[bearishgurl]

Exc. SANDAG data, UCGal. Thanks for posting.

Does this survey take into account all trust, annuity and interest income of households in addition to W-2 and Schedule C income? Where did SANDAG get their numbers?

I completely agree that one can live fine on a low or MC income. I myself do this and am able to completely stay out of debt, save my house note. My “greatest generation” parents taught me well – LOL.

Don’t judge an owner by their house and conversely, don’t judge a house by its owner. Some low-income owners survive fine in very nice properties and areas and some “wealthy” owners reside in the same property they bought in 1952, where the ‘hood has “gentrified” significantly since then but still suits them just fine 🙂

[bearishgurl]

Exc. SANDAG data, UCGal. Thanks for posting.

Does this survey take into account all trust, annuity and interest income of households in addition to W-2 and Schedule C income? Where did SANDAG get their numbers?

I completely agree that one can live fine on a low or MC income. I myself do this and am able to completely stay out of debt, save my house note. My “greatest generation” parents taught me well – LOL.

Don’t judge an owner by their house and conversely, don’t judge a house by its owner. Some low-income owners survive fine in very nice properties and areas and some “wealthy” owners reside in the same property they bought in 1952, where the ‘hood has “gentrified” significantly since then but still suits them just fine 🙂

[bearishgurl]

Exc. SANDAG data, UCGal. Thanks for posting.

Does this survey take into account all trust, annuity and interest income of households in addition to W-2 and Schedule C income? Where did SANDAG get their numbers?

I completely agree that one can live fine on a low or MC income. I myself do this and am able to completely stay out of debt, save my house note. My “greatest generation” parents taught me well – LOL.

Don’t judge an owner by their house and conversely, don’t judge a house by its owner. Some low-income owners survive fine in very nice properties and areas and some “wealthy” owners reside in the same property they bought in 1952, where the ‘hood has “gentrified” significantly since then but still suits them just fine 🙂

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN]you don’t need to be a senior citizen to have your house paid for. You just need to have an area that’s built in the 70s-80s. Like you agreed to, these group of people are not exclusive to Chula Vista. They’re everywhere. Again, based on my definition of wealth, most of them are not. They’re safe for retirement, but they’re not wealthy. You don’t have to look at areas that’s 50+ year old. You just have to look at area that’s 25+ year old. Those who bought new 25 years ago when they were in the late 20s/early 30s, they’re around 55 now. You can easily tell among those group who is set for retirement and who’s not. Whole areas that’s 50+ years old will have people in retirement, areas 25+ years old will have people getting ready to retire in the next 5-10 years.

Once again, you still didn’t answer my question. Where did you get your data to show 65% of 91910 belong to this group?

Here’s where I get all the listings of SFR in 91910. http://www.sdlookup.com/Real_Estate-Chul… Feel free to look through all of them. I see a lot of houses like this one: http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100006300-19…%5B/quote%5D

AN, may I suggest you to do some campaigning in 91910 near dtn. CV right now so you can see who answers the door? I believe at least 65% of the owners of the properties in the area around dtn. CV are over the age of 65. I don’t need STATS or a rocket scientist to tell me this.

I saw the property on the 2nd link you provided and it confirms exactly what I am saying. Take a hard look at it, AN. It is 777 SF and has a $245K asking price. It is among the smallest of homes built in 91910 (a “small” post-WWII box).

It is within TWO BLOCKS of a very expensive Mills Act Craftsman on 1/2 AC and several large customs on 1/2 AC+. Look at the SOLDS for the area in the bottom of this page. Some are not in quite the same ‘hood, but for the most part, they are small, avg. 1200 SF. Avg. SOLD appears to be about $280K. LOOK AT THE AVG. PRICE PER SQ. FT!

Just as I stated earlier on this thread, this listing is BOMK! Why?? “Buyers couldn’t wait,” and “cosmetic fixer.” It is a “short-sale hopeful” meaning the lender never approved it. It was just a “hopeful” in the mind of the listing agent – and still is.

This listing was probably a bubble purchase for a rental that never got remodeled because the numbers never worked to do so. Why don’t you or geek Eugene (no disrespect intended – I adore geeks) take the avg. price per sq. foot of WWII boxes in CV which recently SOLD and apply this figure towards recent SOLD comps in 92126 and 92129 and see if you come up with comparable prices. I think you’ll find parts of 91910 very difficult to comp and this listing is in one of them. It is one of the LEAST homogenous areas of the county.

