Why I am leaving San Diego

[sdrealtor]

jstoez
One thing you are completely missing is that around here people are far more likely to age in place than other parts of the country. No need to retire to a warm climate, they are already here. No need to move because property taxes went up, Prop 13 takes care of that. House too big for you, just keep it because housing is expensive here, tehre is a steady infulx of new residents and you can easily rent it out for a nice amount.

In many nice ZIPS in SD county you have a lot of homes owned by low income retirees who want to and can afford to stay here. That keeps supply low and helps skew income lower tahn it would be if you looked at who was moving in rather than everyone who already lives there. When you get down to it, the median income for a ZIP is pretty meaningless in real estate. What matters is the incomes of the folks who want to, can afford to and actually buy a home there.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jstoesz]My only rational justification follows.

Lets take this chosen at random closing.

home. http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100051052-5321_Peyton_Pl_San_Diego_CA_92117

Its 86 price in today’s dollars is 233k…it just closed for 485k.

So either San Diego got a whole lot crappier thus making Clairemont a more attractive neighborhood by comparison to all the other parts or everyone in SD makes a lot more inflation adjusted money money thereby doubling the value of everyone’s home, yet not improving the quality of the homes (a dubious supposition). Either that or that chart is not representative of Clairemont…[/quote]

Heh, heh, heh.

jstoesz, your link (above) refers to one of the infamous “92117 attic-less dry-rotted drogan-like shacks” I counsel people NOT to buy!

What you are looking at here is a complete remodel in 2007 which increased its “footprint” more than 1100 sf!! READ the PFL. They ALL need it on that tract … lol!

This home, back in ’86, (your “reference year,”) was a 1275 – 1300 sf 3/1 and was NOT a comp to its “sold comp” today that you furnish.

Again, apples to oranges.

My area in 91910 is comprised of large customs of various ages and several tracts of 48-65 year-old “WWII boxes” and “Ranchettes.” On my particular tract, there were only two models built as new, a 2/1/1 (1188 sf) for $4,400 and a 3/1/2 (1488 sf) for $6,600.

Yes, those were the prices, all on generous lots. Corner lots (up to 14K sf) were $7,400.

Nearly 10 years ago, I paid 52x the as-built price for my house but I’m over it!! Not only is it not even the same house as-built but I wasn’t even alive back then!

To look at my tract now, you can’t tell a good portion of the 2/1/1’s from the 3/1/2’s anymore! Even the houses which do not have a changed footprint now have a rock facade, new siding, vinyl windows, shutters removed, fireplaces added, brick part way up, etc. Most lots are good-sized and many now have detached garages, two stories with balconies, 4/2/2’s and 5/3/2’s sitting on them.

It’s no longer the WWII box tract as-built.

This is also true in Clairemont and any other 40+ year-old community we wish to study here.

Rich’s chart refers to properties and community demographics AS THEY ARE TODAY, not what they were in ’86.

You’re not making rational comparisons here.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jstoesz]My only rational justification follows.

Lets take this chosen at random closing.

home. http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100051052-5321_Peyton_Pl_San_Diego_CA_92117

Its 86 price in today’s dollars is 233k…it just closed for 485k.

So either San Diego got a whole lot crappier thus making Clairemont a more attractive neighborhood by comparison to all the other parts or everyone in SD makes a lot more inflation adjusted money money thereby doubling the value of everyone’s home, yet not improving the quality of the homes (a dubious supposition). Either that or that chart is not representative of Clairemont…[/quote]

Heh, heh, heh.

jstoesz, your link (above) refers to one of the infamous “92117 attic-less dry-rotted drogan-like shacks” I counsel people NOT to buy!

What you are looking at here is a complete remodel in 2007 which increased its “footprint” more than 1100 sf!! READ the PFL. They ALL need it on that tract … lol!

This home, back in ’86, (your “reference year,”) was a 1275 – 1300 sf 3/1 and was NOT a comp to its “sold comp” today that you furnish.

Again, apples to oranges.

My area in 91910 is comprised of large customs of various ages and several tracts of 48-65 year-old “WWII boxes” and “Ranchettes.” On my particular tract, there were only two models built as new, a 2/1/1 (1188 sf) for $4,400 and a 3/1/2 (1488 sf) for $6,600.

Yes, those were the prices, all on generous lots. Corner lots (up to 14K sf) were $7,400.

Nearly 10 years ago, I paid 52x the as-built price for my house but I’m over it!! Not only is it not even the same house as-built but I wasn’t even alive back then!

