Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
bearishgurl
Participant[quote=matt-waiting][quote=squat250]counterpoint: my mom says they sent me to the best school they could, so i should do the same.
Also, with inflation, the fortune you borrow today will be pocket change ina decade, and you’ll still have the degree…
they cannot repossess your brain…or can they?[/quote]
Ok, I think we have an agreement among all the lawyers on the board (did this actually happen?)
If your kid wants to become a lawyer, either he gets into a top 14 school or he goes to the cheapest law school he can find without acquiring debt. Then, after 3 short years, he can look forward to long hours of unfulfilled non-creative work.[/quote]
OR, “paralegal work.” Or … the paralegal will show him/her how to do the work 🙂
btw, “private” ABA-approved paralegal school is now about ~$10K for the “certificate program.”
Participant[quote=FormerSanDiegan]Not exactly uniformly tree-lined, but some parts of Bay Park – particularly the upper, southern sections are worth a look.
Streets might include the following and their surroundings…
Dunhaven/Penrose/Garfield/Cecelia/Southcrest area
Calendar streets area (February/March/September/July).[/quote]Good idea … esp the “calendar” sts. I don’t think the houses there on the “uniformly tree lined” sts are anywhere near ~2500 sf.
But I really like this area :=]
Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl]
I don’t recall which streets, if any, in Tierrasanta, Scripps, Del Cerro or Poway have tree easements. Anyone?[/quote]
Most all of the original part of Del Cerro has sidewalks and tree easements except for the highlands.[/quote]
Thanks for that, SK. I am more familiar with the less-expensive “Princess Del Cerro” tracts (on the SE side) than I am with the original and view sts with customs.
Participant[quote=AN]BG, Plumosa Park doesn’t have have tree lined street like I’m describing. 92103 and 92101 lots, if I’m not mistaken are smaller than average of 1/4 acre. BTW, when I say 1/4 acre, I mean 1/4 acre usable lot. Preferably 100×100 sq-ft dimension, not your typical skinny and long lots. If I’m not mistaken, Kensington, South Park, and Morley Field lots are long and narrow as well, no? Lemon Grove and La Mesa does have larger lots, but I can’t find any with tree lined streets. Can you point me to a specific are w/in LG and LM?…[/quote]
Plumosa has some pie-shaped, irregular and wider lots. Their “tree easement” is in the middle of the street. Most of the lots in 92104 are 50-60 ft by 100-120 but there are many exceptions and most of them have alley access. There may still be some double lots left (not yet subdivided) within four streets of I-805 and there are larger irregular lots in Burlingame and surrounds. In 92116, the vast majority of of non-standard lots are within 2-3 streets of the canyon rim and most are east of I-15. 92102 has wider lots, especially those with homes ~85 yrs old, which have alley access. It is not uncommon to find ~14K lots in LM (on both sides of Windsor Hill), even walking distance to the village. A larger lot there will likely by 1/3 to 1/4 slope. There are also wider lots off the Lemon Ave and Bancroft exits of SR-125. There are long lots off the Mass exit, north of HWY 94. There are 70′ x 160′ and larger lots in LG off the Mass exit of Hwy 94 south between Mass & 69th St (overlooking SD) all the way down to the trolley line on LG Ave. All of these areas are “tree lined.”
Chula Vista tree easements with wide lots are on 1st and 2nd Aves, F St, G St, J St, K St all east of 2nd Ave. A 1/2 AC+ lot is not uncommon there. These lots are perfectly flat. North of L street between Hilltop Dr. and 1st Ave (SD Country Club area – 91911) are pie, irregular and many 70′ wide lots, some with views. Hilltop Drive (east side) between F and H and going east on G st is uninc. This area has what you are looking for but the sidewalks (except within the HOA) are spotty.
There are other micro-areas in SD Co that fit your tree-easement, lot reqs and price parameters but also don’t necessarily have views.
If I were you, AN, I would drive around to see which streets (and which side of them) that I liked, and then order the plat maps for the blocks that interested me. You never know when something you want might become available … maybe even a clean lot with its dwelling razed :=]
ParticipantAN, I was focusing on city tree easements, either between sidewalk and street or a median in the street (or both). I thought you were looking for a “walkable” area with “character.” 🙂
I don’t recall which streets, if any, in Tierrasanta, Scripps, Del Cerro or Poway have tree easements. Anyone?
If you absolutely have to have a sidewalk, you need to focus on incorporated areas. In SD County, the presence of sidewalks is “spotty,” at best, in the uninc areas.
I don’t think you can get all your “wants” in SD in one pkg, either, unless you buy a heavy and/or “structural” fixer.
A ~100-ft wide lot (you didn’t state this in your OP) is very doable in almost every uninc area in the county but they will likely be lacking sidewalks.
They are also “doable but rare” in some of the areas I mentioned to you (92101, 92102, 92103, 92104, 92106) BUT they will very likely NOT be in your price range UNLESS you are are able to wrestle a heavy fixer away from a cash buyer with deep pockets.
