should I buy in temecula

[Ren]

[quote=paramount]Talk to me when the honeymoon is over….maybe 5 or 6 years from now.[/quote]

But still no explanation of what exactly made you so bitter, which likely means you can’t really blame the city, because you would have happily shared it if that was the case.

I don’t see how 5 years here will change my view if my glasses are still rosy after 8 months. Of course, I did spend so much time in Del Mar that I’d forgotten what it’s like to encounter friendly people. Maybe I’m still in shock at total strangers smiling and saying “hi”. Once that wears off, I bet the valley walls close in around me and I completely freak out.

I have no delusions that I live in paradise. It is, however, a better value than anything you will find in SD county.

[Ren]

[quote=bearishgurl]Ren, I don’t mean to be argumentative, but do you think TV is more of a “premium” location than North Park (5-10 mins. from dtn. SD on surface sts)? How much (%) premium (if any) should be attributed to a “craftsman-built” home that is still in original condition? And, do you think “coastal” neighborhoods in SD County are the only locations which are worthy of commanding a “premium?” Should properties in Imperial Beach command a premium?[/quote]

What I meant is, I wouldn’t consider North Park to be a premium location for the price. If prices were more reasonable (not necessarily as low as Temecula), maybe I would consider it. For other areas, it really depends on your needs and taste. I wouldn’t choose to live in Imperial Beach, but many others might love it.

[quote]Ren, do you think SFR’s (purchased in the last 15 years) in CA “coastal” areas will “break-even” as rentals? If not, do you think that they’re not worth buying because of this? Do you equate “size” or “square footage” with value or rental-rate?[/quote]

You have to look at individual properties, their purchase price, and local rental rates to determine that. It’s not easy for any property anywhere in San Diego county to be a good rental if purchased in the last 6 or 7 years. When you factor in long-term maintenance, which is a huge chunk (can be 30-40% of rent), they just don’t have positive cash flow. If it’s meant as a primary residence, then positive cash flow isn’t so important, but you would want to break even in case you had to rent it in an emergency.

[quote]Ren, do you pay 2% annually in “taxes” after adding your MR bonds to your 1.5% tax rate, or does your 1.5% rate also cover your MR bonds? In other words, is your annual tax bill on a property assessed at $250K $3,750 ($313 mo.) or closer to $5,000 ($417 mo.)? When you add your taxes, MR, fire ins. prem and $46 HOA fee to your monthly P&I, could you STILL break even if you were to find a tenant tomorrow and begin collecting rent on your current TV property? Moreover, if you retire to SD County and still have rental(s) in RIV Co., will you manage them yourself?[/quote]

Our total tax is 1.52%, so around $3,750. I don’t know how that’s broken down, my wife pays attention to that.
For rental properties in TV, I’m actually even more optimistic than TG. Our total payment, including everything you mentioned, is $1,450/month. After the tax benefit, which is even better for rentals (HOA and other maintenance is deductible), it’s closer to $1,150. Based on Craigslist ads for similar homes, it would rent for $1,600 if we charge a little below market. Figuring an average of 11 months/year occupied, which I think is conservative for the location, that’s an average of just over $300/month positive if we rented it out today. We would manage the properties ourselves, at first anyway.
Pick any property in Temecula that’s $250k-ish or less, and with 20% down, you’ll most likely have positive cash flow. A $300k property will still get you positive cash flow, but the return isn’t as good for the amount down. I think the sweet spot is condos and 3/2 sfr’s from $150k-200k. Our future investment properties will be in that sweet spot with 30%+ down, and so will have more positive cash flow.

[quote]Why is child care lower-priced in TV than SD? Don’t you have to leave your children for longer periods at daycare because of lengthy commutes?[/quote]

I imagine it’s lower because everything is lower – incomes, rents, etc. Child care is based on the number of days/week, and at least at our school, you can have the kids there for up to 10 hours before they charge you an extra $10/hour. We have to work it so that my wife drops them off and I pick them up. Our favorite teacher wants to quit and come be our nanny, and we’re seriously considering that, which would shave off another $500/month.

[quote]What’s your typical family gasoline bill? I live 10 mi. from dtn. SD (surface sts) and go there at least twice a week, along with numerous local errands and use about $80-$100 month or 2 – 2 1/2 tanks (if I don’t take any road trips). FWIW, I drive a luxury sedan.[/quote]

That’s hard to say – my wife is on maternity leave, and when she goes back, it will hopefully be 2-3 days/week with the rest spent at home. My gas depends on where I’m working, as I mainly do contract work either on site or at home. Assuming she’ll be a part time commuter to UTC and I’ll still be in Carlsbad, we’ll spend about $500/month on gas. We both have mid-size 4-bangers.

[quote]Ren, how much (%) lower would the “right price” be for SD County coastal zip codes? And how long do you think it will take the market to get there? Do you think the market on the “coast” will come down in price enough by the time you’re ready to buy a property to retire in?[/quote]

It’s the right price when the math works for your purposes (rental or primary residence). I’ve stopped trying to guess how much further it will drop or how long that will take. All I know is that coastal properties are overpriced today, maybe by 20%, and being artificially propped up. The reason I consider the coast a better long-term investment is because it will always be easier to rent out a property there, although I also don’t see Temecula deteriorating to the point where it would be difficult to rent out a property, either. If I was wealthy and prices were reasonable on the coast, that’s probably where I would buy. I’m not, and Temecula prices are reasonable now, so it’s currently a better investment.

[Ren]

[quote=bearishgurl]Ren, I don’t mean to be argumentative, but do you think TV is more of a “premium” location than North Park (5-10 mins. from dtn. SD on surface sts)? How much (%) premium (if any) should be attributed to a “craftsman-built” home that is still in original condition? And, do you think “coastal” neighborhoods in SD County are the only locations which are worthy of commanding a “premium?” Should properties in Imperial Beach command a premium?[/quote]

What I meant is, I wouldn’t consider North Park to be a premium location for the price. If prices were more reasonable (not necessarily as low as Temecula), maybe I would consider it. For other areas, it really depends on your needs and taste. I wouldn’t choose to live in Imperial Beach, but many others might love it.

