Some questions about Stonebridge

[kcal09]

Stonebridge is very popular to younger families with higher incomes as the schools are relatively good and home homes are bigger than in 4S Ranch. But the MR is clearly a deterrent for most potential buyers.

[joec]

Outside of the 2 places in Santee that I know of (and Skyranch has an insane HOA for absolutely no value which might as well be MR), are there any NEW developments in SD that doesn’t have MR?

With Prop 13 changes, it seems like that’s the main way for builders to build these places now.

It seems for folks looking for a new home, it’s either an old home or just live with the MR (some are lower than others though) and they factor that into their cost equation.

I don’t know how much of a deterrent it is honestly since most folks just look at the total nut they have to pay. Places with higher MR, the house ends up cheaper, lower MR, higher house price…

I just don’t think it’s as much as a deterrent as people make it out to be. I think like TG said, he has to pay some tax on some special bonds, but if the house is 100k less, does it really matter?

Same goes for the family who said they just bought in Del Sur which generally has large MR fees as well.

I just think folks who are blinded by “MR” BAD BAD BAD will do anything to avoid it even if the house was $1…

[joec]

Outside of the 2 places in Santee that I know of (and Skyranch has an insane HOA for absolutely no value which might as well be MR), are there any NEW developments in SD that doesn’t have MR?

With Prop 13 changes, it seems like that’s the main way for builders to build these places now.

It seems for folks looking for a new home, it’s either an old home or just live with the MR (some are lower than others though) and they factor that into their cost equation.

I don’t know how much of a deterrent it is honestly since most folks just look at the total nut they have to pay. Places with higher MR, the house ends up cheaper, lower MR, higher house price…

I just don’t think it’s as much as a deterrent as people make it out to be. I think like TG said, he has to pay some tax on some special bonds, but if the house is 100k less, does it really matter?

Same goes for the family who said they just bought in Del Sur which generally has large MR fees as well.

I just think folks who are blinded by “MR” BAD BAD BAD will do anything to avoid it even if the house was $1…

[joec]

Outside of the 2 places in Santee that I know of (and Skyranch has an insane HOA for absolutely no value which might as well be MR), are there any NEW developments in SD that doesn’t have MR?

With Prop 13 changes, it seems like that’s the main way for builders to build these places now.

It seems for folks looking for a new home, it’s either an old home or just live with the MR (some are lower than others though) and they factor that into their cost equation.

I don’t know how much of a deterrent it is honestly since most folks just look at the total nut they have to pay. Places with higher MR, the house ends up cheaper, lower MR, higher house price…

I just don’t think it’s as much as a deterrent as people make it out to be. I think like TG said, he has to pay some tax on some special bonds, but if the house is 100k less, does it really matter?

Same goes for the family who said they just bought in Del Sur which generally has large MR fees as well.

I just think folks who are blinded by “MR” BAD BAD BAD will do anything to avoid it even if the house was $1…

[joec]

Outside of the 2 places in Santee that I know of (and Skyranch has an insane HOA for absolutely no value which might as well be MR), are there any NEW developments in SD that doesn’t have MR?

With Prop 13 changes, it seems like that’s the main way for builders to build these places now.

It seems for folks looking for a new home, it’s either an old home or just live with the MR (some are lower than others though) and they factor that into their cost equation.

I don’t know how much of a deterrent it is honestly since most folks just look at the total nut they have to pay. Places with higher MR, the house ends up cheaper, lower MR, higher house price…

I just don’t think it’s as much as a deterrent as people make it out to be. I think like TG said, he has to pay some tax on some special bonds, but if the house is 100k less, does it really matter?

Same goes for the family who said they just bought in Del Sur which generally has large MR fees as well.

I just think folks who are blinded by “MR” BAD BAD BAD will do anything to avoid it even if the house was $1…

[joec]

Outside of the 2 places in Santee that I know of (and Skyranch has an insane HOA for absolutely no value which might as well be MR), are there any NEW developments in SD that doesn’t have MR?

With Prop 13 changes, it seems like that’s the main way for builders to build these places now.

It seems for folks looking for a new home, it’s either an old home or just live with the MR (some are lower than others though) and they factor that into their cost equation.

I don’t know how much of a deterrent it is honestly since most folks just look at the total nut they have to pay. Places with higher MR, the house ends up cheaper, lower MR, higher house price…

I just don’t think it’s as much as a deterrent as people make it out to be. I think like TG said, he has to pay some tax on some special bonds, but if the house is 100k less, does it really matter?

Same goes for the family who said they just bought in Del Sur which generally has large MR fees as well.

