Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
bearishgurl
Participant[quote=AN][quote=bearishgurl]In other words, an American single mom on public aid who had five minor children with three different dads has THREE prospective and potential payors to the “system” of aid reimbursement.
A “fringe (ousted) “Mormon” sect mom with five minor children has likely had all her kids with ONE dad. The problem is, that dad ALSO currently has 20 OTHER minor kids to support with 16 of them under the age of 14.
That’s not enough payors to reimburse the “system” should that mom have to apply for public assistance for her children out of necessity.
No, I don’t feel polygamy should be legalized. But if 7 “sister wives” are living together with their collective 28 minor kids in the middle of nowhere and are not nor have ever collected any public aid and they are all happy with their arrangement, far be it from me to judge their lifestyle.[/quote]What make you think those 3 prospective and potential “payers” don’t also impregnate another 20 women and have 20 other kids each? Also, what if those 3 prospective and potential “payers” are broke and are living on welfare? Should we ban marriage for all poor people too?[/quote]
Uhhh, AN, I’m not saying we should “ban marriage.”
Polygamists aren’t legally married … at least not to any more spouses than ONE.
I’ve heard of ONE single father of five kids (with 2-4 separate moms) but I’ve never heard of one single father with 20+ kids floating around out there …. that is, unless they were a sperm donor at one point and thus aren’t financially responsible for them OR they are polygamists.
If a CS payor is “broke” and on “temporary general relief” of $70 – $200 mo (non-custodial parents are not entitled to TANF) and a court order is in place for CS, then they will accrue arrears in CS when they don’t pay it as they are expected to work.
If a CS payor is alive but incarcerated, then his/her CS payments or arrears can be stayed for the period of incarceration if the court is made aware of it, either forward or retroactively or both.
If a CS payor is alive but in the hospital for a lengthy stay and/or terminally ill, he/she can send their attorney into court to have their child support modified, stayed or terminated, either going forward or retroactively or both.
Participant[quote=paramount][quote=bearishgurl]
Just jog your memory a little as to what happened in your well-established “hometown,” Pt Loma (SD) between 2008 and 2011, paramount. It had a few MAJOR fixers which sold 30-40% under the market during that time frame and a few (VERY few) short sales (not sure HOW short). But for the most part, the PL market was stagnant to improving there during that time frame, depending on micro-area of the listing. There were never very many listings at one time there because when sellers don’t HAVE to sell in a stagnant or down market, they won’t list!The major difference in residential RE values between the IE cities and the established cities in coastal counties (for example) is primarily due to the differences in types of owners. In the established areas, the owners have far less debt than a homeowner in a new or newer construction tract, on average, regardless of their income or the value of surrounding homes. In many established micro areas, most of the homes are owned free and clear. Long-term owner solvency has EVERYTHING to do with RE values remaining stable.[/quote]
BG: Markets change. And yes, the 1%ers will always do well (coastal. RSF, etc…) and were not as affected by the 2008 crash like the 99%ers in Temecula. San Diego like the Bay Area is also positively gentrified.
There is little doubt that many Temecula shoppers also shop the areas you mentioned, most – by far – see the value in Temecula.
Also allow me to remind you that the Temecula Valley has a population somewhere north of 300k.[/quote]
Chula Vista has increased in population as well … from 52K in 1986 to about 277K today. But that hasn’t made the quality of life better … for ANY resident. Instead, it’s been eroded. Just like Temecula, the freeways are choked down here for at least four hours per day and a large portion of the worker bees residing in newer construction located along the SR 125 corridor (a toll road) are apparently taxed to the max (MR and 1-3 HOAs) so much so that they can’t see fit to use their toll road for commuting purposes. Instead, they make 8-12 mile jaunts thru OUR surface streets from I-5 or I-805 eastward to and from work every day turning a simple four mile drive on H street or Telegraph Cyn Rd into a 35 minute ordeal for the rest of us.
I’m going to be passing thru Temec and beyond this week (up to the SR-91) and am NOT looking forward to the Temec/Murrietta parking lot on I-15. It’s even worse up there since the road was widened … absolutely horrific. I have NO IDEA how Temec residents even get their errands done.