To answer your question about paid off homes, I don’t think they are mainly 80’s built homes, but could be 70’s built. I believe most of the paid-off properties which were encumbered by purchase money loans are pre-Prop. 13 purchases (April 1978). Most of the baby-boomers you are referring to as MM residents “retiring or about to retire” were under 30 at the time Prop. 13 was passed. I am in that demographic. Yes, I bought my 1st property just post-Prop. 13, but that was ten properties ago. Most “baby-boomers” typically bought and sold repeatedly or borrowed from their properties repeatedly.

When I referred to “wealthy” seniors still in their orig. homes, I was speaking of the “greatest generation,” born approx. 1924 to 1946. This is the frugal generation that did not move often.

Also I wanted to add that I used the word “terminated” or “termed” when referring to the maturation of MR Bonds. The correct word is “retire,” as in “MR to retire in 2022.”

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN]you don’t need to be a senior citizen to have your house paid for. You just need to have an area that’s built in the 70s-80s. Like you agreed to, these group of people are not exclusive to Chula Vista. They’re everywhere. Again, based on my definition of wealth, most of them are not. They’re safe for retirement, but they’re not wealthy. You don’t have to look at areas that’s 50+ year old. You just have to look at area that’s 25+ year old. Those who bought new 25 years ago when they were in the late 20s/early 30s, they’re around 55 now. You can easily tell among those group who is set for retirement and who’s not. Whole areas that’s 50+ years old will have people in retirement, areas 25+ years old will have people getting ready to retire in the next 5-10 years.

Once again, you still didn’t answer my question. Where did you get your data to show 65% of 91910 belong to this group?

Here’s where I get all the listings of SFR in 91910. http://www.sdlookup.com/Real_Estate-Chul… Feel free to look through all of them. I see a lot of houses like this one: http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100006300-19…%5B/quote%5D

AN, may I suggest you to do some campaigning in 91910 near dtn. CV right now so you can see who answers the door? I believe at least 65% of the owners of the properties in the area around dtn. CV are over the age of 65. I don’t need STATS or a rocket scientist to tell me this.

I saw the property on the 2nd link you provided and it confirms exactly what I am saying. Take a hard look at it, AN. It is 777 SF and has a $245K asking price. It is among the smallest of homes built in 91910 (a “small” post-WWII box).

It is within TWO BLOCKS of a very expensive Mills Act Craftsman on 1/2 AC and several large customs on 1/2 AC+. Look at the SOLDS for the area in the bottom of this page. Some are not in quite the same ‘hood, but for the most part, they are small, avg. 1200 SF. Avg. SOLD appears to be about $280K. LOOK AT THE AVG. PRICE PER SQ. FT!

Just as I stated earlier on this thread, this listing is BOMK! Why?? “Buyers couldn’t wait,” and “cosmetic fixer.” It is a “short-sale hopeful” meaning the lender never approved it. It was just a “hopeful” in the mind of the listing agent – and still is.

This listing was probably a bubble purchase for a rental that never got remodeled because the numbers never worked to do so. Why don’t you or geek Eugene (no disrespect intended – I adore geeks) take the avg. price per sq. foot of WWII boxes in CV which recently SOLD and apply this figure towards recent SOLD comps in 92126 and 92129 and see if you come up with comparable prices. I think you’ll find parts of 91910 very difficult to comp and this listing is in one of them. It is one of the LEAST homogenous areas of the county.

To answer your question about paid off homes, I don’t think they are mainly 80’s built homes, but could be 70’s built. I believe most of the paid-off properties which were encumbered by purchase money loans are pre-Prop. 13 purchases (April 1978). Most of the baby-boomers you are referring to as MM residents “retiring or about to retire” were under 30 at the time Prop. 13 was passed. I am in that demographic. Yes, I bought my 1st property just post-Prop. 13, but that was ten properties ago. Most “baby-boomers” typically bought and sold repeatedly or borrowed from their properties repeatedly.

When I referred to “wealthy” seniors still in their orig. homes, I was speaking of the “greatest generation,” born approx. 1924 to 1946. This is the frugal generation that did not move often.

Also I wanted to add that I used the word “terminated” or “termed” when referring to the maturation of MR Bonds. The correct word is “retire,” as in “MR to retire in 2022.”