To look at my tract now, you can’t tell a good portion of the 2/1/1’s from the 3/1/2’s anymore! Even the houses which do not have a changed footprint now have a rock facade, new siding, vinyl windows, shutters removed, fireplaces added, brick part way up, etc. Most lots are good-sized and many now have detached garages, two stories with balconies, 4/2/2’s and 5/3/2’s sitting on them.

It’s no longer the WWII box tract as-built.

This is also true in Clairemont and any other 40+ year-old community we wish to study here.

Rich’s chart refers to properties and community demographics AS THEY ARE TODAY, not what they were in ’86.

You’re not making rational comparisons here.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jstoesz]My only rational justification follows.

Lets take this chosen at random closing.

home. http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100051052-5321_Peyton_Pl_San_Diego_CA_92117

Its 86 price in today’s dollars is 233k…it just closed for 485k.

So either San Diego got a whole lot crappier thus making Clairemont a more attractive neighborhood by comparison to all the other parts or everyone in SD makes a lot more inflation adjusted money money thereby doubling the value of everyone’s home, yet not improving the quality of the homes (a dubious supposition). Either that or that chart is not representative of Clairemont…[/quote]

Heh, heh, heh.

jstoesz, your link (above) refers to one of the infamous “92117 attic-less dry-rotted drogan-like shacks” I counsel people NOT to buy!

What you are looking at here is a complete remodel in 2007 which increased its “footprint” more than 1100 sf!! READ the PFL. They ALL need it on that tract … lol!

This home, back in ’86, (your “reference year,”) was a 1275 – 1300 sf 3/1 and was NOT a comp to its “sold comp” today that you furnish.

Again, apples to oranges.

My area in 91910 is comprised of large customs of various ages and several tracts of 48-65 year-old “WWII boxes” and “Ranchettes.” On my particular tract, there were only two models built as new, a 2/1/1 (1188 sf) for $4,400 and a 3/1/2 (1488 sf) for $6,600.

Yes, those were the prices, all on generous lots. Corner lots (up to 14K sf) were $7,400.

Nearly 10 years ago, I paid 52x the as-built price for my house but I’m over it!! Not only is it not even the same house as-built but I wasn’t even alive back then!

To look at my tract now, you can’t tell a good portion of the 2/1/1’s from the 3/1/2’s anymore! Even the houses which do not have a changed footprint now have a rock facade, new siding, vinyl windows, shutters removed, fireplaces added, brick part way up, etc. Most lots are good-sized and many now have detached garages, two stories with balconies, 4/2/2’s and 5/3/2’s sitting on them.

It’s no longer the WWII box tract as-built.

This is also true in Clairemont and any other 40+ year-old community we wish to study here.

Rich’s chart refers to properties and community demographics AS THEY ARE TODAY, not what they were in ’86.

You’re not making rational comparisons here.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jstoesz]My only rational justification follows.

Lets take this chosen at random closing.

home. http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100051052-5321_Peyton_Pl_San_Diego_CA_92117

Its 86 price in today’s dollars is 233k…it just closed for 485k.

So either San Diego got a whole lot crappier thus making Clairemont a more attractive neighborhood by comparison to all the other parts or everyone in SD makes a lot more inflation adjusted money money thereby doubling the value of everyone’s home, yet not improving the quality of the homes (a dubious supposition). Either that or that chart is not representative of Clairemont…[/quote]

Heh, heh, heh.

jstoesz, your link (above) refers to one of the infamous “92117 attic-less dry-rotted drogan-like shacks” I counsel people NOT to buy!

What you are looking at here is a complete remodel in 2007 which increased its “footprint” more than 1100 sf!! READ the PFL. They ALL need it on that tract … lol!

This home, back in ’86, (your “reference year,”) was a 1275 – 1300 sf 3/1 and was NOT a comp to its “sold comp” today that you furnish.

Again, apples to oranges.

My area in 91910 is comprised of large customs of various ages and several tracts of 48-65 year-old “WWII boxes” and “Ranchettes.” On my particular tract, there were only two models built as new, a 2/1/1 (1188 sf) for $4,400 and a 3/1/2 (1488 sf) for $6,600.

Yes, those were the prices, all on generous lots. Corner lots (up to 14K sf) were $7,400.

Nearly 10 years ago, I paid 52x the as-built price for my house but I’m over it!! Not only is it not even the same house as-built but I wasn’t even alive back then!

To look at my tract now, you can’t tell a good portion of the 2/1/1’s from the 3/1/2’s anymore! Even the houses which do not have a changed footprint now have a rock facade, new siding, vinyl windows, shutters removed, fireplaces added, brick part way up, etc. Most lots are good-sized and many now have detached garages, two stories with balconies, 4/2/2’s and 5/3/2’s sitting on them.