I just think folks who are blinded by “MR” BAD BAD BAD will do anything to avoid it even if the house was $1…

[kcal09]

I believe that many potential buyers prefer to look elsewhere if there is a high MR. Assuming $6k/yr x 30 yrs = $180k – which raises price of the Serenity homes to at least $1.2 million after landscaping is done.

[kcal09]

I believe that many potential buyers prefer to look elsewhere if there is a high MR. Assuming $6k/yr x 30 yrs = $180k – which raises price of the Serenity homes to at least $1.2 million after landscaping is done.

[kcal09]

I believe that many potential buyers prefer to look elsewhere if there is a high MR. Assuming $6k/yr x 30 yrs = $180k – which raises price of the Serenity homes to at least $1.2 million after landscaping is done.

[kcal09]

I believe that many potential buyers prefer to look elsewhere if there is a high MR. Assuming $6k/yr x 30 yrs = $180k – which raises price of the Serenity homes to at least $1.2 million after landscaping is done.

[kcal09]

I believe that many potential buyers prefer to look elsewhere if there is a high MR. Assuming $6k/yr x 30 yrs = $180k – which raises price of the Serenity homes to at least $1.2 million after landscaping is done.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=joec] . . . I just think folks who are blinded by “MR” BAD BAD BAD will do anything to avoid it even if the house was $1…[/quote]

joec, all the money every year a homeowner is sinking into MR not only is only partially or not at all tax deductible, it is NOT paying down the mortgage loan itself. Thus, the property is not worth all the purchaser is paying into it every year. The money could instead be spent at Home Depot, Lowes, etc., ostensibly to ADD to the property’s VALUE, but it is NOT. It’s going out the door, never to be seen again.

Instead of adding to the value of the property, the still unpaid portion of the MR bonds are actually a DETERRENT at resale time, LIMITING its buyer pool to those willing to assume repayment of the bonds.

There is no evidence that MR areas have higher resale value than older, more established areas which predated the use of MR bonds. Actually, the reverse is most likely true as, in CA coastal counties, the older areas are built upon the most DESIREABLE land, leaving the least desirable land to the developers who had to use MR bonds to fund the infrastructure and subsidize the existing police and fire services, etc (from 1987 forward in SD County’s non-infill projects).

These developers use showy, mesmerizing, high-end “model-home furnishings,” decor and lighting to sell an as-built or future-built model of the same floor plan. The actual home purchased will not look or “feel” anything like the model the buyer(s) toured because it doesn’t have it’s $80K – $100K in “rented interior,” $20K – $60K in landscaping and often the premium lot/view/elevation afforded the model. What they are actually buying is often cavernous (utility- sucking) and sterile-feeling with a dirt backyard and possible slab patio. In addition, there are often NO NEARBY SOLD COMPS available to justify the prices the developer is asking.

This developer “showmanship tactic,” amazingly, seems to be enough to suck buyers in, EVEN WITH ALL the decent resales simultaneously on the market. The full realization of that pesky MR added to property taxes likely doesn’t really set in in the buyer’s mind until they recieve their first full property tax bill (not supplemental bill).

All this nonsense will come to an end when SD County runs out of land to build on. By then, a third or more of the county’s homeowners will be mired in MR debt for longer than it takes to raise their kids :={

[bearishgurl]

[quote=joec] . . . I just think folks who are blinded by “MR” BAD BAD BAD will do anything to avoid it even if the house was $1…[/quote]

joec, all the money every year a homeowner is sinking into MR not only is only partially or not at all tax deductible, it is NOT paying down the mortgage loan itself. Thus, the property is not worth all the purchaser is paying into it every year. The money could instead be spent at Home Depot, Lowes, etc., ostensibly to ADD to the property’s VALUE, but it is NOT. It’s going out the door, never to be seen again.

Instead of adding to the value of the property, the still unpaid portion of the MR bonds are actually a DETERRENT at resale time, LIMITING its buyer pool to those willing to assume repayment of the bonds.

There is no evidence that MR areas have higher resale value than older, more established areas which predated the use of MR bonds. Actually, the reverse is most likely true as, in CA coastal counties, the older areas are built upon the most DESIREABLE land, leaving the least desirable land to the developers who had to use MR bonds to fund the infrastructure and subsidize the existing police and fire services, etc (from 1987 forward in SD County’s non-infill projects).

These developers use showy, mesmerizing, high-end “model-home furnishings,” decor and lighting to sell an as-built or future-built model of the same floor plan. The actual home purchased will not look or “feel” anything like the model the buyer(s) toured because it doesn’t have it’s $80K – $100K in “rented interior,” $20K – $60K in landscaping and often the premium lot/view/elevation afforded the model. What they are actually buying is often cavernous (utility- sucking) and sterile-feeling with a dirt backyard and possible slab patio. In addition, there are often NO NEARBY SOLD COMPS available to justify the prices the developer is asking.

