Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
September 21, 2011 at 10:33 AM in reply to: CA demographic shifts in the coming years will favor cities over suburbia #729594September 20, 2011 at 3:58 PM in reply to: CA demographic shifts in the coming years will favor cities over suburbia #729563
bearishgurl
Participant[quote=briansd1 re: MD]…Maybe the older close-in suburbs need to compete and allow upzoning the lots to build new 3-story 3000sf house with elevators. Get rid of the suburban yards, and build more densely like in Georgetown…[/quote]
This has been tried in some of the close-in ‘burbs there, brian and after these monstrosities were erected (on a razed lot) among the existing beautiful “historical” properties, local public outcries ensued. These close-in cities to DC are now more closely scrutinizing permits before issuing them.
Perhaps there are no laws there directing a homeowner or lot owner seeking permits to inform every property owner within 300 ft of their property of their proposed building plans (or of a mtg to learn about their plans) PRIOR to obtaining permits to do so, as we have here :={
September 20, 2011 at 3:45 PM in reply to: CA demographic shifts in the coming years will favor cities over suburbia #729562Participant[quote]I have a couple friends who bought in Bay Park (one of them a badly done flip), and I like both of their houses and the area, which is why I mentioned it. It’s even on my list, albeit lower down than Carlsbad. I know exactly what you get there, and in my mind, a smaller place means less layout to screw up and more fun to fix up…
…I’m fine with old, as long as it’s small, but not for the larger “forever” house. That will be less than 10 years old…[/quote]
Ren, did your friends who purchased in Bay Park purchase in “the flats?” And did they pay +/-$400K??
You state here that Bay Park is “on your list” but not for your “forever house.” What type of property would you actually purchase in Bay Park, then? And why wouldn’t you purchase a larger “old” house there?
Would a Bay Park purchase be an investment rental property for you?
[quote=Ren]Try putting a $400k house from a southern state next to the east county house – while the $400k Georgia house is a lot nicer than the east county house, it’s an even more pointless exercise.[/quote]
23 miles is NOT 3000 miles. We are discussing properties in the same locale which are both viewless (actually “GH” has a rear view of horse corrals) and both have similar weather and humidity levels. Your “comparison property” is WAY off the mark.
September 20, 2011 at 1:58 PM in reply to: CA demographic shifts in the coming years will favor cities over suburbia #729546Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=bearishgurl] The exurban dwellers HATE commuting on 2-4 lane country roads for 30-45 mins JUST to reach a fwy to the DC area but will NOT move their families closer to DC – not even to Montgomery County. [/quote]
That’s the trade off they make. It’s a free country. We, collectively, don’t need to make it easy for them to commute to the metro area.
If we improve the housing stock and provide more physical comforts in the city, people will reexamine the trade-offs. We can think of that as market-based competition to provide the right balance of physical comforts and urban convenience.[/quote]
The “physical comfort” IS in MD close in to DC, brian. It is in and around the Gaithersburg area (Montgomery Co), Silver Spring and even Chevy Chase and Bethesda – all beautiful areas to live in. The large gathering I attended where I heard all this “cocktail talk” was in a semi-rural town in Frederick Co where there were many “refugees” in attendance from those above-mentioned areas. From their conversations, I was able to discern that they fled their hometowns (the above areas) before or after their kids started school (and sometimes before they started middle school). They came to Frederick Co for the lot sizes and “presumably” better schools but many didn’t realize what a headache their commuting life would be on a daily basis. Some moved to the boonies BEFORE it turned into infinite exurbia and before those back roads were filled with all that daily traffic.
I don’t know if there are actually “school scores” in MD but would surmise the public schools are pretty good close to DC. My gut tells me the REAL reason all these families fled their hometowns was to purchase a newer McMansion on a 1/2 AC lot in exurbia for the same price as a 2000 sf older home on a 7500 sf lot in the close-in burbs. These are the same reasons families give for “fleeing” the city and inner suburbs here. The only difference is east coast v. west coast house styles (and larger avg lot sizes in MD “exurbia”).
Note: MD natives often stay there for life and bring their kids up +/- 50 mi from where they themselves grew up. It is like TX and OK in that regard.
