- This topic has 265 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 11 months ago by
CAwireman.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 13, 2011 at 4:53 PM #704220June 13, 2011 at 5:08 PM #703041
bearishgurl
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=bearishgurl] Any “real” increases in SD County’s population now and in the foreseeable future can be accommodated by existing housing (already built), both SFR and multifamily. [/quote]
And why do you think that people are still moving to the outlying areas? Why do you think that people are willing to pay HOA and Mello Roos?
Obviously the existing housing is not meeting the buyers’ needs.[/quote]
I don’t agree, brian. It’s due to the plethora of (often confusing) choices a current homebuyer has. For many who tend to “gravitate” towards a highly-encumbered outlying area when deciding where to buy, they often initially have no idea what they’re actually looking at. If these “exurban” choices weren’t available, the long existing resale market would HAVE to meet their needs (or future needs with a later-built addition). If homebuyers didn’t wish to purchase anything in the current resale market, they would purchase elsewhere or continue to rent locally. That’s what buyers did before “exurbia” was plundered by developers’ bulldozers.
What a buyer “thinks they need” and what they “actually need” are often vastly different. In urban surrounds in the State of Washington, a buyer must buy what is already long there …. or buy nothing.
June 13, 2011 at 5:08 PM #703138Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=bearishgurl] Any “real” increases in SD County’s population now and in the foreseeable future can be accommodated by existing housing (already built), both SFR and multifamily. [/quote]
And why do you think that people are still moving to the outlying areas? Why do you think that people are willing to pay HOA and Mello Roos?
Obviously the existing housing is not meeting the buyers’ needs.[/quote]
I don’t agree, brian. It’s due to the plethora of (often confusing) choices a current homebuyer has. For many who tend to “gravitate” towards a highly-encumbered outlying area when deciding where to buy, they often initially have no idea what they’re actually looking at. If these “exurban” choices weren’t available, the long existing resale market would HAVE to meet their needs (or future needs with a later-built addition). If homebuyers didn’t wish to purchase anything in the current resale market, they would purchase elsewhere or continue to rent locally. That’s what buyers did before “exurbia” was plundered by developers’ bulldozers.
What a buyer “thinks they need” and what they “actually need” are often vastly different. In urban surrounds in the State of Washington, a buyer must buy what is already long there …. or buy nothing.
June 13, 2011 at 5:08 PM #703728Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=bearishgurl] Any “real” increases in SD County’s population now and in the foreseeable future can be accommodated by existing housing (already built), both SFR and multifamily. [/quote]
And why do you think that people are still moving to the outlying areas? Why do you think that people are willing to pay HOA and Mello Roos?
Obviously the existing housing is not meeting the buyers’ needs.[/quote]
I don’t agree, brian. It’s due to the plethora of (often confusing) choices a current homebuyer has. For many who tend to “gravitate” towards a highly-encumbered outlying area when deciding where to buy, they often initially have no idea what they’re actually looking at. If these “exurban” choices weren’t available, the long existing resale market would HAVE to meet their needs (or future needs with a later-built addition). If homebuyers didn’t wish to purchase anything in the current resale market, they would purchase elsewhere or continue to rent locally. That’s what buyers did before “exurbia” was plundered by developers’ bulldozers.
What a buyer “thinks they need” and what they “actually need” are often vastly different. In urban surrounds in the State of Washington, a buyer must buy what is already long there …. or buy nothing.
June 13, 2011 at 5:08 PM #703876Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=bearishgurl] Any “real” increases in SD County’s population now and in the foreseeable future can be accommodated by existing housing (already built), both SFR and multifamily. [/quote]
And why do you think that people are still moving to the outlying areas? Why do you think that people are willing to pay HOA and Mello Roos?
Obviously the existing housing is not meeting the buyers’ needs.[/quote]
I don’t agree, brian. It’s due to the plethora of (often confusing) choices a current homebuyer has. For many who tend to “gravitate” towards a highly-encumbered outlying area when deciding where to buy, they often initially have no idea what they’re actually looking at. If these “exurban” choices weren’t available, the long existing resale market would HAVE to meet their needs (or future needs with a later-built addition). If homebuyers didn’t wish to purchase anything in the current resale market, they would purchase elsewhere or continue to rent locally. That’s what buyers did before “exurbia” was plundered by developers’ bulldozers.
What a buyer “thinks they need” and what they “actually need” are often vastly different. In urban surrounds in the State of Washington, a buyer must buy what is already long there …. or buy nothing.
