Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
September 13, 2011 at 11:52 AM in reply to: P&G’s Hour Glass Strategy: Shrinking Middle Class #728933
bearishgurl
Participant[quote=Huckleberry]Agreed. Obama (and cronies) are setting the new “higher taxation threshold” at $200K for single filers, meaning if you make less than that you are considered middle to low income.
At $200K ($250K married) and above you can consider yourself as just squeezing into the lowest tier of the high income group.[/quote]
As it should be. I’ve always considered these figures to be about right (as to identifying lower MC/MC/upper MC).
The reasons we’ve seen so many HH’s with $100K – $200K annual income in recent years live like they’re making $300K to $500K yr is due to loose credit and living off “manufactured home equity” that has since dissipated into thin air (a byproduct of “loose credit”).
If the $100K – $200K HH income group are deriving all their income from W-2 wages and are supporting 2+ children, they’re likely just eeking by in SD County, often due to the housing choices they made. In less-expensive housing markets of the country, most of these families are actually able to save for college and retirement.
Participant[quote=Jazzman]Just wish I could find more of them.[/quote]
If you are having problems finding them, you are likely looking in the wrong place 🙂
September 13, 2011 at 10:42 AM in reply to: When Mello Roos matters . . . your kids get first priority in schools over non-Mello Roos payers #728926ParticipantIt’s only fair that the homeowners (and renters, thru their higher rent) who live within the CFD’s and HOA’s should be able to enjoy the facilities and schools built within the CFD’s over residents who do not live there. Especially those who pay *exorbitant* MR (over $4K per year). Why should a student who lives outside the CFD be able to attend schools with certain amenities that their parents didn’t or aren’t paying for?
I don’t mind that my kids’ schools were 30-50 yrs old at the time they attended them (and are now even older). Two have undergone extensive repairs from voter-approved bond $$. If the drinking fountains were chipped and broken, some lockers didn’t work anymore, the lunch tables are looking a little ragged, there is no pool or auditorium, so be it. I never paid MR and I won’t pay MR, ever. I believe the quality of a school is heavily dependent on its teachers. And my kids have been blessed in that department :=]
Participant[quote=walterwhite]8.4 Million New Yorkers Suddenly Realize New York City A Horrible Place To Live
‘We’re Getting The Hell Out Of This Sewer,’ Entire Populace Reports
SEPTEMBER 2, 2010 | ISSUE 46•3502.13.09
NEW YORK—At 4:32 p.m. Tuesday, every single resident of New York City decided to evacuate the famed metropolis, having realized it was nothing more than a massive, trash-ridden hellhole that slowly sucks the life out of every one of its inhabitants….By Tuesday night, New York was completely abandoned. At press time, however, some 10 million Los Angeles–area residents, tired of their self-centered, laid-back culture and lack of four distinct seasons, and yearning for the hustle and bustle of East Coast life, had already begun repopulating the city.[/quote]
scaredy . . . that’s priceless!! [img_assist|nid=13925|title=Lol!|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=46|height=46]
Thanks for making my evening! Someday I myself will visit this “hellhole” where my kids have all gotten to do the “schoolkid tourist thang.”
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=bearishgurl]
I see these “makeshift” illegal units in both newer and older construction. [/quote]
So why not change the zoning and allow people to build legally and make it right.
The makeshift units are not safe. They are being built without permits. Let’s change the zoning laws to allow people to turn SFRs into duplexes and triplexes if that’s what they want to do.[/quote]
brian, most of the detached units WERE built with permits. However, they are still “illegal” because they do not have their own utility meters, their own addresses and some don’t have their own parking space. They were built as “companion units” or “granny flats” with the “intended” use of putting a relative in there, with the homeowner paying their utility bills. WRT to the “casitas” that were discussed here, my understanding is that they were first floor master suites (1 of 1 or 1 of 2) located inside single family residences. Some had a door leading out the side or back of the house (like many MBR’s) but did NOT have a separate address. These rooms were also built for relatives of the homeowner and are NOT self-sufficient. Besides the adjoining master bath, some may have a wet bar if it was an existing master suite or family room where one was already installed (popular in 1970’s construction). The bar sink of this “wet bar” can be outfitted with small appliances which are moveable and NOT built in. No permit is needed to do this. It is not really a “kitchenette” if one can remove all the appls in 10 mins and restore it back to the original “wet bar.”
