North County Coastal Market-Why so sticky?

[sdcellar]

[quote=pemeliza]”Some say yes, and some say no. ”

I guess if you consider the quality of life in 92024 in the 90’s it probably wasn’t really under-priced. But given its choice location it was certainly ripe for major appreciation as it got flooded with new money. The people that saw this and had the $$$ back in the 90s made out good even if they didn’t sell at the peak. They locked in a low tax base and now have a phenomenal quality of life.[/quote]Yeah, the thing to remember is that everything in San Diego “appreciated” at roughly the same rate. Hell, even all the way out the Temecula Valley from what I’ve heard.

Again, I think this is somewhere in the middle. I think prices were on the low side in the 90’s but quickly went overboard in the 00’s.

[an]

[quote=sdcellar]Actually, based on the new information (which you probably hadn’t seen yet), it looks like maybe not so much, at least in one of the zips in question.

That, combined with what you made me realize regarding new housing stock from ’99 on, makes me wonder how much of the resale in the other two zips actually was churn on the newer product. This ties neatly back into that whole tenure discussion.[/quote]
What about the whole distress discussion? Wouldn’t most of the people who bought in the peak get flushed out by now? Which mean resale supposed to go up, not down.

[an]

[quote=sdcellar]Actually, based on the new information (which you probably hadn’t seen yet), it looks like maybe not so much, at least in one of the zips in question.

That, combined with what you made me realize regarding new housing stock from ’99 on, makes me wonder how much of the resale in the other two zips actually was churn on the newer product. This ties neatly back into that whole tenure discussion.[/quote]
What about the whole distress discussion? Wouldn’t most of the people who bought in the peak get flushed out by now? Which mean resale supposed to go up, not down.

[an]

[quote=sdcellar]Actually, based on the new information (which you probably hadn’t seen yet), it looks like maybe not so much, at least in one of the zips in question.

That, combined with what you made me realize regarding new housing stock from ’99 on, makes me wonder how much of the resale in the other two zips actually was churn on the newer product. This ties neatly back into that whole tenure discussion.[/quote]
What about the whole distress discussion? Wouldn’t most of the people who bought in the peak get flushed out by now? Which mean resale supposed to go up, not down.

[an]

[quote=sdcellar]Actually, based on the new information (which you probably hadn’t seen yet), it looks like maybe not so much, at least in one of the zips in question.

That, combined with what you made me realize regarding new housing stock from ’99 on, makes me wonder how much of the resale in the other two zips actually was churn on the newer product. This ties neatly back into that whole tenure discussion.[/quote]
What about the whole distress discussion? Wouldn’t most of the people who bought in the peak get flushed out by now? Which mean resale supposed to go up, not down.

[an]

[quote=sdcellar]Actually, based on the new information (which you probably hadn’t seen yet), it looks like maybe not so much, at least in one of the zips in question.

That, combined with what you made me realize regarding new housing stock from ’99 on, makes me wonder how much of the resale in the other two zips actually was churn on the newer product. This ties neatly back into that whole tenure discussion.[/quote]
What about the whole distress discussion? Wouldn’t most of the people who bought in the peak get flushed out by now? Which mean resale supposed to go up, not down.

[sdcellar]

Well, we seem to understand that they’re not getting flushed out at the moment, yeah? Many homeowners are supposedly in distress, but the shorts/foreclosures aren’t there. Nobody has come up with a good explanation for either side of that (the dreaded shadow inventory), so I’m certainly not going to make something up.

Also, I don’t think every single buyer who got left holding the bag on an overpriced home will end up in distress. Plenty (and I mean plenty) can afford it, they just didn’t fare as well financially as they could have.

[sdcellar]

Well, we seem to understand that they’re not getting flushed out at the moment, yeah? Many homeowners are supposedly in distress, but the shorts/foreclosures aren’t there. Nobody has come up with a good explanation for either side of that (the dreaded shadow inventory), so I’m certainly not going to make something up.

Also, I don’t think every single buyer who got left holding the bag on an overpriced home will end up in distress. Plenty (and I mean plenty) can afford it, they just didn’t fare as well financially as they could have.

[sdcellar]

Well, we seem to understand that they’re not getting flushed out at the moment, yeah? Many homeowners are supposedly in distress, but the shorts/foreclosures aren’t there. Nobody has come up with a good explanation for either side of that (the dreaded shadow inventory), so I’m certainly not going to make something up.

Also, I don’t think every single buyer who got left holding the bag on an overpriced home will end up in distress. Plenty (and I mean plenty) can afford it, they just didn’t fare as well financially as they could have.

[sdcellar]

Well, we seem to understand that they’re not getting flushed out at the moment, yeah? Many homeowners are supposedly in distress, but the shorts/foreclosures aren’t there. Nobody has come up with a good explanation for either side of that (the dreaded shadow inventory), so I’m certainly not going to make something up.

Also, I don’t think every single buyer who got left holding the bag on an overpriced home will end up in distress. Plenty (and I mean plenty) can afford it, they just didn’t fare as well financially as they could have.

[sdcellar]

Well, we seem to understand that they’re not getting flushed out at the moment, yeah? Many homeowners are supposedly in distress, but the shorts/foreclosures aren’t there. Nobody has come up with a good explanation for either side of that (the dreaded shadow inventory), so I’m certainly not going to make something up.

Also, I don’t think every single buyer who got left holding the bag on an overpriced home will end up in distress. Plenty (and I mean plenty) can afford it, they just didn’t fare as well financially as they could have.

[an]

[quote=sdcellar]Also, I don’t think every single buyer who got left holding the bag on an overpriced home will end up in distress. Plenty (and I mean plenty) can afford it, they just didn’t fare as well financially as they could have.[/quote]
Yep, and that ties in perfectly with what I was trying to say that maybe people who bought in areas like NCC can afford it and stretch much less than people who bought in Chula Vista. That’s why it fared much better so far. That just my guess. That’s the only logical explanation in my mind.

[an]

[quote=sdcellar]Also, I don’t think every single buyer who got left holding the bag on an overpriced home will end up in distress. Plenty (and I mean plenty) can afford it, they just didn’t fare as well financially as they could have.[/quote]
Yep, and that ties in perfectly with what I was trying to say that maybe people who bought in areas like NCC can afford it and stretch much less than people who bought in Chula Vista. That’s why it fared much better so far. That just my guess. That’s the only logical explanation in my mind.

[an]

[quote=sdcellar]Also, I don’t think every single buyer who got left holding the bag on an overpriced home will end up in distress. Plenty (and I mean plenty) can afford it, they just didn’t fare as well financially as they could have.[/quote]
Yep, and that ties in perfectly with what I was trying to say that maybe people who bought in areas like NCC can afford it and stretch much less than people who bought in Chula Vista. That’s why it fared much better so far. That just my guess. That’s the only logical explanation in my mind.

[an]

[quote=sdcellar]Also, I don’t think every single buyer who got left holding the bag on an overpriced home will end up in distress. Plenty (and I mean plenty) can afford it, they just didn’t fare as well financially as they could have.[/quote]
Yep, and that ties in perfectly with what I was trying to say that maybe people who bought in areas like NCC can afford it and stretch much less than people who bought in Chula Vista. That’s why it fared much better so far. That just my guess. That’s the only logical explanation in my mind.

[Author]

Posts