Point Loma reducing a little

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sdrealtor]My inventory has been doing nothing but growing in size and value. It doubled last year and doubled again his year.

Why?? Because I am buying wine at year 2000 prices just like my clients are buying RE at:)

Cheers

sdr[/quote]

Does a bottle have double the taste and last twice as long as it did in 2000??

Just wondering…

[sdrealtor]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=sdrealtor]My inventory has been doing nothing but growing in size and value. It doubled last year and doubled again his year.

Why?? Because I am buying wine at year 2000 prices just like my clients are buying RE at:)

Cheers

sdr[/quote]

Does a bottle have double the taste and last twice as long as it did in 2000??

Just wondering…[/quote]

Better wine and it lasts half the time.

[an]

[quote=bearishgurl]I never stated anywhere that sellers should recoup ALL of their improvements. The “cosmetic improvements” on the subject we’re discussion here claimed in the listing detail to have been completed in the last 3 years. It is obvious that these particular sellers recouped little to NOTHING from any “cosmetic” and other investments they made.[/quote]
This particular example, you’re right, the last buyer recouped little to nothing from the cosmetic upgrades. However, that’s because they overpaid in the first place. If that buyer never existed and the 2003 buyer did the same upgrade, then the sold price would say they recoup most if not all of the cost. You did say it is 20% better than it was in 2003, which mean the upgrade would have 100% ROI, since it sold for 20% above 2003 price without the upgrades.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sdrealtor]Better wine and it lasts half the time.[/quote]

Just as I suspected …

[an]

[quote=briansd1]I don’t think that cosmetic improvement such as a kitchen remodel “deserve” to be recouped. Adding square footage or adding a new bath, yes. But, after a decade, a cosmetic remodel is worthless anyway, IMO.

I laugh when I seen ads for stuff on CL that say: paid x and selling for y.[/quote]
I totally agree, which is why I view cosmetic upgrades in the same line of buying a luxury car. It will depreciate and one day become irrelevant and need to be discarded. Those $100k fully loaded M5 will be out dated in 10 years and they can barely fetch a fraction of that. Same can be said with cosmetic upgrades. Appliances break down and become out dated. So it doesn’t matter if they paid $20k-30k, it will depreciate. If anything, it’ll depreciate much faster than your run of the mill appliances, just like those $100k cars depreciate much faster than your $10k-$15k econobox.

I agree with sq-ft and bath statement, although they also have their diminishing return as well. Adding a bathroom to a 4/3 or 5/3 house won’t have the same ROI as adding it to a 3/1 or 2/1 house. Same with sq-ft, adding a 1000 sq-ft to a 1000 sq-ft house yield a higher ROI than a 1000 sq-ft to a 2000 sq-ft house, especially if the new 3000 sq-ft house is much larger than anything in the area.

I laugh at those CL posts too. Who cares how much you paid for it, it’s how much those things are worth today.

Talking about used high end appliances and CL, I decided to go CL shopping and see how much these high end appliances go for used just for kicks and giggles:
http://sandiego.craigslist.org/nsd/app/2616547527.html
http://sandiego.craigslist.org/ssd/for/2625303525.html
http://sandiego.craigslist.org/csd/app/2629392121.html (how much would it cost to fix?)
http://sandiego.craigslist.org/csd/app/2629778913.html
http://sandiego.craigslist.org/nsd/app/2615673701.html
http://sandiego.craigslist.org/esd/app/2604363265.html

[jpinpb]

BG – Thanks for bringing up the 2000 pricing in relation to location. I have seen very few places along the coast that have seen 2000 prices. (not saying there won’t be some that pop up and that would be more condos/townhouses) There are many more SFR that are seeing 2003 pricing.

Since PL is considered a desireable ZIP and since there were so few NODs (haven’t checked lately) I am surprised to see declines at all, which was the reason I even started this thread in the first place. The declines along the coast have been gradual and for there to be 2003 pricing along the coast w/these interest rates are quite good.

