Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
bearishgurl
Participant[quote=sdcellar]. . . Also, I don’t want to tell everybody the address, but I will help narrow things down as I know it’s hard to give advice when the scope is essentially limitless. Basically, it’s a North County Coastal property somewhere between South Carlsbad and La Jolla (inclusive). Some of you may have already guessed that when I said the area hadn’t been hit that hard pricewise. Beyond that, I don’t think there’s much more I can say, because the Piggies are smarties. I don’t need you stealing my house from me or firebombing it after I move in (a few on this site aren’t my biggest fans…) I guess I can also add that it’s not (what I would consider) a starter house. We be livin’ there for a long time. . .[/quote]
(emphasis added)sdcellar, my take is, if you can afford it and it’s in a zip with very few underwater SFR homeowners and thus few SFR foreclosures (read: stable) and you have made the best deal you can to obtain the property of your dreams (or a property 90%+ close), then don’t feel bad about going thru with the transaction. You can’t worry about the machinations +-20% of the BROADER MARKET when this DOES NOT APPLY to the coastal niche you are trying to buy into.
I know this is not YOUR area sdcellar, but I’ve posted before that 92106/upper 92107 is an example of a *stable* market for SFR’s, that is, if you are in a position to buy and find the unique property of your dreams, then now’s a great time!! Areas that were not greatly affected by “bubble purchasers” and marginal-income purchasers (who ATM’ed their property to live on) remained relatively stable, thus are still good investments today. I believe RE in California coastal counties is situated in micro-mini markets and each can only be compared with themselves.
Condos in EVERY zip have been affected (most greatly) by this most recent downturn b/c of the HOA and also because, as I have posted before, they ARE NOT technically real property but “fractional interests” of an Association.
[quote=sdcellar](8/09 post) I suppose I’m a big fan of ocrenter’s notion of 2001 prices being the right balance, but with all the machinations and madness going on, who knows?[/quote]
sdcellar, prices are already there in most markets. I purchased my most recent home in 2001, put 30% down, am a licensee myself and still would be hard-pressed to be able to recover my downpayment today, even after putting in a least $12K in improvements. I have never refied or borrowed anything from it.
I still do not regret purchasing it as it is a 61-year old very well-built property which underwent a complete remodel in 1993. I know I have complained here about the neighbors but for the most part, the ‘hood is VERY stable and I have enjoyed living in it. After being on the fence for a few years, I have decided in the last few mos. that I will remain for at least four more years and am doing more small improvements that I already have materials for.
Like UCGal said, a house is a “home” and if your selected property is the right one for you and your family and the chances are low you will come across a comparable property in the same zip in the near future, then good luck with your offer.
I wish there was a very telling map for SD Co. like the one I found in this article last night from the Denver Post which shows the percentages of underwater homeowners in each zip.
http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_11098849
The high percentages denote instability and potential further price softness in those affected zips. Because they were properties purchased ONLY in the last five years, this shows that fewer transactions occurred in the more stable zips and those which occurred there were less likely to have been using toxic loans.
Not surprisingly, the Denver City/Co. zips of 80209 (“Wash. Park”) and 80210 (“Bonnie Brae”) are the 3rd and 4th most stable after Arvada West – Foothills (80007) and Coal Creek Cyn – Golden (80403), both in the foothills of Jefferson Co. Why?? Because the two Denver zips are among the most well-located, whose SFR stock consists of mostly larger solid brick bungalows from 60-90 years old, with full basements on ample lots. These two zips obviously have a great deal of high-equity and free-and-clear owners, natural beauty and many *free* amenities as well, hence their (often much) higher asking prices than the avg. for the overall mkt.
So we can see that sdr’s argument, “the best properties are in the strongest hands” holds true in Denver, as well. When one owns something good and knows it, they generally cannot be easily convinced to sell and do not jeopardize it in any way, knowing full well they can never get it back. This ideology is prevalent in EVERY major RE market, not just SD.
Participant[quote=sdcellar]. . . Also, I don’t want to tell everybody the address, but I will help narrow things down as I know it’s hard to give advice when the scope is essentially limitless. Basically, it’s a North County Coastal property somewhere between South Carlsbad and La Jolla (inclusive). Some of you may have already guessed that when I said the area hadn’t been hit that hard pricewise. Beyond that, I don’t think there’s much more I can say, because the Piggies are smarties. I don’t need you stealing my house from me or firebombing it after I move in (a few on this site aren’t my biggest fans…) I guess I can also add that it’s not (what I would consider) a starter house. We be livin’ there for a long time. . .[/quote]
(emphasis added)sdcellar, my take is, if you can afford it and it’s in a zip with very few underwater SFR homeowners and thus few SFR foreclosures (read: stable) and you have made the best deal you can to obtain the property of your dreams (or a property 90%+ close), then don’t feel bad about going thru with the transaction. You can’t worry about the machinations +-20% of the BROADER MARKET when this DOES NOT APPLY to the coastal niche you are trying to buy into.
