[UCGal]

the current synthetic grasses “perc”. The water DOES drain into the ground underneath – hence recharging the aquafer. It is not the same as an impermiable concrete which forces the water into the storm water system. Rain will soak into the ground similar to if it were real grass. If it’s a hard clay surface underneath the synthetic grass then it won’t drain… but it wouldn’t drain if it were real grass over hard clay.

Lawns in San Diego make no sense… they make sense in places with lots of rain like Pennsylvania, Western Washington, etc… but here you cannot maintain a lawn without irrigation. It’s a hold back to the old english estates where you had rolling hills and sheep to keep them cropped.

[UCGal]

the current synthetic grasses “perc”. The water DOES drain into the ground underneath – hence recharging the aquafer. It is not the same as an impermiable concrete which forces the water into the storm water system. Rain will soak into the ground similar to if it were real grass. If it’s a hard clay surface underneath the synthetic grass then it won’t drain… but it wouldn’t drain if it were real grass over hard clay.

Lawns in San Diego make no sense… they make sense in places with lots of rain like Pennsylvania, Western Washington, etc… but here you cannot maintain a lawn without irrigation. It’s a hold back to the old english estates where you had rolling hills and sheep to keep them cropped.

[UCGal]

the current synthetic grasses “perc”. The water DOES drain into the ground underneath – hence recharging the aquafer. It is not the same as an impermiable concrete which forces the water into the storm water system. Rain will soak into the ground similar to if it were real grass. If it’s a hard clay surface underneath the synthetic grass then it won’t drain… but it wouldn’t drain if it were real grass over hard clay.

Lawns in San Diego make no sense… they make sense in places with lots of rain like Pennsylvania, Western Washington, etc… but here you cannot maintain a lawn without irrigation. It’s a hold back to the old english estates where you had rolling hills and sheep to keep them cropped.

[UCGal]

Sorry Sheldon – Fee, not commisssion.
(and in my opinion you definitely earned it on our refi. thanks!)

[UCGal]

Sorry Sheldon – Fee, not commisssion.
(and in my opinion you definitely earned it on our refi. thanks!)

[UCGal]

Sorry Sheldon – Fee, not commisssion.
(and in my opinion you definitely earned it on our refi. thanks!)

[UCGal]

Sorry Sheldon – Fee, not commisssion.
(and in my opinion you definitely earned it on our refi. thanks!)

[UCGal]

Sorry Sheldon – Fee, not commisssion.
(and in my opinion you definitely earned it on our refi. thanks!)

[UCGal]

I just noticed that it was Sheldon that posted the OP.

I realize you probably are comparing todays data to the previous 10 years or so. But, since you’re in the business… do you think it’s a good thing or bad thing that lending standards are tightening up? You’re on the frontline. Obviously you can make more commissions if more people qualify – but the previous standards were so lax that people were put into homes they couldn’t afford.

Personally I’d rather have more underwriting (even if it means more hoops and stress like in my case) and stricter standards for lending.

(disclaimer to the Piggs – I refinanced with HLS recently. He’s a good mortgage broker, knows his stuff. And my loan did face some extra underwriting scrutiny due to the nature of my property.)

[UCGal]

I just noticed that it was Sheldon that posted the OP.

I realize you probably are comparing todays data to the previous 10 years or so. But, since you’re in the business… do you think it’s a good thing or bad thing that lending standards are tightening up? You’re on the frontline. Obviously you can make more commissions if more people qualify – but the previous standards were so lax that people were put into homes they couldn’t afford.

Personally I’d rather have more underwriting (even if it means more hoops and stress like in my case) and stricter standards for lending.

(disclaimer to the Piggs – I refinanced with HLS recently. He’s a good mortgage broker, knows his stuff. And my loan did face some extra underwriting scrutiny due to the nature of my property.)

[UCGal]

I just noticed that it was Sheldon that posted the OP.

I realize you probably are comparing todays data to the previous 10 years or so. But, since you’re in the business… do you think it’s a good thing or bad thing that lending standards are tightening up? You’re on the frontline. Obviously you can make more commissions if more people qualify – but the previous standards were so lax that people were put into homes they couldn’t afford.