[quote]Ren, do you think SFR’s (purchased in the last 15 years) in CA “coastal” areas will “break-even” as rentals? If not, do you think that they’re not worth buying because of this? Do you equate “size” or “square footage” with value or rental-rate?[/quote]

You have to look at individual properties, their purchase price, and local rental rates to determine that. It’s not easy for any property anywhere in San Diego county to be a good rental if purchased in the last 6 or 7 years. When you factor in long-term maintenance, which is a huge chunk (can be 30-40% of rent), they just don’t have positive cash flow. If it’s meant as a primary residence, then positive cash flow isn’t so important, but you would want to break even in case you had to rent it in an emergency.

[quote]Ren, do you pay 2% annually in “taxes” after adding your MR bonds to your 1.5% tax rate, or does your 1.5% rate also cover your MR bonds? In other words, is your annual tax bill on a property assessed at $250K $3,750 ($313 mo.) or closer to $5,000 ($417 mo.)? When you add your taxes, MR, fire ins. prem and $46 HOA fee to your monthly P&I, could you STILL break even if you were to find a tenant tomorrow and begin collecting rent on your current TV property? Moreover, if you retire to SD County and still have rental(s) in RIV Co., will you manage them yourself?[/quote]

Our total tax is 1.52%, so around $3,750. I don’t know how that’s broken down, my wife pays attention to that.
For rental properties in TV, I’m actually even more optimistic than TG. Our total payment, including everything you mentioned, is $1,450/month. After the tax benefit, which is even better for rentals (HOA and other maintenance is deductible), it’s closer to $1,150. Based on Craigslist ads for similar homes, it would rent for $1,600 if we charge a little below market. Figuring an average of 11 months/year occupied, which I think is conservative for the location, that’s an average of just over $300/month positive if we rented it out today. We would manage the properties ourselves, at first anyway.
Pick any property in Temecula that’s $250k-ish or less, and with 20% down, you’ll most likely have positive cash flow. A $300k property will still get you positive cash flow, but the return isn’t as good for the amount down. I think the sweet spot is condos and 3/2 sfr’s from $150k-200k. Our future investment properties will be in that sweet spot with 30%+ down, and so will have more positive cash flow.

[quote]Why is child care lower-priced in TV than SD? Don’t you have to leave your children for longer periods at daycare because of lengthy commutes?[/quote]

I imagine it’s lower because everything is lower – incomes, rents, etc. Child care is based on the number of days/week, and at least at our school, you can have the kids there for up to 10 hours before they charge you an extra $10/hour. We have to work it so that my wife drops them off and I pick them up. Our favorite teacher wants to quit and come be our nanny, and we’re seriously considering that, which would shave off another $500/month.

[quote]What’s your typical family gasoline bill? I live 10 mi. from dtn. SD (surface sts) and go there at least twice a week, along with numerous local errands and use about $80-$100 month or 2 – 2 1/2 tanks (if I don’t take any road trips). FWIW, I drive a luxury sedan.[/quote]

That’s hard to say – my wife is on maternity leave, and when she goes back, it will hopefully be 2-3 days/week with the rest spent at home. My gas depends on where I’m working, as I mainly do contract work either on site or at home. Assuming she’ll be a part time commuter to UTC and I’ll still be in Carlsbad, we’ll spend about $500/month on gas. We both have mid-size 4-bangers.

[quote]Ren, how much (%) lower would the “right price” be for SD County coastal zip codes? And how long do you think it will take the market to get there? Do you think the market on the “coast” will come down in price enough by the time you’re ready to buy a property to retire in?[/quote]

It’s the right price when the math works for your purposes (rental or primary residence). I’ve stopped trying to guess how much further it will drop or how long that will take. All I know is that coastal properties are overpriced today, maybe by 20%, and being artificially propped up. The reason I consider the coast a better long-term investment is because it will always be easier to rent out a property there, although I also don’t see Temecula deteriorating to the point where it would be difficult to rent out a property, either. If I was wealthy and prices were reasonable on the coast, that’s probably where I would buy. I’m not, and Temecula prices are reasonable now, so it’s currently a better investment.

[Ren]

[quote=bearishgurl]Ren, I don’t mean to be argumentative, but do you think TV is more of a “premium” location than North Park (5-10 mins. from dtn. SD on surface sts)? How much (%) premium (if any) should be attributed to a “craftsman-built” home that is still in original condition? And, do you think “coastal” neighborhoods in SD County are the only locations which are worthy of commanding a “premium?” Should properties in Imperial Beach command a premium?[/quote]

What I meant is, I wouldn’t consider North Park to be a premium location for the price. If prices were more reasonable (not necessarily as low as Temecula), maybe I would consider it. For other areas, it really depends on your needs and taste. I wouldn’t choose to live in Imperial Beach, but many others might love it.

[quote]Ren, do you think SFR’s (purchased in the last 15 years) in CA “coastal” areas will “break-even” as rentals? If not, do you think that they’re not worth buying because of this? Do you equate “size” or “square footage” with value or rental-rate?[/quote]

You have to look at individual properties, their purchase price, and local rental rates to determine that. It’s not easy for any property anywhere in San Diego county to be a good rental if purchased in the last 6 or 7 years. When you factor in long-term maintenance, which is a huge chunk (can be 30-40% of rent), they just don’t have positive cash flow. If it’s meant as a primary residence, then positive cash flow isn’t so important, but you would want to break even in case you had to rent it in an emergency.

[quote]Ren, do you pay 2% annually in “taxes” after adding your MR bonds to your 1.5% tax rate, or does your 1.5% rate also cover your MR bonds? In other words, is your annual tax bill on a property assessed at $250K $3,750 ($313 mo.) or closer to $5,000 ($417 mo.)? When you add your taxes, MR, fire ins. prem and $46 HOA fee to your monthly P&I, could you STILL break even if you were to find a tenant tomorrow and begin collecting rent on your current TV property? Moreover, if you retire to SD County and still have rental(s) in RIV Co., will you manage them yourself?[/quote]

Our total tax is 1.52%, so around $3,750. I don’t know how that’s broken down, my wife pays attention to that.
For rental properties in TV, I’m actually even more optimistic than TG. Our total payment, including everything you mentioned, is $1,450/month. After the tax benefit, which is even better for rentals (HOA and other maintenance is deductible), it’s closer to $1,150. Based on Craigslist ads for similar homes, it would rent for $1,600 if we charge a little below market. Figuring an average of 11 months/year occupied, which I think is conservative for the location, that’s an average of just over $300/month positive if we rented it out today. We would manage the properties ourselves, at first anyway.
Pick any property in Temecula that’s $250k-ish or less, and with 20% down, you’ll most likely have positive cash flow. A $300k property will still get you positive cash flow, but the return isn’t as good for the amount down. I think the sweet spot is condos and 3/2 sfr’s from $150k-200k. Our future investment properties will be in that sweet spot with 30%+ down, and so will have more positive cash flow.