I know this is not YOUR area sdcellar, but I’ve posted before that 92106/upper 92107 is an example of a *stable* market for SFR’s, that is, if you are in a position to buy and find the unique property of your dreams, then now’s a great time!! Areas that were not greatly affected by “bubble purchasers” and marginal-income purchasers (who ATM’ed their property to live on) remained relatively stable, thus are still good investments today. I believe RE in California coastal counties is situated in micro-mini markets and each can only be compared with themselves.
Condos in EVERY zip have been affected (most greatly) by this most recent downturn b/c of the HOA and also because, as I have posted before, they ARE NOT technically real property but “fractional interests” of an Association.
[quote=sdcellar](8/09 post) I suppose I’m a big fan of ocrenter’s notion of 2001 prices being the right balance, but with all the machinations and madness going on, who knows?[/quote]
sdcellar, prices are already there in most markets. I purchased my most recent home in 2001, put 30% down, am a licensee myself and still would be hard-pressed to be able to recover my downpayment today, even after putting in a least $12K in improvements. I have never refied or borrowed anything from it.
I still do not regret purchasing it as it is a 61-year old very well-built property which underwent a complete remodel in 1993. I know I have complained here about the neighbors but for the most part, the ‘hood is VERY stable and I have enjoyed living in it. After being on the fence for a few years, I have decided in the last few mos. that I will remain for at least four more years and am doing more small improvements that I already have materials for.
Like UCGal said, a house is a “home” and if your selected property is the right one for you and your family and the chances are low you will come across a comparable property in the same zip in the near future, then good luck with your offer.
I wish there was a very telling map for SD Co. like the one I found in this article last night from the Denver Post which shows the percentages of underwater homeowners in each zip.
http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_11098849
The high percentages denote instability and potential further price softness in those affected zips. Because they were properties purchased ONLY in the last five years, this shows that fewer transactions occurred in the more stable zips and those which occurred there were less likely to have been using toxic loans.
Not surprisingly, the Denver City/Co. zips of 80209 (“Wash. Park”) and 80210 (“Bonnie Brae”) are the 3rd and 4th most stable after Arvada West – Foothills (80007) and Coal Creek Cyn – Golden (80403), both in the foothills of Jefferson Co. Why?? Because the two Denver zips are among the most well-located, whose SFR stock consists of mostly larger solid brick bungalows from 60-90 years old, with full basements on ample lots. These two zips obviously have a great deal of high-equity and free-and-clear owners, natural beauty and many *free* amenities as well, hence their (often much) higher asking prices than the avg. for the overall mkt.
So we can see that sdr’s argument, “the best properties are in the strongest hands” holds true in Denver, as well. When one owns something good and knows it, they generally cannot be easily convinced to sell and do not jeopardize it in any way, knowing full well they can never get it back. This ideology is prevalent in EVERY major RE market, not just SD.
Participant[quote=UCGal]I guess it depends on your definition of “new”.[/quote]
91914 (RHR) was built between approx. 1998 and 2003 and 91915 (ALL) was built between approx. 2000 and 2006 – maybe one or two straggling projects east of the new mall finished after that.
The rest of 91914 (primarily Eastlake Greens) is as old as 19 yrs. Much of that stock has very narrow backyards facing into the golf course.
IMO, most of the developments in Otay Ranch are comprised of cheap crackerboxes, many with ticky-tacky “shutters” and little or no driveways/backyards. The vast majority of SFR’s are situated on lots =< 4,000 sf., even if the house itself is 3,000 sf. - LOL. UCGal, I don't see any of this "newer" Chula stock as having been built under "new codes."
Participant[quote=UCGal]I guess it depends on your definition of “new”.[/quote]
91914 (RHR) was built between approx. 1998 and 2003 and 91915 (ALL) was built between approx. 2000 and 2006 – maybe one or two straggling projects east of the new mall finished after that.
The rest of 91914 (primarily Eastlake Greens) is as old as 19 yrs. Much of that stock has very narrow backyards facing into the golf course.
IMO, most of the developments in Otay Ranch are comprised of cheap crackerboxes, many with ticky-tacky “shutters” and little or no driveways/backyards. The vast majority of SFR’s are situated on lots =< 4,000 sf., even if the house itself is 3,000 sf. - LOL. UCGal, I don't see any of this "newer" Chula stock as having been built under "new codes."
Participant[quote=UCGal]I guess it depends on your definition of “new”.[/quote]
91914 (RHR) was built between approx. 1998 and 2003 and 91915 (ALL) was built between approx. 2000 and 2006 – maybe one or two straggling projects east of the new mall finished after that.
The rest of 91914 (primarily Eastlake Greens) is as old as 19 yrs. Much of that stock has very narrow backyards facing into the golf course.
IMO, most of the developments in Otay Ranch are comprised of cheap crackerboxes, many with ticky-tacky “shutters” and little or no driveways/backyards. The vast majority of SFR’s are situated on lots =< 4,000 sf., even if the house itself is 3,000 sf. - LOL. UCGal, I don't see any of this "newer" Chula stock as having been built under "new codes."
