Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 2, 2012 at 1:50 PM in reply to: Mira Mesa – 7510 Bannister Ln – 10%+ loss in less than one year #739166March 2, 2012 at 12:51 PM in reply to: Mira Mesa – 7510 Bannister Ln – 10%+ loss in less than one year #739163
bearishgurl
Participant[quote=flu]Ok… enough is enough…I need to get out and take care of real real estate now… [/quote]
Good Luck, flu (I MEAN that)! Hope you can find a “decent” 1/1 which cash-flows every day, all day and will promptly be able to insert a “W-2” tenant in it (who, of course, works at a company that meets with your approval).
And don’t forget, caveat emptor as it applies to HOAs and condo construction!
Sayonara ;=]
March 2, 2012 at 12:41 PM in reply to: Mira Mesa – 7510 Bannister Ln – 10%+ loss in less than one year #739161Participant[quote=flu]…How did this thread devolve into a discussion about race is beyond me…[/quote]
If you go back in the thread, flu, you will see that I took brian’s “bait,” where he tried to claim that the prevailing “image” of Chula Vista (among those county dwellers not familiar with the area) was that of “upper TJ” or “lower class Hispanics” or something of that nature. This is not the first or even second time that I’ve read this nonsense here.
I was simply stating that “lower class Hispanics” (and all other “races” (ethnicities) live EVERYWHERE in the county. No part of SD county is devoid of low-income families. Not even within the covenant.
Chula Vista does not deserve that “image” as a large proportion of its population is upper-middle class and even wealthy. This includes other south county areas as well, incl Imperial Beach, Bonita, Otay Mesa (Ocean View Hills) and even National City!
And are you aware that Coronado technically lies in “South County?”
The only difference between the many thousands professional workers who live in south county and those who live in utc, uc, cv, lj, mm, and north county, etc is that they are willing to commute further to tech/biotech jobs or their daily commute isn’t very far, if at all.
note: For illustrative purposes here, lower case initials (above) are not derogatory. They denote “communities of the City of SD.” By no means are they “jurisdictions” in their own right or have governments “exclusive” of the City of SD. Except for their individual geographic, topographic and architectural nuances, they are one and the same.
March 2, 2012 at 12:12 PM in reply to: Mira Mesa – 7510 Bannister Ln – 10%+ loss in less than one year #739156Participant[quote=AN][quote=bearishgurl]
Emily, sorry for hijacking this thread of your discussion of the (MM) Bannister Ln property across the street from a condo-complex pkg lot and a stone’s throw from MM Blvd which recently sold for $405K … aaargh![/quote]
You mean apartment complex parking lot, right?[/quote]Yes, thanks for clarifying, AN. Apartment complexes are usually more transient than condo complexes so the $405K sold comp there seems even more overvalued, IMHO.
Seriously, AN, if you really want to “move-up” and have done updating/rehab work to your property and Bannister Ln (in this seemingly “busy” location) just sold for $405K, why not put your property up for sale this spring? According to the LETDLITA would-be MM investors around here, MM is hot, hot, HOT!! Get your listing in there while the heat is on!!!
Do you think you make enough upon sale of your residence to move to Sorrento Mesa if you sold in the next few months?
March 2, 2012 at 11:22 AM in reply to: Mira Mesa – 7510 Bannister Ln – 10%+ loss in less than one year #739154Participant[quote=svelte]Now that BG and I have appeared to make our peace, I respectfully bow out of this thread.
Emily, please forgive us and resume your thoughts on MM (Mira Mesa, not to be confused with Mickey Mouse).[/quote]
Emily, sorry for hijacking this thread of your discussion of the (MM) Bannister Ln property across the street from a condo-complex pkg lot and a stone’s throw from MM Blvd which recently sold for $405K … aaargh! I wasn’t intending to be a “cheerleader” for south county as there is already too much traffic on these roads down here and we really don’t need any more :={
It was in effort to dispel some of the rampant ignorance about Chula Vista and surrounds that seems pervasive on this board. Please accept my apologies.
Carry on …
March 2, 2012 at 11:21 AM in reply to: Mira Mesa – 7510 Bannister Ln – 10%+ loss in less than one year #739151Participant[quote=flu]BG, I don’t think people really care, except maybe you. You can call anything what you want.[/quote]
Actually, flu, I’m comfortable with the name, Chula Vista. Nothing wrong with it at all.
