Paying off Mello Roos

User Forum Topic
Submitted by paranoid on February 27, 2012 - 7:39pm

Interest rate is historic low now. MR in places like 4S ranch has a 40-year life, and has a rate close to 10% (my rough guestimate). MR can be increased by 2% every year. So my question is: is it worth it to pay off completely your MR now? This saves alot of money if you intend to stay for a long time. What do you guys think?

Submitted by bearishgurl on September 8, 2013 - 5:35pm.

earlyretirement wrote:
bearishgurl wrote:
SK in CV wrote:
. . . The problem seems not to be the design of the MR laws, but rather abuse of the process. Should be a warning to us all, pay attention to the political process and get people elected who will make wise financial decisions and vote those who haven't out of office.

Good advice, SK. I've been saying the same thing on this forum for years. There seem to be a LOT of disenchanted people (primarily with how all levels of gubment are run) who appear to be completely ignorant of the process and/or don't want to take time to get involved.

The letters Pigg ER is writing and the (press and elected official?) contacts he has made appear to have been a positive start. Even though fairly new to SD county, he seems to be quite eloquent in his posts and so is likely the same in person :)

I was very active in local politics for years but I've long ago run out of energy for this sort of thing :=0

BG,

Yes, that is me posting on the various blogs and comments section of KPBS and other websites. Thanks for the kind words. I've written letters and emails to various officials as well as asking some media to investigate the matter further. It's good to see some taking an interest in the matter but I really think it will take more of a national spotlight to shine on this potential fraud and abuse of our tax dollars . . .

Oh, hey, ER, I haven't seen you on any other blogs or websites as piggington is the only one I "make time" to pay attention to :)

My comment was directed at your prior posts where you stated you got a hold of KPBS and other investigative reporters and also wrote letters and spoke to your local rep's office, etc, regarding PUSD's misuse of MR bond income.

Keep up the good work! If anyone can eventually get some answers and possibly effect some head rolling down the road, you can :)

You seem to have a good enough understanding of the bond market and business, in general, and are eloquent enough to state your case to get the attention of folks who have the ability to get it out to the masses, using sound bytes in layman's terms :)

Me, I understand how gubment works and the law governing state and local gubment operations and it's not the way most people think (or would like to think) it should run. It doesn't matter whether I agree with it or not because it is what it is. Over the years, I have learned to accept things for which I cannot change :=]

Submitted by earlyretirement on September 8, 2013 - 6:01pm.

bearishgurl wrote:
earlyretirement wrote:
bearishgurl wrote:
SK in CV wrote:
. . . The problem seems not to be the design of the MR laws, but rather abuse of the process. Should be a warning to us all, pay attention to the political process and get people elected who will make wise financial decisions and vote those who haven't out of office.

Good advice, SK. I've been saying the same thing on this forum for years. There seem to be a LOT of disenchanted people (primarily with how all levels of gubment are run) who appear to be completely ignorant of the process and/or don't want to take time to get involved.

The letters Pigg ER is writing and the (press and elected official?) contacts he has made appear to have been a positive start. Even though fairly new to SD county, he seems to be quite eloquent in his posts and so is likely the same in person :)

I was very active in local politics for years but I've long ago run out of energy for this sort of thing :=0

BG,

Yes, that is me posting on the various blogs and comments section of KPBS and other websites. Thanks for the kind words. I've written letters and emails to various officials as well as asking some media to investigate the matter further. It's good to see some taking an interest in the matter but I really think it will take more of a national spotlight to shine on this potential fraud and abuse of our tax dollars . . .

Oh, hey, ER, I haven't seen you on any other blogs or websites as piggington is the only one I "make time" to pay attention to :)

My comment was directed at your prior posts where you stated you got a hold of KPBS and other investigative reporters and also wrote letters and spoke to your local rep's office, etc, regarding PUSD's misuse of MR bond income.

Keep up the good work! If anyone can eventually get some answers and possibly effect some head rolling down the road, you can :)

You seem to have a good enough understanding of the bond market and business, in general, and are eloquent enough to state your case to get the attention of folks who have the ability to get it out to the masses, using sound bytes in layman's terms :)

Me, I understand how gubment works and the law governing state and local gubment operations and it's not the way most people think (or would like to think) it should run. It doesn't matter whether I agree with it or not because it is what it is. Over the years, I have learned to accept things for which I cannot change :=]

Ah ok...got it. Yes, I have a fairly good understanding of taxes/bonds/business, etc.

I also have a very clear understanding of how government works. I understand it's typically an uphill battle dealing with government and enacting change is NEVER easy...especially when there is as much corruption/mismanagement as it seems is going on here.

The thing of it is that I've lived in other countries and the level of corruption in THOSE places makes San Diego corrupt officials look like saints and angels. LOL. So it's nothing I haven't dealt with before. In other places where I've been heavily involved in real estate, real estate development and taxes makes San Diego seem very easy and almost a cake walk.

In those countries the corruption and fraud goes all the way up to the President of the Country type level. So this doesn't seem to be anything too difficult. The problem is that you still have to have people care about this issue and WANT change.

People here in San Diego surprisingly have this totally lackadaisical attitude about getting ripped off with their tax dollars, voting for voter approved tax increases via bond assessments without even having a clear understanding of how the tax dollars will be used for their intended purposes or even worrying IF the tax dollars generated will be used for their intended purposes at all. And also if there will be any oversight of such funds.

That's a big problem I see here in San Diego. Many people just don't seem to care. And ultimately that is TRULY pathetic and sad.

Submitted by bearishgurl on September 8, 2013 - 7:07pm.

earlyretirement wrote:
. . . People here in San Diego surprisingly have this totally lackadaisical attitude about getting ripped off with their tax dollars, voting for voter approved tax increases via bond assessments without even having a clear understanding of how the tax dollars will be used for their intended purposes or even worrying IF the tax dollars generated will be used for their intended purposes at all. And also if there will be any oversight of such funds.

That's a big problem I see here in San Diego. Many people just don't seem to care. And ultimately that is TRULY pathetic and sad.

I think if the press can get it out to the masses using sound bytes (in laymen's terms), you can get local interested parties to come to school board meetings and complain and also complain to the right bureaucrats at the County Office of Education:

http://www.sdcoe.net/Pages/Home.aspx

and better yet, the CDE:

http://www.cde.ca.gov/

The problem with your elected officials is that they have no jurisdiction over public schools and therefore cannot enforce state public school law (K-12).

The best people to get riled up to write letters, testify before your school board and even lobby the CDE to take action are those like yourself who have or are paying into this sham and rightly so, demand accountability. Also residents who may suffer "damages" at the hands of the prior school board because of possible property value debasement in the future (due to the principle coming due on the Prop C subprime loan fiasco which will likely have the effect of raising their taxes (on a ~40 yr old home) through the roof!

