Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
bearishgurl
Participant[quote=Scarlett]What segments of the sellers “demographic” have changed so dramatically? I mean, comparing to a more normal housing market. I am curious why is the inventory bottom low. It seems to me the prices have recovered quite a bit from the “bottom”, we’ve worked our way through most of the short sales and foreclosures – I think. Are that many more people still underwater? Are the banks holding on to the foreclosures “tsunami”?
Is the low inventory not as bad compared to normal market because even though at any given point not many houses are on the market, they go in escrow within days, compared to weeks in a more normal market?[/quote]
Scarlett, I’m not trying to be a pest, but I’m surmising from your earlier post on this thread:
[quote]Hello SDR, How about the North County area – Carlsbad, San Marcos, Encinitas? Is that market so crazy as well? Now that I have a job in Carlsbad we’re thinking of getting a house up there in the general area. I like those neighborhoods. Our limit is 600K and a cursory look on sdlookup yielded less than a dozen listings total (4 bdr SFH). But if it’s that crazy and have to offer above the LP and compete with cash offers…we’d rather rent some more than deal with that.
Thanks![/quote]
…that you and Rhett haven’t bought a home in SD yet?
I seem to remember that you posted as early as 2008 that you were looking for one to buy and several of us here tried to assist you in-depth as to your questions on financing, properties and areas on multiple threads here over the years.
Participant[quote=earlyretirement]I don’t know the exact percentages, but BG is correct that MANY of the deals going down now here locally and also in many other cities are cash buyers. Even in my neck of the woods I’ve met a few cash buyers. They are out there….[/quote]
It doesn’t matter whether these cash buyers paid ~$265K back in 2009-2011 in my area (these same ~1200 sf houses are now $385K+) and shut out an FHA buyer or paid $1,265K in ER’s area (and shut out a buyer using a jumbo conv mtg for the bulk of their PM), the result is the same. The buyers using mortgages for PM in these areas lost out to an all-cash buyer.
For instance, in my micro-area, I know of three recent cash buyers from AZ, all “boomers.” They’re all graduates of Hilltop and Chula Vista High and have relatives in the immediate area (we are in the Hilltop HS attendance area but many who grew up here attended CVHS back in the day) :=]
These houses are fully furnished but vacant and have weekly gardeners. The buyers’ relatives occasionally walk over there to check the alarm system and exterior lights, change light bulbs if necessary and wash windows. These new buyers haven’t moved in yet because they’re still working in AZ. But they knew what a good deal was on a well-built house in their “home turf” with a big backyard when their relatives told them about it. I’ve seen one of these owner-couples come for a week to “escape the heat” last summer but I don’t pay too close attention to when they all “visit.”
They didn’t quibble over antiquated wall heaters and stuck windows because all but one of these houses were REO’s. These buyers were decisive and placed an immediate all-cash offer before the sign went up in the yard (it is customary for local agents around here with a new listing to poll the neighbors for buyer-referrals before placing the property on the MLS). Another neighbor bought a similar residence with all cash for their daughter and grandkids to live in.
A second subset of absentee homeowners/buyers we have around here which I have posted about here before are Mexican Nationals, mostly residing in Guadalajara and Mexico City. However they prefer the over-2500 sf ranch with a 1/2+ AC lot with pool and even tennis court and obviously cannot get a US mortgage. There are at least a DOZEN of these properties around here (that I know of) which are fully furnished and vacant and have been for years. Gardeners and a pool service visit once per week and sometimes handymen and pest control companies. Only once have I seen a family with kids splashing off the pool slide and jumping off the diving board but this property isn’t on my regular walking route.
Hundreds, of not thousands of Mexican Nationals could afford in the past and can afford today to buy a SFR in SD County and leave it vacant for their family’s occasional enjoyment. Most of these homes have been owned free-and clear for many years and no, they didn’t buy them with “drug money.” They are “old money” and some of them are no doubt executives.
