North County Coastal Market-Why so sticky?

[sdcellar]

I’d say your characterization of the market through the 90’s until now is pretty spot on, CA renter, especially with regard to when it should have peaked.

The numbers pemeliza posted bear that out pretty well as well.

[sdrealtor]

single level view house always makes a difference. Like I said the primo houses (top 5 to 10%) were in very high demand but the others sold at a very pedestrian pace. Further up the cost there were lines for new homes selling with 1’s and 2’s in front of them. In the prime NCC, new homes with 3’s and 4’s in front of them were not all sold out in a day or even a week/ I know as I was there.

As far as timing goes, here it is from ground zero. I was shopping around here for my 1st home in 1997. There was very little on the market and the the economy had just turned. Price were beginning to move what seemed quickly though now I laugh at how small the gains were. The prices prior to 1995 were artifically very low here. The first property I bought was in late 1997 for 190K (a townhouse in Encinitas). A year and a half earlier (at the bottom) it sold for about 165K so 1997 was defintely the year things turned around. Two years later I sold it for 240K which was still just about equal on the buy vs rent with 20% down.

I never saw flipping going on and things seemed to sell at a moderate pace. Most of the houses were dated and needed remodelling. More than anything it was hard to find something you liked just like it is now. When the new houses came on the market it was alot easier.

The house next to my current home sold new in 1999 for $425,000. The 1st owners put at least $50K in landscaping, paint, appliances, window treatments etc to make it liveable. They were easily into it for $475K and that was very basic not extragent upgrades or landscaping. They sold in 2001 for $550K so it went up less than 10% each year. At the time the $550K seemed like a high price even though it was pretty much still at buy vs rent parity. People were scared in 2001 when they sold it. Planes were crashing into skyscrapers.

[sdrealtor]

single level view house always makes a difference. Like I said the primo houses (top 5 to 10%) were in very high demand but the others sold at a very pedestrian pace. Further up the cost there were lines for new homes selling with 1’s and 2’s in front of them. In the prime NCC, new homes with 3’s and 4’s in front of them were not all sold out in a day or even a week/ I know as I was there.

As far as timing goes, here it is from ground zero. I was shopping around here for my 1st home in 1997. There was very little on the market and the the economy had just turned. Price were beginning to move what seemed quickly though now I laugh at how small the gains were. The prices prior to 1995 were artifically very low here. The first property I bought was in late 1997 for 190K (a townhouse in Encinitas). A year and a half earlier (at the bottom) it sold for about 165K so 1997 was defintely the year things turned around. Two years later I sold it for 240K which was still just about equal on the buy vs rent with 20% down.

I never saw flipping going on and things seemed to sell at a moderate pace. Most of the houses were dated and needed remodelling. More than anything it was hard to find something you liked just like it is now. When the new houses came on the market it was alot easier.

The house next to my current home sold new in 1999 for $425,000. The 1st owners put at least $50K in landscaping, paint, appliances, window treatments etc to make it liveable. They were easily into it for $475K and that was very basic not extragent upgrades or landscaping. They sold in 2001 for $550K so it went up less than 10% each year. At the time the $550K seemed like a high price even though it was pretty much still at buy vs rent parity. People were scared in 2001 when they sold it. Planes were crashing into skyscrapers.

[sdrealtor]

single level view house always makes a difference. Like I said the primo houses (top 5 to 10%) were in very high demand but the others sold at a very pedestrian pace. Further up the cost there were lines for new homes selling with 1’s and 2’s in front of them. In the prime NCC, new homes with 3’s and 4’s in front of them were not all sold out in a day or even a week/ I know as I was there.

As far as timing goes, here it is from ground zero. I was shopping around here for my 1st home in 1997. There was very little on the market and the the economy had just turned. Price were beginning to move what seemed quickly though now I laugh at how small the gains were. The prices prior to 1995 were artifically very low here. The first property I bought was in late 1997 for 190K (a townhouse in Encinitas). A year and a half earlier (at the bottom) it sold for about 165K so 1997 was defintely the year things turned around. Two years later I sold it for 240K which was still just about equal on the buy vs rent with 20% down.