Yes, you can get 2000 pricing in Temecula, Chula Vista, etc. Those areas are not the coast where prices have been very sticky. To get 2003 pricing along the coast that realtors (perhaps not on this blog) have claimed is immune is really saying something. It was only a short few years ago that I remember hearing people say the coast would see little decline in pricing. Others were saying to just wait, it will happen eventually. They are occurring, however slowly and gradually, and on properties that are not fixers.

[an]

[quote=jpinpb]BG – Thanks for bringing up the 2000 pricing in relation to location. I have seen very few places along the coast that have seen 2000 prices. (not saying there won’t be some that pop up and that would be more condos/townhouses) There are many more SFR that are seeing 2003 pricing.

Since PL is considered a desireable ZIP and since there were so few NODs (haven’t checked lately) I am surprised to see declines at all, which was the reason I even started this thread in the first place. The declines along the coast have been gradual and for there to be 2003 pricing along the coast w/these interest rates are quite good.

Yes, you can get 2000 pricing in Temecula, Chula Vista, etc. Those areas are not the coast where prices have been very sticky. To get 2003 pricing along the coast that realtors (perhaps not on this blog) have claimed is immune is really saying something. It was only a short few years ago that I remember hearing people say the coast would see little decline in pricing. Others were saying to just wait, it will happen eventually. They are occurring, however slowly and gradually, and on properties that are not fixers.[/quote]
I don’t think anyone is disputing that there are places that only see 2003 price thus far. You don’t have to be coastal or expensive/desirable like PL to see that. I’ve shown the same thing happening in Mira Mesa and 4S Ranch. These two are far from PL in term of desirability scale, especially Mira Mesa. Yet, I’m not seeing too many that close below 2003 price as well. I’m sure there are other in land areas that are not as desirable as Point Loma that also are not seeing price much below 2003 price as well. So, I don’t think being coastal or being ultra desirable have much to do with it. Especially since I just shown a property in Del Mar that just closed at 2000 price and it’s not a fixer, not built during the bubble, and are >$1M. I think Del Mar is very desirable. Del Mar have ~6700 household and Point Loma have ~7100 household. Both Point Loma and Del Mar have about 50 something NOD/NOT/REO. So, just because an area is ultra desirable and have low NOD/NOT/REO doesn’t mean you can’t get 2000 pricing.

In essence, what you’re really saying is, some areas, you just can’t get good darn deals, and I agree with that. I just disagree with the point that all of those areas are ultra desirable.

Those realtors who claim coastal areas are immune are probably the same realtors who say price will never drop. So, that doesn’t really say much.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN]I don’t think anyone is disputing that there are places that only see 2003 price thus far. You don’t have to be coastal or expensive/desirable like PL to see that. I’ve shown the same thing happening in Mira Mesa and 4S Ranch. These two are far from PL in term of desirability scale, especially Mira Mesa. Yet, I’m not seeing too many that close below 2003 price as well. I’m sure there are other in land areas that are not as desirable as Point Loma that also are not seeing price much below 2003 price as well. So, I don’t think being coastal or being ultra desirable have much to do with it.[/quote]

AN, I don’t know how many tracts in MM were built in the last decade but most of 4S was built in 2003 or AFTER. Most of those housing units are/were recent “bubble-era” purchases as new construction or short sale/REO.

Lower-priced housing areas have been selling better than higher-priced housing areas since lending standards have been much tighter (approx 2007-2008).

[quote=AN]Especially since I just shown a property in Del Mar that just closed at 2000 price and it’s not a fixer, not built during the bubble, and are >$1M. I think Del Mar is very desirable. Del Mar have ~6700 household and Point Loma have ~7100 household. Both Point Loma and Del Mar have about 50 something NOD/NOT/REO. So, just because an area is ultra desirable and have low NOD/NOT/REO doesn’t mean you can’t get 2000 pricing.[/quote]

Again, that (large) DM unit you posted here is a (less-desirable) PUD heavily encumbered by an (expensive) HOA. I would surmise that what few remaining vacant lots (on which to build an SFR in DM) cost just as much as that PUD (with or without utilities), if not more.

AN, where are you getting the data that 50 properties in both 92106 and 92014 are currently in distress? And are these primarily condos or SFRs?