I’m sure there are same or similarly-owned properties in ER’s HOA.
A third subset of absentee owners we have around here are not buyers but senior citizens who have a lot of “stuff.” They left their SFR in Chula Vista crammed full of “stuff” and moved into a retirement home, a smaller home in the country/mtns (Santa Ysabel, Julian, Big Bear, etc), or a child’s home and either can’t make a decision to sell their ChulaV home, can’t part with their “stuff” in it and/or wish to leave the home to their children. Some of these homes (a few on my walking route) have been “vacant” for ten years or more. These properties tend to be unkempt until they get a weed abatement and trash (pennysavers and junk mail) notice/fine from the City. Then and only then do the owners hire a one-time gardener until such time as the next weed-abatement notice is sent. (If owners don’t respond to the notice, the City sends a cleanup crew to the property and then places a lien against it.)
I have actually contacted two of the above owners for a friend who offered to clean them out for the owner and transport their stuff to wherever they wanted if they would sell him their property for all cash so he could flip it. Both owners (one free and clear and one owing $32K) adamantly refused to sell.
In all three instances, the result for today’s buyers is the same. The homes are 90-100% unused (some for many years), are situated in nice neighborhoods (even “luxury” areas), aren’t or were never were “in distress” but have been and are “off the market” for the foreseeable future.
SD County is an attractive spot for vacation homes for people all over the world.
Participant[quote=Jazzman]You are also guilty (again) of miscategorizing me. I bought a year ago, and invested in RE two years ago, just not in the over-priced markets. I bought well enough that I can now afford a second home. Inventory shortages were low, but nowhere as bad as they are now.[/quote]
I know you did, Jazzman. My understanding was that you didn’t repurchase in CA because you thought the areas you wanted to buy in were “over-priced.” I’m sure you’re aware that they are even pricier now and have even less inventory to choose from.
[quote=Jazzman]Less ability to be picky is just as likely to lead to more pickiness, which is far from being “shut out”. More like walking away, since home ownership is yet again proving to be a perilous and pointless exercise. . .[/quote]
Jazzman, being “shut out” and “walking away” are one and the same. I don’t have to tell you that the outcome of doing either leads to the same result as you know I know you know that.
That result being that the prospective buyer doesn’t yet have a home to live in in coastal CA because, although they have been “shopping” for one for years, they haven’t yet made a purchase :=0
Participant[quote=CA renter]BG,
You’re ignoring the two main reasons for the house price inflation of the 70s and 80s.
…
-snip-
2. Women entering the workforce en masse, temporarily increasing the purchasing power of those households with two incomes until prices rose enough to offset it:
http://www.census.gov/newsroom/pdf/women_workforce_slides.pdf
[/quote]
CAR, I looked at the (Powerpoint presentation?) above and am stumped as to why women’s participation in the workforce began dipping in 2008. Acc to page 3, women’s workforce participation in 1967/68 was 14.8% steadily rising to 43.2% in 2008, the highest-percentage year on the graph. That is an increase of 28.4% more women in the workforce in 39 years or .728% increase per year (less than 1%). Page 4 shows women’s average FT salary was 20,600 in 1960, increasing to 36,300 (gross, before payroll taxes) in 2009. That’s a “raise” of $15,700 in 49 years and an average of just $320.41 salary increase per year, acc to this chart.Obviously, many of those women were single (we don’t know the percentage) and very few single women qualified to buy RE by themselves, especially before 1990.
Acc to the graph below (1987 to present), San Diego housing prices really didn’t begin “skyrocketing” until about 1999. And we all KNOW what fueled the price bubble between 2003 and 2007 (hint: it wasn’t “women in the workforce.”) I can’t find any graphs of local housing prices before 1987. Maybe there are some on this site. Between 1987 until mid 2003 (the year when buying RE with “funny money” began to be prevalent), the average (nominal) price of SD housing went from $108K to $400K. That is an increase of 370% in just 16 years, or an average of over 23% per year! And 2003 was not the height of the “millennium boom.” In SD County, the fall of 2005 was the height, with average nominal prices of $600K.
http://www.jparsons.net/housingbubble/san_diego.html
All along, women’s pay increased by .00728 annually (less than one percentage point).