It’s no longer the WWII box tract as-built.

This is also true in Clairemont and any other 40+ year-old community we wish to study here.

Rich’s chart refers to properties and community demographics AS THEY ARE TODAY, not what they were in ’86.

You’re not making rational comparisons here.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jstoesz]My only rational justification follows.

Lets take this chosen at random closing.

home. http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100051052-5321_Peyton_Pl_San_Diego_CA_92117

Its 86 price in today’s dollars is 233k…it just closed for 485k.

So either San Diego got a whole lot crappier thus making Clairemont a more attractive neighborhood by comparison to all the other parts or everyone in SD makes a lot more inflation adjusted money money thereby doubling the value of everyone’s home, yet not improving the quality of the homes (a dubious supposition). Either that or that chart is not representative of Clairemont…[/quote]

Heh, heh, heh.

jstoesz, your link (above) refers to one of the infamous “92117 attic-less dry-rotted drogan-like shacks” I counsel people NOT to buy!

What you are looking at here is a complete remodel in 2007 which increased its “footprint” more than 1100 sf!! READ the PFL. They ALL need it on that tract … lol!

This home, back in ’86, (your “reference year,”) was a 1275 – 1300 sf 3/1 and was NOT a comp to its “sold comp” today that you furnish.

Again, apples to oranges.

My area in 91910 is comprised of large customs of various ages and several tracts of 48-65 year-old “WWII boxes” and “Ranchettes.” On my particular tract, there were only two models built as new, a 2/1/1 (1188 sf) for $4,400 and a 3/1/2 (1488 sf) for $6,600.

Yes, those were the prices, all on generous lots. Corner lots (up to 14K sf) were $7,400.

Nearly 10 years ago, I paid 52x the as-built price for my house but I’m over it!! Not only is it not even the same house as-built but I wasn’t even alive back then!

To look at my tract now, you can’t tell a good portion of the 2/1/1’s from the 3/1/2’s anymore! Even the houses which do not have a changed footprint now have a rock facade, new siding, vinyl windows, shutters removed, fireplaces added, brick part way up, etc. Most lots are good-sized and many now have detached garages, two stories with balconies, 4/2/2’s and 5/3/2’s sitting on them.

It’s no longer the WWII box tract as-built.

This is also true in Clairemont and any other 40+ year-old community we wish to study here.

Rich’s chart refers to properties and community demographics AS THEY ARE TODAY, not what they were in ’86.

You’re not making rational comparisons here.

[NotCranky]

I was just curious, is this right?

“In Minneapolis, substantial housing development has brought the city’s population to 390,000 – close to the city’s population in the mid-1970s.”

San Diego city/county 1970

696,769/1,357,854

San Diego city/county currently

1,359,132/3,053,793

[NotCranky]

I was just curious, is this right?

“In Minneapolis, substantial housing development has brought the city’s population to 390,000 – close to the city’s population in the mid-1970s.”

San Diego city/county 1970

696,769/1,357,854

San Diego city/county currently

1,359,132/3,053,793

[NotCranky]

I was just curious, is this right?

“In Minneapolis, substantial housing development has brought the city’s population to 390,000 – close to the city’s population in the mid-1970s.”

San Diego city/county 1970

696,769/1,357,854

San Diego city/county currently

1,359,132/3,053,793

[NotCranky]

I was just curious, is this right?

“In Minneapolis, substantial housing development has brought the city’s population to 390,000 – close to the city’s population in the mid-1970s.”

San Diego city/county 1970

696,769/1,357,854

San Diego city/county currently

1,359,132/3,053,793

[NotCranky]

I was just curious, is this right?

“In Minneapolis, substantial housing development has brought the city’s population to 390,000 – close to the city’s population in the mid-1970s.”

San Diego city/county 1970

696,769/1,357,854

San Diego city/county currently

1,359,132/3,053,793

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sdrealtor] . . . In many nice ZIPS in SD county you have a lot of homes owned by low income retirees who want to and can afford to stay here. That keeps supply low and helps skew income lower tahn it would be if you looked at who was moving in rather than everyone who already lives there. When you get down to it, the median income for a ZIP is pretty meaningless in real estate. What matters is the incomes of the folks who want to, can afford to and actually buy a home there.[/quote]

To add to sdr’s comment, the large “retired” element in older communities of SD tend to have a lower income than the “working” element, so it “skews” the incomes on the demographic charts. But being retired and on a lower income may not necessarily equate to a lesser lifestyle than a working family across the street having =>2x more monthly income. Not only do the retired generally pay less income taxes, they very often have no mortgage and owe far less property taxes (due to Prop 13 caps). So it’s very possible that the retired homeowner has MORE discretionary income that their dual-income-family neighbor.

