[bearishgurl]

[quote=Jazzman]BG, if we take ‘over-rated’ to mean ‘perceived poor value for money’, then I think it is not only SD that is over-rated. If you can buy a similar home for half the price elsewhere, the implication is there must be twice as much on offer; better schools, better homes, better jobs, better weather, better cultural facilities etc. Those are all difficult things to quantify, but most will have an inbuilt value-o-meter.

My view is that RE has been highjacked in many places and these places share things in common. They tend to be English or Asian speaking, major metropolitan conurbations, with an industry that drives it and a government that accommodates it. In other words, a culture has been built up around it. We know when it started, when it got out of hand, the consequences, and the continued disregard for it. I find it useful to view current trends through that prism. Others clearly find it irrelevant arguing that homes now represent good value ie, they are affordable as measured by income and rents. But why then do they continue to debate it unless they are a little insecure in their beliefs. If one thing has defined RE over the last decade or two, it is insecurity. The problem faced by many is they don’t have a choice. Complacency and ignorance feeds the beast. Homes remain over-valued.

The OP’s choice of home is a prime example of the home-fest culture. It clearly is not a mansion, and the +$1m price tag is incredible. It is a tract home with no individuality, no personality, packed with ‘pseudo-designer” finishes, surrounded by featureless, arid land. If you paid the asking price for that home you are fool by my accounts. Corporations are telling us how to live, what colors we should like, and even what views we should enjoy. If you are smart enough to make enough money to afford that price tag, you should be smart enough to know that it is not worth it. I feel sorry for anyone who can’t see that. Strike that …I don’t feel sorry for them at all.[/quote]

Jazzman, the OP later posted here that they feel as you do, that the price was too high for the home in the link they posted and essentially that any buyer would be “stupid” to pay anywhere near the asking price for it.

In CA coastal counties, I believe that it IS true that a certain demographic (i.e. young families, Asians, etc) ARE running up prices in their desired locations by attempting to overbid one another for almost any listing in that area which pops up on the market. Case in point: Carmel Valley (SD), as we have been discussing here. But there are other areas of the county as well which are rising rapidly in “value” due to this phenomenon. ALL of these so affected areas have exploded in population due to new construction built since 2000.

However, it is NOT true of the East LA County corridor cities (mostly situated in the San Gabriel Valley). Except for just a handful of fairly expensive cities, a very decent 3-4 bdrm/2 bath SFR with a double-car garage and central air (needed in most areas around there) has an asking price of as low as $350K (usually a short sale) to $600K, with average $450-$475K. The lot sizes there range from (a few) 6500 sf to 20,000 sf with the “average” lot size of 8000 st. There are MANY listings in this price range with 9500+ sf lots! At least a dozen of these cities’ population consists of >80% “Asian” residents (incl Chinese, Taiwanese and Vietnamese). Two cities have mostly (55-70%) Filipino residents. This region has the largest Asian population in the country (even larger than the state of Hawaii)!

The typical house there is 55+ years old. And as far as I could tell, there were very, very few houses built after 1980 (possible total remodels resulting from full or partial teardowns and spec tracts consisting of 6 or less homes). So the Asian buyer in East LA County (and Northern CA Bay Area counties as well) ACTUALLY WILL accept an older, smaller home on larger lot when nothing else is available in their chosen location. (This is excepting eastern Alameda and southern Santa Clara Counties where newer development is available for purchase.)

In SD County and Southern OC, newer residential construction abounds, so that is where the younger demographic and Asian buyers seem to flock to.

I disagree that this phenomenon is “out of hand.” It is only “out of hand” for those who are desirous of and able to but unwilling to compete in the bidding process for a home in those subdivisions which have been run-up in price over the past decade-plus (primarily due to bidding wars).

For those for whom buying tight, boxy, nondescript quarters for $850K+ to live in is a turnoff, such as myself, the situation is NOT “out of hand” because it doesn’t affect anything in my sphere.

Different strokes for different folks.

And today’s buyers DO have many choices in SD County! That was the jist of my posts here. They don’t HAVE to engage in bidding wars with several other buyers over a single listing every time something pops up on the market in ONE zip code. They can take their business to an area where where a fair offer will be considered carefully by the sellers.

