should I buy in temecula

[paramount]

TG: Can you tell me where I can get a pair of those rose-color glasses?

[Ren]

Question for you, Paramount – were your issues a result of bad luck or a series of mistakes on your part? If you can blame it soley on something specific to TV, please let us know what that is so we can learn from it. If you were in great financial shape, would you still look at TV the same way?

We’ve only been living here for 8 months, but we love it so far, and more and more, the coast is starting to look like the bigger compromise. The downsides to Temecula aren’t a big deal, but on the coast, you pay 2-4 times as much for housing and as a result have many more working years until retirement. For those without substantial income (high 100’s+), this is a major, life-altering difference. We’ll retire on the coast at 55, while our friends in Bay Park will be working another 10 years to pay off their 1,500sf mistakes.

[Ren]

Question for you, Paramount – were your issues a result of bad luck or a series of mistakes on your part? If you can blame it soley on something specific to TV, please let us know what that is so we can learn from it. If you were in great financial shape, would you still look at TV the same way?

We’ve only been living here for 8 months, but we love it so far, and more and more, the coast is starting to look like the bigger compromise. The downsides to Temecula aren’t a big deal, but on the coast, you pay 2-4 times as much for housing and as a result have many more working years until retirement. For those without substantial income (high 100’s+), this is a major, life-altering difference. We’ll retire on the coast at 55, while our friends in Bay Park will be working another 10 years to pay off their 1,500sf mistakes.

[Ren]

Question for you, Paramount – were your issues a result of bad luck or a series of mistakes on your part? If you can blame it soley on something specific to TV, please let us know what that is so we can learn from it. If you were in great financial shape, would you still look at TV the same way?

We’ve only been living here for 8 months, but we love it so far, and more and more, the coast is starting to look like the bigger compromise. The downsides to Temecula aren’t a big deal, but on the coast, you pay 2-4 times as much for housing and as a result have many more working years until retirement. For those without substantial income (high 100’s+), this is a major, life-altering difference. We’ll retire on the coast at 55, while our friends in Bay Park will be working another 10 years to pay off their 1,500sf mistakes.

[Ren]

Question for you, Paramount – were your issues a result of bad luck or a series of mistakes on your part? If you can blame it soley on something specific to TV, please let us know what that is so we can learn from it. If you were in great financial shape, would you still look at TV the same way?

We’ve only been living here for 8 months, but we love it so far, and more and more, the coast is starting to look like the bigger compromise. The downsides to Temecula aren’t a big deal, but on the coast, you pay 2-4 times as much for housing and as a result have many more working years until retirement. For those without substantial income (high 100’s+), this is a major, life-altering difference. We’ll retire on the coast at 55, while our friends in Bay Park will be working another 10 years to pay off their 1,500sf mistakes.

[Ren]

Question for you, Paramount – were your issues a result of bad luck or a series of mistakes on your part? If you can blame it soley on something specific to TV, please let us know what that is so we can learn from it. If you were in great financial shape, would you still look at TV the same way?

We’ve only been living here for 8 months, but we love it so far, and more and more, the coast is starting to look like the bigger compromise. The downsides to Temecula aren’t a big deal, but on the coast, you pay 2-4 times as much for housing and as a result have many more working years until retirement. For those without substantial income (high 100’s+), this is a major, life-altering difference. We’ll retire on the coast at 55, while our friends in Bay Park will be working another 10 years to pay off their 1,500sf mistakes.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Ren]Question for you, Paramount – were your issues a result of bad luck or a series of mistakes on your part? If you can blame it soley on something specific to TV, please let us know what that is so we can learn from it. If you were in great financial shape, would you still look at TV the same way?

We’ve only been living here for 8 months, but we love it so far, and more and more, the coast is starting to look like the bigger compromise. The downsides to Temecula aren’t a big deal, but on the coast, you pay 2-4 times as much for housing and as a result have many more working years until retirement. For those without substantial income (high 100’s+), this is a major, life-altering difference. We’ll retire on the coast at 55, while our friends in Bay Park will be working another 10 years to pay off their 1,500sf mistakes.[/quote]

Ren, paramount . . . I’m trying to learn, too. I’m totally unfamiliar with TV except what I have seen from the interstate. My only “experience” with RIV County is driving thru there (SR 395 which later became I-15 which later became I-15E, which later became I-215) on the way to ski resorts. There seems to be several on this board who are VERY attracted to this area.

