Shadow inventory finally being released ?

[an]

Here are the data for 2010, 2000, and 1990.

2010:
Median income – 62.7k
median housing price = 328k
median housing price/median income = 5.22

2000:
Median income – 47.2k
median housing price = 223k
median housing price/median income = 4.725

1990:
Median income – 35k
median housing price = 188k
median housing price/median income = 5.36

So, we’re worse off than 2000 but better off than 1990. This does not account for interest rate at all.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=davelj][quote=Scarlett][quote=davelj] As has been pointed out here before, this is largely a matter of choice. The size of the average house in the U.S. has more than doubled since 1960. So, people CHOOSE to spend more today on housing than they used to – wisely or not, mind you. I’m quite certain that if you cut your housing (size) expectations in half (to live like those folks in the ’50s and ’60s)… the ratios will follow accordingly. But I’m betting you have no interest in doing so… what with the Jones’ big house and all…[/quote]

You are dreaming. The size might be cut in half, but it still would be much more expensive relative to the income than how it was then. My house expectation is below 1900 sf, probably more like 1700-1800 sf. for 4 people. Don’t consider that huge. How can you can cut that in half??? Maybe we could squeeze in 1500 sf. I am not keeping up with any Joneses, FYI. Not even close. Let them have the McMansions and BMWs and other toys.[/quote]

The typical family of four lived in a 1200 square foot home in 1960. I will grant you that even that size house in SAN DIEGO might be more expensive on a relative scale than it was 50 years ago, but… in most of the country it is not. You’ve simply chosen to live in a “glamour market” (as Robert Shiller calls it)… with all that entails, sacrifices and all.[/quote]

I want to appeal all native San Diegan and lifetime San Diegan Piggs to think back to your “home turf” as you remember it. Bear in mind that relatively low cost cosmetic and heavy “fixers” still exist there today, whether currently listed or not. Think back to the house you grew up in. Do your parent(s) still reside there?

Now ask yourself, would I raise my family in this home? Even if I inherited the home free and clear, would I raise my family in it? Would I move back to my home turf and raise my family in my deceased parent(s)’ home or buy a fixer there on the cheap near my relatives so my family could live on one income? What if it was situated on a 9K sf lot??

These +/- 1200 sf homes in SD that davelj mentioned here still exist in abundance today. The $64M question is, would you buy one of them on the cheap today to move your family into or move in if one was given to you??

Some of your parents and grandparents raised their families in them, and many also had to fix them up upon purchase just to move in. I think we tend to “glamorize” in our minds the “Leave it to Beaver” existence in previous generations and how many families back then were living on one income. It is very possible our moms DID want to work back then but no one would hire them and/or some of our moms may have not finished high school. Bear in mind that public assistance did not exist back then as we know it today. It was just a small pittance and barely a leg up … food stamps, maybe.

Also, free school-lunch recipients were stigmatized … forming a separate lunch line with different-colored cardboard lunch tickets than the students whose parent(s) were able to pay real money for them. Portable trailers with public health nurses moved from school to school to administer mandatory smallpox, diptheria, whooping cough, oral polio, tetanus and later rubella vaccines to every student :={

I don’t feel life was “better” back then, for parents OR children … maybe different, with less choices and thus less worries, but not “better.”

[bearishgurl]

[quote=davelj][quote=Scarlett][quote=davelj] As has been pointed out here before, this is largely a matter of choice. The size of the average house in the U.S. has more than doubled since 1960. So, people CHOOSE to spend more today on housing than they used to – wisely or not, mind you. I’m quite certain that if you cut your housing (size) expectations in half (to live like those folks in the ’50s and ’60s)… the ratios will follow accordingly. But I’m betting you have no interest in doing so… what with the Jones’ big house and all…[/quote]

You are dreaming. The size might be cut in half, but it still would be much more expensive relative to the income than how it was then. My house expectation is below 1900 sf, probably more like 1700-1800 sf. for 4 people. Don’t consider that huge. How can you can cut that in half??? Maybe we could squeeze in 1500 sf. I am not keeping up with any Joneses, FYI. Not even close. Let them have the McMansions and BMWs and other toys.[/quote]

The typical family of four lived in a 1200 square foot home in 1960. I will grant you that even that size house in SAN DIEGO might be more expensive on a relative scale than it was 50 years ago, but… in most of the country it is not. You’ve simply chosen to live in a “glamour market” (as Robert Shiller calls it)… with all that entails, sacrifices and all.[/quote]

I want to appeal all native San Diegan and lifetime San Diegan Piggs to think back to your “home turf” as you remember it. Bear in mind that relatively low cost cosmetic and heavy “fixers” still exist there today, whether currently listed or not. Think back to the house you grew up in. Do your parent(s) still reside there?

