Where do UCLA staff buy homes on modest incomes? If at all? (Oxnard: appointed, sales)

[slant6]

OK, I've figured out renting is not a problem around UCLA, but is there a place with more affordable housing on a 100K salary with a somewhat decent commute?
Not a fancy house, just a condo or townhome 1-2 bedroom.
Nothing near Westwood or Santa Monica I gather, but are there cities with a commute of 45min (give or take) to UCLA that are more affordable for that kind of income?
What kind of commute am I looking at to buy in my income bracket?
Thanks for any help. I"m really on the fence for this job.

[bhcompy]

Very pricey area. Probably SFV or South Bay. Of course it depends on your metrics/what you want to spend

[JohnG72]

Originally Posted by slant6

OK, I've figured out renting is not a problem around UCLA, but is there a place with more affordable housing on a 100K salary with a somewhat decent commute?
Not a fancy house, just a condo or townhome 1-2 bedroom.
Nothing near Westwood or Santa Monica I gather, but are there cities with a commute of 45min (give or take) to UCLA that are more affordable for that kind of income?
What kind of commute am I looking at to buy in my income bracket?
Thanks for any help. I"m really on the fence for this job.

Sherman Oaks has pretty nice condos...some in the $300-400K range. You might find a two bedroom in the $200-260K range in an older building. Parts of south Van Nuys....maybe south of Oxnard or so...are pretty nice and have homes starting priced at the higher end of that range. It would be just about a 45 minute commute during rush hour from that area to UCLA. I'd also bet there are condos in Palms, Mar Vista, West LA, and Culver City in your price range.

But TBH, you are just throwing money away if you buy now. Your mortgage will be roughly double your current rent and IMO that entire area is ready to implode.

Why do you want to buy right now?

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by JohnG72

Sherman Oaks has pretty nice condos...some in the $300-400K range. You might find a two bedroom in the $200-260K range in an older building. Parts of south Van Nuys....maybe south of Oxnard or so...are pretty nice and have homes starting priced at the higher end of that range. It would be just about a 45 minute commute during rush hour from that area to UCLA. I'd also bet there are condos in Palms, Mar Vista, West LA, and Culver City in your price range.

But TBH, you are just throwing money away if you buy now. Your mortgage will be roughly double your current rent and IMO that entire area is ready to implode.

Why do you want to buy right now?

John, this is somewhat off the subject I guess, but not totally. Some people really have strong feelings about home ownership, will the area implode, as you put it? That is anyones guess. We all knew the prices would head south in Ca sooner or later, but no one thought they would nosedive quite as bad as they have. My gut feeling, they will soon start back up. If the OP is planning on staying in So Calif for 5 years or more, buying seems a reasonable way to go.

Now, even if he/she wants to buy, $300 to $400,000 is a heck of a lot of money for someone making $100 a year..That is pushing it to the limit, especially if buying a condo with often high monthly fees. Of course with a nice down payment you are looking at a different story.

Nita

[Charles]

Originally Posted by nmnita

We all knew the prices would head south in Ca sooner or later, but no one thought they would nosedive quite as bad as they have. My gut feeling, they will soon start back up.

I almost look(ed) at in the opposite way. I am surprised nicer neighborhoods haven't fallen further. The price to income ratios for nice neighborhoods are still higher than traditional ratios. The things I read about that may account for this are 1) Really low interest rates and 2) Government intervention. Houses that sold for $1M in 2006 are selling for $700K now but sold for $350K in 1997 (just using rough numbers); Is it reasonable, does economic equilibrium exist with homes doubling in 13 years? Shouldn't that house sell for more like $550K?

The low median (not a good metric) hit about a year ago.

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by Charles

I almost look(ed) at in the opposite way. I am surprised nicer neighborhoods haven't fallen further. The price to income ratios for nice neighborhoods are still higher than traditional ratios. The things I read about that may account for this are 1) Really low interest rates and 2) Government intervention. Houses that sold for $1M in 2006 are selling for $700K now but sold for $350K in 1997 (just using rough numbers); Is it reasonable, does economic equilibrium exist with homes doubling in 13 years? Shouldn't that house sell for more like $550K?

The low median (not a good metric) hit about a year ago.

you have a good point, I have also read, but don't know for sure, prices have started back up. It might be very slowly but a little and sales are up just a little. We did sell our last investment while we were in Ca and we were not disappointed in the price we got. What I was really saying in my first posting really was, the worse possible thing, property values collasped more than expected, things may not be all that good and so on; I do agree with you more than with my own statements.

Nita

[smokingGun]

One of my friends is an associate prof/researcher at UCLA and she bought out in Porter Ranch. Another couple are residents in medicine and they bought a condo in Culver city (but I think they could've had help with downpayment from his parents).

[EscapeCalifornia]

Originally Posted by Charles

I almost look(ed) at in the opposite way. I am surprised nicer neighborhoods haven't fallen further. The price to income ratios for nice neighborhoods are still higher than traditional ratios. The things I read about that may account for this are 1) Really low interest rates and 2) Government intervention. Houses that sold for $1M in 2006 are selling for $700K now but sold for $350K in 1997 (just using rough numbers); Is it reasonable, does economic equilibrium exist with homes doubling in 13 years? Shouldn't that house sell for more like $550K?

The low median (not a good metric) hit about a year ago.

That's what I see. Sure, there's plenty of cheap (by California standards) stuff in the ghetto, in an overcrowded 40 year old condo complex, or a 90 minute drive from work. But the decent properties are still quite expensive. Its like the lower half of the market collapsed because the sellers there had no reserves while the higher end of the market is holding their breath for things to get "back to normal" which in their eyes is 2006. Wealthier people can hold onto their fantasy pricing longer but since there's fewer buyers at those prices, the volume low. The wild card will be how long the recession continues. If it goes on long enough, more people will be forced to sell or lose it to the bank.

Going by Case Schiller numbers, which I believe to more more reflective of reality than a simple median, the market bottomed out about a year ago, rose, and has been trending downward for the last couple of month. Case Shiller numbers are release on a two month delay. The pattern for LA is mirrored in the national indexes. See the attached PDF for a graph.

[curiosa]

My girlfriend is staff at ucla and we are both renting now. Majority if not all of the people she works with including her supervisor who live locally in the L.A area own condos they had bought in the early 2000's when prices were cheaper in the Santa monica, Brentwood, and Culver city area. I think think you might like culver city if you want to avoid a very long commute and over inflated prices.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by curiosa

My girlfriend is staff at ucla and we are both renting now. Majority if not all of the people she works with including her supervisor who live locally in the L.A area own condos they had bought in the early 2000's when prices were cheaper in the Santa monica, Brentwood, and Culver city area. I think think you might like culver city if you want to avoid a very long commute and over inflated prices.

Almost all Westside communities have renters as the majority.

The only Westside cities or neighborhoods that have a majority of owners as opposed to renters are Culver City and Westchester.