North County Coastal Market-Why so sticky?

[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.

[an]

sdcellar, so you’re asserting that we’re in bubbly sale level 2-3 years after the bottom. Am I understanding this correctly?

Resale staying flat between 1999-2005 might be because there were quite a few new construction around that time frame? It would be nice if sdr give numbers further back. We might then see if your point is valid or not.

I agree with you that there’s more distress coming from people who bought at/near the peak. That’s obvious. What I get from sdr’s post is that, there are plenty of people in NCC who have the $ and holding power, that’s why it hasn’t crashed like other areas. How else would you explain why NCC hasn’t crash as hard (excluding the $2M+ houses).

I don’t get what you’re trying to say with:
[quote=sdcellar]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?[/quote]
Can you clarify?

[an]

sdcellar, so you’re asserting that we’re in bubbly sale level 2-3 years after the bottom. Am I understanding this correctly?

Resale staying flat between 1999-2005 might be because there were quite a few new construction around that time frame? It would be nice if sdr give numbers further back. We might then see if your point is valid or not.

I agree with you that there’s more distress coming from people who bought at/near the peak. That’s obvious. What I get from sdr’s post is that, there are plenty of people in NCC who have the $ and holding power, that’s why it hasn’t crashed like other areas. How else would you explain why NCC hasn’t crash as hard (excluding the $2M+ houses).

I don’t get what you’re trying to say with:
[quote=sdcellar]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?[/quote]
Can you clarify?

[an]

sdcellar, so you’re asserting that we’re in bubbly sale level 2-3 years after the bottom. Am I understanding this correctly?

Resale staying flat between 1999-2005 might be because there were quite a few new construction around that time frame? It would be nice if sdr give numbers further back. We might then see if your point is valid or not.

I agree with you that there’s more distress coming from people who bought at/near the peak. That’s obvious. What I get from sdr’s post is that, there are plenty of people in NCC who have the $ and holding power, that’s why it hasn’t crashed like other areas. How else would you explain why NCC hasn’t crash as hard (excluding the $2M+ houses).

I don’t get what you’re trying to say with:
[quote=sdcellar]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?[/quote]
Can you clarify?

[an]

sdcellar, so you’re asserting that we’re in bubbly sale level 2-3 years after the bottom. Am I understanding this correctly?

Resale staying flat between 1999-2005 might be because there were quite a few new construction around that time frame? It would be nice if sdr give numbers further back. We might then see if your point is valid or not.

I agree with you that there’s more distress coming from people who bought at/near the peak. That’s obvious. What I get from sdr’s post is that, there are plenty of people in NCC who have the $ and holding power, that’s why it hasn’t crashed like other areas. How else would you explain why NCC hasn’t crash as hard (excluding the $2M+ houses).

I don’t get what you’re trying to say with:
[quote=sdcellar]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?[/quote]
Can you clarify?

[an]

sdcellar, so you’re asserting that we’re in bubbly sale level 2-3 years after the bottom. Am I understanding this correctly?

Resale staying flat between 1999-2005 might be because there were quite a few new construction around that time frame? It would be nice if sdr give numbers further back. We might then see if your point is valid or not.

I agree with you that there’s more distress coming from people who bought at/near the peak. That’s obvious. What I get from sdr’s post is that, there are plenty of people in NCC who have the $ and holding power, that’s why it hasn’t crashed like other areas. How else would you explain why NCC hasn’t crash as hard (excluding the $2M+ houses).

I don’t get what you’re trying to say with:
[quote=sdcellar]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?[/quote]
Can you clarify?

[sdcellar]

Depends on what you consider the bottom, but things started going non-linear by 2001 and stupid a couple years after that.

On the comment you’re asking about, I don’t know how to phrase it more clearly, but I’ll try. sdrealtor asserts that ~2000 is the norm and since we’re around 1300, the demand backlog is growing at 700 units a year. Seems possible that some of the 2000 number could be above norm, so the backlog might not be as great as he posits.

(also, I understand that sdrealtor isn’t counting the new homes in this, but that just introduces more complexity to the comparison)

By the way, does this sound like “shadow demand” to anybody?

[sdcellar]

Depends on what you consider the bottom, but things started going non-linear by 2001 and stupid a couple years after that.

On the comment you’re asking about, I don’t know how to phrase it more clearly, but I’ll try. sdrealtor asserts that ~2000 is the norm and since we’re around 1300, the demand backlog is growing at 700 units a year. Seems possible that some of the 2000 number could be above norm, so the backlog might not be as great as he posits.

(also, I understand that sdrealtor isn’t counting the new homes in this, but that just introduces more complexity to the comparison)

By the way, does this sound like “shadow demand” to anybody?

[sdcellar]

Depends on what you consider the bottom, but things started going non-linear by 2001 and stupid a couple years after that.

