Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
UCGal
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Mojo: Sarah Palin is in Alaska. And, as we all know, that chick will just NOT die! I’d rather face the zombies down here than that.[/quote]
Now that made ME spray coffee all over the keyboard.
Frickin sharks and Sarah Palin…
I love this thread.Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Mojo: Sarah Palin is in Alaska. And, as we all know, that chick will just NOT die! I’d rather face the zombies down here than that.[/quote]
Now that made ME spray coffee all over the keyboard.
Frickin sharks and Sarah Palin…
I love this thread.February 10, 2010 at 9:24 AM in reply to: Study: One-Fifth of U.S. Homeowners Owe More Than Properties Are Worth #511619ParticipantThe headline is slightly misleading… It’s corrected in the 2nd paragraph.
It should read 1/5 of homeowners who have mortgages owe more than the property is worth.
There’s a significant number of folks who’ve been in their house for years and have no mortgage. I’ve seen estimates is as many as 1/3 of homes do not have a mortgage.
February 10, 2010 at 9:24 AM in reply to: Study: One-Fifth of U.S. Homeowners Owe More Than Properties Are Worth #511765ParticipantThe headline is slightly misleading… It’s corrected in the 2nd paragraph.
It should read 1/5 of homeowners who have mortgages owe more than the property is worth.
There’s a significant number of folks who’ve been in their house for years and have no mortgage. I’ve seen estimates is as many as 1/3 of homes do not have a mortgage.
February 10, 2010 at 9:24 AM in reply to: Study: One-Fifth of U.S. Homeowners Owe More Than Properties Are Worth #512179ParticipantThe headline is slightly misleading… It’s corrected in the 2nd paragraph.
It should read 1/5 of homeowners who have mortgages owe more than the property is worth.
There’s a significant number of folks who’ve been in their house for years and have no mortgage. I’ve seen estimates is as many as 1/3 of homes do not have a mortgage.
February 10, 2010 at 9:24 AM in reply to: Study: One-Fifth of U.S. Homeowners Owe More Than Properties Are Worth #512273ParticipantThe headline is slightly misleading… It’s corrected in the 2nd paragraph.
It should read 1/5 of homeowners who have mortgages owe more than the property is worth.
There’s a significant number of folks who’ve been in their house for years and have no mortgage. I’ve seen estimates is as many as 1/3 of homes do not have a mortgage.
February 10, 2010 at 9:24 AM in reply to: Study: One-Fifth of U.S. Homeowners Owe More Than Properties Are Worth #512523ParticipantThe headline is slightly misleading… It’s corrected in the 2nd paragraph.
It should read 1/5 of homeowners who have mortgages owe more than the property is worth.
There’s a significant number of folks who’ve been in their house for years and have no mortgage. I’ve seen estimates is as many as 1/3 of homes do not have a mortgage.
Participant[quote=sdrealtor]An example of undervalued. When I moved here in 1996 I almost bought a shack at the corner of La Veta and Sylvia 2 blocks form Moonlight Beach. It was a 10,000 sq ft lot, two blocks from one of the nicest beaches in SD for $250,000. Best of all the lot was splitable. A liveable but shacklike beach cottage on a nice corner lot plus a buildable lot for $250K. That was a steal! It still haunts me.
I’m pretty sure the buyer split the lot and sold the back portion for what he paid for the whole thing a year or two later. A house built on the back portion sold for 600K in 1999. That owner tried to sell in 2005 between 1.5 and 2M but never did. He (the 1999 backlot home buyer) is still there. A couple years ago, the original buyer on the corner tore down the shack and built a beautiful beach house.[/quote]
My dad had the opportunity to buy an oceanfront lot, on the boardwalk, in Mission Beach – down near the jetty – for $25k in 1965. He thought it was too expensive since he’d have to build a house. He regretted that for the rest of his life.
Instead he bought a foreclosure for $29k in UC. It was less than 18 months old, he assumed the first mortgage (no down payment) and the bank wrote off the 2nd that the previous owners had taken out to put in a pool, etc. It was a great deal. BTW – I bought it from him at market value in 2003 – for $600k. Not quite as screamin’ a deal.
Participant[quote=sdrealtor]An example of undervalued. When I moved here in 1996 I almost bought a shack at the corner of La Veta and Sylvia 2 blocks form Moonlight Beach. It was a 10,000 sq ft lot, two blocks from one of the nicest beaches in SD for $250,000. Best of all the lot was splitable. A liveable but shacklike beach cottage on a nice corner lot plus a buildable lot for $250K. That was a steal! It still haunts me.
I’m pretty sure the buyer split the lot and sold the back portion for what he paid for the whole thing a year or two later. A house built on the back portion sold for 600K in 1999. That owner tried to sell in 2005 between 1.5 and 2M but never did. He (the 1999 backlot home buyer) is still there. A couple years ago, the original buyer on the corner tore down the shack and built a beautiful beach house.[/quote]
My dad had the opportunity to buy an oceanfront lot, on the boardwalk, in Mission Beach – down near the jetty – for $25k in 1965. He thought it was too expensive since he’d have to build a house. He regretted that for the rest of his life.
Instead he bought a foreclosure for $29k in UC. It was less than 18 months old, he assumed the first mortgage (no down payment) and the bank wrote off the 2nd that the previous owners had taken out to put in a pool, etc. It was a great deal. BTW – I bought it from him at market value in 2003 – for $600k. Not quite as screamin’ a deal.
