Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
UCGal
Participant[quote=flu]
I heard one proposal for the way it’s going to work is based on your prior year’s usage + a cushion allocation. So for example if you consumed X gallons same time last year, you’re allowed X+some cushion…If that’s true, once again, folks who were “savers” get punished. Sound familiar?
[/quote]Ugh – say it isn’t so. We’ve been thrifty with our water for a while. As we’ve replaced toilets we’ve put in eco ones (dual mode, low water)… As we’ve relandscaped, post construction, we’ve been doing more zero-scaping. We’ve been big users of drip irrigation for our fruit trees, rather than sprinklers.
It definitely seems like it will punish the folks who were already being thrifty.
Next you’ll tell me power consumption is going to be rationed, based on past years use… We’d be screwed there too, since we’re already using 1/2 compared to neighbors in the same model house. (We compared bills when we were talking about solar power systems – they just got one, we’re considering it.)
The only saving grace is we haven’t implemented our gray water system for irrigation. We’ve got it planned, but not implemented yet. This is definitely discouraging us from implementing it for the near term.
Participant[quote=flu]
I heard one proposal for the way it’s going to work is based on your prior year’s usage + a cushion allocation. So for example if you consumed X gallons same time last year, you’re allowed X+some cushion…If that’s true, once again, folks who were “savers” get punished. Sound familiar?
[/quote]Ugh – say it isn’t so. We’ve been thrifty with our water for a while. As we’ve replaced toilets we’ve put in eco ones (dual mode, low water)… As we’ve relandscaped, post construction, we’ve been doing more zero-scaping. We’ve been big users of drip irrigation for our fruit trees, rather than sprinklers.
It definitely seems like it will punish the folks who were already being thrifty.
Next you’ll tell me power consumption is going to be rationed, based on past years use… We’d be screwed there too, since we’re already using 1/2 compared to neighbors in the same model house. (We compared bills when we were talking about solar power systems – they just got one, we’re considering it.)
The only saving grace is we haven’t implemented our gray water system for irrigation. We’ve got it planned, but not implemented yet. This is definitely discouraging us from implementing it for the near term.
April 23, 2009 at 4:40 PM in reply to: Short-Sale Shenanigans…….Gotta be a way to keep the listing agents honest #386348Participant[quote=SD Realtor]
Furthermore for many loans now, especially FHA we are seeing secondary appraisal reviews come in. These reviews are essentially a second appraisal. I just completed a refinance of a property of my own that was non FHA and it went through a secondary review.
[/quote]did you have to pay a second appraisal fee during your refi? I hope not.
April 23, 2009 at 4:40 PM in reply to: Short-Sale Shenanigans…….Gotta be a way to keep the listing agents honest #386613Participant[quote=SD Realtor]
Furthermore for many loans now, especially FHA we are seeing secondary appraisal reviews come in. These reviews are essentially a second appraisal. I just completed a refinance of a property of my own that was non FHA and it went through a secondary review.
[/quote]did you have to pay a second appraisal fee during your refi? I hope not.
April 23, 2009 at 4:40 PM in reply to: Short-Sale Shenanigans…….Gotta be a way to keep the listing agents honest #386808Participant[quote=SD Realtor]
Furthermore for many loans now, especially FHA we are seeing secondary appraisal reviews come in. These reviews are essentially a second appraisal. I just completed a refinance of a property of my own that was non FHA and it went through a secondary review.
[/quote]did you have to pay a second appraisal fee during your refi? I hope not.
April 23, 2009 at 4:40 PM in reply to: Short-Sale Shenanigans…….Gotta be a way to keep the listing agents honest #386856Participant[quote=SD Realtor]
Furthermore for many loans now, especially FHA we are seeing secondary appraisal reviews come in. These reviews are essentially a second appraisal. I just completed a refinance of a property of my own that was non FHA and it went through a secondary review.
[/quote]did you have to pay a second appraisal fee during your refi? I hope not.
April 23, 2009 at 4:40 PM in reply to: Short-Sale Shenanigans…….Gotta be a way to keep the listing agents honest #386993Participant[quote=SD Realtor]
Furthermore for many loans now, especially FHA we are seeing secondary appraisal reviews come in. These reviews are essentially a second appraisal. I just completed a refinance of a property of my own that was non FHA and it went through a secondary review.
[/quote]did you have to pay a second appraisal fee during your refi? I hope not.
Participant[quote=Eugene]Dig around on profilewarehouse.sandag.org. You can find median incomes and median prices for 2000 and median incomes for 2008 down to census tract level (census tracts are smaller than zip codes).