As far as a buyer considering “a better home for half the price elsewhere,” one truly DOES pay for what they get in CA coastal counties, except in areas which are currently suffering from “sales frenzy,” such as CV. In the frenzy areas, price paid does not necessarily equate with “value,” IMO. The price paid there only equates to one premise … that the buyer was the “winning bidder” for the property (of several bids).

In CA coastal counties, I believe the “traditional” hallmarks of home (SFR) value, in order, are:

location
possible view
quality of construction
condition of dwelling
lot size
lot configuration
sf of dwelling
accessible to sewer
lack of or minimization of easements

“Location” includes consideration of “economic obsolescence” factors such as: busy street in front or directly behind property; unrelenting freeway noise; high power lines overhead or nearby; situated in fire or flood zone; and affected by mixed-use zoning.

I’m not sure the younger buyer cohort of today considers (or even notices) many of the above factors when shopping for a residence they may live in for a decade or more. They’re too wrapped up in kitchen and bathroom countertop finishes to be looking at that boring, “big picture” I just listed. Thus, they manage to get “roped into” $1000+ month in tax + MR + HOA dues (in addition to their mo P&I payment). I’m not saying here that they’re all “stupid” (like the OP did) but they are certainly complacent (and may not have any knowledgeable family support in place to keep them from making a homebuying mistake). And we all know that their agent just wants to make a commission as quickly and easily as possible.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=spdrun]Maybe my level of giveashit is just measurably lower than many people’? As long as the place is clean and in a nice location, the color of the kitchen tiles or the newness of the appliances does little for me.[/quote]

I prefer beige, pink or turquoise Dal-tile in the bathroom to match the (well-preserved) American Standard fixtures of the era. Black seahorse tiles interspersed would be a bonus.

My mom had an electric blue American Standard bathroom in her mid-century rancher and I loved it! Lot size was nearly 13K sf!

I don’t care much about the appls, either, spdrun. Coppertone is my favorite color of (older) appliance. Downdraft gas range with covers a bonus. However, I would not use a frig more than 15 years old as they use up too much energy.

Of late, I have been fascinated by the huge amount of authentic mid-century online listings in East LA cities. The avg parcel size in most of those cities is nearly twice as big as those parcels in similar-age areas of San Diego County.

SD is really overrated on many fronts.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=flyer]Imo–as long as you can live where you want to live-that’s what really matters–regardless of what anyone else prefers/does/has, etc.

Although people in every financial category generally negotiate the best deal possible when it comes to real estate, I think most people who have an 8 digit net worth–buy homes based more on where they choose to live–rather than where they might find the best deal.

That may be in CV (tract or otherwise), Manhattan, Dubai, all of the above, or somewhere else. The point is, they have the choice to do whatever they want to do.[/quote]

flyer, your (italicized) phrase is essentially what I posted above in my most recent comment, thus I agree. The “8-figure set” shops for location first. As we all know, anything else can be “fixed,” EXCEPT lot size and shape. With the “right” location and right lot size/configuration, a 1%-er will find a way to have the home they want on it (referring to SFRs only).

Given all that SD County has to offer, I don’t see buyers in that category haggling with 10 other bidders over a tract econobox or McMansion in CV which is situated just 6-10 feet from the neighbor’s window.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=spdrun]No one is saying that it’s a terrible decision (so long as costs can be supported), but that there are much better option from an investment standpoint.

Rental income of under 3%, imputed (calculated as if you were renting from yourself) or otherwise is pretty stinky even for the San Diego area. Especially if you don’t have the benefit of being able to walk to the beach and a downtown area.

To each their own, I guess.[/quote]

Thank you, spdrun. I never stated anybody who bought in CV made a “terrible decision.” Obviously, CV has had a tremendous run-up in values since the “great recession of ’08+.”

I simply stated that buyers could get a LOT more for $950K elsewhere in the county than a home with ~2000 sf situated on a barely standard (or substandard) lot.

This is akin to Silicon Valley pricing, except the home there selling for $950K would be older and smaller and the lot would be larger.

SD (CV or Sorrento Valley) cannot be compared to Silicon Valley in any way, shape or form. It doesn’t even come close. And SD doesn’t have anywhere NEAR the percentage of dedicated open space that Silicon Valley has and never will.

Besides the influence of the tech sectors HQ’d there, larger residential lots in most cities and a large percentage of dedicated open space is what made Silicon Valley so expensive to buy in, IMO.