Del Mar has always been more dense that 92106. It is comprised of 37.5% multifamily units:

For 92014

Structure Type Number Percent California Avg. National Avg.
Total housing units 6,750 100.00 % – –
1-unit, detached
4,217 62.47 % 56.35 % 60.37 %
1-unit, attached
1,106 16.39 % 7.63 % 5.68 %
2 units
148 2.19 % 2.68 % 4.29 %
3 or 4 units
138 2.04 % 5.71 % 4.72 %
5 to 9 units
277 4.10 % 5.92 % 4.66 %
10 to 19 units
277 4.10 % 5.07 % 3.99 %
20 or more units
580 8.59 % 11.98 % 8.59 %
Mobile home
7 0.10 % 4.40 % 7.49 %
Boat, RV, van, etc.
0 0.00 % 0.26 % 0.22 %

see: http://zipatlas.com/us/ca/san-diego/zip-92014.htm#structures

Point Loma (92106) is comprised of 28% multifamily units:

For 92106

Structure Type Number Percent California Avg. National Avg.
Total housing units 7,169 100.00 % – –
1-unit, detached
5,165 72.05 % 56.35 % 60.37 %
1-unit, attached
188 2.62 % 7.63 % 5.68 %
2 units
120 1.67 % 2.68 % 4.29 %
3 or 4 units
427 5.96 % 5.71 % 4.72 %
5 to 9 units
428 5.97 % 5.92 % 4.66 %
10 to 19 units
328 4.58 % 5.07 % 3.99 %
20 or more units
452 6.30 % 11.98 % 8.59 %
Mobile home
9 0.13 % 4.40 % 7.49 %
Boat, RV, van, etc.
52 0.73 % 0.26 % 0.

see: http://zipatlas.com/us/ca/san-diego/zip-92106.htm#structures

[quote=AN]In essence, what you’re really saying is, some areas, you just can’t get good darn deals, and I agree with that. I just disagree with the point that all of those areas are ultra desirable…[/quote]

To each his own . . . you still appear to be “fixated” on the notion that current average sales prices should reflect certain (arbitrary) years’ average sold comparables in EVERY area and it just isn’t so and will never be so. SD County housing stock is too diverse and each of its areas’ is “desirable” to certain subsets of buyers and owners spend a LOT more $$ rehabbing properties in historically “desirable” areas. Buyers with a lot of cash often gravitate to areas which will afford them more privacy, convenience and views (read: “custom” homes on larger-than-std lots). This type of privacy usually can’t be found in a typical tract development.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jpinpb] . . . To get 2003 pricing along the coast that realtors (perhaps not on this blog) have claimed is immune is really saying something. It was only a short few years ago that I remember hearing people say the coast would see little decline in pricing. Others were saying to just wait, it will happen eventually. They are occurring, however slowly and gradually, and on properties that are not fixers.[/quote]

Yes, agree that it is happening sporadically and 2210 Plum is a good example. If a buyer wants a “special” property like this where a previous owner has already put in all or nearly all the work, they will have to find a VERY motivated seller that MUST sell NOW, no matter what and/or one with a lender that will agree to take it in the shorts and/or with a 2nd TD holder that they defaulted upon who is left with no choice but to take .06 on the dollar in an “approved” short sale (i.e. they cannot bid on the property in a trustees sale b/c the 1st TD is not in default OR the opening bid is too high). And it is not feasible for the 2nd TD holder to sue the trustor(s) for the recourse money.

These kind of (SFR) deals are few and far between in an area such as PL 92106, IMO.

[an]

[quote=bearishgurl]To each his own . . . you still appear to be “fixated” on the notion that current average sales prices should reflect certain (arbitrary) years’ average sold comparables in EVERY area and it just isn’t so and will never be so. SD County housing stock is too diverse and each of its areas’ is “desirable” to certain subsets of buyers and owners spend a LOT more $$ rehabbing properties in historically “desirable” areas. [/quote]
Not current average sales price. I’m talking about how much a particular house would sell for in the past. You can think of it like an invoice and MRSP price for a car. If a car is hot, you’d be lucky if you get MRSP. If a car is not, you can get below invoice. For a car that’s hot, getting MSRP might make you think you got a good deal, but in reality, you didn’t.

