Why I am leaving San Diego

[bearishgurl]

[quote=sdrealtor] . . . In many nice ZIPS in SD county you have a lot of homes owned by low income retirees who want to and can afford to stay here. That keeps supply low and helps skew income lower tahn it would be if you looked at who was moving in rather than everyone who already lives there. When you get down to it, the median income for a ZIP is pretty meaningless in real estate. What matters is the incomes of the folks who want to, can afford to and actually buy a home there.[/quote]

To add to sdr’s comment, the large “retired” element in older communities of SD tend to have a lower income than the “working” element, so it “skews” the incomes on the demographic charts. But being retired and on a lower income may not necessarily equate to a lesser lifestyle than a working family across the street having =>2x more monthly income. Not only do the retired generally pay less income taxes, they very often have no mortgage and owe far less property taxes (due to Prop 13 caps). So it’s very possible that the retired homeowner has MORE discretionary income that their dual-income-family neighbor.

This may seem unfair to a current worker raising a family but, like it or not, it’s just the way the world works . . .

You, as a young worker today, might have a hard time imagining yourself standing on your feet on their line at Convair all day producing aircraft parts (for 25 – 35 years). That was their life.

[img_assist|nid=14221|title=Convair ad|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=240|height=434]

This ad was probably placed in newspapers in the midwest to lure workers out of the heat, hence the reference to “cool” San Diego . . . lol!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Rustico]I was just curious, is this right?

“In Minneapolis, substantial housing development has brought the city’s population to 390,000 – close to the city’s population in the mid-1970s.”

San Diego city/county 1970

696,769/1,357,854

San Diego city/county currently

1,359,132/3,053,793[/quote]

Rustico, the 1970 “City” number looks right but the “County” number looks about 500K too high to me.

The current numbers for SD City/County look correct.

I’m not quite understanding the quote about Minneapolis.

What are the sources of the statements?

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Rustico]I was just curious, is this right?

“In Minneapolis, substantial housing development has brought the city’s population to 390,000 – close to the city’s population in the mid-1970s.”

San Diego city/county 1970

696,769/1,357,854

San Diego city/county currently

1,359,132/3,053,793[/quote]

Rustico, the 1970 “City” number looks right but the “County” number looks about 500K too high to me.

The current numbers for SD City/County look correct.

I’m not quite understanding the quote about Minneapolis.

What are the sources of the statements?

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Rustico]I was just curious, is this right?

“In Minneapolis, substantial housing development has brought the city’s population to 390,000 – close to the city’s population in the mid-1970s.”

San Diego city/county 1970

696,769/1,357,854

San Diego city/county currently

1,359,132/3,053,793[/quote]

Rustico, the 1970 “City” number looks right but the “County” number looks about 500K too high to me.

The current numbers for SD City/County look correct.

I’m not quite understanding the quote about Minneapolis.

What are the sources of the statements?

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Rustico]I was just curious, is this right?

“In Minneapolis, substantial housing development has brought the city’s population to 390,000 – close to the city’s population in the mid-1970s.”

San Diego city/county 1970

696,769/1,357,854

San Diego city/county currently

1,359,132/3,053,793[/quote]

Rustico, the 1970 “City” number looks right but the “County” number looks about 500K too high to me.

The current numbers for SD City/County look correct.

I’m not quite understanding the quote about Minneapolis.

What are the sources of the statements?

[bearishgurl]

[quote=Rustico]I was just curious, is this right?

“In Minneapolis, substantial housing development has brought the city’s population to 390,000 – close to the city’s population in the mid-1970s.”

San Diego city/county 1970

696,769/1,357,854

San Diego city/county currently

1,359,132/3,053,793[/quote]

Rustico, the 1970 “City” number looks right but the “County” number looks about 500K too high to me.

The current numbers for SD City/County look correct.

I’m not quite understanding the quote about Minneapolis.

What are the sources of the statements?

[NotCranky]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=Rustico]I was just curious, is this right?

“In Minneapolis, substantial housing development has brought the city’s population to 390,000 – close to the city’s population in the mid-1970s.”

San Diego city/county 1970

696,769/1,357,854

San Diego city/county currently

1,359,132/3,053,793[/quote]

Rustico, the 1970 “City” number looks right but the “County” number looks about 500K too high to me.

