Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
September 19, 2011 at 7:42 PM in reply to: CA demographic shifts in the coming years will favor cities over suburbia #729465
bearishgurl
Participant[quote=Aecetia]Wow Sk thanks for enlightening me. Now I feel better.
I like most of Congress did not read the entire package. However, I am basing the increases on the Insurance Companies continuing to gouge us who are currently insured. I have no idea how they get away with it, but my rates have sure gone up significantly since the passage of the bill.“For example, in September 2010, The Wall Street Journal also reported that health insurers have been forced to raise premiums “as a direct result of the health overhaul.”
http://biggovernment.com/tfitton/2011/01/12/judicial-watch-sues-hhs-to-obtain-obamacare-waiver-documents/“Aetna, one of the nation’s largest health insurers, said the extra benefits forced it to seek rate increases for new individual plans of 5.4% to 7.4% in California and 5.5% to 6.8% in Nevada after Sept. 23. Similar steps are planned across the country, according to Aetna. Previously the administration had calculated that the batch of changes taking effect this fall would raise premiums no more than 1% to 2%, on average.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703720004575478200948908976.html
[/quote]Aecetia, I have an Aetna Advantage PPO individual plan. My rates have increased 3x since the passage of the HCRA. Overall, they have gone up 8.5% in these three rate hikes. During this time, I have only filed minimal claims for routine care.
Due to age and the fact that I am “grandfathered in” on a certain plan configuration which was no longer offered in their individual lineup after the passage of HCRA, I am reluctant to disturb it. I can only hope for the best until I reach the age of 65 (assuming Medicare is still around), and then convert it to a Medicare supplement and “Part D” policy.
September 19, 2011 at 6:57 PM in reply to: CA demographic shifts in the coming years will favor cities over suburbia #729455Participant[quote=briansd1]…BTW, people don’t want to live in SF bad enough. That’s why SF government is poor and the city/county has trouble keeping up with infrastructure. Did you not notice the state of the roads in SF?…[/quote]
As a matter of fact, I did. The long on-ramp from San Jose Ave to southbound I-280 was being repaired when I was there for the SFSU graduation in May. The detour took nearly an hour to get around it. CALTRANS has since moved on and is still working on the bridge:
San Francisco County
80 The West Approach Project http://www.baybridgeinfo.org/
80 New San Francisco Oakland Bay Bridge
Toll Bridge Directory
New Bay Bridge.org
Bridge Pros
Donald MacDonald Architects
SAS Outreach
101 Doyle Drive / Presidio Parkway http://presidioparkway.org/
280 PCC Pavement Replacement and Grinding Project http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/280pcc/see: http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist4/projects.htm#sanfrancisco
Here are the current road projects in progress there.
http://www.sfdpw.org/index.aspx?page=35
All presently going on in this “poor” city/county with insufficient tax revenue which is currently being mobbed by “Gen Y” potential tenants falling all over each other vying for the same (85+ yr old?) studio apartments, lol.
http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-08-11/news/29875038_1_vacancy-rates-realfacts-apartment-rent
Go figure :=]
September 19, 2011 at 3:04 PM in reply to: CA demographic shifts in the coming years will favor cities over suburbia #729440Participant[quote=briansd1]BG, you have an antiquated way of thinking.
You can’t force people to live where they don’t want.[/quote]
If newcomers want to live in a particular area bad enough, they will live in what is available, irregardless of age, presence of a garage, or availability of single-family residences (examples: SF and Manhattan).
[quote=briansd1]And yes, people will go where they can find new construction. If you don’t allow people to build new near the city center, there will go build new elsewhere. If you don’t allow new construction or upzoning in San Diego, Temecula is happy to grow its tax base. Or people will build on virgin land, up to their entitlements.[/quote]
If buyers all go where they can find new construction, most will likely have a long daily commute to work, some 1 hr+ each way. “Temecula” is grossly overbuilt and its region currently had one of the highest SFR vacancy rates in the nation as of Q4 2010:
I daresay Temecula will not be approving any more single-family permits that have not already long been in the pipeline.
