Price per square foot

[sdrealtor]

Ren
Trust me on this one. The houses selling at 900+ at the peak were sold for 400K NEW in the late 90’s. I dont discount you seeing sales histories with prices in the high 300’s to 400 but they were new and required significant improvements to get them livable unless you consider a dirt lot, builders grade carpet, flat white walls and no window coverings livable among other things.

I just checked the MLS for 1999 closed sales to see what sold below 400K that could possibly have sold for 900+ at the peak. The only thing I found was a handful of new homes entered by the builders which arent really sub 400K homes because of what I have been trying to explain.

Enjoy sitting on the sidelines. With you expectations you will never get off them.

sdr

[Ren]

[quote=sdrealtor]
Trust me on this one. The houses selling at 900+ at the peak were sold for 400K NEW in the late 90’s. I dont discount you seeing sales histories with prices in the high 300’s to 400 but they were new and required significant improvements to get them livable unless you consider a dirt lot, builders grade carpet, flat white walls and no window coverings livable among other things.

I just checked the MLS for 1999 closed sales to see what sold below 400K that could possibly have sold for 900+ at the peak. The only thing I found was a handful of new homes entered by the builders which arent really sub 400K homes because of what I have been trying to explain.
[/quote]

It’s hard to find examples because of low sales volume in that area, but my experience comes from watching these sales for years. Here’s a couple that are listed now, which don’t necessarily show a late 90’s sale for comparison, but nevertheless are good examples of the kinds of gains and losses I see all the time:

This seller is deluded to the point of psychosis:
http://www.redfin.com/CA/Carlsbad/7038-Via-Ostiones-92009/home/3762933

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Carlsbad/6995-Zebrina-92011/home/3765328

It’s not like I’m making this stuff up. Regardless of peak price, in my opinion, properties that sold for $300-400k in the late 90’s will see the $500’s again. That’s my opinion, and it’s certainly not unreasonable. Could I be wrong? Sure, but past trends and current data say that I’m most likely right.

[quote]
Enjoy sitting on the sidelines. With you expectations you will never get off them.
[/quote]

I did think carefully before responding to your original post, due to your reputation for rudeness (I have no desire to get in a pissing contest), but I didn’t think a simple sharing of opinions and knowledge would bring it out. I was wrong. Anyway, you have a nice day too 🙂

[Ren]

[quote=sdrealtor]
Trust me on this one. The houses selling at 900+ at the peak were sold for 400K NEW in the late 90’s. I dont discount you seeing sales histories with prices in the high 300’s to 400 but they were new and required significant improvements to get them livable unless you consider a dirt lot, builders grade carpet, flat white walls and no window coverings livable among other things.

I just checked the MLS for 1999 closed sales to see what sold below 400K that could possibly have sold for 900+ at the peak. The only thing I found was a handful of new homes entered by the builders which arent really sub 400K homes because of what I have been trying to explain.
[/quote]

It’s hard to find examples because of low sales volume in that area, but my experience comes from watching these sales for years. Here’s a couple that are listed now, which don’t necessarily show a late 90’s sale for comparison, but nevertheless are good examples of the kinds of gains and losses I see all the time:

This seller is deluded to the point of psychosis:
http://www.redfin.com/CA/Carlsbad/7038-Via-Ostiones-92009/home/3762933

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Carlsbad/6995-Zebrina-92011/home/3765328

It’s not like I’m making this stuff up. Regardless of peak price, in my opinion, properties that sold for $300-400k in the late 90’s will see the $500’s again. That’s my opinion, and it’s certainly not unreasonable. Could I be wrong? Sure, but past trends and current data say that I’m most likely right.

[quote]
Enjoy sitting on the sidelines. With you expectations you will never get off them.
[/quote]

I did think carefully before responding to your original post, due to your reputation for rudeness (I have no desire to get in a pissing contest), but I didn’t think a simple sharing of opinions and knowledge would bring it out. I was wrong. Anyway, you have a nice day too 🙂

[Ren]

[quote=sdrealtor]
Trust me on this one. The houses selling at 900+ at the peak were sold for 400K NEW in the late 90’s. I dont discount you seeing sales histories with prices in the high 300’s to 400 but they were new and required significant improvements to get them livable unless you consider a dirt lot, builders grade carpet, flat white walls and no window coverings livable among other things.