I never saw flipping going on and things seemed to sell at a moderate pace. Most of the houses were dated and needed remodelling. More than anything it was hard to find something you liked just like it is now. When the new houses came on the market it was alot easier.

The house next to my current home sold new in 1999 for $425,000. The 1st owners put at least $50K in landscaping, paint, appliances, window treatments etc to make it liveable. They were easily into it for $475K and that was very basic not extragent upgrades or landscaping. They sold in 2001 for $550K so it went up less than 10% each year. At the time the $550K seemed like a high price even though it was pretty much still at buy vs rent parity. People were scared in 2001 when they sold it. Planes were crashing into skyscrapers.

[sdrealtor]

single level view house always makes a difference. Like I said the primo houses (top 5 to 10%) were in very high demand but the others sold at a very pedestrian pace. Further up the cost there were lines for new homes selling with 1’s and 2’s in front of them. In the prime NCC, new homes with 3’s and 4’s in front of them were not all sold out in a day or even a week/ I know as I was there.

As far as timing goes, here it is from ground zero. I was shopping around here for my 1st home in 1997. There was very little on the market and the the economy had just turned. Price were beginning to move what seemed quickly though now I laugh at how small the gains were. The prices prior to 1995 were artifically very low here. The first property I bought was in late 1997 for 190K (a townhouse in Encinitas). A year and a half earlier (at the bottom) it sold for about 165K so 1997 was defintely the year things turned around. Two years later I sold it for 240K which was still just about equal on the buy vs rent with 20% down.

I never saw flipping going on and things seemed to sell at a moderate pace. Most of the houses were dated and needed remodelling. More than anything it was hard to find something you liked just like it is now. When the new houses came on the market it was alot easier.

The house next to my current home sold new in 1999 for $425,000. The 1st owners put at least $50K in landscaping, paint, appliances, window treatments etc to make it liveable. They were easily into it for $475K and that was very basic not extragent upgrades or landscaping. They sold in 2001 for $550K so it went up less than 10% each year. At the time the $550K seemed like a high price even though it was pretty much still at buy vs rent parity. People were scared in 2001 when they sold it. Planes were crashing into skyscrapers.

[sdrealtor]

single level view house always makes a difference. Like I said the primo houses (top 5 to 10%) were in very high demand but the others sold at a very pedestrian pace. Further up the cost there were lines for new homes selling with 1’s and 2’s in front of them. In the prime NCC, new homes with 3’s and 4’s in front of them were not all sold out in a day or even a week/ I know as I was there.

As far as timing goes, here it is from ground zero. I was shopping around here for my 1st home in 1997. There was very little on the market and the the economy had just turned. Price were beginning to move what seemed quickly though now I laugh at how small the gains were. The prices prior to 1995 were artifically very low here. The first property I bought was in late 1997 for 190K (a townhouse in Encinitas). A year and a half earlier (at the bottom) it sold for about 165K so 1997 was defintely the year things turned around. Two years later I sold it for 240K which was still just about equal on the buy vs rent with 20% down.

I never saw flipping going on and things seemed to sell at a moderate pace. Most of the houses were dated and needed remodelling. More than anything it was hard to find something you liked just like it is now. When the new houses came on the market it was alot easier.

The house next to my current home sold new in 1999 for $425,000. The 1st owners put at least $50K in landscaping, paint, appliances, window treatments etc to make it liveable. They were easily into it for $475K and that was very basic not extragent upgrades or landscaping. They sold in 2001 for $550K so it went up less than 10% each year. At the time the $550K seemed like a high price even though it was pretty much still at buy vs rent parity. People were scared in 2001 when they sold it. Planes were crashing into skyscrapers.

[sdrealtor]

[quote=pemeliza]I am not a realtor and so do not have access to the mls. However, the website propertyshark.com seems to be pretty darn good.

Here are the number of sales in 92024 (Encinitas) broken down per year: (The price, SF, PPSF columns are all medians).