I would be interested in see any historical average-price chart of SD housing between 1960 and 1987 if anyone can direct me to a link). Based upon its price escalation from 1987 to 2003 (w-a-a-a-ay out of line with women’s FT wages), I don’t think it was women (spouses?) working which caused it. I think the reason for this price escalation was SD County’s coastal location and its insidious change from a military industrial complex and tourist town to having white-collar-job-creating high-tech and research companies move in after Gen Dyn, Rohr, Cubic, Raytheon and other defense contractors severely scaled back their operations or closed, laying off,. transferring and retiring many thousands of blue collar workers immediately before and during this time frame.
RE prices during this same time frame didn’t escalate this high or this fast in the “flyover states,” not even during the millennium boom. Yet, defense contractors have installations there and the same percentage of women residing there are likely in the FT workforce.
[quote=CA renter]
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/jobs/posts/2011/04/01-jobs-greenstone-looney…[/quote]
Here, the Brookings institution (in 2011) states that college-educated women (in 2009?) were beginning to experience stagnant wages.
…On a more optimistic note, women have made great strides in the labor market—both in terms of employment rates and median earnings—over the last five decades. American women are responding to market signals and pursuing higher levels of education, making them more competitive in the U.S. and global economies. Women also fared better in the Great Recession and its aftermath. From the start of the recession in 2007, the employment-to-population ratio of women (ages 25 and over) declined by only 4.7 percent—compared with a 7 percent decline among men.
That being said, we are also witnessing stagnation in the median earnings of women. While this is concerning, it is likely a broader symptom of declining opportunities for all American workers. Only after the economy has recovered will we have a better sense about whether other factors are the driving force behind this leveling off for women…
The reality is that more women every year are steadily graduating with college degrees yet their workforce participation begins to drop off after 2008, acc to this chart in the article:
[img_assist|nid=17266|title=Education and Employment of Women 1963 – 2009|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=68]
Since the RE market is now recovering, I think it will be interesting to see whether women’s workforce participation rises once the US job market fully recovers. If the RE market continues to recover, the job market recovers and more women keep getting degrees but still aren’t working FT, then their absence from the job market has nothing to do with the availability or non-availability of jobs and nothing to do with the price of RE.
[quote=CA renter]Without the increase in interest rates during that time, housing prices would probably have gone parabolic. Mind you, union participation rates were much higher then, and wages were going up for the majority of working people. That is no longer the case, and hasn’t been for at least a decade (much longer, for some professions). [/quote]
I agree with the emphasized statement. My co-worker (mentioned below) and her spouse were both represented by unions (he by a blue-collar union and she and I by a white-collar union), and, save for one or two years, we always enjoyed negotiated pay raises, however small. But, until we see some graphs of SD housing prices from 1960 to 1987, we don’t know if housing prices actually went “parabolic.” They certainly began to do so between 1998 and 2003 (before the millennium boom even started).
[quote=CA renter]There is a direct correlation between asset prices and interest rates, and it’s very pronounced in asset classes (like housing) where most purchases are made with credit. Just because prices/rates don’t move inversely at a given moment doesn’t mean that they aren’t correlated; there are other variables that can affect prices as well, masking the effects of interest rate changes.[/quote]
CAR, housing (as an “asset class”) is a necessity. Everyone has to buy or rent one if they want/need their own place. In both instances, the occupants pay all or part of their own mortgage or someone else’s (if their LL has a mtg). The fact that housing is a necessity makes it prone to your “other variables” category. However, your correlation (or lack thereof) doesn’t necessarily apply to luxury housing.
