Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
bearishgurl
Participant[quote=threadkiller]…I also know someone that makes $90k has that much saved up in cash and cannot afford to buy a new SFH in San Diego…[/quote]
Since when is $90K annually and $90K in savings a guarantee of purchasing your “dream” property in SD County?? What are the monthly obligations of this $90K household and how many dependents do they have? $90K is about enough cash to put the minimum down on a max $400K purchase and having $10K left over for closing costs. It is assumed they will NOT need any cash reserves here, and they very well could be required to. In that case, it is enough cash for a $350K to $380K purchase.
This is clearly a middle income buyer and if the family is greater than 4 people, a mid-lower income family.
I guess what I’m getting at here is, why is does a potential first-time buyer with a middle or mid/lower income have an expectation of purchasing *new* SFR construction in SD County, with all its incipient developer costs and fees (passed onto a buyer)?
In previous decades and generations, first and even second-time buyers of all income levels did not have this expectation. They endeavored to buy property in close proximity to other relatives or as close to the coast as they could afford to. If the property needed work, they worked on it. There wasn’t a lot of agonizing and it didn’t take very long at all to find a suitable property.
Of course, there wasn’t all these new developments built in new far-flung zip codes to choose from, as there are today :=0
Participant[quote=threadkiller]…I also know someone that makes $90k has that much saved up in cash and cannot afford to buy a new SFH in San Diego…[/quote]
Since when is $90K annually and $90K in savings a guarantee of purchasing your “dream” property in SD County?? What are the monthly obligations of this $90K household and how many dependents do they have? $90K is about enough cash to put the minimum down on a max $400K purchase and having $10K left over for closing costs. It is assumed they will NOT need any cash reserves here, and they very well could be required to. In that case, it is enough cash for a $350K to $380K purchase.
This is clearly a middle income buyer and if the family is greater than 4 people, a mid-lower income family.
I guess what I’m getting at here is, why is does a potential first-time buyer with a middle or mid/lower income have an expectation of purchasing *new* SFR construction in SD County, with all its incipient developer costs and fees (passed onto a buyer)?
In previous decades and generations, first and even second-time buyers of all income levels did not have this expectation. They endeavored to buy property in close proximity to other relatives or as close to the coast as they could afford to. If the property needed work, they worked on it. There wasn’t a lot of agonizing and it didn’t take very long at all to find a suitable property.
Of course, there wasn’t all these new developments built in new far-flung zip codes to choose from, as there are today :=0
Participant[quote=threadkiller]…With affordability at all time highs/lows (however you want to look at it) why is it that the above average person can’t even buy a below average new house in San Diego…[/quote]
TK, I don’t recall a time when the “above average person” or any first-time buyer, for that matter, aspired to a new construction purchase in SD unless it was a condo or had a low-income financing package attached to it.
This “desire” of first time buyers could be compared to a newly-minted military wife of all of 18-22 years old waltzing into town and demanding a unit in Pacific Beach, Coronado or Pt Loma from the Navy Family Housing Office (yes, this happens every day). Never mind they grew up in a double-wide in Kentucky. They have decided they will NOT accept a unit unless it is located in one of those three areas. Hence, they end up taking the housing allowance and paying rent somewhere (likely NOT in one of their desired areas, lol) while they waitlist, often for years. When they can’t manage their rent and utility bills, they give up and move back “home,” wherever that is, to await the arrival of their deployed spouses and also usually their 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th child.
It seems there may be a pervasive mentality among first-time RE buyers that it’s all or nothing … exactly what they desire now or no purchase at all. What’s wrong with a “good enough for the next 5-10 yrs” property? How about a sweat-equity fixer in a GREAT location?? How ELSE are you going to buy in that GREAT location??
Some food for thought: What constitutes an “above average” buyer in your mind? And how many of these “above average” buyers with the best intentions are still “above average” three years after moving in? And why do they feel if they can’t purchase *new* construction that there are no other purchase options??
Participant[quote=threadkiller]…With affordability at all time highs/lows (however you want to look at it) why is it that the above average person can’t even buy a below average new house in San Diego…[/quote]
TK, I don’t recall a time when the “above average person” or any first-time buyer, for that matter, aspired to a new construction purchase in SD unless it was a condo or had a low-income financing package attached to it.