I also stated that the “8-figure set” aren’t typically interested in econoboxes on lots within “pissing distance” of their neighbor’s house (spdrun’s apt expression). It doesn’t work that way. This set of folks usually pay all cash and buy in the most well-established choice coastal locations in the state. Before even moving in, they then often tear down or gut portions of the inside and remodel to obtain a home to better suit their needs in their chosen prime location.

(Read: LJ, RSF in SD Co and RPVE and Beverly Hills in LA Co.) Somehow, the tract developments in CV I’ve viewed so far online don’t seem to fit that bill. And there’s nothing wrong with that. Different strokes for different folks.

I’d like to know if any Pigg agent or broker can post any stats here showing the actual percentage of homebuyers in CV who took out jumbo mortgages and those who paid all cash to purchase there (the last 3 years would be helpful).

Maybe I’ll be able to look thru JTR’s site tonight and see if he’s posted anything in this regard.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=flu]FWIW: I really haven’t been checking out Carmel Valley stats recently, simply because prices 2 years ago reached a point above which I personally could feel comfortable affording, so I stopped looking and keeping in touch (the same philosophy why i don’t go to auto-shows. Why bother looking at things that you cannot obtain)….

Anyway, this thread made me interested on looking at what’s going on again in this area…. I found this stat interesting posted by Redfin.

Past 90 days
Median List Price: $1.25M
Median List $/Sqft: $428
Median Sale Price: $950k
Median Sale $/Sqft: $406k
Median Sale/List: 98%
Average # of Offers: 2.4
Average Down Payment: 32.1%
Number of Homes Sold: 187

I don’t think people are struggling or necessarily stretching that much.[/quote]

Acc to Redfin’s Carmel Valley stats:

The median sold price is $950K

The average downpayment is 32.1%.

.321 x $950K = $304,950 downpayment.

$950K – $304,950 = $645,050 mortgage amt.

$562,350 is the current conforming limit in SD County (up from $546,250 last year). A $645,050 mortgage would have jumbo loan rates, which are higher and harder to get than a conforming loan. Homebuyers don’t take out expensive jumbo loans unless they are unable to put enough down to avoid it.

I honestly don’t see where the typical tract homebuyer in CV is (or was) dripping with cash. And it is obvious that the average homebuyer there is NOT part of the “8 figure” group because if they were, they wouldn’t be bothering with a ~70% purchase money mortgage …. or any mortgage at all, for that matter.

And flu, your $4.5M and up listings were outliers.

Even Alta Del Mar’s brochure showed artist’s renderings of “estate homes” and the developer offered to “build to suit.” They also offered available 1/2 AC and up lots for $1-2M. Those aren’t typical tract homes on typical CV lots nor are they even remotely typical of the vast majority of homes built in CV subdivisions.

The current 30-year fixed jumbo rate in SD County is 4.13 with 0 pts (requires a 740 FICO score) with a monthly P&I payment of $3,124. When you add in taxes, insurance, MR and HOA dues totaling $1102 mo, the monthly PITI + HOA comes to $4226 mo!

That is a LOT of money every month for a $950K econobox situated on a 4500 – 5500 sf lot. And this is assuming that SFRs can still be purchased in CV today for $950K (1900 – 2200 sf?).

For comparison purposes to a $950K median sold price, the asking price on the OP’s link is $1,375K for a 2691 sf house situated on a ~6400 sf lot:

[quote=flu]…At $1.375, might be tougher to sell, but I think it would move easily around 1.2-1.25 maybe higher…[/quote]

Today’s homebuyer can do so much better than this outside of Carmel Valley …. Yes, even in some of SD County’s best areas!

[bearishgurl]

Just for sh!ts and giggles, flu, can you post a listing in Derby Hills here (if there is currently one available)?

Is Derby Hills the highest-priced tract subdivision in CV?

I’m wondering what the presumed “8-figure set” is supposedly buying in CV for their principal residence when they have so many housing choices to choose from.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=flu][quote=bearishgurl]flu, I looked at the link and that is obviously NOT a tract home. Additionally, it appears to be located on the far northern edge of your zip code (outside of any subdivision?)

The question I asked you is if you knew of anyone worth $10M or more who chose to purchase and live in a tract home in Carmel Valley, given all the housing choices they had/have.

https://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Diego/5131-Rancho-Del-Mar-Trl-92130/home/12152106

11,650 sqft… Now that’s a McMansion!

