[bearishgurl]

paranoid, let me ask you, “How long would it take you to pay $58K in MR by paying it on your tax bill semi-annually when it is due?”

That amount of years/months is the “break-even” point after which you will pay more than $58K on your MR obligation.

Are you CERTAIN you will you keep the property that long?

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Cube]I’ve been pondering the idea. I can’t come up with a good model of how paying it off would translate into eventual resale value.

Given that today it is a hidden cost, I feel that paying it off will be a hidden benefit, difficult to market to future buyers. “Hey, you don’t have to pay this thing that you already weren’t considering as part of the purchase price… That makes this house more valuable by X much, so pay me more.”[/quote]

Future buyers who take mortgages out will be constrained by the appraisal at the time, which will reflect its value as if it still has the MR encumbrance. This is due to the vast majority of closed sales still having the encumbrance.

I don’t think you could get your investment of $58K back unless you reside there ten years or more. And at that time, you may obtain the same sales price if you leave the MR in place.

I don’t see a way around it that makes sense unless you are *certain* you will hang onto the property for a very long time as life can throw you many curveballs.

[bearishgurl]

The map indicates the BY of this property backs up into MM Blvd. I’ll bet the sound levels are horrific. I wouldn’t want to sit in a jacuzzi to “relax” back there.

[bearishgurl]

Here’s another “bubble scammer” who preyed on ESL adults whom he mostly met in “church.” When he knew he was going down, he voluntarily did not renew his four-year-old RE Salesperson license (in lieu of disciplinary action). My understanding is that he and his “lackey,” Jose Garcia Garcia, had 37 DRE complaints against them.

http://www2.dre.ca.gov/PublicASP/pplinfo.asp?License_id=01335541

All in cahoots BIG TIME with Countrywide Funding. And we all know what happened there …

http://www.merchantcircle.com/business/Moises.Pacheco.DBA.Ifs.619-422-1892/review/read?cid=1191986

http://www.merchantcircle.com/business/Moises.Pacheco.DBA.Ifs.619-422-1892/review/read?cid=805173

http://www.merchantcircle.com/business/Moises.Pacheco.DBA.Ifs.619-422-1892/review/read?cid=828732

“IFS” stands for “Innovative Financial Solutions” (NEVER registered with the SOS). He and his accomplices, including Garcia and two processors (along with a VERY cooperative escrow company and appraiser), would doctor refinancer’s loan applications with “investment income” from “IFS.” They would park a few thousand in a new “client’s” bank account, season it about three months and show “investment income” records to the mortgage underwriters. They preyed upon limited English-speaking adults and/or those with limited education who were threatened with foreclosure. For this, they managed to convince these borrowers to invest most or all of the “cash-out” they rec’d from refi back into “IFS” for a monthly income. IFS actually paid the promised “dividends” for about 7 months before sending all the “investors” a “sob-story” letter. Older investors talked friends and family into becoming new investors. Some of the early investors were given the heads up when to bail out of IFS when it was clear they would no longer be paid. Many did so and let the friends/relatives they referred go down without warning.

Average “loss” to each borrower/investor was $60-$65K. Of course, this was all “funny money” anyway, resulting from trumped up appraisals.

All of the borrowers eventually went into foreclosure again and lost their properties.

Where is Pacheco now . . . you might ask?? Well, he went from a “big house” in Otay Ranch to an even “bigger house” for 51 months. When he is released, he will be paroled for 3 years.

http://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/men/index.jsp

The party is over now but I feel these “worst of the worst” licensees working under the guise of “mortgage loan consultants” were and are THE main cause (at the street level) of the seemingly intractable distress among mortgage borrowers.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sdrealtor][img_assist|nid=15879|title=Only the best!|desc=Kitchen in Carlsbad Fire Station #6|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=75][/quote]

sdr wouldn’t accept an invitation to a “coffee klatch” in this kitchen. It appears the inhabitants are drinking lowly “Folgers. . .,” lol!

edit: Ye gads! I see they’re using powdered creamer, too!!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sdrealtor] . . . Fancy office space is for drawing in young agents who will get lousy splits. It’s the bread and butter of the big brokerages.

