How Long Will It Take To Build Out Columbus Square?

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
[quote author="jcaraway" date=1214188652]CEQA requirements and the state of california have very stringent environmental requirements. Reading any of these reports, even a negative declaration, could paint a dire picture in the mind of anyone, especially the paranoid, alarmist, milita members that post on this forum. Any VoC that were deteced in the ground were going to be a result of the air traffic regardless of the amount. UST's were obviously used to store fuel and more likely than not, a few of those leaked, any maintanence and disposal of oil will cause it. Though VoC's may be higher than acceptable standards, those standards are guaged over a lifetime and are seperated from residents by a thick layer of concrete, moisture barier and if the builder was paranoid, a vapor barier.



A civil engineer that does structures isn't much of a civil engieer given that they are only licensed to do basic type v homes and walls no taller than a bush.</blockquote>


Liquid Boot the residential site would help but I doubt the builders went to that expense.
 
Environmental risk needs to be separated into two categories. <em>Actual</em> risk and <em>perceived</em> risk. I am a Civil/Environmental Engineer. Given the available information on the remediation of the former Tustin MCAS, I would not consider there to be much (if any) excess actual risk to residents. (By "excess" I mean a risk above that which we all encounter in our everyday lives.) If I was in the market to buy, I would not be concerned about the actual risk if I purchased a home there. But I would not be hesitant to use the perceived risk to help me negotiate a discounted price. Of course, when it was time to sell, I would have to expect the same tactic from the prospective buyer. In a tight market, it would likely reduce the pool of prospective buyers. Fear and doubt supecedes knowledge and facts.



BTW, the SR-71 ran on JP-7, not JP-5. http://www.sr-71.org/blackbird/sr-71/

JP-7 had a higher boiling point.
 
I know a couple who bought a new condo for 600K. It's only worth 500K now. I know another couple who bought a condo for 200K. It's worth 300K now.

Yes, in life sometime you win.. like buying in 2002. Other times you lose... like buying in 2006.



What really bothers me is someone who will never buy in an area - Tustin Legacy - yet spend so much time researching and attacking it.

Look buddy, you have no vested interest in the area - you're not a builder, you're not a lender, you're not a seller, you're not even a prospective buyer.

Do you not have a life?



However, after spending some time through this blog, I figured that I will likely settle in:



Westminster - although not the best place in the OC, it actually has some really good schools on the east side.

Huntington - the beach.

Fountain Valley - although BK may think it's lower income, data states that FV is very middle income, with average priced homes, and great schools.



To me, the greatest thing about living in OC is being close the cooler weather along the coast as well as being close to family and friends.

But when I have children, I also understand the values of living close good schools.



I would stay away from Costa Mesa because of it's poor schools. Meaning, it's good to live there for now, but not so much 10 years from now.

I would stay away from Newport because I'll never be able to afford it. You just have to know your limits.

As for Tustin, it's great that they have all these new homes, but it's definitely too inland.

Irvine may have excellent schools and beautiful homes, but I think it's an ideal place for new residents.

For people like me, who already have roots in other cities, it's not worth it.
 
do they have a life? apparently yes. we have some fine folks here who apparently spend their lives working in engineering, architectural, RE fields coming together with people who have a hobby, interest, maybe even a motive in local housing. and on top of that some prospective buyers as well. all these people coming together to share their opinions on a major project and it's wonderful to watch the discussion unfold. no matter the contentious discussions we've had, i always find the differing viewpoint fascinating whether i agree, somewhat disagree, or find it outright outlandish. but i have to admit i enjoy the debate.



you don't have to be a potential buyer to care about legacy. <em>you're not interested, therefore you shouldn't care </em> is IMO a much worse and potentially and dangerous attitude. it's much harder to dig deeper (no pun intended) into the issues concerning VoC than to take information as given and criticize those who question it. it may turn out to be nothing, or it might turn out to save a few families a whole lot of financial and personal heartbreak. either way i don't see why anyone except those who make a commission off selling homes at VoC would have an interest in bashing the valuable, time-consuming work these consumer advocates are basically willing to undertake for us.



i deal with this almost on a daily basis in the financial markets. there's a whole lot of people who have an incentive to push the positive, from the talking heads on cnbc to politicians to your financial advisor. those who ask hard questions which the market has no good answer for (and there's a lot of those questions these days) usually get the response is usually, "why you gotta say that??" and yet every time the mess gets worse, everybody looks back and points fingers at those who were in the know for not being viligant enough.
 
