North park flips… relatistic prices?

[jstoesz]

I mentioned that the link was “outdated but still relevant”

Do you think that san diego, has bucked this trend and is now affordable with regards to the fundamentals or the prices in the rest of the country?

If you click on the following link you will load a spreadsheet showing San Diego in 1st qtr 2010 is ranked 214 of 225 metro areas for affordability.

http://www.nahb.org/fileUpload_details.aspx?contentID=535

So clearly California’s are not getting paid more to cover their higher cost of living.

And if you go back to my first link showing the San Diego zip codes next to median home prices you get a pretty good idea of how out of whack most SD zip codes really are.

http://realestate.aol.com/San_Diego-CA-neighborhood

Is anyone disagreeing with this simple point? That there are no “good deals” in SD (from a fundamental standpoint), There are only comparatively lower priced homes that you could hopefully goad some sucker into paying more for later on…ie speculating!

Oh and I agree, that table does look ridiculous, but I guess for entirely different reasons.

[sdrealtor]

[quote=CA renter][quote=sdrealtor]I dont get it? So the wealthy enclaves have held up better because those people have more money. So prices have fallen more on the low end. This isnt about how much prices have fallen, I thought this was about affordable housing for families not cheap housing in high end wealthy enclaves for everyone. You are jumping all over the board and making no sense.

You said this was about affordability for families and now you are picking examples from the pockets where the wealthy elite reside.

Again, show me someplace outside of CA where homes in nice areas are not AFFORDABLE to middle and upper middle class families right now.[/quote]

The “wealthy enclaves” have held up better because people have more money to hold on longer than those at the bottom. There is no disagreement there. That is why these areas tend to fall later during RE declines; it does NOT mean that these areas don’t decline or that they don’t decline significantly. They do; they just tend to fall later. I also agree with you that they will generally fall less because there was less distortion in the mid-higher tiers because *the bubble was fed from the bottom-up.* Still, I believe the ratios between low/middle/high tiers that were seen before the hyperbolic moves of the bubble (~2001+) will be restored eventually.

It was because of this time lag that the mid-higher end is seeing fewer declines, relatively speaking. The govt/Fed was able to get in there with their “foreclosure moratoriums” and money-pumping, and various rescues of lenders and borrowers in order to stabilize prices at these unsustainable (IMHO) levels.

This was my post:

Submitted by CA renter on July 1, 2010 – 9:14pm.
Thanks, pemeliza. I didn’t think you were trying to make it personal at all. Thanks for your post, though. 🙂

Believe it or not, there are still a lot of places across the nation that are still not affordable to the people who are living and working there. The bubble was allowed to burst in many places, but not all. From what I’m hearing, they saw the same pattern everywhere else that we’ve seen here: the lowest-tier homes declined because there was no buffer, whatsoever. The mid-higher tier areas have held up better because the govt began their various props just as the declines were hitting these better areas. It’s not just the “prime” areas in NCC that are being propped up, it’s everywhere (unless the area was hit by something else, like the decimation of their job base like Detroit, etc.).
———–

When you see a macro trend like that (lower end in a given region has fallen steeply, while the mid-upper tiers have remained relatively stable, relatively-speaking), chances are the same trends here in San Diego are due to the same factors — like govt/Fed intervention — rather than the notion that “we’re different here.”[/quote]

More confusion here. We were talking about affordability. Its right there in the first sentence of the post you quoted but neglected to highlight. That was the point. Where in the country are middle class and upper middle class homes not affordable to people living and working there? That is the question and I still dont know where you are seeing and hearing about that outside of California. Please spare me the high end Scottsdale, Greenwich CT, Alpine, NJ, Main Line Philly, Highland Park, IL and other luxury home area metaphors and show me some data supporting that.

We have no disagreement that the low end inflated far more on the back of NINJA loans nor do we disagree that upper tier households have more money/staying power. On a dollar basis, the declines are actually fairly consistent across SD in the low to upper middle tier. But that is not the point. Here it is again:

“Believe it or not, there are still a lot of places across the nation that are still not affordable to the people who are living and working there.”