Piggs were probably using CV (all caps) in the past to discuss not-a-real-place “Carmel Valley” ad nauseum because that area seems to be what 60%+ of them are most interested in. Another 20% are interested in (2nd choice) “Anywhere PUSD” (aka “Phoenix”) but the vast majority of them ONLY because they are unable to buy in Carmel Valley. A close third seems to be fixated on “Nirvana” but that doesn’t seem to be very doable for the majority of Piggs. At least not for a home that would meet their “standards.”
It seems the REAL CV never really came on the radar (as a housing preference here) primarily due to its location (not close to major tech/biotech firms). It really has nothing to do with “Hispanics” (there are actually many thousands of “Hispanics” in North County).
I’m sure you’re all aware that “Hispanic” is not a race. “Hispanics” could be members of any of the three races, Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid. The definition of “Hispanic” in this country (and county) is very, very ambiguous, at best. Most “Hispanic” individuals living in the US are actually “White,” or belonging to the “Caucasian” race.
As of 2010, 50.5 million or 16.3% of Americans were ethnically Hispanic or Latino. Of those, 26.7 million or 53% were White.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans
If you’ve ever been to some interior portions or the east coast of Mexico, you know exactly what I mean.
March 2, 2012 at 10:01 AM in reply to: Mira Mesa – 7510 Bannister Ln – 10%+ loss in less than one year #739141Participant[quote=briansd1]After thinking a little, I think that Chula sounds too much like Cholo.
So they could keep Vista and go with names like: Vista Sur, Bella Vista, Mar Vista, Vista Mar, Vista Del Mar, Vista Las Palmas, Vista Oceana, etc.[/quote]
brian, why don’t you contact the CV (all caps) Chamber of Commerce to see if you can get a “consultant” gig to work on a new name and image for CV (all caps)?
side note: cv (lowercase) means Carmel Valley. Carmel Valley is not a City or jurisdiction of any kind. It is the name of a community within the City of San Diego, formerly “Del Mar Heights,” and before that, “North City West.” Before that and up to a few years ago, it was home to thousands of “farmworkers” and even “cholos” (who brought in their own prostitutes) except for they had no actual address … or utilities, for that matter. For those three decades or so, patrolling cv was a logistical nightmare for SDPD!
March 2, 2012 at 9:36 AM in reply to: Mira Mesa – 7510 Bannister Ln – 10%+ loss in less than one year #739133Participant[quote=svelte] . . . I don’t happen to agree with that impression of CV, but it doesn’t change the FACT that people think CV is full of lower class hispanics. I think it has to do with 5 and the trolley running through the older part of down, where the housing is more run down and there are indeed a lower class of people, including many hispanics.
If 5 and the trolley ran through the east part of town, I think the impression would be a little different.
Not to mention that CV is sandwiched between San Ysidro and National City, both areas with significantly lower incomes and all the effects that follow that.
Again, not racist. He is just letting you know what the impression is. And again, I think it is unfair that CV gets lumped in with San Ysidro and National City. But it does and I can’t change that.[/quote]
Eventually, the trolley will run through the Otay Ranch Palomar St corridor (southeastern side). There is an easement in the middle of the street for its future use. Not sure, but IIRC, the trolley will turn off to Otay Ranch Mall as well.
svelte, have you been to NC in the last three years? Like San Marcos, it’s Mayor and Council have done a bang-up job with it and it is in the black. It has the highest sales tax in the county with busy (and fully remodeled) Plaza Bonita Mall within its confines. I challenge you to find a pkg space on the wknds there. The “Mile-of-Cars Way” (formerly NC Blvd), has been repaved, is landscaped beautifully and has race flags throughout the mile. The four redevelopment corners of 8th and MOCW have all been developed – two in mid-century architecture with an enclosed walking archway over 8th Ave. Their police stn is fairly new and City Hall and the park around have all been redone. But the showpiece of this entire small city is the new Sweetwater (Union) HS at a cost of more than $60M, now an unbelievable state-of-the-art “mid century” icon! It was the oldest school in SUHSD and has graduated many local and state leaders over the years.
http://suh.sweetwaterschools.org/default.aspx
I understand what NC used to be. I drove thru it twice a day for many years since ’86 and did several weekly errands there. But if you’ve been asleep at the switch lately, why not go down and have a look at it now? You won’t believe your eyes!
