“Areas worse off in terms of general desirability have to “compete harder” to attract buyers.”
I’m not sure I follow. Less desireable areas have lower prices. There are always going to be people on all areas of the income spectrum. Some of those people have income lower than they need to buy real estate. No matter how low prices go, there are people who can’t afford a house. So as the cheapest areas become cheaper, they’re opening up home ownership to new people on the income scale. Why do they have to compete any harder than they did before?
“If they can afford Del Mar, CV probably isn’t really an option at that point. Then the competition is between a much smaller group of sellers for a particular buyer.”
I’m missing the logic leads to that statement. What does buyer preference have to do with the number of sellers? If San Ysidro buyers move up to National City, and those buyers move up to Chula Vista, and those to Ramona, then Scripps Ranch, then CV, then Del Mar, why does CV (or any other area) have a smaller group of sellers per buyer? Haven’t the buyers that moved from Scripps Ranch to CV relaced the buyers that moved from CV to DM?
It’s entirely possible that you’re stating your theory clearly and I’m just not getting it. If you could clarify, I’d appreciate it. Also, if anyone else wants to take a stab at explaining their theories as to why some areas fall less than others, that’d be good, also.