As someone who couldn't gvie 2 squirts about this housing development, I will say this: I read through the 200 or so page report on this land, along with the statements given by the workers who supposedly buried those toxic chemicals on the site, and no matter how many 'assurances' I was given, I would never, ever, ever, ever, ever live there. Especially if I had children. The price wouldn't even matter - you CANNOT PUT A PRICETAG ON THE HEALTH OF YOUR FAMILY.



It just comes down to this: Why take the risk? There are TONS of homes available in other areas that range from 30 seconds - 5 minutes away from there... why take a chance? It isn't logical.



Hell, if I didn't work in the real estate world, I'd be amazed they sold any of these! But working in real estate, you quickly learn how short-sighted and stupid most folks are...



I'll say it one last time, just to be clear - if the house was made of gold, and they were selling it for $100,000, I still wouldn't live there. If ANYTHING happened to my family as a result, I just couldn't handle it.



IMHO, this area = 0 value, 0 resale value.



Done and done. Disagree if you like.
 
I looked at VOC (both sides, Irvine and Tustin) when they first were selling. I never liked it because of the density, the dust, and the neighboring businesses on the Irvine side.



After reading all the posts on IHB, I'm very, very glad to have not purchased anything there. The problems with toxicity, either real or potential, bothers the hell out of me. There's no way I would ever, ever live there or buy there. The fact that there are residential homes in that area at all is very troubling to me and for the life of me, I don't understand how anyone in their right mind could move there, especially if they have children.
 
LOL. I've said the same thing about Woodbury and Northpark. I've gotten headaches driving around there. There are too many homes crowded together and the streets are not big enough. It's a personal issue for me since I think some people are fine with it.



To be honest, I do have a problem with the toxic talk. I posted a thread asking for future plans of Columbus Square and most of the posts are about what's underground...the same goes for the other threads about Columbus Square, they all head back to the the toxic soil.



Out of everything you have to consider in home purchasing, neighbors? schools? neighborhood? future development?

Now I have to worry about what's underground?



I think I'm going to pass on Columbus Square!





[quote author="Anon." date=1214264498]I looked at VOC (both sides, Irvine and Tustin) when they first were selling. I never liked it because of the density, the dust, and the neighboring businesses on the Irvine side.



After reading all the posts on IHB, I'm very, very glad to have not purchased anything there. The problems with toxicity, either real or potential, bothers the hell out of me. There's no way I would ever, ever live there or buy there. The fact that there are residential homes in that area at all is very troubling to me and for the life of me, I don't understand how anyone in their right mind could move there, especially if they have children.</blockquote>
 
Anon: I disagree. If I was in the market now for a home like those offered at Columbus Square, I <em>would</em> seriously consider this development, or any other on the old Tustin base. I am comfortable in my assessment that the actual risk is so small as to be unmeasurable. But I wouldn't expect to pay top dollar. Nor would I expect a quick sale, or to receive top dollar, when I eventually sold the property.
 
[quote author="hs_teacher" date=1214228875]I know a couple who bought a new condo for 600K. It's only worth 500K now. I know another couple who bought a condo for 200K. It's worth 300K now.

Yes, in life sometime you win.. like buying in 2002. Other times you lose... like buying in 2006.



What really bothers me is someone who will never buy in an area - Tustin Legacy - yet spend so much time researching and attacking it.

Look buddy, you have no vested interest in the area - you're not a builder, you're not a lender, you're not a seller, you're not even a prospective buyer.

Do you not have a life?



However, after spending some time through this blog, I figured that I will likely settle in:



Westminster - although not the best place in the OC, it actually has some really good schools on the east side.