June 13, 2011 at 5:08 PM #704235Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=bearishgurl] Any “real” increases in SD County’s population now and in the foreseeable future can be accommodated by existing housing (already built), both SFR and multifamily. [/quote]
And why do you think that people are still moving to the outlying areas? Why do you think that people are willing to pay HOA and Mello Roos?
Obviously the existing housing is not meeting the buyers’ needs.[/quote]
I don’t agree, brian. It’s due to the plethora of (often confusing) choices a current homebuyer has. For many who tend to “gravitate” towards a highly-encumbered outlying area when deciding where to buy, they often initially have no idea what they’re actually looking at. If these “exurban” choices weren’t available, the long existing resale market would HAVE to meet their needs (or future needs with a later-built addition). If homebuyers didn’t wish to purchase anything in the current resale market, they would purchase elsewhere or continue to rent locally. That’s what buyers did before “exurbia” was plundered by developers’ bulldozers.
What a buyer “thinks they need” and what they “actually need” are often vastly different. In urban surrounds in the State of Washington, a buyer must buy what is already long there …. or buy nothing.
June 13, 2011 at 6:17 PM #703056Participant[quote=DaCounselor] . . . Regarding coastal SD RE, haven’t attached homes devalued significantly? How can this be if the area is immune? Or is it only SFRs that are immune? Or only the very top 1% of SFRs with views and big lots and etc etc? What is the criteria to be immune? . . .[/quote]
DaCounselor, I think “immunity” is the wrong term to use here. How about “stalwart?” Unencumbered SFRs will stand more “stalwart” in holding value against highly encumbered SFRs and condos. Especially well-located properties in areas there hasn’t been any land to build on in 40+ years.
Regarding 1-4 unit residential, residential PUDS and condos, condos are encumbered by an HOA. Therefore, that automatically makes them less desirable and less valuable than an SFR or duplex which is unencumbered. I feel that annual HOA dues on SFR’s (usually imposed to maintain common open space surrounding the subdivision(s)) really has no effect in dampening the values of SFRs that lie within the HOA. However, monthly dues DO, when compared to a nearby equally-desirable subdivision which has no HOA.
Compare the house styles on all the tracts you are familiar with which were built since 2000. If work location were not an issue, what would be a “redeeming enough” quality to make one tract stand out from the rest? Do you like “Tuscan style?” “Mediterranean?” Faux (lol) “Craftsman?” When a buyer is “in the market” for a property built since 2000, he/she has MANY choices, mostly in wildly far-flung areas. Thus, there is more competition (inventory wise) in the same style/size/age house. All this “competition” in “buyer choices,” along with more distress in individual subdivisions, keeps values lower than more diverse properties in better locations.
An “exurb buyer” is not the same as a buyer looking for an available mid-century Mosher in 92106, one of the SIX properties facing the ENTIRETY of Sunset Cliffs 92107 (with whitewater views) or an available Requa in 92103. The three examples given here are finite. There is currently only ONE of each available and the 92103 property has not been available in 70 years.
Why would you expect any or all of the areas of the above 3 examples to suffer as much distress (and thus subsequent value loss) as a heavily encumbered “lookalike” subdivision located in an exurb?
I will credit sdr with the statement, “The best properties are in the most capable hands,” or something of that nature. This will always hold true in highly desirable markets. I don’t care if the 3 BIGGest banks fail next year and people start keeping their cash in floor safes. It won’t matter. Well located RE is a very wise, tangible and usable asset.
DaCounselor, if you were a longtime owner of a property today which was located in an area you feel should go down in value more but isn’t seeming to, would YOU sell right now? Would YOU entertain lowball offers and looky-loos for month on end if that’s all the attention you were getting? I bet the answer would be no and you would be right. If you don’t HAVE to sell now, you can simply tell your agent you won’t entertain any offers below $_____ or remove your property from the market and wait for a better day.
Think about it.
June 13, 2011 at 6:17 PM #703153Participant[quote=DaCounselor] . . . Regarding coastal SD RE, haven’t attached homes devalued significantly? How can this be if the area is immune? Or is it only SFRs that are immune? Or only the very top 1% of SFRs with views and big lots and etc etc? What is the criteria to be immune? . . .[/quote]
DaCounselor, I think “immunity” is the wrong term to use here. How about “stalwart?” Unencumbered SFRs will stand more “stalwart” in holding value against highly encumbered SFRs and condos. Especially well-located properties in areas there hasn’t been any land to build on in 40+ years.
