[bearishgurl]

[quote=moneymaker]How do you count the ones in the garage? I think you could do a similar study where you count how many cars are parked on the street in 1 block during the middle of the day. My guess is 92104 and 92105 would be tied for first place. Maybe we could call it “the welfare ratio”. Although the beaches might skew this study.[/quote]

MM, 92104 and 92105, as well as the beach areas boast many, many thousands of retired homeowners, as well as small and/or useless garages. Did you ever consider that many of the homes in your area might be paid off and occupied by longtime resident-retirees?

Unlike the newer PUD sudivisions in the stix where residents park on every inch of very narrow streets and “easements” after 5 pm and weekends, being able to park on a nice tree-lined wide street in metro SD in a “stable” hood (where there has never been much property distress) is a good thing, right?

Just be happy that you didn’t have 75% or more homes on your street fall into default since 2006 and are not now living with the HUGE squat-mod group, just waiting for the day they can “get out” with their heads above water.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=kev374] . . . By contrast, Orange County has NOTHING, ZERO close to decent for under $400k unless you really want junk. $400k-500k yields a few listings but most are in the $500k+ range even in nasty neighborhoods.[/quote]

[quote=no_such_reality]You didn’t read between the lines.

OC, sub-$400K isn’t to his or her liking. There are 4000 listings in OC (roughly one month supply at peak sales) 25% of them are below $400K. 166 are SFRs

San Diego has 5000 units for sales west of Ramona. 626 are SFRs.[/quote]

You’re damn straight there are, NSR. Thank for for pointing this out about the OC and SD County.

[quote=SD Realtor]Well funny because the San Diego listing you showed is the home I listed for a client a few months ago . . . Additionally out to the east and northeast there are plenty of lower priced options.[/quote]

And so you acknowledge this fact so you must also know that Santee has great schools! And some of the schools in EC are also very good, right??

Do you really believe Poway, for example, is better-located than Santee or El Cajon? Or that is has better weather or better houses, even for $100K more than Santee?? And, as a “RE professional,” (former/current, full or PT, doesn’t matter) are comparable houses in size and age located within the PUSD REALLY WORTH $100-$200K more than those in Santee or EC??

Be honest. And, if you really believe similarly-situated SFRs are worth $100K ++ more in the PUSD than, say, Santee, for instance, tell us why.

Have you considered that any school-aged children in the the neighborhood of your former listing (Rolando) could likely “choice” into Lewis/Pershing MS and Henry HS in accordance with the NCLB Act?

There is no difference in the quality of education between the Henry High cluster and the Poway High cluster (where young families seem to be “flocking to” and upbidding each other for SFR’s … even marginal ones, lol).

[quote=SD Realtor]The reality is that the neighborhood is a mid 200k hood for homes but the flippers have come in, swamped it, and are now making good bucks on flips. It would not be considered a nice neighborhood with decent school districts by any means. . . . .

Still the stress for the neighbourhoods that most residents want to be in and/or desired school districts can be classified as historically high.[/quote]

SDR, you’re an experienced agent in SD Metro/East Metro and former flipper yourself, no?

Do you think flippers are entitled to make a profit? Do you think the typical buyer of your former Rolando listing would be able to improve it in this manner after purchase? Do flippers serve a purpose? Are they asking too much for it? Do you honestly believe it would resell in the “mid $200K” price range today if it had not been purchased in 12/12 for $275K and susequently flipped and re-marketed? Do you think this cyn-lot home was “worth” $275K in its former state (when the “flippers” purchased it)?

What kind of crap was listed within the PUSD in the last quarter of 2012 for ~$275K? Anything?? Are the “low end” houses within the PUSD so special that they are somehow “worth” $100K – $200K more than those in Santee or EC?

And WHO exactly are “most residents?” You don’t consider the Rolando charmer on a HUGE (18K++? sf) canyon lot to be “desirable” to a buyer? Are current buyers out there representative of “most residents?”

If they are one and the same, do you think it is “wise” for “most residents”/current buyers to grossly overbid for marginal properties within the (heavily indebted) PUSD?

[quote=no_such_reality]This is a typical sub-$400K SFR listing in SD. http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Diego/6109-Kerch-St-92115/home/5519733

This is a typical sub-$400K SFR listing in OC http://www.redfin.com/CA/Anaheim/1401-W-Dogwood-Ave-92801/home/3196204

Actually this one of the nicer ones and low priced for some reason[/quote]

Nice house in Anaheim as well and no doubt extremely conveniently located to all. Lots of goodies for that price. Thanks for sharing, NSR!