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN]you don’t need to be a senior citizen to have your house paid for. You just need to have an area that’s built in the 70s-80s. Like you agreed to, these group of people are not exclusive to Chula Vista. They’re everywhere. Again, based on my definition of wealth, most of them are not. They’re safe for retirement, but they’re not wealthy. You don’t have to look at areas that’s 50+ year old. You just have to look at area that’s 25+ year old. Those who bought new 25 years ago when they were in the late 20s/early 30s, they’re around 55 now. You can easily tell among those group who is set for retirement and who’s not. Whole areas that’s 50+ years old will have people in retirement, areas 25+ years old will have people getting ready to retire in the next 5-10 years.

Once again, you still didn’t answer my question. Where did you get your data to show 65% of 91910 belong to this group?

Here’s where I get all the listings of SFR in 91910. http://www.sdlookup.com/Real_Estate-Chul… Feel free to look through all of them. I see a lot of houses like this one: http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100006300-19…%5B/quote%5D

AN, may I suggest you to do some campaigning in 91910 near dtn. CV right now so you can see who answers the door? I believe at least 65% of the owners of the properties in the area around dtn. CV are over the age of 65. I don’t need STATS or a rocket scientist to tell me this.

I saw the property on the 2nd link you provided and it confirms exactly what I am saying. Take a hard look at it, AN. It is 777 SF and has a $245K asking price. It is among the smallest of homes built in 91910 (a “small” post-WWII box).

It is within TWO BLOCKS of a very expensive Mills Act Craftsman on 1/2 AC and several large customs on 1/2 AC+. Look at the SOLDS for the area in the bottom of this page. Some are not in quite the same ‘hood, but for the most part, they are small, avg. 1200 SF. Avg. SOLD appears to be about $280K. LOOK AT THE AVG. PRICE PER SQ. FT!

Just as I stated earlier on this thread, this listing is BOMK! Why?? “Buyers couldn’t wait,” and “cosmetic fixer.” It is a “short-sale hopeful” meaning the lender never approved it. It was just a “hopeful” in the mind of the listing agent – and still is.

This listing was probably a bubble purchase for a rental that never got remodeled because the numbers never worked to do so. Why don’t you or geek Eugene (no disrespect intended – I adore geeks) take the avg. price per sq. foot of WWII boxes in CV which recently SOLD and apply this figure towards recent SOLD comps in 92126 and 92129 and see if you come up with comparable prices. I think you’ll find parts of 91910 very difficult to comp and this listing is in one of them. It is one of the LEAST homogenous areas of the county.

To answer your question about paid off homes, I don’t think they are mainly 80’s built homes, but could be 70’s built. I believe most of the paid-off properties which were encumbered by purchase money loans are pre-Prop. 13 purchases (April 1978). Most of the baby-boomers you are referring to as MM residents “retiring or about to retire” were under 30 at the time Prop. 13 was passed. I am in that demographic. Yes, I bought my 1st property just post-Prop. 13, but that was ten properties ago. Most “baby-boomers” typically bought and sold repeatedly or borrowed from their properties repeatedly.

When I referred to “wealthy” seniors still in their orig. homes, I was speaking of the “greatest generation,” born approx. 1924 to 1946. This is the frugal generation that did not move often.

Also I wanted to add that I used the word “terminated” or “termed” when referring to the maturation of MR Bonds. The correct word is “retire,” as in “MR to retire in 2022.”

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN]you don’t need to be a senior citizen to have your house paid for. You just need to have an area that’s built in the 70s-80s. Like you agreed to, these group of people are not exclusive to Chula Vista. They’re everywhere. Again, based on my definition of wealth, most of them are not. They’re safe for retirement, but they’re not wealthy. You don’t have to look at areas that’s 50+ year old. You just have to look at area that’s 25+ year old. Those who bought new 25 years ago when they were in the late 20s/early 30s, they’re around 55 now. You can easily tell among those group who is set for retirement and who’s not. Whole areas that’s 50+ years old will have people in retirement, areas 25+ years old will have people getting ready to retire in the next 5-10 years.

Once again, you still didn’t answer my question. Where did you get your data to show 65% of 91910 belong to this group?

Here’s where I get all the listings of SFR in 91910. http://www.sdlookup.com/Real_Estate-Chul… Feel free to look through all of them. I see a lot of houses like this one: http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100006300-19…%5B/quote%5D

AN, may I suggest you to do some campaigning in 91910 near dtn. CV right now so you can see who answers the door? I believe at least 65% of the owners of the properties in the area around dtn. CV are over the age of 65. I don’t need STATS or a rocket scientist to tell me this.

