Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 10, 2013 at 12:32 AM in reply to: Which public schools are better: Carmel Valley or La Jolla #762545June 9, 2013 at 11:43 PM in reply to: Which public schools are better: Carmel Valley or La Jolla #762544
bearishgurl
Participant[quote=njtosd]BG – I searched this thread and no one ever said anything about residents being “of color.” From what I can tell you are the only one to use that phrase.[/quote]
The students that that are being complained about by Piggs on this thread as being “free lunchers” in an “affluent community” such as LJ aren’t “residents” (of LJ). They are from other areas of the City where the schools are subject to voluntary transfers-out of students living in their respective attendance areas by their parents in accordance with the NCLB Act.
Actually, only a portion of SDUSD VEEP/CHOICE, etc students could be construed to be “of color,” the same as a portion of students who reside in the attendance area of SDUSD schools situated in LJ.
btw, an individual of “Hispanic origin” is not actually “of color.” They are considered to be of the Caucasian race by the US Census Bureau and are self-identified as “White” on the census:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/29/hispanics-drive-growth-of-u-s-white-population/
etc…
I was referring to the comments made by Piggs that because a portion of these “nonresident students” at LJHS qualified for “free or reduced-price lunches,” they must somehow be inferior in intelligence or test scores to resident-students. Actually, nothing could be further from the truth.
From a few posts on this thread, I got the impression that some Piggs were “worried” about their children attending school with “disadvantaged kids” and that is why they didn’t/wouldn’t choose LJ to buy into in favor of more northern tract developments in SD County which they perceived to be “less disadvantaged.” As we all know, areas like 4S Ranch along that “coveted 56 corridor” (aka Foreclosure Ranch) were at the epicenter of the housing bust in SD County (read: inhabited by original buyer-families who were too insolvent to keep up the mortgage on their homes) and too stupid and/or unqualified to obtain a non-“exotic” (read: “non-subprime”) purchase-money mortgage.
NO AREA is exempt from the threat of rampant foreclosure unless it has a large population of free-and-clear owners (ex. La Jolla SFR stock). Surprisingly (for many, I’m sure), 92113 (where the Lincoln High VEEP cluster with attendance rights to LJ schools is located) has a very high degree of free-and-clear homeowners.
Ask yourselves how/why this is so.
June 9, 2013 at 9:18 PM in reply to: Which public schools are better: Carmel Valley or La Jolla #762537Participant[quote=westwood]I really don’t have an opinion about which demographics are making La Jolla the priciest area in San Diego; just noting that many families can’t afford to live there and therefore, look elsewhere.[/quote]
westwood (are you living in LA, by chance?), I agree that LJ is too pricey for the vast majority of families. Even the ones than CAN afford to buy there generally will not because they want a larger house for the money. The homebuying demographic in “family-raising mode” today want size over all other considerations so I disagree with carli in that size does matter (pun intended).
[quote=carli]. . . To say it’s about square footage when a family chooses Carmel Valley over La Jolla is skipping over a lot of other factors and oversimplifying the typical family’s home buying decision. . . [/quote]
[quote=carli] . . . this is a little bit of a chicken and egg discussion as the Pardee marketing people did not design the 3500 sf Carmel Valley houses just for kicks but because they saw a need in the marketplace – families moving to Carmel Valley for the schools, not just to live in 3500 sf houses.[/quote]
carli, I understand the other factors that you mentioned regarding your perception of CV as “Familyville” but I feel there are dozens of communities all over the county which are more of an ideal “Familyville” than CV, LJ being one of them.
A boomer, WWII Gen or Greatest Gen member would have raised a family of 4-6 in 1500-2300 sq ft. Today’s family who has an income of ~$150K typically believes they need 3000-4000 sf to raise a family of four or less. Also, the prior generations of parents valued room on the lot to park toys and work on their own vehicles, as well as to have their own swimming pool and play equipment for the kids. Most LJ SFR’s have those lot sizes but the vast majority of CV properties do not. Most of the current contingent of SoCal parents-of-minors do not care about lot size. Not only do they NOT want to care for that lot or pay someone else to, they don’t want to pay the now-exorbitant water rates five months per year to keep all its (expensive) plants/trees from dying. And newer vehicles are not as easy for the DIY’er to work on as vehicles of yesteryear were. They require expensive tools and equipment that can only be found in a commercial repair shop.
