What year was the road Camino del Sur built?

[ocrenter]

[quote=earlyretirement]

OC,

Thanks again for all these comments. I can tell your demographic is similar to mine which I think is critical in helping to understand what areas might possibly work and which won’t. I think those zip codes you provided will be spot on target and based on my research the past year I would agree with you that we’d probably be happy in those areas.

You are correct that I’d NOT be happy with a 20,000 sq. foot lot in Tijuana. As mentioned, I really don’t care about having a huge yard and I really think based on my research I want to buy something in the areas you are mentioning due to lifestyle, school district and quality of life related issues for the family.

I think that many times it’s extremely helpful that the person giving advice match with the same demographics of the person buying so that they understand what is important. You sound very similar to my situation besides the cash thingy.

And to be honest, the all cash payment is simply to avoid the hassles of dealing with banks. I have no debt at all and a great credit score. But I sold my primary company I worked at for the past 8 years last Fall. So as crazy as it sounds, the banks and financial lenders consider me ‘unemployed’. I do own other companies but all of them are outside of the USA and I made the vast bulk of my income through the company that I sold. I do consulting via a new LLC that I set up but it’s new since I sold the company so banks don’t really count that.

It’s funny as I have tax transcripts for the past 7 years showing high income but the pendulum has swung almost too far the other way where even people that banks and lenders should be dying to lend to…really don’t want to lend out the money.

To add into the mix, we don’t own any property in the USA and haven’t as I liquidated and sold off all our properties back in 2004. We own several properties but all outside of the USA and lenders don’t add that into the equation as they don’t care about them.

So the lenders have gone from one extreme to giving anyone with a heartbeat a loan to not really wanting to give anyone a high amount loan if there is anything out of the ordinary. (i.e. not having a USA address for the past 6+ years, not being employed by a US company, etc.). Definitely if you’ve been employed for a long time at a job and have a good credit score it’s easy but add any complication or wrinkle into the mix, and surprisingly it’s more difficult. I’m sure I can get qualified for a Jumbo mortgage even with the situation but my attitude is why bother now with it and just pay the cash since it’s just sitting in a low interest account now.

So to bypass all of that hassle and also due to the fact that banks are paying almost nothing on savings/CD’s and we’re already invested in other investments…. it makes sense to just buy with cash. I’d rather do that then continue to hold it in the stock market which I think is overvalued right now.

Yes, I agree renting in the area makes the most sense. We are renting in Carmel Valley for 5 months which hopefully will be enough time. The thing however, I’m trying to avoid is moving from place to place with the kids. That’s why I’m wanting to buy now vs. waiting longer on the sidelines.

It will already be tough as we are moving to San Diego from overseas so it will be a big move. But we got rid of all our furniture now and will just buy everything new. We rented a furnished place for the 5 months but once we buy the house we will have to totally furnish it, buy 2 new cars, etc. So it will be a busy busy time. I’d prefer to find something and buy this year vs. potentially having to move to other furnished places since we don’t have our furniture.

I want this to be the least disruptive as possible for the family.[/quote]

early, You and your family will absolutely love this area as we have. There are tons of trails everywhere, it is very close to everything, 20-30 minutes to essentially everywhere you want or need to go. The wife should also be pretty happy with the shopping options as well.

buying a house is not just “buying a house.” you are buying the neighborhood and the general location as well as folks you’ll be interacting with when you go to the park and when you shop. I’ve been down to Eastlake in Chula Vista and saw homes of equal size from similar builders. But 2-3 after built-out, the neighborhood just feels inferior to any of the similar aged neighborhoods around the 56.

glad to hear you guys will be renting at first. it will make things better in the long run.

feel free to PM me if there’s questions about the area.

[ocrenter]

[quote=UCGal]

BG –
The post office (Feds) determine zip code boundaries. Not the city.

They have some correlation – but not one to one – in guessing government jurisdiction.

I think you’re confusing things when you look at it strictly by zipcode.

I was curious – so I looked for a map of the city of san diego boundaries… As I said – I don’t know how accurate it is – but it seems accurate. It also roughly matches what I saw on the city website.
http://www.sandiego.gov/citycouncil/

Another common mistake is to assume school districts follow city boundaries. They don’t. Parts of PQ are in PUSD. Carmel Valley is not in SDUSD even though it’s part of the city.[/quote]

UCGal, you are absolutely correct. the city of SD never annexed the area of 4S. because it had the strip of 92127 next to I-15, I think this is why BG mistook the entire 92127 for 4S.