[quote]Why is child care lower-priced in TV than SD? Don’t you have to leave your children for longer periods at daycare because of lengthy commutes?[/quote]

I imagine it’s lower because everything is lower – incomes, rents, etc. Child care is based on the number of days/week, and at least at our school, you can have the kids there for up to 10 hours before they charge you an extra $10/hour. We have to work it so that my wife drops them off and I pick them up. Our favorite teacher wants to quit and come be our nanny, and we’re seriously considering that, which would shave off another $500/month.

[quote]What’s your typical family gasoline bill? I live 10 mi. from dtn. SD (surface sts) and go there at least twice a week, along with numerous local errands and use about $80-$100 month or 2 – 2 1/2 tanks (if I don’t take any road trips). FWIW, I drive a luxury sedan.[/quote]

That’s hard to say – my wife is on maternity leave, and when she goes back, it will hopefully be 2-3 days/week with the rest spent at home. My gas depends on where I’m working, as I mainly do contract work either on site or at home. Assuming she’ll be a part time commuter to UTC and I’ll still be in Carlsbad, we’ll spend about $500/month on gas. We both have mid-size 4-bangers.

[quote]Ren, how much (%) lower would the “right price” be for SD County coastal zip codes? And how long do you think it will take the market to get there? Do you think the market on the “coast” will come down in price enough by the time you’re ready to buy a property to retire in?[/quote]

It’s the right price when the math works for your purposes (rental or primary residence). I’ve stopped trying to guess how much further it will drop or how long that will take. All I know is that coastal properties are overpriced today, maybe by 20%, and being artificially propped up. The reason I consider the coast a better long-term investment is because it will always be easier to rent out a property there, although I also don’t see Temecula deteriorating to the point where it would be difficult to rent out a property, either. If I was wealthy and prices were reasonable on the coast, that’s probably where I would buy. I’m not, and Temecula prices are reasonable now, so it’s currently a better investment.

[Ren]

[quote=bearishgurl]Ren, I don’t mean to be argumentative, but do you think TV is more of a “premium” location than North Park (5-10 mins. from dtn. SD on surface sts)? How much (%) premium (if any) should be attributed to a “craftsman-built” home that is still in original condition? And, do you think “coastal” neighborhoods in SD County are the only locations which are worthy of commanding a “premium?” Should properties in Imperial Beach command a premium?[/quote]

What I meant is, I wouldn’t consider North Park to be a premium location for the price. If prices were more reasonable (not necessarily as low as Temecula), maybe I would consider it. For other areas, it really depends on your needs and taste. I wouldn’t choose to live in Imperial Beach, but many others might love it.

[quote]Ren, do you think SFR’s (purchased in the last 15 years) in CA “coastal” areas will “break-even” as rentals? If not, do you think that they’re not worth buying because of this? Do you equate “size” or “square footage” with value or rental-rate?[/quote]

You have to look at individual properties, their purchase price, and local rental rates to determine that. It’s not easy for any property anywhere in San Diego county to be a good rental if purchased in the last 6 or 7 years. When you factor in long-term maintenance, which is a huge chunk (can be 30-40% of rent), they just don’t have positive cash flow. If it’s meant as a primary residence, then positive cash flow isn’t so important, but you would want to break even in case you had to rent it in an emergency.

[quote]Ren, do you pay 2% annually in “taxes” after adding your MR bonds to your 1.5% tax rate, or does your 1.5% rate also cover your MR bonds? In other words, is your annual tax bill on a property assessed at $250K $3,750 ($313 mo.) or closer to $5,000 ($417 mo.)? When you add your taxes, MR, fire ins. prem and $46 HOA fee to your monthly P&I, could you STILL break even if you were to find a tenant tomorrow and begin collecting rent on your current TV property? Moreover, if you retire to SD County and still have rental(s) in RIV Co., will you manage them yourself?[/quote]

Our total tax is 1.52%, so around $3,750. I don’t know how that’s broken down, my wife pays attention to that.
For rental properties in TV, I’m actually even more optimistic than TG. Our total payment, including everything you mentioned, is $1,450/month. After the tax benefit, which is even better for rentals (HOA and other maintenance is deductible), it’s closer to $1,150. Based on Craigslist ads for similar homes, it would rent for $1,600 if we charge a little below market. Figuring an average of 11 months/year occupied, which I think is conservative for the location, that’s an average of just over $300/month positive if we rented it out today. We would manage the properties ourselves, at first anyway.
Pick any property in Temecula that’s $250k-ish or less, and with 20% down, you’ll most likely have positive cash flow. A $300k property will still get you positive cash flow, but the return isn’t as good for the amount down. I think the sweet spot is condos and 3/2 sfr’s from $150k-200k. Our future investment properties will be in that sweet spot with 30%+ down, and so will have more positive cash flow.

[quote]Why is child care lower-priced in TV than SD? Don’t you have to leave your children for longer periods at daycare because of lengthy commutes?[/quote]

I imagine it’s lower because everything is lower – incomes, rents, etc. Child care is based on the number of days/week, and at least at our school, you can have the kids there for up to 10 hours before they charge you an extra $10/hour. We have to work it so that my wife drops them off and I pick them up. Our favorite teacher wants to quit and come be our nanny, and we’re seriously considering that, which would shave off another $500/month.

[quote]What’s your typical family gasoline bill? I live 10 mi. from dtn. SD (surface sts) and go there at least twice a week, along with numerous local errands and use about $80-$100 month or 2 – 2 1/2 tanks (if I don’t take any road trips). FWIW, I drive a luxury sedan.[/quote]

That’s hard to say – my wife is on maternity leave, and when she goes back, it will hopefully be 2-3 days/week with the rest spent at home. My gas depends on where I’m working, as I mainly do contract work either on site or at home. Assuming she’ll be a part time commuter to UTC and I’ll still be in Carlsbad, we’ll spend about $500/month on gas. We both have mid-size 4-bangers.