Ren, what do you mean by “2-4 times as much for housing?” Where are you referring to (on the “coast”) as a basis for comparison? Why is purchasing a 1500 sf property in Bay Park a “mistake” in comparison to purchasing a house in TV? (Aren’t many lots in BP are large enough for expansion?)

How can you “retire on the coast at 55” if there isn’t sufficient equity (or “value” if free and clear) in your TV property from a potential sale to buy on the “coast” mortgage-free when the time comes?

Do you consider non-coastal San Diego communities “the coast,” such as UC, La Mesa, Chula Vista, Allied Gardens, North Park, College area, etc?

Do you think the areas mentioned above, for example, are better or worse investments (over the long haul) than TV?

If you don’t mind my asking, what is your property tax rate in TV? Are you paying MR bonds?

I’m more interested in your thoughts on my 1st and 2nd questions than the others. Thanks.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Ren]Question for you, Paramount – were your issues a result of bad luck or a series of mistakes on your part? If you can blame it soley on something specific to TV, please let us know what that is so we can learn from it. If you were in great financial shape, would you still look at TV the same way?

We’ve only been living here for 8 months, but we love it so far, and more and more, the coast is starting to look like the bigger compromise. The downsides to Temecula aren’t a big deal, but on the coast, you pay 2-4 times as much for housing and as a result have many more working years until retirement. For those without substantial income (high 100’s+), this is a major, life-altering difference. We’ll retire on the coast at 55, while our friends in Bay Park will be working another 10 years to pay off their 1,500sf mistakes.[/quote]

Ren, paramount . . . I’m trying to learn, too. I’m totally unfamiliar with TV except what I have seen from the interstate. My only “experience” with RIV County is driving thru there (SR 395 which later became I-15 which later became I-15E, which later became I-215) on the way to ski resorts. There seems to be several on this board who are VERY attracted to this area.

Ren, what do you mean by “2-4 times as much for housing?” Where are you referring to (on the “coast”) as a basis for comparison? Why is purchasing a 1500 sf property in Bay Park a “mistake” in comparison to purchasing a house in TV? (Aren’t many lots in BP are large enough for expansion?)

How can you “retire on the coast at 55” if there isn’t sufficient equity (or “value” if free and clear) in your TV property from a potential sale to buy on the “coast” mortgage-free when the time comes?

Do you consider non-coastal San Diego communities “the coast,” such as UC, La Mesa, Chula Vista, Allied Gardens, North Park, College area, etc?

Do you think the areas mentioned above, for example, are better or worse investments (over the long haul) than TV?

If you don’t mind my asking, what is your property tax rate in TV? Are you paying MR bonds?

I’m more interested in your thoughts on my 1st and 2nd questions than the others. Thanks.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Ren]Question for you, Paramount – were your issues a result of bad luck or a series of mistakes on your part? If you can blame it soley on something specific to TV, please let us know what that is so we can learn from it. If you were in great financial shape, would you still look at TV the same way?

We’ve only been living here for 8 months, but we love it so far, and more and more, the coast is starting to look like the bigger compromise. The downsides to Temecula aren’t a big deal, but on the coast, you pay 2-4 times as much for housing and as a result have many more working years until retirement. For those without substantial income (high 100’s+), this is a major, life-altering difference. We’ll retire on the coast at 55, while our friends in Bay Park will be working another 10 years to pay off their 1,500sf mistakes.[/quote]

Ren, paramount . . . I’m trying to learn, too. I’m totally unfamiliar with TV except what I have seen from the interstate. My only “experience” with RIV County is driving thru there (SR 395 which later became I-15 which later became I-15E, which later became I-215) on the way to ski resorts. There seems to be several on this board who are VERY attracted to this area.