I think a parent complaining to the Board about where the district decides to send their child(ren) to school for any given school year is the wrong approach and is also wasting time and testimony which could be far more persuasive discussing other damages sustained or to be sustained by the speaking taxpayer. It doesn't matter how much MR parents are paying if their child(ren)'s home school is full. In CA, public school districts have the right to make this decision. They are only obligated to educate each child residing within their district and if a child's "home school" is impacted or otherwise full, they have the right to transfer children who live within its boundaries to another district school with room for them (and pick up the tab for transportation). As you may already be aware, a single public school (brick-and-mortar location) actually does not legally exist. It is merely a branch of a school district and all employees of that school are employees of a public school district.

The best way to approach this, I think, is to rile up neighbors with biz experience, like yourself, to demand accountability for the 200 bank accts, etc. If you keep your discussions about the business and stay away from attendance areas and student-placement issues (legally, the District's turf) and familarize yourself with school law as it applies to MR bond income accountability, you will go far.

If PUSD residents paying MR get in the Board's faces about what a developer's office told you at the time of your home purchase (who's likely made all the profit they're going to and left the county long ago) would be your child(ren)'s "new school" when it was built, you will come off like a bunch of whiners and be shunned. Developers aren't supposed to be telling tales out of school like that to prospective buyers as they have zero control over the issue.

IMHO, the REASON why your local elementary school is already full (before or at the time of final buildout?) is because too many parents wanted the same thing, hence the "success" of your neighborhood (most of which was originally subdivided and built to appeal to "empty nesters," acc to its website) :=0

You can't have it both ways.

Submitted by bearishgurl on September 8, 2013 - 7:54pm.

ER, I just found this set of "Guidelines for Mello-Roos Financing" circa 1991, put out by then State Treasurer Kathleen Brown's office.

http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/cdiac/report...

Perhaps you have already seen it. My understanding is that at least some of these guidelines were later legislated. I think you will need to cite the law and the PUSD's own rules and guidelines (but better the law) to successfully argue to them their need for transparent accountability as to how these funds are being used, IMO.

Here is a good "layman's guide" to CA Education Law" put out by the League of Women Voters.

http://www.guidetogov.org/ca/state/overv...

And here is an excerpt of a 2005 book (link below) written on this subject (CA MR discussion begins at pg 245).

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~steiss/pa...

Special Assessment Bonds

Special Assessment Bonds often are considered a special form of revenue bonds since the debt service is payable only from the proceeds derives from a special assessment levies against those who benefit from the facilities constructed (e.g., special assessments for curbs and gutters in certain residential areas). The burden of financing special assessment bonds falls on those individuals or properties receiving the greatest benefits from the improvements. In some cases, however, the property owners who must pay the assessments have had little or no say in the issuance of the bonds for which they must meet the debt service commitments Such is the case with the so-called Mello-Roos bonds in the State of California.

After the passage of the property tax-cutting Proposition 13 in 1978, funding for local infrastructure improvements in dried up. The State legislature adopted special legislation that permitted the creation of special taxing districts which empowered local governments to cooperate with developers to achieve more flexible funding options to finance streets, schools, sewer and water facilities and other specific improvements in primarily new residential areas. Billions of dollars of bonds were issues to finance these improvements with the homeowners served by these facilities obligated to pay off the bonds through annual assessments added to their property tax bills.

Until the residential development has been completed and all of the property has been transferred to individual owners, however, the burden of the assessment is shared by the developer and the homeowners that have moved into the area. When the California real estate market experienced some slow downs in the early 1990's, some developers where forced to file for bankruptcy, prompting banks or other investors to begin fore-closure proceedings on the development. The bank then assumes financial responsibility for the special assessment bonds. In many cases, bond payments are delinquent and the banks must either assume this additional obligation or use any reserves in the bond offering to pay off the bond-holders.

In 1994, nearly 5 percent of all Mello-Roos bond issues were reported as experiencing some degree of financial difficulty primarily due to due to significant delinquencies. The value of the bonds in trouble was nearly $300 million. Examples include: (1) an $8.1 million bond issues by the County of Los Angeles in 1988 for a Mello-Roos district in which nearly 22 percent of the bond payments are delinquent by local real estate developers; (2) a $7.4 million Mello-Roos district in the northwest area of the City of San Bernardino which experienced a 77 percent delinquency rate; and (3) a 211-acre housing and commercial project in the City of Oxnard on which the developer stopped payment on the bonds in 1991 and the bonds went into default in October, 1993.

Several changes in the Mello-Roos enabling legislation were adopted in 1993 in an effort to prevent abuses and to reduce risks to municipalities and homeowners in the event of default caused by bankrupt developers. Tighter rules for policing the bonds were adopted, and city and county agencies are now required to limit fee increases to homeowners in the event of default. Developers are required to do a better job of disclosing to home buyers that they will be living in a Mello-Roos district and how much in special district taxes they will be required to pay.

Summary

Revenue bonds can play an important role in the long-range planning of capital facilities. It must be clearly established, however, that revenues generated by the proposed project are sufficient to: (1) cover the cost of operations, maintenance, and debt service; (2) provide a comfort-able margin of working capital; and (3) create a reserve fund for emergencies and to cover possible declines in income. In short, revenue bonding must be approached with the principles of sound management and debt administration firmly in mind.

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/strategi...

From this excerpt, it doesn't appear that your issue of receiving agency/entity misuse of MR bond income was addressed in the 1993 legislation. However, I have not yet had a chance to research state law on this subject.

Submitted by earlyretirement on September 9, 2013 - 7:15am.

Thanks BG. You sound like you're well versed on these issues. Thanks for posting these links. I'll try to check them out. I'm working on a new consulting gig which will keep me busy the next few months so not sure how active I can get but I'll check these out.

It would be great if you could repost these on the KPBS comments section as the reporters DO read the comments section and follow up on them many times. It also gives them inspiration sometimes.

Thanks for posting those details.

Submitted by bearishgurl on September 9, 2013 - 10:22am.

earlyretirement wrote:
Thanks BG. You sound like you're well versed on these issues. Thanks for posting these links. I'll try to check them out. I'm working on a new consulting gig which will keep me busy the next few months so not sure how active I can get but I'll check these out.

It would be great if you could repost these on the KPBS comments section as the reporters DO read the comments section and follow up on them many times. It also gives them inspiration sometimes.

Thanks for posting those details.

Sent you a pm.

Submitted by UCGal on September 17, 2013 - 8:06am.

KPBS had a radio story this morning - following up on the articles ER posted.

