- This topic has 55 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 17 years ago by gold_dredger_phd.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 29, 2007 at 8:08 AM #11017November 29, 2007 at 8:30 AM #105061Alex_angelParticipant
California is a big state with a lot of people. So wtf does the article have to say? Places that are 150 miles inland that are selling homes at the same price as cities near the coast will go down, no doubt. Places like SF, the Bay area in general which were already high are still going up. Shitholes like Riverside county, San Bernardino should be worth 75% less than current value. San Diego was always underpriced. Its not worth today’s prices, but the 2001 prices were low compared to other areas in California.
November 29, 2007 at 8:30 AM #105150Alex_angelParticipantCalifornia is a big state with a lot of people. So wtf does the article have to say? Places that are 150 miles inland that are selling homes at the same price as cities near the coast will go down, no doubt. Places like SF, the Bay area in general which were already high are still going up. Shitholes like Riverside county, San Bernardino should be worth 75% less than current value. San Diego was always underpriced. Its not worth today’s prices, but the 2001 prices were low compared to other areas in California.
November 29, 2007 at 8:30 AM #105153Alex_angelParticipantCalifornia is a big state with a lot of people. So wtf does the article have to say? Places that are 150 miles inland that are selling homes at the same price as cities near the coast will go down, no doubt. Places like SF, the Bay area in general which were already high are still going up. Shitholes like Riverside county, San Bernardino should be worth 75% less than current value. San Diego was always underpriced. Its not worth today’s prices, but the 2001 prices were low compared to other areas in California.
November 29, 2007 at 8:30 AM #105185Alex_angelParticipantCalifornia is a big state with a lot of people. So wtf does the article have to say? Places that are 150 miles inland that are selling homes at the same price as cities near the coast will go down, no doubt. Places like SF, the Bay area in general which were already high are still going up. Shitholes like Riverside county, San Bernardino should be worth 75% less than current value. San Diego was always underpriced. Its not worth today’s prices, but the 2001 prices were low compared to other areas in California.
November 29, 2007 at 8:30 AM #105208Alex_angelParticipantCalifornia is a big state with a lot of people. So wtf does the article have to say? Places that are 150 miles inland that are selling homes at the same price as cities near the coast will go down, no doubt. Places like SF, the Bay area in general which were already high are still going up. Shitholes like Riverside county, San Bernardino should be worth 75% less than current value. San Diego was always underpriced. Its not worth today’s prices, but the 2001 prices were low compared to other areas in California.
November 29, 2007 at 12:52 PM #105142crParticipant“California is a big state with a lot of people. So wtf does the article have to say?”
It says “A U.S. Conference of Mayors report predicted a 16% decline for California home prices in 2008.”
And you’re wrong about SF:
Here’s the last 6 months of data as a percentage of 2000 from Case Schiller, all DOWN:
April 2007 211.47
May 2007 210.89
June 2007 209.48
July 2007 208.64
August 2007 208.15
September 2007 206.46SF has had a NET 5% decrease since May of 2006. It may not be much, but there goes the Super City theory.
By 2009 I expect a NET drop from the peak of 25-30%. There will be ups and downs the whole way, but it will continue for at least 5 more years.
November 29, 2007 at 12:52 PM #105293crParticipant“California is a big state with a lot of people. So wtf does the article have to say?”
It says “A U.S. Conference of Mayors report predicted a 16% decline for California home prices in 2008.”
And you’re wrong about SF:
Here’s the last 6 months of data as a percentage of 2000 from Case Schiller, all DOWN:
April 2007 211.47
May 2007 210.89
June 2007 209.48
July 2007 208.64
August 2007 208.15
September 2007 206.46SF has had a NET 5% decrease since May of 2006. It may not be much, but there goes the Super City theory.
By 2009 I expect a NET drop from the peak of 25-30%. There will be ups and downs the whole way, but it will continue for at least 5 more years.
November 29, 2007 at 12:52 PM #105270crParticipant“California is a big state with a lot of people. So wtf does the article have to say?”
It says “A U.S. Conference of Mayors report predicted a 16% decline for California home prices in 2008.”
And you’re wrong about SF:
Here’s the last 6 months of data as a percentage of 2000 from Case Schiller, all DOWN:
April 2007 211.47
May 2007 210.89
June 2007 209.48
July 2007 208.64
August 2007 208.15
September 2007 206.46SF has had a NET 5% decrease since May of 2006. It may not be much, but there goes the Super City theory.
By 2009 I expect a NET drop from the peak of 25-30%. There will be ups and downs the whole way, but it will continue for at least 5 more years.
November 29, 2007 at 12:52 PM #105234crParticipant“California is a big state with a lot of people. So wtf does the article have to say?”
It says “A U.S. Conference of Mayors report predicted a 16% decline for California home prices in 2008.”
