Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
bearishgurl
Participant[quote=outtamojo]That area is crazy – maybe new construction will be less of a hassle. They are building like crazy in Dublin, which as you already know, has a BART station. 2 of my brothers bought there – and yes, the tech demographic is out there in full force in case you are wondering about schools.[/quote]
LOL, the “Tri-Valley” area is where I’m from. At the time we moved away, there was a population of 16K in Dublin, Pleasanton and San Ramon combined!
Now it is a suburban megalopolis, rife with tracts encumbered with HOA and MR!
This “tech demographic” you speak of – are they working in SV? If so, and they are riding the BART, are they then transferring to SAMTRANS and/or CalTrain every day back and forth? How long does this take them one way?
I would surmise that Dublin to Cupertino one way by car (for an 8:30 a.m. arrival time) would currently take 65-75 minutes (barring any accidents and using the Dumbarton Bridge).
You pay for what you get in this life, PLUS the added costs of HOA/MR (if you choose to commute from newer construction). Public schools are just as good or better in SV as they are in Dublin/San Ramon area.
At the time we lived there, my dad worked in Oakland and my mom worked locally. And as you may know, the majority of Oakland was a burnt out mess of racial tension in the early/mid sixties with frequent riots and law enforcement’s liberal use of teargas almost every day.
It is night and day from that now.
We could not afford anywhere in Contra Costa Co except Concord, which was a low-income sh!thole at the time (MUCH better now, btw).
The 2-4 lane hwys weren’t nearly as crowded then as they are now and there were no interstate spurs in place.
I would NOT advise buying in eastern Alameda County today if one or both buyers works in SV.
FWIW, the last time I stopped off in Dublin was October 2011 and the last time I stayed in SV was in May 2011.
Participant[quote=bobby]Should we (from here on direction of price is speculation – not fact like above)
1. jump in now before the IPO money flood the area and drives up price to even crazier level.
2. wait till fall season to buy (by then will have saved up a little more) and maybe the craziness will subside (big if)
3. wait till next year and hope that for some crazy reason, price will go down more (big if) but could also go up. Wise man said, don’t time market.
thanks in advance.[/quote]bobby, I think “wise man” was right. I am usually more bearish when it comes to RE but in your case, I would say to buy what you can afford and will accept as soon as you possibly can.
Stay realistically sober and do NOT, under any circumstances, get caught up in size and age of home. Lot and location of that lot are key here. Hire a structural engineer during escrow, if necessary, to inspect a property if you have any concerns about structural defects and no recent engineering report is offered to you by the seller.
For maximum future appreciation, if at all possible, buy a single-family home on a 6500+ sf lot (to make it easier to expand it later, if necessary).
Don’t worry too much about school attendance areas (if you’re planning on a future family). In SC County, there are elementary schools, in particular, which have lottery admission or open enrollment offered to a wide area. In SV, public schools generally have a higher API than their east-bay, SJ, or SoCal counterparts.
Good luck! Here is a good informational link I posted for another Pigg last week:
ParticipantWhat is your price range? This will dictate whether you will be able to buy an SFR in Santa Clara County in the abovementioned areas or Milpitas/Campbell/SJ.
Obviously, SFR’s in some areas in both San Mateo County (as flu mentioned) and SC County will likely be out of your reach. Have you considered looking at major fixers (even structural) in out-of-way places such as Pacifica or Half Moon Bay area (not fwy close)?
What is your level of home-improvement expertise?
I personally don’t think prices will “crash” in SV as there will never be any more land and the vast open space on the peninsula will never be developed (yes, I said, “never”). There are a few (VERY few) distressed properties still on the market but would imagine they are snapped up quickly after being listed.
I also noticed SFR’s in one of my choice retirement areas, Saratoga, has nearly DOUBLED in price in the last two years, condition be damned. Obviously, being one of the last downzoned bastions of mid-century ranches on large lots, buyers have recently realized this. Campbell is my second choice but is currently soaring in value.
Except for some parts of SJ and below, the condo/townhome market appears to me to be infinitely easier to get into for the borrower who doesn’t have $300K+ to put down.
