SFV going downhill (Compton, Newport Beach, Lynwood: section 8, rental, mortgage)

[majoun]

Originally Posted by CBaillo

Open your eyes, the problems have spread way past the "problem areas" of the valley of 5 years ago.

I've noticed.
The part of North Hollywood by Vineland north of Magnolia used to be a perfectly decent neighborhood in the '90s, now it appears to be suffering from the same problems that 10 years ago only existed further north around Victory. It seems like the better parts of what was North Hollywood
are now separate neighborhoods - first "Valley Village", then "NoHo" and "West Toluca Lake", and what is still called North Hollywood has declined tremendously.

[CBaillo]

ya its a shame really but it happens to all areas. Take compton, ca. upscale white community in the 60's/70's...now look at it.

[Candid Canuck]

speaking of NoHo, any of you were near or in the bank in that shootout in '97?

[majoun]

Originally Posted by CBaillo

ya its a shame really but it happens to all areas. Take compton, ca. upscale white community in the 60's/70's...now look at it.

I did have friends who were originally from Compton and whose families left due to the changes. From what they told me, I don't think "upscale" would have been the right word to describe it except by comparison with what happened later. From what they told me, Compton before the '65 Watts Riots (which spurred on the changes) was working class,white/Latino, and functional unlike how it became later. (The Latinos in Compton today are recent immigrants and their children ; Compton's old Chicano community largely went to O.C. as did Compton's "whites" )

[montevista1]

Every place that is near a bad area realtors have changed so that it will avoid the stigma of a bad area.

There is Valley Glen, & Valley Village instead of Van Nuys & N. Hollywood & NOHO instead of N. Hollywood.

They are trying to seperate the good enclaves from the bad eventhough Valley Village is just a euphemism for N. hollywood.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by montevista1

Every place that is near a bad area realtors have changed so that it will avoid the stigma of a bad area.

There is Valley Glen, & Valley Village instead of Van Nuys & N. Hollywood & NOHO instead of N. Hollywood.

They are trying to seperate the good enclaves from the bad eventhough Valley Village is just a euphemism for N. hollywood.

It seems to me that North Hollywood has gotten worse SINCE "Valley Village", "Noho", and "West Toluca Lake" broke off - and that includes those parts of North Hollywood that were perfectly nice before but didn't get renamed by realtors. (The area of N.H. that I mentioned is immediately adjacent to "Noho")

However, this seems to be a Valley phenomenon more than on this side of the hill. The only example I can think of on this side of the hill is the "Westside Village" area of Palms trying to become part of Mar Vista instead, despite being east of the 405.

[montevista1]

The westside does not use these realtor euphemism because its the west side. The westside even if its a bad area is still considered a hot area because its in the west side.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by montevista1

The westside does not use these realtor euphemism because its the west side. The westside even if its a bad area is still considered a hot area because its in the west side.

There is the old "Beverly Hills Adjacent" euphemism, but most of the areas that are labeled as such aren't bad and many are quite nice. And there is the realtor tag on properties in the Oakwood area of Venice saying "5 blocks from beach".

[montevista1]

I lived near the bank in 97. The cops went to the gun shop by my apartment to load up on guns. The streets were closed. The area there is still bad, but they are selling condos for 375K down the street where you can't find a sign in English!

[jayolm]

I worked in the SF Valley for 5 years from 2000 - 2005, inspecting various properties from Calabasas to Burbank. 85% of the SF Valley is garbage, except the far west side (Calabasas, most of Woodland Hills, etc.) and parts of the north side (Chatsworth, Santa Clarita, etc.), like a previous poster mentioned. Even the so-called nice areas like Sherman Oaks and Woodland Hills have deteriorated, and I would never live in either one of those cities.

My belief is that due to significant home appreciation, 50 years from now the SF Valley, as a whole, will become somewhat nicer than what it currently is, although it will never fully return to as nice of an area as it used to be in the 1980's. Anybody thinking of moving to the SF Valley from another state, you'd better have a lot of $ to afford moving to the fringes of the Valley where its still nice, otherwise you risk living in, or very close to, a garbage neighborhood.