Apparently PUSD was confused (nice term) when asked about the misused mello-roos funds. Different officials had different (conflicting) stories/explanations.

In a related story on the website - there's been so much bru-ha-ha over the overpayment of mello roos by folks in Del Sur, they have posted a website to verify your mello roos amounts.

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2013/sep/17/pow...

Submitted by CA renter on September 17, 2013 - 6:03pm.

UCGal wrote:
KPBS had a radio story this morning - following up on the articles ER posted.

Apparently PUSD was confused (nice term) when asked about the misused mello-roos funds. Different officials had different (conflicting) stories/explanations.

In a related story on the website - there's been so much bru-ha-ha over the overpayment of mello roos by folks in Del Sur, they have posted a website to verify your mello roos amounts.

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2013/sep/17/poway-district-responds-inewsource-probe-mello-roo/

From the linked article:

"Property owners who have been overcharged are eligible for a refund going back one year."

----

That's total BS. Those homeowners should be able to get back every single dollar that they've overpaid over the years.

Glad to see they are following up on this. Thanks for sharing, UCGal.

Submitted by earlyretirement on September 17, 2013 - 9:56pm.

CA renter wrote:
UCGal wrote:
KPBS had a radio story this morning - following up on the articles ER posted.

Apparently PUSD was confused (nice term) when asked about the misused mello-roos funds. Different officials had different (conflicting) stories/explanations.

In a related story on the website - there's been so much bru-ha-ha over the overpayment of mello roos by folks in Del Sur, they have posted a website to verify your mello roos amounts.

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2013/sep/17/poway-district-responds-inewsource-probe-mello-roo/

From the linked article:

"Property owners who have been overcharged are eligible for a refund going back one year."

----

That's total BS. Those homeowners should be able to get back every single dollar that they've overpaid over the years.

Glad to see they are following up on this. Thanks for sharing, UCGal.

I totally agree. You can bet if they overcharged me, I'd make sure I got back every single penny WITH interest. One year? Ha!

UCGal wrote:
KPBS had a radio story this morning - following up on the articles ER posted.

Apparently PUSD was confused (nice term) when asked about the misused mello-roos funds. Different officials had different (conflicting) stories/explanations.

In a related story on the website - there's been so much bru-ha-ha over the overpayment of mello roos by folks in Del Sur, they have posted a website to verify your mello roos amounts.

http://www.kpbs.org/news/2013/sep/17/poway-district-responds-inewsource-probe-mello-roo/

Thanks for posting this. I'll have to go check it out. Actually I'm not so worried about the "accidental over charges" as I do think they were accidents. What I'm MORE worried about is the potential fraud and abuse of the CFD funds and not being used for their stated/original goals. Or at the very least what they are legally allowable to be used for.

I'm DARN glad to see on my most recent property tax bill that came out this weekend that ALL CFD's are forever OFF my bill and I'm not liable for them any more. It's a great feeling especially after reading shenanigan after shenanigan and clear examples of PUSD getting busted for NOT using CFD taxes as they are legally allowed.

Some of this is like pure comedy! Only it's OUR tax dollars so it's not funny.

http://inewsource.org/poway-school-offic...

Submitted by CA renter on September 18, 2013 - 2:20am.

From ER's inewsource link:

"inewsource took a close look at contracts and invoices that document the district’s relationship with real estate consultant Joe Taylor. He was hired in 2010 to review the condition of four of the district’s vacant properties, develop a plan for the best use of the land, and identify potential buyers or partners, among other things.

Since then, Taylor has billed the district about $150,000 for meetings with dozens of people and groups, including several churches, a lobbying and public relations firm, the grandson of Chargers owner Alex Spanos, a company that builds assisted living facilities and officials in the San Diego mayor’s office, according to a review of his invoices.

Three of the properties Taylor is working on are in Mello-Roos districts. The one in Rancho Bernardo, known as the water tower property, is not.

The district’s contract with Taylor raises two questions: Is it appropriate for him to be paid with Mello-Roos taxes? Did his work sidestep the public process for selling land?

In order to sell land, districts must follow a legal process to determine whether it is needed.
Mello-Roos

Catch up on all our Mello-Roos coverage from the past year.

It must form an advisory committee, hold public meetings, and eventually make recommendations to the school board about whether the land will be needed for new schools or other district uses.

Taylor helped to form the Real Property Advisory Committee which held two public meetings in March 2012, in which no one showed up.

The committee’s final report to the school board recommended all four sites be declared surplus.

But by the time the committee released that report, Taylor had already spent months meeting with developers and reviewing bids and letters of intent to purchase the properties.

A year before the report, according to invoices, Taylor met with “Monger Group on taking sites to vote” and to “go over campaign plan.” The Monger Company is a Coronado-based lobbying and public relations firm. Among its clients is Santaluz LLC, a firm Taylor is helping with an assisted living project.

Years of state cutbacks have left districts short on cash, many laying off teachers and increasing class size.

Selling property could help close that gap thanks to a new state law that allows a school district to put the profits from surplus property sales into its operational budget, until next year.

Beatty worries if the district doesn’t follow the rules it could sell valuable land to balance its budget rather than do what’s best for students in the long term, which could be retain the land for future use.

“The procedure could be tainted and then you wonder if the conclusion was formed before the process actually took its course,” she said."

- See more at: http://inewsource.org/poway-school-offic...

------------

Disgusting. One thing I've seen more often than I'd care to admit is how real estate/development and related deals are full of conflicts of interests and back-room agreements. I'm willing to bet that the district had people on staff who were every bit as capable of determining the value of this land and even meeting with potential buyers. There is no need to hire outside consultants in most of the cases, but that never stops well-connected folks from greasing each other's palms.

You are so fortunate to be out from under these MR fees. That was a very good decision on your part, IMHO.

Submitted by earlyretirement on September 18, 2013 - 4:47am.

DISGUSTING is right! Yes, I've done a lot of development and you are right it is plagued with conflicts of interests, fraud and abuse. "Consultants" aren't needed in many cases and surprisingly in many cases the "consultant" is buddies with someone or related to someone in the process.

Funny they mention that assisted living project. I'm going to that meeting next week to discuss the project. Maybe I should ask them about this. LOL.

Yep, CAR as soon as I moved to San Diego and started doing some due diligence I could read the writing on the wall it would be a good idea to end my obligation forever while I can.

Who knows later if they ban pre-paying off your Mello Roos. I wouldn't doubt it.

Submitted by UCGal on September 18, 2013 - 7:59am.

Thanks for linking that article ER - that's the story I heard on the news yesterday.

I've been telling friends about your decision to pay off mello roos. Most look at me like it's crazy because who could ever afford that... but I hit them with politics and math and have convinced one friend to consider it.