As a soon-to-be-“retiree,” I’m probably priced out of SV forever as a single buyer for what I want so have now begun to study the “Lamorinda” area (CC Co) and Montclair/Piedmont (Oakland). But I won’t have a SV job to commute to, like you do :=}
I regret not being able to buy a property in SM/SC Counties in the last 1-2 years and lease it until I am ready to occupy it.
Participant[quote=briansd1]$140/sf for new construction in Chula Vista.
I don’t know much about Chula Vista.
Maybe a good investment?http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-110034007-2250_Treewind_Ln_Chula_Vista_CA_91915
brian, are you following fannie around from place to place to see its new acquisitions?
I would be leary of believing $150 in HOA dues for a complex with a big pool.
If you can check what the *true* HOA dues are and successfully get *correct* answers on that w/o making an offer and also determine the *true* amt of fixed MR assessments from the tax bill, then do the math and if you will be in (generous) positive territory monthly and can financially handle any vacancies, then go for it!
This complex appears to be in the “Windingwalk” area. I’m unsure how large this complex is but are you aware that this area is extremely congested (as well as far flung)?
There are currently a hoarde of vacancies throughout 91914 and 91915 – both in multi-family and single family units.
brian, I thought you stated you had an accepted offer on a SS you had been waiting to get news on….
March 22, 2012 at 1:30 PM in reply to: Mira Mesa – 7510 Bannister Ln – 10%+ loss in less than one year #740371Participant[quote=briansd1]Here’s a Mira Mesa REO that will be listed soon, for you guys who are interested in the neighborhood.
Looks like the previous owner bought in 1984 for $58,000 and succumbed to the equity extraction craze.[/quote]
This is a dirty shame, brian. It could have been paid off by now.
I’ve known two other individuals who bought cheaply in the eighties and subsequently “lived off their equity” that is, until the (borrowing) party was over.
Both single moms, now late 50’s living with roommates in crowded houses. Both now have grown kids but lost their homes to FNMA, just like in this instance.
I find this absolute folly because neither will ever be able to recover from their (former) stupidity. Neither of their original PITI’s was higher than rent at the time … even at an 8.5%+ interest rate!
Participant[quote=briansd1]…Cars are better built today that they used to be.
Despite the reminiscing and romanticizing of the past, inflation adjusted dollar for dollar, everything is built better today….[/quote]
Not always, brian. Here are some “reviews” and specs for the 1st Gen luxury sedan.
Lexus LS 400 Included in Edmunds 100 Greatest Cars of All Time
http://www.lexls.com/info/ls400.html
You can purchase one of these today (in wildly varying condition) for $1200 to about $9000!
Participant[quote=paramount] . . . There are a few exceptions of course:
1980 Turbo Trans Am Indy 500 Edition (really any Indy Pace Car)
Early 1970’s Chevelle SS 496
Boss Mustangs (Any year)
Shelby Mustangs (any year)[/quote]I’m very familiar with the Chevelle SS and Shelby-body Mustang and agree both are very well-built and had a massive firewall/engine/hood to save the driver in a front-end collision.
Fun cars to drive, also 🙂
No shoulder straps or airbags, though. These cars do NOT save a driver in a collision from crushing their clavicle against the steering wheel or hitting their kneecap through the keys hanging from the ignition (if wearing shorts).
OTOH, I’ve seen photos from PI cases of people who were blinded (in one eye or both) by airbag deployment in newer cars, even in a low-speed collision – usually under 100 lbs sitting in front seat. I’ve never had an airbag deploy on me so don’t know what it feels like.
Participant[quote=flu][quote=bearishgurl]I think it’s preferable (AND safer) to drive an older (loaded) high-mileage luxury car to one which is newer and cheaply made.
But that’s just me …[/quote]
IIHS crash test data and european crash test data would suggest otherwise…Older cars are not safer than newer cars. Newer cars have been engineered to adhere to the newer and latest safety standards….
A car 10 years or older from today probably does not have all the standard safety equipment that is available now
Modern, new cars, from all manufacturers are now manufactured to these latest crash standards and tests, from all different makes and models. Yes, even the latest Hyundais score high in safety, probably more so than any other car from 10 years back.Understand this, flu, but I was posting from the affordability standpoint … for myself ($4-12K). I realize the older models only have 2 front airbags, etc. However, the older Lexuses, for instance have VERY heavy multi-layered doors with steel bars across the insides (don’t let one fall back on your leg). The older luxury sedan is built like a tank and gets 29 mpg on the open road (if properly maintained). ALL the Lexus sedan models have been shortened (less trunk space) and slightly stripped down since model-year ’99 (to compete with Acura and other Japanese luxury models). I often need to travel with a dog and/or cats and a lot of stuff.
