“43% Overpriced”

[NotCranky]

Kewp, I don’t really know that much about Radelowes project so I shouldn’t have said it. However, if anything gets built construction has not come to a complete halt whether it is profitable or not.

[NeetaT]

“Incidentally, the $80,000 household income, as would be represented at the 75th percentile in our region, could swing a mortgage of $310,000, leading to the $345,000 median housing price. That is, of course, assuming no move-up equity and the aforementioned 6% mortgage interest rate. At an 8% interest rate the PITI payment drops to support a $260,000 mortgage and the sale price (median) drops to $290,000. Should the sky fall and we end up with 10% interest rates again that mortgage drops to ~$215,000 and a sale price of ~$240,000.”

I agree and this is why I am dumbfounded, vexed, perplexed, taken-back, befuddled, etc…….

[NeetaT]

“Incidentally, the $80,000 household income, as would be represented at the 75th percentile in our region, could swing a mortgage of $310,000, leading to the $345,000 median housing price. That is, of course, assuming no move-up equity and the aforementioned 6% mortgage interest rate. At an 8% interest rate the PITI payment drops to support a $260,000 mortgage and the sale price (median) drops to $290,000. Should the sky fall and we end up with 10% interest rates again that mortgage drops to ~$215,000 and a sale price of ~$240,000.”

I agree and this is why I am dumbfounded, vexed, perplexed, taken-back, befuddled, etc…….

[NeetaT]

“Incidentally, the $80,000 household income, as would be represented at the 75th percentile in our region, could swing a mortgage of $310,000, leading to the $345,000 median housing price. That is, of course, assuming no move-up equity and the aforementioned 6% mortgage interest rate. At an 8% interest rate the PITI payment drops to support a $260,000 mortgage and the sale price (median) drops to $290,000. Should the sky fall and we end up with 10% interest rates again that mortgage drops to ~$215,000 and a sale price of ~$240,000.”

I agree and this is why I am dumbfounded, vexed, perplexed, taken-back, befuddled, etc…….

[NeetaT]

“Incidentally, the $80,000 household income, as would be represented at the 75th percentile in our region, could swing a mortgage of $310,000, leading to the $345,000 median housing price. That is, of course, assuming no move-up equity and the aforementioned 6% mortgage interest rate. At an 8% interest rate the PITI payment drops to support a $260,000 mortgage and the sale price (median) drops to $290,000. Should the sky fall and we end up with 10% interest rates again that mortgage drops to ~$215,000 and a sale price of ~$240,000.”

I agree and this is why I am dumbfounded, vexed, perplexed, taken-back, befuddled, etc…….

[NeetaT]

“Incidentally, the $80,000 household income, as would be represented at the 75th percentile in our region, could swing a mortgage of $310,000, leading to the $345,000 median housing price. That is, of course, assuming no move-up equity and the aforementioned 6% mortgage interest rate. At an 8% interest rate the PITI payment drops to support a $260,000 mortgage and the sale price (median) drops to $290,000. Should the sky fall and we end up with 10% interest rates again that mortgage drops to ~$215,000 and a sale price of ~$240,000.”

I agree and this is why I am dumbfounded, vexed, perplexed, taken-back, befuddled, etc…….

[sdrealtor]

Huh, pretty thick there drunkle.

The historical average is 50 to 60%. Always has been. The figure rose when anyone could buy a home regardless fo income but we are getting back to where you actually have to qualify based upon real income. Is it so hard to understand that the bottom 10% of earners dont buy the bottom 10% of homes price wise. They live in section 8/subsidized housing. Just continue from there up and should be able to make the connection. if not, I’m wasting my time trying to explain.

[sdrealtor]

Huh, pretty thick there drunkle.

The historical average is 50 to 60%. Always has been. The figure rose when anyone could buy a home regardless fo income but we are getting back to where you actually have to qualify based upon real income. Is it so hard to understand that the bottom 10% of earners dont buy the bottom 10% of homes price wise. They live in section 8/subsidized housing. Just continue from there up and should be able to make the connection. if not, I’m wasting my time trying to explain.

[sdrealtor]

Huh, pretty thick there drunkle.

The historical average is 50 to 60%. Always has been. The figure rose when anyone could buy a home regardless fo income but we are getting back to where you actually have to qualify based upon real income. Is it so hard to understand that the bottom 10% of earners dont buy the bottom 10% of homes price wise. They live in section 8/subsidized housing. Just continue from there up and should be able to make the connection. if not, I’m wasting my time trying to explain.

[sdrealtor]

Huh, pretty thick there drunkle.

The historical average is 50 to 60%. Always has been. The figure rose when anyone could buy a home regardless fo income but we are getting back to where you actually have to qualify based upon real income. Is it so hard to understand that the bottom 10% of earners dont buy the bottom 10% of homes price wise. They live in section 8/subsidized housing. Just continue from there up and should be able to make the connection. if not, I’m wasting my time trying to explain.

[sdrealtor]

Huh, pretty thick there drunkle.