As for palatial office space I worked in what is the nicest real estate office along the coast and know without question you get a much lower split for the privilege of working there. Frankly that is why I left that environment. . . [/quote]

I don’t agree. It depends on WHO you are. If YOU, as a salesperson or broker-associate are a TOP producer and want to move to the large Pru’s, CB’s and C-21’s, you can certainly work out a 100% deal with the broker/owner without too much haggle. They would be GLAD to have you take up (free) space, use your NAME for their advertising, and watch you slough off all your open houses and “marginal buyers/sellers” you don’t really have time for to all the “newbie” agents there. In addition, the broker will feel their brokerage will have the opportunity to “double-end” more transactions if they bring in a top producer who constantly brings in new listings. It’s a win-win situation for the broker AND the top producer!

[bearishgurl]

The City of Chula Vista spent $66M on their main police station (finished in 2003).

[img_assist|nid=15874|title=Chula Vista Main Police Stn|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=67]

Done in a “mid-century” design and encompassing over two city blocks!

[bearishgurl]

I just want to know if Nor-LA-SD-GUY2 is going to get a “decent bottle of wine” to share with his twin, “Nor-LA-SD-GUY” . . .

[bearishgurl]

delete

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sdrealtor]Remember the neverending short sale on Old Creek? They had chickens in the backyard and now I understand why. They needed them to survive living in such a far flung lizard invested wasteland.[/quote]

If the above comment is meant to be an “attempted parody” on my opinions, lol …. I’d be happy to dig up several threads where YOU (aptly) referred to the entire area of zip 92131 as “Phoenix” . . . that is, after I get my work done ;=]

[bearishgurl]

[quote=briansd1]….I think the residents of established areas are doing themselves a disservice because property values would generally go higher if “mansionization” were permitted.

A lot of people do things against their own interests because of they don’t want to feel “small” next to a “big” neighbor…..[/quote]

Part of the draw of the older areas, brian, is mature landscaping, walkability and convenience. A lot of that would have to be torn out to put up a “mcmansion” on the same-sized lot where a 2000 sf bungalow and “french door” detached garage sat for the last 85 years. If these residents wanted to look at a 4500 sf stucco mcmansion (instead of the years-ago-professionally-landscaped 2000+ Bungalow or Spanish that is currently sitting there), they would move to places like Stonebridge.

Urban residents’ opposition to new “mcmansions” is not about feeling “small” at all. It’s all about aesthetics, charm, tree shade, convenience and walkability, the very features that drew most of them there in the first place. A large sf addition is doable in these areas but it must look as if the home’s original facade and style have remained untouched or creatively and tastefully enhanced to match the rest of the neighborhood (for curb-appeal purposes). This is VERY difficult to do on a City lot if one needs to DOUBLE the size of the dwelling.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=SD Realtor]It is especially fun to read comments from experts on neighborhoods that they probably have never even visited before.[/quote]

Why waste $4 per gal gasoline! I went on JTR’s “armchair tour” last year, lol ….

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0X1SU1M6RY0

And who is claiming to be an “expert” in Stonebridge? Certainly not me …. could it be … YOU??

[bearishgurl]

[quote=briansd1][quote=bearishgurl]
I totally AGREE, you would NOT be able to expand in that manner in 92104. Your plans would FAIL at the “letters-to-neighbors-within-300-feet” stage, LOL! Owners in that area would NOT be even remotely interested in a monstrous mcmansion in their midst.[/quote]

BG, a large house doesn’t have to be monstrous if well done.[/quote]

Agreed, brian. HOWEVER, a “2000-ish sf semi-fixer-bungalow” (with original details intact) in 92104 could very well cost in the neighborhood of $650K. The “properly done” architectural renderings and floor plans (adding the second story) could very well cost the buyer an additional $75 – $100K. Just the exterior sketches and elevations (for the City and neighbors’ letter) could cost up to $35K. The buyer would have up to $35K invested in it and could then face a Planning Hg or even City Council Mtg with neighborhood opposition showing up. Even if the drawings are beautiful and blend with the area’s architecture, if their arguments are good enough re: setback, parking, noise, etc. the neighbors could very likely win out. Then the permit-seeker has to take his (expensive) architect back to the drawing board to “re-tweak” everything – that is, if he/she can still afford to do so.

I’ve seen this happen a time or two … or three … :={

Of course, the design fees, permit fees, survey (if needed), encroachment fees, etc, etc added up could very well be in the neighborhood of $150K. And materials have not yet been purchased at this stage.

This route is best attempted by a licensed general contractor-buyer with design contacts or architect or civil-engineer-buyers who will not be significantly out-of-pocket in the early design stages, IMHO.

A project of this magnitude in 92103 or 92104 would far exceed the cost of a 4000+ sf home in Stonebridge, unless the property had already been owned at least 20 years.

