Point Loma reducing a little

[jpinpb]

LOL. javatestcase – I’ve become quite disenchanted w/PB. It was good for a while and maybe I just was holding on to what it was, but the City of SD keeps allowing SFR to be mowed down and allowing developers to build 4 to 6 townhomes in its place. Okay. Fine if you’re going to do that. The developer pays whatever the high permits cost to do it. Passes his bill to whoever buys the townhomes for 500k+.

BUT, the City does nothing to improve the infrastructure. The water and sewer mains keep breaking. The same 2 main streets out of PB (Grand and Garnet) are just jammed up w/traffic, especially rush hour. The congestion in PB is just ridiculous. The City has done nothing to improve this, despite allowing rampant building to continue.

Add all that to the other problems that have continued due to the excessive alcohol permits issued to bars and restaurants and all the incidents associated w/that, the DUIs, etc, etc. Well, it’s just too much for me. I’ve even seen some places for sale that have been tempting, but in the end, I decided against it.

[javatestcase]

Desmond, IMHO you may have misinterpreted the tone of this thread.

Speaking only for myself, I am not a home owner, and have live in 92107 for 10 years. I study the market because I plan to buy there, and have put low ball offers on three houses this year, missed out on all so far (barely, all went well below list).

I’m have no interest in trying to convince anyone to buy. I’m simple commenting on my observations. The market may go down further, it may not. It’s taken a while to drop at all, and some places may be good deals like the one above.

p.s. if you ever visited the forum on SDLookup for 92107 and 92106, some of JP’s comments about houses would make sellers want to cry…

[javatestcase]

Desmond, IMHO you may have misinterpreted the tone of this thread.

Speaking only for myself, I am not a home owner, and have live in 92107 for 10 years. I study the market because I plan to buy there, and have put low ball offers on three houses this year, missed out on all so far (barely, all went well below list).

I’m have no interest in trying to convince anyone to buy. I’m simple commenting on my observations. The market may go down further, it may not. It’s taken a while to drop at all, and some places may be good deals like the one above.

p.s. if you ever visited the forum on SDLookup for 92107 and 92106, some of JP’s comments about houses would make sellers want to cry…

[javatestcase]

Desmond, IMHO you may have misinterpreted the tone of this thread.

Speaking only for myself, I am not a home owner, and have live in 92107 for 10 years. I study the market because I plan to buy there, and have put low ball offers on three houses this year, missed out on all so far (barely, all went well below list).

I’m have no interest in trying to convince anyone to buy. I’m simple commenting on my observations. The market may go down further, it may not. It’s taken a while to drop at all, and some places may be good deals like the one above.

p.s. if you ever visited the forum on SDLookup for 92107 and 92106, some of JP’s comments about houses would make sellers want to cry…

[javatestcase]

Desmond, IMHO you may have misinterpreted the tone of this thread.

Speaking only for myself, I am not a home owner, and have live in 92107 for 10 years. I study the market because I plan to buy there, and have put low ball offers on three houses this year, missed out on all so far (barely, all went well below list).

I’m have no interest in trying to convince anyone to buy. I’m simple commenting on my observations. The market may go down further, it may not. It’s taken a while to drop at all, and some places may be good deals like the one above.

p.s. if you ever visited the forum on SDLookup for 92107 and 92106, some of JP’s comments about houses would make sellers want to cry…

[javatestcase]

Desmond, IMHO you may have misinterpreted the tone of this thread.

Speaking only for myself, I am not a home owner, and have live in 92107 for 10 years. I study the market because I plan to buy there, and have put low ball offers on three houses this year, missed out on all so far (barely, all went well below list).

I’m have no interest in trying to convince anyone to buy. I’m simple commenting on my observations. The market may go down further, it may not. It’s taken a while to drop at all, and some places may be good deals like the one above.

p.s. if you ever visited the forum on SDLookup for 92107 and 92106, some of JP’s comments about houses would make sellers want to cry…

[bearishgurl]

[quote=desmond]It is becoming obvious that some homeowners on this board are trying to keep their home values up with keystrokes, or just trying to prove that they are so much smarter than the slobs believing home values still have declines ahead . . . [/quote]

Desmond, since you recently put it out there that I’m an “over-commenter,” I now have a license to comment further on my own behalf. Whatever happens to urban Chula Vista where I reside (one mile from SD Bay) has NOTHING TO DO with the comps in 92106/92107. I don’t care how bullish I sound here on Pt. Loma. Whatever happens there won’t help me squat with keeping the values up in my own area.