Ren, what do you mean by “2-4 times as much for housing?” Where are you referring to (on the “coast”) as a basis for comparison? Why is purchasing a 1500 sf property in Bay Park a “mistake” in comparison to purchasing a house in TV? (Aren’t many lots in BP are large enough for expansion?)

How can you “retire on the coast at 55” if there isn’t sufficient equity (or “value” if free and clear) in your TV property from a potential sale to buy on the “coast” mortgage-free when the time comes?

Do you consider non-coastal San Diego communities “the coast,” such as UC, La Mesa, Chula Vista, Allied Gardens, North Park, College area, etc?

Do you think the areas mentioned above, for example, are better or worse investments (over the long haul) than TV?

If you don’t mind my asking, what is your property tax rate in TV? Are you paying MR bonds?

I’m more interested in your thoughts on my 1st and 2nd questions than the others. Thanks.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Ren]Question for you, Paramount – were your issues a result of bad luck or a series of mistakes on your part? If you can blame it soley on something specific to TV, please let us know what that is so we can learn from it. If you were in great financial shape, would you still look at TV the same way?

We’ve only been living here for 8 months, but we love it so far, and more and more, the coast is starting to look like the bigger compromise. The downsides to Temecula aren’t a big deal, but on the coast, you pay 2-4 times as much for housing and as a result have many more working years until retirement. For those without substantial income (high 100’s+), this is a major, life-altering difference. We’ll retire on the coast at 55, while our friends in Bay Park will be working another 10 years to pay off their 1,500sf mistakes.[/quote]

Ren, paramount . . . I’m trying to learn, too. I’m totally unfamiliar with TV except what I have seen from the interstate. My only “experience” with RIV County is driving thru there (SR 395 which later became I-15 which later became I-15E, which later became I-215) on the way to ski resorts. There seems to be several on this board who are VERY attracted to this area.

Ren, what do you mean by “2-4 times as much for housing?” Where are you referring to (on the “coast”) as a basis for comparison? Why is purchasing a 1500 sf property in Bay Park a “mistake” in comparison to purchasing a house in TV? (Aren’t many lots in BP are large enough for expansion?)

How can you “retire on the coast at 55” if there isn’t sufficient equity (or “value” if free and clear) in your TV property from a potential sale to buy on the “coast” mortgage-free when the time comes?

Do you consider non-coastal San Diego communities “the coast,” such as UC, La Mesa, Chula Vista, Allied Gardens, North Park, College area, etc?

Do you think the areas mentioned above, for example, are better or worse investments (over the long haul) than TV?

If you don’t mind my asking, what is your property tax rate in TV? Are you paying MR bonds?

I’m more interested in your thoughts on my 1st and 2nd questions than the others. Thanks.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Ren]Question for you, Paramount – were your issues a result of bad luck or a series of mistakes on your part? If you can blame it soley on something specific to TV, please let us know what that is so we can learn from it. If you were in great financial shape, would you still look at TV the same way?

We’ve only been living here for 8 months, but we love it so far, and more and more, the coast is starting to look like the bigger compromise. The downsides to Temecula aren’t a big deal, but on the coast, you pay 2-4 times as much for housing and as a result have many more working years until retirement. For those without substantial income (high 100’s+), this is a major, life-altering difference. We’ll retire on the coast at 55, while our friends in Bay Park will be working another 10 years to pay off their 1,500sf mistakes.[/quote]

Ren, paramount . . . I’m trying to learn, too. I’m totally unfamiliar with TV except what I have seen from the interstate. My only “experience” with RIV County is driving thru there (SR 395 which later became I-15 which later became I-15E, which later became I-215) on the way to ski resorts. There seems to be several on this board who are VERY attracted to this area.

Ren, what do you mean by “2-4 times as much for housing?” Where are you referring to (on the “coast”) as a basis for comparison? Why is purchasing a 1500 sf property in Bay Park a “mistake” in comparison to purchasing a house in TV? (Aren’t many lots in BP are large enough for expansion?)

How can you “retire on the coast at 55” if there isn’t sufficient equity (or “value” if free and clear) in your TV property from a potential sale to buy on the “coast” mortgage-free when the time comes?

Do you consider non-coastal San Diego communities “the coast,” such as UC, La Mesa, Chula Vista, Allied Gardens, North Park, College area, etc?