This may seem unfair to a current worker raising a family but, like it or not, it’s just the way the world works . . .

You, as a young worker today, might have a hard time imagining yourself standing on your feet on their line at Convair all day producing aircraft parts (for 25 – 35 years). That was their life.

[img_assist|nid=14221|title=Convair ad|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=240|height=434]

This ad was probably placed in newspapers in the midwest to lure workers out of the heat, hence the reference to “cool” San Diego . . . lol!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sdrealtor] . . . In many nice ZIPS in SD county you have a lot of homes owned by low income retirees who want to and can afford to stay here. That keeps supply low and helps skew income lower tahn it would be if you looked at who was moving in rather than everyone who already lives there. When you get down to it, the median income for a ZIP is pretty meaningless in real estate. What matters is the incomes of the folks who want to, can afford to and actually buy a home there.[/quote]

To add to sdr’s comment, the large “retired” element in older communities of SD tend to have a lower income than the “working” element, so it “skews” the incomes on the demographic charts. But being retired and on a lower income may not necessarily equate to a lesser lifestyle than a working family across the street having =>2x more monthly income. Not only do the retired generally pay less income taxes, they very often have no mortgage and owe far less property taxes (due to Prop 13 caps). So it’s very possible that the retired homeowner has MORE discretionary income that their dual-income-family neighbor.

This may seem unfair to a current worker raising a family but, like it or not, it’s just the way the world works . . .

You, as a young worker today, might have a hard time imagining yourself standing on your feet on their line at Convair all day producing aircraft parts (for 25 – 35 years). That was their life.

[img_assist|nid=14221|title=Convair ad|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=240|height=434]

This ad was probably placed in newspapers in the midwest to lure workers out of the heat, hence the reference to “cool” San Diego . . . lol!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sdrealtor] . . . In many nice ZIPS in SD county you have a lot of homes owned by low income retirees who want to and can afford to stay here. That keeps supply low and helps skew income lower tahn it would be if you looked at who was moving in rather than everyone who already lives there. When you get down to it, the median income for a ZIP is pretty meaningless in real estate. What matters is the incomes of the folks who want to, can afford to and actually buy a home there.[/quote]

To add to sdr’s comment, the large “retired” element in older communities of SD tend to have a lower income than the “working” element, so it “skews” the incomes on the demographic charts. But being retired and on a lower income may not necessarily equate to a lesser lifestyle than a working family across the street having =>2x more monthly income. Not only do the retired generally pay less income taxes, they very often have no mortgage and owe far less property taxes (due to Prop 13 caps). So it’s very possible that the retired homeowner has MORE discretionary income that their dual-income-family neighbor.

This may seem unfair to a current worker raising a family but, like it or not, it’s just the way the world works . . .

You, as a young worker today, might have a hard time imagining yourself standing on your feet on their line at Convair all day producing aircraft parts (for 25 – 35 years). That was their life.

[img_assist|nid=14221|title=Convair ad|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=240|height=434]

This ad was probably placed in newspapers in the midwest to lure workers out of the heat, hence the reference to “cool” San Diego . . . lol!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sdrealtor] . . . In many nice ZIPS in SD county you have a lot of homes owned by low income retirees who want to and can afford to stay here. That keeps supply low and helps skew income lower tahn it would be if you looked at who was moving in rather than everyone who already lives there. When you get down to it, the median income for a ZIP is pretty meaningless in real estate. What matters is the incomes of the folks who want to, can afford to and actually buy a home there.[/quote]

To add to sdr’s comment, the large “retired” element in older communities of SD tend to have a lower income than the “working” element, so it “skews” the incomes on the demographic charts. But being retired and on a lower income may not necessarily equate to a lesser lifestyle than a working family across the street having =>2x more monthly income. Not only do the retired generally pay less income taxes, they very often have no mortgage and owe far less property taxes (due to Prop 13 caps). So it’s very possible that the retired homeowner has MORE discretionary income that their dual-income-family neighbor.

This may seem unfair to a current worker raising a family but, like it or not, it’s just the way the world works . . .

You, as a young worker today, might have a hard time imagining yourself standing on your feet on their line at Convair all day producing aircraft parts (for 25 – 35 years). That was their life.

[img_assist|nid=14221|title=Convair ad|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=240|height=434]

This ad was probably placed in newspapers in the midwest to lure workers out of the heat, hence the reference to “cool” San Diego . . . lol!

[Author]

Posts