Home › Forums › Closed Forums › Properties or Areas › should I buy in temecula
- This topic has 1,064 replies, 43 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 10 months ago by
FlyerInHi.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 26, 2015 at 11:49 AM #787553June 27, 2015 at 9:47 PM #787613
paramount
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]
Back to your SD County discussion, there ARE cities which one can purchase a SFR today for the same price (or slightly more) than those in Temecula. Yes, they may be slightly smaller homes (on average) but maybe not. Examples:
Santee
Lakeside
El Cajon
San Marcos
Oceanside
Vista
Fallbrook
Bonsall
EscondidoI don’t have to tell YOU that ALL of these locations are closer (some MUCH closer) to major job centers in SD North County than Temecula is. And all of them have reasonably-priced homes to choose from. I don’t buy the argument of “die-hard Temeculans” that the IE it is the ONLY place in SoCal to buy into for those families headed by FT workers who are in the the sub $500K homebuyer bracket. It’s not.
My point here is that most SoCal homebuyers whose jobs are NOT in the IE CAN buy a decent home much, much closer to work for the same or similar price as a home would cost in the IE (but w/o MR and HOA) but consciously choose not to. Yes, even today! Listings for these (mostly mid-century) ranch-style family homes of 1100 to 1900 sf abound in at least 30 (inland) cities in LA County. The same mid-century family home costs slightly more ($0 to $80K, depending on location) in at least a dozen cities in the inland OC. Again, with no MR/HOA expense.[/quote]
The problem BG is that you’re missing the point – it’s not just about being close to some fictional job center.
And the market bears this out….hard to argue with the market.
It’s not unlike cars: you might like a certain car and think it’s the best car in the world, but let’s assume that car you like has a crappy residual value.
Again, you can’t really argue with the market – the market is all knowing. It is what it is…
Temecula is packed with people for good reasons….
Another example: There are also good reasons why so many commute from Manhattan to Stamford, Connecticut. 1 hour each way daily!
June 27, 2015 at 9:52 PM #787614
CoronitaParticipant……
June 27, 2015 at 10:27 PM #787616bearishgurl
Participant[quote=paramount][quote=bearishgurl]
Back to your SD County discussion, there ARE cities which one can purchase a SFR today for the same price (or slightly more) than those in Temecula. Yes, they may be slightly smaller homes (on average) but maybe not. Examples:
Santee
Lakeside
El Cajon
San Marcos
Oceanside
Vista
Fallbrook
Bonsall
EscondidoI don’t have to tell YOU that ALL of these locations are closer (some MUCH closer) to major job centers in SD North County than Temecula is. And all of them have reasonably-priced homes to choose from. I don’t buy the argument of “die-hard Temeculans” that the IE it is the ONLY place in SoCal to buy into for those families headed by FT workers who are in the the sub $500K homebuyer bracket. It’s not.
My point here is that most SoCal homebuyers whose jobs are NOT in the IE CAN buy a decent home much, much closer to work for the same or similar price as a home would cost in the IE (but w/o MR and HOA) but consciously choose not to. Yes, even today! Listings for these (mostly mid-century) ranch-style family homes of 1100 to 1900 sf abound in at least 30 (inland) cities in LA County. The same mid-century family home costs slightly more ($0 to $80K, depending on location) in at least a dozen cities in the inland OC. Again, with no MR/HOA expense.[/quote]
The problem BG is that you’re missing the point – it’s not just about being close to some fictional job center.
And the market bears this out….hard to argue with the market.
It’s not unlike cars: you might like a certain car and think it’s the best car in the world, but let’s assume that car you like has a crappy residual value.
Again, you can’t really argue with the market – the market is all knowing. It is what it is…
Temecula is packed with people for good reasons….
Another example: There are also good reasons why so many commute from Manhattan to Stamford, Connecticut. 1 hour each way daily![/quote]
But when the chips fell (in early 2008), it was actually Temecula and the IE which suffered the crappiest residual values in SoCal, en masse. Residential properties in the City of San Bernardino fell in value to such as extent that the City went bankrupt, mostly due to insufficient property tax revenue. Victorville and Adelanto homes were going for 70 – 80% off!
