Realities of the 600K and under housing market in San Gabriel Valley (Rancho Cucamonga: renters, condo)

[timtemtym]

A friend recently bought in a new-built town home development in Azusa. It looks nice enough, but seems like construction that will start falling apart in a few years. It's also sandwiched up behind some older homes that look like they cost less but have more space and privacy. For quite a bit of money you get a wooden box on a busy through street with not much of even a patio outside. It is close to the university so maybe it will attract investors who can put 4 rent-paying international students in each one.

[jm1982]

Originally Posted by timtemtym

A friend recently bought in a new-built town home development in Azusa. It looks nice enough, but seems like construction that will start falling apart in a few years. It's also sandwiched up behind some older homes that look like they cost less but have more space and privacy. For quite a bit of money you get a wooden box on a busy through street with not much of even a patio outside. It is close to the university so maybe it will attract investors who can put 4 rent-paying international students in each one.

I took a look at some of these in the San Fernando valley . The square footage is decent sized but they were 3 stories !
It seemed like going up those stairs all the time would be a pain. I guess it would be good exercise though !
Yard area is tiny of course. If the same price you could buy a regular single family home much older home but has its own yard etc .
I also wonder about the construction quality too .

[Texamichiforniasota]

Originally Posted by Mr_Geek

In my experience, you definitely get more bang for your buck when renting in terms of money spent per month.

In the shorty term yes, but fixed rate mortgage + taxes + insurance goes up <1% per year, whereas rent has been going up much faster recently. Rent growth may slow, but in the medium term (5+ years) owning is still probably cheaper on a per month basis sincer rents haver increased significantly.

[ryanms3030]

Originally Posted by Mr_Geek

In my experience, you definitely get more bang for your buck when renting in terms of money spent per month.

But you have no equity in a rental. I paid 345k for my condo last year and I know I could sell for $370k right now. Obviously real estate is a gamble like anything else and I'm not planning on selling but I believe this market is still a good investment. My mortgage is also $400/mo less then my rent was and I have a bigger place, more amenities and a much nicer neighborhood.

[jacktravern]

Originally Posted by Buildings' R Us

OP, try looking into the Antelope Valley. Don't worry, we (City Data) don't judge anymore like back in 2015.

And if that's not enough land for you, try Barstow
Your opinions/experiences on Barstow, Daggett, Yermo, etc.?

California is a completely different real estate market these days and the reality is more educated middle people are forced to move to Far Eastern California for a house. It doesn't matter how much closer you are to the coast in the SGV than Barstow or even Phoenix. If you don't live West of the 405, then you're not part of their cool kids club. You socially won't be accepted as "one of them" and you'll be too busy working week days to have enough energy to fight the traffic and find parking just to spend a couple of minutes "playing in the water".

This is exactly why i sold my enourmous house in Rancho Cucamoga (north of the 210) to buy a studio in Manhattan Beach. Best decision of my life ever. I never venture into Inglewood or anywhere South Central.

East of Boyle Heights-Pasadena (710 freeway) and North of Irvine truely is The Inland Empire in the eyes of coastal residents. Is it snobby? Yes. Are we missing out on much? Not really. We have Costco, Targets, mom and pops shops, mountains, hilly terain, and palm trees out here. Take Azusa for example, it's practically Redondo Beach but more inland.

This post is kind of all over the place, or you didn't express yourself clearly. In one moment, you're encouraging the OP to look way up north in Antelope Valley, not taking their work situation into account, then you saying living in the San Gabriel Valley is the equivalent of living in Phoneix or Barstow if you want to enjoy the LA beaches You're literally comparing a 35 miles to one that is well over 100.

Then in another moment, you say how those who "don't live west of the 405 are not part of the cool kids club", but then type how you sold your enormous house in Rancho Cucamonga and bought a studio in Manhattan Beach, and then go on to say coastal residents are snobby for their thinking. And Azuza is not Redondo Beach, sorry.

Originally Posted by ryanms3030

But you have no equity in a rental. I paid 345k for my condo last year and I know I could sell for $370k right now. Obviously real estate is a gamble like anything else and I'm not planning on selling but I believe this market is still a good investment. My mortgage is also $400/mo less then my rent was and I have a bigger place, more amenities and a much nicer neighborhood.

You can sell for $370 but
1) Have you not paid for any maintenance at all, or at $345 its been all easy going like a brand new house?
2) If you sold for 370, will that $370 get you something nicer and more inland than where you live right now?

