[ctr70]

It could definitely be a long while for a you folks who bought to just break-even (as you have stated that you already know). Because your property has to really go up say at least 15% just to break even. Because of all the costs real estate has when you buy and sell:

1. Closing costs when you buy
2. All the money you put into fixing up the house
3. Paying 6% to a Realtor when you sell
4. Closing costs that you have when you sell

…So even if there was a 10-15% appreciation, all that would do would allow you to break even maybe when you did sell. If prices were flat you would actually lose a nice chuck of change if you had to sell a few yeas down the road. So it certainly is not out of the question that it could be a decade+ to just be able to sell and break even. Especially in higher priced North County Coastal where there are so many headwinds facing any future price appreciation (rising interest rates, fannie mae lowering the loan limit from $729k to $625k, etc…)

But I guess they say “your home” is not supposed to be an investment.

[ctr70]

It could definitely be a long while for a you folks who bought to just break-even (as you have stated that you already know). Because your property has to really go up say at least 15% just to break even. Because of all the costs real estate has when you buy and sell:

1. Closing costs when you buy
2. All the money you put into fixing up the house
3. Paying 6% to a Realtor when you sell
4. Closing costs that you have when you sell

…So even if there was a 10-15% appreciation, all that would do would allow you to break even maybe when you did sell. If prices were flat you would actually lose a nice chuck of change if you had to sell a few yeas down the road. So it certainly is not out of the question that it could be a decade+ to just be able to sell and break even. Especially in higher priced North County Coastal where there are so many headwinds facing any future price appreciation (rising interest rates, fannie mae lowering the loan limit from $729k to $625k, etc…)

But I guess they say “your home” is not supposed to be an investment.

[ctr70]

I moved from SF to SD about 5 years ago. SD definitely wins on climate, less traffic, lower houses prices. But SF and some other areas of the Bay to me are much more interesting places and “higher mentality”.

A lot of SD has a lower mentality crowd and a lot of directionless uneducated people. I think the general population here have more in common with say Texas or Arizona in style, taste, mindset vs. SF/Boston/Seattle/Manhattan (and I don’t mean that politically). It is also more “commercialized” and has a lot of unsightly suburban/cookie cutter, sterile, characterless areas (like Rancho Penasquitas where I live now and most of inland North County IMO). These areas are just totally car culture mall oriented places, you never see anyone on the sidewalks! They are so sterile feeling and devoid of any uniqueness. There are only a few places in SD which are kind of cool, interesting and have some character (parts of North Park, Univ Heights, South Park, Hillcrest)…and even those areas can lack.

SD is blessed with the best climate in the world, a very cool landscape with mountains/desert/ocean, not bad traffic for a city it’s size, and much cheaper housing than SF (and NYC and close in Boston too). And those are VERY strong points. I would give climate/landscape an A+. But I would give the *city itself* a C and the architecture maybe a C- and the quality of people probably a C-. Think about it, people live in Seattle and Boston and love it even though the weather sucks bad. They tolerate the weather because the cities are cool and have character. Would ANYONE live in SD if it had Seattle’s weather? No! It would be an ugly place w/out the sunshine.

[ctr70]

I moved from SF to SD about 5 years ago. SD definitely wins on climate, less traffic, lower houses prices. But SF and some other areas of the Bay to me are much more interesting places and “higher mentality”.

A lot of SD has a lower mentality crowd and a lot of directionless uneducated people. I think the general population here have more in common with say Texas or Arizona in style, taste, mindset vs. SF/Boston/Seattle/Manhattan (and I don’t mean that politically). It is also more “commercialized” and has a lot of unsightly suburban/cookie cutter, sterile, characterless areas (like Rancho Penasquitas where I live now and most of inland North County IMO). These areas are just totally car culture mall oriented places, you never see anyone on the sidewalks! They are so sterile feeling and devoid of any uniqueness. There are only a few places in SD which are kind of cool, interesting and have some character (parts of North Park, Univ Heights, South Park, Hillcrest)…and even those areas can lack.

SD is blessed with the best climate in the world, a very cool landscape with mountains/desert/ocean, not bad traffic for a city it’s size, and much cheaper housing than SF (and NYC and close in Boston too). And those are VERY strong points. I would give climate/landscape an A+. But I would give the *city itself* a C and the architecture maybe a C- and the quality of people probably a C-. Think about it, people live in Seattle and Boston and love it even though the weather sucks bad. They tolerate the weather because the cities are cool and have character. Would ANYONE live in SD if it had Seattle’s weather? No! It would be an ugly place w/out the sunshine.

[ctr70]

I moved from SF to SD about 5 years ago. SD definitely wins on climate, less traffic, lower houses prices. But SF and some other areas of the Bay to me are much more interesting places and “higher mentality”.