The current numbers for SD City/County look correct.

I’m not quite understanding the quote about Minneapolis.

What are the sources of the statements?[/quote]

I just found the Minneapolis quote on some history site. I just don’t think there would be much demand for Minneapolis real estate with a 40 year net growth in population of zero,compared to land constricted, close in parts of a rapidly growing San diego.

I think I got the San Diego stats from wikipedia but that was a long time ago, before tonight’s dinner, so I could have forgotten the source.

One other point of consideration, if you filter the lower income earning, crap apartment dwelling households from 92117, are you going to get a different household income? How much? It would be interesting to know how that changes the comparison to Jstoez home zipcode.

Regardless, I don’t have a hard time seeing the competition driving up Clairemont prices compared to many Minesota locations. Simply a matter of priorities from there….

[NotCranky]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=Rustico]I was just curious, is this right?

“In Minneapolis, substantial housing development has brought the city’s population to 390,000 – close to the city’s population in the mid-1970s.”

San Diego city/county 1970

696,769/1,357,854

San Diego city/county currently

1,359,132/3,053,793[/quote]

Rustico, the 1970 “City” number looks right but the “County” number looks about 500K too high to me.

The current numbers for SD City/County look correct.

I’m not quite understanding the quote about Minneapolis.

What are the sources of the statements?[/quote]

I just found the Minneapolis quote on some history site. I just don’t think there would be much demand for Minneapolis real estate with a 40 year net growth in population of zero,compared to land constricted, close in parts of a rapidly growing San diego.

I think I got the San Diego stats from wikipedia but that was a long time ago, before tonight’s dinner, so I could have forgotten the source.

One other point of consideration, if you filter the lower income earning, crap apartment dwelling households from 92117, are you going to get a different household income? How much? It would be interesting to know how that changes the comparison to Jstoez home zipcode.

Regardless, I don’t have a hard time seeing the competition driving up Clairemont prices compared to many Minesota locations. Simply a matter of priorities from there….

[NotCranky]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=Rustico]I was just curious, is this right?

“In Minneapolis, substantial housing development has brought the city’s population to 390,000 – close to the city’s population in the mid-1970s.”

San Diego city/county 1970

696,769/1,357,854

San Diego city/county currently

1,359,132/3,053,793[/quote]

Rustico, the 1970 “City” number looks right but the “County” number looks about 500K too high to me.

The current numbers for SD City/County look correct.

I’m not quite understanding the quote about Minneapolis.

What are the sources of the statements?[/quote]

I just found the Minneapolis quote on some history site. I just don’t think there would be much demand for Minneapolis real estate with a 40 year net growth in population of zero,compared to land constricted, close in parts of a rapidly growing San diego.

I think I got the San Diego stats from wikipedia but that was a long time ago, before tonight’s dinner, so I could have forgotten the source.

One other point of consideration, if you filter the lower income earning, crap apartment dwelling households from 92117, are you going to get a different household income? How much? It would be interesting to know how that changes the comparison to Jstoez home zipcode.

Regardless, I don’t have a hard time seeing the competition driving up Clairemont prices compared to many Minesota locations. Simply a matter of priorities from there….

[NotCranky]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=Rustico]I was just curious, is this right?

“In Minneapolis, substantial housing development has brought the city’s population to 390,000 – close to the city’s population in the mid-1970s.”

San Diego city/county 1970

696,769/1,357,854

San Diego city/county currently

1,359,132/3,053,793[/quote]

Rustico, the 1970 “City” number looks right but the “County” number looks about 500K too high to me.

The current numbers for SD City/County look correct.

I’m not quite understanding the quote about Minneapolis.

What are the sources of the statements?[/quote]

I just found the Minneapolis quote on some history site. I just don’t think there would be much demand for Minneapolis real estate with a 40 year net growth in population of zero,compared to land constricted, close in parts of a rapidly growing San diego.

I think I got the San Diego stats from wikipedia but that was a long time ago, before tonight’s dinner, so I could have forgotten the source.

One other point of consideration, if you filter the lower income earning, crap apartment dwelling households from 92117, are you going to get a different household income? How much? It would be interesting to know how that changes the comparison to Jstoez home zipcode.