I couldn’t afford a newer comparable vehicle that is built the way I have “become accustomed to” and could care less about navigation, dvd players, ipod hookups and such. I just use paper maps (if needed) but usually I am traveling somewhere I have been to many times.
Having the finest engines in the world, the average odometer miles on these vehicles before finally being salvaged varies between 350-500K (depending on how well it has been maintained). At 200K+, they are still “teenagers.”
If you don’t believe this, ask any experienced Toyota certified mechanic.
Even though major repairs can be expensive, it is cheaper overall to buy a used private-party vehicle (well-maintained, with svc records), fix as needed and pay FAR less registration and insurance premium on it every year :=]
Having monthly payments and a high cost of registration and insurance would NOT work out for my budget.
edit: both the front and rear-wheel drive sedans handle VERY well in the snow … with tire cables on. I’ve driven a LOT of different vehicles in the snow in my lifetime and the sheer weight of these vehicles (along with their double-wishbone suspension) helps tremendously on snow and ice.
ParticipantI think it’s preferable (AND safer) to drive an older (loaded) high-mileage luxury car to one which is newer and cheaply made.
But that’s just me …
Participant[quote=sdrealtor]And collecting for 19 years instead of 12 years is increase of close to 60%.[/quote]
This is all the more reason why next time you decide to get your a$$ kicked again playing “golf” with your “well-heeled-gov’t-retiree-friend,” tell him it’s HIS turn to pick up the green fees.
Why should YOU always treat? After all, you’re just a poor-slob “Realtor” who doesn’t have a cushy defined benefit plan, right??
Participant[quote=flu]Here we go again….[/quote]
Funny, I was just saying this same thing to Piggs in pm. Same tired old subject. Same ignoramus comments stemming from trash-talk put out by “MSM pundits” located in NYC!
Go figure ….
The Piggs need a CA “civics lesson” here…..
Participant[quote=bobby]Bearishgirl,
one counter point to your argument is that almost everyone is employable at the right wage. maybe those 55-65 y/o don’t want to accept a wage appropriate to their skill level?
If I can hire a 30 y/o with similar skill level for 30% less salary and benefits, I, as a employer with a bottom line, would be foolish to hire someone who ask for much higher salary, whatever their age may be.[/quote]Bobby, the reality is that a 30 yo doesn’t have a similar skill level as a 55+ yo who has been working in the same industry for decades. Nowhere near it. And they don’t have the “institutional knowledge” to thrive in the industry and not make (often costly and far-reaching) mistakes. They can’t possibly … the difference in experience amounts to 25-35 years and you can’t take that away from the 55 yo.
Vast experience aside, employers won’t even hire 55+ yo’s for today’s “entry level” wages. ESP small biz employers (with <=50 employees). Why? It is primarily due to the cost of health benefits ... everything being equal. Health benefits for this group are 2.5 - 4 times the cost of their 30 yo worker-bee counterparts. And with very small biz (12 or less "employees"), employees sometimes have to medically "qualify" for a health plan, just as in individual coverage. This is true for 70%+ of law firms, for example. Instead, they use the currently unemployed and underemployed "over 55 group" to work as part-part-timers and "consultants" (who receive Form 1099 instead of a W-2 form for the tax year). The over-55 "consultant" or "contract worker" needs 3-4 regular gigs to "eek out a living" from their home offices.
March 20, 2012 at 11:33 AM in reply to: OT: Untouchable Pensions May Be Tested in California #740271Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=pri_dk]”Retirement Heist” is a very appropriate title.
Healthy 55 year-olds taking money from schools and the poor so that they can play golf every day is downright criminal.[/quote]
I agree. That’s where the problem lies.
It’s not like those 55yo can’t work and be productive. In the mean time, services to schools and the poor are being cut to that retirement payments can be made.[/quote]
Uh, pri_dk, the 55-65 yo set I’m acquainted with (my contemporaries) DON’T play golf every day (or even play golf). The vast majority are still working FT, even if “consulting” on a PT basis.
brian, I AGREE that a 55+ yo is capable of working. Feel free to TELL THIS TO THE EMPLOYERS that won’t hire them under any circumstances!