You made your point . . . and mine. I’ve been saying all along that the “perceived inventory problem” (especially for FTB’s) is bogus.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=kev374]This sounds EXACTLY like a Ponzi scheme reminiscent of the last big bubble and crash. In the last bubble the actors were average Joe’s, in this bubble the actors are investors. In either case there will be a spectacular crash in 2-3 years. Will the taxpayers be picking up the pieces? Who knows.[/quote]

Sorry, kev, but I don’t agree. The last big bubble’s bad actors bought property with “funny money” and had little to no skin in the game.

IF there is a RE bubble in the coming years with “investor actors,” it can’t crash. WHY? If one pays cash, how can they “crash?” A “cash buyer” doesn’t HAVE to sell unless it suits them. If values should decline again, these “investor-actors” will just continue to hold and rent these many thousands of properties out, which is 75% of the reason they are being bought up today. Meanwhile their REIT investors will have nice monthly or quarterly returns on their “investments.” :=]

Your definition and my definition of a “bubble” are likely very different. In many parts of SD County, the residential RE market over-corrected in the last bust, causing many good, improved properties to sell at (or less) than land value. The fundamentals had run amok, due to too many lazy lenders waiting too long to foreclose or accept a short pay. These lazy lenders ended up falling down on their appraisals and taking anything they could get while letting their defaulting trustors squat indefinitely. This was bad for ALL owners and had the impact of severely reducing the values of the majority of thousands of longtime owners who were never in distress.

[bearishgurl]

MM, correct me if I’m wrong, but I seem to remember somewhere that you bought your home in urban SD (92104?).

Sold comps in SD have been shooting up in the last six months or so. Certainly, your home is will now appraise for enough to obtain a 75% LTV mortgage, no? If it won’t, why don’t you work on the front landscape, including any cracked concrete and any deferred maintenance such as sanding and refinishing cedar/redwood built-ins and floors, etc. That’s what sells around there.

And if your garage is too small to park in and there is room to enlarge it, now is the time to do so. Even an antiquated garage with french doors only big enough for storage could be made into a 1.5 car …. big enough to park one vehicle in and have room for a MC or small workshop.

These things would help your house appraise THIS YEAR, so you could refi it w/o PMI, IMO.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=moneymaker]I will put it out there that I think paying for mortgage insurance is the biggest rip off going. If the risk was put on the banks then they may not have been such extravagant lenders during the bubble days.

-snip-[/quote]

MM, PMI has always been a FNMA requirement for mortgages of more than 80% LTV (not sure about Freddie Mac, since most of those mtgs pre-bubble were “in-house” Prime and Alt-A ARMs).

The only mortgage option today out of PMI is to put 20% down or get an FHA loan (w/now exorbitant MIP) or get a VA loan with 0 down and pay the funding fee and up-front points (if any) as sellers in this region typically no longer will.

Otherwise pay all cash. There is no free lunch.

It’s as it should be, IMHO.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=SD Realtor]…Any places of note with regards to good school districts and high demand are out of the 400’s and making it through the 500’s fairly quickly as well.[/quote]

SDR, what do you consider to be the criteria for a “good school district?” Is an elementary school district with several schools having current API’s in the 900’s considered “good” to you? How about a HS District? Are several MS/HS’s in a district with 830+ API scores considered “good” to you? And, of course, you must realize that urban SD has several elem, middle and high schools with the these current API scores … and above, right?

This is taking into consideration that you yourself have stated that you are a property owner in urban SD and all.

I haven’t actually checked myself, but recordsclerk is claiming that 4 br SFR’s (family-sized homes) are selling for more than $400K in central Chula Vista and are apparently now in short supply. What, if anything, does that tell you about family demand for these homes?

In other words, do you think homebuyers with school-aged children in Chula Vista, urban SD or East County have lesser expectations for school performance than those buyers in the PUSD or the similarly-situated I-15 corridor??

Just wondering . . . .