These kinds of comparisons are tricky. You’ll want to focus on neighborhoods without apartments. Incomes of apartment residents have no relation to purchasing power of local homebuyers. That’s why census tracts are better than zip codes.
In 2000 most places were at 3.5-4.5 times household incomes. Interest rates were 7% and higher.
In established neighborhoods it’s important to correct for the number of retirees. Take census tract 83.06 (southwest corner of University City). 99% single-family detached, median income: 76K, median house value: 358K, ratio: 4.7 (as of 2000). That’s barely affordable by today’s standards. Definitely not with 7.5% interest rates back then. What’s the catch? The catch is that University City is an established neighborhood, built in the 60’s. In 2000, more than 20% of residents were older than 65. 25% of households lived on retirement income and social security. Median new homebuyer income must have been closer to 100K.
SANDAG currently estimates that median household income in 83.06 is 107K. At 4.7 ratio that would mean median house price 503K (not taking lower interest rates into account). There were 11 sales in the neighborhood in the last 6 months, median sales price was 585K.[/quote]
Eugene – thanks for pointing to that link.
As a UC resident (on the southeast side) I can relate to what you say about longer term residents having bought for a lot less… My dad bought in UC in ’65 for $29k. Ironically, it was a foreclosure and he was able to assume the 2 year old mortgage with no down… The same house is worth over $600k today. And many of the neighbors are original owners. There’s a big income gap between people who bought over the past few years and those that bought 40 years ago and are retired.Participant[quote=Eugene]Dig around on profilewarehouse.sandag.org. You can find median incomes and median prices for 2000 and median incomes for 2008 down to census tract level (census tracts are smaller than zip codes).
These kinds of comparisons are tricky. You’ll want to focus on neighborhoods without apartments. Incomes of apartment residents have no relation to purchasing power of local homebuyers. That’s why census tracts are better than zip codes.
In 2000 most places were at 3.5-4.5 times household incomes. Interest rates were 7% and higher.
In established neighborhoods it’s important to correct for the number of retirees. Take census tract 83.06 (southwest corner of University City). 99% single-family detached, median income: 76K, median house value: 358K, ratio: 4.7 (as of 2000). That’s barely affordable by today’s standards. Definitely not with 7.5% interest rates back then. What’s the catch? The catch is that University City is an established neighborhood, built in the 60’s. In 2000, more than 20% of residents were older than 65. 25% of households lived on retirement income and social security. Median new homebuyer income must have been closer to 100K.
SANDAG currently estimates that median household income in 83.06 is 107K. At 4.7 ratio that would mean median house price 503K (not taking lower interest rates into account). There were 11 sales in the neighborhood in the last 6 months, median sales price was 585K.[/quote]
Eugene – thanks for pointing to that link.
As a UC resident (on the southeast side) I can relate to what you say about longer term residents having bought for a lot less… My dad bought in UC in ’65 for $29k. Ironically, it was a foreclosure and he was able to assume the 2 year old mortgage with no down… The same house is worth over $600k today. And many of the neighbors are original owners. There’s a big income gap between people who bought over the past few years and those that bought 40 years ago and are retired.Participant[quote=Eugene]Dig around on profilewarehouse.sandag.org. You can find median incomes and median prices for 2000 and median incomes for 2008 down to census tract level (census tracts are smaller than zip codes).
These kinds of comparisons are tricky. You’ll want to focus on neighborhoods without apartments. Incomes of apartment residents have no relation to purchasing power of local homebuyers. That’s why census tracts are better than zip codes.
In 2000 most places were at 3.5-4.5 times household incomes. Interest rates were 7% and higher.
In established neighborhoods it’s important to correct for the number of retirees. Take census tract 83.06 (southwest corner of University City). 99% single-family detached, median income: 76K, median house value: 358K, ratio: 4.7 (as of 2000). That’s barely affordable by today’s standards. Definitely not with 7.5% interest rates back then. What’s the catch? The catch is that University City is an established neighborhood, built in the 60’s. In 2000, more than 20% of residents were older than 65. 25% of households lived on retirement income and social security. Median new homebuyer income must have been closer to 100K.
SANDAG currently estimates that median household income in 83.06 is 107K. At 4.7 ratio that would mean median house price 503K (not taking lower interest rates into account). There were 11 sales in the neighborhood in the last 6 months, median sales price was 585K.[/quote]
Eugene – thanks for pointing to that link.
