Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
bearishgurl
ParticipantI would bet marbles to chalk that *males* advertising online for “casual sex” in San Diego DO NOT reside in the San Diego area. They just work here 3-8 days per month and are looking for a fun “fling” to spice up their boring (married) lives elsewhere.
A good portion of these *males* trolling for a “part-time mistress” in SD are no doubt executives, outside salespeople and high-ranking active-duty military who stay here several days a month intermittently for work purposes (and hardly ever on weekends).
OTOH, *females* who are trolling for casual sex in SD County are often longtime residents who are both single and married. The single ones have minor children still at home and just want a part-time friend-with-benefits for when their kids are with dad and/or an occasional “traveling partner.” Believe it or not, the married females who place these ads usually do so with their spouse’s consent.
And in case you’re wondering, no, I do not now or have ever placed any ads in this regard :=]
ParticipantI would bet marbles to chalk that *males* advertising online for “casual sex” in San Diego DO NOT reside in the San Diego area. They just work here 3-8 days per month and are looking for a fun “fling” to spice up their boring (married) lives elsewhere.
A good portion of these *males* trolling for a “part-time mistress” in SD are no doubt executives, outside salespeople and high-ranking active-duty military who stay here several days a month intermittently for work purposes (and hardly ever on weekends).
OTOH, *females* who are trolling for casual sex in SD County are often longtime residents who are both single and married. The single ones have minor children still at home and just want a part-time friend-with-benefits for when their kids are with dad and/or an occasional “traveling partner.” Believe it or not, the married females who place these ads usually do so with their spouse’s consent.
And in case you’re wondering, no, I do not now or have ever placed any ads in this regard :=]
ParticipantI think the MID is valuable (in varying degrees) to a large segment of the US population (who have W-2 income of over $50K or high passive income which is taxable).
However, in many areas of the country, the MID is worth little to homeowners because their mtg balances are so low. In the vast areas of America’s midsection, where there is little housing turnover and property is handed down through families (mostly rural with farms and ranches), I don’t think the presence or absence of the MID really affects these citizen’s tax burden too much or would affect the resale value of these properties .
Just because a good portion of CA coastal residents may be highly encumbered with housing debt does not mean the bulk of residents in other regions of the US are.
And I don’t know what the percentage in SD County is of working homeowners in comparison to non-working homeowners. Assuming it is half and half and out of both of those groups of homeowners, 30% owe nothing on their homes (or too little to have any significant MID), then I am uncertain that eliminating the MID will have any significant effect on housing prices.
Perhaps it will on housing tracts that attract working families who are just starting out or in mid-career but not all housing across the board.
ParticipantI think the MID is valuable (in varying degrees) to a large segment of the US population (who have W-2 income of over $50K or high passive income which is taxable).
However, in many areas of the country, the MID is worth little to homeowners because their mtg balances are so low. In the vast areas of America’s midsection, where there is little housing turnover and property is handed down through families (mostly rural with farms and ranches), I don’t think the presence or absence of the MID really affects these citizen’s tax burden too much or would affect the resale value of these properties .
Just because a good portion of CA coastal residents may be highly encumbered with housing debt does not mean the bulk of residents in other regions of the US are.
And I don’t know what the percentage in SD County is of working homeowners in comparison to non-working homeowners. Assuming it is half and half and out of both of those groups of homeowners, 30% owe nothing on their homes (or too little to have any significant MID), then I am uncertain that eliminating the MID will have any significant effect on housing prices.
Perhaps it will on housing tracts that attract working families who are just starting out or in mid-career but not all housing across the board.
ParticipantI think the MID is valuable (in varying degrees) to a large segment of the US population (who have W-2 income of over $50K or high passive income which is taxable).
However, in many areas of the country, the MID is worth little to homeowners because their mtg balances are so low. In the vast areas of America’s midsection, where there is little housing turnover and property is handed down through families (mostly rural with farms and ranches), I don’t think the presence or absence of the MID really affects these citizen’s tax burden too much or would affect the resale value of these properties .
Just because a good portion of CA coastal residents may be highly encumbered with housing debt does not mean the bulk of residents in other regions of the US are.
And I don’t know what the percentage in SD County is of working homeowners in comparison to non-working homeowners. Assuming it is half and half and out of both of those groups of homeowners, 30% owe nothing on their homes (or too little to have any significant MID), then I am uncertain that eliminating the MID will have any significant effect on housing prices.
Perhaps it will on housing tracts that attract working families who are just starting out or in mid-career but not all housing across the board.
ParticipantI think the MID is valuable (in varying degrees) to a large segment of the US population (who have W-2 income of over $50K or high passive income which is taxable).
However, in many areas of the country, the MID is worth little to homeowners because their mtg balances are so low. In the vast areas of America’s midsection, where there is little housing turnover and property is handed down through families (mostly rural with farms and ranches), I don’t think the presence or absence of the MID really affects these citizen’s tax burden too much or would affect the resale value of these properties .
Just because a good portion of CA coastal residents may be highly encumbered with housing debt does not mean the bulk of residents in other regions of the US are.
And I don’t know what the percentage in SD County is of working homeowners in comparison to non-working homeowners. Assuming it is half and half and out of both of those groups of homeowners, 30% owe nothing on their homes (or too little to have any significant MID), then I am uncertain that eliminating the MID will have any significant effect on housing prices.
