Southpointe property in La Jolla

[UCGal]

[quote=DataAgent][quote=ben_vo]Scarlett,

Check out this one: 5688 DESERT VIEW La Jolla, CA 92037

but it seems to be too good to be true… something must be wrong there… maybe this is next to the land slide…[/quote]

It is next to the landslide. The new owner probably couldn’t get insurance or a mortgage.[/quote]

Yep – within 100 feet of destroyed homes. Google maps makes that pretty clear.

http://www.google.com/maps?q=5688+Desert+View+Dr,+92037&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=5688+Desert+View+Dr,+San+Diego,+California+92037&ll=32.824841,-117.235783&spn=0.003117,0.004667&t=h&z=18

[DataAgent]

UCGal… that’s a great satellite photo. I really wonder what’s going to happen long-term to that area. Last year, before the courts absolved the city of liability, my wife and I walked that area. Very depressing. I was carrying a big dslr expensive-looking camera and must have looked important. We heard some real sad stories from a few owners. Met two people still paying mortgages on unlivable houses. According to one original owner, those homes sold for only $60,000ish in the 60s when they were built.

[DataAgent]

UCGal… that’s a great satellite photo. I really wonder what’s going to happen long-term to that area. Last year, before the courts absolved the city of liability, my wife and I walked that area. Very depressing. I was carrying a big dslr expensive-looking camera and must have looked important. We heard some real sad stories from a few owners. Met two people still paying mortgages on unlivable houses. According to one original owner, those homes sold for only $60,000ish in the 60s when they were built.

[DataAgent]

UCGal… that’s a great satellite photo. I really wonder what’s going to happen long-term to that area. Last year, before the courts absolved the city of liability, my wife and I walked that area. Very depressing. I was carrying a big dslr expensive-looking camera and must have looked important. We heard some real sad stories from a few owners. Met two people still paying mortgages on unlivable houses. According to one original owner, those homes sold for only $60,000ish in the 60s when they were built.

[DataAgent]

UCGal… that’s a great satellite photo. I really wonder what’s going to happen long-term to that area. Last year, before the courts absolved the city of liability, my wife and I walked that area. Very depressing. I was carrying a big dslr expensive-looking camera and must have looked important. We heard some real sad stories from a few owners. Met two people still paying mortgages on unlivable houses. According to one original owner, those homes sold for only $60,000ish in the 60s when they were built.

[DataAgent]

UCGal… that’s a great satellite photo. I really wonder what’s going to happen long-term to that area. Last year, before the courts absolved the city of liability, my wife and I walked that area. Very depressing. I was carrying a big dslr expensive-looking camera and must have looked important. We heard some real sad stories from a few owners. Met two people still paying mortgages on unlivable houses. According to one original owner, those homes sold for only $60,000ish in the 60s when they were built.

[UCGal]

[quote=DataAgent]UCGal… that’s a great satellite photo. I really wonder what’s going to happen long-term to that area. Last year, before the courts absolved the city of liability, my wife and I walked that area. Very depressing. I was carrying a big dslr expensive-looking camera and must have looked important. We heard some real sad stories from a few owners. Met two people still paying mortgages on unlivable houses. According to one original owner, those homes sold for only $60,000ish in the 60s when they were built.[/quote]
It’s definitely suckful for the people who bought pre-slide.

$60k in the 60’s was a lot. My parents bought a forclosure house built in 1964 in University City in 1966. It was a big house by the standards of the day (2000k sf in 1966 was big). Since it was a bad housing market for sellers – the bank wrote off the second loan (which had paid for upgrades and a pool) and wrote off the downpayment. My dad just assumed the loan. Even then La Jolla had a premium – but my dad only paid $29K for an almost new house in UC. It was considered high end. $60k was a LOT, back then.

When we were building our granny flat we had to get geotechnical reports and inspections during construction. We asked our geologist about the slide and she described the ‘wild west’ permiting at the time that part of Soledad was developed. Even back in the 50’s and 60’s they knew there were some faults running through there… but the permit office at the city, at the time, put it on the developer to do the due-dilligence… there was no guidance from the city not to build on faults. (Doesn’t give me warm fuzzies since I live in a 1960’s house.) Having dealt with the city’s building services dept. for the granny flat – it seems they’ve gone the other way… a lot more burden of proof for the owner to prove it’s ok to build there.

[UCGal]

[quote=DataAgent]UCGal… that’s a great satellite photo. I really wonder what’s going to happen long-term to that area. Last year, before the courts absolved the city of liability, my wife and I walked that area. Very depressing. I was carrying a big dslr expensive-looking camera and must have looked important. We heard some real sad stories from a few owners. Met two people still paying mortgages on unlivable houses. According to one original owner, those homes sold for only $60,000ish in the 60s when they were built.[/quote]
It’s definitely suckful for the people who bought pre-slide.

$60k in the 60’s was a lot. My parents bought a forclosure house built in 1964 in University City in 1966. It was a big house by the standards of the day (2000k sf in 1966 was big). Since it was a bad housing market for sellers – the bank wrote off the second loan (which had paid for upgrades and a pool) and wrote off the downpayment. My dad just assumed the loan. Even then La Jolla had a premium – but my dad only paid $29K for an almost new house in UC. It was considered high end. $60k was a LOT, back then.