Regarding 1-4 unit residential, residential PUDS and condos, condos are encumbered by an HOA. Therefore, that automatically makes them less desirable and less valuable than an SFR or duplex which is unencumbered. I feel that annual HOA dues on SFR’s (usually imposed to maintain common open space surrounding the subdivision(s)) really has no effect in dampening the values of SFRs that lie within the HOA. However, monthly dues DO, when compared to a nearby equally-desirable subdivision which has no HOA.
Compare the house styles on all the tracts you are familiar with which were built since 2000. If work location were not an issue, what would be a “redeeming enough” quality to make one tract stand out from the rest? Do you like “Tuscan style?” “Mediterranean?” Faux (lol) “Craftsman?” When a buyer is “in the market” for a property built since 2000, he/she has MANY choices, mostly in wildly far-flung areas. Thus, there is more competition (inventory wise) in the same style/size/age house. All this “competition” in “buyer choices,” along with more distress in individual subdivisions, keeps values lower than more diverse properties in better locations.
An “exurb buyer” is not the same as a buyer looking for an available mid-century Mosher in 92106, one of the SIX properties facing the ENTIRETY of Sunset Cliffs 92107 (with whitewater views) or an available Requa in 92103. The three examples given here are finite. There is currently only ONE of each available and the 92103 property has not been available in 70 years.
Why would you expect any or all of the areas of the above 3 examples to suffer as much distress (and thus subsequent value loss) as a heavily encumbered “lookalike” subdivision located in an exurb?
I will credit sdr with the statement, “The best properties are in the most capable hands,” or something of that nature. This will always hold true in highly desirable markets. I don’t care if the 3 BIGGest banks fail next year and people start keeping their cash in floor safes. It won’t matter. Well located RE is a very wise, tangible and usable asset.
DaCounselor, if you were a longtime owner of a property today which was located in an area you feel should go down in value more but isn’t seeming to, would YOU sell right now? Would YOU entertain lowball offers and looky-loos for month on end if that’s all the attention you were getting? I bet the answer would be no and you would be right. If you don’t HAVE to sell now, you can simply tell your agent you won’t entertain any offers below $_____ or remove your property from the market and wait for a better day.
Think about it.
June 13, 2011 at 6:17 PM #703743Participant[quote=DaCounselor] . . . Regarding coastal SD RE, haven’t attached homes devalued significantly? How can this be if the area is immune? Or is it only SFRs that are immune? Or only the very top 1% of SFRs with views and big lots and etc etc? What is the criteria to be immune? . . .[/quote]
DaCounselor, I think “immunity” is the wrong term to use here. How about “stalwart?” Unencumbered SFRs will stand more “stalwart” in holding value against highly encumbered SFRs and condos. Especially well-located properties in areas there hasn’t been any land to build on in 40+ years.
Regarding 1-4 unit residential, residential PUDS and condos, condos are encumbered by an HOA. Therefore, that automatically makes them less desirable and less valuable than an SFR or duplex which is unencumbered. I feel that annual HOA dues on SFR’s (usually imposed to maintain common open space surrounding the subdivision(s)) really has no effect in dampening the values of SFRs that lie within the HOA. However, monthly dues DO, when compared to a nearby equally-desirable subdivision which has no HOA.
Compare the house styles on all the tracts you are familiar with which were built since 2000. If work location were not an issue, what would be a “redeeming enough” quality to make one tract stand out from the rest? Do you like “Tuscan style?” “Mediterranean?” Faux (lol) “Craftsman?” When a buyer is “in the market” for a property built since 2000, he/she has MANY choices, mostly in wildly far-flung areas. Thus, there is more competition (inventory wise) in the same style/size/age house. All this “competition” in “buyer choices,” along with more distress in individual subdivisions, keeps values lower than more diverse properties in better locations.
An “exurb buyer” is not the same as a buyer looking for an available mid-century Mosher in 92106, one of the SIX properties facing the ENTIRETY of Sunset Cliffs 92107 (with whitewater views) or an available Requa in 92103. The three examples given here are finite. There is currently only ONE of each available and the 92103 property has not been available in 70 years.
Why would you expect any or all of the areas of the above 3 examples to suffer as much distress (and thus subsequent value loss) as a heavily encumbered “lookalike” subdivision located in an exurb?
I will credit sdr with the statement, “The best properties are in the most capable hands,” or something of that nature. This will always hold true in highly desirable markets. I don’t care if the 3 BIGGest banks fail next year and people start keeping their cash in floor safes. It won’t matter. Well located RE is a very wise, tangible and usable asset.