I’d just like to know where these places are outside of CA.

[sdrealtor]

[quote=CA renter][quote=sdrealtor]I dont get it? So the wealthy enclaves have held up better because those people have more money. So prices have fallen more on the low end. This isnt about how much prices have fallen, I thought this was about affordable housing for families not cheap housing in high end wealthy enclaves for everyone. You are jumping all over the board and making no sense.

You said this was about affordability for families and now you are picking examples from the pockets where the wealthy elite reside.

Again, show me someplace outside of CA where homes in nice areas are not AFFORDABLE to middle and upper middle class families right now.[/quote]

The “wealthy enclaves” have held up better because people have more money to hold on longer than those at the bottom. There is no disagreement there. That is why these areas tend to fall later during RE declines; it does NOT mean that these areas don’t decline or that they don’t decline significantly. They do; they just tend to fall later. I also agree with you that they will generally fall less because there was less distortion in the mid-higher tiers because *the bubble was fed from the bottom-up.* Still, I believe the ratios between low/middle/high tiers that were seen before the hyperbolic moves of the bubble (~2001+) will be restored eventually.

It was because of this time lag that the mid-higher end is seeing fewer declines, relatively speaking. The govt/Fed was able to get in there with their “foreclosure moratoriums” and money-pumping, and various rescues of lenders and borrowers in order to stabilize prices at these unsustainable (IMHO) levels.

This was my post:

Submitted by CA renter on July 1, 2010 – 9:14pm.
Thanks, pemeliza. I didn’t think you were trying to make it personal at all. Thanks for your post, though. 🙂

Believe it or not, there are still a lot of places across the nation that are still not affordable to the people who are living and working there. The bubble was allowed to burst in many places, but not all. From what I’m hearing, they saw the same pattern everywhere else that we’ve seen here: the lowest-tier homes declined because there was no buffer, whatsoever. The mid-higher tier areas have held up better because the govt began their various props just as the declines were hitting these better areas. It’s not just the “prime” areas in NCC that are being propped up, it’s everywhere (unless the area was hit by something else, like the decimation of their job base like Detroit, etc.).
———–

When you see a macro trend like that (lower end in a given region has fallen steeply, while the mid-upper tiers have remained relatively stable, relatively-speaking), chances are the same trends here in San Diego are due to the same factors — like govt/Fed intervention — rather than the notion that “we’re different here.”[/quote]

More confusion here. We were talking about affordability. Its right there in the first sentence of the post you quoted but neglected to highlight. That was the point. Where in the country are middle class and upper middle class homes not affordable to people living and working there? That is the question and I still dont know where you are seeing and hearing about that outside of California. Please spare me the high end Scottsdale, Greenwich CT, Alpine, NJ, Main Line Philly, Highland Park, IL and other luxury home area metaphors and show me some data supporting that.

We have no disagreement that the low end inflated far more on the back of NINJA loans nor do we disagree that upper tier households have more money/staying power. On a dollar basis, the declines are actually fairly consistent across SD in the low to upper middle tier. But that is not the point. Here it is again:

“Believe it or not, there are still a lot of places across the nation that are still not affordable to the people who are living and working there.”

I’d just like to know where these places are outside of CA.

[sdrealtor]

[quote=CA renter][quote=sdrealtor]I dont get it? So the wealthy enclaves have held up better because those people have more money. So prices have fallen more on the low end. This isnt about how much prices have fallen, I thought this was about affordable housing for families not cheap housing in high end wealthy enclaves for everyone. You are jumping all over the board and making no sense.

You said this was about affordability for families and now you are picking examples from the pockets where the wealthy elite reside.