Huntington - the beach.

Fountain Valley - although BK may think it's lower income, data states that FV is very middle income, with average priced homes, and great schools.

To me, the greatest thing about living in OC is being close the cooler weather along the coast as well as being close to family and friends.

But when I have children, I also understand the values of living close good schools.



I would stay away from Costa Mesa because of it's poor schools. Meaning, it's good to live there for now, but not so much 10 years from now.

I would stay away from Newport because I'll never be able to afford it. You just have to know your limits.

As for Tustin, it's great that they have all these new homes, but it's definitely too inland.

Irvine may have excellent schools and beautiful homes, but I think it's an ideal place for new residents.

For people like me, who already have roots in other cities, it's not worth it.</blockquote>




FV is not lower income. I was referring to Westminster being an immigrant community and Asian students living in the lower income area of OC also excel in the area of academic which placed one of the school among the upper tier mentioned earlier on the list. FV is a moved up community for Vietnamese as well as HB for the well off immigrants and their families.



FV however does have mature population who are currently working but soon to be reaching retirement. Their salary is peaked at their jobs (most likely for companies or government with pension plans) but not enough to match the median income of neighboring wealthier cities. For a city of this age and yet the constant population sustained for primary and secondary schools is an indication of the offspring families are living closed to the grand parents or home price is still reasonable for family with young or teen kids.



Boomers location along the 405 is a good indicator of the population near by.



Sorry for the temporary derailment.
 
[quote author="GoIllini" date=1214267558]Anon: I disagree. If I was in the market now for a home like those offered at Columbus Square, I <em>would</em> seriously consider this development, or any other on the old Tustin base. I am comfortable in my assessment that the actual risk is so small as to be unmeasurable. But I wouldn't expect to pay top dollar. Nor would I expect a quick sale, or to receive top dollar, when I eventually sold the property.</blockquote>


I'm not willing to take the chance that the actual risk is small when there are family members involved. No way. It's hard for me to believe that the risk is really that small, considering all the junk that actually got into the ground there. No thanks, I'll pass, even if the homes were discounted in some way.



What's the point of buying a property like that? If you needed or wanted to sell in the future, why wouldn't you want a quick sale or receive top dollar? And who says you would even be able to sell it, especially after buyers read all those disclosures you would legally have to make?
 
[quote author="Anon." date=1214274975][quote author="GoIllini" date=1214267558]Anon: I disagree. If I was in the market now for a home like those offered at Columbus Square, I <em>would</em> seriously consider this development, or any other on the old Tustin base. I am comfortable in my assessment that the actual risk is so small as to be unmeasurable. But I wouldn't expect to pay top dollar. Nor would I expect a quick sale, or to receive top dollar, when I eventually sold the property.</blockquote>


I'm not willing to take the chance that the actual risk is small when there are family members involved. No way. It's hard for me to believe that the risk is really that small, considering all the junk that actually got into the ground there. No thanks, I'll pass, even if the homes were discounted in some way.



What's the point of buying a property like that? If you needed or wanted to sell in the future, why wouldn't you want a quick sale or receive top dollar? And who says you would even be able to sell it, especially after buyers read all those disclosures you would legally have to make?</blockquote>


That is precisely the point! The price of INCENTIVE REDUCTION=POTENTIAL FAMILY HEALTH RISK. I am surprised to see that family is worth so little.



AsianInvasion, please take me off the black list so I can buy the cookie cutter box that I dreamed all my life for and I also can finally can get rid of my family by exposing them potential unproven health risk.
 
[quote author="Anon." date=1214274975]

I'm not willing to take the chance that the actual risk is small when there are family members involved. No way. It's hard for me to believe that the risk is really that small, considering all the junk that actually got into the ground there. No thanks, I'll pass, even if the homes were discounted in some way.

</blockquote>


Then you might want to keep your family in a bubble, don't drive, don't fly, and become hermits. There is more risk involved in just driving than what's in the ground in VoC. If you are really that concerned then don't leave your house!
 
