Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
bearishgurl
ParticipantAbsolutely, scaredy. As I stated a couple of weeks ago in:
http://piggington.com/ot_ramifications_of_the_passing_of_props_34_and_36
… the state (namely AB-233 funds) are paying for death penalty appeals. Since death row inmates are going to sit in prison regardless, they feel they may as well have an attorney in their corner somewhere working on their behalf. Since they are not entitled to be paroled, they have nothing to lose and everything to gain, including “free” room, board, medical and dental care.
It takes 25-30 years between checking into death row and actually being “executed” (if that day ever comes). It is more likely that they die (of natural causes or disease) on death row.
A fraction of 1% are released due to later being retried and found innocent of the capital crime which landed them on death row in the first place.
Even though these appeals cost CA taxpayers a fortune and CA superior courts have had to make so many cuts in services over recent months (the latest is cutting out court reporters in more than half of courtrooms), CA voters just can’t stomach abolishing the death penalty.
Participant[quote=spdrun]SF has a lack of condos. . . [/quote]
There is a lack of “HOAs” in many areas of SF, spdrun. This is because these buildings were built long before HOAs were a figment of anyone’s imagination. The vast majority of these buildings are comprised of rented “flats,” which are either one-half or one whole floor of the bldg. Almost none of them meet ADA reqs and climbing stairs to these units is required.
In the last two years, I personally have seen online 3000 – 4500 sf residential bldgs for sale in SF (2-3 rental “flats” with 2-3 garages) with asking prices of $500K – $700K. Obviously, they needed work and in a couple of cases, gutting. But they are there and the energetic and enterprising buyers of these fantastic opportunities can eventually (thru “sweat equity”) get themselves a great unit to live in as well as a VERY good permanent monthly income from the other unit(s).
Unlike SD, the vacancy rate in most areas of SF has always been close to zero.
Participant[quote=AN]1st one is bleh. 2nd one is better but definitely not walkable to food and entertainment. 3rd one is better but again, SOMA << Marina. I can't find the size of the SOMA property. Not the mention the view in the SOMA property is bleh compare to the Marina properties....[/quote] SOMA is convenient, but more than half comm'l. And it is too low to have any views. There are many reasonable areas in SF to live but some are more walkable to stores, delis, restaurants and public transportation than others. If you have the good fortune to have a your own well-located bldg or reasonable rental flat in SF, esp with your own garage to park in, it wouldn't matter as much its proximity (or lack thereof) public transportation. Your life would be grand and it likely wouldn't be worth it for a well-paid SF worker to ever move away from that situation :=] Believe it or not, a LOT of SF retirees live in the smallest unit on the bottom floor of their own buildings (which shares its square footage with garages) and rent out their 2-3 (view) flats above *reasonably* for a fantastic retirement income! And they're on the premises if needed!
Participant[quote=spdrun]Because SoCal people might irritate you to the point of self-defenestration. Plus, making money in certain industries is easier in SF than in NYC or SD.[/quote]
You are so right, spdrun. Most of the jobs, on avg, pay 40% more in SF than comparable SD positions.
My kids have never paid any more than $2350 mo split four ways and have never lived in any less than a 3 br flat and more often a 4 br flat. These flats monthly rents were from $1850 to $2350 mo and abt 1850 sf to 2200+ sf. They were in Richmond (1.5 bl from “beach”) and Potrero (with nearly 360 deg pano views). Depending on size of unit, rents haven’t changed for them in the last ten years.
It appears they were/are paying about $1 per sf in monthly rent.
I don’t know why AN was only looking at a 275 sf studio. Flats of more than 1550 sf per month there are the norm there. As a tenant, you have to be willing to work with the landlords who are mostly reasonable (most have “Prop 13” tax treatment and a good portion own their bldgs outright). For instance, if you want a new kitchen floor, you ask your LL nicely if he/she would deliver the mat’ls and rented/owned tile saw and then lay it yourself. If your toilet is running, you buy a repair kit, install it and send your LL the receipt for reimbursement. If you want use of a corner of his/her garage below for some storage, you offer to clean windows, paint or mow the backyard. In short, be cooperative, don’t ever block the driveway with an unattended vehicle and don’t EVER be a PITA!
If you, as a SF tenant, need to have everything *new* and *perfect* and bother your LL over a missing or broken blind wand, they can and will easily replace you at their first oppt’y, likely for well over the rent than you’re paying :=0
So take this advice for what its worth, be happy, enjoy your pano view and walk to all your fav delis, mom & pops, bus stop and Caltrain and you will likely be able to stay for ~10 years or more without a rent hike :=]
Participant[quote=ctr70]Now Santa Fe NM is a whole different story. I COULD live there. That is one of my top small cities in America. That is a quaint, very attractive place that is NOT cookie cutter, generic and commercialized like San Diego. Santa Fe is one of my top U.S. cities for character along with:
-Burlington VT
-Charlottesville VA
-Boston MA
-Seattle WA
-San Francisco
-Boulder CO
-Madison WI
-Portsmouth NH
-Portland OR
-Austin TX (only the older neighborhoods of Austin)[/quote]ctr, upon examing a cnn election map:
… I see your political leanings don’t jive very well with the bulk of folks inhabiting all of your fav cities (except for Austin – is it red or blue??)