DaCounselor, if you were a longtime owner of a property today which was located in an area you feel should go down in value more but isn’t seeming to, would YOU sell right now? Would YOU entertain lowball offers and looky-loos for month on end if that’s all the attention you were getting? I bet the answer would be no and you would be right. If you don’t HAVE to sell now, you can simply tell your agent you won’t entertain any offers below $_____ or remove your property from the market and wait for a better day.
Think about it.
June 13, 2011 at 6:17 PM #703891Participant[quote=DaCounselor] . . . Regarding coastal SD RE, haven’t attached homes devalued significantly? How can this be if the area is immune? Or is it only SFRs that are immune? Or only the very top 1% of SFRs with views and big lots and etc etc? What is the criteria to be immune? . . .[/quote]
DaCounselor, I think “immunity” is the wrong term to use here. How about “stalwart?” Unencumbered SFRs will stand more “stalwart” in holding value against highly encumbered SFRs and condos. Especially well-located properties in areas there hasn’t been any land to build on in 40+ years.
Regarding 1-4 unit residential, residential PUDS and condos, condos are encumbered by an HOA. Therefore, that automatically makes them less desirable and less valuable than an SFR or duplex which is unencumbered. I feel that annual HOA dues on SFR’s (usually imposed to maintain common open space surrounding the subdivision(s)) really has no effect in dampening the values of SFRs that lie within the HOA. However, monthly dues DO, when compared to a nearby equally-desirable subdivision which has no HOA.
Compare the house styles on all the tracts you are familiar with which were built since 2000. If work location were not an issue, what would be a “redeeming enough” quality to make one tract stand out from the rest? Do you like “Tuscan style?” “Mediterranean?” Faux (lol) “Craftsman?” When a buyer is “in the market” for a property built since 2000, he/she has MANY choices, mostly in wildly far-flung areas. Thus, there is more competition (inventory wise) in the same style/size/age house. All this “competition” in “buyer choices,” along with more distress in individual subdivisions, keeps values lower than more diverse properties in better locations.
An “exurb buyer” is not the same as a buyer looking for an available mid-century Mosher in 92106, one of the SIX properties facing the ENTIRETY of Sunset Cliffs 92107 (with whitewater views) or an available Requa in 92103. The three examples given here are finite. There is currently only ONE of each available and the 92103 property has not been available in 70 years.
Why would you expect any or all of the areas of the above 3 examples to suffer as much distress (and thus subsequent value loss) as a heavily encumbered “lookalike” subdivision located in an exurb?
I will credit sdr with the statement, “The best properties are in the most capable hands,” or something of that nature. This will always hold true in highly desirable markets. I don’t care if the 3 BIGGest banks fail next year and people start keeping their cash in floor safes. It won’t matter. Well located RE is a very wise, tangible and usable asset.
DaCounselor, if you were a longtime owner of a property today which was located in an area you feel should go down in value more but isn’t seeming to, would YOU sell right now? Would YOU entertain lowball offers and looky-loos for month on end if that’s all the attention you were getting? I bet the answer would be no and you would be right. If you don’t HAVE to sell now, you can simply tell your agent you won’t entertain any offers below $_____ or remove your property from the market and wait for a better day.
Think about it.
June 13, 2011 at 6:17 PM #704250Participant[quote=DaCounselor] . . . Regarding coastal SD RE, haven’t attached homes devalued significantly? How can this be if the area is immune? Or is it only SFRs that are immune? Or only the very top 1% of SFRs with views and big lots and etc etc? What is the criteria to be immune? . . .[/quote]
DaCounselor, I think “immunity” is the wrong term to use here. How about “stalwart?” Unencumbered SFRs will stand more “stalwart” in holding value against highly encumbered SFRs and condos. Especially well-located properties in areas there hasn’t been any land to build on in 40+ years.
Regarding 1-4 unit residential, residential PUDS and condos, condos are encumbered by an HOA. Therefore, that automatically makes them less desirable and less valuable than an SFR or duplex which is unencumbered. I feel that annual HOA dues on SFR’s (usually imposed to maintain common open space surrounding the subdivision(s)) really has no effect in dampening the values of SFRs that lie within the HOA. However, monthly dues DO, when compared to a nearby equally-desirable subdivision which has no HOA.
Compare the house styles on all the tracts you are familiar with which were built since 2000. If work location were not an issue, what would be a “redeeming enough” quality to make one tract stand out from the rest? Do you like “Tuscan style?” “Mediterranean?” Faux (lol) “Craftsman?” When a buyer is “in the market” for a property built since 2000, he/she has MANY choices, mostly in wildly far-flung areas. Thus, there is more competition (inventory wise) in the same style/size/age house. All this “competition” in “buyer choices,” along with more distress in individual subdivisions, keeps values lower than more diverse properties in better locations.