Now ask yourself, would I raise my family in this home? Even if I inherited the home free and clear, would I raise my family in it? Would I move back to my home turf and raise my family in my deceased parent(s)’ home or buy a fixer there on the cheap near my relatives so my family could live on one income? What if it was situated on a 9K sf lot??

These +/- 1200 sf homes in SD that davelj mentioned here still exist in abundance today. The $64M question is, would you buy one of them on the cheap today to move your family into or move in if one was given to you??

Some of your parents and grandparents raised their families in them, and many also had to fix them up upon purchase just to move in. I think we tend to “glamorize” in our minds the “Leave it to Beaver” existence in previous generations and how many families back then were living on one income. It is very possible our moms DID want to work back then but no one would hire them and/or some of our moms may have not finished high school. Bear in mind that public assistance did not exist back then as we know it today. It was just a small pittance and barely a leg up … food stamps, maybe.

Also, free school-lunch recipients were stigmatized … forming a separate lunch line with different-colored cardboard lunch tickets than the students whose parent(s) were able to pay real money for them. Portable trailers with public health nurses moved from school to school to administer mandatory smallpox, diptheria, whooping cough, oral polio, tetanus and later rubella vaccines to every student :={

I don’t feel life was “better” back then, for parents OR children … maybe different, with less choices and thus less worries, but not “better.”

[bearishgurl]

[quote=davelj][quote=Scarlett][quote=davelj] As has been pointed out here before, this is largely a matter of choice. The size of the average house in the U.S. has more than doubled since 1960. So, people CHOOSE to spend more today on housing than they used to – wisely or not, mind you. I’m quite certain that if you cut your housing (size) expectations in half (to live like those folks in the ’50s and ’60s)… the ratios will follow accordingly. But I’m betting you have no interest in doing so… what with the Jones’ big house and all…[/quote]

You are dreaming. The size might be cut in half, but it still would be much more expensive relative to the income than how it was then. My house expectation is below 1900 sf, probably more like 1700-1800 sf. for 4 people. Don’t consider that huge. How can you can cut that in half??? Maybe we could squeeze in 1500 sf. I am not keeping up with any Joneses, FYI. Not even close. Let them have the McMansions and BMWs and other toys.[/quote]

The typical family of four lived in a 1200 square foot home in 1960. I will grant you that even that size house in SAN DIEGO might be more expensive on a relative scale than it was 50 years ago, but… in most of the country it is not. You’ve simply chosen to live in a “glamour market” (as Robert Shiller calls it)… with all that entails, sacrifices and all.[/quote]

I want to appeal all native San Diegan and lifetime San Diegan Piggs to think back to your “home turf” as you remember it. Bear in mind that relatively low cost cosmetic and heavy “fixers” still exist there today, whether currently listed or not. Think back to the house you grew up in. Do your parent(s) still reside there?

Now ask yourself, would I raise my family in this home? Even if I inherited the home free and clear, would I raise my family in it? Would I move back to my home turf and raise my family in my deceased parent(s)’ home or buy a fixer there on the cheap near my relatives so my family could live on one income? What if it was situated on a 9K sf lot??

These +/- 1200 sf homes in SD that davelj mentioned here still exist in abundance today. The $64M question is, would you buy one of them on the cheap today to move your family into or move in if one was given to you??

Some of your parents and grandparents raised their families in them, and many also had to fix them up upon purchase just to move in. I think we tend to “glamorize” in our minds the “Leave it to Beaver” existence in previous generations and how many families back then were living on one income. It is very possible our moms DID want to work back then but no one would hire them and/or some of our moms may have not finished high school. Bear in mind that public assistance did not exist back then as we know it today. It was just a small pittance and barely a leg up … food stamps, maybe.

Also, free school-lunch recipients were stigmatized … forming a separate lunch line with different-colored cardboard lunch tickets than the students whose parent(s) were able to pay real money for them. Portable trailers with public health nurses moved from school to school to administer mandatory smallpox, diptheria, whooping cough, oral polio, tetanus and later rubella vaccines to every student :={

I don’t feel life was “better” back then, for parents OR children … maybe different, with less choices and thus less worries, but not “better.”