All but two of the areas I mentioned also have ~140 ft deep lots up to ~70 ft wide with alley access. This somewhat negates the need for a wider lot.
If you want to eliminate “tree-easements” as a “must-have,” I would be able to direct you further. With this “requirement” in place, you are looking at predominately 60-85 yo neighborhoods.
Participant[quote=SD Realtor]The view part makes it hard but not impossible. Otherwise there are many areas that fit the bill. Another option is to pick up a more rundown home on a view lot and remodel.[/quote]
I agree to look for a fixer. I was focusing on the “character” aspects of his “wish list” and overlooked the “view” criteria. This makes it even harder.
Participant[quote=AN]There must be more around SD than just that one development in UC. There’s no way I’m moving out of SD :-D, so Denver is out of the question.[/quote]
AN, have you considered Claremont, Pasadena or Pomona, CA? They’re only 110 miles or so from your family.
edit: Add to this list Lakewood, at the other end of town.
Participant[quote=sdduuuude]I think you are looking for Denver.[/quote]
I think he is, too 🙂
ParticipantAN, correct me if I’m wrong but I’m seeing from your post that you are primarily looking for neighborhood character (including city tree easement), setback and lot size in your next residence.
Plumosa Park (92106, bordering 92110) would fill the bill, but in order to get a ~2500 sf property for <=$800K, you are going to have to get lucky and find a property would likely need substantial work AND be able to act on it when you find it. Parts of Mission Hills (92103) and Banker's Hill (92101) have properties with your desired features as well and also one story (likely elevated above street level) homes in the size you seek. The challenge is your $800K ceiling. Part of Kensington (92116) also has a "few" ~2500 sf one story homes on streets which meet your criteria. However, price is an issue again. Morley Field (92104) meets your criteria and also has large, elevated covered porches. I would highly recommend this area for you, due to convenience factor, larger than avg lots and more character (for the $$). Again, very desirable and hard to find what you are looking for there in your price range. Parts of South Park (92104) are similar to Morley Field without the use of natural river rock. It has some curved streets and a bit smaller lots on average than Morley Field. It's harder to find a ~2500 sf one-story there.
Excellent private schools abound in 92104/92116.
Western Chula Vista (91910) also meets your criteria but the average house is not ~$800K there. On several streets, $800K++ houses are mixed in with $400-$800K houses and there may even be 1-6 <$300K rental houses on the same street. HOWEVER, you may find your "dream lot" there with a shop (or room to build one) to indulge yourself in vehicles 🙂 Parts of Lemon Grove (91945) and La Mesa (91941) also meet your needs, with Lemon Grove having larger lots for the money. The ~$800K properties would only exist in LM, however.
Participantscaredy, of course it depends on what has sold around you for the last six months. Perhaps comparable sold comps have either been selling for a higher price in the last six months, or, if you’re in a “custom area” (wine country?), more expensive properties have recently sold than what sold six months ago.
Compare your three recent sold comps on this recent appraisal to the three sold comps on the appraisal that was done six months ago and you will have your answer :=]
Participant[quote=spdrun]Construction finished on the first master planned community in what, ’89? Three years doesn’t seem to be enough time to effect a total change in buying habits for something as illiquid and conservative as real estate. I’m assuming that there were still some people, especially of good blue-collar upbringing, who bought one of the smaller houses in the early 90s in their early 20s.
The “900-1400 sf = bad” thing is funny to me. I currently own a home and a rental. Total square footage, added together, is about 900 🙂 My sister’s first place is a bit bigger, at about 1200 sf.
We both bought what we could afford in our late 20s.
Lastly, I’d be interested to know what demographic things like 2/2 condos in the mid to high $100k range are going to. First time buyers, mainly landlords, or older empty-nesters?[/quote]
spdrun, the “sea change” in SD Co’s FTB’s “home-preference” values occurred gradually over about 15 years, beginning in ~’87. I distinctly remember when the first MP community in SD Co was under construction in Chula Vista (Eastlake Shores). At the time, I had a dozen or so “youngish” co-workers who put in “reservations” for floor plans based only on tabletop models and floorplan drawings from the sales offices and even before the grand opening! Several of them were renting larger, more conveniently-located houses with larger yards at the time but wanted “new construction” and like the “idea” of a planned community around a (man-made) “lake.” There were no schools for miles around the MPC back then and any new families’ children were bussed out until the schools were built (with the elementary being first).
There WAS an abundance of “middle class” blue collar families in SD until about ’94. At that time, the county lost many thousands of decent, blue collar jobs when General Dynamics moved out. All its subsidiaries moved out shortly after, along with Rohr Industries in Chula Vista and a few other, smaller mfrs.
The 2/2 condos you speak for the mid-high $100K’s in SD Co are likely going to (LL) investors for all cash. Or out-of-county parents of a local college students for all cash. That is, what few there are available. I don’t think these types of properties, if priced right, spend too long on the market.