[bearishgurl]

[quote=recordsclerk]Not much available under $400k in BG’s area. My friend is having a hard time buying anything with 4 bedrooms under $400K. PUSD is not the only place you can’t buy under $400K. Sure you can by a smaller fixer, but anything with 4 bedrooms over 1700sqft is getting harder to find under $400K.[/quote]

I’m seeing this also in 65+ yo subdivisions, recordsclerk.

I’ve even seen smaller local (recently flipped) previous longtime rental houses recently close at ~$400K.

After all the artificial devaluation in recent years, even clear back to ’99 prices (non-arms-length SS’s), it is now especially heartening to see our values finally nearly approach 2004 prices 🙂

I understand the same is happening in the older, established areas of East County.

It’s time again to focus on home and property improvements!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=recordsclerk]I wouldn’t sell anything right now. I wouldn’t sell anything for at least a couple years.[/quote]

Time will tell but I think you’re probably right, recordsclerk.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter][quote=all][quote=Happs]I would argue that macro and quantifiable conditions such as the economy, number of foreclosures in an area, crime statistics, quality of school district, the CC&R’s and especially an HOA’s balance sheet and monthly dues vs services rendered take precedent over exterior looks when purchasing a house.[/quote]

You should probably ask the ladies on the board to comment. In our case my wife was interested in schools and crime statistics (sex offenders in particular), the neighborhood look&feel&walkability and the house itself. I had to hit all four – any developing nation looking neighborhoods (e.g. utility poles with overhead power lines along the street) was out of question.

The price, MR and HOA fees were part of ‘can we afford it’, not ‘do we want it’ discussion.[/quote]

^^^this^^^

Like it or not, most houses are chosen by women, and it’s pretty well known that right after location (overall geography and also general socio-economic level of the majority of nearby residents), curb appeal is one of the main factors in how much a house will sell for. You can have tiny, outdated houses with weird layouts, but if the yards are beautifully landscaped, and the general location is highly desirable, these houses will sell for more than larger houses with good layouts on larger lots in “less desirable” areas.[/quote]

I agree with the emphasized portion of CAR’s statement. However, I don’t think women alone (or men) or any half of a buying couple should “choose” a house to buy, unilaterally. If something were to go wrong with the particular house or neighborhood down the road, they would likely be blamed by their partner as, “You got us into this. I went along with this purchase because you wanted it. Now look what we’re up against.”

A joint RE purchase decision is HUGE and should be completely mutual, IMHO, and if it is not, the couple should not purchase it.

[quote-CA renter]Crime is a HUGE factor in determining housing prices. It is closely related to the general educational and professional status of nearby residents, and people will pay a very large premium to live in safer, cleaner neighborhoods with more highly-educated residents. It’s what people are talking about when they mention “location, location, location,” and it’s almost as important as geographical features like views, proximity to oceans/lakes, etc. (which, because of their desirability, will tend to be priced higher, so will draw mostly wealthier, better-educated buyers).[/quote]

Again, the presence or absence of one or more PC 290 registrants living within an urban square mile in CA has little to no affect the crime rate of that area. These individual’s cases are already adjudicated and in some cases, they have already served their time. The vast majority are trying to quietly make a living and pay back any restitution they owe and mind their own business. Perhaps if there were 12 or more registrants in that same square mile and 1-2 living within 1-2 blocks of where a “listing of interest lies,” it would be prudent for a prospective buyer to check the record for the closest one’s “story” before making an offer (if there is time to do so) or for the buyer to write in a time-sensitive contingency on their offer that they will satisfy themselves as to the safety of their children given the presence of sex offender registrant(s) residing in the area. (In any case, it seems as if most sellers would just counter this out or reject the offer outright.)

I think we all need to remember here that “wealth” and “better-educated” do not always go hand in hand. What many of these young families are unwittingly? choosing is an inferior location, sometimes grossly inferior, in order to obtain newer construction. In CA, newer construction doesn’t make an area more “valuable.” Location does. For the same price, these same buyers could have had an older, possibly smaller home in a far more desirable location (sans MR and possibly HOA) but instead they typically shun the older, more valuable location in favor of the newer, inferior location.