[bearishgurl]

[quote=davelj][quote=Scarlett][quote=davelj] As has been pointed out here before, this is largely a matter of choice. The size of the average house in the U.S. has more than doubled since 1960. So, people CHOOSE to spend more today on housing than they used to – wisely or not, mind you. I’m quite certain that if you cut your housing (size) expectations in half (to live like those folks in the ’50s and ’60s)… the ratios will follow accordingly. But I’m betting you have no interest in doing so… what with the Jones’ big house and all…[/quote]

You are dreaming. The size might be cut in half, but it still would be much more expensive relative to the income than how it was then. My house expectation is below 1900 sf, probably more like 1700-1800 sf. for 4 people. Don’t consider that huge. How can you can cut that in half??? Maybe we could squeeze in 1500 sf. I am not keeping up with any Joneses, FYI. Not even close. Let them have the McMansions and BMWs and other toys.[/quote]

The typical family of four lived in a 1200 square foot home in 1960. I will grant you that even that size house in SAN DIEGO might be more expensive on a relative scale than it was 50 years ago, but… in most of the country it is not. You’ve simply chosen to live in a “glamour market” (as Robert Shiller calls it)… with all that entails, sacrifices and all.[/quote]

I want to appeal all native San Diegan and lifetime San Diegan Piggs to think back to your “home turf” as you remember it. Bear in mind that relatively low cost cosmetic and heavy “fixers” still exist there today, whether currently listed or not. Think back to the house you grew up in. Do your parent(s) still reside there?

Now ask yourself, would I raise my family in this home? Even if I inherited the home free and clear, would I raise my family in it? Would I move back to my home turf and raise my family in my deceased parent(s)’ home or buy a fixer there on the cheap near my relatives so my family could live on one income? What if it was situated on a 9K sf lot??

These +/- 1200 sf homes in SD that davelj mentioned here still exist in abundance today. The $64M question is, would you buy one of them on the cheap today to move your family into or move in if one was given to you??

Some of your parents and grandparents raised their families in them, and many also had to fix them up upon purchase just to move in. I think we tend to “glamorize” in our minds the “Leave it to Beaver” existence in previous generations and how many families back then were living on one income. It is very possible our moms DID want to work back then but no one would hire them and/or some of our moms may have not finished high school. Bear in mind that public assistance did not exist back then as we know it today. It was just a small pittance and barely a leg up … food stamps, maybe.

Also, free school-lunch recipients were stigmatized … forming a separate lunch line with different-colored cardboard lunch tickets than the students whose parent(s) were able to pay real money for them. Portable trailers with public health nurses moved from school to school to administer mandatory smallpox, diptheria, whooping cough, oral polio, tetanus and later rubella vaccines to every student :={

I don’t feel life was “better” back then, for parents OR children … maybe different, with less choices and thus less worries, but not “better.”

[bearishgurl]

[quote=davelj][quote=Scarlett][quote=davelj] As has been pointed out here before, this is largely a matter of choice. The size of the average house in the U.S. has more than doubled since 1960. So, people CHOOSE to spend more today on housing than they used to – wisely or not, mind you. I’m quite certain that if you cut your housing (size) expectations in half (to live like those folks in the ’50s and ’60s)… the ratios will follow accordingly. But I’m betting you have no interest in doing so… what with the Jones’ big house and all…[/quote]

You are dreaming. The size might be cut in half, but it still would be much more expensive relative to the income than how it was then. My house expectation is below 1900 sf, probably more like 1700-1800 sf. for 4 people. Don’t consider that huge. How can you can cut that in half??? Maybe we could squeeze in 1500 sf. I am not keeping up with any Joneses, FYI. Not even close. Let them have the McMansions and BMWs and other toys.[/quote]

The typical family of four lived in a 1200 square foot home in 1960. I will grant you that even that size house in SAN DIEGO might be more expensive on a relative scale than it was 50 years ago, but… in most of the country it is not. You’ve simply chosen to live in a “glamour market” (as Robert Shiller calls it)… with all that entails, sacrifices and all.[/quote]

I want to appeal all native San Diegan and lifetime San Diegan Piggs to think back to your “home turf” as you remember it. Bear in mind that relatively low cost cosmetic and heavy “fixers” still exist there today, whether currently listed or not. Think back to the house you grew up in. Do your parent(s) still reside there?

Now ask yourself, would I raise my family in this home? Even if I inherited the home free and clear, would I raise my family in it? Would I move back to my home turf and raise my family in my deceased parent(s)’ home or buy a fixer there on the cheap near my relatives so my family could live on one income? What if it was situated on a 9K sf lot??