Do you think the areas mentioned above, for example, are better or worse investments (over the long haul) than TV?

If you don’t mind my asking, what is your property tax rate in TV? Are you paying MR bonds?

I’m more interested in your thoughts on my 1st and 2nd questions than the others. Thanks.

[Ren]

When I say “coast”, I generally mean north county coastal or a location in San Diego proper that is near the coast (like Bay Park). I probably wouldn’t consider areas like North Park just because they can command a premium without what I would consider to be a premium location.

I think buying a house anywhere (coast or not) is a mistake if the payment is dangerously high for your income. By dangerously high, I mean there would be a risk of losing the house if one or both owners lost their job. I’m a firm believer in being extremely conservative when it comes to budgeting. If a couple can survive with one spouse on unemployment and the other working full time at a gas station, that’s a good start (and that’s not even a worst case scenario – think major injury/illness if you want to go there). If not, or if the property wouldn’t at least break even as a rental, they’re paying too much for housing and they should be renting a smaller place.

It’s not that the value of my house in Temecula will enable me to retire early on the coast, it’s that my $1k mortgage will enable me to save several thousand more per month than I would otherwise, over the next 15 years, all of it reinvested in rental property. Our current property will become a rental as well, and it was chosen with that in mind. For the retirement property we’re thinking 40% down and a 15-year loan, so it won’t be completely mortgage-free, but because other sources of income will cover it, it’s not a concern.

Our current tax rate is 1.5%. There are bonds involved, but I don’t know the details. That’s one of the downsides to this area, but like all the other downsides, it’s minor – that 1.5% is on a house that cost me $250k, so it’s not like I’m paying exorbitant amounts in taxes. We have several rather well off friends in Carlsbad who pay more in taxes than our entire PITI. At the same time, it isn’t a mistake for them to buy on the coast, because they can easily afford it.

Other benefits to TV which aren’t mentioned often are lower child care costs and HOA fees (ours is $46/month, and that includes a community pool). Those two alone make up for the gas used in the commute.

Anything near the coast would be a better long-term investment than TV, if you buy at the right price. In my opinion, we’re not there yet. You also have to consider that part of what makes an investment a good one is if you’re not over-extending yourself, which allows you to put some of your eggs in other baskets.

[Ren]

When I say “coast”, I generally mean north county coastal or a location in San Diego proper that is near the coast (like Bay Park). I probably wouldn’t consider areas like North Park just because they can command a premium without what I would consider to be a premium location.

I think buying a house anywhere (coast or not) is a mistake if the payment is dangerously high for your income. By dangerously high, I mean there would be a risk of losing the house if one or both owners lost their job. I’m a firm believer in being extremely conservative when it comes to budgeting. If a couple can survive with one spouse on unemployment and the other working full time at a gas station, that’s a good start (and that’s not even a worst case scenario – think major injury/illness if you want to go there). If not, or if the property wouldn’t at least break even as a rental, they’re paying too much for housing and they should be renting a smaller place.

It’s not that the value of my house in Temecula will enable me to retire early on the coast, it’s that my $1k mortgage will enable me to save several thousand more per month than I would otherwise, over the next 15 years, all of it reinvested in rental property. Our current property will become a rental as well, and it was chosen with that in mind. For the retirement property we’re thinking 40% down and a 15-year loan, so it won’t be completely mortgage-free, but because other sources of income will cover it, it’s not a concern.

Our current tax rate is 1.5%. There are bonds involved, but I don’t know the details. That’s one of the downsides to this area, but like all the other downsides, it’s minor – that 1.5% is on a house that cost me $250k, so it’s not like I’m paying exorbitant amounts in taxes. We have several rather well off friends in Carlsbad who pay more in taxes than our entire PITI. At the same time, it isn’t a mistake for them to buy on the coast, because they can easily afford it.

Other benefits to TV which aren’t mentioned often are lower child care costs and HOA fees (ours is $46/month, and that includes a community pool). Those two alone make up for the gas used in the commute.

