Villages of Columbus - Columbus Square - Cambridge Lane

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
[quote author="acpme" date=1213619663][quote author="hs_teacher" date=1213517019] Now as a scientist, can you confirm that being exposed to soil in Tustin is more dangerous than being exposed to the sun? Personally, I would feel very comfortable standing for hours barefeet on Tustin soil than to expose myself to hours of sunlight. And trust me, I know enough doctors, physician assistants, nurses, pharmacists, and other health care professionals to back me up on this.</blockquote>


yes, standing in the sun for hours is more dangerous than a lot of things. that proves that standing in the sun is not good for you but how does it proves the soil is safe? nobody is talking about skin cancer.</blockquote>


Shady, it's all about the probability of risks. I think that being directly exposed to the sun is a greater risk than being exposed to Tustin soil. That is, with so many other more imminent risks in life, I don't think the toxicity of the soil is anywhere near the top of my concerns.



As for old versus new. Almost everyone I grew up with would prefer to live in Huntington Beach or Fountain Valley over Irvine. The only reason why they are considering Irvine homes is because they are newer. Most homes for sale in Huntington Beach were built at least 30 years ago. Whereas it's more like 15 years for Irvine homes. If you compare two 700K homes in HB and Irvine, the Irvine home would likely be bigger and newer. I think this just compensates for the fact that Irvine is more inland and less desirable. Please don't deny that fact given that all other factors are held constant, people prefer newer homes.
 
[quote author="hs_teacher" date=1213625141] If you compare two 700K homes in HB and Irvine, the Irvine home would likely be bigger and newer. </blockquote>


Um......



<img src="http://applesandowls.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/crap-detector.jpg" alt="" />
 
let me explain this for the last time. (this is more directed at AI. i don't mind debating with you so much, HS, since it's your reasoning that i disagree with but at least you have some.) i made a point earlier about real vs perceived risks. the perceived matters just as much as the real and the fact so many controversies exist should be a red flag about the developers involved. microsoft is constantly patching security flaws in windows, for example. even though they often catch the problem before the security holes get exploited. but that doesn't mean we let them off the hook for releasing buggy software full of holes.



secondly, whether or not you care about the soil, a lot of people do.



how times have we seen this post: <em>"hi, i'm about to close escrow on a home in [neighborhood] but then i found out [problem] and i'm having second thoughts."</em>



AI might want to bury his head in the sand and discount these people. people who care about landfills or toxic soil are just paranoid. people who have to send their kids to northwood are too overprotective. people who worry about the homeless facility are snobs. people who don't like newer homes are just stupid. so all these people are trolls whose aren't relevant homebuyers. but if you exclude all those people, guess what -- you're left with a much smaller group of buyers, which is exactly what VOC is facing. a quality product doesn't need to hide behind don't ask-don't tell.



playa vista in LA has been mired with similar controversy regarding methane. the big difference is the public and media has been all over that issue since the project began 10 yrs ago. anyone walking into a playa vista condo bldg can see clearly marked methane warnings and sensors. the debate between the developer who ensures the concerns are overblown and environmentalists and consumer advocates has been fierce but at least it's out in the open. homebuyers are making informed decisions and judge for themselves.



maybe that's the fault of OC media and culture. we want to act as if our homes and communities and finances are all perfect and flawless. we know that's far from the truth but those who decide to ask questions are criticized for disturbing the stepford wives balance. it's the same mentality that causes people to criticize IHB -- they just don't get that it's ok to have a free debate about housing.
 
<blockquote>As for old versus new. Almost everyone I grew up with would prefer to live in Huntington Beach or Fountain Valley over Irvine.</blockquote>


because irvine had not been developed to the extent it is today. had nothing to do with newness.



<blockquote>The only reason why they are considering Irvine homes is because they are newer.</blockquote>


but wait, if irvine is newer now, it was newer back then too. but you just said people didn't prefer irvine in your childhood.