It’s not the same as speedboats and Lamborghinis being hard to sell in a recession. Even during stagflation, recessions and multiple periods of high MIRs, people still bought housing. People buy housing in the stages of their lives that they need it. If buyers have to take out a PM mortgage, they buy what they can afford within the parameters of interest rates and other terms available to them at the time of making their offers. I bought homes in what today’s young buyers would consider “adverse conditions” because we needed a house. That’s why when potential homebuyers on this forum tell me they have a “right” to be “picky” and will continue to do so if and when interest rates rise, I tell them I hope that strategy works out well for them. I can say that now. I’ve been there (multiple times) and my years of housing “need” for a very particular-type house for my family are now coming to a close.
[quote=CA renter]Once again, people with cash will NOT overpay for something when the purchasing power of all their competition has been diminished by higher rates. Not only that, but people with cash will want to preserve as much of it as possible when rates are high (and cash is dearest) so that they can earn a return on it. [/quote]
I never stated cash buyers would be willing to overpay for housing. I stated they would likely win out a property over other offers with mortgage contingencies. In fact, this is likely so even if a cash buyer offers less than a mortgage-contingent buyer. As everyone knows, with the waiver or removal of an inspection contingency, cash is a sure thing and a cash sale is a quick and dirty escrow. For this reason, sellers love cash offers. As well they should.
[quote=CA renter]And when mortgage interest rates were in the 6-8% range in the late 90s/early 2000s, prices were a lot lower in most places.[/quote]
This isn’t true in many parts of SD, my area being one of them. Only in the last 2-4 months have SFR home prices in my area recovered enough to surpass what I paid for my home in 2001 (12 years ago). My house had (presumably) gone up in “value” 166% by fall of 2005 and then overcorrected 202% downwards by fall of 2011 (due primarily to nearby closed comps on non-arms-length short sales). It was devastating to watch for all longtime homeowners who sat out the prolonged “cash-out borrowing party” and its subsequent predictable fallout. I would estimate my home (as of this month) has gone up about 22.5% in value in the last 12 years (a nonplussed 1.89% per year “profit”). This doesn’t take into account the improvements I put into it, so it’s probably close to a wash. Only time will tell in the coming months/years what its future value might be.
Participant[quote=flyer]Agree CAR and SK, that with the ever-changing dynamics, people, especially those who have purchased in recent years, should be extremely wary of considering real estate a “sure thing,” when it comes to their long-term financial solvency.
As a lifetime real estate investor, it’s clear to me that, some elements point to a continuing escalation, many do not, and only time will tell.
In the meantime, I think it’s very important to have diverse financial resources accumulated for retirement (and lots of them–if you want to survive) other than property. At least, that’s been my plan.[/quote]
flyer, I understand that one can’t “eat” real property and that a retiree needs to be well diversified in order to survive the vagaries of the broader economy. However, housing is a “necessity.” Unless one wants to live with friends or relatives, they have to buy or rent housing if they (or their relatives) do not currently own a residence available for their occupancy.
I’m not “bullish” on housing as a “sure-fire investment,” per se. I just think people who “need” housing and can qualify to buy it should do so ASAP while the mortgage interest rates are extraordinarily low. I’m not referring to “luxury housing” here as it is not a “necessity.”
My point was that a few prospective homebuyers here who still don’t own their own residence today are still (halfheartedly) in the market because they have been shunning perfectly acceptable housing for years waiting for the “perfect house” in the “perfect location” and “perfect buying conditions” and these factors rarely, if ever, exist in tandem. It has now been about 3.5 years since the local housing “bottom” and those days are permanently gone for good.
If these posters are happy with renting, then so be it as they may have to rent much longer than they ever thought possible due to not being able to make a local housing buying decision and successfully consummate a deal.
You must admit it is not going to get any easier going forward for a young family to buy a home in coastal CA counties.
