[temeculaguy]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/21839152/for/cnbc/

According to this article, that “screw you, no price cuts” plan will probably last a week. Erven the NAHB economists said “2008 will be a year of systematic price erosion” translated, prices will go down. The market psyche was insane on the way up and is now showing some insanity on the way down. Every time they lower prices, less buyers come and more cancel, all thinking the cuts will continue, it’s DejaVu in reverse.

Speaking of saving the builders, what happens when a few biggies fall? I see no way SPF makes it throught the month, it fell another 15% today and it is now earning a negative six dollars per share, twice it’s value. How long can a three dollar stock lose six dollars. I looked at one of the projects today, nice houses, one standing inventory was loaded to the gils, 2500 sq ft, and after incentives, 340k, no closing costs and 5 3/4 fixed. I did exactly what the article said, walked out and thought to myself, it’ll go lower.

[temeculaguy]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/21839152/for/cnbc/

According to this article, that “screw you, no price cuts” plan will probably last a week. Erven the NAHB economists said “2008 will be a year of systematic price erosion” translated, prices will go down. The market psyche was insane on the way up and is now showing some insanity on the way down. Every time they lower prices, less buyers come and more cancel, all thinking the cuts will continue, it’s DejaVu in reverse.

Speaking of saving the builders, what happens when a few biggies fall? I see no way SPF makes it throught the month, it fell another 15% today and it is now earning a negative six dollars per share, twice it’s value. How long can a three dollar stock lose six dollars. I looked at one of the projects today, nice houses, one standing inventory was loaded to the gils, 2500 sq ft, and after incentives, 340k, no closing costs and 5 3/4 fixed. I did exactly what the article said, walked out and thought to myself, it’ll go lower.

[temeculaguy]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/21839152/for/cnbc/

According to this article, that “screw you, no price cuts” plan will probably last a week. Erven the NAHB economists said “2008 will be a year of systematic price erosion” translated, prices will go down. The market psyche was insane on the way up and is now showing some insanity on the way down. Every time they lower prices, less buyers come and more cancel, all thinking the cuts will continue, it’s DejaVu in reverse.

Speaking of saving the builders, what happens when a few biggies fall? I see no way SPF makes it throught the month, it fell another 15% today and it is now earning a negative six dollars per share, twice it’s value. How long can a three dollar stock lose six dollars. I looked at one of the projects today, nice houses, one standing inventory was loaded to the gils, 2500 sq ft, and after incentives, 340k, no closing costs and 5 3/4 fixed. I did exactly what the article said, walked out and thought to myself, it’ll go lower.

[temeculaguy]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/21839152/for/cnbc/

According to this article, that “screw you, no price cuts” plan will probably last a week. Erven the NAHB economists said “2008 will be a year of systematic price erosion” translated, prices will go down. The market psyche was insane on the way up and is now showing some insanity on the way down. Every time they lower prices, less buyers come and more cancel, all thinking the cuts will continue, it’s DejaVu in reverse.

Speaking of saving the builders, what happens when a few biggies fall? I see no way SPF makes it throught the month, it fell another 15% today and it is now earning a negative six dollars per share, twice it’s value. How long can a three dollar stock lose six dollars. I looked at one of the projects today, nice houses, one standing inventory was loaded to the gils, 2500 sq ft, and after incentives, 340k, no closing costs and 5 3/4 fixed. I did exactly what the article said, walked out and thought to myself, it’ll go lower.

[temeculaguy]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/21839152/for/cnbc/

According to this article, that “screw you, no price cuts” plan will probably last a week. Erven the NAHB economists said “2008 will be a year of systematic price erosion” translated, prices will go down. The market psyche was insane on the way up and is now showing some insanity on the way down. Every time they lower prices, less buyers come and more cancel, all thinking the cuts will continue, it’s DejaVu in reverse.

Speaking of saving the builders, what happens when a few biggies fall? I see no way SPF makes it throught the month, it fell another 15% today and it is now earning a negative six dollars per share, twice it’s value. How long can a three dollar stock lose six dollars. I looked at one of the projects today, nice houses, one standing inventory was loaded to the gils, 2500 sq ft, and after incentives, 340k, no closing costs and 5 3/4 fixed. I did exactly what the article said, walked out and thought to myself, it’ll go lower.