Participant[quote=UCGal]I guess it depends on your definition of “new”.[/quote]
91914 (RHR) was built between approx. 1998 and 2003 and 91915 (ALL) was built between approx. 2000 and 2006 – maybe one or two straggling projects east of the new mall finished after that.
The rest of 91914 (primarily Eastlake Greens) is as old as 19 yrs. Much of that stock has very narrow backyards facing into the golf course.
IMO, most of the developments in Otay Ranch are comprised of cheap crackerboxes, many with ticky-tacky “shutters” and little or no driveways/backyards. The vast majority of SFR’s are situated on lots =< 4,000 sf., even if the house itself is 3,000 sf. - LOL. UCGal, I don't see any of this "newer" Chula stock as having been built under "new codes."
Participant[quote=UCGal]I guess it depends on your definition of “new”.[/quote]
91914 (RHR) was built between approx. 1998 and 2003 and 91915 (ALL) was built between approx. 2000 and 2006 – maybe one or two straggling projects east of the new mall finished after that.
The rest of 91914 (primarily Eastlake Greens) is as old as 19 yrs. Much of that stock has very narrow backyards facing into the golf course.
IMO, most of the developments in Otay Ranch are comprised of cheap crackerboxes, many with ticky-tacky “shutters” and little or no driveways/backyards. The vast majority of SFR’s are situated on lots =< 4,000 sf., even if the house itself is 3,000 sf. - LOL. UCGal, I don't see any of this "newer" Chula stock as having been built under "new codes."
ParticipantJust noticed the above two ??’s I responded to were from 3+ mos. ago even tho thread was recently reactivated . . . answers are still relevant.
ParticipantJust noticed the above two ??’s I responded to were from 3+ mos. ago even tho thread was recently reactivated . . . answers are still relevant.
ParticipantJust noticed the above two ??’s I responded to were from 3+ mos. ago even tho thread was recently reactivated . . . answers are still relevant.
ParticipantJust noticed the above two ??’s I responded to were from 3+ mos. ago even tho thread was recently reactivated . . . answers are still relevant.
ParticipantJust noticed the above two ??’s I responded to were from 3+ mos. ago even tho thread was recently reactivated . . . answers are still relevant.
Participant[quote=Eugene]It was 42 °F in Scripps Ranch last night. 39 °F the night before. Subtract a couple of degrees for Stonebridge. The smallest floor plan in Serenity is 4040 square feet. Unless builders go out of their way to insulate their houses (insulation thickness above what’s recommended for San Diego, triple glazed windows, hand-fitted weatherproofing strips on all doors), you’re looking at a $500/month cooling bill in the summer and a $500/month heating bill in the winter.[/quote]
I haven’t looked inside new developments but from what I’ve heard from people who have bought into them in South County, they are NOT very well insulated and DO NOT have triple-paned windows. In some cases such as in a condo, there is no insulation at all. I can tell by a drive-by how cheap some of the windows are and also the small size of windows used which pale in comparison to the older construction. I have also heard complaints of very narrow staircases, making it difficult to move larger furn. upstairs. And then you have the “space-saving” tandem garage design (3-car separated), that you can’t park in front of and still get into the other garage – LOL.
Our temperatures didn’t recently dip that low down here, even in 91914 and 91915. It does get hot out there though, probably at least ten degrees hotter than central Chula.
A $500 utility bill is astounding!!! Mine avgs. $55 a month year round and I have abt. 2200 SF. I would venture that the high ceilings, wasted alcoves/space and poor inland location are contributing to that problem.
Does anyone know how much an annual fire policy with a guaranteed-replacement-cost rider with $1000 deductible costs in Scripps Ranch for say, 2500 SF?? Just curious.
Participant[quote=Eugene]It was 42 °F in Scripps Ranch last night. 39 °F the night before. Subtract a couple of degrees for Stonebridge. The smallest floor plan in Serenity is 4040 square feet. Unless builders go out of their way to insulate their houses (insulation thickness above what’s recommended for San Diego, triple glazed windows, hand-fitted weatherproofing strips on all doors), you’re looking at a $500/month cooling bill in the summer and a $500/month heating bill in the winter.[/quote]
I haven’t looked inside new developments but from what I’ve heard from people who have bought into them in South County, they are NOT very well insulated and DO NOT have triple-paned windows. In some cases such as in a condo, there is no insulation at all. I can tell by a drive-by how cheap some of the windows are and also the small size of windows used which pale in comparison to the older construction. I have also heard complaints of very narrow staircases, making it difficult to move larger furn. upstairs. And then you have the “space-saving” tandem garage design (3-car separated), that you can’t park in front of and still get into the other garage – LOL.
Our temperatures didn’t recently dip that low down here, even in 91914 and 91915. It does get hot out there though, probably at least ten degrees hotter than central Chula.
A $500 utility bill is astounding!!! Mine avgs. $55 a month year round and I have abt. 2200 SF. I would venture that the high ceilings, wasted alcoves/space and poor inland location are contributing to that problem.
Does anyone know how much an annual fire policy with a guaranteed-replacement-cost rider with $1000 deductible costs in Scripps Ranch for say, 2500 SF?? Just curious.
-
AuthorPosts
