Not that it’s not great to have your kids around–we love our kids as much as anyone–but, now that they are adults, we’re still very glad they have their own homes.

[spdrun]

^^^

Exactly why every boomer and Gen-X’er going into foreclosure is karma in action. Opens up a home for the younger to buy at a reasonable price.

[flyer]

Need to make a correction to that 7 Million number I mentioned. 7 million renters are actually the number of renters that have been ADDED to the growing ranks of renters in CA in just the last decade. Great for us landlords–not so great for others.

No boomers we know have gone into foreclosure, as none of our parents have, or anyone else whe know for that matter–but, perhaps, these are exceptions.

I follow the stats closely, and it will be interesting to see how well younger generations do concerning property going forward.

[bearishgurl]

I agree with both Shoveler and flyer. I myself am a “boomer” and have only known ONE boomer who has lost her home to foreclosure (all due to legal fees expended in attempt to gain custody/visitation of her youngest child, now an adult). She never gained any custody/visitation and her last child aged out of the court’s jurisdiction two years ago. Unfortunately, this scenario is quite common among single moms in CA whose children(s) father is deep-pocketed enough to keep litigation going ad infinitum and were successful in turning their child[ren] against the other parent for the sole purpose of avoiding having to pay child support.

In CA, whichever parent earns the most money (and thus can provide the child[ren] with the most stable home) usually prevails in family court child custody disputes.

After much thought, I have decided to keep a home in CA, even if I decide in the coming year(s) to relocate. I will either keep my present home or sell and purchase a similar or slightly smaller single-family home in another CA county and place tenants in it.

I don’t want to find myself one of the many (foolish) people I have known throughout the years (all older than boomers) who sold their home in SD County to relocate in retirement out-of-state only to return to CA in 3-5 years at the age(s) of 65-75 years old, desperate to purchase another home but find themselves unable to. These people couldn’t repurchase ANY residence (much less than the one they sold) in their CA coastal hometowns because they lost money on their out-of-state home purchases due to (1) high selling costs; (2) lack of appreciation; and/or (3) their over-improvement of said out-of-state purchase (or combination of the above).

The vast majority of boomers who own their primary residences in coastal CA counties aren’t going anywhere, especially those whose current assessments are a mere fraction of their propert(ies) market values pursuant to Props 13, 58 and 193.

All the foreclosures/short sales I studied between 2008 and 2011 had “Gen X” owners, 90% of whom were living wa-a-a-a-ay beyond their means (by ATMing their property to death to buy more property and/or for consumption). The other 10% paid way too much for the property using exploding sub-prime mortgages.

In CA coastal counties, Gen Y is only now starting to get off the ground in purchasing a primary residence for themselves (they weren’t homebuyers during the 2004-2007 era of fog-a-mirror mortgage lending). Gen Ys who grew up in CA ARE getting good jobs but as flyer has stated here many times, the vast bulk of the good jobs are in the SF Bay area and LA/Ventura/Orange Counties (NOT SD County) with the majority of good, living-wage jobs located in the five of the eight SF Bay area counties. I have heavily counseled my kid(s) to NOT relocate back to SD County but to stay put, earn as much as they can (even if they have to job-hop to do so) and try to save downpayments for a house.

[svelte]

Folks here talk like all of California has the same economic situation – just not true!

As has been pointed on other sites, there is really a stark difference between coastal areas and inland California…especially if you get outside of the LA basin.

Prices are much, much lower in the central valley.

You can’t compare places like Bakersfield, Fresno, Stockton, Chico, and Redding to San Francisco, LA, and San Diego especially in terms of home values.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=svelte]Folks here talk like all of California has the same economic situation – just not true!

As has been pointed on other sites, there is really a stark difference between coastal areas and inland California…especially if you get outside of the LA basin.

Prices are much, much lower in the central valley.

You can’t compare places like Bakersfield, Fresno, Stockton, Chico, and Redding to San Francisco, LA, and San Diego especially in terms of home values.[/quote]

Absolutely, I agree …. That’s why always qualify my posts with the phrase “CA coastal counties.”

There is no comparison whatsoever in lifestyle OR real estate values between CA coastal counties and CA inland counties. They are two completely different animals.