Were you living in south county when the HUGE new Kaiser Permanente clinic was built off Palm Ave in 92154? Are you aware that the adjacent (8-10 yo) development of Ocean View Hills has mostly four, five and six bedroom homes with large lots, views, VERY LOW HOA dues and LOW MR?
Re: your former close-in neighbor, SY, it too, has changed. I don’t know how long ago you moved away, but SY now has a new MS, a new HS, a new adult school and a BRAND NEW YMCA! Have you been to the factory outlets down there? They attract visitors from all over the world.
Just like San Marcos, NC, CV and SY have changed for the better, especially in the last decade+.
March 2, 2012 at 9:01 AM in reply to: Mira Mesa – 7510 Bannister Ln – 10%+ loss in less than one year #739126Participant[quote=svelte][quote=bearishgurl]
Let me ask you, svelte … would YOU live on one of those streets overlooking the covered-over landfill which was used for 14+ years? How about about one or two streets away??
[/quote]Actually, I did just that.
**when I lived in chula vista!!!!**
yes, I lived just a couple of blocks from the old dump there! And it didn’t bother me at all. Not in the least. Nor did it bother the person who bought when we sold.
And if property values are hurt by a former dump in San Marcos, don’t you think they are hurt equally bad by an old dump in CV?
Not to mention the auto parts yards and the prison on the southern edge of Chula Vista. Which I wasn’t going to mention except for your insistence at trying to beat SM up for having a former landfill on the southern edge of town….[/quote]
That explains everything, svelte. You’re a former 91911-bordering-on-Otay-Mesa-dweller . . . one of THE most LOW INCOME parts of Chula Vista AND 91911! I could probably guess the condo complex, too, lol ….
In case you were unaware, those “wrecking yards” and “prison” you speak of are in Otay Mesa (92154), NOT Chula Vista. It is an annexation of the City of SD. But alas, since you lived on the “edge” (literally and figuratively speaking :=D) of Chula Vista, they were probably your neighbors, lol! And if was the Otay Landfill you are referring to, as far as I am aware, it is still open! Congrats for selecting the best South County ‘hood and complex for yourself, svelte! No wonder you have a particular “image” of Chula Vista! Did you walk your dog(s) in the river bottom, too? Considering where you were living, I understand everything now. You obviously don’t have much experience visiting residents in South County who actually have MONEY! That much is clear here. Those areas (many, MANY of them) are NIGHT and DAY from your old “haunt,” lol …. And no, they are not all in the “eastern edge of town.”
Sorry your experience living in Chula Vista was sub-par. You did it to yourself.
Edit: For the record, I live about 16+ miles from the “prison.” As the “crow flies” it is about 12 miles. But you can’t get there from here by vehicle without doing the 905 thing.
Good grief!!
March 1, 2012 at 10:33 PM in reply to: Mira Mesa – 7510 Bannister Ln – 10%+ loss in less than one year #739080Participant[quote=ocrenter]San Marcos is actually quite the up-and-comer city. It is well planned, the city has been extremely fiscally responsible, and the schools all have improved quite significantly over the last few years. There are already several new and attractive shopping areas. The city is finally breaking grounds on a long planned downtown area after clearing out a huge previously low income Latino area. of course the gradually growing CSUSM and the growing Kaiser hub there all will make it the center of north county….[/quote]
I agree, ocrenter. SMHS beat school(s) in “Nirvana” on their CAHSEEs, IIRC. And CSUSM and the “Kaiser hub” were not there in ’99.
I’ve seen photos of the SEH “village” and it reminds me of the village at Otay Ranch (slightly different architecture but same concept) along E. Palomar St. in Chula Vista.
Not sure about investment potential but if the County can unload that landfill site on a “green” enterprise who will have the technology to mitigate the radon exposure, I think the stigma (and hazards) could potentially disappear. Time will tell.
March 1, 2012 at 10:14 PM in reply to: Mira Mesa – 7510 Bannister Ln – 10%+ loss in less than one year #739075Participant[quote=sdrealtor]svelte
An absolute classic. I havent read one of BG’s posts in months but the quoted passage from one fo them is just astounding. Commenting on a community visited 13 years ago to buy a used car from Autotrader and claiming some level of knowledge about that place. Who does that? That is mental illness. Nothing more…nothing less.[/quote]Truly …. I’m flattered! I thought he was “ignoring” me.