And I doubt many “people” will be “building on virgin land” in CA in the future. It currently costs nearly $10K in fees/bribes just to set a new water meter in SoCal counties. And we haven’t even addressed here the cost of bringing water or other utilities to the “virgin” property. Only deep-pocketed fools who are dead set on having their own “desert oasis” without regard to resale value will be attempting this. :=/
[quote=briansd1]It’s clear that urban planning of the last 20 years is not working and hasn’t stopped sprawl.[/quote]
The only reason for the out-of-control sprawl in the last 20 years is CA City/County gov’t greed and nothing else. Now they are stuck having to provide services for 2-3x their former populations with reduced tax coffers coming in and all the MR bond $$ being diverted away to school districts and the CFD’s.
[quote=briansd1]The status quo is not working. So change it; or don’t complain when avocado groves of Fallbrook and El Cajon are bulldozed for development, and the urban sprawl continues.[/quote]
Don’t know about Fallbrook but El Cajon (92020) has had a proliferation of new rental complexes, condo conversions and new condos in the last decade-plus, causing the City to have a whole lot more residents to now provide services for (many low-income). The vast majority of these *new* residents do not pay any property taxes. I’m sure the mayor and City Council there are now regretting the decisions they (and their predecessors) made in issuing all those permits, considering that the majority of condo-conversions there have now been foreclosed upon.
[quote=briansd1]BTW, that house in El Cajon is crap. It has potential for refurbishment, but few buyers have the inclination. Why bother living in a neighborhood where the neighbors live in those conditions? Not worth investing the money and energy.[/quote]
brian, it is clear here that you are obviously ignorant as to how the housing stock looks (both inside and outside) in that area. Have you ever been there and have you ever been inside any homes out there? Try an open house sometime. You might be shocked, lol!
Participant[quote=temeculaguy]Follow BG’s advice and come rent. Unfortunately 200k is not an SFR budget in this county, it is a downpayment. From your name I’m guessing you are coming from possibly Canada. The locations where you can pay under 200k cash for an SFR will require locals to make some “adjustments,” coming from Canada, you will likely have seizures. I’m not attacking specific town, more so specific neighborhoods. Every town has dicey areas and the r/e prices reflect that, but the sub 200k sfr’s will probably have to be the diciest street of the diciest neighborhood of the diciest town. Sub 200 condo and you’ve got options, lots of them, sub 200k sfr, and that’s bunker prices.[/quote]
Agree except for ALL neighborhoods in this price range being “dicey.” Again, this is VERY subjective. After posting above, I took a look at the available MLS inventory of SFR’s in the OP’s price range in 91910. I wouldn’t have classified any of those properties to be in “dicey neighborhoods” but I DID notice no less than 3 of them that I have personally been in which ALL had what I would consider to be “structural problems” at the time I visited them. I have no doubt that their current low price reflects that they were never fixed and the majority of listings in that price range were “as-is.” Also, in 91910 and even moreso in 91911 and 92154, there are many properties where the garage has been converted into unpermitted sf for living space and would need to be “reconverted” to park in. The balance in 91910 were either on busy thoroughfares or need much more than just “floor covering, paint and faucets.”
Canuck, SD County is VERY diverse both in housing stock and populations from area to area. You would do WELL to actually live here awhile and drive around a bit in your spare time to get a “feel” for all the areas you have your eye on before making a purchasing decision, especially with all cash. You CANNOT SEE a property’s actual condition and surroundings from “MLS photos.” I’ve never been to Canada and do not know if you are situated urban or rural but would surmise that SD County is nothing like Canada, either in its topography, weather, people, housing stock, zoning, etc.
The “back roads” traversing from 91977 and 92139 down to Eastlake are slow, traffic-filled, two are winding and poorly-lighted at night and one is full of “speed bumps” specifically for the purpose of discouraging drivers like your friends who live here in the county from using residential thoroughfares to avoid the toll. Another thoroughfare has no less than five public schools on (or just off) of it all on different schedules and all the incipient traffic that brings.
I believe the prices in this region should stay stable for at least 3 more years giving you time to rent and check everything out for yourself.
I recommend you look into renting an individually-owned condo in Eastlake (91913). Take care to rent one that does NOT currently have a Notice of Default or Notice of Sale filed against it and preferably from a local property management company.