September 20, 2011 at 1:35 PM in reply to: CA demographic shifts in the coming years will favor cities over suburbia #729542ParticipantSo, Nor-LA, are you saying here that jobs are moving to the exurbs or that shopping is moving to the exurbs (Santa Clarita). I’m a little confused by your last post.
And if it is jobs that are moving to the exurbs, what kind of jobs are they?
September 20, 2011 at 1:25 PM in reply to: CA demographic shifts in the coming years will favor cities over suburbia #729540Participant[quote=Ren][quote=bearishgurl]There is absolutely no comparison between a Bay Park (92110) 1000 sf “ranchette” of the same age located in the flats (behind the fish market) with the same knotty pine kitchen as this listing (but half the size), situated on a 5K lot with a one-car garage for the same price as this Granite Hills bargain. There is so much more value in the Lanai property, hands down.[/quote]Again, tastes are subjective. Besides, if that house were more valuable in the current market, it would have sold for a higher price. Yes, in 5 years a Bay Park house might adjust down a little more, or maybe not, but unless the floors are solid gold in El Cajon, the location can more than make up for the size difference, in my opinion. You would be happy in east county, in that house, and I would not be happy in either. And that’s what really matters.[/quote]
Exactly, Ren. Judging from your post (below) and the fact that you likely live in a *newer* development in “exurban” Temecula, IIRC, I posted the above because I was certain you did not understand what you would be getting for the $400K in (circa 1940’s) Bay Park for the same $$. I HAVE been in these homes which were almost exclusively purchased new by dust-bowl refugees packing up and moving their families to SD to work at local defense contractors during WWII. Most of them sold for about $5000 to $6500 brand new.
The reality is that these two types of SFR’s, albeit 23 miles apart (Bay Park and Lanai in Granite Hills) are nearly the same except for square footage, size of garages and size of lots. Of course, the Bay Park homes in this price range are too small to have a see-thru FP but they both were orig built in the same style and materials on the inside :=) The Granite Hills property, value wise, wins hands down.
[quote=Ren]I’d MUCH sooner pay $400k for virtually anything else – a townhome closer to the coast, a tiny house in Bay Park, a golf course pool house in Temecula, anything.[/quote]
The reality is that you, like most current owners and potential buyers, will purchase only *newer* construction. This comes as no surprise, considering where you currently reside and there is nothing wrong with this.
Ren, I would only be happy in the GH property if I had help with lot maintenance and air-conditioning bills. In my current station in life, I am happy where I’m at. My house is nearly the same size as the GH house, is in the proper location for my needs at this time and is situated on a much more manageable lot … for me.
September 20, 2011 at 1:18 PM in reply to: CA demographic shifts in the coming years will favor cities over suburbia #729539Participant[quote=Ren]Again, tastes are subjective. Besides, if that house were more valuable in the current market, it would have sold for a higher price. Yes, in 5 years a Bay Park house might adjust down a little more, or maybe not, but unless the floors are solid gold in El Cajon, the location can more than make up for the size difference, in my opinion. You would be happy in east county, in that house, and I would not be happy in either. And that’s what really matters.[/quote]
Exactly, Ren. Judging from your post (below) and the fact that you likely live in a *newer* development in “exurban” Temecula, IIRC, I posted the above because I was certain you did not understand what you would be getting for the $400K in (circa 1940’s) Bay Park for the same $$. I HAVE been in these homes which were almost exclusively purchased new by dust-bowl refugees packing up and moving their families to SD to work at local defense contractors during WWII. Most of them sold for about $5000 to $6500 brand new.
The reality is that these two types of SFR’s, albeit 23 miles apart (Bay Park and Lanai in Granite Hills) are nearly the same except for square footage, size of garages and size of lots. Of course, the Bay Park homes in this price range are too small to have a see-thru FP but they both were orig built in the same style and materials on the inside :=) The Granite Hills property, value wise, wins hands down.
[quote=Ren]I’d MUCH sooner pay $400k for virtually anything else – a townhome closer to the coast, a tiny house in Bay Park, a golf course pool house in Temecula, anything.[/quote]
The reality is that you, like most current owners and potential buyers, will purchase only *newer* construction. This comes as no surprise, considering where you currently reside and there is nothing wrong with this.