I saw the property on the 2nd link you provided and it confirms exactly what I am saying. Take a hard look at it, AN. It is 777 SF and has a $245K asking price. It is among the smallest of homes built in 91910 (a “small” post-WWII box).

It is within TWO BLOCKS of a very expensive Mills Act Craftsman on 1/2 AC and several large customs on 1/2 AC+. Look at the SOLDS for the area in the bottom of this page. Some are not in quite the same ‘hood, but for the most part, they are small, avg. 1200 SF. Avg. SOLD appears to be about $280K. LOOK AT THE AVG. PRICE PER SQ. FT!

Just as I stated earlier on this thread, this listing is BOMK! Why?? “Buyers couldn’t wait,” and “cosmetic fixer.” It is a “short-sale hopeful” meaning the lender never approved it. It was just a “hopeful” in the mind of the listing agent – and still is.

This listing was probably a bubble purchase for a rental that never got remodeled because the numbers never worked to do so. Why don’t you or geek Eugene (no disrespect intended – I adore geeks) take the avg. price per sq. foot of WWII boxes in CV which recently SOLD and apply this figure towards recent SOLD comps in 92126 and 92129 and see if you come up with comparable prices. I think you’ll find parts of 91910 very difficult to comp and this listing is in one of them. It is one of the LEAST homogenous areas of the county.

To answer your question about paid off homes, I don’t think they are mainly 80’s built homes, but could be 70’s built. I believe most of the paid-off properties which were encumbered by purchase money loans are pre-Prop. 13 purchases (April 1978). Most of the baby-boomers you are referring to as MM residents “retiring or about to retire” were under 30 at the time Prop. 13 was passed. I am in that demographic. Yes, I bought my 1st property just post-Prop. 13, but that was ten properties ago. Most “baby-boomers” typically bought and sold repeatedly or borrowed from their properties repeatedly.

When I referred to “wealthy” seniors still in their orig. homes, I was speaking of the “greatest generation,” born approx. 1924 to 1946. This is the frugal generation that did not move often.

Also I wanted to add that I used the word “terminated” or “termed” when referring to the maturation of MR Bonds. The correct word is “retire,” as in “MR to retire in 2022.”

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN]you don’t need to be a senior citizen to have your house paid for. You just need to have an area that’s built in the 70s-80s. Like you agreed to, these group of people are not exclusive to Chula Vista. They’re everywhere. Again, based on my definition of wealth, most of them are not. They’re safe for retirement, but they’re not wealthy. You don’t have to look at areas that’s 50+ year old. You just have to look at area that’s 25+ year old. Those who bought new 25 years ago when they were in the late 20s/early 30s, they’re around 55 now. You can easily tell among those group who is set for retirement and who’s not. Whole areas that’s 50+ years old will have people in retirement, areas 25+ years old will have people getting ready to retire in the next 5-10 years.

Once again, you still didn’t answer my question. Where did you get your data to show 65% of 91910 belong to this group?

Here’s where I get all the listings of SFR in 91910. http://www.sdlookup.com/Real_Estate-Chul… Feel free to look through all of them. I see a lot of houses like this one: http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100006300-19…%5B/quote%5D

AN, may I suggest you to do some campaigning in 91910 near dtn. CV right now so you can see who answers the door? I believe at least 65% of the owners of the properties in the area around dtn. CV are over the age of 65. I don’t need STATS or a rocket scientist to tell me this.

I saw the property on the 2nd link you provided and it confirms exactly what I am saying. Take a hard look at it, AN. It is 777 SF and has a $245K asking price. It is among the smallest of homes built in 91910 (a “small” post-WWII box).

It is within TWO BLOCKS of a very expensive Mills Act Craftsman on 1/2 AC and several large customs on 1/2 AC+. Look at the SOLDS for the area in the bottom of this page. Some are not in quite the same ‘hood, but for the most part, they are small, avg. 1200 SF. Avg. SOLD appears to be about $280K. LOOK AT THE AVG. PRICE PER SQ. FT!

Just as I stated earlier on this thread, this listing is BOMK! Why?? “Buyers couldn’t wait,” and “cosmetic fixer.” It is a “short-sale hopeful” meaning the lender never approved it. It was just a “hopeful” in the mind of the listing agent – and still is.