This developer “showmanship tactic,” amazingly, seems to be enough to suck buyers in, EVEN WITH ALL the decent resales simultaneously on the market. The full realization of that pesky MR added to property taxes likely doesn’t really set in in the buyer’s mind until they recieve their first full property tax bill (not supplemental bill).

All this nonsense will come to an end when SD County runs out of land to build on. By then, a third or more of the county’s homeowners will be mired in MR debt for longer than it takes to raise their kids :={

[bearishgurl]

[quote=joec] . . . I just think folks who are blinded by “MR” BAD BAD BAD will do anything to avoid it even if the house was $1…[/quote]

joec, all the money every year a homeowner is sinking into MR not only is only partially or not at all tax deductible, it is NOT paying down the mortgage loan itself. Thus, the property is not worth all the purchaser is paying into it every year. The money could instead be spent at Home Depot, Lowes, etc., ostensibly to ADD to the property’s VALUE, but it is NOT. It’s going out the door, never to be seen again.

Instead of adding to the value of the property, the still unpaid portion of the MR bonds are actually a DETERRENT at resale time, LIMITING its buyer pool to those willing to assume repayment of the bonds.

There is no evidence that MR areas have higher resale value than older, more established areas which predated the use of MR bonds. Actually, the reverse is most likely true as, in CA coastal counties, the older areas are built upon the most DESIREABLE land, leaving the least desirable land to the developers who had to use MR bonds to fund the infrastructure and subsidize the existing police and fire services, etc (from 1987 forward in SD County’s non-infill projects).

These developers use showy, mesmerizing, high-end “model-home furnishings,” decor and lighting to sell an as-built or future-built model of the same floor plan. The actual home purchased will not look or “feel” anything like the model the buyer(s) toured because it doesn’t have it’s $80K – $100K in “rented interior,” $20K – $60K in landscaping and often the premium lot/view/elevation afforded the model. What they are actually buying is often cavernous (utility- sucking) and sterile-feeling with a dirt backyard and possible slab patio. In addition, there are often NO NEARBY SOLD COMPS available to justify the prices the developer is asking.

This developer “showmanship tactic,” amazingly, seems to be enough to suck buyers in, EVEN WITH ALL the decent resales simultaneously on the market. The full realization of that pesky MR added to property taxes likely doesn’t really set in in the buyer’s mind until they recieve their first full property tax bill (not supplemental bill).

All this nonsense will come to an end when SD County runs out of land to build on. By then, a third or more of the county’s homeowners will be mired in MR debt for longer than it takes to raise their kids :={

[bearishgurl]

[quote=joec] . . . I just think folks who are blinded by “MR” BAD BAD BAD will do anything to avoid it even if the house was $1…[/quote]

joec, all the money every year a homeowner is sinking into MR not only is only partially or not at all tax deductible, it is NOT paying down the mortgage loan itself. Thus, the property is not worth all the purchaser is paying into it every year. The money could instead be spent at Home Depot, Lowes, etc., ostensibly to ADD to the property’s VALUE, but it is NOT. It’s going out the door, never to be seen again.

Instead of adding to the value of the property, the still unpaid portion of the MR bonds are actually a DETERRENT at resale time, LIMITING its buyer pool to those willing to assume repayment of the bonds.

There is no evidence that MR areas have higher resale value than older, more established areas which predated the use of MR bonds. Actually, the reverse is most likely true as, in CA coastal counties, the older areas are built upon the most DESIREABLE land, leaving the least desirable land to the developers who had to use MR bonds to fund the infrastructure and subsidize the existing police and fire services, etc (from 1987 forward in SD County’s non-infill projects).

These developers use showy, mesmerizing, high-end “model-home furnishings,” decor and lighting to sell an as-built or future-built model of the same floor plan. The actual home purchased will not look or “feel” anything like the model the buyer(s) toured because it doesn’t have it’s $80K – $100K in “rented interior,” $20K – $60K in landscaping and often the premium lot/view/elevation afforded the model. What they are actually buying is often cavernous (utility- sucking) and sterile-feeling with a dirt backyard and possible slab patio. In addition, there are often NO NEARBY SOLD COMPS available to justify the prices the developer is asking.

This developer “showmanship tactic,” amazingly, seems to be enough to suck buyers in, EVEN WITH ALL the decent resales simultaneously on the market. The full realization of that pesky MR added to property taxes likely doesn’t really set in in the buyer’s mind until they recieve their first full property tax bill (not supplemental bill).

All this nonsense will come to an end when SD County runs out of land to build on. By then, a third or more of the county’s homeowners will be mired in MR debt for longer than it takes to raise their kids :={

[Author]

Posts