During the same time frame, the closer-in established areas (ex: close-in LA County cities) either didn’t fall at all in price (had a stagnant market) or did have some distress but that distress was not due to hoardes of buyers coming in between 2004 and 2007 in search of “new or newer construction” (there wasn’t any) and paying way too much for their homes. It was primarily due to longer term owners with low, moderate and/or on fixed incomes taking out sub-prime second TD’s and HELOCs on their homes and then couldn’t pay them back under the terms they agreed to. The foreclosing lender deficits and the typical short payoffs requested by short sellers in established LA were far less than those that occurred in the IE, where the typical SFR fell in value by 50-60% and it was not uncommon for lenders to take a $200K – $350K hit on homes they either foreclosed on or agreed to sell short.
Yes, I agree that the market IS all-knowing. It is what it is. Areas located further from major job centers will continue to suffer boom and bust RE cycles more deeply than closer-in cities. That’s the way its always been.
Just jog your memory a little as to what happened in your well-established “hometown,” Pt Loma (SD) between 2008 and 2011, paramount. It had a few MAJOR fixers which sold 30-40% under the market during that time frame and a few (VERY few) short sales (not sure HOW short). But for the most part, the PL market was stagnant to improving there during that time frame, depending on micro-area of the listing. There were never very many listings at one time there because when sellers don’t HAVE to sell in a stagnant or down market, they won’t list!
The major difference in residential RE values between the IE cities and the established cities in coastal counties (for example) is primarily due to the differences in types of owners. In the established areas, the owners have far less debt than a homeowner in a new or newer construction tract, on average, regardless of their income or the value of surrounding homes. In many established micro areas, most of the homes are owned free and clear. Long-term owner solvency has EVERYTHING to do with RE values remaining stable.
June 27, 2015 at 10:37 PM #787617Participant[quote=bearishgurl]
Just jog your memory a little as to what happened in your well-established “hometown,” Pt Loma (SD) between 2008 and 2011, paramount. It had a few MAJOR fixers which sold 30-40% under the market during that time frame and a few (VERY few) short sales (not sure HOW short). But for the most part, the PL market was stagnant to improving there during that time frame, depending on micro-area of the listing. There were never very many listings at one time there because when sellers don’t HAVE to sell in a stagnant or down market, they won’t list!The major difference in residential RE values between the IE cities and the established cities in coastal counties (for example) is primarily due to the differences in types of owners. In the established areas, the owners have far less debt than a homeowner in a new or newer construction tract, on average, regardless of their income or the value of surrounding homes. In many established micro areas, most of the homes are owned free and clear. Long-term owner solvency has EVERYTHING to do with RE values remaining stable.[/quote]
BG: Markets change. And yes, the 1%ers will always do well (coastal. RSF, etc…) and were not as affected by the 2008 crash like the 99%ers in Temecula. San Diego like the Bay Area is also positively gentrified.
There is little doubt that many Temecula shoppers also shop the areas you mentioned, most – by far – see the value in Temecula.
Also allow me to remind you that the Temecula Valley has a population somewhere north of 300k.
June 27, 2015 at 11:13 PM #787619Participant[quote=paramount][quote=bearishgurl]
Just jog your memory a little as to what happened in your well-established “hometown,” Pt Loma (SD) between 2008 and 2011, paramount. It had a few MAJOR fixers which sold 30-40% under the market during that time frame and a few (VERY few) short sales (not sure HOW short). But for the most part, the PL market was stagnant to improving there during that time frame, depending on micro-area of the listing. There were never very many listings at one time there because when sellers don’t HAVE to sell in a stagnant or down market, they won’t list!The major difference in residential RE values between the IE cities and the established cities in coastal counties (for example) is primarily due to the differences in types of owners. In the established areas, the owners have far less debt than a homeowner in a new or newer construction tract, on average, regardless of their income or the value of surrounding homes. In many established micro areas, most of the homes are owned free and clear. Long-term owner solvency has EVERYTHING to do with RE values remaining stable.[/quote]
BG: Markets change. And yes, the 1%ers will always do well (coastal. RSF, etc…) and were not as affected by the 2008 crash like the 99%ers in Temecula. San Diego like the Bay Area is also positively gentrified.