What I was suggesting is that family members living in these rooms might only use their own (countertop) appls occasionally and eat most of their meals with the family in the kitchen. The appls are just there for privacy when the “tenant” or “granny” wants to eat alone or if the door from the room to the house is locked or closed off and the room is rented to a non-relative.
Participant[quote=briansd1] . . . In comparaison, 9/11 has defined America to the core. We have become neurotic about terrorism. And all goverment actions are about covering your asses so that another terrorist attack won’t happen, else you will lose elections or your party will lose. Terrorism has been the political weapon of choice to beat on your opponent.
Forget about government leadership on education, commercial competitiveness… and the things that make our lives better.
10 years later, we are still boggged down and fighting two wars with no end of sight, and fighting over the building of mosques, in Manhattan and Temecula. We are losing technological and commercial competitiveness… [/quote]
I don’t like how the events of 9/11 have taken our liberties away and increased the “hassle-factor” in traveling. I don’t like taking off my shoes and then arguing with a TSA employee about how much is left in that (expensive) tube or container of whatever (is it over 3 oz??) and being brought over into “secondary” TSA just to stand spread-eagled and get “wanded” by a second TSA officer and/or exchange the baggie I brought to declare personal items for one with a zip closure, slightly smaller, etc. By the time one gets thru all of this nonsense and then endures an hour-plus layover, they could have been wa-a-a-a-ay down the road in their own vehicle!
That is, if they’re not stopped by US customs officers on an east-west bound US interstate hwy demanding to search inside their vehicle, trunk and/or trailer, have a dog sniff all their wheel wells and have their Driver’s license inspected when it is clear to the authorities that the vehicle did NOT cross the border and has a license plate number which has NOT been reported stolen.
These are terrible inconveniences to a law-abiding American citizen, an invasion of privacy and probably unconstitutional … but what can we do about it??
I’m all for universal driver’s licenses/ID’s which applicants must go thru an extensive vetting process, much like applying for a passport and do not have to to be renewed until reaching the age of 75, barring any revocations or medical reasons preventing driving. Then, persons who possess these types of licenses should be let go and not hassled, either by TSA, US Customs officials of the Border Patrol.
Participant[quote=Jazzman]Not sure you can entirely isolate SD from the rest of CA, where very similar conditions exist, or that you can boil it down to things like environmental factors such as weather. Moscow has miserable weather, but has very high prices. Arizona has a lot of sun, yet comparatively low prices. California is in the top five states with the highest foreclosures, but where home prices are over twice as much. Prices didn’t correct as much as Las Vegas due mainly to supply. Supply has a huge effect. Monaco is an extreme example of this. Incomes have another effect as can be seen in NY and London. Cheap credit is a major culprit as can be seen in the English speaking world.
Another factor in sticky high prices that I am personally experiencing is falling prices. That seems like a contradiction, but many of the homes I have been making offers on can’t accept FMV, whether they be REOs or normal sales, due to outstanding loan balances. More interesting is the reluctance of many brokers to make offers that reflect FMV. Most seem happier to make offers based on outstanding loan balances. My question to these owners is why should I bail you out? I could equally ask some buyers why are they willing to bail them out, which leads us get back to the bubble addiction hypothesis? So you see a dark cloud seems to be obscuring the sunshine theory.[/quote]
No, Jazzman, SD County is NOT isolated from other heavily-populated CA coastal counties in this regard. They’re ALL subject to having a percentage of distressed properties due to overborrowing and overpaying in the past decade. ALL of the CA coastal counties are highly desirable to different subsets of people for different reasons … even the semi-rural and rural counties. There’s only ONE CA coastline and its beauty sells for whatever that particular locale will bear. This will never change.