[quote]Ren, how much (%) lower would the “right price” be for SD County coastal zip codes? And how long do you think it will take the market to get there? Do you think the market on the “coast” will come down in price enough by the time you’re ready to buy a property to retire in?[/quote]

It’s the right price when the math works for your purposes (rental or primary residence). I’ve stopped trying to guess how much further it will drop or how long that will take. All I know is that coastal properties are overpriced today, maybe by 20%, and being artificially propped up. The reason I consider the coast a better long-term investment is because it will always be easier to rent out a property there, although I also don’t see Temecula deteriorating to the point where it would be difficult to rent out a property, either. If I was wealthy and prices were reasonable on the coast, that’s probably where I would buy. I’m not, and Temecula prices are reasonable now, so it’s currently a better investment.

[Ren]

[quote=bearishgurl]Ren, I don’t mean to be argumentative, but do you think TV is more of a “premium” location than North Park (5-10 mins. from dtn. SD on surface sts)? How much (%) premium (if any) should be attributed to a “craftsman-built” home that is still in original condition? And, do you think “coastal” neighborhoods in SD County are the only locations which are worthy of commanding a “premium?” Should properties in Imperial Beach command a premium?[/quote]

What I meant is, I wouldn’t consider North Park to be a premium location for the price. If prices were more reasonable (not necessarily as low as Temecula), maybe I would consider it. For other areas, it really depends on your needs and taste. I wouldn’t choose to live in Imperial Beach, but many others might love it.

[quote]Ren, do you think SFR’s (purchased in the last 15 years) in CA “coastal” areas will “break-even” as rentals? If not, do you think that they’re not worth buying because of this? Do you equate “size” or “square footage” with value or rental-rate?[/quote]

You have to look at individual properties, their purchase price, and local rental rates to determine that. It’s not easy for any property anywhere in San Diego county to be a good rental if purchased in the last 6 or 7 years. When you factor in long-term maintenance, which is a huge chunk (can be 30-40% of rent), they just don’t have positive cash flow. If it’s meant as a primary residence, then positive cash flow isn’t so important, but you would want to break even in case you had to rent it in an emergency.

[quote]Ren, do you pay 2% annually in “taxes” after adding your MR bonds to your 1.5% tax rate, or does your 1.5% rate also cover your MR bonds? In other words, is your annual tax bill on a property assessed at $250K $3,750 ($313 mo.) or closer to $5,000 ($417 mo.)? When you add your taxes, MR, fire ins. prem and $46 HOA fee to your monthly P&I, could you STILL break even if you were to find a tenant tomorrow and begin collecting rent on your current TV property? Moreover, if you retire to SD County and still have rental(s) in RIV Co., will you manage them yourself?[/quote]

Our total tax is 1.52%, so around $3,750. I don’t know how that’s broken down, my wife pays attention to that.
For rental properties in TV, I’m actually even more optimistic than TG. Our total payment, including everything you mentioned, is $1,450/month. After the tax benefit, which is even better for rentals (HOA and other maintenance is deductible), it’s closer to $1,150. Based on Craigslist ads for similar homes, it would rent for $1,600 if we charge a little below market. Figuring an average of 11 months/year occupied, which I think is conservative for the location, that’s an average of just over $300/month positive if we rented it out today. We would manage the properties ourselves, at first anyway.
Pick any property in Temecula that’s $250k-ish or less, and with 20% down, you’ll most likely have positive cash flow. A $300k property will still get you positive cash flow, but the return isn’t as good for the amount down. I think the sweet spot is condos and 3/2 sfr’s from $150k-200k. Our future investment properties will be in that sweet spot with 30%+ down, and so will have more positive cash flow.

[quote]Why is child care lower-priced in TV than SD? Don’t you have to leave your children for longer periods at daycare because of lengthy commutes?[/quote]

I imagine it’s lower because everything is lower – incomes, rents, etc. Child care is based on the number of days/week, and at least at our school, you can have the kids there for up to 10 hours before they charge you an extra $10/hour. We have to work it so that my wife drops them off and I pick them up. Our favorite teacher wants to quit and come be our nanny, and we’re seriously considering that, which would shave off another $500/month.

[quote]What’s your typical family gasoline bill? I live 10 mi. from dtn. SD (surface sts) and go there at least twice a week, along with numerous local errands and use about $80-$100 month or 2 – 2 1/2 tanks (if I don’t take any road trips). FWIW, I drive a luxury sedan.[/quote]

That’s hard to say – my wife is on maternity leave, and when she goes back, it will hopefully be 2-3 days/week with the rest spent at home. My gas depends on where I’m working, as I mainly do contract work either on site or at home. Assuming she’ll be a part time commuter to UTC and I’ll still be in Carlsbad, we’ll spend about $500/month on gas. We both have mid-size 4-bangers.

[quote]Ren, how much (%) lower would the “right price” be for SD County coastal zip codes? And how long do you think it will take the market to get there? Do you think the market on the “coast” will come down in price enough by the time you’re ready to buy a property to retire in?[/quote]

It’s the right price when the math works for your purposes (rental or primary residence). I’ve stopped trying to guess how much further it will drop or how long that will take. All I know is that coastal properties are overpriced today, maybe by 20%, and being artificially propped up. The reason I consider the coast a better long-term investment is because it will always be easier to rent out a property there, although I also don’t see Temecula deteriorating to the point where it would be difficult to rent out a property, either. If I was wealthy and prices were reasonable on the coast, that’s probably where I would buy. I’m not, and Temecula prices are reasonable now, so it’s currently a better investment.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=temeculaguy]We don’t have traditional mello roos here but most houses are in an assessment district. . . I have more traditional mello roos, specifically a water bond to pay for the installation of the water/sewage system. I paid less in purchase price because of it, so it was baked into the cake in my opinion.[/quote]

TG, if your (or the orig. owner of your property’s) purchase price was lowered by the developer because of the of a 30yr(?) $3K a yr water bond, then amount of the bond for each homeowner comes to about 90K. So the price of properties within the “Water Bond CFD” was originally artificially lowered 90K to make the 3K a year water bond payments palatable to buyers of new construction at the time of buildout. The 3K a year you are paying for the water bond, in cash, is NOT wrapped into your mortgage over 15 or 30 years and is NOT tax deductible. Nor does it increase the value of the properties by 90K or any amount because the 3K a year will be passed on to the new owners upon sale until the bonds are paid off. I know you are not claiming here that your water bond is a sales asset or anything, but IMO, it is actually a detriment to future marketability of the properties that lie within this CFD until it is paid off.