Having “north of 300K” residents hasn’t done anything for your quality of life, paramount. You could get around faster in Pt Loma, … h@ll, even during sub-base and SPAWARS “rush hours.”
Participant[quote=paramount][quote=bearishgurl]
Back to your SD County discussion, there ARE cities which one can purchase a SFR today for the same price (or slightly more) than those in Temecula. Yes, they may be slightly smaller homes (on average) but maybe not. Examples:
Santee
Lakeside
El Cajon
San Marcos
Oceanside
Vista
Fallbrook
Bonsall
EscondidoI don’t have to tell YOU that ALL of these locations are closer (some MUCH closer) to major job centers in SD North County than Temecula is. And all of them have reasonably-priced homes to choose from. I don’t buy the argument of “die-hard Temeculans” that the IE it is the ONLY place in SoCal to buy into for those families headed by FT workers who are in the the sub $500K homebuyer bracket. It’s not.
My point here is that most SoCal homebuyers whose jobs are NOT in the IE CAN buy a decent home much, much closer to work for the same or similar price as a home would cost in the IE (but w/o MR and HOA) but consciously choose not to. Yes, even today! Listings for these (mostly mid-century) ranch-style family homes of 1100 to 1900 sf abound in at least 30 (inland) cities in LA County. The same mid-century family home costs slightly more ($0 to $80K, depending on location) in at least a dozen cities in the inland OC. Again, with no MR/HOA expense.[/quote]
The problem BG is that you’re missing the point – it’s not just about being close to some fictional job center.
And the market bears this out….hard to argue with the market.
It’s not unlike cars: you might like a certain car and think it’s the best car in the world, but let’s assume that car you like has a crappy residual value.
Again, you can’t really argue with the market – the market is all knowing. It is what it is…
Temecula is packed with people for good reasons….
Another example: There are also good reasons why so many commute from Manhattan to Stamford, Connecticut. 1 hour each way daily![/quote]
But when the chips fell (in early 2008), it was actually Temecula and the IE which suffered the crappiest residual values in SoCal, en masse. Residential properties in the City of San Bernardino fell in value to such as extent that the City went bankrupt, mostly due to insufficient property tax revenue. Victorville and Adelanto homes were going for 70 – 80% off!
During the same time frame, the closer-in established areas (ex: close-in LA County cities) either didn’t fall at all in price (had a stagnant market) or did have some distress but that distress was not due to hoardes of buyers coming in between 2004 and 2007 in search of “new or newer construction” (there wasn’t any) and paying way too much for their homes. It was primarily due to longer term owners with low, moderate and/or on fixed incomes taking out sub-prime second TD’s and HELOCs on their homes and then couldn’t pay them back under the terms they agreed to. The foreclosing lender deficits and the typical short payoffs requested by short sellers in established LA were far less than those that occurred in the IE, where the typical SFR fell in value by 50-60% and it was not uncommon for lenders to take a $200K – $350K hit on homes they either foreclosed on or agreed to sell short.
Yes, I agree that the market IS all-knowing. It is what it is. Areas located further from major job centers will continue to suffer boom and bust RE cycles more deeply than closer-in cities. That’s the way its always been.
Just jog your memory a little as to what happened in your well-established “hometown,” Pt Loma (SD) between 2008 and 2011, paramount. It had a few MAJOR fixers which sold 30-40% under the market during that time frame and a few (VERY few) short sales (not sure HOW short). But for the most part, the PL market was stagnant to improving there during that time frame, depending on micro-area of the listing. There were never very many listings at one time there because when sellers don’t HAVE to sell in a stagnant or down market, they won’t list!
The major difference in residential RE values between the IE cities and the established cities in coastal counties (for example) is primarily due to the differences in types of owners. In the established areas, the owners have far less debt than a homeowner in a new or newer construction tract, on average, regardless of their income or the value of surrounding homes. In many established micro areas, most of the homes are owned free and clear. Long-term owner solvency has EVERYTHING to do with RE values remaining stable.