This listing was probably a bubble purchase for a rental that never got remodeled because the numbers never worked to do so. Why don’t you or geek Eugene (no disrespect intended – I adore geeks) take the avg. price per sq. foot of WWII boxes in CV which recently SOLD and apply this figure towards recent SOLD comps in 92126 and 92129 and see if you come up with comparable prices. I think you’ll find parts of 91910 very difficult to comp and this listing is in one of them. It is one of the LEAST homogenous areas of the county.

To answer your question about paid off homes, I don’t think they are mainly 80’s built homes, but could be 70’s built. I believe most of the paid-off properties which were encumbered by purchase money loans are pre-Prop. 13 purchases (April 1978). Most of the baby-boomers you are referring to as MM residents “retiring or about to retire” were under 30 at the time Prop. 13 was passed. I am in that demographic. Yes, I bought my 1st property just post-Prop. 13, but that was ten properties ago. Most “baby-boomers” typically bought and sold repeatedly or borrowed from their properties repeatedly.

When I referred to “wealthy” seniors still in their orig. homes, I was speaking of the “greatest generation,” born approx. 1924 to 1946. This is the frugal generation that did not move often.

Also I wanted to add that I used the word “terminated” or “termed” when referring to the maturation of MR Bonds. The correct word is “retire,” as in “MR to retire in 2022.”

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN]Do you have data to back up your 65% or “many” assertion? I checked 91910 listings right now and they seem to be around 2000-2002 prices.[/quote]

Response to AN from NE PQ thread:

AN, I AM HERE! The properties owned by the often “wealthy” seniors are NOT FOR SALE because they are still occupying them! At least one half of my tract IS STILL OCCUPIED BY THE ORIGINAL OWNERS, circa 1949-1950. Several more are occupied by their (ret. or near ret.) heirs. I have not looked on the MLS or other listing sites recently. Perhaps you have found some cheap listings that are bank-owned, fixers or short-sale “hopefuls.” Except for two, which have now foreclosed, the rest who have purchased on my tract since 2001 were the children of neighborhood owners. About four are rental houses. Of course, this is just a microcosm of 91910.

There are also two huge sr.-citizen board and care, assisted living and independent living complexes less than one mile away. These are permanent homes whose occupants are registered voters.

When I lived in Bonita (pre-SR125 constr.), the traffic grew more and more heavy on the main thoroughfares every single year, due to residents of those new zips in CV taking “shortcuts” thru Bonita sts. to get home (many still do today because SR-125 in South Bay is a “toll-road).” The traffic thru Bonita is now 10x what it used to be. The main drag (and bus line) near me is practically a ghost town during the morning rush hour. Then, after merging onto the freeway, all the *NEW* Chula Vistans have your back. This tells me that the majority of residents of my area do not have anywhere to go in the early a.m.

[quote=AN]Most of PQ are still at 2003-2004 price. That to me shows that there can’t be that MANY who have the kind of holding power you’re suggesting. I know a few who bought in MM in 92126 when it was new in the 80s and now have those houses almost paid for. Some have other investment properties as well. All of them are old and are set to retire. However, I can’t make a blanket statement that all of 92126 are like these people. However, I can point to the decline in the past 5 years to show that even 92126 held up better than 91910. Which means that 1)demand for houses in 92126 is higher 2)there are more people in 92126 who didn’t sell at the peak (we know those who bought at/near the peak are the one who are most vulnerable). BTW, how do you know 92129 doesn’t have people who have the nest eggs you’re talking about?[/quote]

[quote=UCGal]I don’t think your described scenario is exclusive to Chula Vista – it’s common in many older neighborhoods in the county.[/quote]
UCGal, I couldn’t agree more. I was preparing a response to AN when you posted this on the NE PQ thread so it is your response also.

AN, age of population has a lot to do with the age of the housing stock. There can’t be as many sr. citizens in an newer area as opposed to an older area, except in a retirement community. I’m not saying there AREN’T “wealthy” seniors in ALL zip codes. There probably ARE but there are MORE in areas that are at least 50 years old. Most members of my parents’ generation did not move often and did not overextend themselves, due to early exposure to the Great Depression.

Re: investment properties, one of my (sr. citizen) neighbors owns and leases 12 commercial parking lots in CV that he bought for almost nothing in the olden days. So yes, some have other RE investments, too.