[quote=temeculaguy]Most Temecula houses have a fixed dollar amount to pay for certain things, they are itemized on the tax bill. Each tract can vary, but these things include . . . This bill can vary between 1k a year and 2k a year for the average house. Certain areas, like redhawk, have big waterfalls and lots of landscaping, they pay a bit more than a neighborhood with less landscaping. On the reverse, the hoa is extremely low, just $30 a month, because the hoa doesnt do the landscaping. My current hood has that stupid water bond and is in the county, so my yearly tab is 3k fixed plus 1% and I don’t get my trash included.

Everyone pays 1%, plus their fixed assesment district tab, which some parts will never go away, they aren’t bonds, they are ongoing expenses. . . So don’t think of it as a tax rate, everyone pays 1% plus a fixed annual fee, which can vary by neighborhood, but for the most part is about $1500 a year.[/quote](emphasis added)

TG, this $1-2K “extra assessment” on those properties in TV (presumed NOT to be within your water bond CFD) appears to be over and above the Prop 13 allocation of 1% of assessed value. It makes no difference how much one pays for a property if the fixed assessments are the same for everyone. You math above illustrates that those who paid more (not necessarily wisely) are paying LESS of a PERCENTAGE of their purchase price (not necessarily value) out in fixed assessments but it doesn’t change the fact that the assessments are still there, mandatory, and factor into the carrying costs of the property.

TG, even with school construction bonds added in the tax bills, examination of the SFR tax bills in those “less desireable areas” I previously mentioned (excepting annexed-in Chula Vista) will reflect .08 to .24 added to the 1% Prop. 13 base, making their overall tax rate 1.08% to 1.24%, with FREE trash p/u within the City of SD and, except in rare situations, $0 HOA dues. I feel this alone would make my “less desireable area” properties cash flow better as rentals than a highly taxed SFR in TV.

I’m not trying to trash the area or bully Piggs who like TV as I know nothing about it. I’m just trying to find out why some Piggs are saying it’s a better investment to live in TV (or buying in TV will get them “further and faster down the road” to retirement) with all factors taken into consideration.

I didn’t realize redfin had TV listings until late last night and was unfamiliar with it. If you have time, could you still point me to the listings as I do not know the market up there and would not know if something was a “good buy,” under high-power lines or overpriced, etc. Thanks.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=temeculaguy]We don’t have traditional mello roos here but most houses are in an assessment district. . . I have more traditional mello roos, specifically a water bond to pay for the installation of the water/sewage system. I paid less in purchase price because of it, so it was baked into the cake in my opinion.[/quote]

TG, if your (or the orig. owner of your property’s) purchase price was lowered by the developer because of the of a 30yr(?) $3K a yr water bond, then amount of the bond for each homeowner comes to about 90K. So the price of properties within the “Water Bond CFD” was originally artificially lowered 90K to make the 3K a year water bond payments palatable to buyers of new construction at the time of buildout. The 3K a year you are paying for the water bond, in cash, is NOT wrapped into your mortgage over 15 or 30 years and is NOT tax deductible. Nor does it increase the value of the properties by 90K or any amount because the 3K a year will be passed on to the new owners upon sale until the bonds are paid off. I know you are not claiming here that your water bond is a sales asset or anything, but IMO, it is actually a detriment to future marketability of the properties that lie within this CFD until it is paid off.

[quote=temeculaguy]Most Temecula houses have a fixed dollar amount to pay for certain things, they are itemized on the tax bill. Each tract can vary, but these things include . . . This bill can vary between 1k a year and 2k a year for the average house. Certain areas, like redhawk, have big waterfalls and lots of landscaping, they pay a bit more than a neighborhood with less landscaping. On the reverse, the hoa is extremely low, just $30 a month, because the hoa doesnt do the landscaping. My current hood has that stupid water bond and is in the county, so my yearly tab is 3k fixed plus 1% and I don’t get my trash included.

Everyone pays 1%, plus their fixed assesment district tab, which some parts will never go away, they aren’t bonds, they are ongoing expenses. . . So don’t think of it as a tax rate, everyone pays 1% plus a fixed annual fee, which can vary by neighborhood, but for the most part is about $1500 a year.[/quote](emphasis added)

TG, this $1-2K “extra assessment” on those properties in TV (presumed NOT to be within your water bond CFD) appears to be over and above the Prop 13 allocation of 1% of assessed value. It makes no difference how much one pays for a property if the fixed assessments are the same for everyone. You math above illustrates that those who paid more (not necessarily wisely) are paying LESS of a PERCENTAGE of their purchase price (not necessarily value) out in fixed assessments but it doesn’t change the fact that the assessments are still there, mandatory, and factor into the carrying costs of the property.

TG, even with school construction bonds added in the tax bills, examination of the SFR tax bills in those “less desireable areas” I previously mentioned (excepting annexed-in Chula Vista) will reflect .08 to .24 added to the 1% Prop. 13 base, making their overall tax rate 1.08% to 1.24%, with FREE trash p/u within the City of SD and, except in rare situations, $0 HOA dues. I feel this alone would make my “less desireable area” properties cash flow better as rentals than a highly taxed SFR in TV.

I’m not trying to trash the area or bully Piggs who like TV as I know nothing about it. I’m just trying to find out why some Piggs are saying it’s a better investment to live in TV (or buying in TV will get them “further and faster down the road” to retirement) with all factors taken into consideration.

I didn’t realize redfin had TV listings until late last night and was unfamiliar with it. If you have time, could you still point me to the listings as I do not know the market up there and would not know if something was a “good buy,” under high-power lines or overpriced, etc. Thanks.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=temeculaguy]We don’t have traditional mello roos here but most houses are in an assessment district. . . I have more traditional mello roos, specifically a water bond to pay for the installation of the water/sewage system. I paid less in purchase price because of it, so it was baked into the cake in my opinion.[/quote]

TG, if your (or the orig. owner of your property’s) purchase price was lowered by the developer because of the of a 30yr(?) $3K a yr water bond, then amount of the bond for each homeowner comes to about 90K. So the price of properties within the “Water Bond CFD” was originally artificially lowered 90K to make the 3K a year water bond payments palatable to buyers of new construction at the time of buildout. The 3K a year you are paying for the water bond, in cash, is NOT wrapped into your mortgage over 15 or 30 years and is NOT tax deductible. Nor does it increase the value of the properties by 90K or any amount because the 3K a year will be passed on to the new owners upon sale until the bonds are paid off. I know you are not claiming here that your water bond is a sales asset or anything, but IMO, it is actually a detriment to future marketability of the properties that lie within this CFD until it is paid off.

