- This topic has 265 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 11 months ago by
CAwireman.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 13, 2011 at 6:28 PM #704260June 13, 2011 at 6:39 PM #703081
CA renter
Participant[quote=bearishgurl][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.[/quote]
That’s exactly what they’re doing…they are purchasing “elsewhere” in neighborhoods that fit their needs better.
Nobody is obliged to keep housing prices high in the older areas by artificially suppressing new inventory from coming online. There is no sane reason to do it.
More people are moving here, and that’s a fact. We need more housing to accomodate them.
June 13, 2011 at 6:39 PM #703178Participant[quote=bearishgurl][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.[/quote]
That’s exactly what they’re doing…they are purchasing “elsewhere” in neighborhoods that fit their needs better.
Nobody is obliged to keep housing prices high in the older areas by artificially suppressing new inventory from coming online. There is no sane reason to do it.
More people are moving here, and that’s a fact. We need more housing to accomodate them.
June 13, 2011 at 6:39 PM #703768Participant[quote=bearishgurl][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.[/quote]
That’s exactly what they’re doing…they are purchasing “elsewhere” in neighborhoods that fit their needs better.
Nobody is obliged to keep housing prices high in the older areas by artificially suppressing new inventory from coming online. There is no sane reason to do it.
More people are moving here, and that’s a fact. We need more housing to accomodate them.
June 13, 2011 at 6:39 PM #703916Participant[quote=bearishgurl][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.[/quote]
That’s exactly what they’re doing…they are purchasing “elsewhere” in neighborhoods that fit their needs better.
Nobody is obliged to keep housing prices high in the older areas by artificially suppressing new inventory from coming online. There is no sane reason to do it.
More people are moving here, and that’s a fact. We need more housing to accomodate them.
June 13, 2011 at 6:39 PM #704275Participant[quote=bearishgurl][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.[/quote]
That’s exactly what they’re doing…they are purchasing “elsewhere” in neighborhoods that fit their needs better.
Nobody is obliged to keep housing prices high in the older areas by artificially suppressing new inventory from coming online. There is no sane reason to do it.
More people are moving here, and that’s a fact. We need more housing to accomodate them.
June 13, 2011 at 7:12 PM #703096DaCounselor
Participant“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?”
__________Hey – I resemble that remark…! Well kind of – my longtime rentals in South Mish and PB have gone down in value and I sometimes I wish I had sold them 5 years ago, can’t say I wasn’t tempted.
In any event when I say I believe that ultimately there will be plenty of devaluation to go around, including those who feel some level of immunity or “stalwartness” if you will, I am not predicting with specificity that all properties of all types in all zips with all levels of finishes etc etc will devalue the same % or $$ amount. Do I expect significant declines in value for all – generally yes.
On the subject of % vs $$ I am more apt to look at $$ decline. For instance the lucky folks who just closed on the sale of their house on Virginia Way in LJ on Friday for a $450K loss from their peak purchase in ’05, plus another $75-100K in transaction costs. Ouch. Perhaps not the most prime property but awfully close to the Village….
Throwing ultra-exclusive one-off clifftop panoramic view properties into the discussion won’t serve much purpose for the average person or Pig as those transactions involve a miniscule sliver of society that operate in a different universe. Nontheless I bet I can find such properties throughout SoCal that have recently sold for staggering discounts from prime-time peak prices. How can this be – don’t the values of such properties only go up?
I use LJ 92037 as my example due its mix of property types, its location and exclusivity, some which is real and some which is perceived. The word used by one of my RE developer clients when describing 92037 RE was “bulletproof”. Clearly that is not the case.
June 13, 2011 at 7:12 PM #703193Participant“DaCounselor, if you were a longtime owner of a property today which was located in an area you feel should go down in value more but isn’t seeming to, would YOU sell right now?”
__________Hey – I resemble that remark…! Well kind of – my longtime rentals in South Mish and PB have gone down in value and I sometimes I wish I had sold them 5 years ago, can’t say I wasn’t tempted.
In any event when I say I believe that ultimately there will be plenty of devaluation to go around, including those who feel some level of immunity or “stalwartness” if you will, I am not predicting with specificity that all properties of all types in all zips with all levels of finishes etc etc will devalue the same % or $$ amount. Do I expect significant declines in value for all – generally yes.