Anything near the coast would be a better long-term investment than TV, if you buy at the right price. In my opinion, we’re not there yet. You also have to consider that part of what makes an investment a good one is if you’re not over-extending yourself, which allows you to put some of your eggs in other baskets.

[Ren]

When I say “coast”, I generally mean north county coastal or a location in San Diego proper that is near the coast (like Bay Park). I probably wouldn’t consider areas like North Park just because they can command a premium without what I would consider to be a premium location.

I think buying a house anywhere (coast or not) is a mistake if the payment is dangerously high for your income. By dangerously high, I mean there would be a risk of losing the house if one or both owners lost their job. I’m a firm believer in being extremely conservative when it comes to budgeting. If a couple can survive with one spouse on unemployment and the other working full time at a gas station, that’s a good start (and that’s not even a worst case scenario – think major injury/illness if you want to go there). If not, or if the property wouldn’t at least break even as a rental, they’re paying too much for housing and they should be renting a smaller place.

It’s not that the value of my house in Temecula will enable me to retire early on the coast, it’s that my $1k mortgage will enable me to save several thousand more per month than I would otherwise, over the next 15 years, all of it reinvested in rental property. Our current property will become a rental as well, and it was chosen with that in mind. For the retirement property we’re thinking 40% down and a 15-year loan, so it won’t be completely mortgage-free, but because other sources of income will cover it, it’s not a concern.

Our current tax rate is 1.5%. There are bonds involved, but I don’t know the details. That’s one of the downsides to this area, but like all the other downsides, it’s minor – that 1.5% is on a house that cost me $250k, so it’s not like I’m paying exorbitant amounts in taxes. We have several rather well off friends in Carlsbad who pay more in taxes than our entire PITI. At the same time, it isn’t a mistake for them to buy on the coast, because they can easily afford it.

Other benefits to TV which aren’t mentioned often are lower child care costs and HOA fees (ours is $46/month, and that includes a community pool). Those two alone make up for the gas used in the commute.

Anything near the coast would be a better long-term investment than TV, if you buy at the right price. In my opinion, we’re not there yet. You also have to consider that part of what makes an investment a good one is if you’re not over-extending yourself, which allows you to put some of your eggs in other baskets.

[Ren]

When I say “coast”, I generally mean north county coastal or a location in San Diego proper that is near the coast (like Bay Park). I probably wouldn’t consider areas like North Park just because they can command a premium without what I would consider to be a premium location.

I think buying a house anywhere (coast or not) is a mistake if the payment is dangerously high for your income. By dangerously high, I mean there would be a risk of losing the house if one or both owners lost their job. I’m a firm believer in being extremely conservative when it comes to budgeting. If a couple can survive with one spouse on unemployment and the other working full time at a gas station, that’s a good start (and that’s not even a worst case scenario – think major injury/illness if you want to go there). If not, or if the property wouldn’t at least break even as a rental, they’re paying too much for housing and they should be renting a smaller place.

It’s not that the value of my house in Temecula will enable me to retire early on the coast, it’s that my $1k mortgage will enable me to save several thousand more per month than I would otherwise, over the next 15 years, all of it reinvested in rental property. Our current property will become a rental as well, and it was chosen with that in mind. For the retirement property we’re thinking 40% down and a 15-year loan, so it won’t be completely mortgage-free, but because other sources of income will cover it, it’s not a concern.

Our current tax rate is 1.5%. There are bonds involved, but I don’t know the details. That’s one of the downsides to this area, but like all the other downsides, it’s minor – that 1.5% is on a house that cost me $250k, so it’s not like I’m paying exorbitant amounts in taxes. We have several rather well off friends in Carlsbad who pay more in taxes than our entire PITI. At the same time, it isn’t a mistake for them to buy on the coast, because they can easily afford it.

Other benefits to TV which aren’t mentioned often are lower child care costs and HOA fees (ours is $46/month, and that includes a community pool). Those two alone make up for the gas used in the commute.

Anything near the coast would be a better long-term investment than TV, if you buy at the right price. In my opinion, we’re not there yet. You also have to consider that part of what makes an investment a good one is if you’re not over-extending yourself, which allows you to put some of your eggs in other baskets.

[Author]

Posts