I know the numbering convention of “921xx” to signify city of SD, but these conventions does not always fit.

City boundaries definitely do not have to follow zip codes. back in LA, people would advertise that they live in “Beverly Hill zip code” because even though they are not in BH, the fact that they shared the BH zip made their property value higher.

Quite frankly, sometimes a city doesn’t even have to be in the same county, or even the same state. Atlanta encompasses several counties, and Kansas City is in 2 states.

[ocrenter]

[quote=UCGal]

BG –
The post office (Feds) determine zip code boundaries. Not the city.

They have some correlation – but not one to one – in guessing government jurisdiction.

I think you’re confusing things when you look at it strictly by zipcode.

I was curious – so I looked for a map of the city of san diego boundaries… As I said – I don’t know how accurate it is – but it seems accurate. It also roughly matches what I saw on the city website.
http://www.sandiego.gov/citycouncil/

Another common mistake is to assume school districts follow city boundaries. They don’t. Parts of PQ are in PUSD. Carmel Valley is not in SDUSD even though it’s part of the city.[/quote]

UCGal, you are absolutely correct. the city of SD never annexed the area of 4S. because it had the strip of 92127 next to I-15, I think this is why BG mistook the entire 92127 for 4S.

I know the numbering convention of “921xx” to signify city of SD, but these conventions does not always fit.

City boundaries definitely do not have to follow zip codes. back in LA, people would advertise that they live in “Beverly Hill zip code” because even though they are not in BH, the fact that they shared the BH zip made their property value higher.

Quite frankly, sometimes a city doesn’t even have to be in the same county, or even the same state. Atlanta encompasses several counties, and Kansas City is in 2 states.

[ocrenter]

[quote=UCGal]

BG –
The post office (Feds) determine zip code boundaries. Not the city.

They have some correlation – but not one to one – in guessing government jurisdiction.

I think you’re confusing things when you look at it strictly by zipcode.

I was curious – so I looked for a map of the city of san diego boundaries… As I said – I don’t know how accurate it is – but it seems accurate. It also roughly matches what I saw on the city website.
http://www.sandiego.gov/citycouncil/

Another common mistake is to assume school districts follow city boundaries. They don’t. Parts of PQ are in PUSD. Carmel Valley is not in SDUSD even though it’s part of the city.[/quote]

UCGal, you are absolutely correct. the city of SD never annexed the area of 4S. because it had the strip of 92127 next to I-15, I think this is why BG mistook the entire 92127 for 4S.

I know the numbering convention of “921xx” to signify city of SD, but these conventions does not always fit.

City boundaries definitely do not have to follow zip codes. back in LA, people would advertise that they live in “Beverly Hill zip code” because even though they are not in BH, the fact that they shared the BH zip made their property value higher.

Quite frankly, sometimes a city doesn’t even have to be in the same county, or even the same state. Atlanta encompasses several counties, and Kansas City is in 2 states.

[ocrenter]

[quote=UCGal]

BG –
The post office (Feds) determine zip code boundaries. Not the city.

They have some correlation – but not one to one – in guessing government jurisdiction.

I think you’re confusing things when you look at it strictly by zipcode.

I was curious – so I looked for a map of the city of san diego boundaries… As I said – I don’t know how accurate it is – but it seems accurate. It also roughly matches what I saw on the city website.
http://www.sandiego.gov/citycouncil/

Another common mistake is to assume school districts follow city boundaries. They don’t. Parts of PQ are in PUSD. Carmel Valley is not in SDUSD even though it’s part of the city.[/quote]

UCGal, you are absolutely correct. the city of SD never annexed the area of 4S. because it had the strip of 92127 next to I-15, I think this is why BG mistook the entire 92127 for 4S.

I know the numbering convention of “921xx” to signify city of SD, but these conventions does not always fit.

City boundaries definitely do not have to follow zip codes. back in LA, people would advertise that they live in “Beverly Hill zip code” because even though they are not in BH, the fact that they shared the BH zip made their property value higher.

Quite frankly, sometimes a city doesn’t even have to be in the same county, or even the same state. Atlanta encompasses several counties, and Kansas City is in 2 states.

[ocrenter]

[quote=UCGal]

BG –
The post office (Feds) determine zip code boundaries. Not the city.

They have some correlation – but not one to one – in guessing government jurisdiction.

I think you’re confusing things when you look at it strictly by zipcode.