I just checked the MLS for 1999 closed sales to see what sold below 400K that could possibly have sold for 900+ at the peak. The only thing I found was a handful of new homes entered by the builders which arent really sub 400K homes because of what I have been trying to explain.
[/quote]

It’s hard to find examples because of low sales volume in that area, but my experience comes from watching these sales for years. Here’s a couple that are listed now, which don’t necessarily show a late 90’s sale for comparison, but nevertheless are good examples of the kinds of gains and losses I see all the time:

This seller is deluded to the point of psychosis:
http://www.redfin.com/CA/Carlsbad/7038-Via-Ostiones-92009/home/3762933

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Carlsbad/6995-Zebrina-92011/home/3765328

It’s not like I’m making this stuff up. Regardless of peak price, in my opinion, properties that sold for $300-400k in the late 90’s will see the $500’s again. That’s my opinion, and it’s certainly not unreasonable. Could I be wrong? Sure, but past trends and current data say that I’m most likely right.

[quote]
Enjoy sitting on the sidelines. With you expectations you will never get off them.
[/quote]

I did think carefully before responding to your original post, due to your reputation for rudeness (I have no desire to get in a pissing contest), but I didn’t think a simple sharing of opinions and knowledge would bring it out. I was wrong. Anyway, you have a nice day too 🙂

[Ren]

[quote=sdrealtor]
Trust me on this one. The houses selling at 900+ at the peak were sold for 400K NEW in the late 90’s. I dont discount you seeing sales histories with prices in the high 300’s to 400 but they were new and required significant improvements to get them livable unless you consider a dirt lot, builders grade carpet, flat white walls and no window coverings livable among other things.

I just checked the MLS for 1999 closed sales to see what sold below 400K that could possibly have sold for 900+ at the peak. The only thing I found was a handful of new homes entered by the builders which arent really sub 400K homes because of what I have been trying to explain.
[/quote]

It’s hard to find examples because of low sales volume in that area, but my experience comes from watching these sales for years. Here’s a couple that are listed now, which don’t necessarily show a late 90’s sale for comparison, but nevertheless are good examples of the kinds of gains and losses I see all the time:

This seller is deluded to the point of psychosis:
http://www.redfin.com/CA/Carlsbad/7038-Via-Ostiones-92009/home/3762933

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Carlsbad/6995-Zebrina-92011/home/3765328

It’s not like I’m making this stuff up. Regardless of peak price, in my opinion, properties that sold for $300-400k in the late 90’s will see the $500’s again. That’s my opinion, and it’s certainly not unreasonable. Could I be wrong? Sure, but past trends and current data say that I’m most likely right.

[quote]
Enjoy sitting on the sidelines. With you expectations you will never get off them.
[/quote]

I did think carefully before responding to your original post, due to your reputation for rudeness (I have no desire to get in a pissing contest), but I didn’t think a simple sharing of opinions and knowledge would bring it out. I was wrong. Anyway, you have a nice day too 🙂

[Ren]

[quote=sdrealtor]
Trust me on this one. The houses selling at 900+ at the peak were sold for 400K NEW in the late 90’s. I dont discount you seeing sales histories with prices in the high 300’s to 400 but they were new and required significant improvements to get them livable unless you consider a dirt lot, builders grade carpet, flat white walls and no window coverings livable among other things.

I just checked the MLS for 1999 closed sales to see what sold below 400K that could possibly have sold for 900+ at the peak. The only thing I found was a handful of new homes entered by the builders which arent really sub 400K homes because of what I have been trying to explain.
[/quote]

It’s hard to find examples because of low sales volume in that area, but my experience comes from watching these sales for years. Here’s a couple that are listed now, which don’t necessarily show a late 90’s sale for comparison, but nevertheless are good examples of the kinds of gains and losses I see all the time:

This seller is deluded to the point of psychosis:
http://www.redfin.com/CA/Carlsbad/7038-Via-Ostiones-92009/home/3762933

http://www.redfin.com/CA/Carlsbad/6995-Zebrina-92011/home/3765328

It’s not like I’m making this stuff up. Regardless of peak price, in my opinion, properties that sold for $300-400k in the late 90’s will see the $500’s again. That’s my opinion, and it’s certainly not unreasonable. Could I be wrong? Sure, but past trends and current data say that I’m most likely right.