[quote=AN]Also, what’s your take on my data of the different zip codes and their bread & butter segment of RE?[/quote]

Answered in this thread-starter.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN]Do you have data to back up your 65% or “many” assertion? I checked 91910 listings right now and they seem to be around 2000-2002 prices.[/quote]

Response to AN from NE PQ thread:

AN, I AM HERE! The properties owned by the often “wealthy” seniors are NOT FOR SALE because they are still occupying them! At least one half of my tract IS STILL OCCUPIED BY THE ORIGINAL OWNERS, circa 1949-1950. Several more are occupied by their (ret. or near ret.) heirs. I have not looked on the MLS or other listing sites recently. Perhaps you have found some cheap listings that are bank-owned, fixers or short-sale “hopefuls.” Except for two, which have now foreclosed, the rest who have purchased on my tract since 2001 were the children of neighborhood owners. About four are rental houses. Of course, this is just a microcosm of 91910.

There are also two huge sr.-citizen board and care, assisted living and independent living complexes less than one mile away. These are permanent homes whose occupants are registered voters.

When I lived in Bonita (pre-SR125 constr.), the traffic grew more and more heavy on the main thoroughfares every single year, due to residents of those new zips in CV taking “shortcuts” thru Bonita sts. to get home (many still do today because SR-125 in South Bay is a “toll-road).” The traffic thru Bonita is now 10x what it used to be. The main drag (and bus line) near me is practically a ghost town during the morning rush hour. Then, after merging onto the freeway, all the *NEW* Chula Vistans have your back. This tells me that the majority of residents of my area do not have anywhere to go in the early a.m.

[quote=AN]Most of PQ are still at 2003-2004 price. That to me shows that there can’t be that MANY who have the kind of holding power you’re suggesting. I know a few who bought in MM in 92126 when it was new in the 80s and now have those houses almost paid for. Some have other investment properties as well. All of them are old and are set to retire. However, I can’t make a blanket statement that all of 92126 are like these people. However, I can point to the decline in the past 5 years to show that even 92126 held up better than 91910. Which means that 1)demand for houses in 92126 is higher 2)there are more people in 92126 who didn’t sell at the peak (we know those who bought at/near the peak are the one who are most vulnerable). BTW, how do you know 92129 doesn’t have people who have the nest eggs you’re talking about?[/quote]

[quote=UCGal]I don’t think your described scenario is exclusive to Chula Vista – it’s common in many older neighborhoods in the county.[/quote]
UCGal, I couldn’t agree more. I was preparing a response to AN when you posted this on the NE PQ thread so it is your response also.

AN, age of population has a lot to do with the age of the housing stock. There can’t be as many sr. citizens in an newer area as opposed to an older area, except in a retirement community. I’m not saying there AREN’T “wealthy” seniors in ALL zip codes. There probably ARE but there are MORE in areas that are at least 50 years old. Most members of my parents’ generation did not move often and did not overextend themselves, due to early exposure to the Great Depression.

Re: investment properties, one of my (sr. citizen) neighbors owns and leases 12 commercial parking lots in CV that he bought for almost nothing in the olden days. So yes, some have other RE investments, too.

[quote=AN]Also, what’s your take on my data of the different zip codes and their bread & butter segment of RE?[/quote]

Answered in this thread-starter.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN]Do you have data to back up your 65% or “many” assertion? I checked 91910 listings right now and they seem to be around 2000-2002 prices.[/quote]

Response to AN from NE PQ thread:

AN, I AM HERE! The properties owned by the often “wealthy” seniors are NOT FOR SALE because they are still occupying them! At least one half of my tract IS STILL OCCUPIED BY THE ORIGINAL OWNERS, circa 1949-1950. Several more are occupied by their (ret. or near ret.) heirs. I have not looked on the MLS or other listing sites recently. Perhaps you have found some cheap listings that are bank-owned, fixers or short-sale “hopefuls.” Except for two, which have now foreclosed, the rest who have purchased on my tract since 2001 were the children of neighborhood owners. About four are rental houses. Of course, this is just a microcosm of 91910.

There are also two huge sr.-citizen board and care, assisted living and independent living complexes less than one mile away. These are permanent homes whose occupants are registered voters.

When I lived in Bonita (pre-SR125 constr.), the traffic grew more and more heavy on the main thoroughfares every single year, due to residents of those new zips in CV taking “shortcuts” thru Bonita sts. to get home (many still do today because SR-125 in South Bay is a “toll-road).” The traffic thru Bonita is now 10x what it used to be. The main drag (and bus line) near me is practically a ghost town during the morning rush hour. Then, after merging onto the freeway, all the *NEW* Chula Vistans have your back. This tells me that the majority of residents of my area do not have anywhere to go in the early a.m.

