Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
bearishgurl
Participant[quote=LAAFTERHOURS]a house in Chevy Chase or Gtown for 199? Where do I sign up? Original poster mentioned transition area so I assume it wouldnt be either of those places.
My guess is someplace outside the beltway based on the price point…[/quote]
I was thinking it might be a foreclosed thrashed condo, perhaps even in Arlington. If I worked in DC, I wouldn’t live “outside the beltway” for any price. That area has *serious* traffic to contend with on a daily basis (even on weekends). The traffic in SD County, CA doesn’t hold a candle to it.
I would pay what it took to obtain a close-in property in as best of shape as I could afford and deal with the repairs one by one . . . but that’s just me.
In any case, congrats on your purchase, patb!
Participant[quote=svelte]It really depends on what you like. I would hate living in Nevada and just visiting California. Here’s why.
Las Vegas: we go there a few times a year, and while the strip is fun I find very little else appealing about that area. Not only is it unbearably hot during the summer, what most people forget is that it is also exceedingly dry. The people we know who live there have huge humidifiers in their homes, and even that is not enough to keep my wife and my noses from drying out to the point of bleeding. Couple that with the bleak landscape, lack of greenery, and the boring sterile dirty look of the buildings (except for the strip, which locals avoid anyway) and I think living there would actually bring me down. Finally, the town attracts a very weird element…it is fun to watch them on a weekend visit, but I doubt I’d like to live amongst them.
Reno/Carson City: Las Vegas on a smaller scale. We go here often too (relatives) and I just can’t imagine living there. Since it is smaller than LV, it lacks the only thing LV has going for it: a plethora of fun things to do on the strip. The Reno strip is tiny and pathetic in comparison. But just up the hill is Lake Tahoe and the Sierra Nevadas which can take some of the sting out of it. Problem is, during the summer that area is one big traffic jam. A drive that can take 20 min with no traffic will take hours. We’re not into skiing, so that really doesn’t help us either. There are pockets of nice areas between Reno and CC which would be acceptable for living, but we wouldn’t have ready access to the nightlife that we have here in San Diego.
If you think you’ll be visiting Calif often, then I would submit to you that you’ll spend every penny you saved in Calif income tax on traveling back and forth to Calif. On top of that, unless you buy a second home in Calif, you have hotel expenses also. Then factor in what the travel time is worth.
I also shake my head at all the Californians who load up their trailers/campers with toys (dune buggies, boats, motorcycles)and head out to the desert each weekend. Obviously some ppl don’t mind the traveling and like the arid desert landscape. That’s not me but if it is you, more power to ya and you might want to consider moving to Nevada. :-)[/quote]
svelte, all good points. I hate breathing the dry air in NV as well. You can avoid the traffic jam from Carson City to South Lake Tahoe by living in South Lake Tahoe (CA side). This area is at the top of my retirement list and 1200-1800 sf 40-55 yo ranch homes there situated on about 8-12K lots right in town on the free bus line have current asking prices of about $175-$350K. There are *newer* (10-40 yo) multi-level homes in the >$350K price range available around the fringes of the Heavenly Ski Resort and west/SW of town.
This area has everything one would need . . . even a small hospital. The four seasons are present and its beauty is incomparable.
The OP should take note of this gorgeous area. High-speed internet service is generally reliable there unless you are living in a remote area W/SW of town. However, there may be a way to get reliable service in the more remote areas that I am not aware of.
The (Stateline, NV) casinos only take up a little over 2 blocks. If you aren’t into that lifestyle (I’m not), you don’t have to hang around there. It’s nice to be close to several entertainment venues which regularly book top music talent, however.
One drawback (which doesn’t really bother me): Two or more times per winter, for 1-3 days, one or all roads are closed in or out of South Lake Tahoe.
As for the SoCal deserts, believe it or not there is now admission charged to take “toys” out on some of the dunes just north of I-8 just west of Yuma, AZ, lol. Apparently, this “recreational element” was leaving a lot of trash out there after a weekend and the state/county did not have the resources to continually clean it up. So now they have hired a maintenance service, provided dumpsters, etc and are “charging” dune-users for its services :=]
I’ve driven thru enough desert “mirages” in my lifetime to place them end-to-end all the way to FL and back, lol. No thanks, that life is not for me.
Participant[quote=DomoArigato] . . . I know that Ron Paul is in favor of massive deregulation, so I suspect if Ron Paul were able to enact his agenda we would see a lot more of this:
The link is to a story on a small community of 15 families who live downstream from a Koch Industries subsidiary (formaldehyde resin plant) that is dumping millions of gallons of wastewater into open ditches. Among the 15 families, there have been 11 deaths from cancer and many more people are ill.