As a UC resident (on the southeast side) I can relate to what you say about longer term residents having bought for a lot less… My dad bought in UC in ’65 for $29k. Ironically, it was a foreclosure and he was able to assume the 2 year old mortgage with no down… The same house is worth over $600k today. And many of the neighbors are original owners. There’s a big income gap between people who bought over the past few years and those that bought 40 years ago and are retired.Participant[quote=Eugene]Dig around on profilewarehouse.sandag.org. You can find median incomes and median prices for 2000 and median incomes for 2008 down to census tract level (census tracts are smaller than zip codes).
These kinds of comparisons are tricky. You’ll want to focus on neighborhoods without apartments. Incomes of apartment residents have no relation to purchasing power of local homebuyers. That’s why census tracts are better than zip codes.
In 2000 most places were at 3.5-4.5 times household incomes. Interest rates were 7% and higher.
In established neighborhoods it’s important to correct for the number of retirees. Take census tract 83.06 (southwest corner of University City). 99% single-family detached, median income: 76K, median house value: 358K, ratio: 4.7 (as of 2000). That’s barely affordable by today’s standards. Definitely not with 7.5% interest rates back then. What’s the catch? The catch is that University City is an established neighborhood, built in the 60’s. In 2000, more than 20% of residents were older than 65. 25% of households lived on retirement income and social security. Median new homebuyer income must have been closer to 100K.
SANDAG currently estimates that median household income in 83.06 is 107K. At 4.7 ratio that would mean median house price 503K (not taking lower interest rates into account). There were 11 sales in the neighborhood in the last 6 months, median sales price was 585K.[/quote]
Eugene – thanks for pointing to that link.
As a UC resident (on the southeast side) I can relate to what you say about longer term residents having bought for a lot less… My dad bought in UC in ’65 for $29k. Ironically, it was a foreclosure and he was able to assume the 2 year old mortgage with no down… The same house is worth over $600k today. And many of the neighbors are original owners. There’s a big income gap between people who bought over the past few years and those that bought 40 years ago and are retired.Participant[quote=Eugene]Dig around on profilewarehouse.sandag.org. You can find median incomes and median prices for 2000 and median incomes for 2008 down to census tract level (census tracts are smaller than zip codes).
These kinds of comparisons are tricky. You’ll want to focus on neighborhoods without apartments. Incomes of apartment residents have no relation to purchasing power of local homebuyers. That’s why census tracts are better than zip codes.
In 2000 most places were at 3.5-4.5 times household incomes. Interest rates were 7% and higher.
In established neighborhoods it’s important to correct for the number of retirees. Take census tract 83.06 (southwest corner of University City). 99% single-family detached, median income: 76K, median house value: 358K, ratio: 4.7 (as of 2000). That’s barely affordable by today’s standards. Definitely not with 7.5% interest rates back then. What’s the catch? The catch is that University City is an established neighborhood, built in the 60’s. In 2000, more than 20% of residents were older than 65. 25% of households lived on retirement income and social security. Median new homebuyer income must have been closer to 100K.
SANDAG currently estimates that median household income in 83.06 is 107K. At 4.7 ratio that would mean median house price 503K (not taking lower interest rates into account). There were 11 sales in the neighborhood in the last 6 months, median sales price was 585K.[/quote]
Eugene – thanks for pointing to that link.
As a UC resident (on the southeast side) I can relate to what you say about longer term residents having bought for a lot less… My dad bought in UC in ’65 for $29k. Ironically, it was a foreclosure and he was able to assume the 2 year old mortgage with no down… The same house is worth over $600k today. And many of the neighbors are original owners. There’s a big income gap between people who bought over the past few years and those that bought 40 years ago and are retired.Participant[quote=CONCHO]WASHINGTON — David Kellermann, the acting chief financial officer of money-losing mortgage giant Freddie Mac was found dead at his home Wednesday morning in what police said was an apparent suicide. (Police won’t say if a suicide note was found, yet call it “an apparent suicide”)
[/quote]
It’s being called an apparent suicide because he was hanging from a rope. But I agree, there’s room for speculation.Participant[quote=CONCHO]WASHINGTON — David Kellermann, the acting chief financial officer of money-losing mortgage giant Freddie Mac was found dead at his home Wednesday morning in what police said was an apparent suicide. (Police won’t say if a suicide note was found, yet call it “an apparent suicide”)
[/quote]
It’s being called an apparent suicide because he was hanging from a rope. But I agree, there’s room for speculation. -
AuthorPosts