When I speak of “resilience” in certain SD County areas, I speak of historical performance. I don’t care what happens with 4-S-closure Ranch or Sky (Santee) Ranch. If these prices take a further dive in 2011 or even SD County across the board, they will ONLY dive in areas where there is too much current distress-sale activity with the resultant “sold comps” that emanate from those distress sales. If these are the ONLY comps in the immediate area, appraisers will use them when valuating a property in escrow for a lender. It won’t affect 92106-92107 ONE BIT unless the actual lowered sold comps from distress sales originate from 92106/92107. Even then, it will only affect the listing inventory in the immediate community of the “distressed” sold comp, i.e. “Sunset Cliffs,” “Robb Field,” or “Roseville.”

I continue to maintain that those properties on the market currently are “have-to-sells,” “must-sells,” or, as CAR previously mentioned, “free and clear heirs that just want to cash out now (instead of wait for years) to close an estate.”

If I was interested in purchasing a property today which I thought may be slightly overpriced and it was NOT a distressed listing, I would attempt to find out from the sellers their “REAL” REASON for listing the property. If I didn’t believe them and was still interested in purchasing the property, I might conduct my own further investigation. In either case, I would draft my offer accordingly.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=desmond]It is becoming obvious that some homeowners on this board are trying to keep their home values up with keystrokes, or just trying to prove that they are so much smarter than the slobs believing home values still have declines ahead . . . [/quote]

Desmond, since you recently put it out there that I’m an “over-commenter,” I now have a license to comment further on my own behalf. Whatever happens to urban Chula Vista where I reside (one mile from SD Bay) has NOTHING TO DO with the comps in 92106/92107. I don’t care how bullish I sound here on Pt. Loma. Whatever happens there won’t help me squat with keeping the values up in my own area.

When I speak of “resilience” in certain SD County areas, I speak of historical performance. I don’t care what happens with 4-S-closure Ranch or Sky (Santee) Ranch. If these prices take a further dive in 2011 or even SD County across the board, they will ONLY dive in areas where there is too much current distress-sale activity with the resultant “sold comps” that emanate from those distress sales. If these are the ONLY comps in the immediate area, appraisers will use them when valuating a property in escrow for a lender. It won’t affect 92106-92107 ONE BIT unless the actual lowered sold comps from distress sales originate from 92106/92107. Even then, it will only affect the listing inventory in the immediate community of the “distressed” sold comp, i.e. “Sunset Cliffs,” “Robb Field,” or “Roseville.”

I continue to maintain that those properties on the market currently are “have-to-sells,” “must-sells,” or, as CAR previously mentioned, “free and clear heirs that just want to cash out now (instead of wait for years) to close an estate.”

If I was interested in purchasing a property today which I thought may be slightly overpriced and it was NOT a distressed listing, I would attempt to find out from the sellers their “REAL” REASON for listing the property. If I didn’t believe them and was still interested in purchasing the property, I might conduct my own further investigation. In either case, I would draft my offer accordingly.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=desmond]It is becoming obvious that some homeowners on this board are trying to keep their home values up with keystrokes, or just trying to prove that they are so much smarter than the slobs believing home values still have declines ahead . . . [/quote]

Desmond, since you recently put it out there that I’m an “over-commenter,” I now have a license to comment further on my own behalf. Whatever happens to urban Chula Vista where I reside (one mile from SD Bay) has NOTHING TO DO with the comps in 92106/92107. I don’t care how bullish I sound here on Pt. Loma. Whatever happens there won’t help me squat with keeping the values up in my own area.

When I speak of “resilience” in certain SD County areas, I speak of historical performance. I don’t care what happens with 4-S-closure Ranch or Sky (Santee) Ranch. If these prices take a further dive in 2011 or even SD County across the board, they will ONLY dive in areas where there is too much current distress-sale activity with the resultant “sold comps” that emanate from those distress sales. If these are the ONLY comps in the immediate area, appraisers will use them when valuating a property in escrow for a lender. It won’t affect 92106-92107 ONE BIT unless the actual lowered sold comps from distress sales originate from 92106/92107. Even then, it will only affect the listing inventory in the immediate community of the “distressed” sold comp, i.e. “Sunset Cliffs,” “Robb Field,” or “Roseville.”