Participantcanuck, you have a very tall order there. Even though paying cash, the fact that you don’t want to “fix anything” is an issue. You must know that the SR-125 is a toll road from SR-54 to Eastlake and all the way to the int’l border. That back and forth commute to Otay Lakes Road from points north would cost you up to $8 daily in tolls. And you must also be aware that 91913 and 91914 (Eastlake/RHR) and 91915 (Otay Ranch) have predominately HOA tracts and Mello Roos. Those SFR’s without Mello Roos in those zip codes would NOT be in your price range, unless possibly structurally damaged. Therefore, I believe it would be best for you (and more convenient) to purchase an SFR in 91910, 91911, 92139 or 92154. In 91910, your request is still a tall order. In the others, it could be “doable” but may not be what you are looking for.
What one buyer believes is a “fixer” may not necessarily be what another buyer believes is a “fixer.” This issue is entirely subjective.
Why don’t you just rent in or near Eastlake for awhile to get a feel for where you want to buy property? 91913 is the least expensive zip to rent in out there. The areas you have mentioned in your OP are highly diverse from one another and also not very close to Eastlake as well as freeway dependent.
Participant[quote=UCGal]Well – the obvious way would be to ask your realtor, or ask the listing agent.
I’m not sure if you variances are recorded with county recorder. If they are you could take the parcel number, APN, (on the listing or on redfin), plug it into the property tax database. If the land is held by an entity with a unique enough name, you might be able to plug that into the county recorders database.
If (and only if) variances are recorded with the county recorder – you’d be able to see if there’s a doc. You can order the doc for a few bucks or go down to the county building to look it up for free.
Like I said- asking the listing agent is the easiest way.
property tax database:
https://www.sdctreastax.com/ebpp3/county recorders database:
http://arcc.co.san-diego.ca.us/services/grantorgrantee/search.aspx%5B/quote%5DGood advice, UCGal. However, I have not seen “variances” show up on a property tax bill. And many variances that were actually recorded were recorded PRIOR to 1982. That is the limitations of the online database. The database INSIDE the recorder’s office computers goes all the way back, but researching could take hours via pulling and viewing microfiche. I just spent 6.5 (billable) hours in one day there last week researching a person’s assets who owned a LOT of local rental property. This endeavor is no picnic and wouldn’t be that easy for someone who did not thoroughly understand CA chain-of-title concepts and what documents might indicate variances had been granted.
Perhaps it may be easier to go to whatever City or County Planning Dept and armed with the address and APN number and ask for assistance there. These agencies would have all unrecorded variances and usually have their information stored on microfiche and also in flat drawers (if they stored the physical document). The information you find there may or may not show up on a preliminary title report of the subject property.
Before diving into this, wildta, why don’t you ask the owner or even a former owner, if still alive with a good phone number or local address? Most RE agents are ignorant as to how to obtain this info. You would be surprised how many owners know of (have seen) or have in their possession an original or copy of their circa 1957 (grandfathered) “Certificate of Non-Conforming Use” or whatever variance was granted by the City/County at the time. And good luck!
Signed,
Self-Taught “Govm’t Records Specialist”
ParticipantWOW, jstoesz! “Tanglewood” seems like a very “leafy” neighborhood!! And your link here shows a beautiful restored and partially remodeled home where the owners were smart enough to save and refurbish all the important “period goodies.”
I’ve never been to this part of the country but will have to admit the price for this home is VERY good. It beats out prices in Denver, CO for a similar age and size home (not counting dark basements) by at least $100K!
Can the weather there be worse in the winters than Denver, CO??
September 18, 2011 at 12:11 PM in reply to: CA demographic shifts in the coming years will favor cities over suburbia #729360Participant[quote=Jacarandoso]Good and bad in everything. No need to get stuck in a rut. Your house and street are not your life. It’s not black and white.Where one lives really doesn’t make as much difference as people act like it does…unless they are just passive.