Year Sales Price SF PPSF
2010 19 $575,000 1,567 $334
2009 575 $595,000 1,779 $330
2008 444 $680,000 1,830 $360
2007 508 $735,000 1,830 $388
2006 496 $748,000 1,830 $400
2005 561 $750,000 1,778 $421
2004 545 $680,000 1,834 $371
2003 624 $560,000 1,938 $295
2002 539 $500,000 2,008 $244
2001 425 $407,000 1,815 $230
2000 464 $396,000 1,938 $198
1999 568 $305,000 1,779 $176
1998 469 $270,000 1,792 $153
1997 371 $246,000 1,836 $136
1996 308 $234,000 1,877 $127
1995 217 $225,000 1,831 $122
1994 265 $225,000 1,867 $127
1993 246 $224,000 1,854 $121
1992 176 $250,000 1,888 $132
1991 142 $241,000 1,686 $135
1990 158 $270,000 1,832 $144
1989 180 $255,000 1,861 $134
1988 244 $212,000 1,901 $112

I believe that this data points out two things:

1.) Sales volume during 2009 actually isn’t that much different than during the peak years.

2.) 92024 was ridiculously under-priced in the 90’s.

propertyshark.com is a free site (you have to register). An analysis could be performed on any zipcode.

One other note, one reason why the sales volume in 92024 may not have changed from the peak as much as some of the other zips is that the 92024 didn’t have as much land to build on as say 92009 … thus not as many new mega developments like La Costa Valley.[/quote]

Just ran MLS numbers and the propertyshark numbers look lousy!

[sdrealtor]

[quote=pemeliza]I am not a realtor and so do not have access to the mls. However, the website propertyshark.com seems to be pretty darn good.

Here are the number of sales in 92024 (Encinitas) broken down per year: (The price, SF, PPSF columns are all medians).

Year Sales Price SF PPSF
2010 19 $575,000 1,567 $334
2009 575 $595,000 1,779 $330
2008 444 $680,000 1,830 $360
2007 508 $735,000 1,830 $388
2006 496 $748,000 1,830 $400
2005 561 $750,000 1,778 $421
2004 545 $680,000 1,834 $371
2003 624 $560,000 1,938 $295
2002 539 $500,000 2,008 $244
2001 425 $407,000 1,815 $230
2000 464 $396,000 1,938 $198
1999 568 $305,000 1,779 $176
1998 469 $270,000 1,792 $153
1997 371 $246,000 1,836 $136
1996 308 $234,000 1,877 $127
1995 217 $225,000 1,831 $122
1994 265 $225,000 1,867 $127
1993 246 $224,000 1,854 $121
1992 176 $250,000 1,888 $132
1991 142 $241,000 1,686 $135
1990 158 $270,000 1,832 $144
1989 180 $255,000 1,861 $134
1988 244 $212,000 1,901 $112

I believe that this data points out two things:

1.) Sales volume during 2009 actually isn’t that much different than during the peak years.

2.) 92024 was ridiculously under-priced in the 90’s.

propertyshark.com is a free site (you have to register). An analysis could be performed on any zipcode.

One other note, one reason why the sales volume in 92024 may not have changed from the peak as much as some of the other zips is that the 92024 didn’t have as much land to build on as say 92009 … thus not as many new mega developments like La Costa Valley.[/quote]

Just ran MLS numbers and the propertyshark numbers look lousy!

[sdrealtor]

[quote=pemeliza]I am not a realtor and so do not have access to the mls. However, the website propertyshark.com seems to be pretty darn good.

Here are the number of sales in 92024 (Encinitas) broken down per year: (The price, SF, PPSF columns are all medians).