[temeculaguy]

Thanks for the advice everyone, I am going to keep tabs on both the for sale and the for rent and I’ll let you know what happens. SD, I appreciate you weighing in but waiting hawk and oc make a good point, if right after christmas the rent/purchase line gets crossed, I may throw some extreme lowballs while making a plan for a month to month rental. mgubnyc, I am not worried what it will look like, the area I’m looking at has been around about 15 years and was one of the few places in the valley that survived the early nineties with regards to appearance and demographics, this isn’t my first rodeo and i am closing in on two decades in the area, so I’m good. The northern outskirts, like french valley, that will likely go downhill fast in the downturn.

Cbad, thank you for the compliment but pity or wonder is not required, the current single status is a choice and I’m pretty happy with that choice right now. In fact my house hunting is somewhat dominated with the plan to keep it that way. When I see a 5 or 6 bedroom house, I don’t see extra rooms, I see potential problems. I need a house that is big enough for me but not big enough that the next girfriend will want to move in, since I mostly date women my age and they usually have kids, that six bedroom is a brady bunch waiting to happen, I need a welcome mat that says “no camping, violators will be prosecuted.”

[temeculaguy]

Thanks for the advice everyone, I am going to keep tabs on both the for sale and the for rent and I’ll let you know what happens. SD, I appreciate you weighing in but waiting hawk and oc make a good point, if right after christmas the rent/purchase line gets crossed, I may throw some extreme lowballs while making a plan for a month to month rental. mgubnyc, I am not worried what it will look like, the area I’m looking at has been around about 15 years and was one of the few places in the valley that survived the early nineties with regards to appearance and demographics, this isn’t my first rodeo and i am closing in on two decades in the area, so I’m good. The northern outskirts, like french valley, that will likely go downhill fast in the downturn.

Cbad, thank you for the compliment but pity or wonder is not required, the current single status is a choice and I’m pretty happy with that choice right now. In fact my house hunting is somewhat dominated with the plan to keep it that way. When I see a 5 or 6 bedroom house, I don’t see extra rooms, I see potential problems. I need a house that is big enough for me but not big enough that the next girfriend will want to move in, since I mostly date women my age and they usually have kids, that six bedroom is a brady bunch waiting to happen, I need a welcome mat that says “no camping, violators will be prosecuted.”

[temeculaguy]

Thanks for the advice everyone, I am going to keep tabs on both the for sale and the for rent and I’ll let you know what happens. SD, I appreciate you weighing in but waiting hawk and oc make a good point, if right after christmas the rent/purchase line gets crossed, I may throw some extreme lowballs while making a plan for a month to month rental. mgubnyc, I am not worried what it will look like, the area I’m looking at has been around about 15 years and was one of the few places in the valley that survived the early nineties with regards to appearance and demographics, this isn’t my first rodeo and i am closing in on two decades in the area, so I’m good. The northern outskirts, like french valley, that will likely go downhill fast in the downturn.

Cbad, thank you for the compliment but pity or wonder is not required, the current single status is a choice and I’m pretty happy with that choice right now. In fact my house hunting is somewhat dominated with the plan to keep it that way. When I see a 5 or 6 bedroom house, I don’t see extra rooms, I see potential problems. I need a house that is big enough for me but not big enough that the next girfriend will want to move in, since I mostly date women my age and they usually have kids, that six bedroom is a brady bunch waiting to happen, I need a welcome mat that says “no camping, violators will be prosecuted.”

[temeculaguy]

Thanks for the advice everyone, I am going to keep tabs on both the for sale and the for rent and I’ll let you know what happens. SD, I appreciate you weighing in but waiting hawk and oc make a good point, if right after christmas the rent/purchase line gets crossed, I may throw some extreme lowballs while making a plan for a month to month rental. mgubnyc, I am not worried what it will look like, the area I’m looking at has been around about 15 years and was one of the few places in the valley that survived the early nineties with regards to appearance and demographics, this isn’t my first rodeo and i am closing in on two decades in the area, so I’m good. The northern outskirts, like french valley, that will likely go downhill fast in the downturn.

Cbad, thank you for the compliment but pity or wonder is not required, the current single status is a choice and I’m pretty happy with that choice right now. In fact my house hunting is somewhat dominated with the plan to keep it that way. When I see a 5 or 6 bedroom house, I don’t see extra rooms, I see potential problems. I need a house that is big enough for me but not big enough that the next girfriend will want to move in, since I mostly date women my age and they usually have kids, that six bedroom is a brady bunch waiting to happen, I need a welcome mat that says “no camping, violators will be prosecuted.”