In addition, counties such as San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara have a higher-paying job base than SD County and SF and SM Counties have been “built-out” for many decades. This keeps supply low and increases demand for whatever housing is available. Even extremely well-located close-in properties in Alameda and Contra Costa County (East Bay), especially SFR’s, are highly desirable and recent sold prices reflect this. Nearly ALL SFR’s =< 3 mi from the coast in Marin Co and =<2 mi from the coast in Santa Barbara Co are HIGHLY desirable, size and condition being of secondary consideration. And there isn't even much of a job base in those counties. You can't compare coastal CA to AZ and NV. They are apples and oranges. AZ and NV are hot deserts and Phoenix and LV are situated on the desert floor and are among the few hottest places in the US. Any traveling or Russian Piggs, help me out here please, but I believe nearly EVERY head of household in Moscow is eligible for rental assistance from the government, making “landlording” there a very lucrative and much less risky endeavor than in the US. Hence, the higher prices for properties there. Any available properties are likely 85-90% multifamily buildings. Monaco has the same problem as SF Co, SM Co, Coronado, Catalina Island, Balboa Island (in the OC), etc. It is what it is.
********************
You are correct, Jazzman, in that you don’t have to offer what the “outstanding loan balance(s)” is/are on a property just to be the “selected bidder” on an overencumbered property. It’s not your responsibility, as a buyer, to “bail out” any of these fools. You need only offer what you feel a property is worth, based upon nearby comparable recent sold comps. Many of these sellers still HAVE a good portion of the money they “cashed out” on their properties in recent years tucked under a mattress or locked in a safe. Let some other sucker be the “winning bidder” (lol) and let their appraiser and inspector shoot the deal down and let them cancel their escrows because of it. If these sellers are struggling to keep up their payments or seller-deadbeats don’t care to make their payments, let them try to “convince” their lender(s) to sell short or take little to nothing from the sale. Let their credit be shot in the process. Let them get foreclosed upon if they have been “living for free,” saving living expenses (and also any cash they extracted from their properties and have hidden). They deserve it.
The solution to your problem, Jazzman, and to making a successful straightforward deal you will be happy with is to deal with a seller with plenty of equity … even a free and clear seller. I can assure you that they ARE around :=]
Participant[quote=afx114]BG, your post doesn’t jive with what I’m seeing as a recent buyer in North Park. There are younger families with kids everywhere. On any given evening after work, my wife and I take our 11-month old to crawl around on our front lawn and are passed by two or three, sometimes up to five or six young families like ourselves walking their dogs, jogging with their baby stroller, or pulling along a wagon with a baby in it.
Maybe I live in a pocket that is the exception and not the norm, but none of what you’ve said above about my neighborhood (border of North/South Park) with regard to “younger families” is true.[/quote]
I’m glad to hear this, afx, as this is how I remember it. Do you know if these young families are owners or renters? And, by chance, is your home located in Burlingame?
Participant[quote=afx114][quote=bearishgurl]If this urban-sprawl was not allowed to take effect to the degree it did, it is VERY likely that new-homeowner money would instead have been used to revitalize SD’s close-in neighborhoods house by house and block by block.[/quote]
Have you been to North/South Park, Hillcrest, Normal Heights, Gaslamp, East Village, etc in the past 20 years? They’ve gentrified quite a bit, so I don’t know what your above paragraph even means. Have you expected them to gentrify more than they already have?[/quote]
Yes, afx, I am aware that these areas have “gentrified” and that East Village is actually overbuilt now with a proliferation of *new* unsold (partly vacant) condos. I go downtown 1-3 times per week, to Hillcrest several times per month and the Gaslamp several times per year. In addition, I drive thoroughfares of all of these areas frequently and originally lived in dtn SD (Banker’s Hill) from mid 70’s to the mid 80’s, where I jogged with a neighborhood group for about 10 years. In many cases, my photographic memory of parts of the SD core serves me well if a particular corner has not changed too much over the years :=]
Currently, I just don’t see very many *families* buying/renting in these areas, just singles and couples. In the past, families loved North Park/South Park, Hillcrest and Mission Hills and willingly sent their kids to public and private schools around there. For a downtown worker, it was considered *prestigious* to live in SD’s best urban areas as opposed to your old “stomping ground” in La Presa (Spring Valley) or National City, for example. Back then, all this “urban sprawl” inventory for a buyer to choose from did not exist as we know it today.
