North County Coastal Market-Why so sticky?

[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.

[sdcellar]

[quote=AN]Resale staying flat between 1999-2005 might be because there were quite a few new construction around that time frame?[/quote]New construction also contributes to overall growth in the area, specifically going to my point about how this adds to the complexity in making comparisons. In the case of coastal, the older properties closer to central San Diego are still considered valuable. Witness Carmel Valley vs. Encinitas vs. Carlsbad.

[sdcellar]

[quote=AN]Resale staying flat between 1999-2005 might be because there were quite a few new construction around that time frame?[/quote]New construction also contributes to overall growth in the area, specifically going to my point about how this adds to the complexity in making comparisons. In the case of coastal, the older properties closer to central San Diego are still considered valuable. Witness Carmel Valley vs. Encinitas vs. Carlsbad.

[sdcellar]

[quote=AN]Resale staying flat between 1999-2005 might be because there were quite a few new construction around that time frame?[/quote]New construction also contributes to overall growth in the area, specifically going to my point about how this adds to the complexity in making comparisons. In the case of coastal, the older properties closer to central San Diego are still considered valuable. Witness Carmel Valley vs. Encinitas vs. Carlsbad.

[sdcellar]

[quote=AN]Resale staying flat between 1999-2005 might be because there were quite a few new construction around that time frame?[/quote]New construction also contributes to overall growth in the area, specifically going to my point about how this adds to the complexity in making comparisons. In the case of coastal, the older properties closer to central San Diego are still considered valuable. Witness Carmel Valley vs. Encinitas vs. Carlsbad.

[sdcellar]

[quote=AN]Resale staying flat between 1999-2005 might be because there were quite a few new construction around that time frame?[/quote]New construction also contributes to overall growth in the area, specifically going to my point about how this adds to the complexity in making comparisons. In the case of coastal, the older properties closer to central San Diego are still considered valuable. Witness Carmel Valley vs. Encinitas vs. Carlsbad.

[an]

It’s possible some of the 2000 in 2003-2006 could be above norm, but how can you explain the 2000 number in 1999-2001? As sdr just posted, even in 1997-1998, it was higher than 1300. It was only less than that in 1996 (which was at the bottom of the last cycle). Total housing stock went up A LOT compare to 1996-1999, yet closings went down to 1996 level. The only conclusion I can draw from that is, people who bought in that area can and are holding on until they get the price they want. Which explains the lack of supply and therefore, the lack of closings.

[an]

It’s possible some of the 2000 in 2003-2006 could be above norm, but how can you explain the 2000 number in 1999-2001? As sdr just posted, even in 1997-1998, it was higher than 1300. It was only less than that in 1996 (which was at the bottom of the last cycle). Total housing stock went up A LOT compare to 1996-1999, yet closings went down to 1996 level. The only conclusion I can draw from that is, people who bought in that area can and are holding on until they get the price they want. Which explains the lack of supply and therefore, the lack of closings.

[an]

It’s possible some of the 2000 in 2003-2006 could be above norm, but how can you explain the 2000 number in 1999-2001? As sdr just posted, even in 1997-1998, it was higher than 1300. It was only less than that in 1996 (which was at the bottom of the last cycle). Total housing stock went up A LOT compare to 1996-1999, yet closings went down to 1996 level. The only conclusion I can draw from that is, people who bought in that area can and are holding on until they get the price they want. Which explains the lack of supply and therefore, the lack of closings.

[an]

It’s possible some of the 2000 in 2003-2006 could be above norm, but how can you explain the 2000 number in 1999-2001? As sdr just posted, even in 1997-1998, it was higher than 1300. It was only less than that in 1996 (which was at the bottom of the last cycle). Total housing stock went up A LOT compare to 1996-1999, yet closings went down to 1996 level. The only conclusion I can draw from that is, people who bought in that area can and are holding on until they get the price they want. Which explains the lack of supply and therefore, the lack of closings.

[an]

It’s possible some of the 2000 in 2003-2006 could be above norm, but how can you explain the 2000 number in 1999-2001? As sdr just posted, even in 1997-1998, it was higher than 1300. It was only less than that in 1996 (which was at the bottom of the last cycle). Total housing stock went up A LOT compare to 1996-1999, yet closings went down to 1996 level. The only conclusion I can draw from that is, people who bought in that area can and are holding on until they get the price they want. Which explains the lack of supply and therefore, the lack of closings.

[an]

[quote=sdcellar]New construction also contributes to overall growth in the area, specifically going to my point about how this adds to the complexity in making comparisons. In the case of coastal, the older properties closer to central San Diego are still considered valuable. Witness Carmel Valley vs. Encinitas vs. Carlsbad.[/quote]
Is it really that complex? Total housing stock went up by a lot, yet resale went down by a good 35% compare to 1999. How do you explain that? BTW, new construction didn’t “add” to the complexity. That complexity has always been there. There were construction back then too, so that variable didn’t change.

[an]

[quote=sdcellar]New construction also contributes to overall growth in the area, specifically going to my point about how this adds to the complexity in making comparisons. In the case of coastal, the older properties closer to central San Diego are still considered valuable. Witness Carmel Valley vs. Encinitas vs. Carlsbad.[/quote]
Is it really that complex? Total housing stock went up by a lot, yet resale went down by a good 35% compare to 1999. How do you explain that? BTW, new construction didn’t “add” to the complexity. That complexity has always been there. There were construction back then too, so that variable didn’t change.

[an]

[quote=sdcellar]New construction also contributes to overall growth in the area, specifically going to my point about how this adds to the complexity in making comparisons. In the case of coastal, the older properties closer to central San Diego are still considered valuable. Witness Carmel Valley vs. Encinitas vs. Carlsbad.[/quote]
Is it really that complex? Total housing stock went up by a lot, yet resale went down by a good 35% compare to 1999. How do you explain that? BTW, new construction didn’t “add” to the complexity. That complexity has always been there. There were construction back then too, so that variable didn’t change.

[an]

[quote=sdcellar]New construction also contributes to overall growth in the area, specifically going to my point about how this adds to the complexity in making comparisons. In the case of coastal, the older properties closer to central San Diego are still considered valuable. Witness Carmel Valley vs. Encinitas vs. Carlsbad.[/quote]
Is it really that complex? Total housing stock went up by a lot, yet resale went down by a good 35% compare to 1999. How do you explain that? BTW, new construction didn’t “add” to the complexity. That complexity has always been there. There were construction back then too, so that variable didn’t change.

[Author]

Posts