land leases or purchases?

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
[quote author="bkshopr" date=1251303066]The life expectancy of a stucco house in Irvine is 99 years as specified in the disclosure. Upon expiration should the structure be torn down and the owner can rebuild something different on the vacant land like a 3CWG? or rebuild another ticky tacky replica per CC&R?



The people I have heard of inheriting an heirloom stucco box sell it and rarely keep it for the sentimental value. I wonder what would happen to these homes in 99th year? Would the price depreciate? Without much freedom due to CC&R the lack of expansion and remodel opportunity and lets fast forward to 2040 would these homes still be desirable still? Would tuscan be hot still or be dated like Garden Grove Ranch?



What I am trying to say is does it really matter if you own the land or don't own the land when you have NO freedom to add on or build a custom home on that land. What is the advantage of owning vs leasing land in a production neighborhood?



First you wont live that long to see it expires. Second, you kids and grand kids won't keep it. I suggest stop worrying about the land.</blockquote>




In my case, I'm not "worrying about the land" - my parents bought the land outright. I was simply making an informational query.

And, contrary to your statement, I grew up in that house, so I do have a sentimental attachment to that house, and have every intention of keeping it after my parents are gone. It may just be a "stucco box", but it's a stucco box that holds a lot of great memories for me and my family.



And, per my previous post with my dad's recollection of the original sales process at the time, it would appear that (at least in his tract in TRock) that the lease option was nowhere near 99 years. So, even if my parents' had leased instead of bought the land, I would be alive to see the consequences of that decision and would have to deal with them.



Further, I'm not clear why you assert that tearing down and rebuiliding isn't an option. It's been done many times just in my parents' neighborhood, and I'm sure once the market improves (someday), that activity will resume to some degree. The HOA in their community seems to let almost anything get approved, so there appears to be quite a bit of flexibility beyond the "stucco box" design.
 
[quote author="ocresident73" date=1251349307][quote author="freedomCM" date=1251348103][quote author="Chuck" date=1251333505][quote author="graphrix" date=1251300454]

If anyone... I mean someone... if just one person could provide me with a lot/home they believe is on LEASED land, then please do. Don't be surprised when you find out that it is </blockquote>
Yes, look at my example above in University Hills on Harvey Court. When I spoke with the agent about this house he gave me a long description of the house and then at the end of our conversation said "Now don't hang up now, but it is on leased land." TThanks!</blockquote>




don't bother looking at uni hills. it is only open to faculty/staff.</blockquote>


The particular property referenced here, and a handful of others surrounding it, were custom built estates that could be sold to non-faculty members/staff. Although, as previously mentioned, the land must be leased from the UC. I don't know how many of those original owners are still up there, but I don't think it's many. The rumor at the time was that those owners were mostly major donors to the university and a couple of other local wealthy families. It is true that any homes or condos below those couple of small cul-de-sacs are only open to UCI faculty or staff.</blockquote>


Yes, this Harvey Court house is a pretty odd situation. The agent told me that anyone, even someone not affiliated with the University, is able to submit an offer but UCI has a first right of refusal to match the offer. I guess if you are the professor who bought this house you are really stuck unless you bring your price way down. This looks like a fairly unique albeit outdated custom home, but $1.6 million for a house on leased land that has restrictions on how it can be sold is a tough nut to crack. I imagine it will eventually be sold when a new big wig professor is brought to the University and they need to find a place for them to live....
 
[quote author="ocresident73" date=1251350000][quote author="bkshopr" date=1251303066]The life expectancy of a stucco house in Irvine is 99 years as specified in the disclosure. Upon expiration should the structure be torn down and the owner can rebuild something different on the vacant land like a 3CWG? or rebuild another ticky tacky replica per CC&R?



The people I have heard of inheriting an heirloom stucco box sell it and rarely keep it for the sentimental value. I wonder what would happen to these homes in 99th year? Would the price depreciate? Without much freedom due to CC&R the lack of expansion and remodel opportunity and lets fast forward to 2040 would these homes still be desirable still? Would tuscan be hot still or be dated like Garden Grove Ranch?



What I am trying to say is does it really matter if you own the land or don't own the land when you have NO freedom to add on or build a custom home on that land. What is the advantage of owning vs leasing land in a production neighborhood?