Perhaps it will on housing tracts that attract working families who are just starting out or in mid-career but not all housing across the board.
ParticipantI think the MID is valuable (in varying degrees) to a large segment of the US population (who have W-2 income of over $50K or high passive income which is taxable).
However, in many areas of the country, the MID is worth little to homeowners because their mtg balances are so low. In the vast areas of America’s midsection, where there is little housing turnover and property is handed down through families (mostly rural with farms and ranches), I don’t think the presence or absence of the MID really affects these citizen’s tax burden too much or would affect the resale value of these properties .
Just because a good portion of CA coastal residents may be highly encumbered with housing debt does not mean the bulk of residents in other regions of the US are.
And I don’t know what the percentage in SD County is of working homeowners in comparison to non-working homeowners. Assuming it is half and half and out of both of those groups of homeowners, 30% owe nothing on their homes (or too little to have any significant MID), then I am uncertain that eliminating the MID will have any significant effect on housing prices.
Perhaps it will on housing tracts that attract working families who are just starting out or in mid-career but not all housing across the board.
Participantsdcellar, that last question to you was a “run-on” sentence, lol.
What I’m trying to ask here is, “Do you think the new properties in SB would have sold for the SAME price as they did even if the area DID NOT have MR?”
Participantsdcellar, that last question to you was a “run-on” sentence, lol.
What I’m trying to ask here is, “Do you think the new properties in SB would have sold for the SAME price as they did even if the area DID NOT have MR?”
Participantsdcellar, that last question to you was a “run-on” sentence, lol.
What I’m trying to ask here is, “Do you think the new properties in SB would have sold for the SAME price as they did even if the area DID NOT have MR?”
Participantsdcellar, that last question to you was a “run-on” sentence, lol.
What I’m trying to ask here is, “Do you think the new properties in SB would have sold for the SAME price as they did even if the area DID NOT have MR?”
Participantsdcellar, that last question to you was a “run-on” sentence, lol.
What I’m trying to ask here is, “Do you think the new properties in SB would have sold for the SAME price as they did even if the area DID NOT have MR?”
Participant[quote=sdcellar]If instead, that’s a bad interpretation and the Stonebridge property was something approaching a steal, then still don’t let the M-R equivalence fool you. You saved the money on the purchase price of the house plain and simple. M-R didn’t suddenly become awesome. (and if you really think about it, as a percentage of purchase price, the M-R is even higher!)[/quote]
sdcellar, if I understand you correctly here, are you saying that since the builders in SB didn’t receive a (lump-sum equivalent of 30 yrs worth of MR) in the purchase prices that these properties originally sold for and instead owners’ annual MR payments were diverted to bonds to run the CFD(s), that the buyers who bought new in SB and possibly thought they were getting a “good deal” at the time weren’t because they were paying exactly what the market would bear at the time (and still give the developers a profit)? And that the price they paid had nothing to do with whether MR bonds were present there or not? Of course, the above is all irrespective of the boom/bust cycle that took place.
If this is what you are saying, I agree. A resale buyer will try to get the most “bang for their buck” in their price range and will add the remaining MR encumbrance onto the price of the property when comparing that property to a non MR-encumbered comparable one (apples to apples).
Unfortunately, there aren’t yet enough “traditional” resales which took place in a “normal” market to prove whether a property in some of these recently-built high-MR communities will appreciate sufficiently over an average length of ownership of say, 7-10 years, to determine if taking on these MR encumbrances was “a good investment.”
But this is a very interesting subject, nonetheless.
I haven’t studied the comps but this is why I think the SCP community may very well attract a different subset buyers who are shopping in a higher price range than SB buyers and properties in SCP may be more valuable, overall.
But I don’t know for sure. I’m not very familiar with the various communities of SR.
Participant[quote=sdcellar]If instead, that’s a bad interpretation and the Stonebridge property was something approaching a steal, then still don’t let the M-R equivalence fool you. You saved the money on the purchase price of the house plain and simple. M-R didn’t suddenly become awesome. (and if you really think about it, as a percentage of purchase price, the M-R is even higher!)[/quote]
sdcellar, if I understand you correctly here, are you saying that since the builders in SB didn’t receive a (lump-sum equivalent of 30 yrs worth of MR) in the purchase prices that these properties originally sold for and instead owners’ annual MR payments were diverted to bonds to run the CFD(s), that the buyers who bought new in SB and possibly thought they were getting a “good deal” at the time weren’t because they were paying exactly what the market would bear at the time (and still give the developers a profit)? And that the price they paid had nothing to do with whether MR bonds were present there or not? Of course, the above is all irrespective of the boom/bust cycle that took place.
If this is what you are saying, I agree. A resale buyer will try to get the most “bang for their buck” in their price range and will add the remaining MR encumbrance onto the price of the property when comparing that property to a non MR-encumbered comparable one (apples to apples).
Unfortunately, there aren’t yet enough “traditional” resales which took place in a “normal” market to prove whether a property in some of these recently-built high-MR communities will appreciate sufficiently over an average length of ownership of say, 7-10 years, to determine if taking on these MR encumbrances was “a good investment.”
But this is a very interesting subject, nonetheless.
I haven’t studied the comps but this is why I think the SCP community may very well attract a different subset buyers who are shopping in a higher price range than SB buyers and properties in SCP may be more valuable, overall.
But I don’t know for sure. I’m not very familiar with the various communities of SR.
-
AuthorPosts