The garage alone is probably bigger than my entire house. I do like his/her/their taste in cars (picture 20-21 of 25).[/quote]

There probably are…. Does this count as tract?

http://altadelmar.com

Also, there were a few Qualcomm VP’s that lived in on of the Pardee tract communities that were then considered high end at the time, if I recall.[/quote]

Whoa! I didn’t know what happened to my post and began to type it over again. I actually quoted your entire post but somehow you were able to comment from it before I even finished.

flu, I’ve downloaded the brochure and will look at the location in it.

Is the $4.5M home you posted about in Carmel Valley located in a tract subdivision?

[bearishgurl]

[quote=flu][quote=bearishgurl]

Thanks for your comments, flu. I frankly have never looked at any listings in CV unless someone posted them here. I had no idea that there were listings up to $4.5M in Carmel Valley! Based upon the links of listings I’ve viewed here, CV seems way too dense to have “luxury” listings in the multimillion-dollar range!

[/quote]

Sorry, I was way off. The upper limit isn’t 4.5 million. There’s a home selling for 14.950 million. Heck, let’s just round it up and call it $15m for the day.

The property tax alone on that thing each year is worth more than some of my purchase prices for 1/1 condos…lol….I guess also with that sort of property tax each year, the additional MR is a moot point, as well as the $600/month HOA, almost the payments of 1 mortgage of a 1/1 rental.

Personally, $15million, I that would be more than enough for me to retire and live in my ghetto box. But if someone is that wealthy, sure…Why not?

flu, I looked at the link and that is obviously NOT a tract home. Additionally, it appears to be located on the far northern edge of your zip code (outside of any subdivision?)

The question I asked you is if you knew of anyone worth $10M or more who chose to purchase and live in a tract home in Carmel Valley, given all the housing choices they had/have.

https://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Diego/5131-Rancho-Del-Mar-Trl-92130/home/12152106

11,650 sqft… Now that’s a McMansion!

The garage alone is probably bigger than my entire house. I do like his/her/their taste in cars (picture 20-21 of 25).[/quote]

[bearishgurl]

[quote=joec]The problem, bg, is I think you are stuck in your own mindset like a lot of people…Making 100k+ is nothing and I made more than that 15+ years ago. It’s also dependent on who runs in your social/professional circle. Sadly, I know many people it seems making lots of money, so much money, they don’t know what to do with it all as well as dual doctor families clocking well close to a mil in income alone and biz owners with ferrari’s and millions.

You add in family help for all the asian families buying in CV (all the folks I knew in the bay area had family help buying mil+ places with ease) and they don’t buy these places to rent out, they buy them to live and raise their family/kids in and go to school in the area. My parents have even offered me hundreds of thousands in help if we needed it for who knows what so I’m guessing for some and quite a few, if the parents can help (since that generation didn’t really spend money), getting the down payment can make many home payments as easy as anyplace in the other “CV” down south.

All that said, I think for some people, they just can’t see why someone would pay anything for something which they don’t see a value in.

For me, I guess it could be makeup, shoes, clothes, perfume, bags, pedicures, haircuts, etc…

All worthless items that you should pay close to 0 for IMO if you could.

Also, some people like small backyard homes (me, less maintenance, landscaping) and don’t care for a view, etc…My house could be a shack with no windows for all I care since I always close my blinds anyways and turn off all the lights. Really, it’s just people rather live in CV (with their taxes and all) than maybe other areas with more land and less tax. Also, I think asians like living around other asians (prob true for most races actually) so some people will NEVER buy in certain areas since the food and demographics don’t match where they want to be.

If I wanted “character”, I’d watch a good movie with a well developed character or be careful who I date…I don’t need “character” in a home and I don’t think the thousands buying in CV or many other tract areas care that much about “character” in their home.

People also want to put more money in where they live since the schools are a big factor since not all schools even in the same district gets the same level of funding…
http://www.pomeradonews.com/news/2015/apr/30/lyles-poway-unified-education-neither-free-equal/

For Poway…I assume true in San Diego Unified, maybe less so in Carmel Valley, but some schools are always viewed as “the best” with their own foundations raising thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars to get more ahead.[/quote]

joec, I’m not “stuck” in any particular mindset. I’m a “realist” with a Capital “R.” I do realize that a $100K annual family income isn’t really much in coastal CA counties. And that is as it should be. If an employed SD County newcomer’s adult family member(s) don’t want to work FT and no one in their household has any form of passive income, then that is the lifestyle that family chose. If they don’t want to accept housing that is on offer in SD County for their income level, then they would do well to move to an inland county where they will have better luck finding more “affordable” housing for their chosen lifestyle.

