Why I am leaving San Diego

[UCGal]

[quote=jstoesz]bearishgurl…

So either the place is swimming with imported retirees which in Clairemont I highly doubt. Or Californians are irresponsible SOB’s (this has been proven time and time again).

[/quote]

Or they bought 40-50 years ago when the ratio was better.

I know that’s true in Clairemont… lots of old retired folks there who’ve lived there since the 50’s, 60’s, 70’s.

Same is true for my ‘hood across the canyon, University City… I’d say 1/3 of the residents are older, been there forever types. And some of the folks replacing these older, been-there-forever types are the grown kids. (Raising my hand.) My block is about 1/3 original or close to original owners. 1/3 folks who bought in the last 10-15 years. Another 5-10% on my block is the adult kids who bought the house from their parents when they died or downsized.

Very few people paid current prices/values.

[jstoesz]

yeah but that is true for every older neighborhood in the country…

Imported retirees bring in new money which skews the data.

Look no further than carmel valley (aka tract home hell) to find crazy overpriced, non-retiree neighborhoods.

There is a small argument for prop 13 screwing us, I am just not persuaded by the magnitude of the effect.

[jstoesz]

yeah but that is true for every older neighborhood in the country…

Imported retirees bring in new money which skews the data.

Look no further than carmel valley (aka tract home hell) to find crazy overpriced, non-retiree neighborhoods.

There is a small argument for prop 13 screwing us, I am just not persuaded by the magnitude of the effect.

[jstoesz]

yeah but that is true for every older neighborhood in the country…

Imported retirees bring in new money which skews the data.

Look no further than carmel valley (aka tract home hell) to find crazy overpriced, non-retiree neighborhoods.

There is a small argument for prop 13 screwing us, I am just not persuaded by the magnitude of the effect.

[jstoesz]

yeah but that is true for every older neighborhood in the country…

Imported retirees bring in new money which skews the data.

Look no further than carmel valley (aka tract home hell) to find crazy overpriced, non-retiree neighborhoods.

There is a small argument for prop 13 screwing us, I am just not persuaded by the magnitude of the effect.

[jstoesz]

yeah but that is true for every older neighborhood in the country…

Imported retirees bring in new money which skews the data.

Look no further than carmel valley (aka tract home hell) to find crazy overpriced, non-retiree neighborhoods.

There is a small argument for prop 13 screwing us, I am just not persuaded by the magnitude of the effect.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jstoesz]bearishgurl…

This probably gets argued monthly here. But it makes no difference if it is coastal or not. People who live in that zip code can only spend so much on housing. Living by the beach (if you call clairemont by the beach) doesn’t give you non-reportable income. . .

So either the place is swimming with imported retirees which in Clairemont I highly doubt. Or Californians are irresponsible SOB’s (this has been proven time and time again). .[/quote]

jstoesz, I don’t know about 92117 but 92111 IS “swimming with retirees” (of the domestic variety).

http://realestate.aol.com/92111-neighborhood

The numbers on this site refer to the average “market value” today, NOT what those retirees paid for them. The avg. (Mtn Street) L-shaped 4/1.5 or 4/1.75 cost $13K to $17K “new” in 1961, depending on sf, lot location (many canyon rim) and lot size/elevation. The average monthly “retirement incomes” for these households is probably $2800 – $4000 today (union pension + SS). The average “retired” homeowner in 92111 OWES NOTHING on their house and the average annual property tax they are paying is $675 to $800 annually, pursuant to Prop 13 caps.

Your site numbers are “skewed” and don’t tell the whole story.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jstoesz]bearishgurl…

This probably gets argued monthly here. But it makes no difference if it is coastal or not. People who live in that zip code can only spend so much on housing. Living by the beach (if you call clairemont by the beach) doesn’t give you non-reportable income. . .

So either the place is swimming with imported retirees which in Clairemont I highly doubt. Or Californians are irresponsible SOB’s (this has been proven time and time again). .[/quote]

jstoesz, I don’t know about 92117 but 92111 IS “swimming with retirees” (of the domestic variety).

http://realestate.aol.com/92111-neighborhood

The numbers on this site refer to the average “market value” today, NOT what those retirees paid for them. The avg. (Mtn Street) L-shaped 4/1.5 or 4/1.75 cost $13K to $17K “new” in 1961, depending on sf, lot location (many canyon rim) and lot size/elevation. The average monthly “retirement incomes” for these households is probably $2800 – $4000 today (union pension + SS). The average “retired” homeowner in 92111 OWES NOTHING on their house and the average annual property tax they are paying is $675 to $800 annually, pursuant to Prop 13 caps.

Your site numbers are “skewed” and don’t tell the whole story.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jstoesz]bearishgurl…

This probably gets argued monthly here. But it makes no difference if it is coastal or not. People who live in that zip code can only spend so much on housing. Living by the beach (if you call clairemont by the beach) doesn’t give you non-reportable income. . .

