[quote=SK in CV]Let’s put some stuff in perspective. San Diego IS growing, whether you like it or not. I don’t know about last year, but 2011 was by about 80,000 people. But more than 1/2 of that growth was organic. People having babies. 40,000 new residents requires somewhere in the neighborhood of 15,000 housing units. (Housing density in SD is a little lower than state-wide averages at 2.75 per household.) I don’t know how over-built SD was in 2007. But I think last year permits were pulled for somewhere around 6,000 homes, higher than the previous few years. That’s enough for 40% of the organic growth, only 20% of total growth. 20,000 fewer homes built than growth requires, just to stay even.
San Diego may or may not be over-built today. I really don’t know. But at the current construction rate, it will be under built in the not too distant future. Which means significantly higher prices. Is that what you want?[/quote]
SK, does that “organic growth” of 40K babies born in SD in 2011 take into account county deaths in that same year?
The county obviously “absorbed” the other supposedly 40,000 “transplants” into its existing housing in 2011. I don’t know but I don’t think there was very much residential construction going on in 2011 at all.
Acc to SDlookup, there are currently 4,620 SFRs + 2,218 condos equaling 7,121 total resale listings in the county. And this doesn’t include pocket listings, unapproved SS contingents (taken off the market for possible approval) and FSBO’s.
I realize that a good portion of these listings (20-25% ?) are “contingent” SS’s but I am failing to understand why so many prospective buyers are claiming there is “nothing to buy” due to “low inventory.”
Could it be that they THINK they need dozens of properties to consider before making an offer on ONE home?
If so, that’s complete and utter BS, partly fueled by agent/broker incompetency.
And some of these “for-sale” properties will no doubt end up being removed from the market and rented out, instead.
I don’t know how many rental vacancies there are in the county but there are always ads posted for them.
SK, I take it you left SD in 2007? I don’t think there have been very many new construction tracts in SD County that have opened for sale since then.
Yes, removing the unending choices for *new* construction tracts from the housing inventory picture WILL have the effect of eventually raising the sold comps of existing housing in the same market. Commuters from these new tracts have increased the congestion on our fwys 6-8 fold since the first CFD was formed in SD County in 1987. Since SD Co is a “coastal county,” limiting growth to preserve “housing exclusivity” within it is as it should have always been and should be now.
Leaders of several other CA coastal counties have gotten this number long ago and thus, were able to preserve their natural resources and “lifestyle” for existing residents. Just try to get permission to form a CFD and/or a subdivision permit or worse, for a “master-planned-community” in the County of Mendocino, for example.
It’s not gonna happen . . . as it should be.
CA coastal counties were never “set up” in the first place to attract the country’s masses of low and moderate income residents. That’s what CA’s inland counties (and NV/AZ?) are for.
If I were to sell my house next year and leave the county to “retire” elsewhere, I would fully expect that it would cost twice the price should I decide to come back to SD after a few years.
As it should be.
I’ve seen this happen to other retirees in the past who sold and left the county, only to return years later and have to rent. That’s why I may rent it out, instead. To make SURE I won’t want to move back in the future before “pulling the trigger” and selling it :=0