And you’re wrong about SF:
Here’s the last 6 months of data as a percentage of 2000 from Case Schiller, all DOWN:
April 2007 211.47
May 2007 210.89
June 2007 209.48
July 2007 208.64
August 2007 208.15
September 2007 206.46SF has had a NET 5% decrease since May of 2006. It may not be much, but there goes the Super City theory.
By 2009 I expect a NET drop from the peak of 25-30%. There will be ups and downs the whole way, but it will continue for at least 5 more years.
November 29, 2007 at 12:52 PM #105237crParticipant“California is a big state with a lot of people. So wtf does the article have to say?”
It says “A U.S. Conference of Mayors report predicted a 16% decline for California home prices in 2008.”
And you’re wrong about SF:
Here’s the last 6 months of data as a percentage of 2000 from Case Schiller, all DOWN:
April 2007 211.47
May 2007 210.89
June 2007 209.48
July 2007 208.64
August 2007 208.15
September 2007 206.46SF has had a NET 5% decrease since May of 2006. It may not be much, but there goes the Super City theory.
By 2009 I expect a NET drop from the peak of 25-30%. There will be ups and downs the whole way, but it will continue for at least 5 more years.
November 29, 2007 at 1:51 PM #105314pertinazzioParticipantHey everybody
“California is a big state with a lot of people. So wtf does the article have to say?”
Angel, can you please explain that abbreviation? As I am not up on all the technical jargon.
QUOTE Shitholes like Riverside county, San Bernardino should be worth 75% less than current value. QUOTE
Please!! Scatological rhetoric is simply offensive and not worthy of you, Alex. I thought that this group would not be so pedestrian, so utterly ordinary that I would be reading commentary no more elevated than what we can hear among the bags of bones populating any 7-11 entrance. Shouldn’t this forum be striving for a G, or general audience, rating? Just my opinion! No offense to anyone is intended. It is just that I just don’t understand what this kind of language can add to our dialogs. Believe me, friend, it does not become you to write in such a manner!
Beatus ille qui procul negotiis … paterna rura bobus exercet suis, solutus omni fenore….. Horace
November 29, 2007 at 1:51 PM #105290pertinazzioParticipantHey everybody
“California is a big state with a lot of people. So wtf does the article have to say?”
Angel, can you please explain that abbreviation? As I am not up on all the technical jargon.
QUOTE Shitholes like Riverside county, San Bernardino should be worth 75% less than current value. QUOTE
Please!! Scatological rhetoric is simply offensive and not worthy of you, Alex. I thought that this group would not be so pedestrian, so utterly ordinary that I would be reading commentary no more elevated than what we can hear among the bags of bones populating any 7-11 entrance. Shouldn’t this forum be striving for a G, or general audience, rating? Just my opinion! No offense to anyone is intended. It is just that I just don’t understand what this kind of language can add to our dialogs. Believe me, friend, it does not become you to write in such a manner!
Beatus ille qui procul negotiis … paterna rura bobus exercet suis, solutus omni fenore….. Horace
November 29, 2007 at 1:51 PM #105257pertinazzioParticipantHey everybody
“California is a big state with a lot of people. So wtf does the article have to say?”
Angel, can you please explain that abbreviation? As I am not up on all the technical jargon.
QUOTE Shitholes like Riverside county, San Bernardino should be worth 75% less than current value. QUOTE
Please!! Scatological rhetoric is simply offensive and not worthy of you, Alex. I thought that this group would not be so pedestrian, so utterly ordinary that I would be reading commentary no more elevated than what we can hear among the bags of bones populating any 7-11 entrance. Shouldn’t this forum be striving for a G, or general audience, rating? Just my opinion! No offense to anyone is intended. It is just that I just don’t understand what this kind of language can add to our dialogs. Believe me, friend, it does not become you to write in such a manner!
Beatus ille qui procul negotiis … paterna rura bobus exercet suis, solutus omni fenore….. Horace
November 29, 2007 at 1:51 PM #105253pertinazzioParticipantHey everybody
“California is a big state with a lot of people. So wtf does the article have to say?”
Angel, can you please explain that abbreviation? As I am not up on all the technical jargon.
QUOTE Shitholes like Riverside county, San Bernardino should be worth 75% less than current value. QUOTE
Please!! Scatological rhetoric is simply offensive and not worthy of you, Alex. I thought that this group would not be so pedestrian, so utterly ordinary that I would be reading commentary no more elevated than what we can hear among the bags of bones populating any 7-11 entrance. Shouldn’t this forum be striving for a G, or general audience, rating? Just my opinion! No offense to anyone is intended. It is just that I just don’t understand what this kind of language can add to our dialogs. Believe me, friend, it does not become you to write in such a manner!
Beatus ille qui procul negotiis … paterna rura bobus exercet suis, solutus omni fenore….. Horace
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.