This “desire” of first time buyers could be compared to a newly-minted military wife of all of 18-22 years old waltzing into town and demanding a unit in Pacific Beach, Coronado or Pt Loma from the Navy Family Housing Office (yes, this happens every day). Never mind they grew up in a double-wide in Kentucky. They have decided they will NOT accept a unit unless it is located in one of those three areas. Hence, they end up taking the housing allowance and paying rent somewhere (likely NOT in one of their desired areas, lol) while they waitlist, often for years. When they can’t manage their rent and utility bills, they give up and move back “home,” wherever that is, to await the arrival of their deployed spouses and also usually their 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th child.
It seems there may be a pervasive mentality among first-time RE buyers that it’s all or nothing … exactly what they desire now or no purchase at all. What’s wrong with a “good enough for the next 5-10 yrs” property? How about a sweat-equity fixer in a GREAT location?? How ELSE are you going to buy in that GREAT location??
Some food for thought: What constitutes an “above average” buyer in your mind? And how many of these “above average” buyers with the best intentions are still “above average” three years after moving in? And why do they feel if they can’t purchase *new* construction that there are no other purchase options??
Participant[quote=threadkiller]…With affordability at all time highs/lows (however you want to look at it) why is it that the above average person can’t even buy a below average new house in San Diego…[/quote]
TK, I don’t recall a time when the “above average person” or any first-time buyer, for that matter, aspired to a new construction purchase in SD unless it was a condo or had a low-income financing package attached to it.
This “desire” of first time buyers could be compared to a newly-minted military wife of all of 18-22 years old waltzing into town and demanding a unit in Pacific Beach, Coronado or Pt Loma from the Navy Family Housing Office (yes, this happens every day). Never mind they grew up in a double-wide in Kentucky. They have decided they will NOT accept a unit unless it is located in one of those three areas. Hence, they end up taking the housing allowance and paying rent somewhere (likely NOT in one of their desired areas, lol) while they waitlist, often for years. When they can’t manage their rent and utility bills, they give up and move back “home,” wherever that is, to await the arrival of their deployed spouses and also usually their 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th child.
It seems there may be a pervasive mentality among first-time RE buyers that it’s all or nothing … exactly what they desire now or no purchase at all. What’s wrong with a “good enough for the next 5-10 yrs” property? How about a sweat-equity fixer in a GREAT location?? How ELSE are you going to buy in that GREAT location??
Some food for thought: What constitutes an “above average” buyer in your mind? And how many of these “above average” buyers with the best intentions are still “above average” three years after moving in? And why do they feel if they can’t purchase *new* construction that there are no other purchase options??
Participant[quote=threadkiller]…With affordability at all time highs/lows (however you want to look at it) why is it that the above average person can’t even buy a below average new house in San Diego…[/quote]
TK, I don’t recall a time when the “above average person” or any first-time buyer, for that matter, aspired to a new construction purchase in SD unless it was a condo or had a low-income financing package attached to it.
This “desire” of first time buyers could be compared to a newly-minted military wife of all of 18-22 years old waltzing into town and demanding a unit in Pacific Beach, Coronado or Pt Loma from the Navy Family Housing Office (yes, this happens every day). Never mind they grew up in a double-wide in Kentucky. They have decided they will NOT accept a unit unless it is located in one of those three areas. Hence, they end up taking the housing allowance and paying rent somewhere (likely NOT in one of their desired areas, lol) while they waitlist, often for years. When they can’t manage their rent and utility bills, they give up and move back “home,” wherever that is, to await the arrival of their deployed spouses and also usually their 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th child.
It seems there may be a pervasive mentality among first-time RE buyers that it’s all or nothing … exactly what they desire now or no purchase at all. What’s wrong with a “good enough for the next 5-10 yrs” property? How about a sweat-equity fixer in a GREAT location?? How ELSE are you going to buy in that GREAT location??
Some food for thought: What constitutes an “above average” buyer in your mind? And how many of these “above average” buyers with the best intentions are still “above average” three years after moving in? And why do they feel if they can’t purchase *new* construction that there are no other purchase options??
Participant[quote=threadkiller]…With affordability at all time highs/lows (however you want to look at it) why is it that the above average person can’t even buy a below average new house in San Diego…[/quote]
TK, I don’t recall a time when the “above average person” or any first-time buyer, for that matter, aspired to a new construction purchase in SD unless it was a condo or had a low-income financing package attached to it.