Submitted by CA renter on September 18, 2013 - 3:02pm.

ER,

Were you planning on attending the meeting before discovering this? Please let us know what transpires. I commend you for being so active in following up on it! :)

Submitted by earlyretirement on September 18, 2013 - 5:51pm.

CA renter wrote:
ER,

Were you planning on attending the meeting before discovering this? Please let us know what transpires. I commend you for being so active in following up on it! :)

Hi CAR. Yes, I already had that on my agenda. It was just coincidence that I read about that in the article. I stay pretty active locally and started getting more involved. And probably plan to get even more involved.

FYI. Anyone that lives in the area and wants to attend the meeting, let me know. It's Tuesday, September 24 at 6:30 PM at Santaluz. PM me and I can get you on the list to attend as it's open to the public. Santaluz is guard gated but I can get you on the list if you want to attend this meeting about the Assisted Living Center.

This way the guard will let you in. There is a special form you need to give to the security guard but I can get you this.

UCGal wrote:
Thanks for linking that article ER - that's the story I heard on the news yesterday.

I've been telling fri

UCGal wrote:
Thanks for linking that article ER - that's the story I heard on the news yesterday.

I've been telling friends about your decision to pay off mello roos. Most look at me like it's crazy because who could ever afford that... but I hit them with politics and math and have convinced one friend to consider it.


UCGal wrote:
Thanks for linking that article ER - that's the story I heard on the news yesterday.

I've been telling friends about your decision to pay off mello roos. Most look at me like it's crazy because who could ever afford that... but I hit them with politics and math and have convinced one friend to consider it.


ends about your decision to pay off mello roos. Most look at me like it's crazy because who could ever afford that... but I hit them with politics and math and have convinced one friend to consider it.

Hi UCGal,

Yeah, most friends or people that I know in the area when I tell them I paid off my Mello Roos obligation FOREVER they look at me with a puzzled look. Then I explain it and I always get the same reaction. NO ONE knew this was possible. Heck, I've met with high level wealth advisors, investment managers, realtors that have been in the business 15+ years, developers and no one knew you could even do this.

But even when I lay out the rationale and logic behind it, I can see that even rational people seem to dismiss it. In many instances I think it's because they would rather spend the money on their fancy car leases, their fancy vacations, their lifestyle. They are ONLY thinking about today. They do NOT want to think about tomorrow, or next year or next decade.

I know it's not for everyone to pay it off. But I know several people where I know they will stay in their property for the long haul and don't plan on selling their properties. For these people this is a NO BRAINER to pay it off and FOREVER end their tax obligation. (Especially in today's LOW interest rate environment!!).

As well, several CFD's have been refinanced so the rate won't go any lower than right now. And you can bet they will keep raising the maximum % by law each year until it's paid off.

My thinking is they can't afford NOT to pay it off and FOREVER end their tax obligation. When the government gives you the opportunity to FOREVER end a tax obligation my philosophy is you take it! LOL.

The entities do NOT like the idea of people pre-paying these CFD taxes off and FOREVER ending their obligations. That's why they don't advertise it and even try to make it cumbersome and expensive to get quotes to pay it off. I mean $400 to get a quote to pay it off? Come on! They do that to dissuade people from even starting the process, IMHO.

My biggest motivation for paying it off now was that I really don't trust the powers that be. I don't trust the people in charge of OUR CFD funds. I don't trust that they say these CFD obligations will end when they originally were slated to be paid off.

Heck, when I asked the administrator in charge of the CFD if these taxes could be extended in the future and he said "YES, it's possible in the future these CFD taxes could get extended". So, UCGal, ask your friends to consider how they will feel if they have been paying CFD #4 (PUSD) until 2041 and then in 2041 they are told they will have to pay for several more years!

There is NO accountability what these funds are being spent on, who is able to spend it, or in what exact circumstances these CFD's can be extended later on. Also, I don't trust my fellow homeowners that in many cases seem to be bone heads and will approve any bond approval measure even if they understand it or not or know what the funds will be used for! Not sure in the future if they put something up for a vote and voters agreed to extend their own CFD obligations!

Who knows. Not many locally seem to take an active interest in limiting their tax obligations, knowing what their tax dollars go towards (relating to CFD), or interested in ANY oversight regarding these things.

It's strange..it's almost like people have this lackadaisical attitude of, "another gorgeous day in Paradise and who cares about anything else". Don't get me wrong.... I LOVE San Diego and never have plans to leave it. But I've never in my life lived in a City where people seem to care less about Civics/politics, taxes, etc. Heck, before this big Filner mess, I'd venture to guess than many locals didn't even know who the Mayor was!

So I'm VERY content in FOREVER ending my Mello Roos obligations. I still say in the future maybe they don't allow it but those that already paid it off will be forever "off the hook". :)

Submitted by ocrenter on September 18, 2013 - 9:34pm.

I'm in complete agreement with ER in regard to paying off the MR. Unless you are a seasoned investor, how many of us has the ability to generate 7% return on our investment year after year for 30 years? Yet that's exactly what you are doing when you pay off the MR. Instead, a lot of people I know are committing to a 20 year solar panel lease at a rate of 7%.

How many people actually sold homes with years of high interest obligation to solar leasing companies? Yet all of the solar companies advertise about the increased home value like gospel. What about the MR? Nobody dares to even say you'll break even on the appraisal value. But seriously, put up a listing with the opening: "owner paid off entire MR, saving you $6-10k a year" and that's not going get a buyer's attention???

The MR payoff is an absolute no brainer.

Submitted by Essbee on September 18, 2013 - 11:05pm.

earlyretirement wrote:

FYI. Anyone that lives in the area and wants to attend the meeting, let me know. It's Tuesday, September 24 at 6:30 PM at Santaluz. PM me and I can get you on the list to attend as it's open to the public. Santaluz is guard gated but I can get you on the list if you want to attend this meeting about the Assisted Living Center.

ER, can you give a little more info? What is the location of this Assisted Living facility? Is it behind the gates of Santaluz, or elsewhere? The reason I ask is because I am wondering if it is the ongoing development on the north side of Carmel Valley Road, between the Black Mountain Community Park with the baseball fields, and the turnoff for Ivy Gate? Someone told me that they had heard that it might be developed as senior living, but it seems like an odd location and it looks like they are building small homesites rather than configuring the land to accommodate a large footprint building.

I am very interested in local issues but my free time is almost nil, unfortunately.

Submitted by earlyretirement on September 19, 2013 - 12:07am.

Essbee wrote:
earlyretirement wrote:

FYI. Anyone that lives in the area and wants to attend the meeting, let me know. It's Tuesday, September 24 at 6:30 PM at Santaluz. PM me and I can get you on the list to attend as it's open to the public. Santaluz is guard gated but I can get you on the list if you want to attend this meeting about the Assisted Living Center.

