[temeculaguy]

But the situation has more to do with chronology than geography. 2003 should have been the peak of the last cycle had it not been extended through creative financing.

I have someone very close to me who bought in Pt. Loma at the same time you did and paid almost the exact same amount. They have also made every payment and have nothing to show for it at the moment, like you. They are actually in a worse off situation as the going rent is about 1100 to 1200 with 300 in hoa fees. Like many folks they have a relatively high interest rate and cannot refi because of the negative equity, and have an I/O that will be resetting. You are in a fixed loan, have stable employment, the lack of appreciation is all you have to contend with. So is it the location, or the timing? Granted it’s a 1 br condo, but it is what 270ish bought you in 2003 in pt. loma. Their ony hope is to refi to current rates and convert to a fixed. They never intended on making a profit. Of course in 2008 they could have bought two townhomes in temecula for that price and rented one for 1500 and lived in the other. So was it 2008 vs 2003 or san diego vs temecula. They will keep it, if their housing needs change, they can afford to keep it as a rental and just ride it out, most people are like that, their net worth on paper doesn’t bend them out of shape, my explanation did, but there’s more to life than savvy investments. Enjoy San Diego paramount, I’m not being sarcastic when I say that, this is a good place for those of us who enjoy it, it didn’t work out for you, I hope your next stop does work for you, wherever it may be. But remember, the person that said location is everything in real estate was incorrect, timing is everything. The same holds true for sex and slot machines, timing is the most important factor.

[temeculaguy]

But the situation has more to do with chronology than geography. 2003 should have been the peak of the last cycle had it not been extended through creative financing.

I have someone very close to me who bought in Pt. Loma at the same time you did and paid almost the exact same amount. They have also made every payment and have nothing to show for it at the moment, like you. They are actually in a worse off situation as the going rent is about 1100 to 1200 with 300 in hoa fees. Like many folks they have a relatively high interest rate and cannot refi because of the negative equity, and have an I/O that will be resetting. You are in a fixed loan, have stable employment, the lack of appreciation is all you have to contend with. So is it the location, or the timing? Granted it’s a 1 br condo, but it is what 270ish bought you in 2003 in pt. loma. Their ony hope is to refi to current rates and convert to a fixed. They never intended on making a profit. Of course in 2008 they could have bought two townhomes in temecula for that price and rented one for 1500 and lived in the other. So was it 2008 vs 2003 or san diego vs temecula. They will keep it, if their housing needs change, they can afford to keep it as a rental and just ride it out, most people are like that, their net worth on paper doesn’t bend them out of shape, my explanation did, but there’s more to life than savvy investments. Enjoy San Diego paramount, I’m not being sarcastic when I say that, this is a good place for those of us who enjoy it, it didn’t work out for you, I hope your next stop does work for you, wherever it may be. But remember, the person that said location is everything in real estate was incorrect, timing is everything. The same holds true for sex and slot machines, timing is the most important factor.

[temeculaguy]

But the situation has more to do with chronology than geography. 2003 should have been the peak of the last cycle had it not been extended through creative financing.

I have someone very close to me who bought in Pt. Loma at the same time you did and paid almost the exact same amount. They have also made every payment and have nothing to show for it at the moment, like you. They are actually in a worse off situation as the going rent is about 1100 to 1200 with 300 in hoa fees. Like many folks they have a relatively high interest rate and cannot refi because of the negative equity, and have an I/O that will be resetting. You are in a fixed loan, have stable employment, the lack of appreciation is all you have to contend with. So is it the location, or the timing? Granted it’s a 1 br condo, but it is what 270ish bought you in 2003 in pt. loma. Their ony hope is to refi to current rates and convert to a fixed. They never intended on making a profit. Of course in 2008 they could have bought two townhomes in temecula for that price and rented one for 1500 and lived in the other. So was it 2008 vs 2003 or san diego vs temecula. They will keep it, if their housing needs change, they can afford to keep it as a rental and just ride it out, most people are like that, their net worth on paper doesn’t bend them out of shape, my explanation did, but there’s more to life than savvy investments. Enjoy San Diego paramount, I’m not being sarcastic when I say that, this is a good place for those of us who enjoy it, it didn’t work out for you, I hope your next stop does work for you, wherever it may be. But remember, the person that said location is everything in real estate was incorrect, timing is everything. The same holds true for sex and slot machines, timing is the most important factor.

[temeculaguy]

But the situation has more to do with chronology than geography. 2003 should have been the peak of the last cycle had it not been extended through creative financing.