ParticipantIn other words, an American single mom on public aid who had five minor children with three different dads has THREE prospective and potential payors to the “system” of aid reimbursement.
A “fringe (ousted) “Mormon” sect mom with five minor children has likely had all her kids with ONE dad. The problem is, that dad ALSO currently has 20 OTHER minor kids to support with 16 of them under the age of 14.
That’s not enough payors to reimburse the “system” should that mom have to apply for public assistance for her children out of necessity.
No, I don’t feel polygamy should be legalized. But if 7 “sister wives” are living together with their collective 28 minor kids in the middle of nowhere and are not nor have ever collected any public aid and they are all happy with their arrangement, far be it from me to judge their lifestyle.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi]How does marriage make a difference in terms of social services? Don’t poor kids who are born out of wedlock get foodstamps, Medicaid, and free lunches?[/quote]
Yes, they do, FIH, but as you know, each kid living with a single parent collecting public aid for them has another parent … somewhere. If that “other parent” is still alive, whenever and whenever they are working and their employer reports their wages to whatever state they are working in, the other parent will get a portion of their wages garnished for aid reimbursement if there is an active court order in place for child support. If there is not, an order for support is typically sought by the state paying the aid and wage garnishments for CS commence.
It’s NOT typical for American non-custodial parents (who are not married to the custodial parent) to have 23-30 children with 4-8 “wives” simultaneously and with 12-20 of those children still minors. This scenario IS typical for the isolated sects of (ousted) “Mormons” I’m referring to here. It WORKS for them because they live in relatively unpopulated rugged backcountry which is undesirable to the masses (hot and dusty several months per year) and where the families can live off the land and barter and help each other in times of need.
If this population moved into big cities (especially in expensive coastal areas), there is no way they could keep their families together in one home. They may be able to obtain leases on several homes in the same neighborhood but not without having hundreds of thousands of dollars per year in an endless stream of passive income. Without that, every family member would be on 1-4 forms of public aid within 60 days of arrival … out of necessity.
One “patriarch” (even 3) cannot possibly support that many people in big cities if he and his brothers and older sons cannot compete for good jobs there because they have little formal education and no “white collar” skills. And I think the older women (not needed at home anymore) who tried to compete for service-sector and retail jobs in cities would be shunned by employers because they would refuse to wear the company uniform citing it was too immodest.
Some of the service sector employers in Southern UT and Northern AZ allow these women to work as cashiers and fast food workers, etc dressed in their typical brightly-colored or pastel full skirt, bonnet and buttoned up LS shirt with peplum as there are few reliable employees to choose from in that region. The tourists passing thru there are used to seeing this and expect it.
Participant[quote=spdrun]bearishgurl — in the Orthodox community, parents are legally married, so both are custodial. . . .[/quote]
Is your “Orthodox” community in NY polygamous? And if so, were the men married to multiple “wives” in the eyes of the church only? Or do they have legal marriages to more than one person?
Participant[quote=spdrun]
Imagine the State Dept of Child Support Services trying to collect aid payments from ONE PAYOR to reimburse themselves for aid to 23 children (with 5 different moms).
Big deal. That already happens with monogamous ultra-Orthodox sects in NY. The fathers don’t work either, and child support only comes into play in case of divorce. So there you have it.
That’s not a polygamy issue. That’s a cult issue.[/quote]
In CA, child support comes into play when paternity is legally established, admitted or not disputed. Marriage and divorce have nothing to do with it. The DCSS collects support for children and pays the payee parent monthly after a few days lag time. If the “custodial” parent applies for TANF for their children, they must first name the other parent of each child on the application and list their contact information and SSN and employer (if they know).