Year Sales Price SF PPSF
2010 19 $575,000 1,567 $334
2009 575 $595,000 1,779 $330
2008 444 $680,000 1,830 $360
2007 508 $735,000 1,830 $388
2006 496 $748,000 1,830 $400
2005 561 $750,000 1,778 $421
2004 545 $680,000 1,834 $371
2003 624 $560,000 1,938 $295
2002 539 $500,000 2,008 $244
2001 425 $407,000 1,815 $230
2000 464 $396,000 1,938 $198
1999 568 $305,000 1,779 $176
1998 469 $270,000 1,792 $153
1997 371 $246,000 1,836 $136
1996 308 $234,000 1,877 $127
1995 217 $225,000 1,831 $122
1994 265 $225,000 1,867 $127
1993 246 $224,000 1,854 $121
1992 176 $250,000 1,888 $132
1991 142 $241,000 1,686 $135
1990 158 $270,000 1,832 $144
1989 180 $255,000 1,861 $134
1988 244 $212,000 1,901 $112

I believe that this data points out two things:

1.) Sales volume during 2009 actually isn’t that much different than during the peak years.

2.) 92024 was ridiculously under-priced in the 90’s.

propertyshark.com is a free site (you have to register). An analysis could be performed on any zipcode.

One other note, one reason why the sales volume in 92024 may not have changed from the peak as much as some of the other zips is that the 92024 didn’t have as much land to build on as say 92009 … thus not as many new mega developments like La Costa Valley.[/quote]

Just ran MLS numbers and the propertyshark numbers look lousy!

[sdrealtor]

[quote=pemeliza]I am not a realtor and so do not have access to the mls. However, the website propertyshark.com seems to be pretty darn good.

Here are the number of sales in 92024 (Encinitas) broken down per year: (The price, SF, PPSF columns are all medians).

Year Sales Price SF PPSF
2010 19 $575,000 1,567 $334
2009 575 $595,000 1,779 $330
2008 444 $680,000 1,830 $360
2007 508 $735,000 1,830 $388
2006 496 $748,000 1,830 $400
2005 561 $750,000 1,778 $421
2004 545 $680,000 1,834 $371
2003 624 $560,000 1,938 $295
2002 539 $500,000 2,008 $244
2001 425 $407,000 1,815 $230
2000 464 $396,000 1,938 $198
1999 568 $305,000 1,779 $176
1998 469 $270,000 1,792 $153
1997 371 $246,000 1,836 $136
1996 308 $234,000 1,877 $127
1995 217 $225,000 1,831 $122
1994 265 $225,000 1,867 $127
1993 246 $224,000 1,854 $121
1992 176 $250,000 1,888 $132
1991 142 $241,000 1,686 $135
1990 158 $270,000 1,832 $144
1989 180 $255,000 1,861 $134
1988 244 $212,000 1,901 $112

I believe that this data points out two things:

1.) Sales volume during 2009 actually isn’t that much different than during the peak years.

2.) 92024 was ridiculously under-priced in the 90’s.

propertyshark.com is a free site (you have to register). An analysis could be performed on any zipcode.

One other note, one reason why the sales volume in 92024 may not have changed from the peak as much as some of the other zips is that the 92024 didn’t have as much land to build on as say 92009 … thus not as many new mega developments like La Costa Valley.[/quote]

Just ran MLS numbers and the propertyshark numbers look lousy!

[sdrealtor]

[quote=pemeliza]I am not a realtor and so do not have access to the mls. However, the website propertyshark.com seems to be pretty darn good.

Here are the number of sales in 92024 (Encinitas) broken down per year: (The price, SF, PPSF columns are all medians).

Year Sales Price SF PPSF
2010 19 $575,000 1,567 $334
2009 575 $595,000 1,779 $330
2008 444 $680,000 1,830 $360
2007 508 $735,000 1,830 $388
2006 496 $748,000 1,830 $400
2005 561 $750,000 1,778 $421
2004 545 $680,000 1,834 $371
2003 624 $560,000 1,938 $295
2002 539 $500,000 2,008 $244
2001 425 $407,000 1,815 $230
2000 464 $396,000 1,938 $198
1999 568 $305,000 1,779 $176
1998 469 $270,000 1,792 $153
1997 371 $246,000 1,836 $136
1996 308 $234,000 1,877 $127
1995 217 $225,000 1,831 $122
1994 265 $225,000 1,867 $127
1993 246 $224,000 1,854 $121
1992 176 $250,000 1,888 $132
1991 142 $241,000 1,686 $135
1990 158 $270,000 1,832 $144
1989 180 $255,000 1,861 $134
1988 244 $212,000 1,901 $112

I believe that this data points out two things:

1.) Sales volume during 2009 actually isn’t that much different than during the peak years.

