Just wanted to spread a little insight about the preceived high vacancy rate of homes for sale in SD. The number being bandied about is 30%. The truth is there is no accurate or simple way to calculate this number. The best way is to run a search in the MLS with an occupant name = vacant. This will greatly understate the actual number because many vacant homes are not listed with occupant=vacant. In 2006, approximately 23% of the single family homes listed have had an occupant=vacant. Thus, its probably reasonably safe to assume this number could be around 30%.
However, the real question is not whether 30% is a high number (It is!) but whether it is a historically high number. Historically, SD has always had a high vacancy rate among properties for sale. I’ve never sold RE anywhere else so I dont know how it compares to other places. Here’s the trend for the last 4 years of homes listed with occupant=vacant:
Within this particular 4-year span a 4% spread (among those reported) doesn’t seem significant. Since you have the search mode wired, what was it back in 1998 and 1999?
To sdrealtor, not meaning to make extra work for you. But can you tally this % throughout the prior 2 full realestate cycles as well as the one that is currently cresting and falling downward?
If its too much to do, I’d completely understand. But, it would be fascinating if the data were available.
This kind of info would be great to contrast against the income/home price graphs that Rich has posted.
lindismith,
98 and 99 were about 24%. I’ll run the rest but it might take a few days. Mom’s not feeling good and I had to bring her to my house for a few days of TLC.
PS,
Lots of them are on the market as they have always been. SD is unique from many places in that you could always find a nice Single Family home for rent on just about any street. Where I grew up, single family homes for rent were virtually non existent.
How many rental houses are there where you grew up?
I ran the numbers for both and the numbers were 1 or 2% higher each year through 2003. In 2004, the numbers jumped to 24%, then to 29% in 2005 and 28% in 2006 so far.
I would hypothesize this is due to 2 factors. The first is the addition of developers new construction into the MLS which didnt really start until 2005 (i.e. they didnt need us before then to sell their product). The second and likely much more significant factor is investors/flippers. With appreciation gone, recent investors are getting out as they are not covering costs in contrast to long time investors that have positive cash flow. Also, the flippers hit the condo market much harder than SFH because it was cheaper to buy and easier to care for. I guess this is yet another reason that Condos will get hit harder.
As far as the SFH, it’s one thing to have your home vacant when its value is appreciating 10-20% annually, and quite another when it is losing value. I don’t know what the impact is though.
.