On the comment you’re asking about, I don’t know how to phrase it more clearly, but I’ll try. sdrealtor asserts that ~2000 is the norm and since we’re around 1300, the demand backlog is growing at 700 units a year. Seems possible that some of the 2000 number could be above norm, so the backlog might not be as great as he posits.

(also, I understand that sdrealtor isn’t counting the new homes in this, but that just introduces more complexity to the comparison)

By the way, does this sound like “shadow demand” to anybody?

[sdcellar]

Depends on what you consider the bottom, but things started going non-linear by 2001 and stupid a couple years after that.

On the comment you’re asking about, I don’t know how to phrase it more clearly, but I’ll try. sdrealtor asserts that ~2000 is the norm and since we’re around 1300, the demand backlog is growing at 700 units a year. Seems possible that some of the 2000 number could be above norm, so the backlog might not be as great as he posits.

(also, I understand that sdrealtor isn’t counting the new homes in this, but that just introduces more complexity to the comparison)

By the way, does this sound like “shadow demand” to anybody?

[sdcellar]

Depends on what you consider the bottom, but things started going non-linear by 2001 and stupid a couple years after that.

On the comment you’re asking about, I don’t know how to phrase it more clearly, but I’ll try. sdrealtor asserts that ~2000 is the norm and since we’re around 1300, the demand backlog is growing at 700 units a year. Seems possible that some of the 2000 number could be above norm, so the backlog might not be as great as he posits.

(also, I understand that sdrealtor isn’t counting the new homes in this, but that just introduces more complexity to the comparison)

By the way, does this sound like “shadow demand” to anybody?

[sdrealtor]

Lots to get and I just rolled bqack into town. Yes sdcellar, I was trying to get us talking about local real estate again which is the greatest value this site can provide IMO. Everything else can be found elsewhere.

The 2000 sales were annual sales not monthly. With all the new construction that sold during this period the numbers were likely closer to 4000 to 5000 per year and now they are well under 2000 per year with the new construction thrown in. New construction on a large scale, I might add that will be finished forever in about a year or two.

The numbers before 1999 are pretty suspect IMO as I dont beleive they are complete but here are some pre-1999 to chew on. Thankfully technologoly has come a long way since the mid-90’s and reporting is much better.
1998-1824
1997-1636
1996-1284

The numbers are quite a bit lower and in 1996 close to what we now see. The difference is the population in this area and SD County for that matter have grown considerably in the last 15 years.

I’ll try to get to the rest later.

[sdrealtor]

Lots to get and I just rolled bqack into town. Yes sdcellar, I was trying to get us talking about local real estate again which is the greatest value this site can provide IMO. Everything else can be found elsewhere.

The 2000 sales were annual sales not monthly. With all the new construction that sold during this period the numbers were likely closer to 4000 to 5000 per year and now they are well under 2000 per year with the new construction thrown in. New construction on a large scale, I might add that will be finished forever in about a year or two.

The numbers before 1999 are pretty suspect IMO as I dont beleive they are complete but here are some pre-1999 to chew on. Thankfully technologoly has come a long way since the mid-90’s and reporting is much better.
1998-1824
1997-1636
1996-1284

The numbers are quite a bit lower and in 1996 close to what we now see. The difference is the population in this area and SD County for that matter have grown considerably in the last 15 years.

I’ll try to get to the rest later.

[sdrealtor]

Lots to get and I just rolled bqack into town. Yes sdcellar, I was trying to get us talking about local real estate again which is the greatest value this site can provide IMO. Everything else can be found elsewhere.

The 2000 sales were annual sales not monthly. With all the new construction that sold during this period the numbers were likely closer to 4000 to 5000 per year and now they are well under 2000 per year with the new construction thrown in. New construction on a large scale, I might add that will be finished forever in about a year or two.

The numbers before 1999 are pretty suspect IMO as I dont beleive they are complete but here are some pre-1999 to chew on. Thankfully technologoly has come a long way since the mid-90’s and reporting is much better.
1998-1824
1997-1636
1996-1284

The numbers are quite a bit lower and in 1996 close to what we now see. The difference is the population in this area and SD County for that matter have grown considerably in the last 15 years.

I’ll try to get to the rest later.

[sdrealtor]

Lots to get and I just rolled bqack into town. Yes sdcellar, I was trying to get us talking about local real estate again which is the greatest value this site can provide IMO. Everything else can be found elsewhere.

The 2000 sales were annual sales not monthly. With all the new construction that sold during this period the numbers were likely closer to 4000 to 5000 per year and now they are well under 2000 per year with the new construction thrown in. New construction on a large scale, I might add that will be finished forever in about a year or two.

The numbers before 1999 are pretty suspect IMO as I dont beleive they are complete but here are some pre-1999 to chew on. Thankfully technologoly has come a long way since the mid-90’s and reporting is much better.
1998-1824
1997-1636
1996-1284

The numbers are quite a bit lower and in 1996 close to what we now see. The difference is the population in this area and SD County for that matter have grown considerably in the last 15 years.

I’ll try to get to the rest later.

[Author]

Posts