[quote=DaCounselor] . . . Regarding coastal SD RE, haven’t attached homes devalued significantly? How can this be if the area is immune? Or is it only SFRs that are immune? Or only the very top 1% of SFRs with views and big lots and etc etc? What is the criteria to be immune? . . .[/quote]
DaCounselor, I think “immunity” is the wrong term to use here. How about “stalwart?” Unencumbered SFRs will stand more “stalwart” in holding value against highly encumbered SFRs and condos. Especially well-located properties in areas there hasn’t been any land to build on in 40+ years.
Regarding 1-4 unit residential, residential PUDS and condos, condos are encumbered by an HOA. Therefore, that automatically makes them less desirable and less valuable than an SFR or duplex which is unencumbered. I feel that annual HOA dues on SFR’s (usually imposed to maintain common open space surrounding the subdivision(s)) really has no effect in dampening the values of SFRs that lie within the HOA. However, monthly dues DO, when compared to a nearby equally-desirable subdivision which has no HOA.
Compare the house styles on all the tracts you are familiar with which were built since 2000. If work location were not an issue, what would be a “redeeming enough” quality to make one tract stand out from the rest? Do you like “Tuscan style?” “Mediterranean?” Faux (lol) “Craftsman?” When a buyer is “in the market” for a property built since 2000, he/she has MANY choices, mostly in wildly far-flung areas. Thus, there is more competition (inventory wise) in the same style/size/age house. All this “competition” in “buyer choices,” along with more distress in individual subdivisions, keeps values lower than more diverse properties in better locations.
An “exurb buyer” is not the same as a buyer looking for an available mid-century Mosher in 92106, one of the SIX properties facing the ENTIRETY of Sunset Cliffs 92107 (with whitewater views) or an available Requa in 92103. The three examples given here are finite. There is currently only ONE of each available and the 92103 property has not been available in 70 years.
Why would you expect any or all of the areas of the above 3 examples to suffer as much distress (and thus subsequent value loss) as a heavily encumbered “lookalike” subdivision located in an exurb?
I will credit sdr with the statement, “The best properties are in the most capable hands,” or something of that nature. This will always hold true in highly desirable markets. I don’t care if the 3 BIGGest banks fail next year and people start keeping their cash in floor safes. It won’t matter. Well located RE is a very wise, tangible and usable asset.
DaCounselor, if you were a longtime owner of a property today which was located in an area you feel should go down in value more but isn’t seeming to, would YOU sell right now? Would YOU entertain lowball offers and looky-loos for month on end if that’s all the attention you were getting? I bet the answer would be no and you would be right. If you don’t HAVE to sell now, you can simply tell your agent you won’t entertain any offers below $_____ or remove your property from the market and wait for a better day.