[quote author="Anon." date=1214274975][quote author="GoIllini" date=1214267558]Anon: I disagree. If I was in the market now for a home like those offered at Columbus Square, I <em>would</em> seriously consider this development, or any other on the old Tustin base. I am comfortable in my assessment that the actual risk is so small as to be unmeasurable. But I wouldn't expect to pay top dollar. Nor would I expect a quick sale, or to receive top dollar, when I eventually sold the property.</blockquote>


I'm not willing to take the chance that the actual risk is small when there are family members involved. No way. It's hard for me to believe that the risk is really that small, considering all the junk that actually got into the ground there. No thanks, I'll pass, even if the homes were discounted in some way.



What's the point of buying a property like that? If you needed or wanted to sell in the future, why wouldn't you want a quick sale or receive top dollar? And who says you would even be able to sell it, especially after buyers read all those disclosures you would legally have to make?</blockquote>


Of course, If I lived on a property that was previously contaminated and wanted to sell it, I would HOPE for a quick sale at a high price. But I would not count on it or be angry with people who did not want to live there. The price of my original offer to purchase would have to reflect that reduced expectation. As is demonstrated by comments by you and others (which are perfectly valid comments) the pool of potential buyers is smaller than if the property was untainted. But what some would consider a problem, others would consider an opportunity. The same would be true if there were two identical houses available, but one is rumored to be haunted. Since I don't believe in ghosts, I would not prefer one property over the other. But if the "haunted" house was available for a significantly lower price, then I'm moving in with Casper, the (hopefully) friendly ghost. :bug:
 
come on now that's just an exaggeration. this whole country was freaked out about tomatoes just days ago. if you're talking about pure objective risk, the last thing this artery-clogged population needs to be doing is pulling out the tiny bit of nutrition value left in a greasy burger. statistically irrational? maybe. but we all thought twice before taking a bite of raw tomato and so did most of the restaurant industry.
 
ocbuyer: I noticed you didn't address the resale factor I previously mentioned. As for your other remarks, I personally drive and fly on a regular basis without any fear. However, living in a property on a toxic waste area? No way.



GoIllini: I don't understand how anyone could think of a contaminated area of housing as an "opportunity." Sorry, but most people would probably consider possible or potential health risks more important than buying what appears to be a nice house.



Having lived in a haunted house in another state, I would prefer that anytime over a house built on contaminated soil. Most ghosts are pretty friendly and just do little annoying things here and there. ;-)
 
[quote author="Anon." date=1214281612]ocbuyer: I noticed you didn't address the resale factor I previously mentioned. As for your other remarks, I personally drive and fly on a regular basis without any fear. However, living in a property on a toxic waste area? No way.



GoIllini: I don't understand how anyone could think of a contaminated area of housing as an "opportunity." Sorry, but most people would probably consider possible or potential health risks more important than buying what appears to be a nice house.



Having lived in a haunted house in another state, I would prefer that anytime over a house built on contaminated soil. Most ghosts are pretty friendly and just do little annoying things here and there. ;-)</blockquote>


If I made a choice to live there it would be because of many factors like location, convenience, floor plans etc. Your assumption that there would be a smaller pool of buyers available when I wanted to sell is basically your opinion. There are plenty of people out there that would not be so over the top when analyzing the risks involved with every title aspect of living there or anywhere else. Even if I was to concede that there are quite a few out there who feel the same as you, how much longer do you think it would take to sell? Those homes are already lower than some of the other areas of Irvine so the pool of potential buyers able to purchase there is already conceivably higher.



You didn't seem to want to address the fact that getting in your car is far more dangerous than the perceived risk of anything in the ground there.
 
[quote author="ocbuyer" date=1214284127]If I made a choice to live there it would be because of many factors like location, convenience, floor plans etc. Your assumption that there would be a smaller pool of buyers available when I wanted to sell is basically your opinion. There are plenty of people out there that would not be so over the top when analyzing the risks involved with every title aspect of living there or anywhere else. Even if I was to concede that there are quite a few out there who feel the same as you, how much longer do you think it would take to sell? Those homes are already lower than some of the other areas of Irvine so the pool of potential buyers able to purchase there is already conceivably higher.