[quote=CA renter]A clean, safe, well-kept neighborhood connotes higher-class/better-educated residents, and this is what most families will pay a premium for.[/quote]

Primarily because of Props 13, 58 and 193, and, to a lesser extent, the existence of a large entertainment industry, I don’t feel “education of owners” has anything to do with how “valuable” a residential property is in an established area of coastal CA counties. Many hundreds of thousands of the most valuable properties situated in the most sought after, well-established coastal enclaves in coastal CA counties are owned by longtime owners, heirs and assorted “celebrities” who may or may not possess an Associate’s or Bachelor’s Degree or even a high school diploma or GED! Surprise, surprise! If you don’t believe me, you can take a walking poll on SD’s finest streets and see who answers the door, observe how old some of them are and see what they tell you re: their “educational attainment.” Their “lack of formal education” doesn’t mean, however, that they are somehow “classless,” don’t know how to keep up their lots or garden and don’t know how to maintain their properties. In fact, the opposite is usually true. Since they’re not a commuting “worker bee” for 9+ hrs per day, they have a lot more free time to pay attention to their “curb appeal.”

Indeed, the RE “caste system” in CA has no regard for “educational attainment.” Here, the ownership and control of the most valuable properties and the *most* income properties in the most sought-after locales is primarily based upon family residential longevity and staying power over decades … namely, tenacity, due to good money mgmt over the years. It’s as simple as that.

If young families today wish to “pay a premium” for “perceived neighborhood educational attainment,” they are free to do so but they should just be aware that a subdivision they buy into which is full of “presumably successful” worker bees tends to be a virtual ghost town eight hours per day, five days per week. THIS is what gives property criminals their greatest opportunities.

I’m not trying to put down people who profess to be highly educated but am stating that educational attainment, in and of itself, should be viewed in its proper perspective. Educational attainment of present and future neighbors is another condition that no buyer or resident has any control over.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=all][quote=bearishgurl]
If I owned any kind of property at all within the PUSD, whether residential, multifamily or commercial, I would be listing it for sale NOW, in hopes I could unload it before the SHTF.
[/quote]

But you do not own any kind of property within the PUSD, so it’s all right.[/quote]

Yes, you are entirely correct that it is and will be YOUR problem and not MINE … by choice.

🙂

[bearishgurl]

[quote=all] . . . it’s all right.[/quote]

Actually, it isn’t “all right” now and is going to be less “all right” later for property owners within the PUSD.

If I owned any kind of property at all within the PUSD, whether residential, multifamily or commercial, I would be listing it for sale NOW, in hopes I could unload it before the SHTF.

This intractable problem can only get uglier as time marches on.

But far be it from me to attempt to burst the fantasy bubble you seem to be living under …

[bearishgurl]

[quote=all][quote]all, I don’t care what you saw on the Megan’s Law website when you decided to purchase your house.[/quote]How much don’t you care?[/quote]

I don’t care, because what is shown on the ML website to the public is essentially useless data. The REAL circumstances of the crime can be found only in the complaint and/or information and the change of plea or verdict stored in the records or archives of the state court in which they were convicted.

The vast majority of these individuals were required to register under CA law due to being turned in by a family member for an isolated incident and who later pled guilty or were found guilty of CA Penal Code section 288 on a family member who usually resided within the home.

Secondly, a person could have been required to register simply because they were over 19 years old and their (consensual) sex partner was 16 at the time of their arrest and the parents of the 16 yo decided to press charges, causing the 19 yo to be convicted of a felony (a 3-yr difference in age).

Thirdly, a LARGE portion of these PC 290 registrants are now more than 70 years old and a portion of them are in failing health.

And, fourthly, CA PC 290 registrants are required to re-register every time they move, but many who are staying temporarily with a friend or relative don’t … and are no longer required to report to a parole or probation officer. And there may be a delay in both re-registering on the part of the registrant AND reporting from the state registration database to the ML website. So there may actually be registrants from another address living in a given area who do not yet show up on the site.

Young parents shopping for houses are reading wa-a-a-ay too much into the skimpy public info provided on these cases when it is likely that no threat to their children exists if they were to buy a particular property. If they don’t do their homework on these cases, they are, by their ignorance, effectively discounting a perfectly good family home for an invalid reason during a prolonged period of poor inventory to choose from.

And that, of course, is their choice. If they don’t yet have a home for their families, they can continue to rent.

I’m not condoning these behaviors but only saying that without further research, a person relying on the ML website really doesn’t have any idea if a prospective “neighbor” or even an individual residing one or more miles away (from the listing they are interested in making an offer on) will actually be a threat to their children. The presence of a sex registrant needs to be further researched if the idea of one living nearby really bothers a potential buyer.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Happs]. . . What increases property values and what is a waste of money?[/quote]

Happs, there are many, many SFR subdivisions in established areas of SD county which have longtime (solvent) HOAs.