From your post, it seems to me that FTB homebuying values and preferences are different in NY than socal and possibly different in other large east coast cities, as well. Perhaps, in the absence of bonds issued to pay off the infrastructure of large new developments and, I suspect, the dearth of land to build them on, as a FTB you have to buy what is available that you can afford. Also, San Diego County alone is 68 x 72 miles and cities on the east coast are much older (long-established multi-county metropolitan centers) as opposed to SD and its surrounds.
Participant[quote=spdrun]47 years old. Born 1965. Graduated college in 1986 at age 21. Bought first home in 1992 at age 27. Unheard of? Seems quite normal to me for the time period.[/quote]
That “age milestone” of 27 (and even younger) USED to be the avg age of a FT buyer (FTB) in socal back in the ’80’s and prior.
But not so anymore. There are exceptions (very young professionals and those with local family help) but the avg age of a FT buyer is about 33-40 now.
The reason for this is not entirely due to price. Yes, the prices are higher today but the bulk of local residential RE which is thickly-traded today among buyers with minor children was built from ’89 forward and these dwellings are larger in square feet.
Generations past (boomers and prior) had no qualms about buying a 900-1400 sf SFR for their first home at the age of ~23 because this is what was available and what they could afford. Many (most?) of these FTBs did not possess college degrees but had stable local jobs. Only a very small percentage of current FTB’s would even consider a SFR of this size today, IMO.
[begin rant]The first CFD pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act (1982) was formed circa 1987 in SD County. These bonds allowed developers to subdivide and build entire “master-planned communities” on huge undeveloped swaths of (outlying) land (nka “lizardland”). The first MR-encumbered “master-planned communities” built between 1987 and 1991 had the effect of creating a “sea-change” in values of FTB families seeking a principal residence. Even though HOA fees/MR made these homes far more costly in the long run, FTB families saw the “size” and “newness” of the homes in these developments and disregarded their smaller lots and greater distance to job centers when making buying decisions. Because of the greater initial cost (due to increased building costs, size and age) and addt’l carrying cost of these properties, the FTB’s buying them tend to be 10-15 years older than FTB’s of yesteryear.[end rant]
Participant[quote=CA renter]My vote is for the JC route. Maybe my experience is different from that of other posters, but my whole family went the JC route. My dad got an MBA from a state college, mom graduated with honors from UCLA, and I got a teaching credential (two years post-grad) from a state college. I also have many, many friends and former co-workers who did the same thing. Nowhere on any of these degrees does it state that we did the first ~2 years at JCs. All of these people were successful, even though many didn’t pursue careers that matched their degrees.
I’ve asked high school counselors about this very topic, just to make sure I wasn’t missing anything, and they told stories about the ultra-competitive 4-year college/university application process and the stressed-out parents who are desperate to (unnecessarily) pay tens of thousands of dollars extra just so that little Johnny and Susie can enjoy “the dorm experience.” Not worth it, in most of their opinions.
Like a couple other posters have mentioned, if your child is going to apply to graduate schools or programs where it actually matters where they finished their first two years (very rare), and where there is a very high likelihood that they will be able to easily pay of any student loans in a short period of time, then go ahead and send them directly to a 4-year university.
All that being said, I do think it’s important to go to specific universities for some graduate/professional programs, and this is where the money should be spent…after they already have their 4-year degree from a local JC->UC/CSU. Just my 2 cents.
Best of luck to you![/quote]
I agree that the most money SHOULD be spent on graduate school, IF the student plans on going there and IF money is an issue for the family.
I am concerned, however, as to how easy it will be in the coming years for a FT CC student to obtain all their needed GE’s in two years time at the (urban) CA CC’s. I feel that it’s entirely possible that a FT CC student in SD may end up having to attend Mesa, Miramar and even City College concurrently or go back and forth between them trading semesters in order to get all the credits they need to transfer, due to budget cuts affecting class offerings.
Practically speaking, I’m not sure its worth all the hassle. Your kid could get so frustrated driving all over town and/or driving to campus twice as many times per week (due to not being able to get classes together) that they just end up quitting. Also, it’s hard to hold down a PT job, when you have a class at 8:30 am, another at 1:30 pm and another at 7:30 pm (poss at different campuses) all in the same day.
Participant[quote=spdrun]Married. Two people working. One kid. Bought house in early 90ies. I could easily see saving $10-15k per year, plus having positive equity in the home. I’m guessing that not all people in SD County got burnt by the housing correction, right?
Office space isn’t expensive if you do it right. What a lot of small lawyers do here is quietly sublet space from a bigger firm with extra floor space. Worker’s comp isn’t needed if you’re self-employed or a single-person LLP in most states.[/quote]
They do that here, too, and pay a fee to the larger firm for the use of their receptionist and other support staff, if needed.
A 45 year old would have been only 22-24 years old in the “early nineties.” If they’re just now entering law school, they would have had to have a college degree to be admitted. What were they doing in ’92, spdrun, going to college FT or buying RE??
For the avg non-trust-fund recipient, it is virtually unheard of to do both … simultaneously.
-
AuthorPosts