Sometimes the equity only counts for anything if you are going to leave town, move to a neighborhood that's worst or downsize

[jm1982]

Originally Posted by jacktravern

You can sell for $370 but
1) Have you not paid for any maintenance at all, or at $345 its been all easy going like a brand new house?
2) If you sold for 370, will that $370 get you something nicer and more inland than where you live right now?

Sometimes the equity only counts for anything if you are going to leave town, move to a neighborhood that's worst or downsize

I can't imagine there would be too much maintenance on a condo. On an older single family home, sure there can be quite a bit of maintenance , but I still think it's often exaggerated .
Also when you rent , you are paying for maintenance and property taxes ,etc because the landlord is actually passing those costs onto the tenant, even though it's not going to be itemized on their rent statement.

That's true that if something goes up in price the surrounding areas usually go up too. But still, they'd be better off than renting. One could also use some of that money for other investments, or to start a business etc.
Owning giving you several options, while renting doesn't give you many options.
If you want to move tomorrow you can rent out your place either long term or short term on airbnb.

If you own a house and it's too small, you can add on and make it bigger,etc. Meanwhile adding value to your property .

I feel like renting should be a temporary solution to housing rather than a long term one.

"The differences between buying and renting are massive. According to the Federal Reserve, a typical homeowner’s net worth was $195,400, while that of renter’s was $5,400"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrenc.../#20a2608a1e4b

I'm sure you would fine that most retirees in SoCal ( and probably the nation)have a lot more of their net worth in their home versus their 401k or other retirement accounts.

If one can't buy property where they live, I still think they should invest somewhere , with professional property management of course.

[jm1982]

In the I.E

Brand new ,good sized homes starting at high 200s.



https://www.pardeehomes.com/region/inland-empire/

[jacktravern]

Originally Posted by jm1982

I can't imagine there would be too much maintenance on a condo. On an older single family home, sure there can be quite a bit of maintenance , but I still think it's often exaggerated .
Also when you rent , you are paying for maintenance and property taxes ,etc because the landlord is actually passing those costs onto the tenant, even though it's not going to be itemized on their rent statement.


If you own a house and it's too small, you can add on and make it bigger,etc. Meanwhile adding value to your property .

I feel like renting should be a temporary solution to housing rather than a long term one.

I'm sure you would fine that most retirees in SoCal ( and probably the nation)have a lot more of their net worth in their home versus their 401k or other retirement accounts.

If one can't buy property where they live, I still think they should invest somewhere , with professional property management of course.

Is it a condo situation? I may have missed that part. Even if so, my parents just sold their condo in the northeast. Maybe only 15-20k in maintenance/re doing certain things over a decade, but in that same time frame there was a monthly maintenance fee that averaged $500 a month. Over the course of 120 months that adds up quite a bit. They sold for more $110,000 more than they bought it, but things only worked out on paper because they moved south to a cheaper state.

As far as renting and paying the taxes and maintenance, I mean I guess one can look at it that way if they want too, but I know by renting, my monthly housing cost on average are about $1000 to 3000 less than my co-workers that have homes. I don't even pay for utilities and anything that breaks gets repaired withing a couple of days.

Adding to the size of your house takes a lot of time and effort. It can be done, but I rarely see people do it and the ones that do, it seems to eat up a lot of their spare change. AT least for the middle class earners. To each his own.

[jm1982]

Originally Posted by jacktravern

Is it a condo situation? I may have missed that part. Even if so, my parents just sold their condo in the northeast. Maybe only 15-20k in maintenance/re doing certain things over a decade, but in that same time frame there was a monthly maintenance fee that averaged $500 a month. Over the course of 120 months that adds up quite a bit. They sold for more $110,000 more than they bought it, but things only worked out on paper because they moved south to a cheaper state.

As far as renting and paying the taxes and maintenance, I mean I guess one can look at it that way if they want too, but I know by renting, my monthly housing cost on average are about $1000 to 3000 less than my co-workers that have homes. I don't even pay for utilities and anything that breaks gets repaired withing a couple of days.

Adding to the size of your house takes a lot of time and effort. It can be done, but I rarely see people do it and the ones that do, it seems to eat up a lot of their spare change. AT least for the middle class earners. To each his own.

Yeah HOA fees are definitely something to keep in mind. They can vary a lot. Some high end condo buildings can have HOAs in the thousands .

That seems pretty rare to not pay utilities as a renter, at least in L.A.

Yeah you are right that adding to a house takes time and effort. Of course most people aren't going to do it and would rather move, but at least it's an option.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by jm1982

In the I.E

Brand new ,good sized homes starting at high 200s.

https://www.pardeehomes.com/region/inland-empire/

Except that they're in the middle of nowhere. Unless you work there, you'd be commuting for hours every day.