How would deregulation address this or prevent it from happening in many more places all over the U.S.? . . . [/quote]
Thanks for posting this, DomoArigato. I’m highly familiar with this region of the country and the video in your link sickened me. For several months per year, it is hot and humid there, causing waterborne illness in stagnant water that has not been polluted. Mosquitos, chiggers, stinging jellyfish and snakes abound.
A viewer might ask, why don’t these people just move? It is likely most, if not all the residents of this street have lived there for several decades. Most of the houses appear to be large and well-built on large lots in a “bucolic” woodsy setting and most, if not all these properties are no doubt paid for and currently inhabited by owners over 55 years old. These owners who built their “dream homes” decades ago cannot now easily qualify to buy another property and likely cannot sell their properties without disclosing the grossly polluted stream behind their properties so they feel “trapped.”
Another difficult-to-solve environmental problem of rural AR and neighboring OK is that chemicals from the manufacture of crystal meth have leached into their soil and waterways, causing a variety of medical problems for residents who don’t even come into contact with the ingredients or drug itself. It also has impacted homeowners’ and landowners’ ability to farm. The “meth epidemic” there migrated from SoCal about 12-14 years ago, namely from the Lakeside/Flynn Sprs area of SD County and parts of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties where it was attacked with a vengeance with the cooperation of multiple law enforcement agencies and, for the most part, eradicated. The DEA has moved into OK/AR and “set up shop,” but these rural counties often have “vulnerable” and extremely limited sheriff’s services available to them (to cooperate with the DEA).
In a town of <7000, an upstream employer of thousands of locals is revered, not only by its employees but local politicians as well. It is clear that the Koch Bros have been able to pay their way through the "system" (fines, etc). It's cheaper to pay an affected family off (and then publicize they did so) than clean up the colossal environmental mess they made of their factory's downstream area.
I often wonder what kind of toxic industrial cesspools residents of emerging countries live in who live near factories who manufacture all of the goods we Americans love to buy and count on an endless supply that we can purchase cheaply.
There is a price to pay for everything in this life and sometimes, that price is too high.
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=Nor-LA-SD-GUY2]To rely on companies to fund a retirement pension these days I think would not work,
They need to establish a National pension plan similar to CALPERS.And they need a message !!!
WHAT DO WE WANT !!
A BIGGER PICE OF THE PIE NOW !!
WHAT DO WE WANT !!
HIGHER WAGES NOW !!
WHAT DO WE WANT !!
A BETTER RETIREMENT PLAN NOW !!!
WHAT DO WE WANT !!
EVERYONE GETS A CALPERS ACCOUNT NOW !![/quote]They already have one, and public employees with CalPERS don’t get it. It’s called “Social Security.”[/quote]
Thank you, CAR . . . LOL!!
Participant[quote-70Degrees]…That Indian lawyer cant sit down in a room and talk to me about my family and my kids, and take me out for lunch and build my confidence that he can handle my case. So what happens is the smart American firm figures out that the relationship and the complex law can be handled locally, and they can hand off the routine stuff to someone better suited to do the job (in india), with the American continuing to manage the relationship…[/quote]
Sorry, 70Degrees, I don’t see this happening. Please tell us how an Indian citizen living in India can obtain an American Paralegal Certificate or Degree approved by the American Bar Assn (ABA). As far as I am aware, there are no (online) classes which will convey this type of credential. And, while you’re “researching,” why don’t you cull the “want ads” for this profession to find out if law firms in the US (and CA) will even consider a candidate from a non-ABA-approved school.
You appear to be trying here to make this sound “plausible” but every single state has different laws so you FAIL on this premise.
And GOOD LUCK with the (abroad) “Indian” with “imitation slang-English skills” learning this stuff which is best left to “locals,” LOL!
Participantpatb, if I may ask, is this property in Georgetown or Chevy Chase? Just wondering . . .
I’m assuming here you’ve been looking “close in” to “Wash DC.”
Participant[quote=briansd1]I think that this new plan is to give foreign homebuyers extended tourist visa for as long as they own the house — not work visas or permanent residency.
This will avoid the buyers having to file income tax returns on their foreign earnings.[/quote]
…Walter Molony, a spokesman for the Realtors group, says buyers come from all over the world; their top places of origin are Canada, China, Mexico, the U.K. and India, he says.
Molony says U.S. homes are attractive because they’re relatively inexpensive, especially in high foreclosure states like Florida and Arizona. There are also few legal obstacles to transferring titles.