Personally I’d rather have more underwriting (even if it means more hoops and stress like in my case) and stricter standards for lending.

(disclaimer to the Piggs – I refinanced with HLS recently. He’s a good mortgage broker, knows his stuff. And my loan did face some extra underwriting scrutiny due to the nature of my property.)

[UCGal]

I just noticed that it was Sheldon that posted the OP.

I realize you probably are comparing todays data to the previous 10 years or so. But, since you’re in the business… do you think it’s a good thing or bad thing that lending standards are tightening up? You’re on the frontline. Obviously you can make more commissions if more people qualify – but the previous standards were so lax that people were put into homes they couldn’t afford.

Personally I’d rather have more underwriting (even if it means more hoops and stress like in my case) and stricter standards for lending.

(disclaimer to the Piggs – I refinanced with HLS recently. He’s a good mortgage broker, knows his stuff. And my loan did face some extra underwriting scrutiny due to the nature of my property.)

[UCGal]

I just noticed that it was Sheldon that posted the OP.

I realize you probably are comparing todays data to the previous 10 years or so. But, since you’re in the business… do you think it’s a good thing or bad thing that lending standards are tightening up? You’re on the frontline. Obviously you can make more commissions if more people qualify – but the previous standards were so lax that people were put into homes they couldn’t afford.

Personally I’d rather have more underwriting (even if it means more hoops and stress like in my case) and stricter standards for lending.

(disclaimer to the Piggs – I refinanced with HLS recently. He’s a good mortgage broker, knows his stuff. And my loan did face some extra underwriting scrutiny due to the nature of my property.)

[UCGal]

[quote=HLS]With home ownership recently approaching 70%, there is another group that has no interest in buying a house and yet another group that cannot qualify for a loan for various reasons.

What is left seems to be a very small slice of interested buyers who can qualify for a loan by today’s guidelines.

I am seeing a number of people with some but not all of the following: high credit scores, lots of cash, low debt and a job, but for one reason or another they do not qualify for a loan.
Those with a recent foreclosure will not be able to buy for 2 to 5 years based on current guidelines.

I believe that the % of the population that can qualify for a loan is possibly the lowest that it has ever been.
Many people that want to buy a house have absolutely no chance of buying now.[/quote]

I doubt it’s the lowest… Prior to the change in lending requirements you needed good credit and a good down payment (plus the income to meet the payments.) 20% down was minimum. We still have programs that let you put very little down – so there are more people that qualify now than did 30 or so years ago.

Factor in the fact that banks used to redline black neighborhoods – so that also reduced the number of people who qualified for loans. (It’s where the term redlining comes from – the maps banks had that showed where not to make mortgages because of the demographic makeup. The areas that were unloanable were colored in red.)

I don’t want to see redlining return. But I am very much in favor of bringing back the underwriting standards of old – you needed to save (a LOT) for a downpayment. You had to have a good, long term, career/income and you had to have very good credit.

[UCGal]

[quote=HLS]With home ownership recently approaching 70%, there is another group that has no interest in buying a house and yet another group that cannot qualify for a loan for various reasons.

What is left seems to be a very small slice of interested buyers who can qualify for a loan by today’s guidelines.

I am seeing a number of people with some but not all of the following: high credit scores, lots of cash, low debt and a job, but for one reason or another they do not qualify for a loan.
Those with a recent foreclosure will not be able to buy for 2 to 5 years based on current guidelines.

I believe that the % of the population that can qualify for a loan is possibly the lowest that it has ever been.
Many people that want to buy a house have absolutely no chance of buying now.[/quote]

I doubt it’s the lowest… Prior to the change in lending requirements you needed good credit and a good down payment (plus the income to meet the payments.) 20% down was minimum. We still have programs that let you put very little down – so there are more people that qualify now than did 30 or so years ago.

Factor in the fact that banks used to redline black neighborhoods – so that also reduced the number of people who qualified for loans. (It’s where the term redlining comes from – the maps banks had that showed where not to make mortgages because of the demographic makeup. The areas that were unloanable were colored in red.)

I don’t want to see redlining return. But I am very much in favor of bringing back the underwriting standards of old – you needed to save (a LOT) for a downpayment. You had to have a good, long term, career/income and you had to have very good credit.

[Author]

Posts