I have someone very close to me who bought in Pt. Loma at the same time you did and paid almost the exact same amount. They have also made every payment and have nothing to show for it at the moment, like you. They are actually in a worse off situation as the going rent is about 1100 to 1200 with 300 in hoa fees. Like many folks they have a relatively high interest rate and cannot refi because of the negative equity, and have an I/O that will be resetting. You are in a fixed loan, have stable employment, the lack of appreciation is all you have to contend with. So is it the location, or the timing? Granted it’s a 1 br condo, but it is what 270ish bought you in 2003 in pt. loma. Their ony hope is to refi to current rates and convert to a fixed. They never intended on making a profit. Of course in 2008 they could have bought two townhomes in temecula for that price and rented one for 1500 and lived in the other. So was it 2008 vs 2003 or san diego vs temecula. They will keep it, if their housing needs change, they can afford to keep it as a rental and just ride it out, most people are like that, their net worth on paper doesn’t bend them out of shape, my explanation did, but there’s more to life than savvy investments. Enjoy San Diego paramount, I’m not being sarcastic when I say that, this is a good place for those of us who enjoy it, it didn’t work out for you, I hope your next stop does work for you, wherever it may be. But remember, the person that said location is everything in real estate was incorrect, timing is everything. The same holds true for sex and slot machines, timing is the most important factor.

[temeculaguy]

I think it meant they earned 41k in benefits, bringing their total compensation to 123k. But I’m not defending the article, stats like these often make a number of assumptions that don’t hold water once you dig into the numbers. While I have never researched federal worker benefits, I’ve punched holes in some articles in the past regarding state and local pensions, actuarial stuff is one of my dorkier hobbies. A common assumption by these types of articles is assuming all employees will retire with the maximum pension and pension funds will continue to perform the way they are performing now, most pension positions are not entitled to anything if they do not hit a certain amount of time on the job, between 10 and 20 years, or a certain age. So the employee that works for a few years and leaves for greener pastures, ends up forfeiting that fringe benefit, depending on the job, it can be a significant number of people who never reach eligibility. Attorneys are a prime example, local district attorneys or public defenders, even u.s. attorneys often spend the beginning part of the career working for the government and then leave in a few years, to make the big bucks. Right now they aren’t leaving in droves but there are times in the cycle where turnover is incredibly high. Turnover and potential pension abondonment is rarely accounted for in these studies. There have been times in the last few deacdes where the profit from this has allowed the governement entity to not pay anything into the pension system for a year or years, the abandonded dollars and investment profit make the fund self sufficient. Right now, people aren’t leaving and investments are losing, making the cost per employee go up. But to factor the conditions of one year and to project those exact same conditions to continue forever is exactly what caused the real estate collapse in reverse, it’s the same as assuming if something went up last year, it will always go up by that amount forever. It is a thought process piggies were immune to, yet for some reason when it gets to this topic, they lose their minds and can’t think the same way. Things change, that is the only thing that doesn’t change.

[temeculaguy]

I think it meant they earned 41k in benefits, bringing their total compensation to 123k. But I’m not defending the article, stats like these often make a number of assumptions that don’t hold water once you dig into the numbers. While I have never researched federal worker benefits, I’ve punched holes in some articles in the past regarding state and local pensions, actuarial stuff is one of my dorkier hobbies. A common assumption by these types of articles is assuming all employees will retire with the maximum pension and pension funds will continue to perform the way they are performing now, most pension positions are not entitled to anything if they do not hit a certain amount of time on the job, between 10 and 20 years, or a certain age. So the employee that works for a few years and leaves for greener pastures, ends up forfeiting that fringe benefit, depending on the job, it can be a significant number of people who never reach eligibility. Attorneys are a prime example, local district attorneys or public defenders, even u.s. attorneys often spend the beginning part of the career working for the government and then leave in a few years, to make the big bucks. Right now they aren’t leaving in droves but there are times in the cycle where turnover is incredibly high. Turnover and potential pension abondonment is rarely accounted for in these studies. There have been times in the last few deacdes where the profit from this has allowed the governement entity to not pay anything into the pension system for a year or years, the abandonded dollars and investment profit make the fund self sufficient. Right now, people aren’t leaving and investments are losing, making the cost per employee go up. But to factor the conditions of one year and to project those exact same conditions to continue forever is exactly what caused the real estate collapse in reverse, it’s the same as assuming if something went up last year, it will always go up by that amount forever. It is a thought process piggies were immune to, yet for some reason when it gets to this topic, they lose their minds and can’t think the same way. Things change, that is the only thing that doesn’t change.