[quote=temeculaguy]Most Temecula houses have a fixed dollar amount to pay for certain things, they are itemized on the tax bill. Each tract can vary, but these things include . . . This bill can vary between 1k a year and 2k a year for the average house. Certain areas, like redhawk, have big waterfalls and lots of landscaping, they pay a bit more than a neighborhood with less landscaping. On the reverse, the hoa is extremely low, just $30 a month, because the hoa doesnt do the landscaping. My current hood has that stupid water bond and is in the county, so my yearly tab is 3k fixed plus 1% and I don’t get my trash included.

Everyone pays 1%, plus their fixed assesment district tab, which some parts will never go away, they aren’t bonds, they are ongoing expenses. . . So don’t think of it as a tax rate, everyone pays 1% plus a fixed annual fee, which can vary by neighborhood, but for the most part is about $1500 a year.[/quote](emphasis added)

TG, this $1-2K “extra assessment” on those properties in TV (presumed NOT to be within your water bond CFD) appears to be over and above the Prop 13 allocation of 1% of assessed value. It makes no difference how much one pays for a property if the fixed assessments are the same for everyone. You math above illustrates that those who paid more (not necessarily wisely) are paying LESS of a PERCENTAGE of their purchase price (not necessarily value) out in fixed assessments but it doesn’t change the fact that the assessments are still there, mandatory, and factor into the carrying costs of the property.

TG, even with school construction bonds added in the tax bills, examination of the SFR tax bills in those “less desireable areas” I previously mentioned (excepting annexed-in Chula Vista) will reflect .08 to .24 added to the 1% Prop. 13 base, making their overall tax rate 1.08% to 1.24%, with FREE trash p/u within the City of SD and, except in rare situations, $0 HOA dues. I feel this alone would make my “less desireable area” properties cash flow better as rentals than a highly taxed SFR in TV.

I’m not trying to trash the area or bully Piggs who like TV as I know nothing about it. I’m just trying to find out why some Piggs are saying it’s a better investment to live in TV (or buying in TV will get them “further and faster down the road” to retirement) with all factors taken into consideration.

I didn’t realize redfin had TV listings until late last night and was unfamiliar with it. If you have time, could you still point me to the listings as I do not know the market up there and would not know if something was a “good buy,” under high-power lines or overpriced, etc. Thanks.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=temeculaguy]We don’t have traditional mello roos here but most houses are in an assessment district. . . I have more traditional mello roos, specifically a water bond to pay for the installation of the water/sewage system. I paid less in purchase price because of it, so it was baked into the cake in my opinion.[/quote]

TG, if your (or the orig. owner of your property’s) purchase price was lowered by the developer because of the of a 30yr(?) $3K a yr water bond, then amount of the bond for each homeowner comes to about 90K. So the price of properties within the “Water Bond CFD” was originally artificially lowered 90K to make the 3K a year water bond payments palatable to buyers of new construction at the time of buildout. The 3K a year you are paying for the water bond, in cash, is NOT wrapped into your mortgage over 15 or 30 years and is NOT tax deductible. Nor does it increase the value of the properties by 90K or any amount because the 3K a year will be passed on to the new owners upon sale until the bonds are paid off. I know you are not claiming here that your water bond is a sales asset or anything, but IMO, it is actually a detriment to future marketability of the properties that lie within this CFD until it is paid off.

[quote=temeculaguy]Most Temecula houses have a fixed dollar amount to pay for certain things, they are itemized on the tax bill. Each tract can vary, but these things include . . . This bill can vary between 1k a year and 2k a year for the average house. Certain areas, like redhawk, have big waterfalls and lots of landscaping, they pay a bit more than a neighborhood with less landscaping. On the reverse, the hoa is extremely low, just $30 a month, because the hoa doesnt do the landscaping. My current hood has that stupid water bond and is in the county, so my yearly tab is 3k fixed plus 1% and I don’t get my trash included.

Everyone pays 1%, plus their fixed assesment district tab, which some parts will never go away, they aren’t bonds, they are ongoing expenses. . . So don’t think of it as a tax rate, everyone pays 1% plus a fixed annual fee, which can vary by neighborhood, but for the most part is about $1500 a year.[/quote](emphasis added)

TG, this $1-2K “extra assessment” on those properties in TV (presumed NOT to be within your water bond CFD) appears to be over and above the Prop 13 allocation of 1% of assessed value. It makes no difference how much one pays for a property if the fixed assessments are the same for everyone. You math above illustrates that those who paid more (not necessarily wisely) are paying LESS of a PERCENTAGE of their purchase price (not necessarily value) out in fixed assessments but it doesn’t change the fact that the assessments are still there, mandatory, and factor into the carrying costs of the property.

TG, even with school construction bonds added in the tax bills, examination of the SFR tax bills in those “less desireable areas” I previously mentioned (excepting annexed-in Chula Vista) will reflect .08 to .24 added to the 1% Prop. 13 base, making their overall tax rate 1.08% to 1.24%, with FREE trash p/u within the City of SD and, except in rare situations, $0 HOA dues. I feel this alone would make my “less desireable area” properties cash flow better as rentals than a highly taxed SFR in TV.

I’m not trying to trash the area or bully Piggs who like TV as I know nothing about it. I’m just trying to find out why some Piggs are saying it’s a better investment to live in TV (or buying in TV will get them “further and faster down the road” to retirement) with all factors taken into consideration.