Regardless, I don’t have a hard time seeing the competition driving up Clairemont prices compared to many Minesota locations. Simply a matter of priorities from there….

[NotCranky]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=Rustico]I was just curious, is this right?

“In Minneapolis, substantial housing development has brought the city’s population to 390,000 – close to the city’s population in the mid-1970s.”

San Diego city/county 1970

696,769/1,357,854

San Diego city/county currently

1,359,132/3,053,793[/quote]

Rustico, the 1970 “City” number looks right but the “County” number looks about 500K too high to me.

The current numbers for SD City/County look correct.

I’m not quite understanding the quote about Minneapolis.

What are the sources of the statements?[/quote]

I just found the Minneapolis quote on some history site. I just don’t think there would be much demand for Minneapolis real estate with a 40 year net growth in population of zero,compared to land constricted, close in parts of a rapidly growing San diego.

I think I got the San Diego stats from wikipedia but that was a long time ago, before tonight’s dinner, so I could have forgotten the source.

One other point of consideration, if you filter the lower income earning, crap apartment dwelling households from 92117, are you going to get a different household income? How much? It would be interesting to know how that changes the comparison to Jstoez home zipcode.

Regardless, I don’t have a hard time seeing the competition driving up Clairemont prices compared to many Minesota locations. Simply a matter of priorities from there….

[jstoesz]

The minneapolis metro area is well over 3 million. The city of minneapolis is relatively small with most of the homes built before WW2. It was completely subdivided and developed to the borders prior to WW2. The only reason it has grown in recent years is due to high density urban condo projects. There are many densely populated suburbs the have grown, but minneapolis proper ran out of land 100 years ago…

Growth maybe the reason for home prices, but I doubt it. There are many communities that have grown vastly which are not so expensive.

To the old people turn over issue. If there are less old people selling the paid off home (something I am far from convinced of, lets see the data), there are less people buying a new one. So by the numbers it should be a wash.

I think it comical when people believe the S. California prices are justified. There is no good reason outside of widespread and long standing fiscal irresponsibility.

[jstoesz]

The minneapolis metro area is well over 3 million. The city of minneapolis is relatively small with most of the homes built before WW2. It was completely subdivided and developed to the borders prior to WW2. The only reason it has grown in recent years is due to high density urban condo projects. There are many densely populated suburbs the have grown, but minneapolis proper ran out of land 100 years ago…

Growth maybe the reason for home prices, but I doubt it. There are many communities that have grown vastly which are not so expensive.

To the old people turn over issue. If there are less old people selling the paid off home (something I am far from convinced of, lets see the data), there are less people buying a new one. So by the numbers it should be a wash.

I think it comical when people believe the S. California prices are justified. There is no good reason outside of widespread and long standing fiscal irresponsibility.

[jstoesz]

The minneapolis metro area is well over 3 million. The city of minneapolis is relatively small with most of the homes built before WW2. It was completely subdivided and developed to the borders prior to WW2. The only reason it has grown in recent years is due to high density urban condo projects. There are many densely populated suburbs the have grown, but minneapolis proper ran out of land 100 years ago…

Growth maybe the reason for home prices, but I doubt it. There are many communities that have grown vastly which are not so expensive.

To the old people turn over issue. If there are less old people selling the paid off home (something I am far from convinced of, lets see the data), there are less people buying a new one. So by the numbers it should be a wash.

I think it comical when people believe the S. California prices are justified. There is no good reason outside of widespread and long standing fiscal irresponsibility.

[jstoesz]

The minneapolis metro area is well over 3 million. The city of minneapolis is relatively small with most of the homes built before WW2. It was completely subdivided and developed to the borders prior to WW2. The only reason it has grown in recent years is due to high density urban condo projects. There are many densely populated suburbs the have grown, but minneapolis proper ran out of land 100 years ago…

Growth maybe the reason for home prices, but I doubt it. There are many communities that have grown vastly which are not so expensive.

To the old people turn over issue. If there are less old people selling the paid off home (something I am far from convinced of, lets see the data), there are less people buying a new one. So by the numbers it should be a wash.

I think it comical when people believe the S. California prices are justified. There is no good reason outside of widespread and long standing fiscal irresponsibility.

[Author]

Posts