[temeculaguy]

I think it meant they earned 41k in benefits, bringing their total compensation to 123k. But I’m not defending the article, stats like these often make a number of assumptions that don’t hold water once you dig into the numbers. While I have never researched federal worker benefits, I’ve punched holes in some articles in the past regarding state and local pensions, actuarial stuff is one of my dorkier hobbies. A common assumption by these types of articles is assuming all employees will retire with the maximum pension and pension funds will continue to perform the way they are performing now, most pension positions are not entitled to anything if they do not hit a certain amount of time on the job, between 10 and 20 years, or a certain age. So the employee that works for a few years and leaves for greener pastures, ends up forfeiting that fringe benefit, depending on the job, it can be a significant number of people who never reach eligibility. Attorneys are a prime example, local district attorneys or public defenders, even u.s. attorneys often spend the beginning part of the career working for the government and then leave in a few years, to make the big bucks. Right now they aren’t leaving in droves but there are times in the cycle where turnover is incredibly high. Turnover and potential pension abondonment is rarely accounted for in these studies. There have been times in the last few deacdes where the profit from this has allowed the governement entity to not pay anything into the pension system for a year or years, the abandonded dollars and investment profit make the fund self sufficient. Right now, people aren’t leaving and investments are losing, making the cost per employee go up. But to factor the conditions of one year and to project those exact same conditions to continue forever is exactly what caused the real estate collapse in reverse, it’s the same as assuming if something went up last year, it will always go up by that amount forever. It is a thought process piggies were immune to, yet for some reason when it gets to this topic, they lose their minds and can’t think the same way. Things change, that is the only thing that doesn’t change.

[temeculaguy]

I think it meant they earned 41k in benefits, bringing their total compensation to 123k. But I’m not defending the article, stats like these often make a number of assumptions that don’t hold water once you dig into the numbers. While I have never researched federal worker benefits, I’ve punched holes in some articles in the past regarding state and local pensions, actuarial stuff is one of my dorkier hobbies. A common assumption by these types of articles is assuming all employees will retire with the maximum pension and pension funds will continue to perform the way they are performing now, most pension positions are not entitled to anything if they do not hit a certain amount of time on the job, between 10 and 20 years, or a certain age. So the employee that works for a few years and leaves for greener pastures, ends up forfeiting that fringe benefit, depending on the job, it can be a significant number of people who never reach eligibility. Attorneys are a prime example, local district attorneys or public defenders, even u.s. attorneys often spend the beginning part of the career working for the government and then leave in a few years, to make the big bucks. Right now they aren’t leaving in droves but there are times in the cycle where turnover is incredibly high. Turnover and potential pension abondonment is rarely accounted for in these studies. There have been times in the last few deacdes where the profit from this has allowed the governement entity to not pay anything into the pension system for a year or years, the abandonded dollars and investment profit make the fund self sufficient. Right now, people aren’t leaving and investments are losing, making the cost per employee go up. But to factor the conditions of one year and to project those exact same conditions to continue forever is exactly what caused the real estate collapse in reverse, it’s the same as assuming if something went up last year, it will always go up by that amount forever. It is a thought process piggies were immune to, yet for some reason when it gets to this topic, they lose their minds and can’t think the same way. Things change, that is the only thing that doesn’t change.

[temeculaguy]

I think it meant they earned 41k in benefits, bringing their total compensation to 123k. But I’m not defending the article, stats like these often make a number of assumptions that don’t hold water once you dig into the numbers. While I have never researched federal worker benefits, I’ve punched holes in some articles in the past regarding state and local pensions, actuarial stuff is one of my dorkier hobbies. A common assumption by these types of articles is assuming all employees will retire with the maximum pension and pension funds will continue to perform the way they are performing now, most pension positions are not entitled to anything if they do not hit a certain amount of time on the job, between 10 and 20 years, or a certain age. So the employee that works for a few years and leaves for greener pastures, ends up forfeiting that fringe benefit, depending on the job, it can be a significant number of people who never reach eligibility. Attorneys are a prime example, local district attorneys or public defenders, even u.s. attorneys often spend the beginning part of the career working for the government and then leave in a few years, to make the big bucks. Right now they aren’t leaving in droves but there are times in the cycle where turnover is incredibly high. Turnover and potential pension abondonment is rarely accounted for in these studies. There have been times in the last few deacdes where the profit from this has allowed the governement entity to not pay anything into the pension system for a year or years, the abandonded dollars and investment profit make the fund self sufficient. Right now, people aren’t leaving and investments are losing, making the cost per employee go up. But to factor the conditions of one year and to project those exact same conditions to continue forever is exactly what caused the real estate collapse in reverse, it’s the same as assuming if something went up last year, it will always go up by that amount forever. It is a thought process piggies were immune to, yet for some reason when it gets to this topic, they lose their minds and can’t think the same way. Things change, that is the only thing that doesn’t change.