On the subject of % vs $$ I am more apt to look at $$ decline. For instance the lucky folks who just closed on the sale of their house on Virginia Way in LJ on Friday for a $450K loss from their peak purchase in ’05, plus another $75-100K in transaction costs. Ouch. Perhaps not the most prime property but awfully close to the Village….
Throwing ultra-exclusive one-off clifftop panoramic view properties into the discussion won’t serve much purpose for the average person or Pig as those transactions involve a miniscule sliver of society that operate in a different universe. Nontheless I bet I can find such properties throughout SoCal that have recently sold for staggering discounts from prime-time peak prices. How can this be – don’t the values of such properties only go up?
I use LJ 92037 as my example due its mix of property types, its location and exclusivity, some which is real and some which is perceived. The word used by one of my RE developer clients when describing 92037 RE was “bulletproof”. Clearly that is not the case.
June 13, 2011 at 7:12 PM #703783Participant“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?”
__________Hey – I resemble that remark…! Well kind of – my longtime rentals in South Mish and PB have gone down in value and I sometimes I wish I had sold them 5 years ago, can’t say I wasn’t tempted.
In any event when I say I believe that ultimately there will be plenty of devaluation to go around, including those who feel some level of immunity or “stalwartness” if you will, I am not predicting with specificity that all properties of all types in all zips with all levels of finishes etc etc will devalue the same % or $$ amount. Do I expect significant declines in value for all – generally yes.
On the subject of % vs $$ I am more apt to look at $$ decline. For instance the lucky folks who just closed on the sale of their house on Virginia Way in LJ on Friday for a $450K loss from their peak purchase in ’05, plus another $75-100K in transaction costs. Ouch. Perhaps not the most prime property but awfully close to the Village….
Throwing ultra-exclusive one-off clifftop panoramic view properties into the discussion won’t serve much purpose for the average person or Pig as those transactions involve a miniscule sliver of society that operate in a different universe. Nontheless I bet I can find such properties throughout SoCal that have recently sold for staggering discounts from prime-time peak prices. How can this be – don’t the values of such properties only go up?
I use LJ 92037 as my example due its mix of property types, its location and exclusivity, some which is real and some which is perceived. The word used by one of my RE developer clients when describing 92037 RE was “bulletproof”. Clearly that is not the case.
June 13, 2011 at 7:12 PM #703931Participant“DaCounselor, if you were a longtime owner of a property today which was located in an area you feel should go down in value more but isn’t seeming to, would YOU sell right now?”
__________Hey – I resemble that remark…! Well kind of – my longtime rentals in South Mish and PB have gone down in value and I sometimes I wish I had sold them 5 years ago, can’t say I wasn’t tempted.
In any event when I say I believe that ultimately there will be plenty of devaluation to go around, including those who feel some level of immunity or “stalwartness” if you will, I am not predicting with specificity that all properties of all types in all zips with all levels of finishes etc etc will devalue the same % or $$ amount. Do I expect significant declines in value for all – generally yes.
On the subject of % vs $$ I am more apt to look at $$ decline. For instance the lucky folks who just closed on the sale of their house on Virginia Way in LJ on Friday for a $450K loss from their peak purchase in ’05, plus another $75-100K in transaction costs. Ouch. Perhaps not the most prime property but awfully close to the Village….
Throwing ultra-exclusive one-off clifftop panoramic view properties into the discussion won’t serve much purpose for the average person or Pig as those transactions involve a miniscule sliver of society that operate in a different universe. Nontheless I bet I can find such properties throughout SoCal that have recently sold for staggering discounts from prime-time peak prices. How can this be – don’t the values of such properties only go up?
I use LJ 92037 as my example due its mix of property types, its location and exclusivity, some which is real and some which is perceived. The word used by one of my RE developer clients when describing 92037 RE was “bulletproof”. Clearly that is not the case.
June 13, 2011 at 7:12 PM #704290Participant“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?”
__________Hey – I resemble that remark…! Well kind of – my longtime rentals in South Mish and PB have gone down in value and I sometimes I wish I had sold them 5 years ago, can’t say I wasn’t tempted.