[temeculaguy]

Thanks for the advice everyone, I am going to keep tabs on both the for sale and the for rent and I’ll let you know what happens. SD, I appreciate you weighing in but waiting hawk and oc make a good point, if right after christmas the rent/purchase line gets crossed, I may throw some extreme lowballs while making a plan for a month to month rental. mgubnyc, I am not worried what it will look like, the area I’m looking at has been around about 15 years and was one of the few places in the valley that survived the early nineties with regards to appearance and demographics, this isn’t my first rodeo and i am closing in on two decades in the area, so I’m good. The northern outskirts, like french valley, that will likely go downhill fast in the downturn.

Cbad, thank you for the compliment but pity or wonder is not required, the current single status is a choice and I’m pretty happy with that choice right now. In fact my house hunting is somewhat dominated with the plan to keep it that way. When I see a 5 or 6 bedroom house, I don’t see extra rooms, I see potential problems. I need a house that is big enough for me but not big enough that the next girfriend will want to move in, since I mostly date women my age and they usually have kids, that six bedroom is a brady bunch waiting to happen, I need a welcome mat that says “no camping, violators will be prosecuted.”

[temeculaguy]

#1 I concur with the other posters, late next year is way off, early next year is a better guess for the city of Temecula, maybe January, February because it is getting close. As far as using $100 a square as a yardstick, that’s an imperfect system because of the variables such as single story vs. two story, lot size, location and the sheer increase in home sizes in the last decade (the larger the house usually means the less cost per sq ft.

#2 $100 a square was still around in 2002, I paid $75 a square in 1998 and it was the most expensive home in the area in it’s square foot class. In 1997 you could get a 2500-3000 sq ft Redhawk home for right at about 200k, prices went down from there as you moved North. I remember an auction in 1996 where a 1500 sq ft vail ranch repo home went for 77k, and there were only two bidders, of course I was the losing bidder, but that was $50 a square and the lowest I can remember but it wasn’ the norm, that was the thrashed repo rate.

#3 The builders have slowed down on their price cuts but I haven’t visited any for a month, yet their e-mails, websites and mailers aren’t showing any new declines and the repos and shorts are now priced lower, so I’ve switched my attention to the must sell existing. I’ve also noticed they are slowing down construction and building smaller phases, I am a bit scared off from some of them because bankruptcy in now a real threat and they may leave tracts half built.

#4 I have no info on that one, loan isn’t an issue for me and other than this site, nobody I know is looking at homes, which is part of the problem.

As far as lonestar’s post, I have to disagree but I know most of it was tongue and cheek. In South Temecula the only places the builders are still selling new houses is in Redhawk, Wolf and Morgan. The lots are pretty much the same as they have always been, they vary of course by tract, but they always have. All three have an HOA but resale within HOA’s sell faster and for more than the non HOA in this area because the non HOA stuff goes downhill, but all three HOA’s are cheap ($20 for Redhawk, $40 for Wolf) and they are are fairly reasonable (personally I would never buy non HOA again, but that horse has been beat on other threads). Mello roos is actually rare in Temecula, I don’t know of one of the new ones with it and have never had it in the houses I’ve lived in, the developers are required to pay heavy upfront developer fees or build a school, fire station, park, etc., the roads and improvements are put in bu the builders, no loans or mello roos for the most part (they do pass on those costs in the sales price, or at least they used to). As far as taxes go, it’s development to development. A resale or new Morgan will have higher taxes than a new Redhawk or Wolf new or used. 15 year old Redhawk homes pay the same taxes as new ones, they are in the city while Morgan is in the county. As far as percentage goes, that varies by sales price because the tax bill has some fixed, per lot fees and some value percentage fees. For instance, a $500 a year, per dwelling, school bond fee adds .1 to a 500k home and .5 to a 100k home, so as prices decline the percentage of tax starts to increase but the actual dollar outlay is the same on the fixed items and less on the value bases 1% base. At last years prices, taxes were 1.4 or 1.5 in the city, next years prices will see 1.8, but the actual tax bill is less, if you still follow me. Morgan is about .5 higher because it is not in the city and it may have mello roos or bonds for the streets because the government entity negotiating with the developer is different. Sorry to be long winded, but to just say “older homes have paid their dues” is inacurate in many cases, you have to research the specifics and of course if you have always lived in that older home, your taxes are lower because of prop 13, but buy one today and your taxes are the same as a new house since this city has trended away from school and street bonds left to the homeowner.

