- This topic has 1,443 replies, 45 voices, and was last updated 13 years ago by
an.
-
AuthorPosts
-
November 11, 2010 at 11:39 PM #630992November 11, 2010 at 11:54 PM #629905
bearishgurl
Participant[quote=]Sure, SD County is higher on the chart (35) than the “Twin Cities” (76). But if I am reading this right, the Minneapolis area currently has 154 properties in various stages of foreclosure for every 1000 properties to San Diego’s 82 per 1000. This indicates that a far greater proportion of its homeowners (to SD Co. homeowners) are in some stage of default or foreclosure. In addition, there were 8.59% MORE homeowners in Minneapolis in distress in Q3 2010 than in Q2 2010![/quote]
I think I DID read the Realty Trac chart wrong. I now think SD’s foreclosure rate is higher than Minneapolis. It’s 1 in 82 homeowners in SD versus 1 in 154 homeowners in MN.
[quote=]This chart seems to indicate that while SD’s foreclosures are going down, Minneapolis’ foreclosures are going up.[/quote]
This is still true.
November 11, 2010 at 11:54 PM #629982Participant[quote=]Sure, SD County is higher on the chart (35) than the “Twin Cities” (76). But if I am reading this right, the Minneapolis area currently has 154 properties in various stages of foreclosure for every 1000 properties to San Diego’s 82 per 1000. This indicates that a far greater proportion of its homeowners (to SD Co. homeowners) are in some stage of default or foreclosure. In addition, there were 8.59% MORE homeowners in Minneapolis in distress in Q3 2010 than in Q2 2010![/quote]
I think I DID read the Realty Trac chart wrong. I now think SD’s foreclosure rate is higher than Minneapolis. It’s 1 in 82 homeowners in SD versus 1 in 154 homeowners in MN.
[quote=]This chart seems to indicate that while SD’s foreclosures are going down, Minneapolis’ foreclosures are going up.[/quote]
This is still true.
November 11, 2010 at 11:54 PM #630556Participant[quote=]Sure, SD County is higher on the chart (35) than the “Twin Cities” (76). But if I am reading this right, the Minneapolis area currently has 154 properties in various stages of foreclosure for every 1000 properties to San Diego’s 82 per 1000. This indicates that a far greater proportion of its homeowners (to SD Co. homeowners) are in some stage of default or foreclosure. In addition, there were 8.59% MORE homeowners in Minneapolis in distress in Q3 2010 than in Q2 2010![/quote]
I think I DID read the Realty Trac chart wrong. I now think SD’s foreclosure rate is higher than Minneapolis. It’s 1 in 82 homeowners in SD versus 1 in 154 homeowners in MN.
[quote=]This chart seems to indicate that while SD’s foreclosures are going down, Minneapolis’ foreclosures are going up.[/quote]
This is still true.
November 11, 2010 at 11:54 PM #630683Participant[quote=]Sure, SD County is higher on the chart (35) than the “Twin Cities” (76). But if I am reading this right, the Minneapolis area currently has 154 properties in various stages of foreclosure for every 1000 properties to San Diego’s 82 per 1000. This indicates that a far greater proportion of its homeowners (to SD Co. homeowners) are in some stage of default or foreclosure. In addition, there were 8.59% MORE homeowners in Minneapolis in distress in Q3 2010 than in Q2 2010![/quote]
I think I DID read the Realty Trac chart wrong. I now think SD’s foreclosure rate is higher than Minneapolis. It’s 1 in 82 homeowners in SD versus 1 in 154 homeowners in MN.
[quote=]This chart seems to indicate that while SD’s foreclosures are going down, Minneapolis’ foreclosures are going up.[/quote]
This is still true.
November 11, 2010 at 11:54 PM #631002Participant[quote=]Sure, SD County is higher on the chart (35) than the “Twin Cities” (76). But if I am reading this right, the Minneapolis area currently has 154 properties in various stages of foreclosure for every 1000 properties to San Diego’s 82 per 1000. This indicates that a far greater proportion of its homeowners (to SD Co. homeowners) are in some stage of default or foreclosure. In addition, there were 8.59% MORE homeowners in Minneapolis in distress in Q3 2010 than in Q2 2010![/quote]
I think I DID read the Realty Trac chart wrong. I now think SD’s foreclosure rate is higher than Minneapolis. It’s 1 in 82 homeowners in SD versus 1 in 154 homeowners in MN.
[quote=]This chart seems to indicate that while SD’s foreclosures are going down, Minneapolis’ foreclosures are going up.[/quote]
This is still true.
November 12, 2010 at 6:27 AM #629940SD Transplant
ParticipantI guess he’s not alone:
“Approximately 112,500 more people moved out of California than moved into the state in 2008, the latest data available, according to a new interactive website based on federal tax returns, says the Tax Foundation.
That net loss of residents meant more than $2.5 billion in net lost income as well.