I didn’t realize redfin had TV listings until late last night and was unfamiliar with it. If you have time, could you still point me to the listings as I do not know the market up there and would not know if something was a “good buy,” under high-power lines or overpriced, etc. Thanks.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=temeculaguy]We don’t have traditional mello roos here but most houses are in an assessment district. . . I have more traditional mello roos, specifically a water bond to pay for the installation of the water/sewage system. I paid less in purchase price because of it, so it was baked into the cake in my opinion.[/quote]

TG, if your (or the orig. owner of your property’s) purchase price was lowered by the developer because of the of a 30yr(?) $3K a yr water bond, then amount of the bond for each homeowner comes to about 90K. So the price of properties within the “Water Bond CFD” was originally artificially lowered 90K to make the 3K a year water bond payments palatable to buyers of new construction at the time of buildout. The 3K a year you are paying for the water bond, in cash, is NOT wrapped into your mortgage over 15 or 30 years and is NOT tax deductible. Nor does it increase the value of the properties by 90K or any amount because the 3K a year will be passed on to the new owners upon sale until the bonds are paid off. I know you are not claiming here that your water bond is a sales asset or anything, but IMO, it is actually a detriment to future marketability of the properties that lie within this CFD until it is paid off.

[quote=temeculaguy]Most Temecula houses have a fixed dollar amount to pay for certain things, they are itemized on the tax bill. Each tract can vary, but these things include . . . This bill can vary between 1k a year and 2k a year for the average house. Certain areas, like redhawk, have big waterfalls and lots of landscaping, they pay a bit more than a neighborhood with less landscaping. On the reverse, the hoa is extremely low, just $30 a month, because the hoa doesnt do the landscaping. My current hood has that stupid water bond and is in the county, so my yearly tab is 3k fixed plus 1% and I don’t get my trash included.

Everyone pays 1%, plus their fixed assesment district tab, which some parts will never go away, they aren’t bonds, they are ongoing expenses. . . So don’t think of it as a tax rate, everyone pays 1% plus a fixed annual fee, which can vary by neighborhood, but for the most part is about $1500 a year.[/quote](emphasis added)

TG, this $1-2K “extra assessment” on those properties in TV (presumed NOT to be within your water bond CFD) appears to be over and above the Prop 13 allocation of 1% of assessed value. It makes no difference how much one pays for a property if the fixed assessments are the same for everyone. You math above illustrates that those who paid more (not necessarily wisely) are paying LESS of a PERCENTAGE of their purchase price (not necessarily value) out in fixed assessments but it doesn’t change the fact that the assessments are still there, mandatory, and factor into the carrying costs of the property.

TG, even with school construction bonds added in the tax bills, examination of the SFR tax bills in those “less desireable areas” I previously mentioned (excepting annexed-in Chula Vista) will reflect .08 to .24 added to the 1% Prop. 13 base, making their overall tax rate 1.08% to 1.24%, with FREE trash p/u within the City of SD and, except in rare situations, $0 HOA dues. I feel this alone would make my “less desireable area” properties cash flow better as rentals than a highly taxed SFR in TV.

I’m not trying to trash the area or bully Piggs who like TV as I know nothing about it. I’m just trying to find out why some Piggs are saying it’s a better investment to live in TV (or buying in TV will get them “further and faster down the road” to retirement) with all factors taken into consideration.

I didn’t realize redfin had TV listings until late last night and was unfamiliar with it. If you have time, could you still point me to the listings as I do not know the market up there and would not know if something was a “good buy,” under high-power lines or overpriced, etc. Thanks.

[carlsbadworker]

[quote=paramount]
Talk to many who live in Temecula, and sooner or later most will say the following: we wanted to move to San Diego or we want to move to San Diego.[/quote]

That’s actually has been the question asked by many board members. Why have you not moved yet?

[quote=paramount]
My total mortgage is ~ $1600/month because I am in fact conservative, and very affordable as a % of my income. My taxes are barely over 1%.
[/quote]

Wait a minute. ~$1600/month is not that small. That is $300K loan at 5%. For a 1500sqft house, that’s too much. That just proves TG’s point that Temecula is bad for those who bought at the bubble years. If you instead only have $200K loan and you are able to refine at today’s approaching 4% 30-year fixed with FED’s help, then that’s only $1K per month. You will be able to close-to cash flow at this price. You can move to San Diego and leave this as a rental, and exactly Ren’s point.

[quote=paramount]
Temecula schools: not bad, not great either. They are average as far as I am concerned, nothing special.
[/quote]

I agree with this.

[quote=paramount]
Gangs: Yes, Temecula DOES have gangs. There was a gang murder just 2 months ago, look it up (my condolences and respect to the families). There has been plenty of gang crime and even gang related murder in Temecula. Go to pe.com and do your research.
[/quote]

No comment. Having lived in Brooklyn for a few years, I always don’t understand what Californian means by gangs.

[quote=paramount]
Basically no jobs
Long commute
Also, many of Temecula’s foreclosures/short sales were bought up by “investors” – on my street for example of about 30 houses, less than 10 are owner occupied.
[/quote]

I agree with all these and I think people do need to have rosy glasses in order not to see these bad sides of Temecula. In addition, the foreclosure and shortsales just kept coming up, not counting all the real hidden inventory (people who wanted to sell due to relocation, divorce, etc, but can’t afford at today’s price). On the other hand, brown lawn is definitely not as widespread as two years ago. I don’t know what’s the reason. I guess at least those who are foreclosed now at least can afford to pay water bills.
I therefore don’t think Temecula house price will appreciate further and faster at today’s price. Given the recent price increases, I don’t think they are particularly good for rental property as well. You get about break-even cash flow but no/little price appreciation (and possible price depreciation). So I don’t think one should look this way for investment opportunity. But buying as a replacement of renting does make sense. Because in worst case (if things didn’t work out for you), you can get out with break-even cash flow. That’s what you couldn’t do in most of San Diego.

[carlsbadworker]

[quote=paramount]
Talk to many who live in Temecula, and sooner or later most will say the following: we wanted to move to San Diego or we want to move to San Diego.[/quote]

That’s actually has been the question asked by many board members. Why have you not moved yet?

[quote=paramount]
My total mortgage is ~ $1600/month because I am in fact conservative, and very affordable as a % of my income. My taxes are barely over 1%.
[/quote]

Wait a minute. ~$1600/month is not that small. That is $300K loan at 5%. For a 1500sqft house, that’s too much. That just proves TG’s point that Temecula is bad for those who bought at the bubble years. If you instead only have $200K loan and you are able to refine at today’s approaching 4% 30-year fixed with FED’s help, then that’s only $1K per month. You will be able to close-to cash flow at this price. You can move to San Diego and leave this as a rental, and exactly Ren’s point.