The majority of today’s younger Gen X and Gen Y homebuyer set just want a concrete covered rear patio and a sidewalk poured around its 3-4′ wide side yards, so that’s what builders have been giving them (in all price ranges) since about 2000. If there is any grass at all in most of these newer-tract subdivisions, each lot can be trimmed with a weedeater in five minutes. Today’s parent-buyers would rather pay HOA dues and use a community park and pool for their kids that someone else is maintaining than deal with these maintenance chores themselves. These are the type of SFR’s that are offered in CV in all but its most expensive subdivisions.
Nazzy, In CA coastal counties, the value is in the location first (view location included), lot size second and custom house design third, all of which LJ has and CV does not. In areas like LJ, it doesn’t matter what, if anything, is currently standing on a lot. Even a vacant lot in LJ has a very high value, whether zoned residential or commercial.
The way I see it, it just depends on how small of a house you would be comfortable with or how much work you are willing to do (obviously some work could be done after move-in if you won’t undergo a major remodel) in order to get a suitable SFR in LJ for <=$1.2M. As SK noted, the public schools in CV and LJ are comparable to one another, LJ is definitely more walkable and is world famous for its unmatched natural beauty. CV cannot compete in this area and for this reason a SFR in LJ, no matter what its size, is a much better investment in the long term, IMO. You also have to think about where and what you would want to live in after your kids leave for college.
***
The OP hails from Boston, MA (NOT Montana or Wyoming) which is (200+?) years old, is highly integrated and always has been (Nazzy, pls correct me if I’m wrong here). I just don’t see them being that concerned about their kids having classmates who may possibly be “of color” and (gasp!) “disadvantaged.”
A family of four does not need 3500 feet to live in, IMHO.
Participantjimmy, the reason you will get your earnest money back is because this landmark case with a similar fact pattern to what you describe here set a precedent in CA in favor of the “buyers” who ended up actually selling their own home while in escrow to buy another home, thinking they were going to move into a home that the sellers had no authority to convey to them.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1540488.html
It is cited as Holmes v. Summer (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1510 and is still good law.
Wait until one day after your rate lock expires and then formally ask for your earnest money check back. If seller’s agent hassles your agent over this, cite this case to his/her broker in a letter and you will get your check back, forthwith.
Participantjimmy, the listing you placed a “successful” (lol) offer on should have been advertised as a short sale from the get go, and thus, required no earnest money deposit. In essence, you are purchasing a “short sale” from the lending institution because your “seller” has no authority to sell, due to negative equity. Your agent should have been more proactive in finding out out the true status of the encumbrances before you spent money satisfying your contingencies, IMHO.
For example, it is easy to see online whether a SD County property owner is delinquent on their taxes … or not, BEFORE one even places an offer.
https://www.sdctreastax.com/ebpp3/(5mbsnv551yqju2i24yc5qmrv)/Start.aspx
Because your agent did you this HUGE disservice, I would drop them like a hot potato after I received my earnest money check back due to specific performance issues, mainly to do with the fact that seller’s can’t perform before your rate lock expires, and, in any case, “sellers” have no authority to convey the property.
In your case, the exception of the unpaid taxes on your preliminary title report which you were privy to early on after you opened escrow should have been a “red flag” to your agent to wait for complete lender approval before spending any time or money on this transaction.
If I were you, I would not spend $90 per day to keep my “lock” open on this flaky transaction as you describe it here. Anything can happen, including foreclosure documents being filed by a hired trustee simultaneous to your “sellers” trying to negotiate a “short payoff” with their servicer/lender. This should have been initated by their (incompetent) listing agent months ago.