[temeculaguy]

bearishgirl, I’ll address some of the other issues and find examples later because I need a little time to research closed listings on redfin, but for now, let me explain the taxes.

We don’t have traditional mello roos here but most houses are in an assessment district. I actually live in the unincorporated area south of temecula city, between temecula proper and the sd county line, I have more traditional mello roos, specifically a water bond to pay for the installation of the water/sewage system. I paid less in purchase price because of it, so it was baked into the cake in my opinion.

Most Temecula houses have a fixed dollar amount to pay for certain things, they are itemized on the tax bill. Each tract can vary, but these things include trash service, about $600 a year for schools to have additional money that we voted for years ago, a few hundred a year for street lights, landscaping and street sweeping, etc, etc. This bill can vary between 1k a year and 2k a year for the average house. Certain areas, like redhawk, have big waterfalls and lots of landscaping, they pay a bit more than a neighborhood with less landscaping. On the reverse, the hoa is extremely low, just $30 a month, because the hoa doesnt do the landscaping. My current hood has that stupid water bond and is in the county, so my yearly tab is 3k fixed plus 1% and I don’t get my trash included.

Everyone pays 1%, plus their fixed assesment district tab, which some parts will never go away, they aren’t bonds, they are ongoing expenses.

My old house in redhawk has about $1800 a year in fixed fees, I bought it for 180k in the late 1990’s, so my rate was initially 2% (1800 based on value plus 1800 fixed). My neigbors paid 600k in 2006, so their rate was closer to 1.3% since they paid 6k based on value and 1800 fixed. They were paying 7800 in taxes, while I paid 3600, for the same house, our percentages were wildly different. My current pad has 3k a year fixed, the worst in all the land, and 2700 in value at 1% so I’m at near 6k a year, about 2%, but when the former owner purchased it new, they paid 650k, so that 3k represented .5%, so they paid 1.5%, while I pay 2%, yet my bill is less.

So don’t think of it as a tax rate, everyone pays 1% plus a fixed annual fee, which can vary by neighborhood, but for the most part is about $1500 a year.

[temeculaguy]

bearishgirl, I’ll address some of the other issues and find examples later because I need a little time to research closed listings on redfin, but for now, let me explain the taxes.

We don’t have traditional mello roos here but most houses are in an assessment district. I actually live in the unincorporated area south of temecula city, between temecula proper and the sd county line, I have more traditional mello roos, specifically a water bond to pay for the installation of the water/sewage system. I paid less in purchase price because of it, so it was baked into the cake in my opinion.

Most Temecula houses have a fixed dollar amount to pay for certain things, they are itemized on the tax bill. Each tract can vary, but these things include trash service, about $600 a year for schools to have additional money that we voted for years ago, a few hundred a year for street lights, landscaping and street sweeping, etc, etc. This bill can vary between 1k a year and 2k a year for the average house. Certain areas, like redhawk, have big waterfalls and lots of landscaping, they pay a bit more than a neighborhood with less landscaping. On the reverse, the hoa is extremely low, just $30 a month, because the hoa doesnt do the landscaping. My current hood has that stupid water bond and is in the county, so my yearly tab is 3k fixed plus 1% and I don’t get my trash included.

Everyone pays 1%, plus their fixed assesment district tab, which some parts will never go away, they aren’t bonds, they are ongoing expenses.

My old house in redhawk has about $1800 a year in fixed fees, I bought it for 180k in the late 1990’s, so my rate was initially 2% (1800 based on value plus 1800 fixed). My neigbors paid 600k in 2006, so their rate was closer to 1.3% since they paid 6k based on value and 1800 fixed. They were paying 7800 in taxes, while I paid 3600, for the same house, our percentages were wildly different. My current pad has 3k a year fixed, the worst in all the land, and 2700 in value at 1% so I’m at near 6k a year, about 2%, but when the former owner purchased it new, they paid 650k, so that 3k represented .5%, so they paid 1.5%, while I pay 2%, yet my bill is less.