[bearishgurl]

Actually, the east/northeast LA basin (i.e. San Gabriel Valley, etc) is still quite reasonably-priced (in comparison to SD County) but is currently appreciating fast.

This is because the last single-family home tracts in these areas were built in the very early ’80’s with the average single family home circa 1953-1964. The LA County Board of Supervisors (very wisely) did not sell out their beautiful wide swaths of open space to Big Development’s endless subdivison permit requests, thereby creating “Community Facilities Districts” as did the (greedy) SD County BOS. Therefore, I haven’t noticed any Mello-Roos-encumbered tracts there.

As it should be.

[FlyerInHi]

BG, I don’t think you’ve been to San Gabriel lately. The area is heavily Chinese now and prices are more than San Diego for comparable inland areas.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=FlyerInHi]BG, I don’t think you’ve been to San Gabriel lately. The area is heavily Chinese now and prices are more than San Diego for comparable inland areas.[/quote]

Yes, I have. In fact, I’m headed back up there this weekend for a dinner.

From my observations from the ground, more than half of the inland LA County corridor are predominantly White with Latino or predominantly Latino with White or predominately Filipino depending on town/city. The Chinese have concentrated themselves in just a few areas.

Yes, the few towns/cities there which are now predominantly Chinese have RE prices which have ratcheted up in recent years. But none of these areas can be compared to inland areas of SD. Firstly, they are 40-50 miles from the Santa Monica Pier. That would place them in Campo and points east (the mtns) in San Diego County. Yes, it tends to be hot 8-9 months year and A/C is necessary. It is heavily trucked (esp on I-10) but the residential environments in the Brea/Pomona/San Gabriel corridor are not spoiled like many inland areas of SD County. Secondly, it is not subdivision hell as SD County is, its views remained pristine and it is comprised mostly single family homes with a few scattered well-managed condo/townhome developments. Thirdly, the older housing stock there have typical lots of 7000 – 12,000 sf. Even most two-bdrm houses have ample lots. This is true even heading west towards Pasadena (West Covina, Baldwin Park, El Monte, LaVerne, etc.)

The RE values hold up well there because of proximity to well-paying jobs, the many transportation choices available, the large stock of well-built single family homes on generous lots, multiple shopping and entertainment venues, and, most importantly, its leadership consciously deciding NOT to destroy their environment by randomly issuing dozens of subdivision permits.

OTOH, their neighbors to the east, San Bern and RIV Counties have both sold out to Big Development which ruined their environments and literally bankrupted the City of San Bernardino. Because of this, the difference (livability) between LA and RIV/San Bern Counties is night and day.

I like the area very much and feel a savvy buyer can get a lot of bang for the buck there but ppsf there is higher than SD because a typical SFR there is smaller in size than those in SD County (due to age).

However, I personally would prefer to “retire” in a CA city/town with a population of ~50K or less (mtns or wine country). I wouldn’t even mind a town with a 1-2K population with a 15-20K pop city/town within a half hour drive to shop and do errands in.

[FlyerInHi]

San Gabriel is a big area, I suppose. I have a friend in Hacienda Heights. Her parents paid something like $700k a few years ago. Probably about $900k now.

For comparison, Clairemont Mesa, fairly ocean close and centrally located in San Diego doesn’t compare, value wise.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=FlyerInHi]San Gabriel is a big area, I suppose. I have a friend in Hacienda Heights. Her parents paid something like $700k a few years ago. Probably about $900k now.

For comparison, Clairemont Mesa, fairly ocean close and centrally located in San Diego doesn’t compare, value wise.[/quote]

What do you mean by the italicized statement, FIH? Do you think Hacienda Heights RE is a better value for what you get in comparison with Clairemont Mesa (SD)? I do and I also feel it is certainly a much nicer area than Clairemont and would compare its housing stock to Del Cerro or Pt Loma Woods in SD, NOT Clairemont or Mission Village.

[FlyerInHi]

I mean a “middle-class” area close the city center, and relatively closer to the ocean, since “ocean proximity” is frequently a criterion.

Del Cerro is not that nice and definitely cheaper then Hacienda Heights.

I don’t see “cheaper than San Diego.” In fact, I think that San Diego is cheaper for a reason. That’s because San Diego is provincial compared to LA.

[Author]

Posts