I was curious – so I looked for a map of the city of san diego boundaries… As I said – I don’t know how accurate it is – but it seems accurate. It also roughly matches what I saw on the city website.
http://www.sandiego.gov/citycouncil/

Another common mistake is to assume school districts follow city boundaries. They don’t. Parts of PQ are in PUSD. Carmel Valley is not in SDUSD even though it’s part of the city.[/quote]

UCGal, you are absolutely correct. the city of SD never annexed the area of 4S. because it had the strip of 92127 next to I-15, I think this is why BG mistook the entire 92127 for 4S.

I know the numbering convention of “921xx” to signify city of SD, but these conventions does not always fit.

City boundaries definitely do not have to follow zip codes. back in LA, people would advertise that they live in “Beverly Hill zip code” because even though they are not in BH, the fact that they shared the BH zip made their property value higher.

Quite frankly, sometimes a city doesn’t even have to be in the same county, or even the same state. Atlanta encompasses several counties, and Kansas City is in 2 states.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=ocrenter] . . . I’ve been down to Eastlake in Chula Vista and saw homes of equal size from similar builders. But 2-3 after built-out, the neighborhood just feels inferior to any of the similar aged neighborhoods around the 56. . . [/quote]

I am unfamiliar with the 56 corridor but agree with you about Eastlake. I suggested Rancho Del Rey (Belmonte) and RDR Estates (although a little too expensive) to the OP, NOT “Eastlake.” These communities are 5-7 miles west of Eastlake and Eastlake does not even compare to them.

Again, want to avoid any “misperceptions” here. Different communities of Chula Vista should not be lumped together as one. It is a medium-sized diverse city.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=ocrenter] . . . I’ve been down to Eastlake in Chula Vista and saw homes of equal size from similar builders. But 2-3 after built-out, the neighborhood just feels inferior to any of the similar aged neighborhoods around the 56. . . [/quote]

I am unfamiliar with the 56 corridor but agree with you about Eastlake. I suggested Rancho Del Rey (Belmonte) and RDR Estates (although a little too expensive) to the OP, NOT “Eastlake.” These communities are 5-7 miles west of Eastlake and Eastlake does not even compare to them.

Again, want to avoid any “misperceptions” here. Different communities of Chula Vista should not be lumped together as one. It is a medium-sized diverse city.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=ocrenter] . . . I’ve been down to Eastlake in Chula Vista and saw homes of equal size from similar builders. But 2-3 after built-out, the neighborhood just feels inferior to any of the similar aged neighborhoods around the 56. . . [/quote]

I am unfamiliar with the 56 corridor but agree with you about Eastlake. I suggested Rancho Del Rey (Belmonte) and RDR Estates (although a little too expensive) to the OP, NOT “Eastlake.” These communities are 5-7 miles west of Eastlake and Eastlake does not even compare to them.

Again, want to avoid any “misperceptions” here. Different communities of Chula Vista should not be lumped together as one. It is a medium-sized diverse city.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=ocrenter] . . . I’ve been down to Eastlake in Chula Vista and saw homes of equal size from similar builders. But 2-3 after built-out, the neighborhood just feels inferior to any of the similar aged neighborhoods around the 56. . . [/quote]

I am unfamiliar with the 56 corridor but agree with you about Eastlake. I suggested Rancho Del Rey (Belmonte) and RDR Estates (although a little too expensive) to the OP, NOT “Eastlake.” These communities are 5-7 miles west of Eastlake and Eastlake does not even compare to them.

Again, want to avoid any “misperceptions” here. Different communities of Chula Vista should not be lumped together as one. It is a medium-sized diverse city.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=ocrenter] . . . I’ve been down to Eastlake in Chula Vista and saw homes of equal size from similar builders. But 2-3 after built-out, the neighborhood just feels inferior to any of the similar aged neighborhoods around the 56. . . [/quote]

I am unfamiliar with the 56 corridor but agree with you about Eastlake. I suggested Rancho Del Rey (Belmonte) and RDR Estates (although a little too expensive) to the OP, NOT “Eastlake.” These communities are 5-7 miles west of Eastlake and Eastlake does not even compare to them.

Again, want to avoid any “misperceptions” here. Different communities of Chula Vista should not be lumped together as one. It is a medium-sized diverse city.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=ocrenter]UCGal, you are absolutely correct. the city of SD never annexed the area of 4S. because it had the strip of 92127 next to I-15, I think this is why BG mistook the entire 92127 for 4S.