First you wont live that long to see it expires. Second, you kids and grand kids won't keep it. I suggest stop worrying about the land.</blockquote>




In my case, I'm not "worrying about the land" - my parents bought the land outright. I was simply making an informational query.

And, contrary to your statement, I grew up in that house, so I do have a sentimental attachment to that house, and have every intention of keeping it after my parents are gone. It may just be a "stucco box", but it's a stucco box that holds a lot of great memories for me and my family.



And, per my previous post with my dad's recollection of the original sales process at the time, it would appear that (at least in his tract in TRock) that the lease option was nowhere near 99 years. So, even if my parents' had leased instead of bought the land, I would be alive to see the consequences of that decision and would have to deal with them.



Further, I'm not clear why you assert that tearing down and rebuiliding isn't an option. It's been done many times just in my parents' neighborhood, and I'm sure once the market improves (someday), that activity will resume to some degree. The HOA in their community seems to let almost anything get approved, so there appears to be quite a bit of flexibility beyond the "stucco box" design.</blockquote>


I like TRock the best in all of Irvine. If I were to do a tear down it would be in TR. It is one of the few neighborhoods that do have the land and HOA sentiment to allow remodels. All of the new neighborhoods do not have the option of tear down to rebuild without vehement HOA opposition. Is your parent home all stucco or it has wood sidings and trims?
 
If one does not plan on staying in the same house forever but want to enjoy the benefit of living in Irvine then buying a home on lease land is the most cost effective. Without the land cost homes are worth only 1/3 of the selling price. It is certainly better than renting from IAC because of total freedom to trash the home without to paying consequence later.



Many NCB (Native Credit Buyers) can't afford to buy in Irvine. May be the land lease is not so bad. It allows you to live the good life on a Garden Grove budget. Kids can go to a good school and you don't get robbed or ever die in this city. Owning land and living on leased land does not change your lifestyle at all because 99.9% of the population rarely rebuild, remodel or try to optimize the land potential if they are lucky to step on land outside of their slider.
 
[quote author="bkshopr" date=1251356400][quote author="ocresident73" date=1251350000][quote author="bkshopr" date=1251303066]The life expectancy of a stucco house in Irvine is 99 years as specified in the disclosure. Upon expiration should the structure be torn down and the owner can rebuild something different on the vacant land like a 3CWG? or rebuild another ticky tacky replica per CC&R?



The people I have heard of inheriting an heirloom stucco box sell it and rarely keep it for the sentimental value. I wonder what would happen to these homes in 99th year? Would the price depreciate? Without much freedom due to CC&R the lack of expansion and remodel opportunity and lets fast forward to 2040 would these homes still be desirable still? Would tuscan be hot still or be dated like Garden Grove Ranch?



What I am trying to say is does it really matter if you own the land or don't own the land when you have NO freedom to add on or build a custom home on that land. What is the advantage of owning vs leasing land in a production neighborhood?



First you wont live that long to see it expires. Second, you kids and grand kids won't keep it. I suggest stop worrying about the land.</blockquote>




In my case, I'm not "worrying about the land" - my parents bought the land outright. I was simply making an informational query.

And, contrary to your statement, I grew up in that house, so I do have a sentimental attachment to that house, and have every intention of keeping it after my parents are gone. It may just be a "stucco box", but it's a stucco box that holds a lot of great memories for me and my family.



And, per my previous post with my dad's recollection of the original sales process at the time, it would appear that (at least in his tract in TRock) that the lease option was nowhere near 99 years. So, even if my parents' had leased instead of bought the land, I would be alive to see the consequences of that decision and would have to deal with them.



Further, I'm not clear why you assert that tearing down and rebuiliding isn't an option. It's been done many times just in my parents' neighborhood, and I'm sure once the market improves (someday), that activity will resume to some degree. The HOA in their community seems to let almost anything get approved, so there appears to be quite a bit of flexibility beyond the "stucco box" design.</blockquote>


I like TRock the best in all of Irvine. If I were to do a tear down it would be in TR. It is one of the few neighborhoods that do have the land and HOA sentiment to allow remodels. All of the new neighborhoods do not have the option of tear down to rebuild without vehement HOA opposition. Is your parent home all stucco or it has wood sidings and trims?</blockquote>




It's pretty much all stucco with some basic wood casing around the doors and windows. Most of the neighbors who have opted to remodel ended up doing a tear down and adding double the original square footage. Not Shady Canyon-type huge, but not small either.
 