Visas can pose problems for some would-be buyers, Molony says, so it’s possible that the house-for-visa trade would make a difference for some. But how many buyers will take the U.S. up on this deal, if it comes to pass, is not knowable, he says.
I’m all for it!! Bring it on! But just remember that these foreigners may only occupy 6+ months per year. The rest of the time, one would surmise they have security lights and a gardener and “poolman.” Isn’t that how this has worked in the past … with Mexican citizens? So, why do we, as homeowners CARE about this?
If this bill is passed and ultimately causes more distressed properties to be sold quickly, it’s a win-win situation for everyone. Remember that, even if a property is sold “cheap,” those “sold comps” disappear after six months (in “appraisal-speak”) and will eventually get us out of the quagmire we are in and lift ALL BOATS :=]
ParticipantYes, brian, that IS good news. I wonder if this means an eventual shrinkage of active-duty military members (in all branches of service).
For all the returning able-bodied service-members who have either been discharged or will be soon and possibly not re-enlist (or not be able to), they are coming home to a “jobless recovery” after receiving a plethora of monetary and practical benefits for their families for years, which most will no longer be eligible for.
I have no doubt many of them will enroll in college with military assistance (further exacerbating CA’s hugely impacted public university programs). That’s what happened when troops en masse were sent home from Vietnam.
Their families’ lack of a steady income (due to discharge and inability to reenlist) could impact the dwindling coffers of state public assistance programs.
It’s all good, though. They SHOULD be sent home. I’m just afraid most of their young families “grew” during wartime relative to their growing salaries and benefits.
Participant[quote=SD Realtor]Jazz I understand what you are saying to a point. Sadly, and by far, the majority of sales people in the real estate industry misinform buyers and do indeed put pressure on them to buy homes. There is and will never be any argument to that.
Don’t confuse getting an offer accepted under market price, with desireability of a region as a whole. How many dual income engineers who want to live in an astounding climate, with plenty of jobs and very highly regarded school systems will buy homes in France, Maui, and Santa Barbare? How many? Not many at all. Last I checked Santa Barbara was not known for affordable homes. The point I am making is that San Diego offers a variety of opportunities that are pretty much not found in many places around the world with regards to employment, climate, quality of life, and variety of different areas to live in.
This by no means indicates it is impossible to get a home below market price. It does however indicate that for the same size home in pretty 90% of the USA with the exception of other large coastal cities with a large employment base, you will always pay less. This is the desireability that I am referring to and this is why prices will always be higher. Your 3000 sf home in 4S ranch will always be double or even more then the same home in Dallas. It is not ever going to scale the same.
This does not indicate prices will not go up or down in San Diego, personally I believe the biggest driver of prices will be interest rates and lending conditions. However scale that across the country and San Diego is and always will be higher.[/quote]
Good post, SDR. I agree with all of it except that the biggest driver of prices will be interest rates and lending conditions. Historically (between 1964 and 2004) interest rates were higher than now … sometimes MUCH higher and the RE market survived … even flourished. Prior to about 2003, there WERE FF lending standards in place and even standards to qualify for an (in-house) portfolio jumbo loan. It is only since then that lending standards were loosened beyond all recognition.
I believe that there are WAY TOO MANY cash buyers and buyers who take out mortgages equaling less than 50% of the appraisal price in the SD region to cause the most desirable areas to be price-sensitive solely on “interest rates and lending conditions.”
And you forgot to mention that, for the insured person, the choice of renowned medical practitioners to choose from in this region is bar none. THIS IS NOT THE CASE is some of those “cheaper housing areas” across the country.
If a prospective buyer does not like what they can get in SD County for the price they are willing to pay, then they need to shop elsewhere for a home, continue to rent here or decide not to relocate here after-all. It’s as simple as that.
Participant[quote=Jazzman] . . . I have had offers accepted in three highly desirable places, Santa Barbara, Maui, and France WELL BELOW asking price. However, in each case I went against my broker’s advice and beat the so-called odds. Tenacity, patience and a firm belief it’s a buyer’s market is all it takes. Any hint of uninformed buyer competition and you walk away. Home prices are still very over-valued in many high end areas. The housing market has been socialized, and the industry needs to be grateful for the benefit check it receives from the tax payer. So it’s not the market is “a buzz”, as there is no true market, and many realities still haven’t been absorbed by everyone.[/quote]
Jazzman, I completely agree with your strategy here. If I or my client(s) ever made an offer on property (right here in SD County) where the seller was NOT “institutional,” the seller got only 72 hours to accept it outright, reject it or counter it (yes, even if the seller was out of town). After all, there IS/WAS such a thing as a fax machine, even back then, lol!