Again, show me someplace outside of CA where homes in nice areas are not AFFORDABLE to middle and upper middle class families right now.[/quote]

The “wealthy enclaves” have held up better because people have more money to hold on longer than those at the bottom. There is no disagreement there. That is why these areas tend to fall later during RE declines; it does NOT mean that these areas don’t decline or that they don’t decline significantly. They do; they just tend to fall later. I also agree with you that they will generally fall less because there was less distortion in the mid-higher tiers because *the bubble was fed from the bottom-up.* Still, I believe the ratios between low/middle/high tiers that were seen before the hyperbolic moves of the bubble (~2001+) will be restored eventually.

It was because of this time lag that the mid-higher end is seeing fewer declines, relatively speaking. The govt/Fed was able to get in there with their “foreclosure moratoriums” and money-pumping, and various rescues of lenders and borrowers in order to stabilize prices at these unsustainable (IMHO) levels.

This was my post:

Submitted by CA renter on July 1, 2010 – 9:14pm.
Thanks, pemeliza. I didn’t think you were trying to make it personal at all. Thanks for your post, though. 🙂

Believe it or not, there are still a lot of places across the nation that are still not affordable to the people who are living and working there. The bubble was allowed to burst in many places, but not all. From what I’m hearing, they saw the same pattern everywhere else that we’ve seen here: the lowest-tier homes declined because there was no buffer, whatsoever. The mid-higher tier areas have held up better because the govt began their various props just as the declines were hitting these better areas. It’s not just the “prime” areas in NCC that are being propped up, it’s everywhere (unless the area was hit by something else, like the decimation of their job base like Detroit, etc.).
———–

When you see a macro trend like that (lower end in a given region has fallen steeply, while the mid-upper tiers have remained relatively stable, relatively-speaking), chances are the same trends here in San Diego are due to the same factors — like govt/Fed intervention — rather than the notion that “we’re different here.”[/quote]

More confusion here. We were talking about affordability. Its right there in the first sentence of the post you quoted but neglected to highlight. That was the point. Where in the country are middle class and upper middle class homes not affordable to people living and working there? That is the question and I still dont know where you are seeing and hearing about that outside of California. Please spare me the high end Scottsdale, Greenwich CT, Alpine, NJ, Main Line Philly, Highland Park, IL and other luxury home area metaphors and show me some data supporting that.

We have no disagreement that the low end inflated far more on the back of NINJA loans nor do we disagree that upper tier households have more money/staying power. On a dollar basis, the declines are actually fairly consistent across SD in the low to upper middle tier. But that is not the point. Here it is again:

“Believe it or not, there are still a lot of places across the nation that are still not affordable to the people who are living and working there.”

I’d just like to know where these places are outside of CA.

[sdrealtor]

[quote=CA renter][quote=sdrealtor]I dont get it? So the wealthy enclaves have held up better because those people have more money. So prices have fallen more on the low end. This isnt about how much prices have fallen, I thought this was about affordable housing for families not cheap housing in high end wealthy enclaves for everyone. You are jumping all over the board and making no sense.

You said this was about affordability for families and now you are picking examples from the pockets where the wealthy elite reside.

Again, show me someplace outside of CA where homes in nice areas are not AFFORDABLE to middle and upper middle class families right now.[/quote]

The “wealthy enclaves” have held up better because people have more money to hold on longer than those at the bottom. There is no disagreement there. That is why these areas tend to fall later during RE declines; it does NOT mean that these areas don’t decline or that they don’t decline significantly. They do; they just tend to fall later. I also agree with you that they will generally fall less because there was less distortion in the mid-higher tiers because *the bubble was fed from the bottom-up.* Still, I believe the ratios between low/middle/high tiers that were seen before the hyperbolic moves of the bubble (~2001+) will be restored eventually.

It was because of this time lag that the mid-higher end is seeing fewer declines, relatively speaking. The govt/Fed was able to get in there with their “foreclosure moratoriums” and money-pumping, and various rescues of lenders and borrowers in order to stabilize prices at these unsustainable (IMHO) levels.