This “desire” of first time buyers could be compared to a newly-minted military wife of all of 18-22 years old waltzing into town and demanding a unit in Pacific Beach, Coronado or Pt Loma from the Navy Family Housing Office (yes, this happens every day). Never mind they grew up in a double-wide in Kentucky. They have decided they will NOT accept a unit unless it is located in one of those three areas. Hence, they end up taking the housing allowance and paying rent somewhere (likely NOT in one of their desired areas, lol) while they waitlist, often for years. When they can’t manage their rent and utility bills, they give up and move back “home,” wherever that is, to await the arrival of their deployed spouses and also usually their 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th child.
It seems there may be a pervasive mentality among first-time RE buyers that it’s all or nothing … exactly what they desire now or no purchase at all. What’s wrong with a “good enough for the next 5-10 yrs” property? How about a sweat-equity fixer in a GREAT location?? How ELSE are you going to buy in that GREAT location??
Some food for thought: What constitutes an “above average” buyer in your mind? And how many of these “above average” buyers with the best intentions are still “above average” three years after moving in? And why do they feel if they can’t purchase *new* construction that there are no other purchase options??
Participant[quote=Navydoc] . . . If I build a new house I can specify everything the way I want it, and can rationalize the crappy market with “I got exactly the house I wanted” and can almost look at it like a car purchase.
I realize this is stupid, but I’m sure the psychology of this is very similar to everyone buying new construction right now. The whole thing just seems less risky, even though it may not be.
By the way, I consider the Stonebridge location to be very desirable, but to each his/her own.[/quote]
Navydoc, I’m sure you’re aware that vehicle buyers EXPECT their cars to depreciate the moment they drive them from the lot. As you know, real property requires a MUCH larger cash outlay than buying a vehicle.
You can make ANY property exactly the way you want it. If it is already in an established area, the most cost-effective way to do this is buy it first, move into it and remodel it room by room until you get it the way you want it. This strategy is only feasible for a VERY well-located property which will bear a sales price in line with your at least your purchase price plus remodeling costs, IMHO.
Buying new construction in the current climate is akin to buying a vehicle, IMO. There is no sweat equity involved, everything is (presumably) the way a buyer wants it now, and, due to often trumped-up developer asking/selling prices and inferior locations, a buyer today CAN expect to lose equity almost immediately. How much? I don’t know. It probably depends upon the development, its location and the qualifications and financial stability of successful buyers in a particular development. This immediate loss of equity doesn’t even take into account the funds a buyer needs after closing to install needed landscaping, even at bare minimum.
You may like Stonebridge because of its proximity to Miramar. However, it is quite far inland, can be very warm, hence the need for (expensive) A/C, has high power/tension line easements, no mature vegetation, and, due to being somewhat isolated, has little to no local services available there, from what I read on this blog. Relative to SD County’s finest areas within the asking price ranges of Stonebridge properties, this community cannot compete in location and quality-of-life issues, IMO. There are too many superior communities in SD County in the same price range as Stonebridge which offer location, an abundance of natural beauty and a lifestyle that Stonebridge can’t.
I don’t have a disdain for Stonebridge, in particular. Just using it for an example here. This post could be applicable to ANY major new construction development. They are ALL in inferior locations to 85% of the existing housing. Why? All the BEST and BETTER locations were built on long ago. That’s my point.
Participant[quote=Navydoc] . . . If I build a new house I can specify everything the way I want it, and can rationalize the crappy market with “I got exactly the house I wanted” and can almost look at it like a car purchase.
I realize this is stupid, but I’m sure the psychology of this is very similar to everyone buying new construction right now. The whole thing just seems less risky, even though it may not be.
By the way, I consider the Stonebridge location to be very desirable, but to each his/her own.[/quote]
Navydoc, I’m sure you’re aware that vehicle buyers EXPECT their cars to depreciate the moment they drive them from the lot. As you know, real property requires a MUCH larger cash outlay than buying a vehicle.
You can make ANY property exactly the way you want it. If it is already in an established area, the most cost-effective way to do this is buy it first, move into it and remodel it room by room until you get it the way you want it. This strategy is only feasible for a VERY well-located property which will bear a sales price in line with your at least your purchase price plus remodeling costs, IMHO.
Buying new construction in the current climate is akin to buying a vehicle, IMO. There is no sweat equity involved, everything is (presumably) the way a buyer wants it now, and, due to often trumped-up developer asking/selling prices and inferior locations, a buyer today CAN expect to lose equity almost immediately. How much? I don’t know. It probably depends upon the development, its location and the qualifications and financial stability of successful buyers in a particular development. This immediate loss of equity doesn’t even take into account the funds a buyer needs after closing to install needed landscaping, even at bare minimum.
