Point Loma reducing a little

[jpinpb]

So maybe some of you set an alert on it, but if not, 3112 Curtis sold for 340k, PPSF: $222. I think it is a very good deal.

I was discussing w/DH the surprising reductions I’ve been seeing in 92106, 92103 and lately even some in 92109. I really think when you are at 30% off peak prices in areas that just a year or two were appearing healthy, it shows how precarious this market is. I mean, think about this. We still have fairly low rates, even if they’re slightly going up. We have had major government intervention in the way of HAMP, TARP, bailouts, tax credits, extend and pretend, kicking the can, delays and procrastinations, trickling in of inventory, hiding the pea under the shell, not filing NODs, not foreclosing, etc, etc. A massive amount of effort to prop up this market, pumping endless blood trying to keep this patient alive.

Even after ALL that, we are still seeing 30% off in certain places. And how can we think it’s bottom? I mean certainly areas like Temecula and Chula Vista, Escondido, Oceanside and the like have seen 50% and are probably back to pre-bubble 2000 pricing. But so many areas have not come close to seeing that. Only lately now they are showing some significant reductions. Have we resolved all the NODs and REOs and foreclosures in the pipeline? Are unemployment numbers so stellar that people are getting multiple call backs?

[jpinpb]

3122 Russell last sold August 2007 for $1,230,000. It listed today for 799k

[jpinpb]

3122 Russell last sold August 2007 for $1,230,000. It listed today for 799k

[jpinpb]

3122 Russell last sold August 2007 for $1,230,000. It listed today for 799k

[jpinpb]

3122 Russell last sold August 2007 for $1,230,000. It listed today for 799k

[jpinpb]

3122 Russell last sold August 2007 for $1,230,000. It listed today for 799k

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jpinpb]3122 Russell last sold August 2007 for $1,230,000. It listed today for 799k[/quote]

Wow, that’s situated low, right over Liberty Station! Looks like a rehab.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jpinpb]3122 Russell last sold August 2007 for $1,230,000. It listed today for 799k[/quote]

Wow, that’s situated low, right over Liberty Station! Looks like a rehab.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jpinpb]3122 Russell last sold August 2007 for $1,230,000. It listed today for 799k[/quote]

Wow, that’s situated low, right over Liberty Station! Looks like a rehab.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jpinpb]3122 Russell last sold August 2007 for $1,230,000. It listed today for 799k[/quote]

Wow, that’s situated low, right over Liberty Station! Looks like a rehab.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jpinpb]3122 Russell last sold August 2007 for $1,230,000. It listed today for 799k[/quote]

Wow, that’s situated low, right over Liberty Station! Looks like a rehab.

[sdcellar]

[quote=AN][quote=sdcellar]That said, are you suggesting there’s a meaningful difference, because that would be fun to debate. You’d be surprised the ingenuity people can bring to bear when it comes to “discovering” buildable land. Why one need look no further than, well, Point Loma and the aforementioned Liberty Station.[/quote]
For a built out area, unless the city change its zoning for a particular plot of land, yes, they’re not making any build-able land. Liberty Station land has always been there, they just rezone it. That’s not very common and usually is much more expensive/difficult than buying a plot of land that has nothing on it and is zoned for residential. My guess is that Liberty Station only happened because of the RE bubble. Where the builder did their calculation and even w/ the extra cost of getting the land rezoned, they’d still make a profit.[/quote]I assume this is your way of telling me I’m right?

(because I am)

I certainly wasn’t operating under the assumption that the land at liberty station was actual shiny (dirty?) new land. I’ll leave that to the UAE.

[sdcellar]

[quote=AN][quote=sdcellar]That said, are you suggesting there’s a meaningful difference, because that would be fun to debate. You’d be surprised the ingenuity people can bring to bear when it comes to “discovering” buildable land. Why one need look no further than, well, Point Loma and the aforementioned Liberty Station.[/quote]
For a built out area, unless the city change its zoning for a particular plot of land, yes, they’re not making any build-able land. Liberty Station land has always been there, they just rezone it. That’s not very common and usually is much more expensive/difficult than buying a plot of land that has nothing on it and is zoned for residential. My guess is that Liberty Station only happened because of the RE bubble. Where the builder did their calculation and even w/ the extra cost of getting the land rezoned, they’d still make a profit.[/quote]I assume this is your way of telling me I’m right?

(because I am)

I certainly wasn’t operating under the assumption that the land at liberty station was actual shiny (dirty?) new land. I’ll leave that to the UAE.

[sdcellar]

[quote=AN][quote=sdcellar]That said, are you suggesting there’s a meaningful difference, because that would be fun to debate. You’d be surprised the ingenuity people can bring to bear when it comes to “discovering” buildable land. Why one need look no further than, well, Point Loma and the aforementioned Liberty Station.[/quote]
For a built out area, unless the city change its zoning for a particular plot of land, yes, they’re not making any build-able land. Liberty Station land has always been there, they just rezone it. That’s not very common and usually is much more expensive/difficult than buying a plot of land that has nothing on it and is zoned for residential. My guess is that Liberty Station only happened because of the RE bubble. Where the builder did their calculation and even w/ the extra cost of getting the land rezoned, they’d still make a profit.[/quote]I assume this is your way of telling me I’m right?

(because I am)

I certainly wasn’t operating under the assumption that the land at liberty station was actual shiny (dirty?) new land. I’ll leave that to the UAE.

[sdcellar]

[quote=AN][quote=sdcellar]That said, are you suggesting there’s a meaningful difference, because that would be fun to debate. You’d be surprised the ingenuity people can bring to bear when it comes to “discovering” buildable land. Why one need look no further than, well, Point Loma and the aforementioned Liberty Station.[/quote]
For a built out area, unless the city change its zoning for a particular plot of land, yes, they’re not making any build-able land. Liberty Station land has always been there, they just rezone it. That’s not very common and usually is much more expensive/difficult than buying a plot of land that has nothing on it and is zoned for residential. My guess is that Liberty Station only happened because of the RE bubble. Where the builder did their calculation and even w/ the extra cost of getting the land rezoned, they’d still make a profit.[/quote]I assume this is your way of telling me I’m right?

(because I am)

I certainly wasn’t operating under the assumption that the land at liberty station was actual shiny (dirty?) new land. I’ll leave that to the UAE.

[Author]

Posts