I know the numbering convention of “921xx” to signify city of SD, but these conventions does not always fit.[/quote]

In my 1994 Thomas Guide, I have on pg 1169 the 92127 zip as white (City of SD, inc) The area is bounded on the north and west by “Artesian Road” (dirt) and Black Mtn Road on the east (partly dirt). What appears to be a 4-lane continuation of Black Mtn Rd (headed east) turns into Rancho Bernardo Rd with the first cross-street being “Camino San Bernardo.” This strip is uninc. After you pass CSB heading east, RB Rd turns back into the City.

The small development off Camino San Bernardo appears to be the only improvements made within 92127 (uninc. area). On the Fairbanks (west side) of inc 92127, “Artesian Rd” becomes paved with a few straight dirt roads off of it (uninc).

The northern boundary of Lake Hodges and surrounds belongs to 92128 (City of SD, inc).

It appears at that time, uninc 92127 had maybe 100-200 residents and inc 92127 none (unless you count lizards).

92173 (San Ysidro, formerly 92073), is now almost ALL incorporated into the City of SD. Formerly uninc, the City now encompasses Brown Field and the Otay Border Crossing. The only part left uninc was the area adjacent to the RJ Donovan Correctional Facility.

The reason I used SY for an example here is because when the City annexed the land in this instance, they actually took over the uninc portion and the zip code was changed to 92173.

I’m not suggesting here that this will happen in 4S but it is still a mystery to me why the City didn’t take over the interior land when everything around it is their jurisdiction. 4S was in the City’s general plan. The (city) zip code was in place. Something happened where the City decided (or was made a deal by developers) NOT to take it. This “deal” theory is probable only because in order for the higher MR to be more “palatable” to the future buyers of 4S, the developer(s) may have not wanted the extra .11 to .27 “incorporation premium” to be added to the Prop 13 base of 1% and then try to saddle the owners with the (by then exorbitant) MR. It would have made the units harder to sell.

I wasn’t born yesterday but wasn’t paying attention to North County shenanigans during these years. If any Piggs can shed light on why 4S isn’t in the City (except that it isn’t), I would be much obliged :=]

[bearishgurl]

[quote=ocrenter]UCGal, you are absolutely correct. the city of SD never annexed the area of 4S. because it had the strip of 92127 next to I-15, I think this is why BG mistook the entire 92127 for 4S.

I know the numbering convention of “921xx” to signify city of SD, but these conventions does not always fit.[/quote]

In my 1994 Thomas Guide, I have on pg 1169 the 92127 zip as white (City of SD, inc) The area is bounded on the north and west by “Artesian Road” (dirt) and Black Mtn Road on the east (partly dirt). What appears to be a 4-lane continuation of Black Mtn Rd (headed east) turns into Rancho Bernardo Rd with the first cross-street being “Camino San Bernardo.” This strip is uninc. After you pass CSB heading east, RB Rd turns back into the City.

The small development off Camino San Bernardo appears to be the only improvements made within 92127 (uninc. area). On the Fairbanks (west side) of inc 92127, “Artesian Rd” becomes paved with a few straight dirt roads off of it (uninc).

The northern boundary of Lake Hodges and surrounds belongs to 92128 (City of SD, inc).

It appears at that time, uninc 92127 had maybe 100-200 residents and inc 92127 none (unless you count lizards).

92173 (San Ysidro, formerly 92073), is now almost ALL incorporated into the City of SD. Formerly uninc, the City now encompasses Brown Field and the Otay Border Crossing. The only part left uninc was the area adjacent to the RJ Donovan Correctional Facility.

The reason I used SY for an example here is because when the City annexed the land in this instance, they actually took over the uninc portion and the zip code was changed to 92173.

I’m not suggesting here that this will happen in 4S but it is still a mystery to me why the City didn’t take over the interior land when everything around it is their jurisdiction. 4S was in the City’s general plan. The (city) zip code was in place. Something happened where the City decided (or was made a deal by developers) NOT to take it. This “deal” theory is probable only because in order for the higher MR to be more “palatable” to the future buyers of 4S, the developer(s) may have not wanted the extra .11 to .27 “incorporation premium” to be added to the Prop 13 base of 1% and then try to saddle the owners with the (by then exorbitant) MR. It would have made the units harder to sell.

I wasn’t born yesterday but wasn’t paying attention to North County shenanigans during these years. If any Piggs can shed light on why 4S isn’t in the City (except that it isn’t), I would be much obliged :=]

[bearishgurl]

[quote=ocrenter]UCGal, you are absolutely correct. the city of SD never annexed the area of 4S. because it had the strip of 92127 next to I-15, I think this is why BG mistook the entire 92127 for 4S.