This was my post:

Submitted by CA renter on July 1, 2010 – 9:14pm.
Thanks, pemeliza. I didn’t think you were trying to make it personal at all. Thanks for your post, though. 🙂

Believe it or not, there are still a lot of places across the nation that are still not affordable to the people who are living and working there. The bubble was allowed to burst in many places, but not all. From what I’m hearing, they saw the same pattern everywhere else that we’ve seen here: the lowest-tier homes declined because there was no buffer, whatsoever. The mid-higher tier areas have held up better because the govt began their various props just as the declines were hitting these better areas. It’s not just the “prime” areas in NCC that are being propped up, it’s everywhere (unless the area was hit by something else, like the decimation of their job base like Detroit, etc.).
———–

When you see a macro trend like that (lower end in a given region has fallen steeply, while the mid-upper tiers have remained relatively stable, relatively-speaking), chances are the same trends here in San Diego are due to the same factors — like govt/Fed intervention — rather than the notion that “we’re different here.”[/quote]

More confusion here. We were talking about affordability. Its right there in the first sentence of the post you quoted but neglected to highlight. That was the point. Where in the country are middle class and upper middle class homes not affordable to people living and working there? That is the question and I still dont know where you are seeing and hearing about that outside of California. Please spare me the high end Scottsdale, Greenwich CT, Alpine, NJ, Main Line Philly, Highland Park, IL and other luxury home area metaphors and show me some data supporting that.

We have no disagreement that the low end inflated far more on the back of NINJA loans nor do we disagree that upper tier households have more money/staying power. On a dollar basis, the declines are actually fairly consistent across SD in the low to upper middle tier. But that is not the point. Here it is again:

“Believe it or not, there are still a lot of places across the nation that are still not affordable to the people who are living and working there.”

I’d just like to know where these places are outside of CA.

[sdrealtor]

[quote=CA renter][quote=sdrealtor]I dont get it? So the wealthy enclaves have held up better because those people have more money. So prices have fallen more on the low end. This isnt about how much prices have fallen, I thought this was about affordable housing for families not cheap housing in high end wealthy enclaves for everyone. You are jumping all over the board and making no sense.

You said this was about affordability for families and now you are picking examples from the pockets where the wealthy elite reside.

Again, show me someplace outside of CA where homes in nice areas are not AFFORDABLE to middle and upper middle class families right now.[/quote]

The “wealthy enclaves” have held up better because people have more money to hold on longer than those at the bottom. There is no disagreement there. That is why these areas tend to fall later during RE declines; it does NOT mean that these areas don’t decline or that they don’t decline significantly. They do; they just tend to fall later. I also agree with you that they will generally fall less because there was less distortion in the mid-higher tiers because *the bubble was fed from the bottom-up.* Still, I believe the ratios between low/middle/high tiers that were seen before the hyperbolic moves of the bubble (~2001+) will be restored eventually.

It was because of this time lag that the mid-higher end is seeing fewer declines, relatively speaking. The govt/Fed was able to get in there with their “foreclosure moratoriums” and money-pumping, and various rescues of lenders and borrowers in order to stabilize prices at these unsustainable (IMHO) levels.

This was my post:

Submitted by CA renter on July 1, 2010 – 9:14pm.
Thanks, pemeliza. I didn’t think you were trying to make it personal at all. Thanks for your post, though. 🙂

Believe it or not, there are still a lot of places across the nation that are still not affordable to the people who are living and working there. The bubble was allowed to burst in many places, but not all. From what I’m hearing, they saw the same pattern everywhere else that we’ve seen here: the lowest-tier homes declined because there was no buffer, whatsoever. The mid-higher tier areas have held up better because the govt began their various props just as the declines were hitting these better areas. It’s not just the “prime” areas in NCC that are being propped up, it’s everywhere (unless the area was hit by something else, like the decimation of their job base like Detroit, etc.).
———–

When you see a macro trend like that (lower end in a given region has fallen steeply, while the mid-upper tiers have remained relatively stable, relatively-speaking), chances are the same trends here in San Diego are due to the same factors — like govt/Fed intervention — rather than the notion that “we’re different here.”[/quote]

More confusion here. We were talking about affordability. Its right there in the first sentence of the post you quoted but neglected to highlight. That was the point. Where in the country are middle class and upper middle class homes not affordable to people living and working there? That is the question and I still dont know where you are seeing and hearing about that outside of California. Please spare me the high end Scottsdale, Greenwich CT, Alpine, NJ, Main Line Philly, Highland Park, IL and other luxury home area metaphors and show me some data supporting that.