….and who would have ever thought all the Asians would want to live together for access to the best food markets? I live 25 minutes from any food market. It doesn’t really matter much.[/quote]
Agree. And I don’t think all Asians DO want to congregate in just a few adjacent communities. They actually ARE in East County. Mostly Filipino but also Vietnamese and Guamanian. All you have to do is park next to a school when it is being dismissed for the day to see for yourself :=]
September 18, 2011 at 12:01 PM in reply to: CA demographic shifts in the coming years will favor cities over suburbia #729358Participant[quote=briansd1]I believe it’s urban planning that favors car culture. Traffic avoidance, while justifiable at first, creates sprawl. When a city grows in population, if you don’t allow people to build more densely then you end up with sprawl.
In order to have small stores and family businesses you need density.
Americans are so used to the suburbs that we would call neighborhoods like Hillcrest “the city”.
In San Diego there are plans to build condos above UTC and Mission Valley malls. But the plans are on hold because of the economy. There’s opposition to such development. But if not there, then you end up with more sprawl.[/quote]
brian I’ve never bought into the notion that “If you don’t build it, people won’t live there.” SD County doesn’t need any more housing inventory. We already have a high vacancy rate and several months worth of inventory currently on the market. After thousands more lose their homes to foreclosure in the coming 24 months, we will have even MORE vacancy. Many of these people still living in their homes but not paying on one or more trust deeds are currently unemployed and will just double-up with family members or leave the area to reside with distant family or in search or a cheaper region to live in when they are foreclosed upon. If still employed, these people have had the chance to save a LOT of money during the months/years they were stiffing one or more of their lenders.
I believe people will live in whatever is available to live in. If those quarters are 85+ years old and there is nothing newer to rent/buy and they want/need to live in a particular city or county, they WILL live in what is available (ex: SF). SD County doesn’t have to “coddle” newcomers with an endless supply of new construction to choose from because SD County doesn’t NEED any more people. SD didn’t NEED any more people even 25 years ago!
A newcomer to the SD region (or ANY region of the country) is not necessarily “entitled” to new construction or *newer* construction. If they don’t like the housing on offer in a preliminary visit, they can decline employment here. There are at least 21 colleges and universities in SD County churning out mostly local graduates. There are enough qualified people who are already established here to take whatever jobs are available. The companies here DON’T NEED to recruit employees from other counties and states. We have plenty of qualified candidates right here.
More building is NOT better, brian. It just messes up the quality of life in a region for existing residents. Let’s just concentrate on filling up the housing vacancies we have, shall we? That alone could take several years.
September 17, 2011 at 1:44 PM in reply to: CA demographic shifts in the coming years will favor cities over suburbia #729328Participant[quote=ocrenter]I think the only way to really end this debate is to forcefully relocate you and your love ones to El Cajon. ;)[/quote]
Actually ocrenter, AN’s entire extended family could probably fit on that lot! There’s plenty of parking. I’ve seen several nice detached guest houses out there. They don’t cost that much to build. And, if the family members pooled their resources, they could probably pay cash! And the “retired” family members could maintain the gardens and/or orchard.
Keep an open mind, Piggs.
September 17, 2011 at 1:23 PM in reply to: CA demographic shifts in the coming years will favor cities over suburbia #729326ParticipantWell, ocrenter, the “East County meth problem” was tackled with a vengeance over 15 years ago and nearly eradicated thanks to the multi-agency “meth strike force.” The problem was NOT concentrated in the (Granite Hills) area we are discussing here. It was concentrated in Harbison Canyon, Lakeside and beyond.
Since some of the links you provided weren’t very recent, I’ll post some more recent ones here. Of course, this type of “data-diving” can be done for anywhere, but let’s start with that *newer* far-flung, “affordable” and “idyllic” place to raise a family, shall we?