A lot of SD has a lower mentality crowd and a lot of directionless uneducated people. I think the general population here have more in common with say Texas or Arizona in style, taste, mindset vs. SF/Boston/Seattle/Manhattan (and I don’t mean that politically). It is also more “commercialized” and has a lot of unsightly suburban/cookie cutter, sterile, characterless areas (like Rancho Penasquitas where I live now and most of inland North County IMO). These areas are just totally car culture mall oriented places, you never see anyone on the sidewalks! They are so sterile feeling and devoid of any uniqueness. There are only a few places in SD which are kind of cool, interesting and have some character (parts of North Park, Univ Heights, South Park, Hillcrest)…and even those areas can lack.

SD is blessed with the best climate in the world, a very cool landscape with mountains/desert/ocean, not bad traffic for a city it’s size, and much cheaper housing than SF (and NYC and close in Boston too). And those are VERY strong points. I would give climate/landscape an A+. But I would give the *city itself* a C and the architecture maybe a C- and the quality of people probably a C-. Think about it, people live in Seattle and Boston and love it even though the weather sucks bad. They tolerate the weather because the cities are cool and have character. Would ANYONE live in SD if it had Seattle’s weather? No! It would be an ugly place w/out the sunshine.

[ctr70]

I moved from SF to SD about 5 years ago. SD definitely wins on climate, less traffic, lower houses prices. But SF and some other areas of the Bay to me are much more interesting places and “higher mentality”.

A lot of SD has a lower mentality crowd and a lot of directionless uneducated people. I think the general population here have more in common with say Texas or Arizona in style, taste, mindset vs. SF/Boston/Seattle/Manhattan (and I don’t mean that politically). It is also more “commercialized” and has a lot of unsightly suburban/cookie cutter, sterile, characterless areas (like Rancho Penasquitas where I live now and most of inland North County IMO). These areas are just totally car culture mall oriented places, you never see anyone on the sidewalks! They are so sterile feeling and devoid of any uniqueness. There are only a few places in SD which are kind of cool, interesting and have some character (parts of North Park, Univ Heights, South Park, Hillcrest)…and even those areas can lack.

SD is blessed with the best climate in the world, a very cool landscape with mountains/desert/ocean, not bad traffic for a city it’s size, and much cheaper housing than SF (and NYC and close in Boston too). And those are VERY strong points. I would give climate/landscape an A+. But I would give the *city itself* a C and the architecture maybe a C- and the quality of people probably a C-. Think about it, people live in Seattle and Boston and love it even though the weather sucks bad. They tolerate the weather because the cities are cool and have character. Would ANYONE live in SD if it had Seattle’s weather? No! It would be an ugly place w/out the sunshine.

[ctr70]

I moved from SF to SD about 5 years ago. SD definitely wins on climate, less traffic, lower houses prices. But SF and some other areas of the Bay to me are much more interesting places and “higher mentality”.

A lot of SD has a lower mentality crowd and a lot of directionless uneducated people. I think the general population here have more in common with say Texas or Arizona in style, taste, mindset vs. SF/Boston/Seattle/Manhattan (and I don’t mean that politically). It is also more “commercialized” and has a lot of unsightly suburban/cookie cutter, sterile, characterless areas (like Rancho Penasquitas where I live now and most of inland North County IMO). These areas are just totally car culture mall oriented places, you never see anyone on the sidewalks! They are so sterile feeling and devoid of any uniqueness. There are only a few places in SD which are kind of cool, interesting and have some character (parts of North Park, Univ Heights, South Park, Hillcrest)…and even those areas can lack.

SD is blessed with the best climate in the world, a very cool landscape with mountains/desert/ocean, not bad traffic for a city it’s size, and much cheaper housing than SF (and NYC and close in Boston too). And those are VERY strong points. I would give climate/landscape an A+. But I would give the *city itself* a C and the architecture maybe a C- and the quality of people probably a C-. Think about it, people live in Seattle and Boston and love it even though the weather sucks bad. They tolerate the weather because the cities are cool and have character. Would ANYONE live in SD if it had Seattle’s weather? No! It would be an ugly place w/out the sunshine.

[ctr70]

Also you can’t even put Big Bear and Tahoe in the same sentence. Big Bear not only does not have great skiing, but to me it just has a low end dumpy kind of “tweaker” feel to it. I would only go there b/c it’s close, not for any other reason. I would also take North Tahoe over South Tahoe any day, South Tahoe is the “low end” part of the Tahoe area. Of course prices in North Tahoe are much higher. The Tahoe area for me has just become too touristy in general and get’s hammered too hard with people b/c it’s so close to the the SF Bay and Sac. Both summers and winters. I would take Telluride CO and Crested Butte CO over Tahoe any day. Much more rustic beautiful ski towns not as crushed by tourists. And both are awesome in summers too.

