[bearishgurl]

[quote=bearishgurl] . . . The areas hard-hit by foreclosures were 91913 and 91915, and, to a lesser extent, 91914 (no MR). . . [/quote]

I stand corrected. 91914 encompasses MR areas (“Eastlake Greens” to be termed 2022 and “San Miguel Ranch” to be termed approx. 2035)

91914 Rolling Hills Ranch (“RHR”) and “Salt Creek” do NOT have MR.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=bearishgurl] . . . The areas hard-hit by foreclosures were 91913 and 91915, and, to a lesser extent, 91914 (no MR). . . [/quote]

I stand corrected. 91914 encompasses MR areas (“Eastlake Greens” to be termed 2022 and “San Miguel Ranch” to be termed approx. 2035)

91914 Rolling Hills Ranch (“RHR”) and “Salt Creek” do NOT have MR.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=bearishgurl] . . . The areas hard-hit by foreclosures were 91913 and 91915, and, to a lesser extent, 91914 (no MR). . . [/quote]

I stand corrected. 91914 encompasses MR areas (“Eastlake Greens” to be termed 2022 and “San Miguel Ranch” to be termed approx. 2035)

91914 Rolling Hills Ranch (“RHR”) and “Salt Creek” do NOT have MR.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=UCGal]92122 includes south UC – which is 90% SFR on larger lots. 92122 is schizophrenic – north UC (north of Rose Canyon is mostly high density condos, south UC (north of 52, but south of Rose Canyon) only has 2 apartment/condo developments – the rest is SFRs.[/quote]

Thanks for the clarification, UCGal. I did not consult a map. I was unaware that 92122 encompassed any of UC. I would have thought Rose Cyn. to be 92110/92117.

I know 92122 encompasses a lot of older, roomier complexes w/3 story condos as well. I’ve been in some of them and they are very nice, with oversized garages and full amenities.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=UCGal]92122 includes south UC – which is 90% SFR on larger lots. 92122 is schizophrenic – north UC (north of Rose Canyon is mostly high density condos, south UC (north of 52, but south of Rose Canyon) only has 2 apartment/condo developments – the rest is SFRs.[/quote]

Thanks for the clarification, UCGal. I did not consult a map. I was unaware that 92122 encompassed any of UC. I would have thought Rose Cyn. to be 92110/92117.

I know 92122 encompasses a lot of older, roomier complexes w/3 story condos as well. I’ve been in some of them and they are very nice, with oversized garages and full amenities.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=UCGal]92122 includes south UC – which is 90% SFR on larger lots. 92122 is schizophrenic – north UC (north of Rose Canyon is mostly high density condos, south UC (north of 52, but south of Rose Canyon) only has 2 apartment/condo developments – the rest is SFRs.[/quote]

Thanks for the clarification, UCGal. I did not consult a map. I was unaware that 92122 encompassed any of UC. I would have thought Rose Cyn. to be 92110/92117.

I know 92122 encompasses a lot of older, roomier complexes w/3 story condos as well. I’ve been in some of them and they are very nice, with oversized garages and full amenities.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=UCGal]92122 includes south UC – which is 90% SFR on larger lots. 92122 is schizophrenic – north UC (north of Rose Canyon is mostly high density condos, south UC (north of 52, but south of Rose Canyon) only has 2 apartment/condo developments – the rest is SFRs.[/quote]

Thanks for the clarification, UCGal. I did not consult a map. I was unaware that 92122 encompassed any of UC. I would have thought Rose Cyn. to be 92110/92117.

I know 92122 encompasses a lot of older, roomier complexes w/3 story condos as well. I’ve been in some of them and they are very nice, with oversized garages and full amenities.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=UCGal]92122 includes south UC – which is 90% SFR on larger lots. 92122 is schizophrenic – north UC (north of Rose Canyon is mostly high density condos, south UC (north of 52, but south of Rose Canyon) only has 2 apartment/condo developments – the rest is SFRs.[/quote]

Thanks for the clarification, UCGal. I did not consult a map. I was unaware that 92122 encompassed any of UC. I would have thought Rose Cyn. to be 92110/92117.

I know 92122 encompasses a lot of older, roomier complexes w/3 story condos as well. I’ve been in some of them and they are very nice, with oversized garages and full amenities.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN]How many people living in Chula Vista are like this couple? Can’t possibly be that many, or else Chula wouldn’t have been hit by this RE nearly as hard, like PQ.[/quote]

Yes, AN, there are MANY in 91910 and, to a lesser extent 91911.

The areas hard-hit by foreclosures were 91913 and 91915, and, to a lesser extent, 91914 (no MR).

The combination of the exorbitant MR, and one or more HOA’s, along with newer toxic loans drove many recent homeowners to the brink.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN]How many people living in Chula Vista are like this couple? Can’t possibly be that many, or else Chula wouldn’t have been hit by this RE nearly as hard, like PQ.[/quote]

Yes, AN, there are MANY in 91910 and, to a lesser extent 91911.

The areas hard-hit by foreclosures were 91913 and 91915, and, to a lesser extent, 91914 (no MR).

The combination of the exorbitant MR, and one or more HOA’s, along with newer toxic loans drove many recent homeowners to the brink.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN]How many people living in Chula Vista are like this couple? Can’t possibly be that many, or else Chula wouldn’t have been hit by this RE nearly as hard, like PQ.[/quote]

Yes, AN, there are MANY in 91910 and, to a lesser extent 91911.

The areas hard-hit by foreclosures were 91913 and 91915, and, to a lesser extent, 91914 (no MR).

The combination of the exorbitant MR, and one or more HOA’s, along with newer toxic loans drove many recent homeowners to the brink.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN]How many people living in Chula Vista are like this couple? Can’t possibly be that many, or else Chula wouldn’t have been hit by this RE nearly as hard, like PQ.[/quote]

Yes, AN, there are MANY in 91910 and, to a lesser extent 91911.

The areas hard-hit by foreclosures were 91913 and 91915, and, to a lesser extent, 91914 (no MR).

The combination of the exorbitant MR, and one or more HOA’s, along with newer toxic loans drove many recent homeowners to the brink.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN]How many people living in Chula Vista are like this couple? Can’t possibly be that many, or else Chula wouldn’t have been hit by this RE nearly as hard, like PQ.[/quote]

Yes, AN, there are MANY in 91910 and, to a lesser extent 91911.

The areas hard-hit by foreclosures were 91913 and 91915, and, to a lesser extent, 91914 (no MR).

The combination of the exorbitant MR, and one or more HOA’s, along with newer toxic loans drove many recent homeowners to the brink.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN]According to SDLookup, it says Bonita’s population is 17k. That’s where I got all of the data as well.[/quote]

Agreed, still checking on recent Chula figures.

“Bedroom” has to do with accessability to urban core and NOT population.

Ex. Temecula, Hemet and Murrietta have HUGE populations but LOOK WHERE THEY ARE! They’re “bedrooms” of RIV County.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN]According to SDLookup, it says Bonita’s population is 17k. That’s where I got all of the data as well.[/quote]

Agreed, still checking on recent Chula figures.

“Bedroom” has to do with accessability to urban core and NOT population.

Ex. Temecula, Hemet and Murrietta have HUGE populations but LOOK WHERE THEY ARE! They’re “bedrooms” of RIV County.

[Author]

Posts