[quote=AN]Most of PQ are still at 2003-2004 price. That to me shows that there can’t be that MANY who have the kind of holding power you’re suggesting. I know a few who bought in MM in 92126 when it was new in the 80s and now have those houses almost paid for. Some have other investment properties as well. All of them are old and are set to retire. However, I can’t make a blanket statement that all of 92126 are like these people. However, I can point to the decline in the past 5 years to show that even 92126 held up better than 91910. Which means that 1)demand for houses in 92126 is higher 2)there are more people in 92126 who didn’t sell at the peak (we know those who bought at/near the peak are the one who are most vulnerable). BTW, how do you know 92129 doesn’t have people who have the nest eggs you’re talking about?[/quote]

[quote=UCGal]I don’t think your described scenario is exclusive to Chula Vista – it’s common in many older neighborhoods in the county.[/quote]
UCGal, I couldn’t agree more. I was preparing a response to AN when you posted this on the NE PQ thread so it is your response also.

AN, age of population has a lot to do with the age of the housing stock. There can’t be as many sr. citizens in an newer area as opposed to an older area, except in a retirement community. I’m not saying there AREN’T “wealthy” seniors in ALL zip codes. There probably ARE but there are MORE in areas that are at least 50 years old. Most members of my parents’ generation did not move often and did not overextend themselves, due to early exposure to the Great Depression.

Re: investment properties, one of my (sr. citizen) neighbors owns and leases 12 commercial parking lots in CV that he bought for almost nothing in the olden days. So yes, some have other RE investments, too.

[quote=AN]Also, what’s your take on my data of the different zip codes and their bread & butter segment of RE?[/quote]

Answered in this thread-starter.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN]Do you have data to back up your 65% or “many” assertion? I checked 91910 listings right now and they seem to be around 2000-2002 prices.[/quote]

Response to AN from NE PQ thread:

AN, I AM HERE! The properties owned by the often “wealthy” seniors are NOT FOR SALE because they are still occupying them! At least one half of my tract IS STILL OCCUPIED BY THE ORIGINAL OWNERS, circa 1949-1950. Several more are occupied by their (ret. or near ret.) heirs. I have not looked on the MLS or other listing sites recently. Perhaps you have found some cheap listings that are bank-owned, fixers or short-sale “hopefuls.” Except for two, which have now foreclosed, the rest who have purchased on my tract since 2001 were the children of neighborhood owners. About four are rental houses. Of course, this is just a microcosm of 91910.

There are also two huge sr.-citizen board and care, assisted living and independent living complexes less than one mile away. These are permanent homes whose occupants are registered voters.

When I lived in Bonita (pre-SR125 constr.), the traffic grew more and more heavy on the main thoroughfares every single year, due to residents of those new zips in CV taking “shortcuts” thru Bonita sts. to get home (many still do today because SR-125 in South Bay is a “toll-road).” The traffic thru Bonita is now 10x what it used to be. The main drag (and bus line) near me is practically a ghost town during the morning rush hour. Then, after merging onto the freeway, all the *NEW* Chula Vistans have your back. This tells me that the majority of residents of my area do not have anywhere to go in the early a.m.

[quote=AN]Most of PQ are still at 2003-2004 price. That to me shows that there can’t be that MANY who have the kind of holding power you’re suggesting. I know a few who bought in MM in 92126 when it was new in the 80s and now have those houses almost paid for. Some have other investment properties as well. All of them are old and are set to retire. However, I can’t make a blanket statement that all of 92126 are like these people. However, I can point to the decline in the past 5 years to show that even 92126 held up better than 91910. Which means that 1)demand for houses in 92126 is higher 2)there are more people in 92126 who didn’t sell at the peak (we know those who bought at/near the peak are the one who are most vulnerable). BTW, how do you know 92129 doesn’t have people who have the nest eggs you’re talking about?[/quote]

[quote=UCGal]I don’t think your described scenario is exclusive to Chula Vista – it’s common in many older neighborhoods in the county.[/quote]
UCGal, I couldn’t agree more. I was preparing a response to AN when you posted this on the NE PQ thread so it is your response also.

AN, age of population has a lot to do with the age of the housing stock. There can’t be as many sr. citizens in an newer area as opposed to an older area, except in a retirement community. I’m not saying there AREN’T “wealthy” seniors in ALL zip codes. There probably ARE but there are MORE in areas that are at least 50 years old. Most members of my parents’ generation did not move often and did not overextend themselves, due to early exposure to the Great Depression.

