Both owners seem to be overwhelmed by the mortgage payments. These are the lowest priced in that neighbourhood. Let’s see if they manage to sell. Going by 4-plex owners commenst on the previous thread, this is not a good price even if we assume generously that someone will pay $1800 rent for this.
Here’s an example of a guy who seems to get what the market wants. This is from an adjacent gated complex. Look at his price reductions. This is also an actual SFH with a decent (by CA standards) lot.
1**7 Elm Ridge Drive, Vista, CA 92081
Price Reduced: 07/28/06 — $525,000 to $495,000
Price Reduced: 08/07/06 — $495,000 to $450,000
Zillow sez:
Zestimate: $530,989
03/12/2002: $275,000
12/23/1997: $179,500
also gives comparables:
1918 Elm Ridge Dr $499,000 05/19/2006
His original price 525K was actually close to the comparables + some mark-up. For some reason, he has
dropped prices quickly. This is probably the lowest priced SFH you can get in that area. At 1600 sq feet it is not very big. The comparable Zillow gives is 1800 sqft. So he seems to have got the selling price right. Since I saw many houses in that gated complex (did not see this one), I know this house (from photos) is in much better shape inside. Also it is a much better deal than the “detatched condos” in the legends. But will someone bite? I think if he offered it now at 400K, it’s very likely someone will bite.
He is still sitting on a nice pile of cash, assuming it sells near asking price, almost $175K. That is of course assuming he did not withdraw his “hard-earned” equity out for other purposes.
With a “10-month supply of town houses and other owned shared-wall housing” and “a 9-month supply of houses in July, up sharply from the 6-month supply in March”, North County is definitely ready for price cuts. NC Times: Home sales plunge 31 percent in July
no_such_reality – I am on board with you on this. 300K from the price in 1997 gives a compounded annual return of 6%. Assuming inflation has been 3-4%, it is still more than 2% over inflation. Let’s generously assume that 1997 was undervalued. That would make about 300K the right price.
The 9 and 10-month supply figures in that article are actually too optimistic, because they divide the total number of houses on the market by the number of June sales. But June is typically an above average month (wait until December!), so the correct number is probably even higher than the 9-10 month figure. “Seasonally adjusted” figures would probably show a 12-month supply, if not worse.
.