DCSS then seeks reimbursement from the “non-custodial” parent of any aid paid on behalf of their minor children. If the “custodial” parent has not filed in the court for paternity (in the case of unmarried applicants) and/or child support (in all cases), DCSS’ own counsel will do it for them for free. After obtaining the order of support, the agency (under color of law) is permitted to have any CS payments made redirected from the payor’s employer to themselves to first reimburse themselves for any aid paid to the “custodial” parent from the date of the CS order forward. They also periodically go back to court for aid recipients with an upward modification request for CS, especially if the payor is gainfully employed and in arrears with CS aid-reimbursement payments. If there is any money left each month after the DCSS reimburses themselves for aid, that money is returned to the aid recipient IF the payor is not in arrears to the agency for past aid paid to the custodial parent.
DCSS has a fleet of counsel in every county in the state who do nothing but file for paternity/CS orders, obtain CS orders from the court and stipulate with CS payors 40 hours per week.
If the non-custodial parent and/or greater-earning spouse is married and sued for child support in a divorce action and *he* believes one (or more) of the children he was sued to support aren’t his, he has the right to bring a paternity action to determine whether he is the father … or not. The reason being that it is “assumed” in CA that the husband is the father of all children born in wedlock.
As svelte noted here, it could get awfully confusing trying to investigate which kids belong to which “families” (if the polygamist lifestyle was legal in CA, for example).
Yes, spd, I do believe the fringe “ousted `Mormon'” polygamist “lifestyle” IS a cult, as well as the “cults” you are speaking of in NYC (although I doubt your cults have as many kids in each “family” as the ones in UT) but as long as the local laws in those states allow it, they will carry on and continue to bribe their local gubment officials and contribute to their communities to stay in good standing with those officials.
This type of lifestyle would never fly in expensive US cities. It would fall apart inside of 60 days unless the patriarch was worth millions AND “inherited” a local “compound” (of sorts).
Participant[quote=AN][quote=svelte]Polygamy – I’ve never really understood the country’s aversion to that. Guess I wouldn’t oppose it, but would probably put some sort of limitation on drawing public assistance. Ain’t gonna happen anyway, so I don’t spend much time thinking about it.
I’ve known several ppl in 3some relationships. They never seem to be long-lasting, though I’m sure some have.[/quote]
Would you put the same limitation on drawing public assistance for straight and gay couples?Does it matter if their relationships last? Straight divorce rate is around 50%, it’ll be interesting to see what the divorce rate would be for gay couples.[/quote]
AN, in the case of the polygamist culture, the entire family lives on a compound and shares household and bldg/land maintenance. When they grow up, they do not move away. They simply “marry” and perpetuate the lifestyle on the very same compound they grew up in. The children are “homeschooled” by parents (mainly moms) who have little education themselves and so are unqualified to “teach” their children. Very, very few of these children ever set foot in a college unless they manage to “escape” the only culture they ever knew. Because of the above factors, taxpayers in higher cost areas (almost anyplace other than the semi-remote and remote desert of Southern UT/Northern AZ) would end up having to financially support many thousands of dependent children and uneducated women who are only qualified to perform minimum-wage jobs. The polygamist lifestyle this population practices doesn’t condone women working for pay unless they were found to be infertile or have aged beyond their fertile years.
Everyone has to eat and have a roof over their head and these families are really HUGE!
This is not usually the case with the garden-variety American legally married couple who may end up divorcing.
ParticipantOh and btw, I roll thru Southern UT (and pump gas there) 2-4x per year … both on and off the interstate 🙂 And I can attest that it is a completely different world than the rest of the country.
Participant[quote=AN][quote=jeff303]Why, indeed? You’re probably right about the level of support. As far as I’m concerned though, if the logistics could be worked out, I’d be all for it.[/quote]What logistic? I personally think polygamy should be legal as well, along w/ gay marriage. If this decision is about restoring people’s right, then why are we not applying it for an even smaller minority w/in our population? I bet if you poll all the supporter of gay marriage, my bet is most would say no to polygamy. Which annoys me, because that show their hypocrisy.[/quote]
Polygamy is one thing in the desert of Southern Utah, where the “wives” are each given a role and the roles differ slightly year to year. A good example is older “wives” working at truck stops and mini-marts on the highways all bringing home money to a family of often 30+ members and younger “wives” (pregnant or possibly nursing) staying back at the family compound to take care of everyone’s minor children. Those “compounds” are largely self-sufficient. The “patriarch” usually owns the land outright (inherited or purchased) and owes little property taxes (if any) because he often leases some of it back to the state. He and the teen/adult members build and maintain all of their residential and barn buildings on that land and bring in their own utilities/septic.