You may like Stonebridge because of its proximity to Miramar. However, it is quite far inland, can be very warm, hence the need for (expensive) A/C, has high power/tension line easements, no mature vegetation, and, due to being somewhat isolated, has little to no local services available there, from what I read on this blog. Relative to SD County’s finest areas within the asking price ranges of Stonebridge properties, this community cannot compete in location and quality-of-life issues, IMO. There are too many superior communities in SD County in the same price range as Stonebridge which offer location, an abundance of natural beauty and a lifestyle that Stonebridge can’t.
I don’t have a disdain for Stonebridge, in particular. Just using it for an example here. This post could be applicable to ANY major new construction development. They are ALL in inferior locations to 85% of the existing housing. Why? All the BEST and BETTER locations were built on long ago. That’s my point.
Participant[quote=Navydoc] . . . If I build a new house I can specify everything the way I want it, and can rationalize the crappy market with “I got exactly the house I wanted” and can almost look at it like a car purchase.
I realize this is stupid, but I’m sure the psychology of this is very similar to everyone buying new construction right now. The whole thing just seems less risky, even though it may not be.
By the way, I consider the Stonebridge location to be very desirable, but to each his/her own.[/quote]
Navydoc, I’m sure you’re aware that vehicle buyers EXPECT their cars to depreciate the moment they drive them from the lot. As you know, real property requires a MUCH larger cash outlay than buying a vehicle.
You can make ANY property exactly the way you want it. If it is already in an established area, the most cost-effective way to do this is buy it first, move into it and remodel it room by room until you get it the way you want it. This strategy is only feasible for a VERY well-located property which will bear a sales price in line with your at least your purchase price plus remodeling costs, IMHO.
Buying new construction in the current climate is akin to buying a vehicle, IMO. There is no sweat equity involved, everything is (presumably) the way a buyer wants it now, and, due to often trumped-up developer asking/selling prices and inferior locations, a buyer today CAN expect to lose equity almost immediately. How much? I don’t know. It probably depends upon the development, its location and the qualifications and financial stability of successful buyers in a particular development. This immediate loss of equity doesn’t even take into account the funds a buyer needs after closing to install needed landscaping, even at bare minimum.
You may like Stonebridge because of its proximity to Miramar. However, it is quite far inland, can be very warm, hence the need for (expensive) A/C, has high power/tension line easements, no mature vegetation, and, due to being somewhat isolated, has little to no local services available there, from what I read on this blog. Relative to SD County’s finest areas within the asking price ranges of Stonebridge properties, this community cannot compete in location and quality-of-life issues, IMO. There are too many superior communities in SD County in the same price range as Stonebridge which offer location, an abundance of natural beauty and a lifestyle that Stonebridge can’t.
I don’t have a disdain for Stonebridge, in particular. Just using it for an example here. This post could be applicable to ANY major new construction development. They are ALL in inferior locations to 85% of the existing housing. Why? All the BEST and BETTER locations were built on long ago. That’s my point.
Participant[quote=Navydoc] . . . If I build a new house I can specify everything the way I want it, and can rationalize the crappy market with “I got exactly the house I wanted” and can almost look at it like a car purchase.
I realize this is stupid, but I’m sure the psychology of this is very similar to everyone buying new construction right now. The whole thing just seems less risky, even though it may not be.
By the way, I consider the Stonebridge location to be very desirable, but to each his/her own.[/quote]
Navydoc, I’m sure you’re aware that vehicle buyers EXPECT their cars to depreciate the moment they drive them from the lot. As you know, real property requires a MUCH larger cash outlay than buying a vehicle.
You can make ANY property exactly the way you want it. If it is already in an established area, the most cost-effective way to do this is buy it first, move into it and remodel it room by room until you get it the way you want it. This strategy is only feasible for a VERY well-located property which will bear a sales price in line with your at least your purchase price plus remodeling costs, IMHO.
Buying new construction in the current climate is akin to buying a vehicle, IMO. There is no sweat equity involved, everything is (presumably) the way a buyer wants it now, and, due to often trumped-up developer asking/selling prices and inferior locations, a buyer today CAN expect to lose equity almost immediately. How much? I don’t know. It probably depends upon the development, its location and the qualifications and financial stability of successful buyers in a particular development. This immediate loss of equity doesn’t even take into account the funds a buyer needs after closing to install needed landscaping, even at bare minimum.