Now, if an area has changed w/in the last 10 years, then its historical price wouldn’t matter. I don’t think Point Loma has changed over the last 10-11 years. So, it’s as desirable today as it was 10-11 years ago. Buyers with lots of cash today does what buyers with lots of cash did 10-11 years ago.

[quote=bearishgurl]Buyers with a lot of cash often gravitate to areas which will afford them more privacy, convenience and views (read: “custom” homes on larger-than-std lots). This type of privacy usually can’t be found in a typical tract development.[/quote]
Funny you said this in the same thread as praising the Plum house and dissing the Del Mar house I posted. The PL house sits on a 5k sq-ft lot (i.e. no privacy), have no real view (at least not view from your backyard or from inside your house). While the DM house have both of those features. When I think of custom homes with privacy and view, I think of Rancho Santa Fe, not PL. Anything less than 2 acre isn’t that private. BTW, you forget good schools as well.

[jpinpb]

I really only started this thread and recently added the Plum property to show how PL is seeing some declines. Declines that were not happening two years ago. While places in Temecula, Chula Vista, and even Mira Mesa were getting hit hard a few years ago, cities like PL were holding their own, seemingly unscathe.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=AN][quote=bearishgurl]Buyers with a lot of cash often gravitate to areas which will afford them more privacy, convenience and views (read: “custom” homes on larger-than-std lots). This type of privacy usually can’t be found in a typical tract development.[/quote]
Funny you said this in the same thread as praising the Plum house and dissing the Del Mar house I posted. The PL house sits on a 5k sq-ft lot (i.e. no privacy), have no real view (at least not view from your backyard or from inside your house). While the DM house have both of those features. When I think of custom homes with privacy and view, I think of Rancho Santa Fe, not PL. Anything less than 2 acre isn’t that private. BTW, you forget good schools as well.[/quote]

AN, you seem to be going around and around about how great this DM condo is. It is over 3000 sf and if it is actually situated on a 5000 sf lot, I would be surprised. There is almost zero front yard, the driveway is not long enough to park a car in (its CC&R’s likely forbid parking there) and there is only a patio in back, overlooking a park (golf course?). Its bathroom(s) are all original and the pool area maintenance leaves something to be desired, considering the monthly dues there are $450.

I never stated well-heeled buyers would consider Plum a “private” estate-like home. The “Plum” sold comp shown here is a MC/upper MC home in a fantastic area with a good sized yard, a balcony and enclosed patio and a fantastic view of the City in the street. The houses on this side of Plum do not have a view of dtn SD unless a permitted second story is attached and then it may only have a “peek” view if situated on a corner lot. An expansive view of dtn on this street would likely cost much more than this property and may even be a “fixer.” The average lot size in Fleetridge is actually over 7K.

And now you’re back to your “school” argument. There is nothing wrong with PL High and High Tech High. And some of the elem schools around there have GREAT scores!

I don’t care what the majority of RE buyers who post here seem to perceive is “important” or that a portion of them may be chasing “school scores.” I do not believe (young family) Pigg buyers are representative of County buyers overall. I believe the particular younger demographic who are currently parents of very young children and post frequently here are but a small microcosm of RE buyers in this county but are the majority who post here.

There is NO PLACE for children to play at the DM condo except on association property where they will likely constantly be in violation of CC&R’s.

You mentioned other desirable “private” areas but they are all within a “covenant.” The property rights within that covenant are very, very restrictive, i.e, you can’t park up and down the “streets” (lol, more like “easements”) and place a portable basketball net at the curb for months/years like you can in MM 🙂 An owner doesn’t have those same restrictions in PL unless what they are doing actually violates City Code.