ParticipantI just spoke to a former co-worker a few days ago with whom I hadn’t spoken to in a few years. She and her spouse are just a bit older than the oldest boomers and have resided in the same house in ChulaV since 1961. Both she and her spouse are retired local gubment workers, like myself.
We were discussing retirement options within our plan (she and I are in the same plan) and this is what she told me:
“I don’t know why we fed the (IRC sec. 457) plan for years. When we were still working, we just went to the seminars and blindly followed their instructions. It was ridiculous to do that. We haven’t really made much money on it for the last 15 years and now have to pay taxes even on the little draw off of it that we take every year. We don’t even need the draw. We’re not world travelers. We just work in the yard and have local hobbies with other seniors at the community center and I go to my choral group once a week and [spouse’s name] got involved in a community group. We can’t even use the healthcare allowance so we don’t get it. [Spouse’s name] is a military retiree so we have Medicare plus Tricare for Life (for Parts B and D). We’ve never in our lives paid a dime in medical expense. Our grandchildren are in college now so we’re helping them and we don’t travel to see them much anymore because they’re too busy. My sister (in eastern seaboard city) doesn’t get around too well anymore to do things and sightsee. [Spouse’s name]’s relatives in (New England city) are all dead now so we don’t make that yearly trip anymore. We don’t need any more vehicles or home improvements. [Spouse’s name] just added more insulation to the room addition for something to do so we are very comfortable. I now wished we would have not contributed to the plan and paid taxes on the income while we still working and had three kids to support. Our property taxes are $400 per year. You can’t take it with you.”
Thousands of retired workers in SD are double-triple covered for all of their needs. I know because I’m surrounded by them. Don’t discount the longtime resident in that ‘hood which appears to you to be (gasp!) “working-class” as poor and ignorant. If Medicare goes away tomorrow, these folks can promptly apply for and get their healthcare allowances of nearly $400 month from their retirement associations to help them pay premiums. Their primary residences were were paid off long ago and many are just sitting on a pile of cash that is going nowhere.
All that money, folks … WHOEVER ends up using it, is your competition in the local RE market for years to come.
The local, long-established families in CA and their progeny will be the winners in this game. That’s the way it’s always been here, especially in coastal CA counties, where the land is valuable.
You can’t fix this.
Edit: I wanted to clarify here that my former (retired) co-worker and her spouse currently have five (5) monthly incomes and a paid-for house. Each has a public pension, each has SS and they have a military pension with medical benefits. This is all exclusive of the balances in their 457 plans. Even if all of these pensions were small (in this case, they aren’t), if you rub five nickels together long enough, they will eventually get hot.
I would venture that they are still saving a lot of money every month. What else would they do with it?
Participant[quote=spdrun]
I don’t understand what all these fence-sitters are waiting for. This isn’t Kansas. Do they understand how many 59.5+ year-olds everywhere have access to hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash??
For said 59.5+ year olds to either kick off naturally or be painlessly gassed to death under Obamacare? 🙂 🙂 :)[/quote]
Uhhh, spdrun, if that happened, their heirs (young Gen X but mostly Gen Y) would (prematurely) be able to give their heavily-leveraged “peers” a run for their money out there in the housing market.
Either you compete in the market with cash-laden boomers … who generally don’t want the mcmansion in lizardland that you do … OR compete with their now cash-laden heirs … who will likely be your competition :=0
Pick your poison.
Participant[quote=SK in CV]I left Carmel Valley in June 2011.
I have no issue with anything you said about the past.
I was just taking issue with the best areas being the least interest rate sensitive. With the exception of the >$1.5 million areas, I don’t think that’s true, if by the best, you mean the most expensive. I’m not sure there is much in the way of “best areas” in central SD, south county or east county. Not none, but not much.