These +/- 1200 sf homes in SD that davelj mentioned here still exist in abundance today. The $64M question is, would you buy one of them on the cheap today to move your family into or move in if one was given to you??

Some of your parents and grandparents raised their families in them, and many also had to fix them up upon purchase just to move in. I think we tend to “glamorize” in our minds the “Leave it to Beaver” existence in previous generations and how many families back then were living on one income. It is very possible our moms DID want to work back then but no one would hire them and/or some of our moms may have not finished high school. Bear in mind that public assistance did not exist back then as we know it today. It was just a small pittance and barely a leg up … food stamps, maybe.

Also, free school-lunch recipients were stigmatized … forming a separate lunch line with different-colored cardboard lunch tickets than the students whose parent(s) were able to pay real money for them. Portable trailers with public health nurses moved from school to school to administer mandatory smallpox, diptheria, whooping cough, oral polio, tetanus and later rubella vaccines to every student :={

I don’t feel life was “better” back then, for parents OR children … maybe different, with less choices and thus less worries, but not “better.”

[Scarlett]

That’s a very good point BG. I am not from here and so I won’t comment on that. (my gut feeling would be probably not). I imagine though that many houses back then were that size – while more recent construction has increased dramatically the size. So at the time a 1200 sf was not something standing out as “tiny”. It was just like most other houses of your peers and friends. But it would defintely stand out nowadays. (Except maybe UC, the areas I am looking at houses are relatively newer and larger.)

Our parents weren’t worried about paying mortgages thru the retirement, didn’t worry much about healthcare and or how they’d live in retirement or how to send the kids to college – because they didn’t have reasons to worry. In that sense they had it better. The average life was affordable on one income – and without having to give up on much.

Very true about “less choices, less worries” – couldn’t agree with that more! Honestly, more choices stress me! Our parents had it much simpler in that regard! There it can be too much of a good thing.

[Scarlett]

That’s a very good point BG. I am not from here and so I won’t comment on that. (my gut feeling would be probably not). I imagine though that many houses back then were that size – while more recent construction has increased dramatically the size. So at the time a 1200 sf was not something standing out as “tiny”. It was just like most other houses of your peers and friends. But it would defintely stand out nowadays. (Except maybe UC, the areas I am looking at houses are relatively newer and larger.)

Our parents weren’t worried about paying mortgages thru the retirement, didn’t worry much about healthcare and or how they’d live in retirement or how to send the kids to college – because they didn’t have reasons to worry. In that sense they had it better. The average life was affordable on one income – and without having to give up on much.

Very true about “less choices, less worries” – couldn’t agree with that more! Honestly, more choices stress me! Our parents had it much simpler in that regard! There it can be too much of a good thing.

[Scarlett]

That’s a very good point BG. I am not from here and so I won’t comment on that. (my gut feeling would be probably not). I imagine though that many houses back then were that size – while more recent construction has increased dramatically the size. So at the time a 1200 sf was not something standing out as “tiny”. It was just like most other houses of your peers and friends. But it would defintely stand out nowadays. (Except maybe UC, the areas I am looking at houses are relatively newer and larger.)

Our parents weren’t worried about paying mortgages thru the retirement, didn’t worry much about healthcare and or how they’d live in retirement or how to send the kids to college – because they didn’t have reasons to worry. In that sense they had it better. The average life was affordable on one income – and without having to give up on much.

Very true about “less choices, less worries” – couldn’t agree with that more! Honestly, more choices stress me! Our parents had it much simpler in that regard! There it can be too much of a good thing.

[Scarlett]

That’s a very good point BG. I am not from here and so I won’t comment on that. (my gut feeling would be probably not). I imagine though that many houses back then were that size – while more recent construction has increased dramatically the size. So at the time a 1200 sf was not something standing out as “tiny”. It was just like most other houses of your peers and friends. But it would defintely stand out nowadays. (Except maybe UC, the areas I am looking at houses are relatively newer and larger.)

Our parents weren’t worried about paying mortgages thru the retirement, didn’t worry much about healthcare and or how they’d live in retirement or how to send the kids to college – because they didn’t have reasons to worry. In that sense they had it better. The average life was affordable on one income – and without having to give up on much.

Very true about “less choices, less worries” – couldn’t agree with that more! Honestly, more choices stress me! Our parents had it much simpler in that regard! There it can be too much of a good thing.