Re: investment properties, one of my (sr. citizen) neighbors owns and leases 12 commercial parking lots in CV that he bought for almost nothing in the olden days. So yes, some have other RE investments, too.

[quote=AN]Also, what’s your take on my data of the different zip codes and their bread & butter segment of RE?[/quote]

Answered in this thread-starter.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN]Do you have data to back up your 65% or “many” assertion? I checked 91910 listings right now and they seem to be around 2000-2002 prices.[/quote]

Response to AN from NE PQ thread:

AN, I AM HERE! The properties owned by the often “wealthy” seniors are NOT FOR SALE because they are still occupying them! At least one half of my tract IS STILL OCCUPIED BY THE ORIGINAL OWNERS, circa 1949-1950. Several more are occupied by their (ret. or near ret.) heirs. I have not looked on the MLS or other listing sites recently. Perhaps you have found some cheap listings that are bank-owned, fixers or short-sale “hopefuls.” Except for two, which have now foreclosed, the rest who have purchased on my tract since 2001 were the children of neighborhood owners. About four are rental houses. Of course, this is just a microcosm of 91910.

There are also two huge sr.-citizen board and care, assisted living and independent living complexes less than one mile away. These are permanent homes whose occupants are registered voters.

When I lived in Bonita (pre-SR125 constr.), the traffic grew more and more heavy on the main thoroughfares every single year, due to residents of those new zips in CV taking “shortcuts” thru Bonita sts. to get home (many still do today because SR-125 in South Bay is a “toll-road).” The traffic thru Bonita is now 10x what it used to be. The main drag (and bus line) near me is practically a ghost town during the morning rush hour. Then, after merging onto the freeway, all the *NEW* Chula Vistans have your back. This tells me that the majority of residents of my area do not have anywhere to go in the early a.m.

[quote=AN]Most of PQ are still at 2003-2004 price. That to me shows that there can’t be that MANY who have the kind of holding power you’re suggesting. I know a few who bought in MM in 92126 when it was new in the 80s and now have those houses almost paid for. Some have other investment properties as well. All of them are old and are set to retire. However, I can’t make a blanket statement that all of 92126 are like these people. However, I can point to the decline in the past 5 years to show that even 92126 held up better than 91910. Which means that 1)demand for houses in 92126 is higher 2)there are more people in 92126 who didn’t sell at the peak (we know those who bought at/near the peak are the one who are most vulnerable). BTW, how do you know 92129 doesn’t have people who have the nest eggs you’re talking about?[/quote]

[quote=UCGal]I don’t think your described scenario is exclusive to Chula Vista – it’s common in many older neighborhoods in the county.[/quote]
UCGal, I couldn’t agree more. I was preparing a response to AN when you posted this on the NE PQ thread so it is your response also.

AN, age of population has a lot to do with the age of the housing stock. There can’t be as many sr. citizens in an newer area as opposed to an older area, except in a retirement community. I’m not saying there AREN’T “wealthy” seniors in ALL zip codes. There probably ARE but there are MORE in areas that are at least 50 years old. Most members of my parents’ generation did not move often and did not overextend themselves, due to early exposure to the Great Depression.

Re: investment properties, one of my (sr. citizen) neighbors owns and leases 12 commercial parking lots in CV that he bought for almost nothing in the olden days. So yes, some have other RE investments, too.

[quote=AN]Also, what’s your take on my data of the different zip codes and their bread & butter segment of RE?[/quote]

Answered in this thread-starter.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN]Fair enough. By that definition, Eastlake and other eastern/newer area of Chula Vista are also bedroom communities. Since they’re about the same distance to Downtown as PQ.[/quote]

91914 at 18-20 mi. and 91915 at 20-22 mi. are NOT as far away from dtn. SD as PQ. However, the “hassle factor” due to surface-street traffic and the SR-125 “toll-road” confers these two zips to “bedroom-status” in my mind.

I will reply to the rest of your post on my “Wealth Distribution” thread.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN]Fair enough. By that definition, Eastlake and other eastern/newer area of Chula Vista are also bedroom communities. Since they’re about the same distance to Downtown as PQ.[/quote]

91914 at 18-20 mi. and 91915 at 20-22 mi. are NOT as far away from dtn. SD as PQ. However, the “hassle factor” due to surface-street traffic and the SR-125 “toll-road” confers these two zips to “bedroom-status” in my mind.

I will reply to the rest of your post on my “Wealth Distribution” thread.

[Author]

Posts