Out of curiosity, how do you know most of the sales are all cash? That really doesn’t sound like owner occupied. It sounds like investors.[/quote]
In the lower tier, it has been investors (flippers) and boomers residing in AZ buying second homes. Believe it or not, zonies have bought up second homes in the $250K to $325K range in those dreaded “working class” areas such as west Chula Vista and Lemon Grove :=]
A couple of these zonies I am familiar with are native San Diegans who bought cosmetic fixers on the same street a relative lived on.
You must know that there are a LOT of areas in Central SD (inclusive of Pt Loma) but also in East and South SD County which are not only prestigious but have 1/2 to 2 AC lots.
A lot of these sales are on cash terms. I go to the recorder’s office in Chula Vista about once a month with a listing of closed sales to check out the terms of trust deeds filed. A good portion of the sales don’t have any trust deeds but I don’t know the exact percentage. In another portion of the TD’s I reviewed, the mortgages taken out were <=20% LTV. I haven't tried to figure out the percentage of all-cash purchases yet but will endeavor to do this by zip code. My own area would be considered mid-lower tier and there have been at least a half-dozen all cash closings around here (out of about 80 homes) since November. Two were bought by flippers who have already turned them again (I haven't checked the new terms). It is a new day. It is almost all organic "traditional" sales now in the areas I follow. I don't understand how wishful buyers out there think they're going to "steal a deal." Very few sellers are "distressed" anymore. Even REO lenders appear to be spending up to about $17K, if necessary, to fix up mid-high tier homes in their inventory before marketing them.
ParticipantI just spent over an hour doing a cursory check on available listings in 12 close-in SF bay area zip codes I occasionally follow. None were in SF proper as they were all SFRs. The build dates were from 1930 to 1969 with an avg age of about 56 years old. The average SF was +/= 1550. The average list price was $575K. None had HOA or MR.
No listing came out before 4/5/13. Three were relists which were taken of the market for +/- 1 month (to ready them for sale to fetch a higher price?). Only three of about 30 listings I reviewed were short sales and they all were in the same zip code.
I saved them all and will check them again in 6-8 days. I expect them all to be gone. Two were in an urban area of a small city where all 12 public schools (Elem, middle and HS) were rated a “10” except one HS, which was rated a “9.”
Unlike SD County, it is interesting to note that buyers with young families likely gravitate to these homes because of their prestigious locations and schools. Yet they were ALL older homes with 6K to 22K lots.
Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl]
At present, a good portion of buyers are making all-cash or mostly-cash offers.It is the heavily-leveraged buyer who will find themselves shopping in successively lower tiers of homes as interest rates rise.
In coastal CA counties, the best areas to live in are the ones which are the least interest-rate sensitive. This is why highly-leveraged buyers’ choices will lessen even more in the wake of higher MIRs.[/quote]
Do you know this or are you just guessing?
It seems unlikely to me that a good portion of buyers are coming in with all cash or anything close to it in the higher priced neighborhoods, unless you’re talking about La Jolla or RSF. In the 10 years I lived in Carmel Valley, I never knew a single person whose house was paid off. Most had big mortgages.
Is this just speculation on your part?[/quote]
The areas I have been following (in Central SD and select areas of South and East County) are older than Carmel Valley, SK. They range from upper mid-tier to lower-mid tier. Most the sales are all cash. I haven’t been following any of the newer tracts, where young workers have been attempting to upbid each other so am not familiar with the typical terms there. Younger workers tend to be highly leveraged.
I understand Carmel Valley is pretty well-established, but didn’t you say you left there in 2007 or thereabouts? Of course, between 2004 and 2007, when mortgage money was very easy to get as long as one had a pulse, most buyers were mortgaged up to 100% LTV. Are you sure that’s still the case up there today?
