Retiring near beach in SM or nearby (Santa Monica, Beverly Hills: renters, insurance)

[kavm]

Originally Posted by SportyandMisty

Yeah, no futures contracts... but what might a proxy look like? For example, purchase a rental property someplace near SM today and hire a property manager to do all the work. Then, 8-10 years from now, sell it and use proceeds to help fund your future SM residence... all under the theory that a rental unit's value over time will be highly correlated to the value of your ultimate residence.

I know more than one person who has done the following: Convert their residence in location A to a rental. Wait the requisite amount of time, and then do a Like-Kind exchange (1031 exchange) to a rental in location B, wait the requisite amount of time, then convert the rental in location B to their personal residence. In the interim, they rented in location B.

Maybe lever your SLC condo (take out a home equity loan) and purchase equities (e.g., VTI)...

Of course, all of these mean risk, and no outcome is certain.

Thank you! We might think about the rental idea. How to fund it is less of a concern. The biggest issue for us is the the effort of identifying and buying the property and then selecting and engaging a property management firm now when we are busy with other pursuits of our lives. I am more a REIT or market index buying type of a person and not particularly good at dealing with the hassles that come from owning real estate...

[ima30something]

Originally Posted by jm1982

Do the beach kids even live there ? With housing prices what they are I don’t imagine too many young people living there unless they live with their parents.

I lived there when I was 20something and didn't live with my parents, but maybe thats a rarity? All I know, is that every time we go down Main Street past 8pm, I feel old AF.

[NW4me]

Originally Posted by ryanst530

I don't think SM is well suited for retirees, personally. For starters, the demographics skew heavily towards the younger age groups (20s, 30s), which may not seem like a big deal initially, but might wear on you after a while (i.e. fewer people to relate to and/or socialize with). Cost, including taxes, is another big issue, but that would depend on your financial situation (California is generally not a very retirement friendly state, cost wise). Lastly, even though the SM/Venice area is pretty self-contained insofar as restaurants, shopping, and entertainment are concerned, the greater LA area and OC have a lot to offer. You will almost surely want to explore different places, and fighting through LA traffic wears on you over time.

I don't want to dissuade you from the idea of retiring in SM, but you should be aware of some of the downsides. There are certainly upsides as well, primarily the vibe and beach, which have made it quite the popular place to live. Also be aware that the SM/Venice area has a significant homelessness problem, which, as with the traffic, might start to drive you nuts after a while. Younger people generally tolerate it better than older people.

Personally, I would look at areas such as Santa Barbara or parts of OC for retirement. Good luck!

I haven't spent much time in Santa Monica, but when I have been there, I've noticed a good many seniors out and about, around Ocean Avenue.

Another option might be one of the beach communities in San Diego County.

[suziq38]

I think that you need to check out Coronado, California. It is a small island over the bridge from San Diego.
Stay at a decent hotel near the beach and decide if you would like to live there. It is very pricey, but so beautiful and tranquil. There are a fair amount of retirees, so you won't be alone. If I could afford to retire there, I would. Alas, I could only afford to vacation there. Beautiful weather, and the people seem very nice.

[kavm]

Thank you! Will do. That said, I am not sure it offers what we are looking for. We are not necessarily seeking a retirement community but a more urban setting. The culinary offerings and the urban setting of the Santa Monica, Venice areas are as valuable to us as the beach and the weather. We are also immigrants to this country (from different continents), so cosmopolitan setting is essential as well. Without suggesting that we will move to any of them - the cities / areas that interest us (aside from LA/SM area) include Seattle, NYC, Berlin, Hamburg, Paris, London, Sydney, Melbourne, Cape Town, etc. Note - some of these we could not relocate to even if we wanted to (for visa type reasons). And, others we might not want to relocate to for certain other things that go with them. I gave the list not to start discussing each of them in this forum but to highlight that urban aspect is of significant importance to us.

[Cinema Cat]

Originally Posted by kavm

Generally high level of public corruption ...

I don't know what the corruption level is in Salt Lake City for you to consider it "high," but I'm certain Utah and SLC's public corruption pales compared to that in California or most of its cities.

I'm certain public corruption in Sacramento, San Francisco and Los Angeles must be right up there, near the top, alongside New York City (my home town), Chicago, and Washington DC.

[Cinema Cat]

Originally Posted by kavm

Seattle, and to a lesser degree, Portland are on our radar as well. Seattle has the tax advantage going for it and is beautiful. We really like it. We do wonder if we’d like living in the rainy climate in either Seattle or Portland.

I love rain and gray skies.

Unfortunately, Seattle and Portland are overdue for a HUGE earthquake. It might now happen in our lifetime, but it could happen tomorrow. And it promises to be a 9.0 or greater.

Perhaps you've read the famous New Yorker article: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...really-big-one

You can Google "Seattle earthquake" and "Portland earthquake." It's not pretty.

I lived through Los Angeles's 6.7 quake in 1994. It wasn't fun. But California is overdue for a bigger one 7.8 to 8.1). And Seattle and Portland for a bigger one still (9.0 to 9.2).

I don't want to sink my money into a Seattle home, only to become homeless after the quake. I know Utah's due for a quake. But northwest's quake will be exponentially bigger.

Here's a possible scenerio even more unsettling than the New Yorker article: https://www.portlandmercury.com/port...nt?oid=5766214

[kavm]

Thanks Cinema Cat! We are generally aware of the earthquake risk. SLC is definitely overdue a Big one as well, though we did not know the relative difference with Portland and Seattle areas. When we moved to SLC, we did research the situation, dismissed areas that were more susceptible (as in higher liquefaction risk) and homes not likely to fare well. But, beyond that - not much one can do on a practical level, besides choosing to live somewhere else.

PS: Thank you very much for sharing the links. Still reading them but they are very informative!

[kttam186290]

What about Ventura, Oxnard or Port Hueneme?

Very affordable where coastal living is concerned! Also, very close to LA. More rustic than Santa Monica, but also more retirees! Worth looking into, for sure!!!

[ecsdude]

Originally Posted by kavm

Thank you for so many useful points.

• nightlysparrow's point is very important to us. While in good health, we'd not want to retire to a place that doesn't have very good health care conveniently nearby.
• We do buy into the sentiment - Santa Monica never gets stale. If the cost side can be managed, we think it might be where we'd head for. The other thing is that if one is taking on the burden of California's high taxes and generally higher real estate prices to move there - it'd only make sense if the location is very attractive to us.
• The retiree percentage isn't a huge driver for us. The factors I mentioned + those brought up by jm1982: low/modest crime rate, pretty good services, mild weather , no hurricanes or high humidity , better public transportation, better medical hospitals mean a lot more to us.

The following point by nightlyparrow something that we are pondering without a clear idea of the right strategy -

Is it better to buy now/sooner (which brings up the issue of what to do with the property, etc.) or wait till we are closer to the decision and find ourselves priced out? What are the considerations for people who aren't real estate junkies flipping real estate? A rental focused property isn't what we have in mind for our retirement.


PS - I would rather not discuss places elsewhere that are are well informed about. That'd would just derail the thread. Quite aware of FL, AZ options. OC is simply not attractive enough to us for taking on the California's tax bite.

If there were another down turn in the housing market, like the last one which bottomed out around 2011, it may make buying property in a place like SM more attainable.. it may not drop 50% in value but if it were down $100K or so, that would make a difference for many. Of course, it'd also help that one was lucky enough to time it so they had sold their current property near the peak or at the very start of the impending decline, to maximize the cash they'd have on hand. It could require a temporary period of renting and waiting things out. Of course, the longer you rent and wait it out, the more your burning thru your cash so some luck is involved.