Of course, this was all PRIOR to the inception of the Community Facilities District Act (1982) and use of Mello Roos Bonds in SD County (1987), ostensibly put in place to fund infrastructure of raw land for residential development. The passage of the “MR Act” by the CA Legislature was also partly a byproduct of the earlier passage of Prop 13. Because even though MR bonds aren’t funding infrastructure in the already-established areas, they free up cities and counties to service these areas with a larger portion of their available funds due to the MR set-asides collected within the CFD’s to maintain their own separate public and private services and facilities. For instance, the City of Chula Vista is now collecting ALL of their portion of the property taxes for 3 annexed zip codes (over the original 2) and some the MR collected from those 3 zip codes. (Most of the MR collected from those 3 zip codes is used solely to fund the infrastructure and services there.) This is STILL a windfall for Chula Vista, CVESD and SUHSD because the CITY runs ALL the services (police/fire/administration/road maintenance, etc) and the DISTRICTS run ALL the schools (even those in MR areas). For example, I have no doubt that the labor-intensive 65-90 year old trees on City easements in my area are still trimmed regularly because the City is collecting so much more money from these newer HOA’d areas which are wholly or partly financially “self-sufficient” due to collection of MR, “Street Bonds” and HOA dues. Of course, property owners in my 60+ year old area do NOT pay for all the services they enjoy because a very large portion of them (35-40%?) are owned (not necessarily occupied) by persons who qualify under Prop 13 or its progeny to retain their last market-rate assessed value as of September 1977 plus 2% per year in accordance with Prop 13. This keeps their taxes artificially low in comparison to owners who have purchased since then and especially owners who have purchased since 2000.
I just don’t think most younger buyers with children today even consider looking in the close-in urban areas when they are in the market for a home because they “perceive” listed properties there to have more “maintenance,” to be located in higher-crime areas and to have “substandard” schools, etc., when actually the opposite is true. Many properties there have undergone extensive remodel in recent years. There is also far more public school choice within SD’s core than a family would have in an outlying area.
Remember that the 22-45 year old set with children are the biggest market segment of homebuyers. Younger singles and couples without children often don’t really NEED a home and wish to be in a position to be mobile, if necessary. The vast majority of singles and couples older than 45 either already HAVE home(s), will never be able to purchase a home or are now retiring and/or downsizing or will be soon. The “attitudes and biases” this younger market adopts will dictate the future values of various diverse RE market areas.
Participant[quote=Jazzman]Bearishgirl, I am with you all the way on Prop 13. The SD/Charlotte example was just to illustrate a point, that measures of life style, geography, weather etc alone don’t determine home values. RE is the biggest industry in CA. If memory serves me, it is a whopping 17% of GDP. The mortgage/Wall Street fusion was purportedly born in Orange County. CA has one of the largest foreclosure rates in the country. I don’t think this is all coincidence, or that people are simply “prepared” to pay higher home prices. Life-style is sold here big time, and some might argue largely on the back of Hollywood glitz and glamor, so one is “stuck” with the high prices.[/quote]
Jazzman, I don’t think a “lifestyle of glitz and glamor” are what people are buying in SD County when they purchase RE. ANY area of the US is free to “sell” its “lifestyle” and many do. I think, plain and simple that the weather in SD county is more consistent year round and year over year and less prone to natural disasters (we’ve also been lucky in recent decades in this regard). This is a BIG sell. One doesn’t need to visit here long in the winter or during hurricane season to experience the difference because between SD and Charlotte. I also think the diverse housing stock, diverse kinds of people and proximity to the Pacific Ocean and Mexico are a big draw, as well.
Foreclosures and property distress is happening everywhere in the US with some locales affected far more than others. NINJA loans were likely available in all 50 states. HELOCs and “cash-out” refis were regulated in a few states. The states with less mobility were affected the least. These “regulated states” and the ones with the least family mobility are often one and the same and are mostly located in the nation’s midsection where a young family will typically buy a 1-10 AC plot of land in the same area they grew up in and where the bulk of their family members reside. Then they will build a house on it (usually built by a family friend or relative and sometimes with the buyer’s help) and live in it for a minimum of 25 years and sometimes for life. Since homeowners don’t sell and move too much in these areas, there were few who took out NINJA loans. In addition, since buyers had constant contact with family members for counsel (legal and otherwise) during the buying process, they typically did not succumb to these types of financing pitches and instead accepted the help of family members for downpayment and rehab assistance and/or used FHA/VA financing.