[Scarlett]

That’s a very good point BG. I am not from here and so I won’t comment on that. (my gut feeling would be probably not). I imagine though that many houses back then were that size – while more recent construction has increased dramatically the size. So at the time a 1200 sf was not something standing out as “tiny”. It was just like most other houses of your peers and friends. But it would defintely stand out nowadays. (Except maybe UC, the areas I am looking at houses are relatively newer and larger.)

Our parents weren’t worried about paying mortgages thru the retirement, didn’t worry much about healthcare and or how they’d live in retirement or how to send the kids to college – because they didn’t have reasons to worry. In that sense they had it better. The average life was affordable on one income – and without having to give up on much.

Very true about “less choices, less worries” – couldn’t agree with that more! Honestly, more choices stress me! Our parents had it much simpler in that regard! There it can be too much of a good thing.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Scarlett]That’s a very good point BG. I am not from here and so I won’t comment on that. (my gut feeling would be probably not). I imagine though that many houses back then were that size – while more recent construction has increased dramatically the size. So at the time a 1200 sf was not something standing out as “tiny”. It was just like most other houses of your neighbors and friends. But it would defintely stand out nowadays. Except maybe UC, the areas I am looking at houses are relatively newer and larger.

Very true about “less choices, less worries” – couldn’t agree with that more! Honestly, more choices stress me! Our parents had it much simpler in that regard![/quote]

Scarlett, 1200 sf houses don’t “stand out” when situated among other similar houses of their era. And since many of their lots are oversized, a good portion have been remodeled to up to double their size, increasing overall property values. And I forgot to add earlier that the vast majority of <=1400 sf houses were built with just one bath back then. There are also lots of 1200-1500 sf houses in SD County currently listed for =<$300K and sometimes larger ones in this price range (which need work). So, if your "gut feeling" is "probably not," then you should remain a 2-income family if you still aspire to purchase property in SD County, IMHO. You stated in your previous post that you would consider 1500-1700 sf. Of course, you know that UC has this size inventory in your price range, which we have discussed for you on other threads. [quote=Scarlett]No, Ren, we aren't on call. We refuse to spend 2 hrs a day commuting since we had kids. That’s why we sold our townhome in North RB – so we tried that for about 1.5 years (at rush hour) and rented since then in UTC. Never looked back. Been very happy. Even if we buy in PQ let’s say we’d still spend between 1-1.5 hrs every day. But we have to draw the line somewhere.
Actually, renting with sweet 15′-20′ minute city street commute is a HUGE incentive to NOT buy….when I remember those LOOOOOONG commutes…. I count my blessings every day.[/quote]

Again, not trying to “push” you to consider UC, Scarlett, but you also stated you preferred a surface-street commute to work and that issue (plus the memory of the RB commute) were the main reasons why you were still renting. I guess what I’m saying here is that we have seen some good deals go down in your price range in the 1500++ sf size in recent months right at your back door.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Scarlett]That’s a very good point BG. I am not from here and so I won’t comment on that. (my gut feeling would be probably not). I imagine though that many houses back then were that size – while more recent construction has increased dramatically the size. So at the time a 1200 sf was not something standing out as “tiny”. It was just like most other houses of your neighbors and friends. But it would defintely stand out nowadays. Except maybe UC, the areas I am looking at houses are relatively newer and larger.

Very true about “less choices, less worries” – couldn’t agree with that more! Honestly, more choices stress me! Our parents had it much simpler in that regard![/quote]

Scarlett, 1200 sf houses don’t “stand out” when situated among other similar houses of their era. And since many of their lots are oversized, a good portion have been remodeled to up to double their size, increasing overall property values. And I forgot to add earlier that the vast majority of <=1400 sf houses were built with just one bath back then. There are also lots of 1200-1500 sf houses in SD County currently listed for =<$300K and sometimes larger ones in this price range (which need work). So, if your "gut feeling" is "probably not," then you should remain a 2-income family if you still aspire to purchase property in SD County, IMHO. You stated in your previous post that you would consider 1500-1700 sf. Of course, you know that UC has this size inventory in your price range, which we have discussed for you on other threads. [quote=Scarlett]No, Ren, we aren't on call. We refuse to spend 2 hrs a day commuting since we had kids. That’s why we sold our townhome in North RB – so we tried that for about 1.5 years (at rush hour) and rented since then in UTC. Never looked back. Been very happy. Even if we buy in PQ let’s say we’d still spend between 1-1.5 hrs every day. But we have to draw the line somewhere.
Actually, renting with sweet 15′-20′ minute city street commute is a HUGE incentive to NOT buy….when I remember those LOOOOOONG commutes…. I count my blessings every day.[/quote]