Actually, this “boomer set” you speak of here was downsized, riffed, “laid off” and took “mandatory early retirement” in the last 15 years, very often NOT OF THEIR OWN CHOICE. To the detriment of their employers, they walked out the door with their intellectual property between their ears.
And rightly so. You can’t have it both ways.
The vast majority of these “over 55’s” would like to work FT today but can’t get hired. Level of education and experience makes no difference.
Take SD Superior Court, for example. The vast majority of the relative *newbies* working the public filing counters are ignorant of CA Rules of Court and CA Code of Civil Procedure and there is often no supervisor immediately available, especially in branch courts. When they are confronted with a document they are unfamiliar with, that isn’t on one of their “forms,” (usually a “litigation” doc) they refuse to file it and the (expensive) attorney, attorney svc or paralegal has to wait around for a “supervisor” or “mgr” to return from lunch, mtg or break to “examine” the document. These documents are very time sensitive and the service in there is often poor. In addition, they are only open now from 8:30 to 3:30 pm, a full TWO HOURS LESS per day than when they were staffed by the “boomer set” that is now “retired!” And between 12:00 and 2:00, 5-6 windows are reduced to 2 windows, to allow for lunch breaks.
I would advise EVERYONE to keep their skirmishes out of court if at all possible as the “system” isn’t anywhere near as efficient as it used to be.
**************
pri_dk, the REAL REASON the money is not there to fund school extras such as lay-teachers and FT counselors and programs for the poor, such as TANF, Section 8 and the EBT program are grossly impacted is primarily because of unfunded mandates.
In other words, states, school districts and counties are “mandated” by Federal law to provide certain services to subsets of residents yet have never been funded sufficiently by the Federal govm’t to do so! CA bears the brunt of this problem due to it being a border state. Believe me when I tell you that the AG’s office and county counsels around the state have whole divisions dedicated to this issue and are in litigation EVERY DAY, ALL DAY with each other and the Federal govm’t to receive CA’s (and counties’) fair share of funds to operate these “mandated” programs.
This problem has been going on since the dawn of time but has been exacerbated in recent decades due in part to the 1986 Amnesty Act as well as different CA cities being chosen by the Federal govm’t for resettling large numbers of war-torn and/or third-world foreign nationals.
As far as frills such as “Seminar” and “GATE” being dropped from elementary school curriculum around the state due to lack of funds, these programs are “elective fluff” and thus, the first to go in the absence of sufficient grant funding. The CA Education code requires ONLY that public schools teach appropriate progression leading to A – G public university entrance requirements and FAPE, that is … Free and Appropriate Education for all school-age students with professionally diagnosed mental or physical disabilities.
Period.
Band, vocal music and fine arts are nice to have, but school districts are not required to offer them if there is no money to operate the programs.
For instance, trigonometry was even dropped from the SUHSD curriculum in recent years (but can still be taken eves/summers for free at SW College for HS credit).
If CA parents feel their child is “gifted” and can’t find an appropriate public school curriculum or class to “challenge” them enough, they are free to enroll them in private school or private tutoring.
None of these shortfalls has anything to do with “pensions” already promised decades ago.
ParticipantThis is an uphill battle for CA jurisdictions. They would do better to focus on their (unfunded) retiree healthcare (which had never been contracted for in the first place). This undoubtedly would leave many public retirees under the age of 65 paying their entire premiums out of their pensions at COBRA rates.
Some of these retirees (under 50%, IMHO) will medically qualify for an HDHP on the open market at half the monthly premium that their pension plan would charge them (if their retiree health benefits are taken away). The vast majority of public retirees, of course, are “used to” more “comprehensive coverage” but an HDHP offers far more freedom and is preferable for all parties in this instance, IMO, in order to reduce jurisdictions’ retirement funding obligations.
I just don’t see BK courts as having the ability to gut the corpus of the pensions of those public employees already retired to soon to be retired.
CA jurisdictions MAY be able to, HAVE been able to and WILL be able to, however, increase vesting times and change the calculations by which a pension is calculated for those existing employees with less than approx 10-12 years of service, as well as new hires.
-
AuthorPosts
