DataAgent wrote:”Ten years

[ybitz]

[quote=DataAgent]”Ten years ago, it was possible to find a starter home here with prices in several developments under $300k.”

Can you show an example of a 3000 sq ft home that sold for under $300K in Scripps Ranch in 1999?
[/quote]

A 3000 sq ft house is a “starter home”?

you can easily find a “starter home” in scripps ranch in 1999 for under 300k. For example:

11368 Red Cedar Way, detached SFH, 3 beds, 2.0 baths, 1,384 sq ft, sold on 01/22/1999 for $194,000. A little small, but it’s good for a starter. That’s just from 10 minutes of zillow browsing. I’m sure you can find many larger houses for under 300k in 1999.

http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/charts/16820588_zpid,5years_chartDuration/

This one is on the market right now:
11959 Handrich
5 beds, 3.5 baths, 3,217 sq ft, Sold on 12/01/1999 for $300,000! Now it’s listed for $799k.

http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Diego/11959-Handrich-Dr-92131/home/4810614?utm_source=myredfin&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=email_this_listing&utm_nooverride=1

This home’s value went up 2.6 times in just under 10 years. How can this price be sustainable, when people’s income did not go up 2.6 times in the last 10 years (even adjusting for inflation)? Shouldn’t the value of a home track local income? Based on the numbers, I think Scripps Ranch has a lot to fall still.