[quote=paramount]
Temecula schools: not bad, not great either. They are average as far as I am concerned, nothing special.
[/quote]

I agree with this.

[quote=paramount]
Gangs: Yes, Temecula DOES have gangs. There was a gang murder just 2 months ago, look it up (my condolences and respect to the families). There has been plenty of gang crime and even gang related murder in Temecula. Go to pe.com and do your research.
[/quote]

No comment. Having lived in Brooklyn for a few years, I always don’t understand what Californian means by gangs.

[quote=paramount]
Basically no jobs
Long commute
Also, many of Temecula’s foreclosures/short sales were bought up by “investors” – on my street for example of about 30 houses, less than 10 are owner occupied.
[/quote]

I agree with all these and I think people do need to have rosy glasses in order not to see these bad sides of Temecula. In addition, the foreclosure and shortsales just kept coming up, not counting all the real hidden inventory (people who wanted to sell due to relocation, divorce, etc, but can’t afford at today’s price). On the other hand, brown lawn is definitely not as widespread as two years ago. I don’t know what’s the reason. I guess at least those who are foreclosed now at least can afford to pay water bills.
I therefore don’t think Temecula house price will appreciate further and faster at today’s price. Given the recent price increases, I don’t think they are particularly good for rental property as well. You get about break-even cash flow but no/little price appreciation (and possible price depreciation). So I don’t think one should look this way for investment opportunity. But buying as a replacement of renting does make sense. Because in worst case (if things didn’t work out for you), you can get out with break-even cash flow. That’s what you couldn’t do in most of San Diego.

[carlsbadworker]

[quote=paramount]
Talk to many who live in Temecula, and sooner or later most will say the following: we wanted to move to San Diego or we want to move to San Diego.[/quote]

That’s actually has been the question asked by many board members. Why have you not moved yet?

[quote=paramount]
My total mortgage is ~ $1600/month because I am in fact conservative, and very affordable as a % of my income. My taxes are barely over 1%.
[/quote]

Wait a minute. ~$1600/month is not that small. That is $300K loan at 5%. For a 1500sqft house, that’s too much. That just proves TG’s point that Temecula is bad for those who bought at the bubble years. If you instead only have $200K loan and you are able to refine at today’s approaching 4% 30-year fixed with FED’s help, then that’s only $1K per month. You will be able to close-to cash flow at this price. You can move to San Diego and leave this as a rental, and exactly Ren’s point.

[quote=paramount]
Temecula schools: not bad, not great either. They are average as far as I am concerned, nothing special.
[/quote]

I agree with this.

[quote=paramount]
Gangs: Yes, Temecula DOES have gangs. There was a gang murder just 2 months ago, look it up (my condolences and respect to the families). There has been plenty of gang crime and even gang related murder in Temecula. Go to pe.com and do your research.
[/quote]

No comment. Having lived in Brooklyn for a few years, I always don’t understand what Californian means by gangs.

[quote=paramount]
Basically no jobs
Long commute
Also, many of Temecula’s foreclosures/short sales were bought up by “investors” – on my street for example of about 30 houses, less than 10 are owner occupied.
[/quote]

I agree with all these and I think people do need to have rosy glasses in order not to see these bad sides of Temecula. In addition, the foreclosure and shortsales just kept coming up, not counting all the real hidden inventory (people who wanted to sell due to relocation, divorce, etc, but can’t afford at today’s price). On the other hand, brown lawn is definitely not as widespread as two years ago. I don’t know what’s the reason. I guess at least those who are foreclosed now at least can afford to pay water bills.
I therefore don’t think Temecula house price will appreciate further and faster at today’s price. Given the recent price increases, I don’t think they are particularly good for rental property as well. You get about break-even cash flow but no/little price appreciation (and possible price depreciation). So I don’t think one should look this way for investment opportunity. But buying as a replacement of renting does make sense. Because in worst case (if things didn’t work out for you), you can get out with break-even cash flow. That’s what you couldn’t do in most of San Diego.

[carlsbadworker]

[quote=paramount]
Talk to many who live in Temecula, and sooner or later most will say the following: we wanted to move to San Diego or we want to move to San Diego.[/quote]

That’s actually has been the question asked by many board members. Why have you not moved yet?

[quote=paramount]
My total mortgage is ~ $1600/month because I am in fact conservative, and very affordable as a % of my income. My taxes are barely over 1%.
[/quote]

Wait a minute. ~$1600/month is not that small. That is $300K loan at 5%. For a 1500sqft house, that’s too much. That just proves TG’s point that Temecula is bad for those who bought at the bubble years. If you instead only have $200K loan and you are able to refine at today’s approaching 4% 30-year fixed with FED’s help, then that’s only $1K per month. You will be able to close-to cash flow at this price. You can move to San Diego and leave this as a rental, and exactly Ren’s point.

[quote=paramount]
Temecula schools: not bad, not great either. They are average as far as I am concerned, nothing special.
[/quote]

I agree with this.

[quote=paramount]
Gangs: Yes, Temecula DOES have gangs. There was a gang murder just 2 months ago, look it up (my condolences and respect to the families). There has been plenty of gang crime and even gang related murder in Temecula. Go to pe.com and do your research.
[/quote]

No comment. Having lived in Brooklyn for a few years, I always don’t understand what Californian means by gangs.

[quote=paramount]
Basically no jobs
Long commute
Also, many of Temecula’s foreclosures/short sales were bought up by “investors” – on my street for example of about 30 houses, less than 10 are owner occupied.
[/quote]

I agree with all these and I think people do need to have rosy glasses in order not to see these bad sides of Temecula. In addition, the foreclosure and shortsales just kept coming up, not counting all the real hidden inventory (people who wanted to sell due to relocation, divorce, etc, but can’t afford at today’s price). On the other hand, brown lawn is definitely not as widespread as two years ago. I don’t know what’s the reason. I guess at least those who are foreclosed now at least can afford to pay water bills.
I therefore don’t think Temecula house price will appreciate further and faster at today’s price. Given the recent price increases, I don’t think they are particularly good for rental property as well. You get about break-even cash flow but no/little price appreciation (and possible price depreciation). So I don’t think one should look this way for investment opportunity. But buying as a replacement of renting does make sense. Because in worst case (if things didn’t work out for you), you can get out with break-even cash flow. That’s what you couldn’t do in most of San Diego.

[Author]

Posts