Lesson learned: as a buyer, either YOU and/or your agent should be checking out sellers’ financial condition and writing your offers explicitly to protect YOU in whatever condition you find them to be in on properties you choose to make an offer on. It will save you a lot of wasted time and money.
June 4, 2013 at 3:50 PM in reply to: Which public schools are better: Carmel Valley or La Jolla #762430Participant[quote=SK in CV]To the contrary, I think there’s no evidence that the quality of education is significantly different between LJ and Carmel Valley. Smart kids with involved parents equals successful students. It isn’t teachers and it isn’t schools that make successful students. Both areas have smart kids and involved parents, as well as schools that provide an environment to allow the students to thrive.[/quote]
I agree except to add that I think some kids will be smart and successful no matter how involved or uninvolved their parents might be. It is difficult for many parents (esp if separated in age from their kids by 2 or more generations) to grasp the material in public school textbooks today, let alone be able to help with homework. If all parents of school-aged children provide a lighted quiet place for their kids to study, computer(s) to use and make sure their kids eat right and get enough sleep, and provide tutors, if necessary, these actions go a long way towards ensuring their kids perform well in school, IMHO.
Participant[quote=DaCounselor]What spdrun said, actually. Doesn’t Fannie have 1.7 million homes that are 90+ days delinquent?? What is Fannie, about 50% of the market? So if all the other junk paper out there is equivalent to Fannie’s then we are looking at about 3.4 million homes that are 90+ days. That’s a few homes.[/quote]
I’ve looked on the Fannie website recently and realized that most of their inventory in SD County are condos. There are a few scattered SFR’s here and there but they usually get sold in one day or less. I also feel that they are priced competitively given that some of them have not been completely fixed up since being lost in foreclosure (perhaps just cleaned up). So they’re not really a “bargain.”
OTOH, the counties of Riverside, San Bernardino, Fresno, Stanislaus, Merced and San Joaquin Counties have a LOT more FNMA SFR’s to choose from. As do the few “flyover states” that I briefly looked at.
Sacamento County distressed properties seem to be moving very briskly.
June 4, 2013 at 3:03 PM in reply to: Which public schools are better: Carmel Valley or La Jolla #762424Participant[quote=DaCounselor] . . . Keeping with the original intent of this thread, I still don’t see any basis to support the idea that the LJ public schools can match those in CV or the other top areas.[/quote]
I’ll try to find out the details of the VEEP program later this evening.
I think the reason the public schools in LJ (not the “LJ Public Schools” because they are schools within SDUSD) may not get as high of test scores (haven’t really checked if this is true, either) as those schools in CV is due to resident-family culture differences in the respective attendance areas. Parents of Asian cultures tend to be stricter on their kids than American-born parents are, they value rote memorization and demand a certain level of performance from their kids. I don’t know the percentages but know that CV is FULL of Asian kids.
My lengthy experience with members of the Asian culture (friends/longtime co-workers) leads me to believe that they also highly value newer construction over older construction unless that is all that is available in their preferred area (ex: SF and San Mateo/Santa Clara Counties). Thus, even if they can afford it, I don’t think very many affluent Asian families have been attracted to LJ since CV has been built out. This is neither bad nor good. It is a cultural preference.
I don’t know the racial makeup of the SD public schools in LJ attendance areas but I suspect their demographics are similar to those of the public schools surrounding those areas and the rest of North City (North of I-8).
IMO, so much of the demographics have changed and moved around in SD County since it became a sprawling megalopolis with hundreds of new subdivisions for housing choices (from about 1991 forward) and so the “glory days” of viewing LJ as a place to raise a family have likely faded somewhat.
This phenomenon won’t affect the values in LJ as there are PLENTY of all cash or nearly all cash buyers from all over the world who appreciate LJ for what it is and KNOW that it is one of a kind.
Perception of quality of local schools only matters to ONE segment of buyers and those are the ones currently in “family-raising mode.”