[temeculaguy]

#1 I concur with the other posters, late next year is way off, early next year is a better guess for the city of Temecula, maybe January, February because it is getting close. As far as using $100 a square as a yardstick, that’s an imperfect system because of the variables such as single story vs. two story, lot size, location and the sheer increase in home sizes in the last decade (the larger the house usually means the less cost per sq ft.

#2 $100 a square was still around in 2002, I paid $75 a square in 1998 and it was the most expensive home in the area in it’s square foot class. In 1997 you could get a 2500-3000 sq ft Redhawk home for right at about 200k, prices went down from there as you moved North. I remember an auction in 1996 where a 1500 sq ft vail ranch repo home went for 77k, and there were only two bidders, of course I was the losing bidder, but that was $50 a square and the lowest I can remember but it wasn’ the norm, that was the thrashed repo rate.

#3 The builders have slowed down on their price cuts but I haven’t visited any for a month, yet their e-mails, websites and mailers aren’t showing any new declines and the repos and shorts are now priced lower, so I’ve switched my attention to the must sell existing. I’ve also noticed they are slowing down construction and building smaller phases, I am a bit scared off from some of them because bankruptcy in now a real threat and they may leave tracts half built.

#4 I have no info on that one, loan isn’t an issue for me and other than this site, nobody I know is looking at homes, which is part of the problem.

As far as lonestar’s post, I have to disagree but I know most of it was tongue and cheek. In South Temecula the only places the builders are still selling new houses is in Redhawk, Wolf and Morgan. The lots are pretty much the same as they have always been, they vary of course by tract, but they always have. All three have an HOA but resale within HOA’s sell faster and for more than the non HOA in this area because the non HOA stuff goes downhill, but all three HOA’s are cheap ($20 for Redhawk, $40 for Wolf) and they are are fairly reasonable (personally I would never buy non HOA again, but that horse has been beat on other threads). Mello roos is actually rare in Temecula, I don’t know of one of the new ones with it and have never had it in the houses I’ve lived in, the developers are required to pay heavy upfront developer fees or build a school, fire station, park, etc., the roads and improvements are put in bu the builders, no loans or mello roos for the most part (they do pass on those costs in the sales price, or at least they used to). As far as taxes go, it’s development to development. A resale or new Morgan will have higher taxes than a new Redhawk or Wolf new or used. 15 year old Redhawk homes pay the same taxes as new ones, they are in the city while Morgan is in the county. As far as percentage goes, that varies by sales price because the tax bill has some fixed, per lot fees and some value percentage fees. For instance, a $500 a year, per dwelling, school bond fee adds .1 to a 500k home and .5 to a 100k home, so as prices decline the percentage of tax starts to increase but the actual dollar outlay is the same on the fixed items and less on the value bases 1% base. At last years prices, taxes were 1.4 or 1.5 in the city, next years prices will see 1.8, but the actual tax bill is less, if you still follow me. Morgan is about .5 higher because it is not in the city and it may have mello roos or bonds for the streets because the government entity negotiating with the developer is different. Sorry to be long winded, but to just say “older homes have paid their dues” is inacurate in many cases, you have to research the specifics and of course if you have always lived in that older home, your taxes are lower because of prop 13, but buy one today and your taxes are the same as a new house since this city has trended away from school and street bonds left to the homeowner.

[temeculaguy]

#1 I concur with the other posters, late next year is way off, early next year is a better guess for the city of Temecula, maybe January, February because it is getting close. As far as using $100 a square as a yardstick, that’s an imperfect system because of the variables such as single story vs. two story, lot size, location and the sheer increase in home sizes in the last decade (the larger the house usually means the less cost per sq ft.

#2 $100 a square was still around in 2002, I paid $75 a square in 1998 and it was the most expensive home in the area in it’s square foot class. In 1997 you could get a 2500-3000 sq ft Redhawk home for right at about 200k, prices went down from there as you moved North. I remember an auction in 1996 where a 1500 sq ft vail ranch repo home went for 77k, and there were only two bidders, of course I was the losing bidder, but that was $50 a square and the lowest I can remember but it wasn’ the norm, that was the thrashed repo rate.

#3 The builders have slowed down on their price cuts but I haven’t visited any for a month, yet their e-mails, websites and mailers aren’t showing any new declines and the repos and shorts are now priced lower, so I’ve switched my attention to the must sell existing. I’ve also noticed they are slowing down construction and building smaller phases, I am a bit scared off from some of them because bankruptcy in now a real threat and they may leave tracts half built.