ER, can you give a little more info? What is the location of this Assisted Living facility? Is it behind the gates of Santaluz, or elsewhere? The reason I ask is because I am wondering if it is the ongoing development on the north side of Carmel Valley Road, between the Black Mountain Community Park with the baseball fields, and the turnoff for Ivy Gate? Someone told me that they had heard that it might be developed as senior living, but it seems like an odd location and it looks like they are building small homesites rather than configuring the land to accommodate a large footprint building.

I am very interested in local issues but my free time is almost nil, unfortunately.

No, it's NOT within the gates of Santaluz. They would NEVER allow that plus there is NO zoning for that. It's on that grassy area next to Willow Grove Elementary School. The land isn't being utilized now.

You can see some more information here below (which is cut and pasted verbatim from correspondence that was sent to me).
__________________________________________

SANTALUZ ASSISTED LIVING AND MEMORY CARE FACILITY PROJECT DESCRIPTION

• Our Goal is to provide a warm, inviting and safe place for our Seniors with disabilities to live a full life, including the wonderful intergenerational program opportunities with the adjacent schools.

• Assisted Living and Memory Care facilities are centrally located to provide care for our love ones, usually within two to five miles from their immediate families’ homes. Our project will provide this important service to the community and believe it will be an asset to all of the surrounding neighborhoods.

• The design is for a one and two-story project providing 32 units of Assisted Living and 32 units of Memory Care with a maximum of 74 Beds. The building layout has been designed to take advantage of the “L” shaped lot, provide good setbacks, and have a minimal impact on the surrounding neighborhood.

• This Senior Housing use itself is a very low impact one, with a quiet user group and minimal traffic that will be generated.

• There are extensive Guidelines for the design of homes in the Santaluz neighborhood. Although they are not expressly applicable to this Assisted Living and Memory Care project, we are very concerned with designing a project that is compatible with the surrounding environment, and becomes an integral part of the community including lush and beautiful landscaping.

• This project is to construct a new 71,630 SF facility providing Assisted Living and Memory Care located in the Santaluz development of San Diego. The building site is a vacant lot that has never been utilized, and is part of the Black Mountain Ranch Subarea Plan.

• There are no existing trees or vegetation on the lot, with the exception of field grass. The surrounding streets have all been improved, and utilities are available in the street.

• The site is currently zoned for Institutional Senior/Recreational Use and we are applying for a Conditional Use Permit and a Community Plan Amendment as part of our entitlements. The site is 3.289 acres and with a maximum FAR (Floor area ratio) of .50 and that translates to a maximum square footage of 71,634. Our design stays within the approved FAR parameters.

• Of the many design options available for homes in the Santaluz neighborhood, we have chosen the “Tuscany Farmhouse” style to emulate for this project. The form and massing of this style emphasizes an informal and additive nature, which we believe is ideal to help minimize the mass and scale of the building.

We completed massingstudies as a part of the design process to help determine how to best achieve a residential scale. The North wing of the building steps down to one story. At the West and South wings, the second floor plate typically steps back to break the line of the exterior façade and then utilizes smaller scale shed roofs that bring the building down to human scale.

We have also been careful to work with the roof design in order to avoid a continuous ridgeline as well as keeping the height below 30 feet in compliance with the Design Guidelines and consistent with the heights of the homes in the surrounding neighborhoods. The design breaks the roof into several separate components while also providing roof wells that screen the mechanical equipment.

• The building is designed with a North Wing, West Wing, and South Wing that all converge at the central commons area where the main entrance is also located. The North Wing is a one-story component which houses 17 Memory Care units. The first floor of the West Wing also houses another 15 Memory Care units. The remainder of the building provides 32 units of Assisted Living and a wide range of common areas including congregate dining rooms. No kitchen facilities will be provided within the resident units. This building will be staffed 24 hours a day.

• Each of the Memory Care neighborhoods has access to a special gated outdoor Courtyard space, designed specifically to securely serve this population. The courtyard spaces will have walking paths and special amenities the residents can enjoy.

• Our site plan provides 44 parking spaces, all located in the rear of the building and behind walls at the Via Fiesta Entry. The City of San Diego parking standards are not specific for the Senior Housing uses we propose for this project; however, it does meet the minimum standard of 43 units as approved by City Transportation on February 27, 2012.

For more information please contact Joe Taylor at TaylorConsulting@cox.net

_____________________________________________

Let me know if you have any questions and I'll try to get in a few of your questions. I have a few of my own.

Submitted by earlyretirement on September 19, 2013 - 6:25am.

ocrenter wrote:
I'm in complete agreement with ER in regard to paying off the MR. Unless you are a seasoned investor, how many of us has the ability to generate 7% return on our investment year after year for 30 years? Yet that's exactly what you are doing when you pay off the MR. Instead, a lot of people I know are committing to a 20 year solar panel lease at a rate of 7%.

How many people actually sold homes with years of high interest obligation to solar leasing companies? Yet all of the solar companies advertise about the increased home value like gospel. What about the MR? Nobody dares to even say you'll break even on the appraisal value. But seriously, put up a listing with the opening: "owner paid off entire MR, saving you $6-10k a year" and that's not going get a buyer's attention???

The MR payoff is an absolute no brainer.

I totally agree with you OCR. And even if you are a seasoned investor that consistently makes over 7% ROI each year, most of the times that ROI isn't guaranteed like it is here in this situation.

I've been fortunate enough that I have made well over 7% a year ROI since I started investing many years ago. But typically I'd say I got to where I am today doing prudent things like this. And the ROI could well be over 7% a year ROI if these CFD's get mysteriously extended past their original end dates.

I also TOTALLY agree with you about the power of having a listing saying, "NO MELLO ROOS taxes. Owner FOREVER paid them off'.

You'd definitely get attention. Even in a soft sales market vs. a healthier one like now, I believe you would (a) get back every dollar you pre-paid in MR taxes, (b) sell your house much quicker vs. someone that has MR taxes, (c) attract a MUCH larger audience of potential buyers.

We're still getting unsolicited offers to purchase our house. We got one offer a few short months ago that was over $350,000 + more than I paid for the house a few short years ago. They already did their due diligence and could see we paid off our CFD. (At the time only one was showing as paid off). The city used to designate the CFD's being prepaid by $0.00.

Now I find it interesting that they just totally remove the CFD line off your bill once you pay it off. Before it would say CFD #4 ($0.000) and now both of them are totally gone from the property tax bill that I got last week.

Heck, we probably could have asked for even more money from the family that sent in the letter wanting to buy our house but I bought the house to live in and not as an investment property. I don't really care what home prices do in the short-term yo-yoing up and down. But I am happy not to have to see/pay that CFD again.