When we were building our granny flat we had to get geotechnical reports and inspections during construction. We asked our geologist about the slide and she described the ‘wild west’ permiting at the time that part of Soledad was developed. Even back in the 50’s and 60’s they knew there were some faults running through there… but the permit office at the city, at the time, put it on the developer to do the due-dilligence… there was no guidance from the city not to build on faults. (Doesn’t give me warm fuzzies since I live in a 1960’s house.) Having dealt with the city’s building services dept. for the granny flat – it seems they’ve gone the other way… a lot more burden of proof for the owner to prove it’s ok to build there.

[UCGal]

[quote=DataAgent]UCGal… that’s a great satellite photo. I really wonder what’s going to happen long-term to that area. Last year, before the courts absolved the city of liability, my wife and I walked that area. Very depressing. I was carrying a big dslr expensive-looking camera and must have looked important. We heard some real sad stories from a few owners. Met two people still paying mortgages on unlivable houses. According to one original owner, those homes sold for only $60,000ish in the 60s when they were built.[/quote]
It’s definitely suckful for the people who bought pre-slide.

$60k in the 60’s was a lot. My parents bought a forclosure house built in 1964 in University City in 1966. It was a big house by the standards of the day (2000k sf in 1966 was big). Since it was a bad housing market for sellers – the bank wrote off the second loan (which had paid for upgrades and a pool) and wrote off the downpayment. My dad just assumed the loan. Even then La Jolla had a premium – but my dad only paid $29K for an almost new house in UC. It was considered high end. $60k was a LOT, back then.

When we were building our granny flat we had to get geotechnical reports and inspections during construction. We asked our geologist about the slide and she described the ‘wild west’ permiting at the time that part of Soledad was developed. Even back in the 50’s and 60’s they knew there were some faults running through there… but the permit office at the city, at the time, put it on the developer to do the due-dilligence… there was no guidance from the city not to build on faults. (Doesn’t give me warm fuzzies since I live in a 1960’s house.) Having dealt with the city’s building services dept. for the granny flat – it seems they’ve gone the other way… a lot more burden of proof for the owner to prove it’s ok to build there.

[UCGal]

[quote=DataAgent]UCGal… that’s a great satellite photo. I really wonder what’s going to happen long-term to that area. Last year, before the courts absolved the city of liability, my wife and I walked that area. Very depressing. I was carrying a big dslr expensive-looking camera and must have looked important. We heard some real sad stories from a few owners. Met two people still paying mortgages on unlivable houses. According to one original owner, those homes sold for only $60,000ish in the 60s when they were built.[/quote]
It’s definitely suckful for the people who bought pre-slide.

$60k in the 60’s was a lot. My parents bought a forclosure house built in 1964 in University City in 1966. It was a big house by the standards of the day (2000k sf in 1966 was big). Since it was a bad housing market for sellers – the bank wrote off the second loan (which had paid for upgrades and a pool) and wrote off the downpayment. My dad just assumed the loan. Even then La Jolla had a premium – but my dad only paid $29K for an almost new house in UC. It was considered high end. $60k was a LOT, back then.

When we were building our granny flat we had to get geotechnical reports and inspections during construction. We asked our geologist about the slide and she described the ‘wild west’ permiting at the time that part of Soledad was developed. Even back in the 50’s and 60’s they knew there were some faults running through there… but the permit office at the city, at the time, put it on the developer to do the due-dilligence… there was no guidance from the city not to build on faults. (Doesn’t give me warm fuzzies since I live in a 1960’s house.) Having dealt with the city’s building services dept. for the granny flat – it seems they’ve gone the other way… a lot more burden of proof for the owner to prove it’s ok to build there.

[UCGal]

[quote=DataAgent]UCGal… that’s a great satellite photo. I really wonder what’s going to happen long-term to that area. Last year, before the courts absolved the city of liability, my wife and I walked that area. Very depressing. I was carrying a big dslr expensive-looking camera and must have looked important. We heard some real sad stories from a few owners. Met two people still paying mortgages on unlivable houses. According to one original owner, those homes sold for only $60,000ish in the 60s when they were built.[/quote]
It’s definitely suckful for the people who bought pre-slide.

$60k in the 60’s was a lot. My parents bought a forclosure house built in 1964 in University City in 1966. It was a big house by the standards of the day (2000k sf in 1966 was big). Since it was a bad housing market for sellers – the bank wrote off the second loan (which had paid for upgrades and a pool) and wrote off the downpayment. My dad just assumed the loan. Even then La Jolla had a premium – but my dad only paid $29K for an almost new house in UC. It was considered high end. $60k was a LOT, back then.

When we were building our granny flat we had to get geotechnical reports and inspections during construction. We asked our geologist about the slide and she described the ‘wild west’ permiting at the time that part of Soledad was developed. Even back in the 50’s and 60’s they knew there were some faults running through there… but the permit office at the city, at the time, put it on the developer to do the due-dilligence… there was no guidance from the city not to build on faults. (Doesn’t give me warm fuzzies since I live in a 1960’s house.) Having dealt with the city’s building services dept. for the granny flat – it seems they’ve gone the other way… a lot more burden of proof for the owner to prove it’s ok to build there.

[SmellsFeeshy]

Does anyone know anything regarding the lawsuit filed back in 1989 against Southpointe about the construction defects against earthquakes and strong winds?

I found this article while researching this complex:

http://articles.latimes.com/1989-12-06/local/me-32_1_la-jolla

The article mentions nothing about the outcome of the lawsuit and I wasn’t able to find any more info about it online. Was wondering if the builder ever paid anything and if repairs were actually made at all.

[Author]

Posts