On the few occasions where we/I submitted a written offer on a property and the seller’s agent “claimed” they had other offers in hand so we/I needed to “come up on our offer more” (without formally rejecting the offer or countering it) we walked.
This agent behavior is nothing more than unprofessional “game-playing” while leaving serious interested buyers on the hook indefinitely so they can play one buyer against the other – whoever can come up with the most “cash” wins.
This is one of the main reasons I wouldn’t “play the game” as a short sale buyer/buyer’s agent. Often, before closing, the seller is requesting “walking $$” as an “11th-hour closing condition.” I don’t believe a defaulting “seller” deserves one penny. Much more often than not, they have already ridden the “equity-extraction train” and “free-rent train” long enough. Their “party” has been long over for quite some time.
I don’t even believe in “short sales.” If more than one TD holder has been defaulted on for the same amt of time, the 1st TD holder should file the NOD first. The 2nd TD holder is welcome to come to the trustee’s sale, bid the opening bid amount and take its encumbrance “subject to” if it is interested. If only the 2nd TD holder is in default, it should commence foreclosure proceedings first. In any case, both TD holders should follow through with foreclosure promptly, beginning with whoever has the longest period of default. This will lessen the running interest and late charges and thus lower any encumbrance due to the 1st TD holder at the time of trustees’ sale.
And I don’t believe “short sales” net more $$ to the defaulted upon lenders than filing timely NOD and NOS and conducting a timely trustee’s sale does. CA foreclosure law is all laid out for lenders to use for a reason. The “better short-sale outcome” mantra is just another “fallacy” we’ve been fed by the RE sales industry who has profited immensely from “short sales” in the form of sales commissions, escrow fees, title ins premiums, mtg commissions, SS negotiator fees, etc. And the SS “seller” receives a “slightly better” outcome (+ all the cash they pocketed free from their “extracted equity”) in the form of less points taken off their FICO scores. WHY SHOULD WE CARE ABOUT THIS?? For most SS sellers, who undoubtedly had low FICO scores to begin with, it makes no difference if 100, 200 or 300 points come off their FICO score, due to other debt problems besides their upside-down property (i.e., if a SS seller’s current FICO score was 630 PRIOR to defaulting on their RE loan(s), then WHO CARES how many more points come off of it)? Their goose was already cooked.
It’s a buyer’s market and the most highly qualified buyers should win, NOT necessarily the ones willing to pay cash “bribes” out of escrow.
[end of rant]
Participant[quote=walterwhite]Do you pay interest on student loans while in school. If you have the money to pay off on graduation, is the loan costfree?[/quote]
Uhh, no, scaredy. The old Perkins loan was 8.5 percent and more recently 6.5 percent. Not sure what the prevailing rate is.
Participant[quote=zk]So, unless I’m missing something, your beef is with students who spend their student loan money on things other than education. Sure, that’s not a good idea. But what about a student who wants to live at home and go to, say, the nearest UC or CSU campus? Shouldn’t he be able to get a loan to cover that?[/quote]
Yes, if the school is paid directly for tuition/fees/books on the student’s behalf.
Participant[quote=bubba99]Back in the day when I went to Berkeley, the tuition was only $212.24/quarter. There was one administrator for every 10 classroom employees – teachers/professors. Now that relationship is upside down. More administrators than classroom employee.
Tuition is now in the tens of thousands per semester. For those who believe that education is for the benefit of the students, think again. The major beneficiaries are the employees of the university system. With a chant of “we must protect the quality of education” they have improved the quality of their pay checks, at the expense of the students.
The loan scam has just been the vehicle to fund the new found legion of administrators and retirements that few/none of us will ever achieve. Without the loans, education would still need to be affordable. The loans bought the students very little compared to 40 years ago.[/quote]
Thanks for filling in the gap I left here, bubba99. Indeed, those were VERY REASONABLE tuition/fees for UC circa 1971.
Now that you bring this up, bubba, I’m going to do an about face and say that public tuition/fees need to go down in CA a bit to make it affordable for the masses. We don’t need to be funding anymore lavish retirements for professors and dept chairs who might only be present at the university 12-30 hrs a week for lecturing and meeting with students (with 14 paid holidays per year and 4-6 weeks paid annual vacation).
ParticipantGreat post, sdduuuude, esp the part about employers deciding which of their employees is worthy of having a particular degree program employer-funded (employee does not get to choose).
LOTS of students major in areas they don’t have the aptitude or personality for and so are not successful in those jobs and their “degree” is wasted and they are often still left with student loan payments.
-
AuthorPosts