<blockquote>If you compare two 700K homes in HB and Irvine, the Irvine home would likely be bigger and newer.</blockquote>


hmm... so irvine homes are bigger and newer. desirability must be linked to being newer. what about being bigger? maybe that has something to do with it? hmm... naaah...



newer is better also doesnt explain why as irvine continues to develop more and more new housing, one of the original communities, turtle rock, gets more and more desirable. as they continue to develop newport coast, the older parts of newport beach become more and more desirable. older homes in the ungated Port Streets neighborhood are more expensive than in the relatively-new, gated, Bonita Canyon neighborhood. 50 yr-old homes built in villa park are more expensive than 5 yr old homes in serrano heights. cowan and lemon heights is more expensive than tustin ranch. floral park is a hundred times more desirable than any of those wacky new projects in santa ana.
 
acp - let me first say that i totally understand and agree with what you are saying. but, the perspective you have is what a developer has to worry about, having a larger buyer pool. and yes, with these disclosures, there is definitely a potential the buyers pool is smaller. having said that, at this current moment, the buyers pool is smaller because of the downturn in home prices, NOT because of the "toxic" soil. do you agree? if you were to lower the home prices by another 25%, wouldn't you think all the homes would be bought up in Columbus Square?



so the issue of toxic soil looms in the background for the individual homeowner.

how dangerous is it?

how are people affected?

proof?

the experts dont know, the bloggers dont know, and he/she doesnt know!



On a side note, what is the pool of cigarette buyers? There's a surgeon's warning on the box.

We know how dangerous it is.

We know how it affects people.

We have proof.

the experts know, the bloggers know, and you and i know.



So it comes down to money doesnt it? For the right HIGH or PRICE, we can risk it?



[quote author="acpme" date=1213655595]let me explain this for the last time. (this is more directed at AI. i don't mind debating with you so much, HS, since it's your reasoning that i disagree with but at least you have some.) i made a point earlier about real vs perceived risks. the perceived matters just as much as the real and the fact so many controversies exist should be a red flag about the developers involved. microsoft is constantly patching security flaws in windows, for example. even though they often catch the problem before the security holes get exploited. but that doesn't mean we let them off the hook for releasing buggy software full of holes.



secondly, whether or not you care about the soil, a lot of people do.



how times have we seen this post: <em>"hi, i'm about to close escrow on a home in [neighborhood] but then i found out [problem] and i'm having second thoughts."</em>



AI might want to bury his head in the sand and discount these people. people who care about landfills or toxic soil are just paranoid. people who have to send their kids to northwood are too overprotective. people who worry about the homeless facility are snobs. people who don't like newer homes are just stupid. so all these people are trolls whose aren't relevant homebuyers. but if you exclude all those people, guess what -- you're left with a much smaller group of buyers, which is exactly what VOC is facing. a quality product doesn't need to hide behind don't ask-don't tell.



playa vista in LA has been mired with similar controversy regarding methane. the big difference is the public and media has been all over that issue since the project began 10 yrs ago. anyone walking into a playa vista condo bldg can see clearly marked methane warnings and sensors. the debate between the developer who ensures the concerns are overblown and environmentalists and consumer advocates has been fierce but at least it's out in the open. homebuyers are making informed decisions and judge for themselves.



maybe that's the fault of OC media and culture. we want to act as if our homes and communities and finances are all perfect and flawless. we know that's far from the truth but those who decide to ask questions are criticized for disturbing the stepford wives balance. it's the same mentality that causes people to criticize IHB -- they just don't get that it's ok to have a free debate about housing.</blockquote>
 
New is not better. I will take an older home over a new home anytime. Here are the reasons why:



Old homes were built by craftsmen using properly kiln dried hardwood designed by architects.

New homes are built by unskilled laborers using twisted wet lumber designed by cookie cutter chefs.



Most Asians from oversea prefer new homes because of Feng Shui issues. Resales often mean the sellers are in financial, family, health, marriage, or other unpleasant hardships so most Asians tend to aviod buying "used" homes. The "banana"(yellow outside and white inside) generation prefers the classic homes and neighborhoods regardless of the home's age.



[quote author="asianinvasian" date=1213490177][quote author="jbatzmaru" date=1213444882][quote author="hs_teacher" date=1213428181]Values of living in a new condo versus renting:



1. The garage is new. You never have to worry about dealing with the previous resident's oil or dirt. It's so new you can sleep in it - I wouldn't though.