An “exurb buyer” is not the same as a buyer looking for an available mid-century Mosher in 92106, one of the SIX properties facing the ENTIRETY of Sunset Cliffs 92107 (with whitewater views) or an available Requa in 92103. The three examples given here are finite. There is currently only ONE of each available and the 92103 property has not been available in 70 years.
Why would you expect any or all of the areas of the above 3 examples to suffer as much distress (and thus subsequent value loss) as a heavily encumbered “lookalike” subdivision located in an exurb?
I will credit sdr with the statement, “The best properties are in the most capable hands,” or something of that nature. This will always hold true in highly desirable markets. I don’t care if the 3 BIGGest banks fail next year and people start keeping their cash in floor safes. It won’t matter. Well located RE is a very wise, tangible and usable asset.
DaCounselor, if you were a longtime owner of a property today which was located in an area you feel should go down in value more but isn’t seeming to, would YOU sell right now? Would YOU entertain lowball offers and looky-loos for month on end if that’s all the attention you were getting? I bet the answer would be no and you would be right. If you don’t HAVE to sell now, you can simply tell your agent you won’t entertain any offers below $_____ or remove your property from the market and wait for a better day.
Think about it.
June 13, 2011 at 6:28 PM #703066ParticipantPiggs, I guess what I’m trying to say here is that I read here several times a week that potential buyers are “waiting for bottom.” Some state they are wishing to purchase in “highly desirable areas” of SD County. I don’t see this “bottom-yet-to-come” constellation in those areas. Perhaps the bottom is not yet here for an exurb and/or inland subdivision built since 2000. Perhaps those buyers should wait to buy unless they can strike a GREAT deal now. But for the buyers waiting for SFRs in coastal zip codes (esp one stories, those with a good view or custom-built) to take a nosedive in value, I feel some will wait forever, given the current mindset. Meanwhile, these properties may be snapped up by more confident buyers who recognize value when they see it. I’m not “bullish.” I’ve just been around long enough to know what is real and how to make it work.
June 13, 2011 at 6:28 PM #703163ParticipantPiggs, I guess what I’m trying to say here is that I read here several times a week that potential buyers are “waiting for bottom.” Some state they are wishing to purchase in “highly desirable areas” of SD County. I don’t see this “bottom-yet-to-come” constellation in those areas. Perhaps the bottom is not yet here for an exurb and/or inland subdivision built since 2000. Perhaps those buyers should wait to buy unless they can strike a GREAT deal now. But for the buyers waiting for SFRs in coastal zip codes (esp one stories, those with a good view or custom-built) to take a nosedive in value, I feel some will wait forever, given the current mindset. Meanwhile, these properties may be snapped up by more confident buyers who recognize value when they see it. I’m not “bullish.” I’ve just been around long enough to know what is real and how to make it work.
June 13, 2011 at 6:28 PM #703753ParticipantPiggs, I guess what I’m trying to say here is that I read here several times a week that potential buyers are “waiting for bottom.” Some state they are wishing to purchase in “highly desirable areas” of SD County. I don’t see this “bottom-yet-to-come” constellation in those areas. Perhaps the bottom is not yet here for an exurb and/or inland subdivision built since 2000. Perhaps those buyers should wait to buy unless they can strike a GREAT deal now. But for the buyers waiting for SFRs in coastal zip codes (esp one stories, those with a good view or custom-built) to take a nosedive in value, I feel some will wait forever, given the current mindset. Meanwhile, these properties may be snapped up by more confident buyers who recognize value when they see it. I’m not “bullish.” I’ve just been around long enough to know what is real and how to make it work.
June 13, 2011 at 6:28 PM #703901ParticipantPiggs, I guess what I’m trying to say here is that I read here several times a week that potential buyers are “waiting for bottom.” Some state they are wishing to purchase in “highly desirable areas” of SD County. I don’t see this “bottom-yet-to-come” constellation in those areas. Perhaps the bottom is not yet here for an exurb and/or inland subdivision built since 2000. Perhaps those buyers should wait to buy unless they can strike a GREAT deal now. But for the buyers waiting for SFRs in coastal zip codes (esp one stories, those with a good view or custom-built) to take a nosedive in value, I feel some will wait forever, given the current mindset. Meanwhile, these properties may be snapped up by more confident buyers who recognize value when they see it. I’m not “bullish.” I’ve just been around long enough to know what is real and how to make it work.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.