Did he fall off the wagon???
March 1, 2012 at 10:11 PM in reply to: Mira Mesa – 7510 Bannister Ln – 10%+ loss in less than one year #739074Participant[quote=sdrealtor]Sorry but deplorable is holding oneself out as having any knowledge whatsoever about a place once visited 13 years ago to buy a used car.
BTW, you must have loved it also because that is your MO[/quote]
Shouldn’t you be getting up and starting to recycle all those empty vino bottles by now and call it a day? You don’t want to take 37+ minutes falling down the stairs again to your home office at 9:46 tomorrow morning, now do you?
http://piggington.com/how_long_is_your_commute
Oh, and don’t forget that the early bird gets the worm!
March 1, 2012 at 10:00 PM in reply to: Mira Mesa – 7510 Bannister Ln – 10%+ loss in less than one year #739073Participant[quote=svelte]BG, you have a real problem with reading comprehension and logic.
In this one thread alone…
[quote=bearishgurl]The map indicates the BY of this property backs up into MM Blvd.[/quote]No, 7510 Bannister does not back up to MM Blvd. The homes on the other side of the street do.Error 1.[/quote]
LOL, svelte, I think you need to put on your glasses and look at an aerial map …
[quote=svelte][quote=bearishgurl][quote=briansd1]
The image is that of a lower-class Hispanic community with a culture of Tijuana.[/quote]Not only is your remark about Chula Vista factually false, it is racist. [/quote]
It is factually true – that is the image of CV.[/quote]
Read what you just wrote, svelte … “That is the image…” If you don’t mind my asking, specifically which area of Chula Vista did you live in? With a population of 273K and 5 zip codes, this is a material question …
[quote=svelte]In addition, it is not a racist statement to imply that lower-class Hispanics live in CV. That’s absurd.
Errors 2 and 3.[/quote]
Good l@rd, svelte …
Okay, if you think it’s not racist, I’ll “imply” that “lower class Hispanics” as well as “lower class [multiple races]” live in SM and throughout “Nirvana” and the bulk of inland North County, lol. Just try to refute that!
Is there any zip code in this county which does not have “lower class” residents living there? 92067, maybe?? How about all those “lower class” adult children with their children (grandchildren) rooming in mom and/or dad’s back bedroom in 92067 because they’ve never really been able to get their own sh!t together?? Are they “lower class” by virtue of what they themselves accomplished or did not accomplish or do they retain their “upper” or “upper-middle” class status by virtue of their parent’s status?
Unbelievable!
[quote=svelte][quote=bearishgurl]Also, weren’t you the one who kept saying that San Marcos streets were not up to normal code ordinances, poorly maintained, etc?[/quote]I never stated that SM sts weren’t up to “code ordinances.” I stated the zoning was not there to begin with.[/quote]
Settle down, svelte. I never stated I was an expert on SM. I stated that the dtn area was obviously poorly zoned at the time, based on my observations. This was the case with several areas of the county and still is to some extent. I don’t know what kind (if any) improvements San Marcos has made to its infrastructure and zoning since then.
[quote=bearishgurl][quote=svelte]Actually, svelte, the last time I was in SM (dtn area) was ’99, when I looked at a couple of private-party vehicles from the Auto Trader. One vehicle was located on a street where houses and industrial type warehouses were mixed and some houses also backed into industrial shops/wrhses. Another was on a street which was still a partial dirt road with a dirt driveway.[/quote]This is what irks me the most. You visit a city once 13 years ago (!!!) and you think you’re the expert on the state of their street construction. You must have been looking at some pretty shitty cars, cuz they were definitely not parked on even average SM streets.[/quote]
Actually, both vehicles I went to see were garaged. I was looking at luxury cars at the time and there happened to be a ’94 *rare* “Anniversary Edition” I wanted to see up there with very low miles on it. I wanted to buy it, but it was a weekend and someone else already had the cash on them and beat me to it after I left.
