North County Coastal Market-Why so sticky?

[sdrealtor]

Make no mistake about this one point. The coast is NOT immune. There are already enormous losses here. There will be more in segments of the market. The difference is there are more long term owners, less space for future growth and more than anything (IMO) more responsible homeowners. People that own quality real estate here, particularly west of the 5 and moreso west of the 101 have a very hard time selling it even when they own it free and clear as many do. They recognize the scarcity of it and the unlikelihood they could ever get back what they let go of.

While people were chasing a nice detached home everywhere the people around here are more likely to have been able to afford one already. Many bubble buyers did so with move up profits from the area or from some other area. When given the chance to upgrade many chased “bigger and better” like other places, they just didnt have to stretch as much to get there. They are more likley to have the income and assets to support it. They tend to be more stable employeed (doctors, lawyers, accountants, financial planners, business owners etc) and while their incomes may rise and fall they are not subject to unemployment in the same way others are. There are also plenty of people who bought pre-bubble that are satisfied where they are. They could easily move up but dont care to. They rather prefer the stability of their established neighborhoods which leave people hoping to move into them frustrated because turnover is low.

[sdrealtor]

Funny thing is very few people I know consider themselves rich and most live well below their means. I see nicer cars and more flat panel tv’s in lower income areas.

[sdrealtor]

Funny thing is very few people I know consider themselves rich and most live well below their means. I see nicer cars and more flat panel tv’s in lower income areas.

[sdrealtor]

Funny thing is very few people I know consider themselves rich and most live well below their means. I see nicer cars and more flat panel tv’s in lower income areas.

[sdrealtor]

Funny thing is very few people I know consider themselves rich and most live well below their means. I see nicer cars and more flat panel tv’s in lower income areas.

[sdrealtor]

Funny thing is very few people I know consider themselves rich and most live well below their means. I see nicer cars and more flat panel tv’s in lower income areas.

[sdrealtor]

I’m gonna keep the prices lower and where the action is. Here’s a rough (very rough pulled from the air but with some sense of experience and thought) attempt with peak ranges first.

550K to 700K now 450K to 600K
700K to 850K now 600K to 700K
850K to 1M now 700K to 850K
1M to 1.25M now 850K to 1M
1.25M to 1.5M now 1M to 1.2M

One quick note on these ranges. Not all properties will behave similarly within these ranges. For example, one property that was 1.5M at the peak could be 1M now while another is still 1.2M.

Ready for f/u questions.

[sdrealtor]

I’m gonna keep the prices lower and where the action is. Here’s a rough (very rough pulled from the air but with some sense of experience and thought) attempt with peak ranges first.

550K to 700K now 450K to 600K
700K to 850K now 600K to 700K
850K to 1M now 700K to 850K
1M to 1.25M now 850K to 1M
1.25M to 1.5M now 1M to 1.2M

One quick note on these ranges. Not all properties will behave similarly within these ranges. For example, one property that was 1.5M at the peak could be 1M now while another is still 1.2M.

Ready for f/u questions.

[sdrealtor]

I’m gonna keep the prices lower and where the action is. Here’s a rough (very rough pulled from the air but with some sense of experience and thought) attempt with peak ranges first.

550K to 700K now 450K to 600K
700K to 850K now 600K to 700K
850K to 1M now 700K to 850K
1M to 1.25M now 850K to 1M
1.25M to 1.5M now 1M to 1.2M

One quick note on these ranges. Not all properties will behave similarly within these ranges. For example, one property that was 1.5M at the peak could be 1M now while another is still 1.2M.

Ready for f/u questions.

[sdrealtor]

I’m gonna keep the prices lower and where the action is. Here’s a rough (very rough pulled from the air but with some sense of experience and thought) attempt with peak ranges first.

550K to 700K now 450K to 600K
700K to 850K now 600K to 700K
850K to 1M now 700K to 850K
1M to 1.25M now 850K to 1M
1.25M to 1.5M now 1M to 1.2M

One quick note on these ranges. Not all properties will behave similarly within these ranges. For example, one property that was 1.5M at the peak could be 1M now while another is still 1.2M.

Ready for f/u questions.

[sdrealtor]

I’m gonna keep the prices lower and where the action is. Here’s a rough (very rough pulled from the air but with some sense of experience and thought) attempt with peak ranges first.

550K to 700K now 450K to 600K
700K to 850K now 600K to 700K
850K to 1M now 700K to 850K
1M to 1.25M now 850K to 1M
1.25M to 1.5M now 1M to 1.2M

One quick note on these ranges. Not all properties will behave similarly within these ranges. For example, one property that was 1.5M at the peak could be 1M now while another is still 1.2M.

Ready for f/u questions.

[SD Realtor]

James Wenn that is my point exactly, that it is all relative.

John Alt I agree with you but I think maybe it is a case of a differing perspective of what we read. Both you and I read the same words sdrealtor wrote but I don’t interpret them as claiming some sort immunity for the coast. I think sdrealtor has never said that and in fact pointed out losses in the coastal areas. To me the information was more anecdotal in the sense that it made an attempt to point out the demand for the area being present in light of the higher cost of living there. That this particular portion of San Diego used to be a relatively cheaper place to live but that now it is no longer that way and will most likely NOT return to being that way. Not that it will not depreciate, but that what it was 10-15 years ago (a cheaper alternative) will no longer ever be.

Anyways maybe I read it wrong.

[SD Realtor]

James Wenn that is my point exactly, that it is all relative.

John Alt I agree with you but I think maybe it is a case of a differing perspective of what we read. Both you and I read the same words sdrealtor wrote but I don’t interpret them as claiming some sort immunity for the coast. I think sdrealtor has never said that and in fact pointed out losses in the coastal areas. To me the information was more anecdotal in the sense that it made an attempt to point out the demand for the area being present in light of the higher cost of living there. That this particular portion of San Diego used to be a relatively cheaper place to live but that now it is no longer that way and will most likely NOT return to being that way. Not that it will not depreciate, but that what it was 10-15 years ago (a cheaper alternative) will no longer ever be.

Anyways maybe I read it wrong.

[SD Realtor]

James Wenn that is my point exactly, that it is all relative.

John Alt I agree with you but I think maybe it is a case of a differing perspective of what we read. Both you and I read the same words sdrealtor wrote but I don’t interpret them as claiming some sort immunity for the coast. I think sdrealtor has never said that and in fact pointed out losses in the coastal areas. To me the information was more anecdotal in the sense that it made an attempt to point out the demand for the area being present in light of the higher cost of living there. That this particular portion of San Diego used to be a relatively cheaper place to live but that now it is no longer that way and will most likely NOT return to being that way. Not that it will not depreciate, but that what it was 10-15 years ago (a cheaper alternative) will no longer ever be.

Anyways maybe I read it wrong.

[SD Realtor]

James Wenn that is my point exactly, that it is all relative.

John Alt I agree with you but I think maybe it is a case of a differing perspective of what we read. Both you and I read the same words sdrealtor wrote but I don’t interpret them as claiming some sort immunity for the coast. I think sdrealtor has never said that and in fact pointed out losses in the coastal areas. To me the information was more anecdotal in the sense that it made an attempt to point out the demand for the area being present in light of the higher cost of living there. That this particular portion of San Diego used to be a relatively cheaper place to live but that now it is no longer that way and will most likely NOT return to being that way. Not that it will not depreciate, but that what it was 10-15 years ago (a cheaper alternative) will no longer ever be.

Anyways maybe I read it wrong.

[Author]

Posts