Also, OCR, the one thing we left out is that there are those types that say they don't need to pre-pay their CFD because they can take that money and leverage it and make far more. LOL. We all have seen those types. And yes, sure you can make more with various investments out there. But those other investments have some risk to them. It's not guaranteed.

And typically over the past few decades what I see in this type of situation is people will leverage the money and either lose it. Or they will do well and leverage it again and THEN lose it. So there is that too.

Submitted by earlyretirement on September 19, 2013 - 6:34am.

Also, on that Assisted Living Center issue, I've received a few PM's and emails. I really would only like to focus that towards people that actually live in the immediate area and might be affected (positively or negatively) with the Center being built there.

People that live in Santaluz, Verrazzano, Santa Monica, and maybe Del Sur.

I really think it only makes sense for people in the immediate surrounding communities that might be affected some how.

Submitted by bearishgurl on September 19, 2013 - 8:58am.

earlyretirement wrote:
. . . I also TOTALLY agree with you about the power of having a listing saying, "NO MELLO ROOS taxes. Owner FOREVER paid them off'.

You'd definitely get attention. Even in a soft sales market vs. a healthier one like now, I believe you would (a) get back every dollar you pre-paid in MR taxes, (b) sell your house much quicker vs. someone that has MR taxes, (c) attract a MUCH larger audience of potential buyers. . .

ER, I believe what you say here is possible ... but your "shopping" audience would consist of those buyers who are already shopping in a MR area and thus it would be people who were already willing to pay MR or else they wouldn't be contacting you, IMO.

Buyers who know SD County very, very well (mostly Native and longtime San Diegans) can smell CFD(s) from miles away and do not even shop in them or even view property in them (either online or in person). Especially from a zip code which is nearly all exclusively or all exclusively CFDs, (as yours is). Additionally, if a local agent/broker represents a buyer in a $1M+ range who gives them the edict, "Please do NOT show me any properties with Mello-Roos," then they will NOT even be considering showing any properties to them which are located in 92127.

You would be surprised at how many SD County buyers in all price ranges there are out there who will NOT accept Mello-Roos unless perhaps it will be retired in <1 year (early nineties construction w/20 yr bonds). Many will not accept it under any circumstances and I am one of those people.

Thus, I feel your potential "buyer pool" will likely be fairly new residents of the county (<10 years) or relocatees, if you choose to sell, who will stumble upon your listing in their search and be pleasantly surprised that you have retired your MR :)

I'm not saying your neighborhood is not worth buying into. I'm just saying that well-heeled buyers in your price category have many, many excellent choices for a residence in this county which are NOT located in CFDs (OR HOA's) and this will never change.

I DO believe you can easily recover your ~$61K prepaid-MR cash outlay upon sale ... even now ... from the "right" buyer.

Submitted by earlyretirement on September 19, 2013 - 10:04am.

bearishgurl wrote:
earlyretirement wrote:
. . . I also TOTALLY agree with you about the power of having a listing saying, "NO MELLO ROOS taxes. Owner FOREVER paid them off'.

You'd definitely get attention. Even in a soft sales market vs. a healthier one like now, I believe you would (a) get back every dollar you pre-paid in MR taxes, (b) sell your house much quicker vs. someone that has MR taxes, (c) attract a MUCH larger audience of potential buyers. . .

ER, I believe what you say here is possible ... but your "shopping" audience would consist of those buyers who are already shopping in a MR area and thus it would be people who were already willing to pay MR or else they wouldn't be contacting you, IMO.

Buyers who know SD County very, very well (mostly Native and longtime San Diegans) can smell CFD(s) from miles away and do not even shop in them or even view property in them (either online or in person). Especially from a zip code which is nearly all exclusively or all exclusively CFDs, (as yours is). Additionally, if a local agent/broker represents a buyer in a $1M+ range who gives them the edict, "Please do NOT show me any properties with Mello-Roos," then they will NOT even be considering showing any properties to them which are located in 92127.

You would be surprised at how many SD County buyers in all price ranges there are out there who will NOT accept Mello-Roos unless perhaps it will be retired in <1 year (early nineties construction w/20 yr bonds). Many will not accept it under any circumstances and I am one of those people.

Thus, I feel your potential "buyer pool" will likely be fairly new residents of the county (<10 years) or relocatees, if you choose to sell, who will stumble upon your listing in their search and be pleasantly surprised that you have retired your MR :)

I'm not saying your neighborhood is not worth buying into. I'm just saying that well-heeled buyers in your price category have many, many excellent choices for a residence in this county which are NOT located in CFDs (OR HOA's) and this will never change.

I DO believe you can easily recover your ~$61K prepaid-MR cash outlay upon sale ... even now ... from the "right" buyer.

Hey BG,

Quite honestly I disagree. I think any family with young kids even if they tell their realtor they don't want MR areas, can easily be directed to a property that might have their CFD forever paid off.

San Diego really is kind of like a village even though it's a bigger city. I can't tell you what a small world it is here. I'd think any realtor worth their salt could pretty easily get the word out on a property that has it's CFD paid off throughout the area and would be exempt from them.

Sure, I understand that many people don't want to buy in a CFD area and might tell their realtor that. But I definitely think that it wouldn't be difficult to get the word out amongst realtors that a property is available with no CFD and it would stand out.

I already know my neighborhood and others are worth buying into. Because I'm still getting unsolicited offers to purchase my house from families (bypassing realtors). For hundreds of thousands of dollars more than I paid for it a few short years ago.

I know you're not a fan of the area out here and call it "Lizardland" but the reality is that the lifestyle out here is probably amongst the best in the world. The weather is incredible and the schools are amazing. The quality of people living in the area I've found is extremely wonderful. People that are peers and professionals that I have things in common with and people that share the same outlook on life, raising kids, treating people, etc. I've only been here a few years and made some true lifelong friends already in this area. Just incredible people.

Plus, some of these individual communities (take Santaluz) for example are so unique to me. That I really think that very few areas around the world can compare to it from a pure lifestyle and raising kids aspect.

I've been to hundreds upon hundreds of cities around the world. And to me this is about as good as it gets with this area for raising kids.

Oh and BG, the last few new buyers that I have met lately are the type you mentioned. They have lived here pretty much all their lives in San Diego or in Southern California. And yes several of them said they didn't plan to buy in a CFD area but were just drawn to the area/community and felt CFD was ultimately worth it to raise their kids here.

This "buyer pool" that has recently bought many of them are from the area and ultimately saw that they had to pony up and pay it to have the lifestyle and raise their kids in this kind of environment.

Submitted by ocrenter on September 19, 2013 - 10:49am.