So don’t think of it as a tax rate, everyone pays 1% plus a fixed annual fee, which can vary by neighborhood, but for the most part is about $1500 a year.

[temeculaguy]

bearishgirl, I’ll address some of the other issues and find examples later because I need a little time to research closed listings on redfin, but for now, let me explain the taxes.

We don’t have traditional mello roos here but most houses are in an assessment district. I actually live in the unincorporated area south of temecula city, between temecula proper and the sd county line, I have more traditional mello roos, specifically a water bond to pay for the installation of the water/sewage system. I paid less in purchase price because of it, so it was baked into the cake in my opinion.

Most Temecula houses have a fixed dollar amount to pay for certain things, they are itemized on the tax bill. Each tract can vary, but these things include trash service, about $600 a year for schools to have additional money that we voted for years ago, a few hundred a year for street lights, landscaping and street sweeping, etc, etc. This bill can vary between 1k a year and 2k a year for the average house. Certain areas, like redhawk, have big waterfalls and lots of landscaping, they pay a bit more than a neighborhood with less landscaping. On the reverse, the hoa is extremely low, just $30 a month, because the hoa doesnt do the landscaping. My current hood has that stupid water bond and is in the county, so my yearly tab is 3k fixed plus 1% and I don’t get my trash included.

Everyone pays 1%, plus their fixed assesment district tab, which some parts will never go away, they aren’t bonds, they are ongoing expenses.

My old house in redhawk has about $1800 a year in fixed fees, I bought it for 180k in the late 1990’s, so my rate was initially 2% (1800 based on value plus 1800 fixed). My neigbors paid 600k in 2006, so their rate was closer to 1.3% since they paid 6k based on value and 1800 fixed. They were paying 7800 in taxes, while I paid 3600, for the same house, our percentages were wildly different. My current pad has 3k a year fixed, the worst in all the land, and 2700 in value at 1% so I’m at near 6k a year, about 2%, but when the former owner purchased it new, they paid 650k, so that 3k represented .5%, so they paid 1.5%, while I pay 2%, yet my bill is less.

So don’t think of it as a tax rate, everyone pays 1% plus a fixed annual fee, which can vary by neighborhood, but for the most part is about $1500 a year.

[temeculaguy]

bearishgirl, I’ll address some of the other issues and find examples later because I need a little time to research closed listings on redfin, but for now, let me explain the taxes.

We don’t have traditional mello roos here but most houses are in an assessment district. I actually live in the unincorporated area south of temecula city, between temecula proper and the sd county line, I have more traditional mello roos, specifically a water bond to pay for the installation of the water/sewage system. I paid less in purchase price because of it, so it was baked into the cake in my opinion.

Most Temecula houses have a fixed dollar amount to pay for certain things, they are itemized on the tax bill. Each tract can vary, but these things include trash service, about $600 a year for schools to have additional money that we voted for years ago, a few hundred a year for street lights, landscaping and street sweeping, etc, etc. This bill can vary between 1k a year and 2k a year for the average house. Certain areas, like redhawk, have big waterfalls and lots of landscaping, they pay a bit more than a neighborhood with less landscaping. On the reverse, the hoa is extremely low, just $30 a month, because the hoa doesnt do the landscaping. My current hood has that stupid water bond and is in the county, so my yearly tab is 3k fixed plus 1% and I don’t get my trash included.

Everyone pays 1%, plus their fixed assesment district tab, which some parts will never go away, they aren’t bonds, they are ongoing expenses.

My old house in redhawk has about $1800 a year in fixed fees, I bought it for 180k in the late 1990’s, so my rate was initially 2% (1800 based on value plus 1800 fixed). My neigbors paid 600k in 2006, so their rate was closer to 1.3% since they paid 6k based on value and 1800 fixed. They were paying 7800 in taxes, while I paid 3600, for the same house, our percentages were wildly different. My current pad has 3k a year fixed, the worst in all the land, and 2700 in value at 1% so I’m at near 6k a year, about 2%, but when the former owner purchased it new, they paid 650k, so that 3k represented .5%, so they paid 1.5%, while I pay 2%, yet my bill is less.

So don’t think of it as a tax rate, everyone pays 1% plus a fixed annual fee, which can vary by neighborhood, but for the most part is about $1500 a year.

[temeculaguy]

bearishgirl, I’ll address some of the other issues and find examples later because I need a little time to research closed listings on redfin, but for now, let me explain the taxes.