Ren, I would only be happy in the GH property if I had help with lot maintenance and air-conditioning bills. In my current station in life, I am happy where I’m at. My house is nearly the same size as the GH house, is in the proper location for my needs at this time and is situated on a much more manageable lot … for me.
September 20, 2011 at 10:34 AM in reply to: CA demographic shifts in the coming years will favor cities over suburbia #729528ParticipantI’ve been on the road a few times throughout the state of MD, although I myself did not do the driving. The suburban and exurban sprawl there is everywhere. The exurban dwellers HATE commuting on 2-4 lane country roads for 30-45 mins JUST to reach a fwy to the DC area but will NOT move their families closer to DC – not even to Montgomery County. I have seen the traffic bumper-to-bumper for miles several times during the afternoon rush on these “country roads.” It is deceiving because there are so many trees between the roads and the towns that it FEELS like you are driving in a “rural” area but you are NOT. Behind those groves of trees are small and med-sized towns and cities and an endless sprawl of “3-story” SFR tracts, each on 20K+ sf lots.
I’m sure life is grand there if you don’t have to commute anywhere.
Participant[quote=pencilneck]I’m not defending Mr. Mortgage’s record. But NODs & foreclosures are still historically very high.
The current Tsunami of defaults has been going on for so long that it has begun to feel normal. I don’t think a second huge wave is likely, but we are not at all done with the first wave.
Just an observation…[/quote]
I agree, pencilneck. My recent research indicates that a lot of NOD filings in the “first wave” (or more recent wave of mid-2010) have not been followed through by lenders. Either these owners who are behind in their mortgages should be “permanently modified” or be foreclosed upon in the coming months, plain and simple.
I find it diabolical that this did not happen over a year ago. It’s just prolonging the pain for those borrowers who are following the rules and paying on time. It’s also wasting precious time for those high-equity and free-and-clear sellers who have put a lot of time and money into their properties and would have to dump them at bargain basement prices today if they wanted to sell and retire elsewhere. So many remain and wait for a better day instead of rent their properties out (and possibly incur damage before sale) to enable them to pursue their long-held plans for relocating upon “retirement.”
September 20, 2011 at 9:28 AM in reply to: CA demographic shifts in the coming years will favor cities over suburbia #729519Participant[quote=Ren]With emphasis on the fact that taste is subjective…
Yeah I’m gonna have to agree that that east county house is awful on a whole new level of awfulness. Not bagging on the area, mind you, which I wouldn’t live in personally, just the house. Ignoring the fixable yet really scary paneling, molding, carpet, cabinets, siding, windows, roof, etc., the bad layout makes it a teardown in my view. I would personally throw the switch to blow up that fireplace, but I’d MUCH sooner pay $400k for virtually anything else – a townhome closer to the coast, a tiny house in Bay Park, a golf course pool house in Temecula, anything.[/quote]
If you read the comments on the listing, Ren, it states there is hardwood floor under the carpet. These houses have an 18-24″ crawlspace. This particular house would have a red oak floor comprised of 2.5″ slats. That was the hardwood used for the era it was built. Since the sellers were longtime owners and kept the floor covered with their (tacky) carpet, then the hardwood floor could very well be in excellent shape today :=)
Get an estimate on a floor like this (as I recently have) and I can guarantee you it would cost $8-10K JUST to install the living room :-]
There is absolutely no comparison between a Bay Park (92110) 1000 sf “ranchette” of the same age located in the flats (behind the fish market) with the same knotty pine kitchen as this listing (but half the size), situated on a 5K lot with a one-car garage for the same price as this Granite Hills bargain. There is so much more value in the Lanai property, hands down.
ParticipantI did a cursory check around south county zips (using parcel maps) over the wknd and noticed MANY NOD’s filed between May to Sept 2010 where nothing was filed since then. Was this the era of moratorium? I didn’t think CA was involved in that because we are a non-judicial state.