There is little doubt that many Temecula shoppers also shop the areas you mentioned, most – by far – see the value in Temecula.
Also allow me to remind you that the Temecula Valley has a population somewhere north of 300k.[/quote]
Chula Vista has increased in population as well … from 52K in 1986 to about 277K today. But that hasn’t made the quality of life better … for ANY resident. Instead, it’s been eroded. Just like Temecula, the freeways are choked down here for at least four hours per day and a large portion of the worker bees residing in newer construction located along the SR 125 corridor (a toll road) are apparently taxed to the max (MR and 1-3 HOAs) so much so that they can’t see fit to use their toll road for commuting purposes. Instead, they make 8-12 mile jaunts thru OUR surface streets from I-5 or I-805 eastward to and from work every day turning a simple four mile drive on H street or Telegraph Cyn Rd into a 35 minute ordeal for the rest of us.
I’m going to be passing thru Temec and beyond this week (up to the SR-91) and am NOT looking forward to the Temec/Murrietta parking lot on I-15. It’s even worse up there since the road was widened … absolutely horrific. I have NO IDEA how Temec residents even get their errands done.
Having “north of 300K” residents hasn’t done anything for your quality of life, paramount. You could get around faster in Pt Loma, … h@ll, even during sub-base and SPAWARS “rush hours.”
June 28, 2015 at 12:09 AM #787620CoronitaParticipant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=paramount][quote=bearishgurl]
Just jog your memory a little as to what happened in your well-established “hometown,” Pt Loma (SD) between 2008 and 2011, paramount. It had a few MAJOR fixers which sold 30-40% under the market during that time frame and a few (VERY few) short sales (not sure HOW short). But for the most part, the PL market was stagnant to improving there during that time frame, depending on micro-area of the listing. There were never very many listings at one time there because when sellers don’t HAVE to sell in a stagnant or down market, they won’t list!The major difference in residential RE values between the IE cities and the established cities in coastal counties (for example) is primarily due to the differences in types of owners. In the established areas, the owners have far less debt than a homeowner in a new or newer construction tract, on average, regardless of their income or the value of surrounding homes. In many established micro areas, most of the homes are owned free and clear. Long-term owner solvency has EVERYTHING to do with RE values remaining stable.[/quote]
BG: Markets change. And yes, the 1%ers will always do well (coastal. RSF, etc…) and were not as affected by the 2008 crash like the 99%ers in Temecula. San Diego like the Bay Area is also positively gentrified.
There is little doubt that many Temecula shoppers also shop the areas you mentioned, most – by far – see the value in Temecula.
Also allow me to remind you that the Temecula Valley has a population somewhere north of 300k.[/quote]
Chula Vista has increased in population as well … from 52K in 1986 to about 277K today. But that hasn’t made the quality of life better … for ANY resident. Instead, it’s been eroded. Just like Temecula, the freeways are choked down here for at least four hours per day and a large portion of the worker bees residing in newer construction located along the SR 125 corridor (a toll road) are apparently taxed to the max (MR and 1-3 HOAs) so much so that they can’t see fit to use their toll road for commuting purposes. Instead, they make 8-12 mile jaunts thru OUR surface streets from I-5 or I-805 eastward to and from work every day turning a simple four mile drive on H street or Telegraph Cyn Rd into a 35 minute ordeal for the rest of us.
I’m going to be passing thru Temec and beyond this week (up to the SR-91) and am NOT looking forward to the Temec/Murrietta parking lot on I-15. It’s even worse up there since the road was widened … absolutely horrific. I have NO IDEA how Temec residents even get their errands done.