[quote=bearishgurl][quote=svelte]At that time, the area where you live (SEH)…[/quote]WTF??? I *do not* live in SEH!! Error 5.[/quote]
I’m very glad to hear that, svelte. Seriously. I remember you congratulating another Pigg (evolusd?) awhile back who recently purchased in SEH. My bad. I thought you told him you would be his neighbor. Upon further research, I now see you are advising him on multiple tracts in SM.
http://piggington.com/arbor_ranch_in_san_marcos_advice_please
[quote=bearishgurl][quote=svelte](SEH) was still mostly open space adjacent to a large county landfill that was closed in part because the *new* multimillion-dollar recycling plant it was converted to ended up costing more to run than any potential revenues would generate, lol. After nearly ten years of litigation to expand it …[/quote]What in the world does a failed plan to open a recycling plant have to do with *anything* we were discussing?
Absolutely absurd![/quote]
Not absurd. You pointed out that CV was too expensive for you for what you wanted but you could afford a comparable SFR in SM instead. Hello??? The “closed landfill” is the main reason comparable homes in CV and other SD County cities and communities are more expensive than SM. Obviously, you didn’t look at the map to see several tracts abutting the closed landfill. Hey, put on your glasses and click on it to enlarge it!
Let me ask you, svelte … would YOU live on one of those streets overlooking the covered-over landfill which was used for 14+ years? How about about one or two streets away??
For the record, I have nothing against SM, per se. But given the choice, I would opt to live in a community that does not have environmental issues, i.e. potential radon exposure, tainted soil, tainted groundwater, excessive HP lines. But that’s just me.
March 1, 2012 at 8:28 AM in reply to: Mira Mesa – 7510 Bannister Ln – 10%+ loss in less than one year #739019Participant[quote=svelte]…We owned a condo in CV. When we were ready to buy a house, we looked in CV again. It was too expensive! We actually got more bang for our buck in San Marcos!
Also, weren’t you the one who kept saying that San Marcos streets were not up to normal code ordinances, poorly maintained, etc? This is nowhere close to fact, so I find it amusing that you are now up in arms over someone making statements about your neighborhood.[/quote]
Overall, it is true that SM housing is cheaper overall than Chula Vista, ESP if you were considering new construction built 2003 or after. This is likely due to the convenience factor (same as vis-a-vis CV/MM) and proximity of possible exposure to methane gas in SM (SEH).
I never stated that SM sts weren’t up to “code ordinances.” I stated the zoning was not there to begin with.
Actually, svelte, the last time I was in SM (dtn area) was ’99, when I looked at a couple of private-party vehicles from the Auto Trader. One vehicle was located on a street where houses and industrial type warehouses were mixed and some houses also backed into industrial shops/wrhses. Another was on a street which was still a partial dirt road with a dirt driveway. The dtn area of SM reminded me of areas of Spring Valley, Otay Mesa and Santee at the time. Partly due to the construction of SR-125, we all know those areas have now been upgraded and somewhat rezoned.
At that time, the area where you live (SEH) was still mostly open space adjacent to a large county landfill that was closed in part because the *new* multimillion-dollar recycling plant it was converted to ended up costing more to run than any potential revenues would generate, lol. After nearly ten years of litigation to expand it and add the (now failed) recycling plant, the County is still in the hole for at least $20M and is still today trying to successfully dump the land it sat on after doing minimal environmental mitigation work on it.
[img_assist|nid=15896|title=Map of closed SM Landfill and surrounds|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=100]
http://articles.latimes.com/1991-12-11/local/me-252_1_san-marcos
http://articles.latimes.com/1992-09-19/news/mn-456_1_san-marcos
http://greenyes.grrn.org/1997/0162.html
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1289309.html
http://www.flatironcorp.com/index.asp?w=pages&r=5&pid=27&project=19
http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/general_services/RES/Develp_Opp/RES_DO_San_Marcos.html
http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/san-marcos/article_d7aa1db1-9f1b-5498-ba82-8ed1867d62c0.html
Signed,
Ex-bureaucrat with a vivid recall of various public debacles
February 29, 2012 at 4:11 PM in reply to: Mira Mesa – 7510 Bannister Ln – 10%+ loss in less than one year #738964ParticipantI’m confused. You guys say you’re looking for “liveable” 1 br apts in MM but also looking for investments that cash flow.
Describe “liveable.”
flu, are you looking to buy 1/1 condos for cash flow or to rent a 1/1 apt for yourself to live in?
Wah-Wah, what about the 3 listings you brought up? How much monthly rent will they bring in? Are you looking for a <=$300K SFR for your primary residence? Are you both partial to MM only? If so, why??
-
AuthorPosts