If you resided in SD in the early eighties, certainly you must remember the ’81-’83 spike in interest rates. I believe FNMA fixed conventional rates were up to 15.5% at one point in either ’82 or ’83. Do you recall RE prices falling precipitously between mid ’79 and ’83 as fixed mortgage interest rates rose from about 8.5% to 12.5% and beyond? I don’t. I don’t remember prices going down at all. What I DO remember is sellers carrying back seconds and also offering financing. During ’88-89, the local market was on fire and fixed MIRs prevailed at 10-11%. Even from about ’97 to ’03, the local market was on fire and fixed MIR’s fluctuated between 6.5% and 7.5%.
Nothing has changed. During all those periods, a prospective homebuyer had to be decisive and make offers and hope they would be countered and/or accepted or the property would be gone within days, unless it had structural problems or was a heavy fixer, which took a little longer to sell.
I lost out on eight offers I placed (due to excessive overbidding) and cancelled one escrow (due to severe plumbing problems which the seller wouldn’t fix) before successfully closing escrow in 2001 on my current home.
The prevailing fixed MIR at that time was 6.75%.
I don’t understand what all these fence-sitters are waiting for. This isn’t Kansas. Do they understand how many 59.5+ year-olds everywhere have access to hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash?? This group understands as well as appreciates the value they see in properties as most of them have seen a few of these cycles in their lifetimes.
ParticipantIf any prospective homebuyers out there are waiting for 7% fixed mortgage interest rates so they can “steal” a property in a good area, they’re going to be waiting a long, long time (not necessarily for interest rate hikes leading to 7% or beyond but for home prices to adjust to interest rate hikes).
Participant[quote=JohnAlt91941][quote=bearishgurl]
-interest rates could gradually rise, leading to even less ability to be picky, and even possibly being eventually shut out altogether[/quote]
Ridiculous. The SELLER will be hurt by higher interest rates, not the buyer.[/quote]
At present, a good portion of buyers are making all-cash or mostly-cash offers.
It is the heavily-leveraged buyer who will find themselves shopping in successively lower tiers of homes as interest rates rise.
In coastal CA counties, the best areas to live in are the ones which are the least interest-rate sensitive. This is why highly-leveraged buyers’ choices will lessen even more in the wake of higher MIRs.
Participant[quote=spdrun]Horseshit. There are better and worse buys. Some areas (like NYC and SF) have 4% cap, and a crummy buy/rent ratio. Not much room for appreciation. Whereas areas with 8% cap have much more room for appreciation.
BTW, I’m not saying that the OP should sell, but there’s for sure money to be made in “churning” properties if the game is played right.[/quote]
I would agree with you, spdrun, but I think paramount has kids in school. He really isn’t able to “churn” houses one after another while moving into each one, especially with transaction costs as high as they are today.
Austin, TX, probably does not appreciate very fast, if at all. Property taxes are very high in TX and the “homestead law” there tends to put a damper on even long-term appreciation.
I think mostly all the appreciation is quickly being wrung out of Las Vegas properties. This area, along with Phoenix, AZ, was and is grossly overbuilt. And a lot of the jobs available in LV end up being temporary gigs.
The grass is not always greener on the other side of the fence.
Participant[quote=all][quote=bearishgurl] And, even if I had my kid living with me (currently in HS), I won’t be bothering to check the Megan’s Law website to check a listing I’m placing an offer on. Why? Because I don’t care and neither does my kid! A PC 290 registrant can be living across the street with a telescope in their window and it won’t bother me a bit.[/quote]
Is that because convicted sex offenders don’t leave their toys on sidewalk?[/quote]
Well, yes, and 99% of them just want to live quietly, mind their own business and make a living, in addition to getting their fines paid off (if they still owe any). And as I have posted before, a good portion of them are over the age of 65 and a good portion of that group is over the age of 75.
The vast majority of PC 290 Registrants are not a danger to society. Parents are getting all worked up over nothing.
I’d rather have an aged PC 290 Registrant for a close neighbor than a 17 yo who just installed 11 speakers in his car (with 3 subwoofers in the trunk) and who will NOT be shipping off to the military or college :=0
-
AuthorPosts
