North County Coastal Market-Why so sticky?

[sdcellar]

Okay, on this one, I’m taking a chance because I honestly don’t know the enci/cbad market, but with regard to volume, isn’t that something that’s sort of a function of itself?

In other words, as an area grows, the growth drives further growth. This continues until, well, it reverses.

You make the point yourself, NCC used to be a bit more primitive than it is now. Roads didn’t go through, areas weren’t as built up. They didn’t have a costco. This is not that different from Chula Vista and the Temecula Valley. Growth also brings more local employment to the area, making it even more viable as a place to live. It was also cheaper.

So anyway, it grows and grows until someplace else becomes more attractive and people start going there, then the volumes settle down to a steady state. And, of course, all areas go through such cycles (gentrification and whatnot), but it seems hard to deny that the combined zips you provided haven’t been through a bit of a boom decade (moreso than say 92124).

Encinitas proper has been less subject to this it would seem. What do those numbers look like?

[an]

sdcellar, my interpretation of sdr’s post is that, before the area boomed, they were averaging about 2000 sales a month. After all the new homes, we’re now averaging much less than that. Which means there are many owners who have the holding power to hold on till they get the price they want. Which would cause for price stability so far.

[an]

sdcellar, my interpretation of sdr’s post is that, before the area boomed, they were averaging about 2000 sales a month. After all the new homes, we’re now averaging much less than that. Which means there are many owners who have the holding power to hold on till they get the price they want. Which would cause for price stability so far.

[an]

sdcellar, my interpretation of sdr’s post is that, before the area boomed, they were averaging about 2000 sales a month. After all the new homes, we’re now averaging much less than that. Which means there are many owners who have the holding power to hold on till they get the price they want. Which would cause for price stability so far.

[an]

sdcellar, my interpretation of sdr’s post is that, before the area boomed, they were averaging about 2000 sales a month. After all the new homes, we’re now averaging much less than that. Which means there are many owners who have the holding power to hold on till they get the price they want. Which would cause for price stability so far.

[an]

sdcellar, my interpretation of sdr’s post is that, before the area boomed, they were averaging about 2000 sales a month. After all the new homes, we’re now averaging much less than that. Which means there are many owners who have the holding power to hold on till they get the price they want. Which would cause for price stability so far.

[sdcellar]

AN, I don’t see how that could be because he only has numbers from the boom. There is nothing pre-1999. Even if you disagree about when the boom started, he shows the same rough number through 2005, which I think we can all agree is about as bubbly as it gets.

I’m also not certain that sdr has ever asserted that buyers from that era have particularly strong holding power. Plenty do, to be sure, but most of the distress still seems to be coming from that purchase timeframe.

I guess that’s also part of my point, we’re probably not minus 770 per year post-2005 because you’ve got to include at least a “few” of the 1999-2005 sales in the “above norm” category. Don’t you?

[sdcellar]

AN, I don’t see how that could be because he only has numbers from the boom. There is nothing pre-1999. Even if you disagree about when the boom started, he shows the same rough number through 2005, which I think we can all agree is about as bubbly as it gets.

I’m also not certain that sdr has ever asserted that buyers from that era have particularly strong holding power. Plenty do, to be sure, but most of the distress still seems to be coming from that purchase timeframe.

I guess that’s also part of my point, we’re probably not minus 770 per year post-2005 because you’ve got to include at least a “few” of the 1999-2005 sales in the “above norm” category. Don’t you?

[sdcellar]

AN, I don’t see how that could be because he only has numbers from the boom. There is nothing pre-1999. Even if you disagree about when the boom started, he shows the same rough number through 2005, which I think we can all agree is about as bubbly as it gets.

I’m also not certain that sdr has ever asserted that buyers from that era have particularly strong holding power. Plenty do, to be sure, but most of the distress still seems to be coming from that purchase timeframe.

I guess that’s also part of my point, we’re probably not minus 770 per year post-2005 because you’ve got to include at least a “few” of the 1999-2005 sales in the “above norm” category. Don’t you?

[sdcellar]

AN, I don’t see how that could be because he only has numbers from the boom. There is nothing pre-1999. Even if you disagree about when the boom started, he shows the same rough number through 2005, which I think we can all agree is about as bubbly as it gets.

I’m also not certain that sdr has ever asserted that buyers from that era have particularly strong holding power. Plenty do, to be sure, but most of the distress still seems to be coming from that purchase timeframe.

I guess that’s also part of my point, we’re probably not minus 770 per year post-2005 because you’ve got to include at least a “few” of the 1999-2005 sales in the “above norm” category. Don’t you?

[sdcellar]

AN, I don’t see how that could be because he only has numbers from the boom. There is nothing pre-1999. Even if you disagree about when the boom started, he shows the same rough number through 2005, which I think we can all agree is about as bubbly as it gets.

I’m also not certain that sdr has ever asserted that buyers from that era have particularly strong holding power. Plenty do, to be sure, but most of the distress still seems to be coming from that purchase timeframe.

I guess that’s also part of my point, we’re probably not minus 770 per year post-2005 because you’ve got to include at least a “few” of the 1999-2005 sales in the “above norm” category. Don’t you?

[sdcellar]

[quote=jameswenn]I can consider living on the coast in SD, while in LA that’s reserved for people who don’t ever have to work.[/quote]Oh, you can assure yourself that a lot (most?) of the folks who live in L.A. coastal have to work their asses off.

We can talk as much as we want about people who have means to buy this and that, but it’s a pretty elite few that are set for life.

[sdcellar]

[quote=jameswenn]I can consider living on the coast in SD, while in LA that’s reserved for people who don’t ever have to work.[/quote]Oh, you can assure yourself that a lot (most?) of the folks who live in L.A. coastal have to work their asses off.

We can talk as much as we want about people who have means to buy this and that, but it’s a pretty elite few that are set for life.

[sdcellar]

[quote=jameswenn]I can consider living on the coast in SD, while in LA that’s reserved for people who don’t ever have to work.[/quote]Oh, you can assure yourself that a lot (most?) of the folks who live in L.A. coastal have to work their asses off.

We can talk as much as we want about people who have means to buy this and that, but it’s a pretty elite few that are set for life.

[sdcellar]

[quote=jameswenn]I can consider living on the coast in SD, while in LA that’s reserved for people who don’t ever have to work.[/quote]Oh, you can assure yourself that a lot (most?) of the folks who live in L.A. coastal have to work their asses off.

We can talk as much as we want about people who have means to buy this and that, but it’s a pretty elite few that are set for life.

[Author]

Posts