http://piggington.com/ot_who_are_you_voting_for
Almost all your fav cities are either in blue states or battleground states ;=]
Participant[quote=AN]Since we’re on a ranting spree, I’ll put in my 2 cents. SF sucks balls. You can’t pay me to live there. Chicago is 100x better than SF.[/quote]
One of the things about SF that I think is an eyesore is the huge amount of overhead lines on many streets … in every direction. Since it is built on “a collection of rocks” it’s probably not realistic to expect it will ever have very much buried cable … if any at all.
As far as the wind blowing, SF and Chicago rival each other in this dept. But Chicago is undoubtedly MUCH colder with MUCH stronger winds. So SF wins the weather contest.
I have never been to Chicago but have seen many pictures and heard many stories. Yes, Chicago and even some of its suburbs are very beautiful, ESP around the lake. And SF has breathtaking views in every direction :=] There is no place like it on earth.
Participant[quote=ctr70] . . . you either have no taste at all or need to get out more. Go visit some of the neighborhoods outside of Boston, Minneapolis, Seattle, NYC. San Diego’s neighborhood are ugly as sh*t. Either souless, sterile, cookie cutter stip center north county or ghetto east, central and south county . . . [/quote]
ctr, I haven’t been to any of the cities you mention here. I realize that SD is not as old as some of them so doesn’t have the “history” behind its neighborhoods that the northeast does. I’ve lived almost all my life in Cali but have traveled by vehicle to 17 states and by plane to 3 more.
Different strokes for different folks. You can’t have everything you want in one city. SD has the weather and that will never change. SD also has a very quaint coastline like no other which one can view from home in their spare time if they have the means and the desire to purchase or rent such a property.
I meant it when I said you should check out Durango and even the more populous cities in CO. I think it is perfect for you (and your biz).
Participant[quote=squat250]in defense of albuqerque…it’s super cool town! …. I lived there 7 years and was so happy there. lots of cool people. great bicycling.
corrales village just north of albqueruqe is so awesome to live in –that’s the place to go if you go to abq.
my ultimate plan was to get back to albqueruque…but now i’m all transplanted into temecula so thats probably not going to happen. but I would be happy to spend my days there! it might technically be alittle ugly, but the air was good and the people were great![/quote]
I like ABQ as well, scaredy. It’s very clean and the city has done a lot in recent years with the southwestern decor of its overpasses and landscaping. Excepting for the “Lordsburg/Deming corridor” (near the int’l border), I think ALL of NM is nice. I’m not sure I’d want to live there though, only because with that type of high, dry climate, CO wins hands down because it has so much more of everything to offer. However, it is quite a bit more expensive to live in CO.
scaredy, for “retirement purposes,” I think ABQ and surrounds (even Santa Fe, Farmington or Aztec, NM) would be preferable to Temecula (but NOT the CA coast), simply due to having to deal with MUCH less people on a daily basis. All of these places have all the modern conveniences without the “captive audience” population.
For a person who “doesn’t get out much,” I just put another 3800+ miles on my vehicle a few weeks ago, again passing thru ABQ twice ;=].
Participantsdduuuude, would it be worth it to add on to your present (Clairemont) home to get the space you need? In other words, do your area values support the expense of an addition?
Or would your lot be too small to do this without adding a second story?
It just seems like this is a better idea than attempting to pay 3-4 times as much for a home (w/poss HOA/MR) than you already did years ago. Especially if you still have young kids to support. JMHO.
Participant[quote=KarlsGood]I have lived up on the hill for 30 years. Outside of Rancho Santa Fe I do not beleive there is any portion of Coastal San Diego County that has more trees in number and maturity. Its also the best run city in the County by a large margin.[/quote]
I understand, KarlsGood. The “bird’s eye” view of the subject property shows that its narrow driveway has a small quarter turn where there is a wider spot to park in. This (and a possible rear-attached garage) takes up most of the backyard space.
It looks like a (very unusual) pie-shaped custom which appears to be above its rear neighbors. Do I have this correct?
AN’s OP stated he was interested in a “tree-lined” street or one with “tree-easements.” These type of sidewalks have a “city tree easement” between the sidewalk and curb (predominant in neighborhoods older than 1950). In those areas, the sidewalk is typically 4′ or wider and the “tree easement” is another 3′ between the sidewalk and curb (which is ~6″). Even though an owner is typically allowed to plant the easement of their choosing if they wish, they cannot disturb the trees and their “property line” ends 7’6″ before the curb. If the trees need attention, the owner calls the city for assistance and they will send their contractor out to take care of it.
I can see from the photos that the trees are very mature there, even if they’re not “on the street.”