The historical average is 50 to 60%. Always has been. The figure rose when anyone could buy a home regardless fo income but we are getting back to where you actually have to qualify based upon real income. Is it so hard to understand that the bottom 10% of earners dont buy the bottom 10% of homes price wise. They live in section 8/subsidized housing. Just continue from there up and should be able to make the connection. if not, I’m wasting my time trying to explain.

[sdrealtor]

Bigmoneysalsa,
As I said these are rough figures but at least you followed the logic. I dont necessarily believe the figure is exactly the 75th percentile but I believe it’s alot closer to that than the 50th percentile.

What you missed is that we are in one of the highest cost markets in the country so our stats will skew even higher than what would be typical for most markets. I dont beleive that the median income HH bought the median priced home in San Diego anytime in the last couple decades. Feel free to prove me wrong. In fact, I beleive that the median income HH was more likely to purchase the median priced home during the bubble than what would be typical because all they had to do is have enough nerve to state their income was high enough to do so. Now that they actually have to prove their income, it will be harder than ever.

BTW, the median HH income in 200 was 47,067 on the census website. I dont consider buying approx 5 times your HH income to be affordable. You also conveniently said values were booming the last 4 years prior to 2000 but failed to mention incoems were also.

FYI, I bought a couple homes during those years and they were oversold (i.e. artificially low) in 1996 which was the bottom. The house I bought in 97 was about 2X my annual income at the time and it felt expensive. That house went up about 20% in 3 years. The one I bought after that was 2.5X my annual HH income at the time and it felt obscenely expensive. 5X annual incoem is not affordable.

[sdrealtor]

Bigmoneysalsa,
As I said these are rough figures but at least you followed the logic. I dont necessarily believe the figure is exactly the 75th percentile but I believe it’s alot closer to that than the 50th percentile.

What you missed is that we are in one of the highest cost markets in the country so our stats will skew even higher than what would be typical for most markets. I dont beleive that the median income HH bought the median priced home in San Diego anytime in the last couple decades. Feel free to prove me wrong. In fact, I beleive that the median income HH was more likely to purchase the median priced home during the bubble than what would be typical because all they had to do is have enough nerve to state their income was high enough to do so. Now that they actually have to prove their income, it will be harder than ever.

BTW, the median HH income in 200 was 47,067 on the census website. I dont consider buying approx 5 times your HH income to be affordable. You also conveniently said values were booming the last 4 years prior to 2000 but failed to mention incoems were also.

FYI, I bought a couple homes during those years and they were oversold (i.e. artificially low) in 1996 which was the bottom. The house I bought in 97 was about 2X my annual income at the time and it felt expensive. That house went up about 20% in 3 years. The one I bought after that was 2.5X my annual HH income at the time and it felt obscenely expensive. 5X annual incoem is not affordable.

[sdrealtor]

Bigmoneysalsa,
As I said these are rough figures but at least you followed the logic. I dont necessarily believe the figure is exactly the 75th percentile but I believe it’s alot closer to that than the 50th percentile.

What you missed is that we are in one of the highest cost markets in the country so our stats will skew even higher than what would be typical for most markets. I dont beleive that the median income HH bought the median priced home in San Diego anytime in the last couple decades. Feel free to prove me wrong. In fact, I beleive that the median income HH was more likely to purchase the median priced home during the bubble than what would be typical because all they had to do is have enough nerve to state their income was high enough to do so. Now that they actually have to prove their income, it will be harder than ever.

BTW, the median HH income in 200 was 47,067 on the census website. I dont consider buying approx 5 times your HH income to be affordable. You also conveniently said values were booming the last 4 years prior to 2000 but failed to mention incoems were also.

FYI, I bought a couple homes during those years and they were oversold (i.e. artificially low) in 1996 which was the bottom. The house I bought in 97 was about 2X my annual income at the time and it felt expensive. That house went up about 20% in 3 years. The one I bought after that was 2.5X my annual HH income at the time and it felt obscenely expensive. 5X annual incoem is not affordable.

[sdrealtor]

Bigmoneysalsa,
As I said these are rough figures but at least you followed the logic. I dont necessarily believe the figure is exactly the 75th percentile but I believe it’s alot closer to that than the 50th percentile.

What you missed is that we are in one of the highest cost markets in the country so our stats will skew even higher than what would be typical for most markets. I dont beleive that the median income HH bought the median priced home in San Diego anytime in the last couple decades. Feel free to prove me wrong. In fact, I beleive that the median income HH was more likely to purchase the median priced home during the bubble than what would be typical because all they had to do is have enough nerve to state their income was high enough to do so. Now that they actually have to prove their income, it will be harder than ever.

BTW, the median HH income in 200 was 47,067 on the census website. I dont consider buying approx 5 times your HH income to be affordable. You also conveniently said values were booming the last 4 years prior to 2000 but failed to mention incoems were also.

FYI, I bought a couple homes during those years and they were oversold (i.e. artificially low) in 1996 which was the bottom. The house I bought in 97 was about 2X my annual income at the time and it felt expensive. That house went up about 20% in 3 years. The one I bought after that was 2.5X my annual HH income at the time and it felt obscenely expensive. 5X annual incoem is not affordable.

[Author]

Posts