AN, why don’t you endeavor to buy yourself a property within your coveted DM HOA or the RSF covenant in the coming years and see if you like living there and paying for all its duplicated services (which are publicly provided by the City to PL residents)?? Better yet, rent in those places first for $4K++ per month before you make a buying decision you may later regret :={

[bearishgurl]

[quote=jpinpb]I really only started this thread and recently added the Plum property to show how PL is seeing some declines. Declines that were not happening two years ago. While places in Temecula, Chula Vista, and even Mira Mesa were getting hit hard a few years ago, cities like PL were holding their own, seemingly unscathe.[/quote]

Yes, I understand and appreciate you finding this latest sold comp which has a LOT of expensive work done to it. As a possible future “aspiring buyer” in that area, I can totally appreciate all this work that I would end up having to do myself and also contract for, especially when it is done correctly with high quality materials, such as in this gem. I couldn’t even afford some of the work that was done on this (circa 1930) property. Its recent buyers are VERY fortunate.

[CA renter]

[quote=AN][quote=bearishgurl]AN, You forgot (or don’t realize) that the cooktop/range (I would estimate) is $3000 +/-, even on clearance.[/quote]
You’re right, the oven is $3k, which I’m missing. Another $3k would bring the appliance to $8k-$10k. Still far from $20k.

[quote=bearishgurl]AN, can I ask you if you ordered custom “Thomasville” cabinets for your kitchen? And why did you put “$30-$35K” in a “MM tract home” kitchen? I don’t understand why someone would do that in that area.[/quote]I can’t answer your Thomasville question, since I don’t have Thomasville cabinets. But mine is also solid maple. Care to explain what’s so special about Thomasville? Is their maple better somehow? To answer your question why I’d upgraded my kitchen, it’s the same reason why anyone would ever spend any money to upgrade kitchens (i.e. for personal enjoyment).

[quote=bearishgurl]AN, how much of your bath remodel work did you do yourself?

Not trying to diss MM here. I understand everything and have lived in “working-class” areas myself in the past and still do. But why would you invest this kind of money in MM? Do you think you will be able to recoup the cost upon sale??[/quote]
I didn’t do any of the bath remodel myself. I purchase materials, find sub contractors and have them do the labor.
[quote=bearishgurl]I don’t understand why someone would do that in that area.[/quote]
[quote=bearishgurl]I understand everything and have lived in “working-class” areas myself in the past and still do.[/quote]
So, which is it? You don’t understand or you understand everything?

BTW, according to closed comps and appraisal, I can tell you I probably recouped about 90-100% of my cost.

You seem you have a very narrow perception of why people do things. Why wouldn’t I want to invest in my home to make it more comfortable/enjoyable to live? Do you think only rich people and expensive houses should make their home enjoyable and customized to their own liking?[/quote]

With you 100% on that one, AN. We’ve even remodeled/upgraded our rental (installed ceiling fans/lights in all bedrooms and family room, new shower in the master, lots of electrical work and exterior lights, etc.) when we first moved in because we knew we’d be here awhile. We’ve literally spent thousands on our rental. Was it for “investment purposes”? Heck no! But these upgrades have made our stay here much nicer.

We are now in the process of “upgrading” pretty much everything our new house, and are not thinking at all about resale value, since we plan on staying here for the rest of our lives (God be willing). The whole notion of housing being an “investment” is what got us into all this housing trouble in the first place.

[CA renter]

[quote=briansd1][quote=AN]
Good darn deals are houses that you can get at 2000 price, like the many houses in Temecula/Murrieta/Chula Vista/etc. The high end $1M+ have some good darn deals as well, like this one: http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-110000157-14710_Caminito_Porta_Delgada_Del_Mar_CA_92014

BTW, I wasn’t talking about your and her exact words. I was talking about the general take of good darn deal to decent price overall.
[/quote]

That’s pretty well said. The PL house is question was OK deal, not a great deal. I agree on that Del Mar link.

In my opinion one has to look at a housing investment in this kind of detached manner.

Bearishgurl seems overly focused on the improvements that may or may not have any value to a potential buyer. This focus adds emotional elements that don’t have much place in rational decision making.

I don’t think that cosmetic improvement such as a kitchen remodel “deserve” to be recouped. Adding square footage or adding a new bath, yes. But, after a decade, a cosmetic remodel is worthless anyway, IMO.

I laugh when I seen ads for stuff on CL that say: paid x and selling for y.[/quote]

Could not agree more with both of you guys.

[Author]

Posts