Participant[quote=sdrealtor]An example of undervalued. When I moved here in 1996 I almost bought a shack at the corner of La Veta and Sylvia 2 blocks form Moonlight Beach. It was a 10,000 sq ft lot, two blocks from one of the nicest beaches in SD for $250,000. Best of all the lot was splitable. A liveable but shacklike beach cottage on a nice corner lot plus a buildable lot for $250K. That was a steal! It still haunts me.
I’m pretty sure the buyer split the lot and sold the back portion for what he paid for the whole thing a year or two later. A house built on the back portion sold for 600K in 1999. That owner tried to sell in 2005 between 1.5 and 2M but never did. He (the 1999 backlot home buyer) is still there. A couple years ago, the original buyer on the corner tore down the shack and built a beautiful beach house.[/quote]
My dad had the opportunity to buy an oceanfront lot, on the boardwalk, in Mission Beach – down near the jetty – for $25k in 1965. He thought it was too expensive since he’d have to build a house. He regretted that for the rest of his life.
Instead he bought a foreclosure for $29k in UC. It was less than 18 months old, he assumed the first mortgage (no down payment) and the bank wrote off the 2nd that the previous owners had taken out to put in a pool, etc. It was a great deal. BTW – I bought it from him at market value in 2003 – for $600k. Not quite as screamin’ a deal.
Participant[quote=sdrealtor]An example of undervalued. When I moved here in 1996 I almost bought a shack at the corner of La Veta and Sylvia 2 blocks form Moonlight Beach. It was a 10,000 sq ft lot, two blocks from one of the nicest beaches in SD for $250,000. Best of all the lot was splitable. A liveable but shacklike beach cottage on a nice corner lot plus a buildable lot for $250K. That was a steal! It still haunts me.
I’m pretty sure the buyer split the lot and sold the back portion for what he paid for the whole thing a year or two later. A house built on the back portion sold for 600K in 1999. That owner tried to sell in 2005 between 1.5 and 2M but never did. He (the 1999 backlot home buyer) is still there. A couple years ago, the original buyer on the corner tore down the shack and built a beautiful beach house.[/quote]
My dad had the opportunity to buy an oceanfront lot, on the boardwalk, in Mission Beach – down near the jetty – for $25k in 1965. He thought it was too expensive since he’d have to build a house. He regretted that for the rest of his life.
Instead he bought a foreclosure for $29k in UC. It was less than 18 months old, he assumed the first mortgage (no down payment) and the bank wrote off the 2nd that the previous owners had taken out to put in a pool, etc. It was a great deal. BTW – I bought it from him at market value in 2003 – for $600k. Not quite as screamin’ a deal.
Participant[quote=sdrealtor]An example of undervalued. When I moved here in 1996 I almost bought a shack at the corner of La Veta and Sylvia 2 blocks form Moonlight Beach. It was a 10,000 sq ft lot, two blocks from one of the nicest beaches in SD for $250,000. Best of all the lot was splitable. A liveable but shacklike beach cottage on a nice corner lot plus a buildable lot for $250K. That was a steal! It still haunts me.
I’m pretty sure the buyer split the lot and sold the back portion for what he paid for the whole thing a year or two later. A house built on the back portion sold for 600K in 1999. That owner tried to sell in 2005 between 1.5 and 2M but never did. He (the 1999 backlot home buyer) is still there. A couple years ago, the original buyer on the corner tore down the shack and built a beautiful beach house.[/quote]
My dad had the opportunity to buy an oceanfront lot, on the boardwalk, in Mission Beach – down near the jetty – for $25k in 1965. He thought it was too expensive since he’d have to build a house. He regretted that for the rest of his life.
Instead he bought a foreclosure for $29k in UC. It was less than 18 months old, he assumed the first mortgage (no down payment) and the bank wrote off the 2nd that the previous owners had taken out to put in a pool, etc. It was a great deal. BTW – I bought it from him at market value in 2003 – for $600k. Not quite as screamin’ a deal.
Participant[quote=lindismith]And, think of the money you’ll save on your water bill. Water rates are only going up in the coming years. It is estimated that 1/2 of water bills are due to landscapes, so I really encourage you to figure out if you can cut back.[/quote]
I agree with you, lindismith. But I heard from a person at the SD Water authority that 70% of potable water is used for irrigation. Since our water bills are tiered – the more you use, the higher rates… So if you cut your irrigation bills in half, you could save more than half of your bill.
I googled nifty fifty plants and found this great resource
http://www.20gallonchallenge.com/pdf/Nifty50.pdfThanks for the suggestion, lindismith.
Participant[quote=lindismith]And, think of the money you’ll save on your water bill. Water rates are only going up in the coming years. It is estimated that 1/2 of water bills are due to landscapes, so I really encourage you to figure out if you can cut back.[/quote]
I agree with you, lindismith. But I heard from a person at the SD Water authority that 70% of potable water is used for irrigation. Since our water bills are tiered – the more you use, the higher rates… So if you cut your irrigation bills in half, you could save more than half of your bill.
I googled nifty fifty plants and found this great resource
http://www.20gallonchallenge.com/pdf/Nifty50.pdfThanks for the suggestion, lindismith.
-
AuthorPosts