Participant[quote=Jazzman]Many places around the world have always had expensive real estate. The difference is these are no longer isolated enclaves for the super rich, but have spread to middle class areas. You only need to check back over the last 10-20 years to see how much home prices have accelerated. It is frightening! Theories on number of sunshine hours, golf courses, haute cuisine establishments don’t really cut it, as I don’t think you can say SD is twice as good as Charlotte, and therefore should command twice the price…[/quote]
Jazzman, I don’t think SD County prices are due to a “bubble addiction.” Obviously, if an asking price is too high, a property will languish on the market and eventually be removed, unsold. TX and the Carolinas have BEAUTIFUL golf courses, sunshine and plenty of “haute cuisine” as does SD.
I’m not sure if SD County commands “twice the price” of Charlotte (NC) but if it does, it is because buyers are willing to pay “twice the price” to live here. As was discussed before, “worth” is subjective and in the eye of the beholder.
The reason SD County is not an “isolated enclave” is due to rampant urban sprawl over the last 20 years, IMO. Now that incoming buyers have all these “buying choices” in “urban-sprawl land,” SD’s best close-in neighborhoods have become “less desireable” to them. If this urban-sprawl was not allowed to take effect to the degree it did, it is VERY likely that new-homeowner money would instead have been used to revitalize SD’s close-in neighborhoods house by house and block by block.
States such as Washington have had strict moratoriums on “urban sprawl” around its cities for at least 20 years. Not only has it kept traffic down, this policy has served to keep its cities best neighborhoods grand, leafy, walkable, safe and full of educated high-earning residents.
This is what the voters wanted in WA so this is what they have. In doing this, their quality of life in the existing areas has remained high.
Due to the eventual decimation of incoming coffers to CA state and local governments in the last 20 years (as a byproduct of enacting Prop 13 and its progeny), cities and counties in CA have gone “hungry” and needed all the tax money new development could bring in for their daily operations, thus they sold out to developers. In doing so, they sold down the river EVERY existing resident’s quality of life.
Those beneficiaries of Prop 13 are using the exact same public services as the rest of the property owners in CA but are paying 1/6 to 1/12 of the taxes for that use. For this reason, Prop 13 needs to be repealed for all property owners but the original owners as of April 1978 who are still themselves residing in those same properties. These owners will eventually die and Prop 13 will become moot. Its premise was well-intentioned at the time but it turned out to be a BIG mistake for this heavily-populated border state.
[end of stump]
Participant[quote=CA renter]You’re missing my point about not concentrating all the low-income housing like that. I’m sure there are some SFH landlords in CBD who will take Section 8 tenants, but in all the years I’ve lived here, I’ve never seen one. They don’t need Section 8 because our rental market is very strong, and they can just as easily find truly qualified renters who are just about as reliable as Section 8, but who won’t damage their homes.[/quote]
Lol, CAR, I must have been “threadskimming” yesterday and did not see your post below. I really don’t think the complexes shown on the City’s website could be considered “slums” but of course, I don’t live around there or drive by them.
I DO understand why “casitas” developers built as part of an SFR but with no separate entrance cannot be considered fulfilling their “affordable housing set-aside” requirements. Usually, these rooms are inhabited by relatives of the homeowner. They are NOT available to the general public on the basis of income. Therefore, they are not available for public consumption.
However, two things have always bothered me about public/private partnership decisions to place *new* affordable housing in particular areas.
First of all, why does a low-income or Section 8 tenant “deserve” *new* construction? What’s wrong with older construction? Many working families making $80K to $200K per year own and/or reside in older construction which actually needs repairs they cannot yet afford.
Secondly, why does a low-income or Section 8 tenant “deserve” to live in zip codes and micro-areas where the average price of a condo is currently $350K+ and the average price of an SFR is currently about $650K?? What’s wrong with 92105 or 92114?? I understand these zip codes already have a LOT of low-income housing. But I am hard-pressed to understand where the incentive is for a single parent or family to try to “earn more” and “move up” in life when if they do so, they will no longer “qualify” to rent their spacious 3-bdrm apt in Carlsbad with “full amenities” for $322 per month?
Piggs, if you happened to qualify for one of these units, wouldn’t you keep your “documented” income within guidelines forever so as not to lose this “deal of a lifetime??” WTH, don’t bother with that FT or “better” job. Just go surfing instead!