#4 I have no info on that one, loan isn’t an issue for me and other than this site, nobody I know is looking at homes, which is part of the problem.

As far as lonestar’s post, I have to disagree but I know most of it was tongue and cheek. In South Temecula the only places the builders are still selling new houses is in Redhawk, Wolf and Morgan. The lots are pretty much the same as they have always been, they vary of course by tract, but they always have. All three have an HOA but resale within HOA’s sell faster and for more than the non HOA in this area because the non HOA stuff goes downhill, but all three HOA’s are cheap ($20 for Redhawk, $40 for Wolf) and they are are fairly reasonable (personally I would never buy non HOA again, but that horse has been beat on other threads). Mello roos is actually rare in Temecula, I don’t know of one of the new ones with it and have never had it in the houses I’ve lived in, the developers are required to pay heavy upfront developer fees or build a school, fire station, park, etc., the roads and improvements are put in bu the builders, no loans or mello roos for the most part (they do pass on those costs in the sales price, or at least they used to). As far as taxes go, it’s development to development. A resale or new Morgan will have higher taxes than a new Redhawk or Wolf new or used. 15 year old Redhawk homes pay the same taxes as new ones, they are in the city while Morgan is in the county. As far as percentage goes, that varies by sales price because the tax bill has some fixed, per lot fees and some value percentage fees. For instance, a $500 a year, per dwelling, school bond fee adds .1 to a 500k home and .5 to a 100k home, so as prices decline the percentage of tax starts to increase but the actual dollar outlay is the same on the fixed items and less on the value bases 1% base. At last years prices, taxes were 1.4 or 1.5 in the city, next years prices will see 1.8, but the actual tax bill is less, if you still follow me. Morgan is about .5 higher because it is not in the city and it may have mello roos or bonds for the streets because the government entity negotiating with the developer is different. Sorry to be long winded, but to just say “older homes have paid their dues” is inacurate in many cases, you have to research the specifics and of course if you have always lived in that older home, your taxes are lower because of prop 13, but buy one today and your taxes are the same as a new house since this city has trended away from school and street bonds left to the homeowner.

[temeculaguy]

#1 I concur with the other posters, late next year is way off, early next year is a better guess for the city of Temecula, maybe January, February because it is getting close. As far as using $100 a square as a yardstick, that’s an imperfect system because of the variables such as single story vs. two story, lot size, location and the sheer increase in home sizes in the last decade (the larger the house usually means the less cost per sq ft.

#2 $100 a square was still around in 2002, I paid $75 a square in 1998 and it was the most expensive home in the area in it’s square foot class. In 1997 you could get a 2500-3000 sq ft Redhawk home for right at about 200k, prices went down from there as you moved North. I remember an auction in 1996 where a 1500 sq ft vail ranch repo home went for 77k, and there were only two bidders, of course I was the losing bidder, but that was $50 a square and the lowest I can remember but it wasn’ the norm, that was the thrashed repo rate.

#3 The builders have slowed down on their price cuts but I haven’t visited any for a month, yet their e-mails, websites and mailers aren’t showing any new declines and the repos and shorts are now priced lower, so I’ve switched my attention to the must sell existing. I’ve also noticed they are slowing down construction and building smaller phases, I am a bit scared off from some of them because bankruptcy in now a real threat and they may leave tracts half built.

#4 I have no info on that one, loan isn’t an issue for me and other than this site, nobody I know is looking at homes, which is part of the problem.