Where did these movers go? The states with the highest net migration (more people moving to that state from California than the other direction) were:
Texas, 32,406 people
Arizona, 15,533
Oregon, 12,577
Nevada, 12,094
Washington, 11,890
With the exception of Texas, Californians weren’t going far, just over the border in all directions.California was also the net gainer of people from 20 states. The top ones:
Michigan, 2,782 people
Massachusetts, 1,984
Illinois, 1,903
Florida, 1,898
New York, 1,822
Here’s a YouTube video explaining how the interactive chart works:November 12, 2010 at 6:27 AM #630017ParticipantI guess he’s not alone:
“Approximately 112,500 more people moved out of California than moved into the state in 2008, the latest data available, according to a new interactive website based on federal tax returns, says the Tax Foundation.
That net loss of residents meant more than $2.5 billion in net lost income as well.
Where did these movers go? The states with the highest net migration (more people moving to that state from California than the other direction) were:
Texas, 32,406 people
Arizona, 15,533
Oregon, 12,577
Nevada, 12,094
Washington, 11,890
With the exception of Texas, Californians weren’t going far, just over the border in all directions.California was also the net gainer of people from 20 states. The top ones:
Michigan, 2,782 people
Massachusetts, 1,984
Illinois, 1,903
Florida, 1,898
New York, 1,822
Here’s a YouTube video explaining how the interactive chart works:November 12, 2010 at 6:27 AM #630591ParticipantI guess he’s not alone:
“Approximately 112,500 more people moved out of California than moved into the state in 2008, the latest data available, according to a new interactive website based on federal tax returns, says the Tax Foundation.
That net loss of residents meant more than $2.5 billion in net lost income as well.
Where did these movers go? The states with the highest net migration (more people moving to that state from California than the other direction) were:
Texas, 32,406 people
Arizona, 15,533
Oregon, 12,577
Nevada, 12,094
Washington, 11,890
With the exception of Texas, Californians weren’t going far, just over the border in all directions.California was also the net gainer of people from 20 states. The top ones:
Michigan, 2,782 people
Massachusetts, 1,984
Illinois, 1,903
Florida, 1,898
New York, 1,822
Here’s a YouTube video explaining how the interactive chart works:November 12, 2010 at 6:27 AM #630719ParticipantI guess he’s not alone:
“Approximately 112,500 more people moved out of California than moved into the state in 2008, the latest data available, according to a new interactive website based on federal tax returns, says the Tax Foundation.
That net loss of residents meant more than $2.5 billion in net lost income as well.
Where did these movers go? The states with the highest net migration (more people moving to that state from California than the other direction) were:
Texas, 32,406 people
Arizona, 15,533
Oregon, 12,577
Nevada, 12,094
Washington, 11,890
With the exception of Texas, Californians weren’t going far, just over the border in all directions.California was also the net gainer of people from 20 states. The top ones:
Michigan, 2,782 people
Massachusetts, 1,984
Illinois, 1,903
Florida, 1,898
New York, 1,822
Here’s a YouTube video explaining how the interactive chart works:November 12, 2010 at 6:27 AM #631037ParticipantI guess he’s not alone:
“Approximately 112,500 more people moved out of California than moved into the state in 2008, the latest data available, according to a new interactive website based on federal tax returns, says the Tax Foundation.
That net loss of residents meant more than $2.5 billion in net lost income as well.
Where did these movers go? The states with the highest net migration (more people moving to that state from California than the other direction) were:
Texas, 32,406 people
Arizona, 15,533
Oregon, 12,577
Nevada, 12,094
Washington, 11,890
With the exception of Texas, Californians weren’t going far, just over the border in all directions.California was also the net gainer of people from 20 states. The top ones:
Michigan, 2,782 people
Massachusetts, 1,984
Illinois, 1,903
Florida, 1,898
New York, 1,822
Here’s a YouTube video explaining how the interactive chart works:November 12, 2010 at 6:36 AM #629950sdrealtor
ParticipantNo he is not alone. How do those numbers look for San Diego County in 2010? Comparing 2008 and 2010 as well as San Diego with the State of CA is not the same thing.
People living here clearly value different things than people else where. That is why the choose to live here. If they valued inexpensive, affordable homes over a Sd Lifestyle they would live elsewhere. Its a free country and they have that choice.
November 12, 2010 at 6:36 AM #630027ParticipantNo he is not alone. How do those numbers look for San Diego County in 2010? Comparing 2008 and 2010 as well as San Diego with the State of CA is not the same thing.
People living here clearly value different things than people else where. That is why the choose to live here. If they valued inexpensive, affordable homes over a Sd Lifestyle they would live elsewhere. Its a free country and they have that choice.
November 12, 2010 at 6:36 AM #630601ParticipantNo he is not alone. How do those numbers look for San Diego County in 2010? Comparing 2008 and 2010 as well as San Diego with the State of CA is not the same thing.
People living here clearly value different things than people else where. That is why the choose to live here. If they valued inexpensive, affordable homes over a Sd Lifestyle they would live elsewhere. Its a free country and they have that choice.
November 12, 2010 at 6:36 AM #630729ParticipantNo he is not alone. How do those numbers look for San Diego County in 2010? Comparing 2008 and 2010 as well as San Diego with the State of CA is not the same thing.
People living here clearly value different things than people else where. That is why the choose to live here. If they valued inexpensive, affordable homes over a Sd Lifestyle they would live elsewhere. Its a free country and they have that choice.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.