As I said, I already posted some, for instance 616 San Antonio, which was a 47% hit. This whole thread is illustrating PL seeing declines in low, middle and high end. Go back through it to satisfy yourself. Maybe there won’t be any more to come. Maybe that’s it and everything is all better and only dogs will take the hit.[/quote]
jp, I saw your links such as 616 San Antonio (La Playa “nautical view” property situated low) take a big hit. I believe properties in prime areas (such as La Playa) worth between $1.3M and $2.5M during “bubble” years HAD to take big hits if they were to sell in this market. The ones that did obviously were MUST SELLS (distressed seller, relocating/retiring seller or divorce).
The $600-$900K range is really the bread and butter range of a PL single-family home (for at least the 3/2/2 all one level), meaning there are far more qualified buyers in this range than $900K + (reduced from formerly $1.3M+ prices). The 2+ car garage and all one level are key because many of these houses were not originally built with full 2-car garages and land is at a premium there. Retired persons or those approaching retirement with slipped vessels in Shelter Island are one captive audience for these properties and they prefer one story homes. In addition, many homes there (yes, even in expensive La Playa) were originally built with one bathroom. Any indication of pulled permits in the past to increase the footprint of a depression-era or WWII SFR, whether for bdrms, baths or (attached or detached) larger garage, adds exponentially to the value of a one-story home there and contributes to the current “bread and butter” inventory in PL. In order to do this, the lot had to be more substantial than just the SD std 5000 sf lot (preferably over 7500sf).
If a buyer is well-heeled and can come in with a 50%+ downpayment on a $900K+ home in PL, of course they are currently going to get more bang for their buck than any buyer in a lower price-range there, due to sellers borrowing big time during “bubble years” to remodel to perfection and then listing it a “short-sale” (must-sell inventory) or losing the property to foreclosure. But the “bread and butter price-range in PL is still about $600-$900K. The properties listed below that price range either suffer from economic obsolescence (1 bath, 1-car garage, no garage, =<5000 sf lot, 2nd or 3rd story added on =<5000 sf lot, built into side of cyn, unpaved alley, etc) or environmental obsolescence (situated in jet-takeoff corridor, on busy street or backing into canyon with busy street below).
The unencumbered or little-encumbered properties are out there also but may not have the sf and modern conveniences that today’s family wants. This lack of encumbrance cuts two ways, both bad for buyers and good for buyers.
Bad: These sellers (even if “heirs”) can remove the property from the market after receiving only lowball offers and wait for a better day.
Good: These sellers are sometimes able to carry a 1st or 2nd TD on the property.
I think what lifeizfunhuh posted earlier about Sunset Cliffs (92107) rings true. The higher-end SC properties with all the fairly recently-added accoutrements (“bells and whistles”) are at less than build prices now if they are “must-sell” listings. In order to take advantage of these awesome finds, a buyer has to be in a current position to do so. There aren’t very many who are, and those who are have MANY choices in life as to location of a permanent or part-time residence.
After residing in 92107 all or most of his adult life, lifeizfun actually recently relocated to semi-rural East County to hear frogs on an executive style spread for the low $700K range, IIRC.
The $64M question is, will the “bread and butter” properties in PL in the $600-$900K range ever reduce on a grand scale? This all depends on the motivation of sellers. The only way to find this out is to go buy one or two large plat maps from the assessor in a micro area of interest. Then study each and every property’s records shown on the map(s). If you find the bulk of these properties have little to zero encumbrance relative to their current market values, then the answer is no. If you find the bulk of these properties are encumbered more than $400K and in addition at least half of those have outstanding encumbrances from 2nd’s/HELOCs, then dig further by going down to the recorder’s office and studying the terms of the trust deeds encumbering the properties on the map. If the bulk of the trust deeds are I/O, 30 due in 5 or 7, have balloon-payments, etc and the average encumbrance is verging on 70%+ LTV, then there may very well be distress down the road in that micro area.
I am of the first camp in that I don’t think the distress is in 92106 SFR’s on a wide enough scale to affect property values adversely. But my belief is only anecdotal. In 92106, I have a non-distressed over age 60 demographic homeowner in my mind (either occupying or a landlord).
My example of San Antonio is in the sweet spot you speak of. Maybe that was a one-time exception. Frankly, I’m surprised to see any declines in PL. As I stated, out of all the ZIPs I watched, that had the least NODs. And yet there were declines.
My example of San Antonio is in the sweet spot you speak of. Maybe that was a one-time exception. Frankly, I’m surprised to see any declines in PL. As I stated, out of all the ZIPs I watched, that had the least NODs. And yet there were declines.
My example of San Antonio is in the sweet spot you speak of. Maybe that was a one-time exception. Frankly, I’m surprised to see any declines in PL. As I stated, out of all the ZIPs I watched, that had the least NODs. And yet there were declines.
My example of San Antonio is in the sweet spot you speak of. Maybe that was a one-time exception. Frankly, I’m surprised to see any declines in PL. As I stated, out of all the ZIPs I watched, that had the least NODs. And yet there were declines.
My example of San Antonio is in the sweet spot you speak of. Maybe that was a one-time exception. Frankly, I’m surprised to see any declines in PL. As I stated, out of all the ZIPs I watched, that had the least NODs. And yet there were declines.
.