For the most part, polygamist communities in UT are NOT on public aid (except for Medicaid for some members and the occasional temporary WIC recipient).
Legalized polygamy in a much more expensive CA coastal county would end up being an unmitigated disaster for local and state goverments because EVERY CHILD would likely qualify for TANF and Medi-Cal and EVERY MOM would likely apply for it (as well as Section 8, etc) purely out of necessity.
Imagine the State Dept of Child Support Services trying to collect aid payments from ONE PAYOR to reimburse themselves for aid to 23 children (with 5 different moms).
You can’t squeeze blood out of a turnip.
So, my opinion is that polygamy is fine when practiced in the middle of nowhere where this population has the land and numbers to be largely self sufficient and the population is sparse so it doesn’t matter if they overpopulate themselves. But I don’t want to see women traipsing through the streets of SD with a baby strapped to their chest and 3-4 more young children in tow and the bottom third of their long skirt filthy from sleeping under bridges or in Balboa Park because they’ve just been evicted from their house/apt …. again.
ParticipantHi TG.
Nice to hear from you again. And congrats on your engagement! If I ever remarry, I’ll do the same as you … (re)create a trust and prenup long BEFORE passing Go and collecting $200. It’s hard to believe you only have five years left until retirement! Although not yet completely “retired,” I’m enjoying my pension(s) and I’m sure you’ll enjoy your retirement as well!
I agree that the IE has more industry and available jobs for its residents NOW. However, my post was referring to families headed by worker bees from the mid/late nineties forward who decided to move out there and raise their families there (such as you) despite horrendous commutes to work. You must admit that North County SD didn’t ALWAYS have the number of white-collar well-paying jobs that it has now. The vast majority of those large companies and govm’t agencies moved into North County in the last several years.
Also, you didn’t address in your post the LA Co/OC worker who resides in Temecula. You must admit it is pretty rough for Temeculans commuting into those counties on a daily basis. In my mind, if I were a worker with a job in LA Co, for example, why would I want to live in the IE in a ~2300 sf home for $400K (today’s price) when I can buy a ~1600 sf home in El Monte for same (with same or larger lot than Temec and no MR/HOA) and be on the Imperial Hwy or the 605 in less than five minutes!
You’ve posted here before (somehow, this sticks out in my mind :)) that you hated to live amongst utility poles and overhead lines, and yes, those exist in nearly all the well-established areas regardless of “affordability” of the area. And so I understand why you were attracted to Temec (aside from getting a lot of bang for your buck). But you must admit that you have no doubt had to commute off and on into various locations in SD County for work over the years and it wasn’t always easy or convenient for you.
Back to your SD County discussion, there ARE cities which one can purchase a SFR today for the same price (or slightly more) than those in Temecula. Yes, they may be slightly smaller homes (on average) but maybe not. Examples:
Santee
Lakeside
El Cajon
San Marcos
Oceanside
Vista
Fallbrook
Bonsall
EscondidoI don’t have to tell YOU that ALL of these locations are closer (some MUCH closer) to major job centers in SD North County than Temecula is. And all of them have reasonably-priced homes to choose from. I don’t buy the argument of “die-hard Temeculans” that the IE it is the ONLY place in SoCal to buy into for those families headed by FT workers who are in the the sub $500K homebuyer bracket. It’s not.
My point here is that most SoCal homebuyers whose jobs are NOT in the IE CAN buy a decent home much, much closer to work for the same or similar price as a home would cost in the IE (but w/o MR and HOA) but consciously choose not to. Yes, even today! Listings for these (mostly mid-century) ranch-style family homes of 1100 to 1900 sf abound in at least 30 (inland) cities in LA County. The same mid-century family home costs slightly more ($0 to $80K, depending on location) in at least a dozen cities in the inland OC. Again, with no MR/HOA expense.