2. The laundry is new. You don't have to wash your clothes in machines that have washed who knows what from whom.

3. The bathroom is brand spanking new. Yes you'll be the first person to take a dump in it.

4. The kithchen is new. You don't have to worry about previous grease or trash.

5. The living/dining is typical.

6. The bedroom is new. You don't have to worry about previous bodily fluids stains.



I enjoy living in an older place if it's in a nice area. But I don't see any problems with living in a brand new home either.</blockquote>




HS- did you recently bought a condo in the area? i see you been defending Columbus grove and columbus square alot lately...</blockquote>


It is common sense that new is better. The only people that disagree are the bitter renters trolling internet forums who can only afford homes built in the 50's, or no home at all, and those who own those homes. They will do anything to make themselves feel better, including making up controversies of toxicity and what not.</blockquote>
 
rick, great questions... i guess it's hard to say given the downturn has thrown a wrench into our sample. if OH, LC, WB East hadn't been delayed maybe we'd have a better comparison.



so yes, it ultimately comes down to price per unit of risk. unfortunately for VOC, the avg person tends to consider the unknown as riskier. swimming pools the 2nd leading cause of children under 4. but we're familiar with them and think we can control the risk. we consider that a plus to our home even though statistically it's a negative.



on the other hand, an ex-con neighbor is something we're unfamiliar with and therefore very frightening. we don't know what the guy might do so we rate that as a higher risk, even though the odds of the person kicking down your door and attacking your family while you're having dinner is probably zero. so how people value risk isn't necessarily going to be rational. is that fair to VOC? maybe not... but it just is. and if those who really are fond of the area want to support the master plan coming to fruition, they need to encourage, not discourage, discussion.
 
[quote author="acpme" date=1213620511][quote author="asianinvasian" date=1213490177]It is common sense that new is better. The only people that disagree are the bitter renters trolling internet forums who can only afford homes built in the 50's, or no home at all, and those who own those homes. They will do anything to make themselves feel better, including making up controversies of toxicity and what not.</blockquote>


now its completely obvious you're a sales agent at one of the new home developments. new is not better. well-built and well-designed is better regardless of when it was built.



living in woodbury, i do think the curb appeal of sparkling new communities has some value. but i'm also honest enough with myself to admit some of these new neighborhoods will have a hard time maintaining their desirability in the future. they're new and dense. in the future, they'll be old and dense. not a good combo. that's why old money neighborhoods (see what bkshopr posted about pedigree homes) maintain their value in the long run.</blockquote>


You are comparing apples to oranges.



Again, the attention span here is so short it's impossible to hold a conversation.



Is an older home in Beverly Hills better than a new home in South Central? This is common sense dude.
 
[quote author="asianinvasian" date=1213659047][quote author="acpme" date=1213620511][quote author="asianinvasian" date=1213490177]It is common sense that new is better. The only people that disagree are the bitter renters trolling internet forums who can only afford homes built in the 50's, or no home at all, and those who own those homes. They will do anything to make themselves feel better, including making up controversies of toxicity and what not.</blockquote>


now its completely obvious you're a sales agent at one of the new home developments. new is not better. well-built and well-designed is better regardless of when it was built.



living in woodbury, i do think the curb appeal of sparkling new communities has some value. but i'm also honest enough with myself to admit some of these new neighborhoods will have a hard time maintaining their desirability in the future. they're new and dense. in the future, they'll be old and dense. not a good combo. that's why old money neighborhoods (see what bkshopr posted about pedigree homes) maintain their value in the long run.</blockquote>


You are comparing apples to oranges.



Again, the attention span here is so short it's impossible to hold a conversation.



Is an older home in Beverly Hills better than a new home in South Central? This is common sense dude.</blockquote>


Lets stay within the same city. An older Victorian by Main and B street in Old Town Tustin has a lot more charm, character and is a better built structure than any new homes built on the Tustin Base. Yes the mom and pop businesses are not as well stocked as the brick and mortar retail boxes at the Legacy but they know you by name and they go out of the way to stock your favorite items. Our identity and individuality are lost in Stepford. How are we different from a number on the cattle? I missed the days when we knew or butcher or retailers that keep our best interest in mind. Yes, I am an idealist and new urbanist.
 
[quote author="asianinvasian" date=1213659047]

You are comparing apples to oranges. Again, the attention span here is so short it's impossible to hold a conversation. Is an older home in Beverly Hills better than a new home in South Central? This is common sense dude.</blockquote>


apples to oranges. short attention span eh? maybe you didn't just read my post in which i gave several examples of new vs old in the same community.



newport harbor vs newport coast

port streets vs bonita canyon

tustin heights vs tustin ranch

vp vs serrano heights

turtle rock vs anything in irvine built since 2000



those are all fair comparisons and not nearly on the level of beverly hills vs south central.
 