[ctr70]

Also you can’t even put Big Bear and Tahoe in the same sentence. Big Bear not only does not have great skiing, but to me it just has a low end dumpy kind of “tweaker” feel to it. I would only go there b/c it’s close, not for any other reason. I would also take North Tahoe over South Tahoe any day, South Tahoe is the “low end” part of the Tahoe area. Of course prices in North Tahoe are much higher. The Tahoe area for me has just become too touristy in general and get’s hammered too hard with people b/c it’s so close to the the SF Bay and Sac. Both summers and winters. I would take Telluride CO and Crested Butte CO over Tahoe any day. Much more rustic beautiful ski towns not as crushed by tourists. And both are awesome in summers too.

[ctr70]

Also you can’t even put Big Bear and Tahoe in the same sentence. Big Bear not only does not have great skiing, but to me it just has a low end dumpy kind of “tweaker” feel to it. I would only go there b/c it’s close, not for any other reason. I would also take North Tahoe over South Tahoe any day, South Tahoe is the “low end” part of the Tahoe area. Of course prices in North Tahoe are much higher. The Tahoe area for me has just become too touristy in general and get’s hammered too hard with people b/c it’s so close to the the SF Bay and Sac. Both summers and winters. I would take Telluride CO and Crested Butte CO over Tahoe any day. Much more rustic beautiful ski towns not as crushed by tourists. And both are awesome in summers too.

[ctr70]

Also you can’t even put Big Bear and Tahoe in the same sentence. Big Bear not only does not have great skiing, but to me it just has a low end dumpy kind of “tweaker” feel to it. I would only go there b/c it’s close, not for any other reason. I would also take North Tahoe over South Tahoe any day, South Tahoe is the “low end” part of the Tahoe area. Of course prices in North Tahoe are much higher. The Tahoe area for me has just become too touristy in general and get’s hammered too hard with people b/c it’s so close to the the SF Bay and Sac. Both summers and winters. I would take Telluride CO and Crested Butte CO over Tahoe any day. Much more rustic beautiful ski towns not as crushed by tourists. And both are awesome in summers too.

[ctr70]

Also you can’t even put Big Bear and Tahoe in the same sentence. Big Bear not only does not have great skiing, but to me it just has a low end dumpy kind of “tweaker” feel to it. I would only go there b/c it’s close, not for any other reason. I would also take North Tahoe over South Tahoe any day, South Tahoe is the “low end” part of the Tahoe area. Of course prices in North Tahoe are much higher. The Tahoe area for me has just become too touristy in general and get’s hammered too hard with people b/c it’s so close to the the SF Bay and Sac. Both summers and winters. I would take Telluride CO and Crested Butte CO over Tahoe any day. Much more rustic beautiful ski towns not as crushed by tourists. And both are awesome in summers too.

[ctr70]

I agree with bearishgirl…there just isn’t anything close to SD which to me is world class beauty. To me Idywild, Julian, Big Bear are OK…but they don’t really do it for me.

Personally I’d rather spend the money it would take to buy & upkeep the cabin and take vacations to TRULY beautiful areas like Vermont, Maine, Crested Butte CO, Telluride CO, Whistler BC, Hawaii…etc

But yes there is the advantage of jumping in your car spontaneously and being in your cabin in an hour to get peace and quiet and of the SD noise…even if it is only Julian, and not Crested Butte Colorado:)

[ctr70]

I agree with bearishgirl…there just isn’t anything close to SD which to me is world class beauty. To me Idywild, Julian, Big Bear are OK…but they don’t really do it for me.

Personally I’d rather spend the money it would take to buy & upkeep the cabin and take vacations to TRULY beautiful areas like Vermont, Maine, Crested Butte CO, Telluride CO, Whistler BC, Hawaii…etc

But yes there is the advantage of jumping in your car spontaneously and being in your cabin in an hour to get peace and quiet and of the SD noise…even if it is only Julian, and not Crested Butte Colorado:)

[ctr70]

I agree with bearishgirl…there just isn’t anything close to SD which to me is world class beauty. To me Idywild, Julian, Big Bear are OK…but they don’t really do it for me.

Personally I’d rather spend the money it would take to buy & upkeep the cabin and take vacations to TRULY beautiful areas like Vermont, Maine, Crested Butte CO, Telluride CO, Whistler BC, Hawaii…etc

But yes there is the advantage of jumping in your car spontaneously and being in your cabin in an hour to get peace and quiet and of the SD noise…even if it is only Julian, and not Crested Butte Colorado:)

[Author]

Posts