ParticipantJust popped in to look around tonight, also. Interesting thread …
I agree with Shoveler about downsizing boomers (and older) preferring a one-story house. A house with no stairs with a flat front entrance (without stairs leading up to it) and a flat, wide driveway (to park a boat on w/o using bricks) is hard to find in coastal CA counties. Even one-story condos and PUDS seem to go fast and at a premium. I’m a boomer on the cusp of “retirement” and I definitely would prefer a house like that and I don’t care if its 1300 or 2300 sf (or somewhere in between). South Lake Tahoe has a lot of reasonable inventory that fill the bill.
I agree with FIH in that living in LA, Ventura or SD Counties or the OC is far preferable for a worker bee than living in Riv County, especially southern Riv Co (too remote to most good jobs). San Bern County (south of the summit) is also remote for workers to live in to a slightly lesser extent. I think it’s true that Temecula always attracted both homebuyers and renters for size and newer age of homes for the money in recent years and that was the original (and continuing) sole reason for buying a principal residence out there. Now TV just so happens to have a few busy tourist attractions in its midst and thus has managed to put itself on the map over the last decade.
For the same money, if TV homebuyers would have been willing to accept a smaller, 1950’s or 1960’s nondescript cosmetic fixer in say Clairemont (SD Co), Buena Park or Orange (OC) or El Monte (LA co), for example, they wouldn’t have had anywhere near the horrendous commute to their jobs as they did/do from TV. They traded those two extra hours daily in commute time they could have spent with their families (and also agreed to pay MR/HOA) for a larger, more modern home for the same money as a home would have cost them in the more established areas (examples above). In short, buying in TV and moving out there was a personal decision which either ended up working out long term for these workers and their families … or it didn’t. Residential RE in TV fell in value much, much more in the recession than did the more established areas in coastal counties and seems to have recovered 75% of that fallen value today (on average). Make no mistake … the families headed by worker bees who bought into TV and stayed to raise their families there paid a hefty premium to do so, imho. Aside from the MR/HOA that the well-established communities didn’t have, this “premium” paid to reside in TV wasn’t in money. It was in time lost with family … something a person can never get back (not even taking into account tires, auto maintenance and gasoline, which cost money).
I’m not putting down TV, here. I do realize it has some light industry as well as some white-collar jobs available in a few sectors (but not nearly enough for its working-age population). I am impressed by its attractions and the fact that it can now bill itself as a legitimate tourist destination, but I’m NOT impressed by its traffic.
The established, close in cities in CA coastal counties are more expensive to live in for very valid reasons. The truth is, location trumps all and the “right” location will buy a lot of freedom for a FT worker. [end rant]
I DON’T agree with FIH that former “Californians” choose to live in LV (or AZ) because it is the next best thing to living in SoCal and they’re not yet ready to “downgrade” to CO or KS. First of all, living in the arid desert floor that is LV and Phoenix with these cities’ oppressive heat nine months per year does not compare in any way, shape or form to living in a CA coastal county. The two lifestyles are apples and oranges. LV is what it is and you can’t fix this, FIH!
And uhh, secondly, perhaps KS might be a “downgrade” from SoCal as far as having cheaper housing to buy/rent but if you think CO is cheaper than SoCal, you’ve been hanging around too much with the 420 crowd on your visits there and haven’t been paying attention! Residential RE is very pricey in all the good areas in CO and not that cheap in the mediocre areas. In some mountain towns, most of the available listings are permanently-skirted mobile homes and manufactured homes asking $300K+.