It’s been that way as far back as I remember. Nothing’s changed here.

And the parent contribution to public schools you speak of happens ALL OVER THE COUNTY, joec! In South County, one of the BIG extra-curriculars which is primarily funded by parent money is their vocal music departments (for the renowned traveling show choirs of EMS/HS, BVMS/HS and CVMS/HS). There are also other sporting activities which get a ton of parent financial support, including fund-raising activities run by parents. Carmel Valley parents DO NOT have a monopoly on this phenomenon. Believe it or not, there is BIG MONEY all over the county from willing parents ready to contribute!

As to Asian (Chinese?) population housing preferences, in particular, the Chinese LOVE Walnut, CA (for a current example city, currently starting at $540K for a SFR).

http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-search/Walnut_CA/beds-3/baths-2/type-single-family-home/pfbm-141000/sby-1

The Chinese are even highly representative in Walnut’s very few condo complexes (from the high $300’s). Not EVERY Asian (Chinese?) buyer feels they need an Econobox! In LA County, there is a pronounced dearth of “Econoboxes.” The vast majority of SFRs in the San Gabriel Valley eastward to the San Bern/Riv County lines have an avg of 1600 sf and are situated on 7-10K (avg) sf lots.

Why is this so, folks?

Uh, well, LA County’s (and their respective cities’) leaders DIDN’T SELL OUT to Big Development in past decades as did SD County and its cities’ leaders. They left their open space OPEN (as it still is today). So, the vast majority of tracts there (95%) were built before 1980.

These jurisdictions’ leaders were consciously and purposefully more far-sighted when in came to the ongoing quality of life for their citizenry … UNLIKE SD County’s (greedy) leaders.

It is as is should be.

The same is true of the wise leaders of San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties (Silicon Valley).

The $64M question is, why do San Diegans (as a collective CA coastal county population) owe any newcomer working in a tech job the opportunity to purchase new construction near their jobs? The truth is, we don’t owe them a damn thing! They can buy or rent what is currently available or commute a long distance daily from a dwelling which is newer … OR decide NOT to take the job if they don’t like the housing choices on offer. It’s a free country.

The truth is, with ZERO high-tech jobs available in SD County, it would still survive just fine. (Our local govm’t would have been much better off fiscally if the all the residential construction built since 1992 did not exist.) A very large portion of SD County’s populace are “retired” or otherwise self-sufficient (not reliant on a high-tech W-2 job for their sustenance).

The reality is that SD County never needed ANY new construction after 1992. There was more than enough housing at that time to accommodate the existing population. In fact, the “recently laid-off” and “lower-income portion” of its population were moving OUT of SD County in droves at that time!

The existence of “subdivision hell” (built mostly since 2000) all over SD County has all but destroyed the quality of life for every resident, including those who were here long before SD was even “on the map” for any high-tech companies to consider relocating to.

Obviously, we can’t turn back the clock. And we all have our (current and former) elected leaders to thank for the fallout of their prior (shortsighted and unwise) decisions.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=flu]Maybe there are some people can actually afford homes here, even at current prices. That said, I don’t know why you have an ax to grind with the (un)affordability and prices in parts of SD. Maybe people actually want to live in some of the lizard land places, and maybe some people dont’ mind paying more and even can stretch to afford it. And looking at it, you and many others were just plain wrong about expecting a 40-50+% correction around here. It never happened, to your disappointment. Maybe 20-25% at worst, but it’s close to peak and in many cases above peak. Anyone that held out all this time did just fine, and in some cases even better once they refi’d. Not that I’m particularly happy about it because it’s just one more dis-incentive to move to a bigger place…[/quote]

Thanks for your comments, flu. I frankly have never looked at any listings in CV unless someone posted them here. I had no idea that there were listings up to $4.5M in Carmel Valley! Based upon the links of listings I’ve viewed here, CV seems way too dense to have “luxury” listings in the multimillion-dollar range!

I’m actually not “one of those” people who believes that SD housing is unaffordable or “overpriced.” Actually, I think there are several areas in the county which are still undervalued. And I’ve never posted that Carmel Valley is situated in “Lizardland.” It is not. However, it cannot be compared to Encinitas, which is on the coast and boasts many custom homes. CV and Encinitas (much moreso west of I-5) are two completely different animals, imho, and likely cater to two completely different buyer-demographics.