Again, not trying to “push” you to consider UC, Scarlett, but you also stated you preferred a surface-street commute to work and that issue (plus the memory of the RB commute) were the main reasons why you were still renting. I guess what I’m saying here is that we have seen some good deals go down in your price range in the 1500++ sf size in recent months right at your back door.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Scarlett]That’s a very good point BG. I am not from here and so I won’t comment on that. (my gut feeling would be probably not). I imagine though that many houses back then were that size – while more recent construction has increased dramatically the size. So at the time a 1200 sf was not something standing out as “tiny”. It was just like most other houses of your neighbors and friends. But it would defintely stand out nowadays. Except maybe UC, the areas I am looking at houses are relatively newer and larger.

Very true about “less choices, less worries” – couldn’t agree with that more! Honestly, more choices stress me! Our parents had it much simpler in that regard![/quote]

Scarlett, 1200 sf houses don’t “stand out” when situated among other similar houses of their era. And since many of their lots are oversized, a good portion have been remodeled to up to double their size, increasing overall property values. And I forgot to add earlier that the vast majority of <=1400 sf houses were built with just one bath back then. There are also lots of 1200-1500 sf houses in SD County currently listed for =<$300K and sometimes larger ones in this price range (which need work). So, if your "gut feeling" is "probably not," then you should remain a 2-income family if you still aspire to purchase property in SD County, IMHO. You stated in your previous post that you would consider 1500-1700 sf. Of course, you know that UC has this size inventory in your price range, which we have discussed for you on other threads. [quote=Scarlett]No, Ren, we aren't on call. We refuse to spend 2 hrs a day commuting since we had kids. That’s why we sold our townhome in North RB – so we tried that for about 1.5 years (at rush hour) and rented since then in UTC. Never looked back. Been very happy. Even if we buy in PQ let’s say we’d still spend between 1-1.5 hrs every day. But we have to draw the line somewhere.
Actually, renting with sweet 15′-20′ minute city street commute is a HUGE incentive to NOT buy….when I remember those LOOOOOONG commutes…. I count my blessings every day.[/quote]

Again, not trying to “push” you to consider UC, Scarlett, but you also stated you preferred a surface-street commute to work and that issue (plus the memory of the RB commute) were the main reasons why you were still renting. I guess what I’m saying here is that we have seen some good deals go down in your price range in the 1500++ sf size in recent months right at your back door.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Scarlett]That’s a very good point BG. I am not from here and so I won’t comment on that. (my gut feeling would be probably not). I imagine though that many houses back then were that size – while more recent construction has increased dramatically the size. So at the time a 1200 sf was not something standing out as “tiny”. It was just like most other houses of your neighbors and friends. But it would defintely stand out nowadays. Except maybe UC, the areas I am looking at houses are relatively newer and larger.

Very true about “less choices, less worries” – couldn’t agree with that more! Honestly, more choices stress me! Our parents had it much simpler in that regard![/quote]

Scarlett, 1200 sf houses don’t “stand out” when situated among other similar houses of their era. And since many of their lots are oversized, a good portion have been remodeled to up to double their size, increasing overall property values. And I forgot to add earlier that the vast majority of <=1400 sf houses were built with just one bath back then. There are also lots of 1200-1500 sf houses in SD County currently listed for =<$300K and sometimes larger ones in this price range (which need work). So, if your "gut feeling" is "probably not," then you should remain a 2-income family if you still aspire to purchase property in SD County, IMHO. You stated in your previous post that you would consider 1500-1700 sf. Of course, you know that UC has this size inventory in your price range, which we have discussed for you on other threads. [quote=Scarlett]No, Ren, we aren't on call. We refuse to spend 2 hrs a day commuting since we had kids. That’s why we sold our townhome in North RB – so we tried that for about 1.5 years (at rush hour) and rented since then in UTC. Never looked back. Been very happy. Even if we buy in PQ let’s say we’d still spend between 1-1.5 hrs every day. But we have to draw the line somewhere.
Actually, renting with sweet 15′-20′ minute city street commute is a HUGE incentive to NOT buy….when I remember those LOOOOOONG commutes…. I count my blessings every day.[/quote]

Again, not trying to “push” you to consider UC, Scarlett, but you also stated you preferred a surface-street commute to work and that issue (plus the memory of the RB commute) were the main reasons why you were still renting. I guess what I’m saying here is that we have seen some good deals go down in your price range in the 1500++ sf size in recent months right at your back door.

[Author]

Posts