[quote=Eugene]Dig around on profilewarehouse.sandag.org. You can find median incomes and median prices for 2000 and median incomes for 2008 down to census tract level (census tracts are smaller than zip codes).
These kinds of comparisons are tricky. You’ll want to focus on neighborhoods without apartments. Incomes of apartment residents have no relation to purchasing power of local homebuyers. That’s why census tracts are better than zip codes.
In 2000 most places were at 3.5-4.5 times household incomes. Interest rates were 7% and higher.
In established neighborhoods it’s important to correct for the number of retirees. Take census tract 83.06 (southwest corner of University City). 99% single-family detached, median income: 76K, median house value: 358K, ratio: 4.7 (as of 2000). That’s barely affordable by today’s standards. Definitely not with 7.5% interest rates back then. What’s the catch? The catch is that University City is an established neighborhood, built in the 60’s. In 2000, more than 20% of residents were older than 65. 25% of households lived on retirement income and social security. Median new homebuyer income must have been closer to 100K.
SANDAG currently estimates that median household income in 83.06 is 107K. At 4.7 ratio that would mean median house price 503K (not taking lower interest rates into account). There were 11 sales in the neighborhood in the last 6 months, median sales price was 585K.[/quote]
Eugene – thanks for pointing to that link.
As a UC resident (on the southeast side) I can relate to what you say about longer term residents having bought for a lot less… My dad bought in UC in ’65 for $29k. Ironically, it was a foreclosure and he was able to assume the 2 year old mortgage with no down… The same house is worth over $600k today. And many of the neighbors are original owners. There’s a big income gap between people who bought over the past few years and those that bought 40 years ago and are retired.