Believe me, I DO remember when “North City West” was first developed and advertised its first one-story home plan for $168K.

I don’t have a personal problem with Carmel Valley today as it has never really been in my sphere but have always wondered what the “draw” to CV was. The subdivisions developed there since about ’98-’00 became just completely devoid of character as the developers continued to squeeze as many SF as they could on mostly 4500 to 6500 sf parcels. (This isn’t the only area like this in SD but it is undoubtedly the most expensive). Carmel Valley is now VERY expensive for what a buyer actually gets there compared to older, more established communities for the same price or less and without HOA dues and MR.

For example, my (very real) description of a circa 1976 ranch home in SD with great bones as I referred to in this thread:

http://piggington.com/deal_breakers_home_inspection

My gosh, for $800K to $1M, one can still buy a “cosmetic fixer” with a possible ocean view IF you can still find one! A home on a 7500 – 23,000 sf lot (more than 1 AC in parts of east county). These homes might have authentic river rock front porch surround; possible mahogany or redwood built-ins and FP; giant rock floor-to-ceiling FP with a 2′ high hearth; mahogany pocket-door room dividers; old brick pizza oven; built in bread box and/or spice grinder; authentic American Standard pastel tile; stained and leaded glass windows; even cantilevered ceilings (think LM, Bonita, etc). The list goes on. Of course, not all these features are in the same house but I’m sure you’re aware that there is so much out there to choose from in the $1M price range!

In comparing a CV “econobox” priced at $1M++ to a comparably-priced “character” or “period” home which sits on a larger (even much larger) parcel elsewhere in the county, I just fail to see the reason for the tremendous interest in the former. In my mind, there isn’t any comparison whatsover. The latter is so much more liveable for the long term.

Maybe it’s just easier today to buy an econobox due to ease of financing and not having to shop around for months (or even a year +) to find just the right “character” home.

Thank you, joec, for introducing me to the term, “econobox.” It’s very fitting for most of the listings discussed here.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=flu]Well, 1.1-1.3 is around 12% of one’s net worth if one’s net worth is 8 figures at least. So I don’t see relatively speaking why this would be such a big issue, considering many others, that would be roughly 25-30% of one’s net worth and for them they still consider that affordable. Just saying 🙂

Also, I believe the person did not try to rent this home out at $3000/month but considerably more…. This home was also the model home for Bridge Ridge I think, so that probably also explains the markup back then.[/quote]

flu, do you know if there is a high percentage of homeowners worth 8 figures ($10M or more) residing in tract subdivisions in Carmel Valley? If you know any, do you know why they chose Carmel Valley (when they could obviously afford to buy in CA’s finest well-established communities)?

And what would you approximate to be the percentage of homebuyers in Carmel Valley who pay ALL CASH for their purchases in tract subdivisions there?

Because Carmel Valley is the closest community to most of the well-paying tech jobs in SD, I was under the impression that the “worker-bee” homeowner is the prevalent type there (Carmel Valley subdivisions attract primarily the “worker bee” buyer.) Because of this, I never really considered it as a “high-equity” area (area with a high % of paid-off homes), but assumed the majority of homeowners there are saddled with huge mortgages.

I mean, how many “worker bees” 20 – 45 years old have the funds to pay all-cash for an $850K ++ property? Especially those with families to support. Most of the demographic which typically DOES have the cash (boomers and older) are “retired” or about to retire and thus don’t have to commute anymore so they can live anywhere they damn well please (with no regard to commute times). If the older set sells their longtime homes elsewhere in SD County and CA, a newish econobox on a 6K sf lot in a very dense area is probably the last thing this group would want to drop a cool $1M on, IMO.

I realize that there are many very wealthy Gen X and Y “worker bees” in Silicon Valley who might pay all cash for a “million-dollar home” on the peninsula. But a million-plus won’t buy much more than a 1200 – 1600 sf, 60 – 85 year-old ranch home there … a far cry from a SD econobox pretending to be “pretentious,” lol.

Even though Gen X and Y tech workers in SD don’t make as much money (on avg) as SV workers do, their housing expectations are through the roof (after approaching or exceeding $100K annual salaries)!