If a developer has to have a “low income set-aside” for a certain number of units in order to obtain permits to build SFRs in a desirable area, then why can’t they build those “set-aside” units in a less desirable area (ie build SFRs in 92011 and their required LI units in 92025 or 92105, overlooking I-15)? Or, at the very least, build them in the same or adjacent zip codes but under high power lines, next to an industrial area or other lesser-desirable (read: cheaper) land? Why do all these areas that upwardly mobile buyers/tenants “aspire to” have to have hundreds of low-income units located within them?
It’s not just Carlsbad, it’s also coveted areas like Pt Loma (although not *newer* apts) where this phenomenon prevails.
I was always of the mind that people should “pay their dues” in life first in order to enable them to “move-up” to the next best area.
I believe many current “low-income” residents of Section 8 and other “low-income” units have become unjustly enriched at the expense of the working middle class, due to public policies to spread these housing benefits around nearly everywhere.
As I’ve posted before, this is also true for very young “low-income” active-duty families who live in military housing areas located at Silver Strand and Loma Portal. However, the Navy has owned all of this land for more than 60 years and there is nothing anyone can do about this. They are entitled to do with it whatever they wish.
[quote=CA renter]I don’t know why this isn’t mandated as “affordable housing” in new developments. It’s more practical for most families to have their grown kids or elderly parents live near home than it is to have them far away in some apartment or nursing home. This way, instead of clustering apartments that meet the “affordable housing” requirements — often leading to congested areas with higher crime, etc. — the renters can be spread out where the landlords would be more inclined to maintain the properties better (because they live next door), and they can help friends or family members who need an affordable place to live. It would greatly reduce the creation of new “slums.”[/quote]
***************
I also disagree with making the Bressi Ranch condo complex available only to “low-income” buyers under strict guidelines and with all those restrictions. Cities of El Cajon and Santee have had similar programs for newly-built condos and there have been MANY foreclosures in these complexes.
It has been proven time and time again with CHFA, the fmr “Union Bank Economic Opportunity Mtgs,” and the “City of SD Silent Seconds” (92105, 92113 and 92114) that low-income buyers (esp 1st-time buyers) DO NOT stay in their properties for the long term, CANNOT pay back “silent seconds” for violating occupancy and length-of-ownership rules and BALK at having to sell their property to another “low-income qualifying buyer” at a pre-determined sales price out of their control. This severely limits their buying pool and often the reason they are selling is desperation. They are selling due to moving for work or family reasons or are no longer able to afford the mortgage. These agencies aren’t doing these “low-income” homeowners any favors. Many don’t even need the MID for a tax writeoff and are actually taking the EIC on their tax returns!
There is so much public hype over the concept of “affordable housing” and “homeownership for all” that potential “low-income” buyers are actually being sold a “bill of goods” when they are “selected” by lottery to participate in these programs (usually for poorly-built and badly-located new construction), IMO. They don’t realize this until months/years after they have moved in.
For a lowish-income first-timer, why not just try to qualify for an FHA loan and buy a home for your family through a “traditional sale??” Or save enough $$ until one has the necessary 3.5% down plus closing costs?
FWIW, I’m not saying here that having a “low income” is a crime or that “low income” people are somehow subhuman. Some Piggs might consider me to have a “low income,” lol. And level of income has nothing to do with honesty and integrity. I just believe everyone should be able to live within their means and nothing more. Otherwise, there is no incentive to make one’s life better … because the *better lifestyle* is already available at a very low cost to those who can’t afford it.
Participant[quote=EconProf]We are likely to see a lot more roomate situations due to a confluence of events:
1. Ongoing recession
2. Overproduction of McMansions during the boom
3. Rising rents even as apt. construction is way down
Builders are already scaling back new house sizes as they try to match the new austerity tastes of today’s homebuyers.
Could the next response be houses with one first floor bedroom with its own entrance and large and private bathroom? This would enable the “roomate” and homeowner to have privacy and not even interact with each other, especially if the bedroom had a bar (wink, wink, kitchenette).[/quote]EconProf, I agree that we will see more of these housing situations in the coming years, due to lack of jobs for all in SD and a higher percentage of resident senior citizens in the population.