June 4, 2013 at 11:52 AM in reply to: Which public schools are better: Carmel Valley or La Jolla #762417Participant[quote=FishGuy]I went to LJES, Muirlands and LJHS, and graduated in the mid-90’s. Not sure if it’s still the case, but at that time there were several hundred students bussed in from SouthEast San Diego every morning.
While many of them took advantage of the opportunity afforded them, a large number brought their gangster ways with them. The gang presence on campus was fairly strong, and graffiti and fights were common.
We had an open campus for lunch and the streets and homes in the surrounding neighborhood were regularly tagged up. I believe the campus was closed a year or so after I graduated due to this problem.
Most of us LJ kids weren’t greatly affected by the gangsters, as the groups remained fairly segregated. A few people did catch a beating for walking into the bathroom at the wrong time, though. Many of us actually liked having them around, as drugs were always readily available.
Again, I don’t know if things are the same today. That was just my experience nearly 20 years ago.[/quote]
Very interesting Fish Guy. This just shows that 20 years ago, there weren’t even enough local kids to fill LJ High. It is possible that there haven’t been enough there for 30-40 years.
I DO know that today’s VEEP transfers now have to get themselves to their distant school as the budget for busing in all Districts is close to nil. They buy a MTS student bus/trolley pass for $36 month. This is a LOT of money for a low-income worker family or a family on TANF, especially since a lot of these kids can undoubtedly qualify for free school bus service to/from the schools in their own attendance areas.
In SUHSD, school bus passes to/from for an academic year are currently $172 or 65 cents per ride, unless the student is qualified to ride free (parent submits tax return and verification of EBT/TANF to the District, and, in some cases, their social worker is called). In addition, the District has shortened the bus routes to accomodate more students, making many of them walk an additional 6 blocks to the bus stop.
For these reasons, most resident students who can’t walk and don’t have rides take the CVT to get to school and back (public transportation for $36 mo).
June 4, 2013 at 11:05 AM in reply to: Which public schools are better: Carmel Valley or La Jolla #762415Participant[quote=DaCounselor]Thanks for the excellent chart UCGal. Does it include all the PISC and VEEP kids or is it just straight open enrollment data? In either event it does not encompass the continuity students although I am sure that data is out there somewhere. Overall I would hazard a guess that the total number is significant as LJ is an affluent area and about 1/3 of the kids at Muirlands and LJ High are on the free/reduced lunch program.
As for the “lesser students” remark, I admit I could be completely off-base in jumping to the assumption that the test scores and academic performance of the kids coming in from outside 92037 are lower than the locals’. I suppose that data is out there too. How each person feels about the facts surrounding enrollment at the LJ schools is up to them.[/quote]
DaCounselor, I don’t know if you live in LJ and/or are raising a family there, but if you are, how would you feel if LJ High and one of their elem schools were shut down? If there was no VEEP, CHOICE and various magnet programs to move District students around, certainly, LJ could do with one less elem school and bus their dwindling HS-age population elsewhere, no? There is no longer enough homeowners and tenants in LJ “proper” (actually NOT a “proper” because it is in the City of SD) to fill its schools there as there once was. The vast majority of today’s families can’t afford the exorbitant prices of the RE there and haven’t been able to for more than 20 years. As such, LJ will be inhabited by more and more of the “retired set” every year. In any case, the younger Gen X and Gen Y parent-crowd isn’t going to buy or rent a 1500 sf “cottage” when they can get 2500 sf elsewhere for less than half the price. They are also turned off by the advanced age of LJ’s housing stock and the complexity and cost of remodeling there.
Closing schools where there is no longer enough of a local student population to attend them has happened in many metro areas in the country. Given the direction the State’s budget has been taking in recent years, don’t think this can’t happen to SDUSD.