[quote]
Enjoy sitting on the sidelines. With you expectations you will never get off them.
[/quote]

I did think carefully before responding to your original post, due to your reputation for rudeness (I have no desire to get in a pissing contest), but I didn’t think a simple sharing of opinions and knowledge would bring it out. I was wrong. Anyway, you have a nice day too 🙂

[sdrealtor]

Ren
Your opinions are unreasonable, you just dont realize it yet. There was once a gal around here that I went head to head with on a nightly basis. Her extreme opinions have already been proven to be horribly misguided. You can call it rudeness if you want but I call it like is. If someone’s opinions are based on false assumptions I will take you to task. I’ve done it with the Bulls around here as frequently as the Bears in the last couple years.

Your 1st example sold for 320,000 in 1996 meeting the 1st part of your definition. However, it sold for 780 in the Summer of 2005. Not only was it never a 900K+ plus home it was never even an 800K+ home.

Your 2nd example on Zebrina sold for a 387,500 new in 1994!!! With modest move-in improvements including landscaping/hardscaping they were into it for 450,000 in 1994 which is essentially the bottom of the last go-round. Furthermore, in 1998 the house next door with the same floorplan sold for $460,000 which is a far cry from 300k to 400k. It sold again for 902,000 in 2006.

Case closed.

sdr

[sdrealtor]

Ren
Your opinions are unreasonable, you just dont realize it yet. There was once a gal around here that I went head to head with on a nightly basis. Her extreme opinions have already been proven to be horribly misguided. You can call it rudeness if you want but I call it like is. If someone’s opinions are based on false assumptions I will take you to task. I’ve done it with the Bulls around here as frequently as the Bears in the last couple years.

Your 1st example sold for 320,000 in 1996 meeting the 1st part of your definition. However, it sold for 780 in the Summer of 2005. Not only was it never a 900K+ plus home it was never even an 800K+ home.

Your 2nd example on Zebrina sold for a 387,500 new in 1994!!! With modest move-in improvements including landscaping/hardscaping they were into it for 450,000 in 1994 which is essentially the bottom of the last go-round. Furthermore, in 1998 the house next door with the same floorplan sold for $460,000 which is a far cry from 300k to 400k. It sold again for 902,000 in 2006.

Case closed.

sdr

[sdrealtor]

Ren
Your opinions are unreasonable, you just dont realize it yet. There was once a gal around here that I went head to head with on a nightly basis. Her extreme opinions have already been proven to be horribly misguided. You can call it rudeness if you want but I call it like is. If someone’s opinions are based on false assumptions I will take you to task. I’ve done it with the Bulls around here as frequently as the Bears in the last couple years.

Your 1st example sold for 320,000 in 1996 meeting the 1st part of your definition. However, it sold for 780 in the Summer of 2005. Not only was it never a 900K+ plus home it was never even an 800K+ home.

Your 2nd example on Zebrina sold for a 387,500 new in 1994!!! With modest move-in improvements including landscaping/hardscaping they were into it for 450,000 in 1994 which is essentially the bottom of the last go-round. Furthermore, in 1998 the house next door with the same floorplan sold for $460,000 which is a far cry from 300k to 400k. It sold again for 902,000 in 2006.

Case closed.

sdr

[sdrealtor]

Ren
Your opinions are unreasonable, you just dont realize it yet. There was once a gal around here that I went head to head with on a nightly basis. Her extreme opinions have already been proven to be horribly misguided. You can call it rudeness if you want but I call it like is. If someone’s opinions are based on false assumptions I will take you to task. I’ve done it with the Bulls around here as frequently as the Bears in the last couple years.

Your 1st example sold for 320,000 in 1996 meeting the 1st part of your definition. However, it sold for 780 in the Summer of 2005. Not only was it never a 900K+ plus home it was never even an 800K+ home.

Your 2nd example on Zebrina sold for a 387,500 new in 1994!!! With modest move-in improvements including landscaping/hardscaping they were into it for 450,000 in 1994 which is essentially the bottom of the last go-round. Furthermore, in 1998 the house next door with the same floorplan sold for $460,000 which is a far cry from 300k to 400k. It sold again for 902,000 in 2006.

Case closed.

sdr

[sdrealtor]

Ren
Your opinions are unreasonable, you just dont realize it yet. There was once a gal around here that I went head to head with on a nightly basis. Her extreme opinions have already been proven to be horribly misguided. You can call it rudeness if you want but I call it like is. If someone’s opinions are based on false assumptions I will take you to task. I’ve done it with the Bulls around here as frequently as the Bears in the last couple years.

Your 1st example sold for 320,000 in 1996 meeting the 1st part of your definition. However, it sold for 780 in the Summer of 2005. Not only was it never a 900K+ plus home it was never even an 800K+ home.