We have no disagreement that the low end inflated far more on the back of NINJA loans nor do we disagree that upper tier households have more money/staying power. On a dollar basis, the declines are actually fairly consistent across SD in the low to upper middle tier. But that is not the point. Here it is again:

“Believe it or not, there are still a lot of places across the nation that are still not affordable to the people who are living and working there.”

I’d just like to know where these places are outside of CA.

[pemeliza]

According to your link the median income in 92103 is $47,978.

At 3x income, the median home price should be 150k?

150k for a median priced home in one of the premier neighborhoods in all of san diego?

I know people that live in that area that make 150k a year and that’s just one of two incomes.

Median income is pretty much a useless metric for housing in a supply constrained market such as SD.

By the way, I do agree that SD is an expensive place to live especially if you don’t have any equity or stock options. It definitely is not for everyone.

[pemeliza]

According to your link the median income in 92103 is $47,978.

At 3x income, the median home price should be 150k?

150k for a median priced home in one of the premier neighborhoods in all of san diego?

I know people that live in that area that make 150k a year and that’s just one of two incomes.

Median income is pretty much a useless metric for housing in a supply constrained market such as SD.

By the way, I do agree that SD is an expensive place to live especially if you don’t have any equity or stock options. It definitely is not for everyone.

[pemeliza]

According to your link the median income in 92103 is $47,978.

At 3x income, the median home price should be 150k?

150k for a median priced home in one of the premier neighborhoods in all of san diego?

I know people that live in that area that make 150k a year and that’s just one of two incomes.

Median income is pretty much a useless metric for housing in a supply constrained market such as SD.

By the way, I do agree that SD is an expensive place to live especially if you don’t have any equity or stock options. It definitely is not for everyone.

[pemeliza]

According to your link the median income in 92103 is $47,978.

At 3x income, the median home price should be 150k?

150k for a median priced home in one of the premier neighborhoods in all of san diego?

I know people that live in that area that make 150k a year and that’s just one of two incomes.

Median income is pretty much a useless metric for housing in a supply constrained market such as SD.

By the way, I do agree that SD is an expensive place to live especially if you don’t have any equity or stock options. It definitely is not for everyone.

[pemeliza]

According to your link the median income in 92103 is $47,978.

At 3x income, the median home price should be 150k?

150k for a median priced home in one of the premier neighborhoods in all of san diego?

I know people that live in that area that make 150k a year and that’s just one of two incomes.

Median income is pretty much a useless metric for housing in a supply constrained market such as SD.

By the way, I do agree that SD is an expensive place to live especially if you don’t have any equity or stock options. It definitely is not for everyone.

[jstoesz]

why is median income a useless metric in a supply constrained market? I don’t follow.

People who live there have to eat right, they have jobs right. Your friend who makes over 150k a year is factored into that median income, just like everybody else.

[jstoesz]

why is median income a useless metric in a supply constrained market? I don’t follow.

People who live there have to eat right, they have jobs right. Your friend who makes over 150k a year is factored into that median income, just like everybody else.

[jstoesz]

why is median income a useless metric in a supply constrained market? I don’t follow.

People who live there have to eat right, they have jobs right. Your friend who makes over 150k a year is factored into that median income, just like everybody else.

[jstoesz]

why is median income a useless metric in a supply constrained market? I don’t follow.

People who live there have to eat right, they have jobs right. Your friend who makes over 150k a year is factored into that median income, just like everybody else.

[Author]

Posts