As far as lonestar’s post, I have to disagree but I know most of it was tongue and cheek. In South Temecula the only places the builders are still selling new houses is in Redhawk, Wolf and Morgan. The lots are pretty much the same as they have always been, they vary of course by tract, but they always have. All three have an HOA but resale within HOA’s sell faster and for more than the non HOA in this area because the non HOA stuff goes downhill, but all three HOA’s are cheap ($20 for Redhawk, $40 for Wolf) and they are are fairly reasonable (personally I would never buy non HOA again, but that horse has been beat on other threads). Mello roos is actually rare in Temecula, I don’t know of one of the new ones with it and have never had it in the houses I’ve lived in, the developers are required to pay heavy upfront developer fees or build a school, fire station, park, etc., the roads and improvements are put in bu the builders, no loans or mello roos for the most part (they do pass on those costs in the sales price, or at least they used to). As far as taxes go, it’s development to development. A resale or new Morgan will have higher taxes than a new Redhawk or Wolf new or used. 15 year old Redhawk homes pay the same taxes as new ones, they are in the city while Morgan is in the county. As far as percentage goes, that varies by sales price because the tax bill has some fixed, per lot fees and some value percentage fees. For instance, a $500 a year, per dwelling, school bond fee adds .1 to a 500k home and .5 to a 100k home, so as prices decline the percentage of tax starts to increase but the actual dollar outlay is the same on the fixed items and less on the value bases 1% base. At last years prices, taxes were 1.4 or 1.5 in the city, next years prices will see 1.8, but the actual tax bill is less, if you still follow me. Morgan is about .5 higher because it is not in the city and it may have mello roos or bonds for the streets because the government entity negotiating with the developer is different. Sorry to be long winded, but to just say “older homes have paid their dues” is inacurate in many cases, you have to research the specifics and of course if you have always lived in that older home, your taxes are lower because of prop 13, but buy one today and your taxes are the same as a new house since this city has trended away from school and street bonds left to the homeowner.

[temeculaguy]

#1 I concur with the other posters, late next year is way off, early next year is a better guess for the city of Temecula, maybe January, February because it is getting close. As far as using $100 a square as a yardstick, that’s an imperfect system because of the variables such as single story vs. two story, lot size, location and the sheer increase in home sizes in the last decade (the larger the house usually means the less cost per sq ft.

#2 $100 a square was still around in 2002, I paid $75 a square in 1998 and it was the most expensive home in the area in it’s square foot class. In 1997 you could get a 2500-3000 sq ft Redhawk home for right at about 200k, prices went down from there as you moved North. I remember an auction in 1996 where a 1500 sq ft vail ranch repo home went for 77k, and there were only two bidders, of course I was the losing bidder, but that was $50 a square and the lowest I can remember but it wasn’ the norm, that was the thrashed repo rate.

#3 The builders have slowed down on their price cuts but I haven’t visited any for a month, yet their e-mails, websites and mailers aren’t showing any new declines and the repos and shorts are now priced lower, so I’ve switched my attention to the must sell existing. I’ve also noticed they are slowing down construction and building smaller phases, I am a bit scared off from some of them because bankruptcy in now a real threat and they may leave tracts half built.

#4 I have no info on that one, loan isn’t an issue for me and other than this site, nobody I know is looking at homes, which is part of the problem.

As far as lonestar’s post, I have to disagree but I know most of it was tongue and cheek. In South Temecula the only places the builders are still selling new houses is in Redhawk, Wolf and Morgan. The lots are pretty much the same as they have always been, they vary of course by tract, but they always have. All three have an HOA but resale within HOA’s sell faster and for more than the non HOA in this area because the non HOA stuff goes downhill, but all three HOA’s are cheap ($20 for Redhawk, $40 for Wolf) and they are are fairly reasonable (personally I would never buy non HOA again, but that horse has been beat on other threads). Mello roos is actually rare in Temecula, I don’t know of one of the new ones with it and have never had it in the houses I’ve lived in, the developers are required to pay heavy upfront developer fees or build a school, fire station, park, etc., the roads and improvements are put in bu the builders, no loans or mello roos for the most part (they do pass on those costs in the sales price, or at least they used to). As far as taxes go, it’s development to development. A resale or new Morgan will have higher taxes than a new Redhawk or Wolf new or used. 15 year old Redhawk homes pay the same taxes as new ones, they are in the city while Morgan is in the county. As far as percentage goes, that varies by sales price because the tax bill has some fixed, per lot fees and some value percentage fees. For instance, a $500 a year, per dwelling, school bond fee adds .1 to a 500k home and .5 to a 100k home, so as prices decline the percentage of tax starts to increase but the actual dollar outlay is the same on the fixed items and less on the value bases 1% base. At last years prices, taxes were 1.4 or 1.5 in the city, next years prices will see 1.8, but the actual tax bill is less, if you still follow me. Morgan is about .5 higher because it is not in the city and it may have mello roos or bonds for the streets because the government entity negotiating with the developer is different. Sorry to be long winded, but to just say “older homes have paid their dues” is inacurate in many cases, you have to research the specifics and of course if you have always lived in that older home, your taxes are lower because of prop 13, but buy one today and your taxes are the same as a new house since this city has trended away from school and street bonds left to the homeowner.

[Author]

Posts