Your 2nd example on Zebrina sold for a 387,500 new in 1994!!! With modest move-in improvements including landscaping/hardscaping they were into it for 450,000 in 1994 which is essentially the bottom of the last go-round. Furthermore, in 1998 the house next door with the same floorplan sold for $460,000 which is a far cry from 300k to 400k. It sold again for 902,000 in 2006.

Case closed.

sdr

[Ren]

[quote=sdrealtor]
Your opinions are unreasonable, you just dont realize it yet. There was once a gal around here that I went head to head with on a nightly basis. Her extreme opinions have already been proven to be horribly misguided. You can call it rudeness if you want but I call it like is. If someone’s opinions are based on false assumptions I will take you to task. I’ve done it with the Bulls around here as frequently as the Bears in the last couple years.[/quote]

Powayseller was not all there. Please don’t compare me to her or her market “analysis”, and please don’t pretend that your “sideline” remark was anything other than spite and condescension – which are not necessary to get your opinion across. My opinions are perfectly reasonable, but more importantly, logical. That will be obvious even to you in a few years – I’ll be sure to bump this thread at that time.

[quote]
Your 1st example sold for 320,000 in 1996 meeting the 1st part of your definition. However, it sold for 780 in the Summer of 2005. Not only was it never a 900K+ plus home it was never even an 800K+ home.[/quote]

You’re holding onto that 900 number for dear life, when you know that it isn’t the point – the point is the large range, 320 to 780. I believe examples like that will reach the 500’s again.

[quote]
Your 2nd example on Zebrina sold for a 387,500 new in 1994!!! With modest move-in improvements including landscaping/hardscaping they were into it for 450,000 in 1994 which is essentially the bottom of the last go-round. Furthermore, in 1998 the house next door with the same floorplan sold for $460,000 which is a far cry from 300k to 400k. It sold again for 902,000 in 2006.[/quote]

So it was 450, then sold for 880 in 2004, well before the peak in that area. From the comps it looks like it would have been in the 900’s in 05-06, and you can see what it went for in 08 (667). And you think it’s impossible for that property to reach the 500’s in a few years, with the coastal areas only recently starting their descent, and the market virtually guaranteed to continue dropping during that time? It’s already two-thirds of the way there – so now who’s being unreasonable?

You’re reaching for things to argue about, with someone who really couldn’t care less. You think I’m wrong, I think you’re wrong. It’s going to stay that way, so you’re going to have to deal with it. If you want to argue, find someone who enjoys that sort of thing. Or better yet, relax and have a drink.

[Ren]

[quote=sdrealtor]
Your opinions are unreasonable, you just dont realize it yet. There was once a gal around here that I went head to head with on a nightly basis. Her extreme opinions have already been proven to be horribly misguided. You can call it rudeness if you want but I call it like is. If someone’s opinions are based on false assumptions I will take you to task. I’ve done it with the Bulls around here as frequently as the Bears in the last couple years.[/quote]

Powayseller was not all there. Please don’t compare me to her or her market “analysis”, and please don’t pretend that your “sideline” remark was anything other than spite and condescension – which are not necessary to get your opinion across. My opinions are perfectly reasonable, but more importantly, logical. That will be obvious even to you in a few years – I’ll be sure to bump this thread at that time.

[quote]
Your 1st example sold for 320,000 in 1996 meeting the 1st part of your definition. However, it sold for 780 in the Summer of 2005. Not only was it never a 900K+ plus home it was never even an 800K+ home.[/quote]

You’re holding onto that 900 number for dear life, when you know that it isn’t the point – the point is the large range, 320 to 780. I believe examples like that will reach the 500’s again.

[quote]
Your 2nd example on Zebrina sold for a 387,500 new in 1994!!! With modest move-in improvements including landscaping/hardscaping they were into it for 450,000 in 1994 which is essentially the bottom of the last go-round. Furthermore, in 1998 the house next door with the same floorplan sold for $460,000 which is a far cry from 300k to 400k. It sold again for 902,000 in 2006.[/quote]

So it was 450, then sold for 880 in 2004, well before the peak in that area. From the comps it looks like it would have been in the 900’s in 05-06, and you can see what it went for in 08 (667). And you think it’s impossible for that property to reach the 500’s in a few years, with the coastal areas only recently starting their descent, and the market virtually guaranteed to continue dropping during that time? It’s already two-thirds of the way there – so now who’s being unreasonable?