I know the numbering convention of “921xx” to signify city of SD, but these conventions does not always fit.[/quote]

In my 1994 Thomas Guide, I have on pg 1169 the 92127 zip as white (City of SD, inc) The area is bounded on the north and west by “Artesian Road” (dirt) and Black Mtn Road on the east (partly dirt). What appears to be a 4-lane continuation of Black Mtn Rd (headed east) turns into Rancho Bernardo Rd with the first cross-street being “Camino San Bernardo.” This strip is uninc. After you pass CSB heading east, RB Rd turns back into the City.

The small development off Camino San Bernardo appears to be the only improvements made within 92127 (uninc. area). On the Fairbanks (west side) of inc 92127, “Artesian Rd” becomes paved with a few straight dirt roads off of it (uninc).

The northern boundary of Lake Hodges and surrounds belongs to 92128 (City of SD, inc).

It appears at that time, uninc 92127 had maybe 100-200 residents and inc 92127 none (unless you count lizards).

92173 (San Ysidro, formerly 92073), is now almost ALL incorporated into the City of SD. Formerly uninc, the City now encompasses Brown Field and the Otay Border Crossing. The only part left uninc was the area adjacent to the RJ Donovan Correctional Facility.

The reason I used SY for an example here is because when the City annexed the land in this instance, they actually took over the uninc portion and the zip code was changed to 92173.

I’m not suggesting here that this will happen in 4S but it is still a mystery to me why the City didn’t take over the interior land when everything around it is their jurisdiction. 4S was in the City’s general plan. The (city) zip code was in place. Something happened where the City decided (or was made a deal by developers) NOT to take it. This “deal” theory is probable only because in order for the higher MR to be more “palatable” to the future buyers of 4S, the developer(s) may have not wanted the extra .11 to .27 “incorporation premium” to be added to the Prop 13 base of 1% and then try to saddle the owners with the (by then exorbitant) MR. It would have made the units harder to sell.

I wasn’t born yesterday but wasn’t paying attention to North County shenanigans during these years. If any Piggs can shed light on why 4S isn’t in the City (except that it isn’t), I would be much obliged :=]

[bearishgurl]

[quote=ocrenter]UCGal, you are absolutely correct. the city of SD never annexed the area of 4S. because it had the strip of 92127 next to I-15, I think this is why BG mistook the entire 92127 for 4S.

I know the numbering convention of “921xx” to signify city of SD, but these conventions does not always fit.[/quote]

In my 1994 Thomas Guide, I have on pg 1169 the 92127 zip as white (City of SD, inc) The area is bounded on the north and west by “Artesian Road” (dirt) and Black Mtn Road on the east (partly dirt). What appears to be a 4-lane continuation of Black Mtn Rd (headed east) turns into Rancho Bernardo Rd with the first cross-street being “Camino San Bernardo.” This strip is uninc. After you pass CSB heading east, RB Rd turns back into the City.

The small development off Camino San Bernardo appears to be the only improvements made within 92127 (uninc. area). On the Fairbanks (west side) of inc 92127, “Artesian Rd” becomes paved with a few straight dirt roads off of it (uninc).

The northern boundary of Lake Hodges and surrounds belongs to 92128 (City of SD, inc).

It appears at that time, uninc 92127 had maybe 100-200 residents and inc 92127 none (unless you count lizards).

92173 (San Ysidro, formerly 92073), is now almost ALL incorporated into the City of SD. Formerly uninc, the City now encompasses Brown Field and the Otay Border Crossing. The only part left uninc was the area adjacent to the RJ Donovan Correctional Facility.

The reason I used SY for an example here is because when the City annexed the land in this instance, they actually took over the uninc portion and the zip code was changed to 92173.

I’m not suggesting here that this will happen in 4S but it is still a mystery to me why the City didn’t take over the interior land when everything around it is their jurisdiction. 4S was in the City’s general plan. The (city) zip code was in place. Something happened where the City decided (or was made a deal by developers) NOT to take it. This “deal” theory is probable only because in order for the higher MR to be more “palatable” to the future buyers of 4S, the developer(s) may have not wanted the extra .11 to .27 “incorporation premium” to be added to the Prop 13 base of 1% and then try to saddle the owners with the (by then exorbitant) MR. It would have made the units harder to sell.

I wasn’t born yesterday but wasn’t paying attention to North County shenanigans during these years. If any Piggs can shed light on why 4S isn’t in the City (except that it isn’t), I would be much obliged :=]

[Author]

Posts