A “great deal” of additional square footage on an SFR does not come cheap in SD’s finest ‘hoods :=]

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Navydoc]…A 2000 sf house in South Park or Burlingame would have to be doubled in size to suit our needs. How much would that cost? Assuming I would even get permits. The Toll house is 4600 sf for Christ’s sake. In case you’re wondering why I need so much space, my wife is from here, she’s Laotian and has a huge family that is just dying to make chez Navydoc the family meeting place. I doubt we will ever be alone on a weekend. And yes, I love this type of activity and a large house affords me an opportunity to get away. Over this past Christmas we flew my wife’s family in and had 20 people staying over the whole holiday, and we loved it. Can’t wait for that all the time.

The final straw in our decision for Stonebridge is Poway Unified. I realize you can find good schools in SDUSD, but you have to admit it’s much more work. My 4 year old daughter will start kindergarten next year, and I’m much happier with PUSD.

As ocrenter said above, there are no other properties in the price range that offer as much as Stonebridge regarding lot and house size in San Diego right now. Believe me, I’ve looked.[/quote]

Lol, Navydoc …. see my previous post. I understand everything now! That extra 2500 to 3000 sf would NOT go to waste in your case ….

I totally AGREE, you would NOT be able to expand in that manner in 92104. Your plans would FAIL at the “letters-to-neighbors-within-300-feet” stage, LOL! Owners in that area would NOT be even remotely interested in a monstrous mcmansion in their midst.

Congrats on your purchase, Navydoc and may you and your (extended) family have many happy years living in Stonebridge!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=ocrenter] . . . by estate type homes I meant 4000-5000 sqft homes on 1/3 to 1/2 acre lots. Nothing came across on sdlookup matching that description, although I’m sure I’m just not looking hard enough.

I’m sure McKinley is a fine school and it is a shame my children would not have the opportunity to be educated there due to my ignorance. Perhaps the next generation may be served better now that you have kindly pointed out the error of my ways.[/quote]

A “4000 – 5000 sf” home is not a “need” (unless you have a family of 16). It is a “want.” For a family of 3-5, it is a lot of toilets and empty rooms to clean (furnished or unfurnished) just because they are there. 92104 has MANY 2700 to 3500 sf homes on lots ranging from 9000 to 22000 sf, BEAUTIFULLY appointed with REAL (redwood/cedar/river rock) materials and include pocket doors and stained glass, etc! These homes/lots are MORE THAN ample to raise a family of 4-6 in!

Nothing personal was intended, ocrenter. Different strokes for different folks. I’m once again pointing out this area because Navydoc will be working at NAVHOSP. He can have his “bicycle-lifestyle” in NP/SP SD without dealing with all those vulgar east-coast road hogs. The fact is, he and his family can really “have it all” there, as do many other similarly-situated downtown SD legal and medical professionals.

I never stated that the inventory currently available in 92104 and its immediate surrounds would match Navydoc’s needs. Why do you suppose this is so, ocrenter, yet there is so MUCH available inventory in 92131?? Could it be that high-equity potential sellers in 92104 are holding off putting their properties on the market right now because they will likely only receive “undervalued” offers?

The reality is that property owners in this area of 92104 have an infinitely higher equity stake in their properties than owners in “Stonebridge” 92131 …. read “stable area.”

It is very possible Navydoc could have found something suitable close to work back when he began looking last year. But it would have taken him more trips to SD and more work than just signing a contract for not-yet-built new construction.

I have nothing against Navydoc’s personal housing decisions. He could be anyone. All I’m saying here is that SD transplants or re-transplants often have a knee-jerk reaction to sign up with a developer after viewing new home models on a quick trip instead of doing the work and due diligence to obtain a (resale) property in a more well-located, valuable and/or coveted area for the same or lesser price, sans HOA/MR.

That’s partly why there is so much distress in areas like Stonebridge, IMHO. The bulk of the properties purchased new are purchased by buyers who are likely unaware of all the housing choices they have in this county. Most are probably NOT working with an experienced agent but simply show up at the new project on a whirlwind weekend trip, become “mesmerized” by the model homes and sign up! I’m not saying this happened to Navydoc, however, since he was previously stationed in SD.

I’m wondering now if the non-deductibility of MR on a homeowner’s tax return beginning this year will further erode the values of these very highly-encumbered tracts. Time will tell . . .

Congrats on returning to SD, Navydoc! I think MD is beautiful but SD’s “lifestyle” most definitely trumps it!!

[Author]

Posts