In all the good areas of Denver near the well-paying jobs, SFRs cost $475K on up to $1.6M (not incl the exclusive “old money” enclaves, which are more expensive). Even the neighborhoods situated on well-known “Type A” flood plains have asking prices of $375K to $525K for a 65 yo SFR! Boulder prices are on par with Pt Loma and LJ (SD). Douglas Co and CO Springs are far from cheap. The ski-resort towns and other mountain towns (with fishing, boating, hiking, jeeping, ziplining, hot-air ballooning, whitewater rafting, etc) are very expensive to buy into as well and there is a dearth of listings in them. The western slope from Grand Jct to Durango can be ridiculously expensive and gets moreso the further south you go. The cheapest wood shack in Telluride will cost at least $900K and need $200K of work before it is habitable … that is, IF you can find one for sale! (Most Telluride homebuyers there can only afford a timeshare costing $350K+ for a 1/52 undivided interest!) A 1600 – 1800 sf ranch home in Durango of any age will cost $425K to $575K.
If you want to move to CO for “reasonable living costs” and you must take out a mortgage, then try Longmont (but not for long, it’s inching higher with every sale) or Erie, Greeley and the rest of Weld County, Sterling, Ft Morgan, Lamar and Pueblo/La Junta. In short … living in the icy, windy plains has a “reasonable” cost … or just stay in LV or Phoenix.
US locales with cold, snowy winters aren’t necessary “cheap” to reside in. In addition, their residents have much higher winter utility bills than do CA coastal dwellers … Case in point, Jackson, WY and other WY and ID towns in the Tetons. The cheapest SFR listings in Jackson list for $750K and up and are not even built on site! The spring AND summer combined in this region is only 5-8 weeks long so any new construction must be built off site and carried into the area in pieces and erected quickly as weather permits. Hence, a large portion of SFRs there are “manufactured homes.” The typical home worth $750K to $950K in Jackson is a 2200 – 2700 sf one-story Manuf home with an attached two car garage erected on a desolate lot with little to no landscaping. Why do Teton residents need landscaping if it can’t survive for more than two months per year? Occasionally, skirted mobile homes are for sale in secondary towns in the Tetons which are situated on large lots or acreage. However, overall there is a dearth of listings in the region year-round.
In short, many cold, snowy regions of the US are every bit as pricey as CA coastal counties or rapidly catching up … especially in the well-known (and desirable) tourist towns and ski resorts of the rockies. The soon-to-be retiree on a tight budget is going to have a tougher time with relocation if they were dreaming of retiring in or near a touristy mountainous area. We will probably see many more of them “retiring in place” than originally intended to, especially in CA (due to low property taxes pursuant to Prop 13).
ParticipantFIH, here are 13 current SFR listings in Rowland Heights asking $400K to $498K (the $400K listing is a SS).
Here are 34 current SFR listings in neighboring Hacienda Heights asking $200K – $498K (9 are SS’s).
Min sf in both searches is set to 1200.
Even though traditional SFR listings (not SS’s) move pretty fast in these cities and and a good portion are undoubtedly all-cash sales, there is a LOT more selection for “regular” SFRs in this region than in SD County. The above are only TWO representative cities (of more than two dozen).
It’s a mid-century home lover’s dream up there! EXCEPT, in SD County, most of the Daltile used in the more “affordable” areas (such as Normal Heights or La Mesa) was yellow or forest green with turquoise trim. In the SGV of LA county, pink with maroon trim was widely used with pink American Standard fixtures.
I also saw a few limestone(ish) and flagstone FP’s as well! I also love the 2.5″ slat red oak floors which are VERY expensive to install today.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]Spent the weekend in la. Saw Tony gaga and lady bennett. I am old: this l.a. is a ridiculous hellhole. My neck hurts and I’m exhausted. How can people make it there. When we returned the,wide road from the fwy. To our house was virtually empty. The kids found that funny.[/quote]
scaredy, you need to pick your battles. You aren’t going to be able to see Tony gaga and lady bennett in Temecula … that is, unless they end up appearing in some far flung casino (such as Pechanga) in your neck of the woods.
I could see old codger Tony gaga doing the casino circuit but NOT lady bennett, who is too famous and has years of touring left in her.
I realize you live a pretty secluded life with your family holed up in your “estate property” off the beaten bath … that is, uhhh, until you get back to work in the morning … then your being takes on a whole new persona in a completely different environment … entirely …. LOL
-
AuthorPosts