[quote author="acpme" date=1213660536][quote author="asianinvasian" date=1213659047]

You are comparing apples to oranges. Again, the attention span here is so short it's impossible to hold a conversation. Is an older home in Beverly Hills better than a new home in South Central? This is common sense dude.</blockquote>


apples to oranges. short attention span eh? maybe you didn't just read my post in which i gave several examples of new vs old in the same community.



newport harbor vs newport coast

port streets vs bonita canyon

tustin heights vs tustin ranch

vp vs serrano heights

turtle rock vs anything in irvine built since 2000



those are all fair comparisons and not nearly on the level of beverly hills vs south central.</blockquote>


I would not trust this guy in selling me a home. BTW I just had lunch with the General's left hand guy at the Pacific Club the other day. Dude, you are at the bottom of the totem pole at the Lyon's operation.
 
How about some real examples okay. Out of all the people I know who moved to Irvine, I asked why they didn't choose Fountain Valley? Their answer... Irvine is newer.

Many, many, many people prefere buying a newer house so they don't have to worry about the roof or the pipes or the plumbing.

What do people ask when they buy a house???



1. How much is it?

2. How big is it?

3. How old is it?



And from my very basic reasoning older is always considered negative.



Another specific story, I know a family who moved to Corona del Mar. They're currently renting a home valued at $1.7 million. They're also looking for a home to buy. This is exactly what they said they are looking for... "We like the location, but we prefer something bigger and newer".



By the way, although Turtle Rock is desirable, I've actually gone to a friend's party in one of the houses there. Even the owners complain that the house was rather old.

I have another friend who lives in College Park in Irvine, he said that although his house is "older", he still likes it.

Point is, older is always used in a negative way.



And another point, you cannot compared Newport Harbor to Newport Coast. People who like Newport Harbor prefer being on the water. People who prefer Newport Coast prefer the bigger and newer homes.



As for Tustin Heights, you actually have nice views from being on the hills. Tustin Ranch is more in the valley.



Better comparisons would be comparing the older homes around Irvine High and Woodbridge High, versus the newer homes around Northwood High. In this case, you don't have the hills or the coast to skew the data. And guess what? Newer homes around Northwood High are much more expensive than older homes around Irvine or Woodbridge.



No, you are not comparing apples to apples when there is a significant location premium between the older homes and the newer homes.



Another example, in Fountain Valley, where's there's no hills or ocean, a new 3,000 s.f. home sold for $1 million dollars. A comparable sized home in the same neighborhood that is 30 years old sold for $800,000. Same city, same neighborhood, no location discrepancy - the difference in new and old is $200,000.00



Another example, a home in Westminster built in 1960 sold for 580K. A house across the street (less than 1/2 mile a way) built in 1995 sold for 680K. Hym?? I wonder why a buyer would pay $100K for a house just across the street? I'm thinking it's maybe because the house is 25 YEARS younger.
 
I'll say it again, I do not own.



But I am seriously considering buying an older condo in Fountain Valley - a location I prefer, or buying a newer condo in Tustin/Irvine.

As of now, I still prefer an older condo in FV. But I'm not narrow-minded enough to say... older is better than newer.

I know a lot of people who have debated whether to buy an older house in OC, or a brand new one in Corona.

The dispute is... is it better to have newer home in a far location? or an older one in a close location?

It's almost nonsensical for me to hear people disputing the inherent values of new.

I'm seriously beginning to see how very unobjective some of the people on this blog are.
 
I don't disagree with you as much as I did when I posted the crap detector picture. We won't be hugs and kisses, but I don't disagree.



Thank you for clarifing your stance on the issue.
 
i know this thread moved but i wanted to comment on a few things here.



<blockquote>How about some real examples okay. Out of all the people I know who moved to Irvine, I asked why they didn't choose Fountain Valley? Their answer... Irvine is newer.</blockquote>


i would never consider fountain valley over irvine, and it would have nothing to do with newness. i am moved to irvine within the last 5 yrs and it had everything to do with location and convenience. plus that's sort of an odd question. why didnt you ask, "what drew you to irvine vs other areas?" as opposed to irvine vs ftn valley specifically. or even better question, "what drew you to the new home in irvine vs an older home?"



<span style="color: blue;">believe it or not, during the bubble most existing homes were marked up higher than newer homes from the builder.</span> landscaping, upgrades, and mello roos often even out the numbers, but many buyers didn't add that up. that drew a lot of buyers toward new.