Having “north of 300K” residents hasn’t done anything for your quality of life, paramount. You could get around faster in Pt Loma, … h@ll, even during sub-base and SPAWARS “rush hours.”[/quote]
Come on let’s be real here. Temecula’s booming population has been awesome for real estate re-appreciation. Folks that bought low or folks that held on did well. Very well. Probably closet doubling since bottom. That definitely beats any of my properties I bought. Traffic there is no worse or better than any other congested freeway if you’re heading the wrong commute direction.
I regret not buying a home there when the opportunity arose. I was stupid not to. I’m happy for the folks for whatever reason took advantage of it (whether they actively bought, or just held on and got lucky…)Whatever…. The point isn’t why one bought or held on…The only thing that matters in the end results, which is all the same.
And maybe if people bought more real estate, they don’t need to deal with commute traffic. Because maybe in the future they don’t need to go to work during commute hours. It’s sure one of my goals in the future.
June 28, 2015 at 11:49 AM #787621scaredyclassic
ParticipantIt can be difficult to traverse the entire valley. But there’s little subareas to shop. I’m 3 miles or so from a sprouts. Easy.
June 29, 2015 at 10:11 AM #787640carlsbadworker
ParticipantI am less than one mile from a sprouts. In fact, we often walk over there to get some exercise.
June 29, 2015 at 10:21 AM #787644ParticipantSeems like only yesterday the antigay marriage protestor were lining winchester rd. Where are those losers today? Sad looking bunch really…overweight, shabby looking, angry….just unattractive. By now, at least a handful of their kids are figuring out they’re gay….hope it all works out for them…
June 29, 2015 at 10:43 AM #787645Participant[quote=flu]And maybe if people bought more real estate, they don’t need to deal with commute traffic. Because maybe in the future they don’t need to go to work during commute hours. It’s sure one of my goals in the future.[/quote]
That’s not very realistic unless you leverage like crazy. Rental market is a commodity service market so the long-term return is low. People are betting on the appreciation part of the return for Temecula Valley, I do too but I am not going to leverage like crazy.
There are certainly many risks. The Temecula Valley has built great community and attracted a highly educated demographics profile. But it hasn’t been able to turn that asset into an employment center for professional jobs. There are overall underlying economic trend here: most companies are no longer competing sorely on costs in U.S. They compete with market differentiation, and that bode well for city centers…where you get people to interact more by chance and suburban is losing out its attractiveness, therefore Temecula might not follow the path of old suburban areas, most notably the orange county . But on the other side, there is no great return without risks…and buying at bottom prices a few years ago is like head you win, tail you don’t lose. (I bought two and both appreciated 50%, so in theory, I can have one paid-off house if I want…and therefore doesn’t matter where the price goes)
June 29, 2015 at 11:33 AM #787648The-Shoveler
Participant“suburban is losing out its attractiveness, therefore Temecula might not follow the path of old suburban areas, most notably the orange county .”
I respectfully disagree.
Industry follows its people (not the other way around)
How about Carlsbad?
The Growth does not have to be in town.
June 29, 2015 at 2:39 PM #787652FlyerInHi
Guest[quote=scaredyclassic]Seems like only yesterday the antigay marriage protestor were lining winchester rd. Where are those losers today? Sad looking bunch really…overweight, shabby looking, angry….just unattractive. By now, at least a handful of their kids are figuring out they’re gay….hope it all works out for them…[/quote]
Temecula is like the South. Full of lost causes.
What about the anti immigrant protests? Oh that was Murietta. Same difference. Like santee and lakeside.
June 29, 2015 at 9:22 PM #787660Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]
Temecula is like the South. [/quote]Obviously a Temecula hater.
June 30, 2015 at 12:08 PM #787674GuestTake it as a compliment. A lot of people like it that way.
-
AuthorPosts
- The forum ‘Properties or Areas’ is closed to new topics and replies.