In any event when I say I believe that ultimately there will be plenty of devaluation to go around, including those who feel some level of immunity or “stalwartness” if you will, I am not predicting with specificity that all properties of all types in all zips with all levels of finishes etc etc will devalue the same % or $$ amount. Do I expect significant declines in value for all – generally yes.
On the subject of % vs $$ I am more apt to look at $$ decline. For instance the lucky folks who just closed on the sale of their house on Virginia Way in LJ on Friday for a $450K loss from their peak purchase in ’05, plus another $75-100K in transaction costs. Ouch. Perhaps not the most prime property but awfully close to the Village….
Throwing ultra-exclusive one-off clifftop panoramic view properties into the discussion won’t serve much purpose for the average person or Pig as those transactions involve a miniscule sliver of society that operate in a different universe. Nontheless I bet I can find such properties throughout SoCal that have recently sold for staggering discounts from prime-time peak prices. How can this be – don’t the values of such properties only go up?
I use LJ 92037 as my example due its mix of property types, its location and exclusivity, some which is real and some which is perceived. The word used by one of my RE developer clients when describing 92037 RE was “bulletproof”. Clearly that is not the case.
June 13, 2011 at 10:14 PM #703126gandalf
ParticipantQuestion for those of us who believe inflation is ahead, do you think property and real estate investments will provide their traditional hedge against inflation in the years to come, shelter from the storm?
Housing market ratios and fundamentals remain largely out of balance. The economy and labor market remain weak. The job market is slow, hiring is modest, no wage inflation on the horizon. Wages fuel housing.
Also, many speculate inflation will arrive through some other mechanism, currency devaluation from a dollar crisis for example. Foreign countries are already beginning to denominate trade and debt in non-dollar currencies.
If such inflation / devaluation occurs — inflation without labor and wage growth, it would reduce household incomes. It would eviscerate savings. The average standard of living would decline even further.
Is the housing market perhaps risking a further collapse in prices?
June 13, 2011 at 10:14 PM #703223ParticipantQuestion for those of us who believe inflation is ahead, do you think property and real estate investments will provide their traditional hedge against inflation in the years to come, shelter from the storm?
Housing market ratios and fundamentals remain largely out of balance. The economy and labor market remain weak. The job market is slow, hiring is modest, no wage inflation on the horizon. Wages fuel housing.
Also, many speculate inflation will arrive through some other mechanism, currency devaluation from a dollar crisis for example. Foreign countries are already beginning to denominate trade and debt in non-dollar currencies.
If such inflation / devaluation occurs — inflation without labor and wage growth, it would reduce household incomes. It would eviscerate savings. The average standard of living would decline even further.
Is the housing market perhaps risking a further collapse in prices?
June 13, 2011 at 10:14 PM #703813ParticipantQuestion for those of us who believe inflation is ahead, do you think property and real estate investments will provide their traditional hedge against inflation in the years to come, shelter from the storm?
Housing market ratios and fundamentals remain largely out of balance. The economy and labor market remain weak. The job market is slow, hiring is modest, no wage inflation on the horizon. Wages fuel housing.
Also, many speculate inflation will arrive through some other mechanism, currency devaluation from a dollar crisis for example. Foreign countries are already beginning to denominate trade and debt in non-dollar currencies.
If such inflation / devaluation occurs — inflation without labor and wage growth, it would reduce household incomes. It would eviscerate savings. The average standard of living would decline even further.
Is the housing market perhaps risking a further collapse in prices?
June 13, 2011 at 10:14 PM #703961ParticipantQuestion for those of us who believe inflation is ahead, do you think property and real estate investments will provide their traditional hedge against inflation in the years to come, shelter from the storm?
Housing market ratios and fundamentals remain largely out of balance. The economy and labor market remain weak. The job market is slow, hiring is modest, no wage inflation on the horizon. Wages fuel housing.
Also, many speculate inflation will arrive through some other mechanism, currency devaluation from a dollar crisis for example. Foreign countries are already beginning to denominate trade and debt in non-dollar currencies.
If such inflation / devaluation occurs — inflation without labor and wage growth, it would reduce household incomes. It would eviscerate savings. The average standard of living would decline even further.
Is the housing market perhaps risking a further collapse in prices?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.