You’re reaching for things to argue about, with someone who really couldn’t care less. You think I’m wrong, I think you’re wrong. It’s going to stay that way, so you’re going to have to deal with it. If you want to argue, find someone who enjoys that sort of thing. Or better yet, relax and have a drink.

[Ren]

[quote=sdrealtor]
Your opinions are unreasonable, you just dont realize it yet. There was once a gal around here that I went head to head with on a nightly basis. Her extreme opinions have already been proven to be horribly misguided. You can call it rudeness if you want but I call it like is. If someone’s opinions are based on false assumptions I will take you to task. I’ve done it with the Bulls around here as frequently as the Bears in the last couple years.[/quote]

Powayseller was not all there. Please don’t compare me to her or her market “analysis”, and please don’t pretend that your “sideline” remark was anything other than spite and condescension – which are not necessary to get your opinion across. My opinions are perfectly reasonable, but more importantly, logical. That will be obvious even to you in a few years – I’ll be sure to bump this thread at that time.

[quote]
Your 1st example sold for 320,000 in 1996 meeting the 1st part of your definition. However, it sold for 780 in the Summer of 2005. Not only was it never a 900K+ plus home it was never even an 800K+ home.[/quote]

You’re holding onto that 900 number for dear life, when you know that it isn’t the point – the point is the large range, 320 to 780. I believe examples like that will reach the 500’s again.

[quote]
Your 2nd example on Zebrina sold for a 387,500 new in 1994!!! With modest move-in improvements including landscaping/hardscaping they were into it for 450,000 in 1994 which is essentially the bottom of the last go-round. Furthermore, in 1998 the house next door with the same floorplan sold for $460,000 which is a far cry from 300k to 400k. It sold again for 902,000 in 2006.[/quote]

So it was 450, then sold for 880 in 2004, well before the peak in that area. From the comps it looks like it would have been in the 900’s in 05-06, and you can see what it went for in 08 (667). And you think it’s impossible for that property to reach the 500’s in a few years, with the coastal areas only recently starting their descent, and the market virtually guaranteed to continue dropping during that time? It’s already two-thirds of the way there – so now who’s being unreasonable?

You’re reaching for things to argue about, with someone who really couldn’t care less. You think I’m wrong, I think you’re wrong. It’s going to stay that way, so you’re going to have to deal with it. If you want to argue, find someone who enjoys that sort of thing. Or better yet, relax and have a drink.

[Ren]

[quote=sdrealtor]
Your opinions are unreasonable, you just dont realize it yet. There was once a gal around here that I went head to head with on a nightly basis. Her extreme opinions have already been proven to be horribly misguided. You can call it rudeness if you want but I call it like is. If someone’s opinions are based on false assumptions I will take you to task. I’ve done it with the Bulls around here as frequently as the Bears in the last couple years.[/quote]

Powayseller was not all there. Please don’t compare me to her or her market “analysis”, and please don’t pretend that your “sideline” remark was anything other than spite and condescension – which are not necessary to get your opinion across. My opinions are perfectly reasonable, but more importantly, logical. That will be obvious even to you in a few years – I’ll be sure to bump this thread at that time.

[quote]
Your 1st example sold for 320,000 in 1996 meeting the 1st part of your definition. However, it sold for 780 in the Summer of 2005. Not only was it never a 900K+ plus home it was never even an 800K+ home.[/quote]

You’re holding onto that 900 number for dear life, when you know that it isn’t the point – the point is the large range, 320 to 780. I believe examples like that will reach the 500’s again.

[quote]
Your 2nd example on Zebrina sold for a 387,500 new in 1994!!! With modest move-in improvements including landscaping/hardscaping they were into it for 450,000 in 1994 which is essentially the bottom of the last go-round. Furthermore, in 1998 the house next door with the same floorplan sold for $460,000 which is a far cry from 300k to 400k. It sold again for 902,000 in 2006.[/quote]

So it was 450, then sold for 880 in 2004, well before the peak in that area. From the comps it looks like it would have been in the 900’s in 05-06, and you can see what it went for in 08 (667). And you think it’s impossible for that property to reach the 500’s in a few years, with the coastal areas only recently starting their descent, and the market virtually guaranteed to continue dropping during that time? It’s already two-thirds of the way there – so now who’s being unreasonable?

You’re reaching for things to argue about, with someone who really couldn’t care less. You think I’m wrong, I think you’re wrong. It’s going to stay that way, so you’re going to have to deal with it. If you want to argue, find someone who enjoys that sort of thing. Or better yet, relax and have a drink.

[Author]

Posts