http://www.myvalleynews.com/story/51882/
http://www.pe.com/localnews/stories/PE_News_Local_D_pot27.3495b22.html
http://temecula.patch.com/articles/three-arrested-in-drug-bust
http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/temecula/article_f83c7bd6-3df9-5e92-bc99-0512dc84ee96.html
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/fallbrook-ca/TU6AJS0GGBRENOR3A
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/inland_empire&id=7742782
http://www.silobreaker.com/temecula-man-accused-of-dealing-meth-fencing-5_2264766788103307313
Good L@rd… Poor scaredy, our faithful public-servant Pigg toiling every day “in the trenches” in these parts … he’s gonna be exhausted by the time he “retires.” As least he has long-term “job security.” :=[
September 17, 2011 at 10:52 AM in reply to: CA demographic shifts in the coming years will favor cities over suburbia #729322Participant[quote=AN]2k sq-ft house on 5200 sq-ft lot, built early 80s. The 3 floor plans with 3 cars garage, which include mine is 1800 sq-ft, 2000 sq-ft, and 2300 sq-ft. The lot size of these places with 3 cars garage that are adjacent to my lot is also 5200 sq-ft. Those houses were built the exact same year mine was built.[/quote]
AN, if these houses with 3-car garages are all on the same tract as yours, why didn’t you just buy one of them instead of one with a 2-car garage? I can’t see how you can now build the 3rd bay on a 5200 sf lot. Those houses floor plans were built with those garages to fit on that lot. The “tandem-type” garage was not built in 1980 and would not conform with the rest of the development. If this is what you’re considering, I doubt it would be approved.
[quote=AN]I’m perfectly happy with ~.25 acre.[/quote]
AN, you must know that 5200 sq ft is NOT .25 acre. Far from it. From your posts here, you sound as if you are “perfectly happy” with “5200 sq ft.”
September 17, 2011 at 10:31 AM in reply to: CA demographic shifts in the coming years will favor cities over suburbia #729321ParticipantWell, looks like I’m crashing my own party late this morning, lol!
Number one, none of you have never been to those markets in EC and neither have I and you’re passing judgment on them. In addition, you’re referring to the Granite Hills/Crest area as a “ghetto” and I would bet you have never been there either. Although its zoning is a bit looser than cities it is clean and there is a LOT of $$ out there! There is no fwy noise out there. Each “mini-estate” there has its own septic system and well. In the flats, the soil is rich and completely devoid of rocks! Your neighbors have beautiful (expensive) horses and dogs and a rooster just might wake you up!
I actually have two very good friends who purchased houses with land out there in recent years (post-crash). They grew up in Chula Vista and could not afford to buy the amount of land they wanted near where they grew up (91910/91902) because it is far more expensive here and only partially flat, in most cases. Neither of them know anything about “NASCAR” and “crystal meth.” Are these common Temecula activities?
Number two, unlike a newish exurban crackerbox with faux everything, the Lanai house is well-constructed, has good “bones” and infinite possibilities. Inside is nothing that muriatic acid and new wood or tile floors can’t cure. The bathroom shown is vintage mid-century with American Std pastel fixtures in very good condition. It has a knotty pine kitchen and paneling and a “real” cedar vaulted ceiling. All of these “appts of the era” are present in much more expensive properties in 92106 (on much smaller lots). This property abuts other well-kept acreages.
Nearly all of the homes on acreage out there are +/- 2000 sf mid-century ranches. Break out the tile saw and drywall mud.
I don’t believe there is a GREAT deal of “competition” for these properties simply due to the attitudes displayed on this forum and most potential buyers’ lack of interest in DIY and also lack of skills. That’s fine. The boomer set will continue to buy them up for retirement and live out their dream of a lifestyle of self-sustainability in close-in “suburban” SD County! :=]
And TG, if you have to use your “house” to seduce and be seduced, I would have to say I feel a bit sorry for you :={
September 16, 2011 at 9:15 PM in reply to: CA demographic shifts in the coming years will favor cities over suburbia #729299Participant[quote=AN]I don’t need to go look at the regulation and take measurements, since I don’t plan to do that anytime soon, if ever. However, with common sense and looking at other houses with the exact same floorplan (this floor plan had a 3 cars option from the builder) and similar lot size, I can safely guess I won’t have issue getting permits. Mind you, there’s one house with my floor plan 3 houses down with the exact same lot size, have 3 car garage.[/quote]
Can I just ask you a few questions here.
What is the approximate square footage of your home?
What is your approximate lot size?
In what year was YOUR house built?
What is the avg square footage of the homes in your area with 3-car garages?
What is the average lot size of the homes with 3-car garages (which are adjacent to your lot)?
In what year were the “3-car garage” houses built (which are adjacent to your house)?
-
AuthorPosts