SV workers are “trained” to accept what housing is available there for the price it is commanding or commute such long distances to work and back that their lives very quickly become intolerable. They have no other choice.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=svelte]Not to freak you out, but some insurance companies avoid insuring homes that have had prior claims, even with other owners and insurers. You may want to check with your preferred insurer. I wouldnt mention the prior claim(s) but instead get a quote just to see if they balk.

Besides what was mentioned by other posters, something that would cause me to seriously rethink the purchase would be aluminum wiring…usually only an issue in homes built 1969 to 1975[/quote]

svelte, I don’t know how long one of the Big Insurance Computers in the Sky (CLUE) has been in place but if that leak was fixed 20 or more years ago with insurance proceeds, it is possible that it fell into a deep dark hole by today, meaning CLUE doesn’t know about it.

Good advice to NOT MENTION the former leak which was listed on sellers’ Transfer Disclosure Statement (but happened at least two owners ago) when getting a insurance quote for a binder.

I’m actually surprised Canadian’s seller disclosed the leak at all, since it apparently didn’t happen on their “watch.”

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Canadian][quote=bearishgurl]

If the leaks were from polybutylene pipe, you need to find out if ALL the plumbing between the walls was replaced with copper after the final payment to each affected homeowner in the state in the settlement of the class-action suit (1994).

If only the “visible” plumbing was replaced, or partial plumbing replaced in only the wall that burst, I would not buy the property.

Just my .02.

edit: Canadian, what is the exact year this home was built? This info will clarify things. Thx.[/quote]

Thanks a lot bearishgurl. The home was built in 1976, and the pipings are copper. The owner at the time of the repairs has passed away, and the insurance adjuster is not providing us with more details. It seems the leaks were mostly related to the bathroom.

I guess when you buy an old house you should expect to deal with these situations. But then what we look for in a house is hard to find in new constructions :)[/quote]

IIRC, polybutylene wasn’t used in tract construction in SD County until 1978, so you’re in the clear.

Actually, a house built in 1976 isn’t that old. Nearly all of the City of SD had been built out by then, except possibly 92139 and other later-annexed zip codes which are not completely contiguous to the City (i.e. MM, RB, PQ, Scripps still had land left in 1976).

Just curious, Canadian, does the house have a sunken living room oriented towards the rear of the house with large windows or 2 sliding glass doors facing the backyard? Is there a (flagstone?) foyer raised a step from the living room and at least 20′ wide? Does it have a double (French) front door? Is there a floor-to-ceiling brick or stone FP with a raised hearth between the two sliding glass doors or large windows?

I’m thinking of early/mid 70’s ranch-style houses which are only available in two (poss 3) zip codes in the City of SD that I know of. I absolutely LOVE this type of home which is far more prevalent in other southwestern states than SoCal. All the ceilings are a standard 8′ foot high and if there is a vault in the sunken LR, it is typically done in cedar and the vault is 18″ or less. (No “styrofoam” rough-hewn dark beams … that was a little later.)

Many ’70’s era ranch homes have great bones and a nice-sized lot! So, so unlike the econoboxes built on small lots in recent years.

Congrats on finding the home of your dreams! (Even if you have to remove accoustical ceiling, lol.) I think it’s pretty tough out there for today’s SD County buyers due to prospective equity sellers staying out of the market en masse.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Canadian]Thanks a lot CA renter for your comments. We did the inspection, and found just some minor issues. We know from the disclosures that several years ago some pipe leaks have been repaired and piad by the insurance. The fact that they happened long time ago and were handled by the insurance should put our mind at ease, we have been told.[/quote]

If the leaks were from polybutylene pipe, you need to find out if ALL the plumbing between the walls was replaced with copper after the final payment to each affected homeowner in the state in the settlement of the class-action suit (1994).

If only the “visible” plumbing was replaced, or partial plumbing replaced in only the wall that burst, I would not buy the property.

Just my .02.

edit: Canadian, what is the exact year this home was built? This info will clarify things. Thx.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Essbee]I hate the lack of big trees / forests. Hate the fact that everything is brown for ~10 months per year.

I also wish that I could go out at night in the summer without bringing along a light fleece or sweater. That rarely happens here.[/quote]

Essbee, it is much greener in NorCal but you will not get away without the sweater within 20 miles of the coast.

SoCal is actually an irrigated desert. Without irrigation, it would resemble much of Baja California.

[Author]

Posts