We don’t have traditional mello roos here but most houses are in an assessment district. I actually live in the unincorporated area south of temecula city, between temecula proper and the sd county line, I have more traditional mello roos, specifically a water bond to pay for the installation of the water/sewage system. I paid less in purchase price because of it, so it was baked into the cake in my opinion.

Most Temecula houses have a fixed dollar amount to pay for certain things, they are itemized on the tax bill. Each tract can vary, but these things include trash service, about $600 a year for schools to have additional money that we voted for years ago, a few hundred a year for street lights, landscaping and street sweeping, etc, etc. This bill can vary between 1k a year and 2k a year for the average house. Certain areas, like redhawk, have big waterfalls and lots of landscaping, they pay a bit more than a neighborhood with less landscaping. On the reverse, the hoa is extremely low, just $30 a month, because the hoa doesnt do the landscaping. My current hood has that stupid water bond and is in the county, so my yearly tab is 3k fixed plus 1% and I don’t get my trash included.

Everyone pays 1%, plus their fixed assesment district tab, which some parts will never go away, they aren’t bonds, they are ongoing expenses.

My old house in redhawk has about $1800 a year in fixed fees, I bought it for 180k in the late 1990’s, so my rate was initially 2% (1800 based on value plus 1800 fixed). My neigbors paid 600k in 2006, so their rate was closer to 1.3% since they paid 6k based on value and 1800 fixed. They were paying 7800 in taxes, while I paid 3600, for the same house, our percentages were wildly different. My current pad has 3k a year fixed, the worst in all the land, and 2700 in value at 1% so I’m at near 6k a year, about 2%, but when the former owner purchased it new, they paid 650k, so that 3k represented .5%, so they paid 1.5%, while I pay 2%, yet my bill is less.

So don’t think of it as a tax rate, everyone pays 1% plus a fixed annual fee, which can vary by neighborhood, but for the most part is about $1500 a year.

[temeculaguy]

Bearish girl, I concur with what ren said, it’s the budget that matter most but there are other less expensive places that exist in SD, they just dont ofer what Temecula does, especially for those with kids. I’m not disputing that some people aren’t unhappy or that some paid too much during the bubble and may take a long time to recover, but that can be true for a lot of areas. Right now, if you do your homework, you can spend about 300k for a 3000 sq ft house built within the last 5 years. Your taxes will be between 4 and 6k because it’s based on purchase price, so for about 2k a month, you can get more than you need and with top notch schools, probably only surpassed by the carlsbad/encinitas or poway districts.

As far as long term investments, Temecula proper is nearly built out, most houses purchased today are almost rent nuetral from day one, I can find rentals that cash flow from day one, no place in S.D. has the same opportunity. What I think you need to do is actually come check it out or get a tour from a local, your impression is from another time and it’s not the same place it once was. I still think there are nicer places in S.D. than where I live, but comparing apples to apples, dollar for dollar, the 270k i spent on my place would run me between 700k and 1 mil to get a comparable feel as far as the physical house and the community it is in, and that wouldn’t allow for the rest of my plan, the rest of my plan is more important than the real estate part of my plan.

I also think the market in most sd areas is still overpriced so it will appreciate less in the coming years. My place was purchased at peak in the 600’s and then they put money into it, losing it two years later as it value fell below half, in my opinion, the air had already be let out, most of sd has yet to lose similar numbers so it will either still do it, or fail to rise because there is a limit as to what people can afford using traditional mortgages. A 300k place in some of the less desirable places you mentioned willhave just as hard of a time getting to 600k as mine will in the future. Because little old falling apart places with rotten schools dont attract young families, migration out is as likely as migration in. Look at these boards, people talk about places within 5 miles of highways 52, 56 or 5, the Temecula Valley is one of the other places that gets people talking about it and moving to it, more so than the east county or south bay, there’s a reason. The reason is that low crime, good schools and low prices is a winning formula. It was the formula for the Santa Clarita valley in the 1980’s and much of S. Orange county in the 1970’s. All of the talk of this place becoming palmdale or vegas after prices crash never materialized. We are a few years into the recession, prices have remained stable with slow upticks since 2008. The local government and the retail is just fine, they are doing better than most other places and much better than San Diego. My guess it’s because of people like ren and scardey, people who are spending between 10 and 20% of their income on housing, it’s not all they could afford, it’s all they were comfortable affording, a whole new paradigm.

[Author]

Posts