Often, the average “dues” are $300-$500 annually which pay for maintenance the common area, however many acres it is. MANY of the homes within them have been remodeled, re-roofed, re-concreted and repainted, all with successful HOA approval.

In the absence of MR, I don’t think a SFR HOA (if the annual dues are less than $500) is a deterrent to a prospective buyer. I think many prospective buyers appreciate that they won’t be looking at RVs and boats parked out front and purple houses if they were to live there.

In a prospective buyers’ eyes, I think the overall look and feel of the subdivision wins out over the HOA balance sheet, if the HOA has been reasonably prudent over the years and doesn’t have any liability other than the common areas.

I don’t see a new buyer placing any value on the HOA purchasing those new community items, unless they are so rusty that they cannot be sanded/repainted. Not if it means the annual dues will go up over $500.

I really believe $500 is the “magic number” for annual dues for those HOA’s with SFR owners who take care of their own landscaping and have their own mailboxes with no other amenities other than possibly hiking trails in the open space. If your HOA is more than 20 years old, I don’t think prospective SFR buyers in a well-established HOA would care enough about a community pool or clubhouse to want to pay higher dues for them.

[bearishgurl]

[quote]…In our case my wife was interested in schools and crime statistics (sex offenders in particular)…[/quote]

all, I don’t care what you saw on the Megan’s Law website when you decided to purchase your house.

The presence or absence of a “registered sex-offender” in your immediate area is out of your control.

Like the general population, registered sex-offenders frequently move. One or more could move into your area (or maybe already have) since you bought your home. Under CA law, a newly paroled individual is returned to their county of origin (very often the same county they were arrested in) and usually to a relative who can take them in until they can get re-established. In addition, even a parolee termed a sexually-violent predator is entitled by law when paroled to be sent back to their home county, either with roommates or relatives and often with an ankle bracelet transmitting their constant whereabouts.

Sorry, all, but this is not something any of us has any control over, and, in any case, the presence of a “garden variety” sex registrant, especially an aged one, is really not a good reason to shun a perfectly acceptable property. Believe it or not, many of these registrants never served prison time and many also come from moneyed families residing in Pt Loma, La Jolla and Del Mar, where they will reside after their convictions. Just so you know, in CA urban counties, NO AREA IS IMMUNE from the past, present or future presence of a registered sex offender in residence.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=all][quote=Happs]
I would argue that macro and quantifiable conditions such as the economy, number of foreclosures in an area, crime statistics, quality of school district, the CC&R’s and especially an HOA’s balance sheet and monthly dues vs services rendered take precedent over exterior looks when purchasing a house.[/quote]

You should probably ask the ladies on the board to comment. In our case my wife was interested in schools and crime statistics (sex offenders in particular), the neighborhood look&feel&walkability and the house itself. I had to hit all four – any developing nation looking neighborhoods (e.g. utility poles with overhead power lines along the street) was out of question.

The price, MR and HOA fees were part of ‘can we afford it’, not ‘do we want it’ discussion.[/quote]

all, you last statement speaks volumes. This is why you … and many of your brethren … are heavily encumbered … by choice.

You could have gotten the same property in some of SD’s finest hoods w/o the extra hundreds of dollars a month in encumbrances but you chose instead to direct this money every month to something other than the actual principal and interest on the purchase price of your home.

I am female with children (only one minor child left) and can assure you that I never met a creosote-laden utility pole that I didn’t like (or post a garage-sale notice on) ;=]

Many of SD’s finest areas still have utility poles, including Pt Loma and La Jolla, for example. Both of these areas are far more desirable and thus the properties within them are more valuable than those within the PUSD. Sempra/SDG&E still has at least 18 years of undergrounding to complete before the poles and overhead lines will all be gone.

You are most welcome to pay $300-$1000 per month in HOA/MR to live in an area w/o utility poles. However, there are MANY subdivisions in SD county which are less than 35 years old which were undergrounded before development. And some areas older than that have already been undergrounded.

Don’t whine to the rest of us here when your property taxes go thru the roof in the coming years in order to amortize your very expensive school bonds.

[Author]

Posts