Be glad for the District’s transfer-in programs keeping schools open in areas where there are not enough students to make it pencil out. These transfer opportunities aren’t offered to the District’s student-slackers. They are offered to the cream of the crop of the various attendance clusters they hail from. The vast majority of these kids KNOW they are very fortunate and will continually perform in school and ride two buses each way there and back for as long as they have that opportunity.
Conversely, the “surfer dude” who grew up in LJ and could care less about school has a right to attend all of the LJ schools by virtue of his residency. He may or may not end up graduating there but later obtain a GED or graduate from LJ High with a 2.0 GPA with or without successful completion of his A – G requirements for CA public university admission.
Just because a kid grew up in LJ doesn’t mean he/she actually has any drive to accomplish anything in life.
Participant[quote=kev374] . . . I am looking at solidly blue collar neighborhoods like Buena Park, California where asking prices for entry level single family homes, many of them 30+ year old homes, less than 2000 sqft, are north of $500,000. Are home prices north of half a million dollars in blue collar neighborhoods sustainable? If so, why? The current figures indicate Buena Park has a median income of $58,000 yet has a median home prices of almost 7.2X at $420,000. Realistic? Sustainable?[/quote]
kev, it is sustainable and will continue to be sustainable because your “statistics” don’t tell you that the median income includes a very large portion of retirees who paid 1/10th or less of $505K in the 40+ yo areas. But the house they bought THEN is very likely not the same house NOW (which is ostensibly “worth” $450-$525K). It has likely been remodeled one or more times over the years and/or has had many replacements, including the installation of newer, more modern systems.
This is the case in EVERY well-established town and city in CA and the disparity in incomes of adjoining neighbors is more pronounced in coastal counties. It is due to Prop 13 and its progeny, Props 58 and 193, which have a chilling effect on potential listings, leading to higher asking and sold prices. A dearth of listings in the most convenient areas like Buena Park (read: very well-established), along with the historically low fixed mortgage rates of recent years, pushed the prices up to what you see today.
The buyers in Buena Park today making $90K+ are getting a lower fixed interest rate than buyers of any generation before them. Today’s buyers making ~$100K and today’s renters making ~$75K in Buena Park are averaged in with today’s retirees in Buena Park with as low as $15K annual incomes to arrive at that $58-71K median income. Yes, you read this correctly. A retiree owning their own modest home outright in a coastal CA county can actually live on a modest SS income if they don’t use too much water for landscaping, have a ~$400 annual tax bill, have basic cable or “rabbit ears” and have “lifeline utilities.” They may not be able to waste a lot of gas driving around or travel too much, but they can easily live in their home until they become incapacitated or pass away. If that retiree’s partner and co-owner is still alive, their collective monthly SS might be $25K, which would allow them to occasionally travel to visit relatives where they will stay free. These are residents who have little to no other income besides SS and there are many millions of them. A very high proportion of them are homeowners.
In addition, many of these retirees have current annual property-tax bills ranging from $400 to $800 (yes, hundreds).
Thousands of well-established communities in CA have extremely low-income homeowners living a *comparable* lifestyle to their worker-bee neighbors except for the typically newer vehicles and electronics owned by the worker bees. The retired homeowners’ income levels skew the income levels for the community which “seems” to be too high-priced for its “median” income level but it is actually not given the composition of actual wealth (equity) of its longtime residents and current buying conditions.
For example, some of these retirees may have purchased their home new for $33K in 1975 and qualified for it with a $8-$12K annual income at a time when 10% fixed mortgage interest rates prevailed. Everything is relative.
If you haven’t read thru this recent thread, please do. It explains the reasons behind what you are complaining about better than I can:
Monthly Payment Ratios, May 2013: Homes May Not Be Cheap, But Mortgages Sure Are
kev, I really believe you can find a suitable property to buy in the inland OC areas you have been looking in. I don’t think you’ll end up with “buyer’s remorse” for buying in any of the locations you’ve posted about here. Convenience wise and proximity to job centers, it doesn’t get any better, especially in the price range you are shopping in. These are way better-located communities for the money than can be found in established, urban SD at that price point. Have you made any offers yet, and, if so, what was the result?