Perhaps lenders were working with borrowers on modifications. If these lenders now choose to foreclose after all these months, they will no doubt file and hang a new NOD showing the correct arrears and fees.
I can’t imagine all of these “mods” were successful. I truly believe some non-paying homeowners are “strategically” defaulting in attempt to “cram down” their lenders into short-selling. I even looked up people I knew to currently be employed and driving expensive *newer* European cars and found NOD’s filed against two of them during this time frame. Still, nothing done and still living in their underwater homes (and perhaps paying a “modified” payment).
In my experience, I have only seen two actual public filings of “Modify Trust Deed” on ARCC. Apparently, they aren’t filed until the modification is made permanent (and then maybe the law doesn’t require lenders to file them – dont’ know).
I’d personally like to know if people I know to have ATM’d their properties repeatedly are successfully obtaining principle reductions. I won’t have time for another month, but if I find this to be happening, I’m going to yank a few chains (letters to Congress, etc).
The random maps I checked on were comprised of SFR’s in the $300K to $500K range in both newer and older areas, not “high end” properties.
Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl]SK, my understanding of the HCRA is that the carriers currently have to accept everyone who applies for an individual policy but can charge premiums according to risk until 2014. My fear is that when 2014 comes they will have to lower the premiums of these high users of health care and charge the rest of us in the same age group accordingly to make up the difference. That will really hurt the healthy boomer set that cannot yet qualify for Medicare![/quote]
Your understanding is not correct.[/quote]
If you’ve read and studied the entire bill, SK, then perhaps you can explain to us here how these carriers are going to recoup the $$ when they can’t charge “Susie the recent cancer survivor” (age 59) or “Joe 6P the walking heart attack” (age 57) $1100 to $1600 a month for a premium anymore and may not deny either of them coverage.
The money to take care of these folks has to come from somewhere.
ParticipantDue to the sheer amount of people that have lost their homes to foreclosure, deed-in-lieu and short sale in recent months/years (and may have been “camping” at relatives’ houses at their last stop), I would surmise that the current “family” rental market is full of applicants with bad credit.
ParticipantSK, my understanding of the HCRA is that the carriers currently have to accept everyone who applies for an individual policy but can charge premiums according to risk until 2014. My fear is that when 2014 comes they will have to lower the premiums of these high users of health care and charge the rest of us in the same age group accordingly to make up the difference. That will really hurt the healthy boomer set that cannot yet qualify for Medicare!
Participant[quote=SK in CV]I assure you that nothing in the ACA caused those increases. I know this because I’ve actually read the bill, and know that there hasn’t been any substantial burden on insurance companies that have gone into effect yet. (covering kids up to age 26? A money maker for insurance companies. Thats a demographic that rarely consumes health care dollars. Aetna and Anthem Blue Cross internal numbers put the increased burden as a result of the ACA at 2.4 and 2.6% respectively for calendar year 2012. Zero for 2010 and 2011.) Insurance companies raise rates when they can. It’s highly likely that 2012 will be an extraordinarily competitive year for group coverage in most of the country, and rates may even fall.
I presume you’re aware that an 8.5% increase over the last 2 1/2 years is substantially less than average increases over the previous 10 years? That would be things getting better, not worse.
What exactly makes your plan grandfathered?
Are you saying you have a multi-year contract that can’t be changed or withdrawn? I wasn’t aware those contracts existed.[/quote]SK, the HCRA is only coming up on 1.5 years old (3-21-10). Thus, those 3 rate-hikes were all within 16 months, the last one being in July.
All the excuses given to me in the “rate-hike letters” I rec’d were that “costs were rising in my area.” I can see this at a micro level when a typical mammogram, for instance, has gone from $111 to $121 to $166 in the last three years.
I took out my policy 7 yrs ago, originally in a “group plan.” My current plan is under the same member number as when I was in the group, but is now an “individual plan.” I never used COBRA (which was more expensive than an individual plan [if one had no pre-existing conditions]). I went thru the “qualification process” for an individual plan, instead.
This is a generic copy of my 1st “rate-hike” ltr after the HCRA was passed.
[img_assist|nid=15384|title=Aetna rate-hike ltr|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=81|height=100]
-
AuthorPosts