[quote author="bkshopr" date=1251357217]If one does not plan on staying in the same house forever but want to enjoy the benefit of living in Irvine then buying a home on lease land is the most cost effective. Without the land cost homes are worth only 1/3 of the selling price. It is certainly better than renting from IAC because of total freedom to trash the home without to paying consequence later.



Many NCB (Native Credit Buyers) can't afford to buy in Irvine. May be the land lease is not so bad. It allows you to live the good life on a Garden Grove budget. Kids can go to a good school and you don't get robbed or ever die in this city. Owning land and living on leased land does not change your lifestyle at all because 99.9% of the population rarely rebuild, remodel or try to optimize the land potential if they are lucky to step on land outside of their slider.</blockquote>


Given the price differential my dad described to me, it does seem that leasing is far more cost-effective. And, certainly for someone not planning to stay in a house forever, or who want the ability to do a complete tear down, purchasing the land isn't necessary.

But, given some of the issues the real estate agent is apparently having with the UCI property, it seems that many people don't like the notion of leased land. So that might be a hindrance when it comes time to sell.
 
[quote author="ocresident73" date=1251365462][quote author="bkshopr" date=1251357217]If one does not plan on staying in the same house forever but want to enjoy the benefit of living in Irvine then buying a home on lease land is the most cost effective. Without the land cost homes are worth only 1/3 of the selling price. It is certainly better than renting from IAC because of total freedom to trash the home without to paying consequence later.



Many NCB (Native Credit Buyers) can't afford to buy in Irvine. May be the land lease is not so bad. It allows you to live the good life on a Garden Grove budget. Kids can go to a good school and you don't get robbed or ever die in this city. Owning land and living on leased land does not change your lifestyle at all because 99.9% of the population rarely rebuild, remodel or try to optimize the land potential if they are lucky to step on land outside of their slider.</blockquote>


Given the price differential my dad described to me, it does seem that leasing is far more cost-effective. And, certainly for someone not planning to stay in a house forever, or who want the ability to do a complete tear down, purchasing the land isn't necessary.

But, given some of the issues the real estate agent is apparently having with the UCI property, it seems that many people don't like the notion of leased land. So that might be a hindrance when it comes time to sell.</blockquote>


Buying a house detached home with a yard for $350k on lease land or buying an IVY for $444K with no yard. Which one do you think lives better? The benefits of good school, safety and work are the reason why buyers chose Irvine. I really see no benefit for owning the land vs leasing. The owner with the land lease will have saved more money, liquid cash, money for kids Harvard education and would have had a higher quality of life for not being house poor owning land that has zero potential.
 
Places where land lease started were along the coast during the 1900's. Living year round along the coast were once considered undesirable and in order to attract vacationers to the coast the concept of land lease was very attractive. Other incentives where to buy one parcel along the beach and get the adjacent one for free on Balboa Island in the 1930's.



Without the burden of owning the land owners built their second homes for very little using the cheapest construction methods. Most beach cottages were built that way with 2 inch wall and no insulation. No members were larger than a 2x4. The cottages at Crystal Cove Beach have been heirloomed to families for 4 generations. The structures were fully paid for long ago and the land lease are several hundred dollars per year. Yes for $300 the families lived next to the sand. Families included the Crystal Cove land lease in their will.



Over time these coastal properties became very desirable for custom homes where families chose to live all year round. The most expensive and elaborate McMansion construction replaced the thin wall cottages on these leased parcels. 70-80 years have passed since the lease began and the owners of these McMansion have another 20-30 years left before the land owners decide to take back their land. Beacon Bay, Cameo Shore, Irvine Cove, Balboa, Newport Back Bay and Lido Island were conceived on land lease.



Without the full control of destiny some parcels will soon to have an expired lease the sellers would love to sell their property to the biggest knife catcher. No wealthy individuals will spend $6-? million to built a custom home on water front land with a 20 years remaining lease.



Along the coast where buyers looks for their trophy properties many will remodel, tear down, and custom tailor fit their home to specific lifestyle and show them off to their friends a land lease does not make sense.



For production homes in Irvine land lease makes a lot of sense. Owners buy a house only for the duration of their kids going to an Irvine school and easily attainable with a Garden Grove budget.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top