I continue to maintain that those properties on the market currently are “have-to-sells,” “must-sells,” or, as CAR previously mentioned, “free and clear heirs that just want to cash out now (instead of wait for years) to close an estate.”

If I was interested in purchasing a property today which I thought may be slightly overpriced and it was NOT a distressed listing, I would attempt to find out from the sellers their “REAL” REASON for listing the property. If I didn’t believe them and was still interested in purchasing the property, I might conduct my own further investigation. In either case, I would draft my offer accordingly.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=desmond]It is becoming obvious that some homeowners on this board are trying to keep their home values up with keystrokes, or just trying to prove that they are so much smarter than the slobs believing home values still have declines ahead . . . [/quote]

Desmond, since you recently put it out there that I’m an “over-commenter,” I now have a license to comment further on my own behalf. Whatever happens to urban Chula Vista where I reside (one mile from SD Bay) has NOTHING TO DO with the comps in 92106/92107. I don’t care how bullish I sound here on Pt. Loma. Whatever happens there won’t help me squat with keeping the values up in my own area.

When I speak of “resilience” in certain SD County areas, I speak of historical performance. I don’t care what happens with 4-S-closure Ranch or Sky (Santee) Ranch. If these prices take a further dive in 2011 or even SD County across the board, they will ONLY dive in areas where there is too much current distress-sale activity with the resultant “sold comps” that emanate from those distress sales. If these are the ONLY comps in the immediate area, appraisers will use them when valuating a property in escrow for a lender. It won’t affect 92106-92107 ONE BIT unless the actual lowered sold comps from distress sales originate from 92106/92107. Even then, it will only affect the listing inventory in the immediate community of the “distressed” sold comp, i.e. “Sunset Cliffs,” “Robb Field,” or “Roseville.”

I continue to maintain that those properties on the market currently are “have-to-sells,” “must-sells,” or, as CAR previously mentioned, “free and clear heirs that just want to cash out now (instead of wait for years) to close an estate.”

If I was interested in purchasing a property today which I thought may be slightly overpriced and it was NOT a distressed listing, I would attempt to find out from the sellers their “REAL” REASON for listing the property. If I didn’t believe them and was still interested in purchasing the property, I might conduct my own further investigation. In either case, I would draft my offer accordingly.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=desmond]It is becoming obvious that some homeowners on this board are trying to keep their home values up with keystrokes, or just trying to prove that they are so much smarter than the slobs believing home values still have declines ahead . . . [/quote]

Desmond, since you recently put it out there that I’m an “over-commenter,” I now have a license to comment further on my own behalf. Whatever happens to urban Chula Vista where I reside (one mile from SD Bay) has NOTHING TO DO with the comps in 92106/92107. I don’t care how bullish I sound here on Pt. Loma. Whatever happens there won’t help me squat with keeping the values up in my own area.

When I speak of “resilience” in certain SD County areas, I speak of historical performance. I don’t care what happens with 4-S-closure Ranch or Sky (Santee) Ranch. If these prices take a further dive in 2011 or even SD County across the board, they will ONLY dive in areas where there is too much current distress-sale activity with the resultant “sold comps” that emanate from those distress sales. If these are the ONLY comps in the immediate area, appraisers will use them when valuating a property in escrow for a lender. It won’t affect 92106-92107 ONE BIT unless the actual lowered sold comps from distress sales originate from 92106/92107. Even then, it will only affect the listing inventory in the immediate community of the “distressed” sold comp, i.e. “Sunset Cliffs,” “Robb Field,” or “Roseville.”

I continue to maintain that those properties on the market currently are “have-to-sells,” “must-sells,” or, as CAR previously mentioned, “free and clear heirs that just want to cash out now (instead of wait for years) to close an estate.”

If I was interested in purchasing a property today which I thought may be slightly overpriced and it was NOT a distressed listing, I would attempt to find out from the sellers their “REAL” REASON for listing the property. If I didn’t believe them and was still interested in purchasing the property, I might conduct my own further investigation. In either case, I would draft my offer accordingly.

[sdduuuude]

deleted

[sdduuuude]

deleted

[sdduuuude]

deleted

[sdduuuude]

deleted

[Author]

Posts