Participant[quote=CA renter]BG,
Where in the world did you get this nonsensical view from? Please provide data to back up the claim that children of attentive parents have worse outcomes than those who spend less time with their parents…and more time in daycare or after-school programs, especially when you’re talking about mid-higher socio-economic groups. I’m dying to see this research.
The most solvent and stable households that I’ve known tended to have a SAHP. Not sure where you’re getting your information from, but if you look up the research on having SAH parents vs. “latch key” kids, you’ll see that those with parents at home tend to have better outcomes.
BTW, you ought to ask teachers what they think about those after-school programs.[/quote]
CAR, I’ve started a new thread to reply to you and poll/discuss this interesting topic because it is getting way OT here.
Participant[quote=JohnAlt91941]So who will be buying the homes that aren’t “lesser in size, in a lesser location or in lesser condition or all three”?
I say the same type folks that are buying them now, only the principle (price) will be lower to meet the lower borrowing levels (demand). People aren’t getting more house now due to lower interest rates, only more debt.
The sellers will be the ones sucking it up.[/quote]
No John, when rates revert to the “norm,” there will be a much wider variety of buyers buying them than the ones who are currently buying them (mainly cash investors and FTB’s and STB’s who have little to no downpayment).
Read: “Professionals” shopping in LM, LG, Linda Vista and Golden Hill, for example.
Laugh all you want. But before you lie down and start rolling on the floor, read this recent thread:
Monthly Payment Ratios, May 2013: Homes May Not Be Cheap, But Mortgages Sure Are
Buyers today are getting far more house and better area than they have EVER historically afforded in SD County when mortgage interest rates were in the (normal) 7-10% range.
Are some buyers today incurring too much debt for their families to realistically handle going forward? I would say some are but purely by choice as they DO have other alternatives. I would guess that many (most?) mortgage lenders don’t use MR and HOA monthly expense (BOTH can be exorbitant) when calculating monthly PITI in front end/back end ratios for qualification purposes.
Any mortgage brokers here, please feel free to correct me on this.
ParticipantA photo in this Primetime San Diego webpage (formerly “6 to 6”) shows that SAY SD operates an afterschool program at Standley Middle (in UC):
http://www.sandi.net/Page/1880
And best of all, it appears to be FREE! Here is the most current application:
http://www.sandi.net/cms/lib/CA01001235/Centricity/Domain/135/1213/PrimeTime-Application-SAY.pdf
Participant[quote=Rhett][quote=bearishgurl]Am I missing something??[/quote]
Yeah – the days of 1/2 day kindergarten went away quite a few years ago. They are getting out of school at the same time with all the other students, and they have a lot of homework (another reason we went the private school route). There is no “DASH” program in San Diego Unified. What is available varies school by school. Up in UC, after care is generally provided by the SAY program and/or the YMCA.
I’m not sure why you are contorting yourself arguing some point that really isn’t that pertinent here, because in the past two years our daughter easily comes in the top ten percent in the amount of extra care that has been used at her school. Believe me, we use it, and we know very well what after care is like at our school and what it’s like at the various grade schools in our area.[/quote]
I believe that there is still both morning and afternoon kindergarten sessions in CVESD.
I’m not attempting to argue anything here. The OP stated that they didn’t want to send their kindergartener to his/her assigned school because it was dismissed too early for their convenience. I was attempting to drive home that the wheel was invented long ago to solve this problem economically in nearly every SD community (except rural areas) and it has worked for FT-worker parents for decades.
IIRC, Scarlett has posted here in the past that you guys were spending a fortune in private preschool and daycare and from her most recent posts, it doesn’t sound like you are getting your money’s worth.
The South Bay YMCA has an EXCELLENT afterschool program. And they service every single elementary school in the district. They even have a large, newish dedicated teen center to help middle-schoolers with homework which is walking distance from two middle schools. I’m not familiar with the SAY Program.
-
AuthorPosts