There are already a few recent developments in South County which have a setup like this as having extended family (older adults) live with a family of children (for childcare and other reasons) is common here. These homes are typically 4-6 bdrms with 1-2 first-floor bdrm/bath combos, one with a separate entrance door leading out of the side or rear of house. Even though there may be only a bar sink (wink, wink) located in a bedroom (fmr MBR suite?), what’s to stop a family from installing minimal “Ikea-like” cabinets and a small countertop/bar sink? There is no law against putting a small frig, micro, toaster oven, coffeemaker and hotplate in a bdrm “unit” like this to make it self sufficient. I’ve even seen a garbage disposer installed under the bar sink! I recently purchased as a gift a 5/7/9 inch “induction” hotplate for a companion unit like this for just $42 (incl tax)! Why would you need a permit for a “kitchenette” since none of this is “built-in?” Many hotel rooms are set up like this. What does one young student (or a senior single or couple who cooks and eats dinner with the family in the “real” dining room) really need?? If there is no bar sink in the “companion bdrm,” one can likely be installed w/o a permit using the bathroom sink plumbing which already exists.
I see these “makeshift” illegal units in both newer and older construction. In 91910 and 91902 (91902 mostly detached), there is usually enough room on the lot to park all the vehicles. In 91911 and 92154, where these types of houses also prevail, there are often several extra residential vehicles parked on the streets. It’s legal to park on a public street as long as vehicles are not blocking driveway entrances or parked in red zones and are moved every 72 hrs. Some houses have as many as 8 regular vehicles always parked outside. As much as one might not want a neighbor’s vehicle constantly blocking their view across the street, there’s really nothing anyone can do about this as long as its regularly moved.
If your kid decided to stay home and go to college, wouldn’t you consider holing them up in your “granny flat” (legal or illegal) and giving them landscaping and other chores around your property for “rent?”
If your parent was 75+ years old and widowed or divorced or 85+ years old and they were both still alive, together and could take care of themselves, wouldn’t you feel better if you took them in if you were able to? They are allowed to drive until they can’t pass the DMV vision test anymore with corrected vision or have other medical issues which would preclude them from driving. They have to park somewhere.
These “companion rooms” and “units” serve a needed function for lot of SD County residents. I, for one, am glad the county has eased restrictions on them.
To the OP, I agree that 2000 sf can be excessive for 2 people if you don’t have a lot of personal possessions and don’t use the bdrms (i.e. study/guest room, etc). You are fortunate to have found a compatible (unrelated) roommate you can trust. From your post, it seems as if you don’t have a separate door to the outside in your roommates room and he/she has the use of your living areas and yard and thus has a key to your main home. I also agree with other posters that this setup could easily turn out to be an invasion of privacy and too aggravating to deal with for $600 mo. If you really need the $600 month and your roommate cleans up also, doesn’t make extra work for you, doesn’t bring in overnight or multiple guests and is not noisy, then I think you have probably found a good setup for now 🙂
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=sdrealtor]
MOst of the new developments in Carlsbad mandated casita units in a number of units to meet affordable housing guidelines. Its already being done here.[/quote]Awesome. I’ve seen a *few* homes with casitas (not in most developments from what I’ve seen), but they usually didn’t have kitchens or laundry facilities. Not only that, but they didn’t even have any kind of access to the main house, which makes these units truly useless — you can’t use them for living quarters, and you can’t use them as part of your house.[/quote]
CAR, you must know that a mere “cursory check” on the internet reveals there are plenty of opportunities for low-income tenants (and even potential homebuyers) in Carlsbad. See:
http://www.carlsbadca.gov/services/departments/housing/affordable/Pages/affordable-apartments.aspx
… as to low income guidelines (as percentage of SD County median income)
http://www.carlsbadca.gov/services/departments/housing/affordable/Documents/SDMedianIncome2011.pdf
as to “extremely low-income” qualified complexes
http://www.carlsbadca.gov/services/departments/housing/affordable/Pages/income-qualifications.aspx
and, as to new condos for purchase under low-income guidelines (if selling less than 15 yrs out, City will have say on maximum asking price)
http://www.sandiegobythesea.com/mulberryatbressiranch_qual.htm
And none of these links even mention all the owners of SFRs in Carlsbad who will accept a Section 8 voucher.
-
AuthorPosts