I do recall a family friend who bragged about how they purchased a home that had the MR paid off. And they justified the home's higher price tag based on the potential savings. They were quite excited about how their house was "special" compared to everyone else in the neighborhood.

We do not live in the days of MLS books and Thomas guide anymore. It is very easy to do a quick search and find homes without MR.

Submitted by bearishgurl on September 19, 2013 - 10:55am.

ER, your entire post is about "kid raising" (and quality of neighbors) "Kid-raising buyers" are only a fraction of homebuyers (not sure the percentage). MR aside, not EVERYONE wants to live in a very expensive HOA. Not EVERYONE wants to be so far from dtn SD (kids or no kids). And good-quality neighbors can actually be found at all price points!

Sure, your listing agent/broker can "get the word out" or make comments in the listing, but the truth is, people who won't consider MR don't shop in those areas and thus wouldn't even consider your zip code because of it. Thus, they would likely never find out that you paid it off. In any case, they had some other location in mind for themselves.

In addition, buyers in coastal CA counties are very "location-oriented." For example, if they have had their sights set on Coronado for a long time, they aren't suddenly going to want to look in inland north county. If local buyers have always dreamed of an ocean view and now feel they have the equity and savings to have one, they aren't suddenly going to be drawn to your area. If they need a workshop and want the freedom to park vehicles, etc, on a large lot, they won't consider a property inside an HOA. If all their relatives live in Bonita, they'll buy an estate-type property there, instead.

You would be shocked at how many people are actually paying for monthly boat/rv storage and want very much for their next property to enable them to park those things at home. Or are paying monthly to stall a horse that they ideally want to keep at home.

I don't particularly consider your area "lizardland." I would consider more far flung areas such as "Stonebridge" lizardland :)

I do think its wonderful that you are getting unsolicited offers for your property. These are very likely from people who have always wanted to live inside those gates or in areas surrounding you. They AREN'T from people who have race car(s) to park or need to live near their yacht, slipped on Shelter Island.

Whichever kind of buyer has the most money is anyone's guess. In other words, not ALL buyers in the $1M+ range want or need what you have.

Submitted by bearishgurl on September 19, 2013 - 11:07am.

ocrenter wrote:
I do recall a family friend who bragged about how they purchased a home that had the MR paid off. And they justified the home's higher price tag based on the potential savings. They were quite excited about how their house was "special" compared to everyone else in the neighborhood.

We do not live in the days of MLS books and Thomas guide anymore. It is very easy to do a quick search and find homes without MR.

ocrenter, you and I know how to pull up a random tax bill and read it correctly but the average buyer does not.

And prospective buyers aren't going to comb tax bills of listings within CFDs to determine (on the off-chance) if any of them have paid off MR. And even if they happen to find a property with paid-off MR, it may not meet their needs. I'm sure you're aware that that is not how buyers shop for property. In any case, the tax bill screen could lag an owner's possible prepaid MR by 1-12 months.

Buyers WHO WILL NOT ACCEPT MR do NOT shop in those areas which have it, unless they (or their agent) is certain that the MR is soon to be retired.

Submitted by ocrenter on September 19, 2013 - 12:32pm.

bearishgurl wrote:
ocrenter wrote:
I do recall a family friend who bragged about how they purchased a home that had the MR paid off. And they justified the home's higher price tag based on the potential savings. They were quite excited about how their house was "special" compared to everyone else in the neighborhood.

We do not live in the days of MLS books and Thomas guide anymore. It is very easy to do a quick search and find homes without MR.

ocrenter, you and I know how to pull up a random tax bill and read it correctly but the average buyer does not.

And prospective buyers aren't going to comb tax bills of listings within CFDs to determine (on the off-chance) if any of them have paid off MR. And even if they happen to find a property with paid-off MR, it may not meet their needs. I'm sure you're aware that that is not how buyers shop for property. In any case, the tax bill screen could lag an owner's possible prepaid MR by 1-12 months.

Buyers WHO WILL NOT ACCEPT MR do NOT shop in those areas which have it, unless they (or their agent) is certain that the MR is soon to be retired.

you do not need to CAP things, I read that the first time you wrote this.

buyers will tell their agents, their agents can set the parameters to search the MLS, and they'll see there's no MR.

Submitted by all on September 19, 2013 - 1:24pm.

Essbee wrote:

ER, can you give a little more info? What is the location of this Assisted Living facility? Is it behind the gates of Santaluz, or elsewhere? The reason I ask is because I am wondering if it is the ongoing development on the north side of Carmel Valley Road, between the Black Mountain Community Park with the baseball fields, and the turnoff for Ivy Gate? Someone told me that they had heard that it might be developed as senior living, but it seems like an odd location and it looks like they are building small homesites rather than configuring the land to accommodate a large footprint building.

I am very interested in local issues but my free time is almost nil, unfortunately.

Black Mountain Ranch (Santaluz + Del Sur) is supposed to have 300-room resort. The plan was to have two golf courses, one in Santaluz and one (public) in Del Sur. The resort was supposed to be adjacent to the north course. The Del Sur golf course was scrapped few years ago (commercial sqft was increased instead), but the resort is still on. That's one possibility. The other is another high-end subdivision similar to Ivy Gate.

Submitted by earlyretirement on September 19, 2013 - 3:46pm.

all wrote:
Essbee wrote:

ER, can you give a little more info? What is the location of this Assisted Living facility? Is it behind the gates of Santaluz, or elsewhere? The reason I ask is because I am wondering if it is the ongoing development on the north side of Carmel Valley Road, between the Black Mountain Community Park with the baseball fields, and the turnoff for Ivy Gate? Someone told me that they had heard that it might be developed as senior living, but it seems like an odd location and it looks like they are building small homesites rather than configuring the land to accommodate a large footprint building.

I am very interested in local issues but my free time is almost nil, unfortunately.

Black Mountain Ranch (Santaluz + Del Sur) is supposed to have 300-room resort. The plan was to have two golf courses, one in Santaluz and one (public) in Del Sur. The resort was supposed to be adjacent to the north course. The Del Sur golf course was scrapped few years ago (commercial sqft was increased instead), but the resort is still on. That's one possibility. The other is another high-end subdivision similar to Ivy Gate.

I don't see this ever happening. Santaluz's Golf course is really nice. I don't see anything like that ever coming and Del Sur will never see a golf course. Not sure about the resort but I don't see that happening either.

Yes, BG much of my post involved raising kids because more and more that is the profile of people buying in my area. The developers of my development NEVER imagined that there would be so many families with young kids moving here. But there is a reason for that.

This entire area is wonderful for raising kids. And yes I've talked to many people that were originally looking at other areas but ultimately they decided and are deciding to buy in this area for the lifestyle play that they could never get in some of these other areas you are talking about.