<blockquote>Better comparisons would be comparing the older homes around Irvine High and Woodbridge High, versus the newer homes around Northwood High. In this case, you don't have the hills or the coast to skew the data. And guess what? Newer homes around Northwood High are much more expensive than older homes around Irvine or Woodbridge.</blockquote>


<span style="color: blue;">and yet even older homes in turtle rock command even higher premium. </span> you left out something even though you mentioned it -- schools.



<blockquote>Another example, a home in Westminster built in 1960 sold for 580K. A house across the street (less than 1/2 mile a way) built in 1995 sold for 680K. Hym?? I wonder why a buyer would pay $100K for a house just across the street? I'm thinking it's maybe because the house is 25 YEARS younger.

</blockquote>


maybe because neighborhoods of westsinister built in the 60s are slowly turning into ghettos. newer developments in that area, or individual homes that were completely rebuilt, indicate more wealth, i.e. better neighborhood. hymmm?



<blockquote>Another specific story, I know a family who moved to Corona del Mar. They're currently renting a home valued at $1.7 million. They're also looking for a home to buy. This is exactly what they said they are looking for... "We like the location, but we prefer something bigger and newer".

And another point, you cannot compared Newport Harbor to Newport Coast. People who like Newport Harbor prefer being on the water. People who prefer Newport Coast prefer the bigger and newer homes.</blockquote>


wow... who are your friends that want to leave cdm for something newer? i'd like to know what's going on in the brains of those people you're citing. the older 92660 area code has seen steady prices whereas the newer 92657 (NC) is suffering. that's the market talking, not my opinion. and when i say newport harbor, i don't just mean homes right on the water. obviously those are a handful of extremely rare properties. i also mean the homes in the heights and and bluff areas. i'm comparing hilltop properties in cdm and old newport with newport coast. guess what -- those older homes are like heirlooms as bk called it. old money families that live there are not dumb enough to every move no matter how old those homes get and would not trade their charming homes for a persian palace in NC. in fact, if you look up where the wealthiest oc families live, they are in places like old newport, laguna, nellie gail, and peralta hills (anaheim hills). almost none of them except new money foreigners, real estate hot shots, athletes, and the hot pockets guy live in NC.



ok, i'm starting to pick up on a trend here...



<blockquote>Many, many, many people prefer buying a newer house so they don't have to worry about the roof or the pipes or the plumbing.</blockquote>


now i completely understand. you're correlating desirability with newness. <span style="color: blue;">but your examples are all based on fountain valley, westminister, hb, irvine. anyone want to bet on how the demographics of his sample size might be skewed? </span>



so you might be finding high correlation with desirability and newness, but it does not mean there's causal effect. now if you take your poll and move it into dove canyon, trabuco canyon, ladera, and rancho margarita, then ask the people who live there whether new house/new neighborhood is better than the old ones, you'll have a MUCH different answer.



btw no need to call people out for being unobjective when you don't understand what they're saying. i have never said older is automatically better than newer. i am saying that other factors in desirability usually outweigh new vs old. your objective stance is based on a few demographically-unique areas, and holding all things equal (even though your sample of opinions is already tainted), you say newer is ALWAYS better. yes, very objective indeed.
 
Umm... South County is all about newness. Isn't that a universal fact? People from older North County moved to newer South County such as Ladera, Coto, Mission Viejo, Foothill Ranch, Aliso Viejo, Laguna Niguel, etc. because it's newer. South County is all about being new versus North County. As for Newport Harbor, whether you're on the water or on the bluffs, you're still minutes from the bay or the ocean. Not so much if you're living in Newport Coast.
 
[quote author="hs_teacher" date=1213747923]Umm... South County is all about newness. Isn't that a universal fact? People from older North County moved to newer South County such as Ladera, Coto, Mission Viejo, Foothill Ranch, Aliso Viejo, Laguna Niguel, etc. because it's newer. South County is all about being new versus North County. As for Newport Harbor, whether you're on the water or on the bluffs, you're still minutes from the bay or the ocean. Not so much if you're living in Newport Coast.</blockquote>


let the OC register draw if out for you.



