Comments on: More Trustee-Sale Buying

By: Franklin

Franklin — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 05:18:06 +0000

I do… a 900 sq/ft house built in 39. It’s not much but the point I think I’m trying to make is that a bigger, badder and meaner mcmansion doesn’t automatically mean a better place to live… especially when it comes to children.

Sure it’s nice to have all of the extras but how does it really add value to our lives? The question is probably more philosophical than anything, quite a bit off topic.. sorry.

By: Locomotive Breath

Locomotive Breath — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 22:12:28 +0000

Hmmm. Franklin is in a better house than his parents (I’m assuming you don’t have a dirt floor and outhouse, Franklin)…why shouldn’t Franklin’s kids by a better house than Franklin?

Time marches on people.

And yes there are 1200 sf houses in San Diego – I’ve toured many of them house-hunting with my son. They are older, but many have been been refurbished very nicely.

By: Franklin

Franklin — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 06:49:42 +0000

I guess, I just keep coming back to what how my mom and dad grew up. Mother was raised in a 900sq/ft house with 8 other children in southeast michigan. My dad grew up in a 400-500sq/ft “shack” (best way to say it) in northern ontario with 2 other kids… best part of it was the DIRT FLOORING AND AN OUTHOUSE….

Imagine that situation when it’s -40 celcius during the winter and you have to chop wood to keep the house warm, sit your ass down on a frozen toilet and sleeping in the same room with a bunch of other kids!

Did either of them grow up thinking their childhood was ruined because of it? Of course not…

So when I see these homes it just makes me wonder what the hell is going on here! I really shouldn’t even ask if people need or require this space because ultimately to each their own… more power to em if they can have all of that but it still does have me wondering.

By: c-bob

c-bob — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 20:58:44 +0000

A big house is obviously important to some people.

I just bought a little house close to the beach on a big lot. If you’re going to overpay for S.Cal real estate you might as well pay for what makes it so damn expensive… to live near the ocean where the weather is mildest and the bikinis are skimpiest. Those mcmansions that a mile inland are hotter than shyt in the summer time.

By: Kwaping

Kwaping — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 19:55:19 +0000

Sad, but makes sense. Count me in the “smaller home with bigger lot” crowd, but that doesn’t describe my current situation.

By: JordanT

JordanT — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:06:44 +0000

For the most part, new home builders have figured out that big houses on small plots of land is the best return on their investment (that is, two 3,000 sq ft houses on .1 acre each makes the builder four times as much money as one 1,200 sq ft house on .2 acres).

This is exactly right and with the cost of developing the land for sewer, water etc. and paying the city of SD $50,000 in tax per house it makes a lot of sense to make as expensive house as possible. Once you factor in fixed costs of land, taxes and development costs no matter the cost of the final house, it’s not that much extra money to build a 3,000 sq ft house over a 1,200 sq ft house.

For me I’d rather a smaller house on a bigger lot, but developers know that people only pay a little extra for double the lot, but a lot extra for double the house.

By: JK

JK — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:03:17 +0000

@16 is right. As a builder it’s about maximizing footprint of the house on the parcel.

JtR, how much is the hard money financing going to cost?

By: Geotpf

Geotpf — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:45:09 +0000

I think the theory in urban areas of SoCal is that if you can’t afford 3,000 sq ft, you should buy a condo. For the most part, new home builders have figured out that big houses on small plots of land is the best return on their investment (that is, two 3,000 sq ft houses on .1 acre each makes the builder four times as much money as one 1,200 sq ft house on .2 acres). So that’s all they build. Now, there are older houses that small, and some newer ones on the fringes (although a lot of newer houses in the sticks are also 3,000 sq ft, just on larger lots). But that’s about it.

By: Kwaping

Kwaping — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:30:15 +0000

Shadash, your bitter is showing…

By: JordanT

JordanT — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:34:20 +0000

But option no. 2 requires the property to go to trustee sale first and have no bids

The bank has the option of not setting the minimum bid at the loan amount so it has a chance of being bought at the trustee sale. Nobody is going to buy a house at trustee with a vintage 2005 loan value on it. The bank just needs to set the minimum low and let it be bought at auction, if they set the minimum at year 2005 prices it will go back to bank and sold another way.