So either the place is swimming with imported retirees which in Clairemont I highly doubt. Or Californians are irresponsible SOB’s (this has been proven time and time again). .[/quote]

jstoesz, I don’t know about 92117 but 92111 IS “swimming with retirees” (of the domestic variety).

http://realestate.aol.com/92111-neighborhood

The numbers on this site refer to the average “market value” today, NOT what those retirees paid for them. The avg. (Mtn Street) L-shaped 4/1.5 or 4/1.75 cost $13K to $17K “new” in 1961, depending on sf, lot location (many canyon rim) and lot size/elevation. The average monthly “retirement incomes” for these households is probably $2800 – $4000 today (union pension + SS). The average “retired” homeowner in 92111 OWES NOTHING on their house and the average annual property tax they are paying is $675 to $800 annually, pursuant to Prop 13 caps.

Your site numbers are “skewed” and don’t tell the whole story.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jstoesz]bearishgurl…

This probably gets argued monthly here. But it makes no difference if it is coastal or not. People who live in that zip code can only spend so much on housing. Living by the beach (if you call clairemont by the beach) doesn’t give you non-reportable income. . .

So either the place is swimming with imported retirees which in Clairemont I highly doubt. Or Californians are irresponsible SOB’s (this has been proven time and time again). .[/quote]

jstoesz, I don’t know about 92117 but 92111 IS “swimming with retirees” (of the domestic variety).

http://realestate.aol.com/92111-neighborhood

The numbers on this site refer to the average “market value” today, NOT what those retirees paid for them. The avg. (Mtn Street) L-shaped 4/1.5 or 4/1.75 cost $13K to $17K “new” in 1961, depending on sf, lot location (many canyon rim) and lot size/elevation. The average monthly “retirement incomes” for these households is probably $2800 – $4000 today (union pension + SS). The average “retired” homeowner in 92111 OWES NOTHING on their house and the average annual property tax they are paying is $675 to $800 annually, pursuant to Prop 13 caps.

Your site numbers are “skewed” and don’t tell the whole story.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jstoesz]bearishgurl…

This probably gets argued monthly here. But it makes no difference if it is coastal or not. People who live in that zip code can only spend so much on housing. Living by the beach (if you call clairemont by the beach) doesn’t give you non-reportable income. . .

So either the place is swimming with imported retirees which in Clairemont I highly doubt. Or Californians are irresponsible SOB’s (this has been proven time and time again). .[/quote]

jstoesz, I don’t know about 92117 but 92111 IS “swimming with retirees” (of the domestic variety).

http://realestate.aol.com/92111-neighborhood

The numbers on this site refer to the average “market value” today, NOT what those retirees paid for them. The avg. (Mtn Street) L-shaped 4/1.5 or 4/1.75 cost $13K to $17K “new” in 1961, depending on sf, lot location (many canyon rim) and lot size/elevation. The average monthly “retirement incomes” for these households is probably $2800 – $4000 today (union pension + SS). The average “retired” homeowner in 92111 OWES NOTHING on their house and the average annual property tax they are paying is $675 to $800 annually, pursuant to Prop 13 caps.

Your site numbers are “skewed” and don’t tell the whole story.

[jstoesz]

Every older neighborhood in the country has people living there since the 50’s 60’s etc. Clairemont is no different! In fact if you drill into the zip code demographics. The median age is exactly the same! 39 years old. So I am going to have to call bullshit on this argument.

My point is that if that zip code has a lot of old people move in after they retired then the data is skewed with a lower median income with respect to home price. But there is no reason to suspect that given the median age.

[jstoesz]

Every older neighborhood in the country has people living there since the 50’s 60’s etc. Clairemont is no different! In fact if you drill into the zip code demographics. The median age is exactly the same! 39 years old. So I am going to have to call bullshit on this argument.

My point is that if that zip code has a lot of old people move in after they retired then the data is skewed with a lower median income with respect to home price. But there is no reason to suspect that given the median age.

[jstoesz]

Every older neighborhood in the country has people living there since the 50’s 60’s etc. Clairemont is no different! In fact if you drill into the zip code demographics. The median age is exactly the same! 39 years old. So I am going to have to call bullshit on this argument.

My point is that if that zip code has a lot of old people move in after they retired then the data is skewed with a lower median income with respect to home price. But there is no reason to suspect that given the median age.

[jstoesz]

Every older neighborhood in the country has people living there since the 50’s 60’s etc. Clairemont is no different! In fact if you drill into the zip code demographics. The median age is exactly the same! 39 years old. So I am going to have to call bullshit on this argument.

My point is that if that zip code has a lot of old people move in after they retired then the data is skewed with a lower median income with respect to home price. But there is no reason to suspect that given the median age.

[Author]

Posts