<img src="http://www.ocregister.com/newsimages/money/2008/01/15homeprices07_lg.gif" alt="" />



in almost all cases the greenest zip codes are neighborhood in which the neighborhoods are older. there have been no new major developments in most of those zips for almost 10-15 yrs. the only exception might be newport coast, but it still didn't hold value better than older newport. (btw 92660 does not have better access to the beach than 92657.) anyone who lived in those neighborhoods would have been stupid to move into a nearby area with newer homes.



imagine if all these families traded their old homes for shiny new ones.



lake forest/foothill ranch to ladera/coto = lost money

old newport/balboa to newport coast = lost money

villa park to orange hills/cv heights/serrano heights = lost money

old tustin/santa ana to tustin ranch or irvine = lost money

laguna niguel to aliso viejo = lost money

san juan capistrano to talega = lost money

even though all of irvine is in the red, even moving from older irvine to newer irvine = lost money



<strong>so if losing money is better, then i guess you're right. newer is better.</strong>
 
Really don't want to argue the other points. But Newport Harbor is 92663...that's where "Newport Harbor" High is located. With the bay and the beach, you're always close to water. 92660 is East Bluff and Newport North. It is not "Newport Harbor" - it doesn't even touch the harbor. By the way, I've been kayaking in Newport Harbor dozens of times. And I know exactly why each and every home with a boat tied to its dock is worth a lot. 92657 is Newport Coast. But most of the houses are way up on the hills. Newport Coast basically touches Irvine at Turtle Ridge. From there to the water, you need to drive Newport Coast Drive all the way down to PCH. To recap... Newport Harbor - houses with boats tied to their dock. Newport Coast - houses on top of the hills with views of the coast. My cousin's boss lives in Newport Coast and we know exactly how inland and uphill it is.
 
wow, what are you even commenting about? it's frustrating because you often seem to be staring right at the answer, sometimes even mentioning it, yet fail to acknowledge it. case in point, you just mentioned what the right neighborhoods in 92660 are.



here's how i think about that:

1) 92660 = east bluffs and newport north

2) think about the age of those communities

3) think about the age of the comp (92657)

4) look at the home values map

5) draw conclusion



you got to step 1 then went off on a rant about zip codes and houses with docks in newport harbor and how well you know newport coast because your cousin's boss lives there. let's go through it again using another simpler example using your own statements.



<blockquote>Better comparisons would be comparing the older homes around Irvine High and Woodbridge High, versus the newer homes around Northwood High. </blockquote>


good... let's just take two variables -- age and schools. so we're estimating:

<span style="color: blue;"> home_value = age + school + E <em>(other variables)</em></span>



<blockquote>In this case, you don?t have the hills or the coast to skew the data.</blockquote>


good... try to normalize the data sample by isolating the two desired variables...

<span style="color: blue;"> home_value = age + school <em> (E has now been eliminated)</em></span>

you're on the right track...



<blockquote>And guess what? Newer homes around Northwood High are much more expensive than older homes around Irvine or Woodbridge.</blockquote>


your conclusion: <span style="color: blue;">home_value = age? </span> DOH! what happened to impact of schools? what if you used turtle rock in the equation??



--



so going back to the topic at hand... you conveniently ignored everything relevant but gave an excellent postman's tour of newport beach. fine, newport harbor high is in 92663. it's on the eastern most point of 92663 on irvine ave. to the west of irvine ave is costa mesa, to the south of the school is newport beach. to the east of irvine ave is westcliff, also newport beach, and in 92660. most homes in that area are from the 60s. ditto with east bluffs. 92660 extends as far east as port streets developed in the 70s. bonita canyon and parts of newport north are newer. they are all inland from the ocean. some of have views of the ocean or bay, just as some homes in newport coast have ocean views. but these neighborhoods are anywhere from 10-50 yrs old yet retained value better than newport coast which has nothing older than 10-15 yrs.



example -- right next to the port streets to the east you have newport ridge, then turtle ridge. higher hilltop locations and homes on avg newer by 30 yrs, yet the premium for those homes relative to port streets drops.



any explanation as to how this 40 yr old home with no view can ask the same price as bigger homes in turtle ridge with views that feed into uni high?

<a href="http://www.redfin.com/CA/Newport-Beach/1827-Port-Charles-Pl-92660/home/4717314">http://www.redfin.com/CA/Newport-Beach/1827-Port-Charles-Pl-92660/home/4717314</a>



any explanation? i'm sure you debunk me with great insights from your friend's cousin's friend's coworker who likes turtle ridge better than port streets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top