You may like Stonebridge because of its proximity to Miramar. However, it is quite far inland, can be very warm, hence the need for (expensive) A/C, has high power/tension line easements, no mature vegetation, and, due to being somewhat isolated, has little to no local services available there, from what I read on this blog. Relative to SD County’s finest areas within the asking price ranges of Stonebridge properties, this community cannot compete in location and quality-of-life issues, IMO. There are too many superior communities in SD County in the same price range as Stonebridge which offer location, an abundance of natural beauty and a lifestyle that Stonebridge can’t.
I don’t have a disdain for Stonebridge, in particular. Just using it for an example here. This post could be applicable to ANY major new construction development. They are ALL in inferior locations to 85% of the existing housing. Why? All the BEST and BETTER locations were built on long ago. That’s my point.
Participant[quote=Navydoc] . . . If I build a new house I can specify everything the way I want it, and can rationalize the crappy market with “I got exactly the house I wanted” and can almost look at it like a car purchase.
I realize this is stupid, but I’m sure the psychology of this is very similar to everyone buying new construction right now. The whole thing just seems less risky, even though it may not be.
By the way, I consider the Stonebridge location to be very desirable, but to each his/her own.[/quote]
Navydoc, I’m sure you’re aware that vehicle buyers EXPECT their cars to depreciate the moment they drive them from the lot. As you know, real property requires a MUCH larger cash outlay than buying a vehicle.
You can make ANY property exactly the way you want it. If it is already in an established area, the most cost-effective way to do this is buy it first, move into it and remodel it room by room until you get it the way you want it. This strategy is only feasible for a VERY well-located property which will bear a sales price in line with your at least your purchase price plus remodeling costs, IMHO.
Buying new construction in the current climate is akin to buying a vehicle, IMO. There is no sweat equity involved, everything is (presumably) the way a buyer wants it now, and, due to often trumped-up developer asking/selling prices and inferior locations, a buyer today CAN expect to lose equity almost immediately. How much? I don’t know. It probably depends upon the development, its location and the qualifications and financial stability of successful buyers in a particular development. This immediate loss of equity doesn’t even take into account the funds a buyer needs after closing to install needed landscaping, even at bare minimum.
You may like Stonebridge because of its proximity to Miramar. However, it is quite far inland, can be very warm, hence the need for (expensive) A/C, has high power/tension line easements, no mature vegetation, and, due to being somewhat isolated, has little to no local services available there, from what I read on this blog. Relative to SD County’s finest areas within the asking price ranges of Stonebridge properties, this community cannot compete in location and quality-of-life issues, IMO. There are too many superior communities in SD County in the same price range as Stonebridge which offer location, an abundance of natural beauty and a lifestyle that Stonebridge can’t.
I don’t have a disdain for Stonebridge, in particular. Just using it for an example here. This post could be applicable to ANY major new construction development. They are ALL in inferior locations to 85% of the existing housing. Why? All the BEST and BETTER locations were built on long ago. That’s my point.
Participant[quote=eavesdropper][quote=jpinpb]eavesdropper – Thank you for so eloquently stating things![/quote]
At your service, jp. Wish that eloquence would work on my husband. Baby wants new hardwood on the second floor…..[/quote]
Do you make housecalls for hardwood-flooring installation classes, eaves?? Looking for about 450 – 600 sf of 1.5″ red oak slats. I’ll do all the mat’ls ordering and furniture moving. I just live about ten mins from Coronado (where you and your spouse can spend your eves) and have two sets of knee pads (one for each of us) :=!
I have a nice guest room which doesn’t need flooring. Think about it :=]
Participant[quote=eavesdropper][quote=jpinpb]eavesdropper – Thank you for so eloquently stating things![/quote]
At your service, jp. Wish that eloquence would work on my husband. Baby wants new hardwood on the second floor…..[/quote]
Do you make housecalls for hardwood-flooring installation classes, eaves?? Looking for about 450 – 600 sf of 1.5″ red oak slats. I’ll do all the mat’ls ordering and furniture moving. I just live about ten mins from Coronado (where you and your spouse can spend your eves) and have two sets of knee pads (one for each of us) :=!
I have a nice guest room which doesn’t need flooring. Think about it :=]
-
AuthorPosts