You didn't seem to want to address the fact that getting in your car is far more dangerous than the perceived risk of anything in the ground there.</blockquote>


Then go for it if it makes you feel better. I'm sure my opinion of the toxicity issue at VOC isn't a lone voice. So the pool of potential buyers might be a bigger one according to you, but once they see that disclosure, I'm sure many will think twice.



And about driving and the "perceived risk" - thank you, but I'd prefer to drive on our local freeways than live with toxic chemicals. I'd rather not live in VOC and find out that this is our local version of Love Canal.
 
[quote author="ocbuyer" date=1214284127]There are plenty of people out there that would not be so over the top when analyzing the risks involved with every title aspect of living there or anywhere else. </blockquote>


there are also people out there who aren't so over the top when analyzing whether they can make payments on a home. counting on the next buyer not doing their due diligence is like 2007 buyers hoping to flip to some greater fool that didn't realize prices were spiraling down. not exactly a good idea to rely on that.



besides, if there's anything we should be over the top in analyzing before purchasing i think a home is on the short list.
 
[quote author="Anon." date=1214285027][quote author="ocbuyer" date=1214284127]If I made a choice to live there it would be because of many factors like location, convenience, floor plans etc. Your assumption that there would be a smaller pool of buyers available when I wanted to sell is basically your opinion. There are plenty of people out there that would not be so over the top when analyzing the risks involved with every title aspect of living there or anywhere else. Even if I was to concede that there are quite a few out there who feel the same as you, how much longer do you think it would take to sell? Those homes are already lower than some of the other areas of Irvine so the pool of potential buyers able to purchase there is already conceivably higher.



You didn't seem to want to address the fact that getting in your car is far more dangerous than the perceived risk of anything in the ground there.</blockquote>


Then go for it if it makes you feel better. I'm sure my opinion of the toxicity issue at VOC isn't a lone voice. So the pool of potential buyers might be a bigger one according to you, but once they see that disclosure, I'm sure many will think twice.



And about driving and the "perceived risk" - thank you, but I'd prefer to drive on our local freeways than live with toxic chemicals. I'd rather not live in VOC and find out that this is our local version of Love Canal.</blockquote>


It doesn't matter if it makes me feel better or not... I'm not hear to make me feel better. I'm just presenting a different view... but thanks.



Hate to tell you this but you live with toxic chemicals everyday... it's called smog, or filling your tank or using cleaning chemicals etc.
 
[quote author="ocbuyer" date=1214286460][quote author="Anon." date=1214285027][quote author="ocbuyer" date=1214284127]If I made a choice to live there it would be because of many factors like location, convenience, floor plans etc. Your assumption that there would be a smaller pool of buyers available when I wanted to sell is basically your opinion. There are plenty of people out there that would not be so over the top when analyzing the risks involved with every title aspect of living there or anywhere else. Even if I was to concede that there are quite a few out there who feel the same as you, how much longer do you think it would take to sell? Those homes are already lower than some of the other areas of Irvine so the pool of potential buyers able to purchase there is already conceivably higher.



You didn't seem to want to address the fact that getting in your car is far more dangerous than the perceived risk of anything in the ground there.</blockquote>


Then go for it if it makes you feel better. I'm sure my opinion of the toxicity issue at VOC isn't a lone voice. So the pool of potential buyers might be a bigger one according to you, but once they see that disclosure, I'm sure many will think twice.



And about driving and the "perceived risk" - thank you, but I'd prefer to drive on our local freeways than live with toxic chemicals. I'd rather not live in VOC and find out that this is our local version of Love Canal.</blockquote>


It doesn't matter if it makes me feel better or not... I'm not hear to make me feel better. I'm just presenting a different view... but thanks.



Hate to tell you this but you live with toxic chemicals everyday... it's called smog, or filling your tank or using cleaning chemicals etc.</blockquote>
that's why many people don't want to add any more toxicity in their life
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top