Sure, not everyone wants to be so far from downtown SD. But honesty speaking, many people have NO desire or need to be close to downtown SD. After all, there is no real job center downtown. Many of the job centers are out around here vs. downtown. I enjoy going downtown once in a while but I'd have no need or desire to live down there.

Which begs the question...what's so desirable in living close to downtown? Especially if you have kids.

And VERY FEW people will ever really get an "ocean view" in the area. So I think that's a relatively moot point to me as well. And I'm not sure who these people you speak of of "race cars and yachts" but that isn't the profile of the typical buyer in San Diego.

I mention quality of life raising kids because that is what I think is important with families moving to the area. The families I know buying in the area certainly aren't race cars or yacht owners. They are just hardworking professionals that want to send their kids to excellent schools, live in a safe and beautiful environment amongst their peers and be content with where they live.

And nope, many of the new buyers here never even heard of the development before buying. Many like me initially were going to buy in other areas but some of them found it by accident, some of them from their realtors and some on various blogs.

BG, you post some great information and you're a wealth of information but IMHO (and please don't take offense to this) but I think much of what you write is not based on objectivity. And based on what you are writing, it's clear you don't personally know people buying in this area or talked to new families that are moving to this area and hearing why they moved to the area.

Again, I hope you don't take offense to this but you just don't seem to be objective in many instances. Or you mention things that aren't relevant like ocean views, yachts or race cars?

Submitted by UCGal on September 19, 2013 - 3:55pm.

BG -
Once again you assume that because it doesn't fit your personal wishes/lifestyle/demographic - it's invalid.

Yes - you're a baby boomer looking towards retirement. Yes - you do a lot of work downtown. Yes - you've only got one child left at home - soon to fly the nest. So for you - southbay is a good fit for your needs. That doesn't make it the ideal spot for others, with different needs.

Not everyone buying houses is a baby boomer nearing retirement. In fact, I would assume that many home buyers are folks with minor age children, or planning on having children in the future. Most baby boomers have already purchased their primary home... although some might be looking for retirement homes to downsize to.

BG - you need to remember there are job centers outside of downtown. Sorrento Valley/sorrento mesa is a huge employment center. Probably more folks working there than downtown. (Based on traffic I'm pretty certain this is true.) Carlsbad has quite a few businesses/industries. The I-15 corridor from Scripps Ranch up through Rancho Bernardo has a number of large employers. Folks who work in these areas would not be well served by having a commute to the southbay.

True - the legal stuff is downtown because of the courthouse and jails - and that's the field you're in. But there are other industries in San Diego county - so living close to downtown might not do anything for your commute if you work in Carlsbad.

Please try to remember that not all home buyers have the same needs/wants that you do. I get frustrated by the way you attack folks who have different views.

Submitted by bearishgurl on September 19, 2013 - 4:04pm.

ER, it's just that your ardor for SantaLuz is a bit "over the top" at times. As you can surmise, kids actually really and truly "grow up" in ALL areas of the county. They really and truly have a safe clean environment and parents with actual REAL MONEY, even wealthy parents. Their public schools really and truly are FINE. Yes, even if they don't attend schools within the (now heavily indebted) PUSD.

No, the typical buyer in SD does not have race cars, horses or yachts. But there are many more of these types of buyers shopping in the over $1M range, which is the price range you would seek if you decided to sell your residence. Buyers everywhere are at all "stations in life." They don't necessarily have babies, toddlers or school-age children living with them. As you must know, some buyers have never had children and don't want any. The nuclear family with children is but a fraction of RE buyers (don't really know the exact percentage but would guess that it declines in each successive higher-priced tier and is also smaller for older areas).

There are many, many properties in the county of SD which are on 1/2 to 1-1/2 AC comparably valued to your residence which serve various types of buyers' needs better than yours (vehicle pkg, workshop, citrus grove, ocean view, historical, proximity to SD, etc).

There's nothing wrong with where you live but it is not the be all and end all for EVERYONE. It is the right place for those buyers who seek a tightly controlled environment. And there's nothing wrong with that, either :)

Submitted by earlyretirement on September 19, 2013 - 4:19pm.

bearishgurl wrote:
ER, it's just that your ardor for SantaLuz is a bit "over the top" at times. As you can surmise, kids actually really and truly "grow up" in ALL areas of the county. They really and truly have a safe clean environment and parents with actual REAL MONEY, even wealthy parents. Their public schools really and truly are FINE. Yes, even if they don't attend schools within the (now heavily indebted) PUSD.

No, the typical buyer in SD does not have race cars, horses or yachts. But there are many more of these types of buyers shopping in the over $1M range, which is the price range you would seek if you decided to sell your residence. Buyers everywhere are at all "stations in life." They don't necessarily have babies, toddlers or school-age children living with them. As you must know, some buyers have never had children and don't want any. The nuclear family with children is but a fraction of RE buyers (don't really know the exact percentage but would guess that it declines in each successive higher-priced tier and is also smaller for older areas).

There are many, many properties in the county of SD which are on 1/2 to 1-1/2 AC comparably valued to your residence which serve various types of buyers' needs better than yours (vehicle pkg, workshop, citrus grove, ocean view, historical, proximity to SD, etc).

There's nothing wrong with where you live but it is not the be all and end all for EVERYONE. It is the right place for those buyers who seek a tightly controlled environment. And there's nothing wrong with that, either :)

BG,

But when I speak of this "area" I'm not just speaking about Santaluz. There are many fine neighborhoods in the area. I'm not just speaking of where I live particularly. There are some gorgeous, gorgeous communities out here.

Sure, no one said that kids can't successfully grow up in other areas. They can and do. It just seems like sometimes you have an almost hatred for this area. Or at the very least, stern disdain for the area.

Again, I don't think the "horses, race cars and yachts" should even be discussed at all as it really has no bearing on anything. I know tons and tons of people in the area. Some very successful people and none of them have horses or yachts. Yes, several do have expensive cars.

Sure, I understand people are at all stations of life. Totally true and I agree with you. I'm not saying everyone is popping out babies and having kids. But the point I was making is increasingly more and more families with younger kids are moving out to my area. At a very fast pace. Even in the short few years I've been here I can see it every day with the profile people buying here and moving to the area.

I'm quite involved here where I live as well at the school where my kids go to school so I come into contact with families almost every week so I can get a unique perspective on the people buying here.

Sure, there are other places you can buy 1/2 to 1 acre lots but again the true reality is most buyers don't want nor need that kind of space.

Sure, I never said where I live is the end all by all. Just not the "far flung lizard land" that you sometimes seem to portray this area as. Which couldn't be further from the truth or reality.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.