Participant[quote=AN]I still think the UC are fit my wants better but this is a decent compromise. Is there something like this with tree easement?[/quote]
AN, remember that the “tree easement” neighborhoods you are dreaming of are likely 60-85 years old in SD. The only one I could think of in SD Co with ocean views is the Muirlands (LJ) where the “tree easements” are in the middle of the street. A “fixer” in this area (IF one could still be had at all) would likely cost more than $800K.
“Tree easement” streets in SD Co with other kinds of views (canyon, etc) are more common.
The open-beam mid century you were looking at commonly has few walls. (I know, being a native of MM that you are used to that :=P)
These types of homes can have a “cavernous” feel unless the owner is able to update the dark beam materials used as well as endeavor to use the proper remodeling materials and furnishings (could be expensive) to keep it preserved to its “era.”
Also, the frontage is “elevated” from the street. And, as I suspected, from the street-view photo:
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/3470-Hillcrest-Cir-Carlsbad-CA-92008/16618434_zpid/
… like the frontage, the driveway is “bricked in (due to the neighbor’s higher lot). You can only drive one vehicle at a time into the back, where (hopefully) there is a garage. All cars parked in the driveway will have to be double-parked. It is unclear from the photos provided how many vehicles you will be able to actually store on this larger lot without tripping over them.
What good is a ~100 ft frontage if you can’t use it??
The uninc areas have many properties just like this but with an abundance of flat land to park vehicles, as well as wide, flat encroachment(s). In those areas, you would likely be giving up an ocean view and a sidewalk.
Thanks, new poster KarlsGood for sharing this interesting sold comp!
Participant[quote=AN][quote=KarlsGood]How about this?
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/3470-Hillcrest-Cir-Carlsbad-CA-92008/16618434_zpid/
[/quote]
Looks good. :-)[/quote]Interesting mid-century, likely with +/- 100′ frontage but likely NOT “tree lined” or with “tree easement.”
You like this, AN, but your “wants” are not all in one pkg.
That’s what I’m saying here.
ParticipantBack in ’94, we poured a 17 x 67 ft RV pad (13-15 yds concrete) on the side of the house, complete with privacy fence, motion-sensor lighting, boat swale, sewer, electricity and cable JUST so each set of parents could bring their motorhomes for a few of the “cold” weeks per year and live with us (instead of the nearby KOA campground). Due to illness, the RV’s never came to try it out. They all died between ’95 and ’00.
Even the best intentions end up being for naught, sometimes. That’s how life is.
UCGal, from your posts, the Piggs know all the headaches and expense you went through to build it for them. If you just can’t get your in-laws to stay there anymore, and your guest house is separately-metered, maybe you will be able to rent it out to a quiet UCSD student or senior citizen.
ParticipantYes, flyer is correct. A “fixer” could have been had inside the RSF covenant for well under $300K as late as 1994. However, the cost to “fix it up” under covenant guidelines would have been quite a bit greater than properties outside the covenant, as he can attest to, as there are two layers of bureaucracy to go thru (county and covenant) with the covenant having the final say.
AN, if this is to be your retirement home and you are insistent on the 100′ frontage, I would urge you to consider the many uninc areas of SD Co. You may not get sidewalks but you can’t have everything. As a perk, many uninc areas in the county have a lower tax base than inc areas do, depending on where they are, due to the dearth of services provided (sidewalks, frequent street lights, subsidized trash pickup, etc). A good portion of these uninc residential streets are so lonely that the residents just walk their dogs in the middle of the street and move over when a car is coming.
When you retire, you won’t really CARE about commute time. If you buy the property in the next few years (while you are still working), you can fix it up minimally to lease out and do a major remodel just before or after you finally move into it.
Your problem is that the type of property you want doesn’t usually pencil out very well as a rental, due to their initial cost and carrying costs, incl property taxes.
I don’t think you will be able to find a “coastal” view property in 92106 or 92107 (as flyer mentioned) for =<$800K without either dropping your sf req drastically, buying a two-story, buying on a smaller lot, and/or buying a very heavy fixer. And believe me when I say that the "heavy fixers" of ANY size in these areas are snapped up by VERY local all-cash buyers (neighbors), often as "FSBOs" and "pocket listings." I've been watching (in person) certain pockets of 92106 on and off for over 18 years. And my reqs aren't anywhere near as "stringent" as yours. The best deal, view-wise, I've ever seen a local cash buyer snap up for the <=$300K range was on the corner of Hugo and Clove (Fleetridge) about a decade ago. It was a thrashed two story that termites had taken over situated on a std lot with a fantastic sit-down view of the dtn skyline.
That dude had his porta-potti out and scaffolding and chain link around it within hours of closing and got right to work scraping :=0
And I can’t even tell you how many SD (and SJ!) “boomers” I’ve known who have a seaworthy vessel slipped at Shelter Island. If they could get their hands on a WWII box of ANY size in ANY condition in 92106 for a song, they would downsize from their (Bonita, Esco, EC, Jamul, etc) spread after a gut/remodel and move there in a flash. They don’t mind living in <=1400 sf and neither would I, for that matter :=] That is your "competition" for 92106/92107.
-
AuthorPosts