2.) 92024 was ridiculously under-priced in the 90’s.

propertyshark.com is a free site (you have to register). An analysis could be performed on any zipcode.

One other note, one reason why the sales volume in 92024 may not have changed from the peak as much as some of the other zips is that the 92024 didn’t have as much land to build on as say 92009 … thus not as many new mega developments like La Costa Valley.[/quote]

Just ran MLS numbers and the propertyshark numbers look lousy!

[sdrealtor]

I can only go back to 1996 but here is 92024 Encinitas sales volume.

2009 – 481
2008 – 431
2007 – 532
2006 – 567
2005 – 681
2004 – 745
2003 – 902
2002 – 819
2001 – 749
2000 – 812
1999 – 863
1998 – 837
1997 – 822
1996 – 652
1995 – 454 (this is the first year of MLS data and I beleive it’s a bit on the the light side)

So there it is. Sales volumes are about half peak volumes. Encinitas Ranch was built between 1997 and 2003. Each year at least a hundred new homes were sold those years.

Sales volumes have been well below 1996 sales volumes for 4 connsecutive years. They are around the same as 1995 when 92024 real estate was barely being sold in the opinion of many oldtimers I know.

Tell me again we dont have a large amount of pent up demand building.

[sdrealtor]

I can only go back to 1996 but here is 92024 Encinitas sales volume.

2009 – 481
2008 – 431
2007 – 532
2006 – 567
2005 – 681
2004 – 745
2003 – 902
2002 – 819
2001 – 749
2000 – 812
1999 – 863
1998 – 837
1997 – 822
1996 – 652
1995 – 454 (this is the first year of MLS data and I beleive it’s a bit on the the light side)

So there it is. Sales volumes are about half peak volumes. Encinitas Ranch was built between 1997 and 2003. Each year at least a hundred new homes were sold those years.

Sales volumes have been well below 1996 sales volumes for 4 connsecutive years. They are around the same as 1995 when 92024 real estate was barely being sold in the opinion of many oldtimers I know.

Tell me again we dont have a large amount of pent up demand building.

[sdrealtor]

I can only go back to 1996 but here is 92024 Encinitas sales volume.

2009 – 481
2008 – 431
2007 – 532
2006 – 567
2005 – 681
2004 – 745
2003 – 902
2002 – 819
2001 – 749
2000 – 812
1999 – 863
1998 – 837
1997 – 822
1996 – 652
1995 – 454 (this is the first year of MLS data and I beleive it’s a bit on the the light side)

So there it is. Sales volumes are about half peak volumes. Encinitas Ranch was built between 1997 and 2003. Each year at least a hundred new homes were sold those years.

Sales volumes have been well below 1996 sales volumes for 4 connsecutive years. They are around the same as 1995 when 92024 real estate was barely being sold in the opinion of many oldtimers I know.

Tell me again we dont have a large amount of pent up demand building.

[sdrealtor]

I can only go back to 1996 but here is 92024 Encinitas sales volume.

2009 – 481
2008 – 431
2007 – 532
2006 – 567
2005 – 681
2004 – 745
2003 – 902
2002 – 819
2001 – 749
2000 – 812
1999 – 863
1998 – 837
1997 – 822
1996 – 652
1995 – 454 (this is the first year of MLS data and I beleive it’s a bit on the the light side)

So there it is. Sales volumes are about half peak volumes. Encinitas Ranch was built between 1997 and 2003. Each year at least a hundred new homes were sold those years.

Sales volumes have been well below 1996 sales volumes for 4 connsecutive years. They are around the same as 1995 when 92024 real estate was barely being sold in the opinion of many oldtimers I know.

Tell me again we dont have a large amount of pent up demand building.

[Author]

Posts