Why is San Diego real estate still so expensive?

[sdcellar]

Seems tough to compare San Diego and L.A. real estate. They don’t seem to have what we have and vice-versa. At least not in the non-dicey areas.

That said, L.A. is a big place, so I’m sure there’s a lot I don’t know. That said, my most recent cruisings through the big city took me through Burbank and a few weeks later up into the Hollywood Hills. Both areas surprised me for what real estate they had available (and recently sold), but neither could translate to anything here (at least not for me).

Burbank, for example, could best be described as “inland”, but it’s not like any inland I know of here in Diego. Not saying it’s better or worse, just different.

[an]

[quote=sdcellar]I thought maybe 3 houses in San Diego have gone for 2001 nominal. Maybe one more that sdrealtor just went into escrow on for one of his clients. Are you saying the Piggs got all of them?[/quote]
Please reread, I said 2001-2003. sdrealtor said that property is 1999 to 2000 nominal, not 2001. BTW, 3, really, just 3?

BTW, I entertained your 3 closing at 2001 nominal price and did a quick search:
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100044695-17655_Calle_Mayor_Rancho_Santa_Fe_CA_92067
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100053087-4773_El_Mirlo_Rancho_Santa_Fe_CA_92067
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100030431-14810_Las_Mananas_Rancho_Santa_Fe_CA_92067
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100022519-16028_Rambla_De_Las_Flores_Rancho_Santa_Fe_CA_92067

There you go, spent a total of 3 minutes, going through closing in RSF for the last 2-3 months and I found 4 closings at 2000-2001 price :-).

[an]

[quote=sdcellar]I thought maybe 3 houses in San Diego have gone for 2001 nominal. Maybe one more that sdrealtor just went into escrow on for one of his clients. Are you saying the Piggs got all of them?[/quote]
Please reread, I said 2001-2003. sdrealtor said that property is 1999 to 2000 nominal, not 2001. BTW, 3, really, just 3?

BTW, I entertained your 3 closing at 2001 nominal price and did a quick search:
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100044695-17655_Calle_Mayor_Rancho_Santa_Fe_CA_92067
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100053087-4773_El_Mirlo_Rancho_Santa_Fe_CA_92067
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100030431-14810_Las_Mananas_Rancho_Santa_Fe_CA_92067
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100022519-16028_Rambla_De_Las_Flores_Rancho_Santa_Fe_CA_92067

There you go, spent a total of 3 minutes, going through closing in RSF for the last 2-3 months and I found 4 closings at 2000-2001 price :-).

[an]

[quote=sdcellar]I thought maybe 3 houses in San Diego have gone for 2001 nominal. Maybe one more that sdrealtor just went into escrow on for one of his clients. Are you saying the Piggs got all of them?[/quote]
Please reread, I said 2001-2003. sdrealtor said that property is 1999 to 2000 nominal, not 2001. BTW, 3, really, just 3?

BTW, I entertained your 3 closing at 2001 nominal price and did a quick search:
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100044695-17655_Calle_Mayor_Rancho_Santa_Fe_CA_92067
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100053087-4773_El_Mirlo_Rancho_Santa_Fe_CA_92067
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100030431-14810_Las_Mananas_Rancho_Santa_Fe_CA_92067
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100022519-16028_Rambla_De_Las_Flores_Rancho_Santa_Fe_CA_92067

There you go, spent a total of 3 minutes, going through closing in RSF for the last 2-3 months and I found 4 closings at 2000-2001 price :-).

[an]

[quote=sdcellar]I thought maybe 3 houses in San Diego have gone for 2001 nominal. Maybe one more that sdrealtor just went into escrow on for one of his clients. Are you saying the Piggs got all of them?[/quote]
Please reread, I said 2001-2003. sdrealtor said that property is 1999 to 2000 nominal, not 2001. BTW, 3, really, just 3?

BTW, I entertained your 3 closing at 2001 nominal price and did a quick search:
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100044695-17655_Calle_Mayor_Rancho_Santa_Fe_CA_92067
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100053087-4773_El_Mirlo_Rancho_Santa_Fe_CA_92067
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100030431-14810_Las_Mananas_Rancho_Santa_Fe_CA_92067
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100022519-16028_Rambla_De_Las_Flores_Rancho_Santa_Fe_CA_92067

There you go, spent a total of 3 minutes, going through closing in RSF for the last 2-3 months and I found 4 closings at 2000-2001 price :-).

[an]

[quote=sdcellar]I thought maybe 3 houses in San Diego have gone for 2001 nominal. Maybe one more that sdrealtor just went into escrow on for one of his clients. Are you saying the Piggs got all of them?[/quote]
Please reread, I said 2001-2003. sdrealtor said that property is 1999 to 2000 nominal, not 2001. BTW, 3, really, just 3?

BTW, I entertained your 3 closing at 2001 nominal price and did a quick search:
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100044695-17655_Calle_Mayor_Rancho_Santa_Fe_CA_92067
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100053087-4773_El_Mirlo_Rancho_Santa_Fe_CA_92067
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100030431-14810_Las_Mananas_Rancho_Santa_Fe_CA_92067
http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-100022519-16028_Rambla_De_Las_Flores_Rancho_Santa_Fe_CA_92067

There you go, spent a total of 3 minutes, going through closing in RSF for the last 2-3 months and I found 4 closings at 2000-2001 price :-).

[sdcellar]

2003 would be seven years, last I checked, so I happily ignored it (and I was being generous at 8, you know I’m a 2001 guy). And, yes, sdr’s deal is even better (and I actually trust that he’s correct).

Remember, to 1997/98 folks, 2001 was starting to look expensive. Things really didn’t get that much better about San Diego in that four year period either, but at least you could point to something meaningful in that prices may have been “cheap” in 97/98 coming off the early 90’s bust and there was a tech boom or something in there (and a bust that didn’t seem to have any ill effects).

Three sold at 2001 nominal was an exaggeration, of course, because I have no idea what the number is. I just don’t think it’s all that high. At least not in the areas I know anything about.

[sdcellar]

2003 would be seven years, last I checked, so I happily ignored it (and I was being generous at 8, you know I’m a 2001 guy). And, yes, sdr’s deal is even better (and I actually trust that he’s correct).

Remember, to 1997/98 folks, 2001 was starting to look expensive. Things really didn’t get that much better about San Diego in that four year period either, but at least you could point to something meaningful in that prices may have been “cheap” in 97/98 coming off the early 90’s bust and there was a tech boom or something in there (and a bust that didn’t seem to have any ill effects).

Three sold at 2001 nominal was an exaggeration, of course, because I have no idea what the number is. I just don’t think it’s all that high. At least not in the areas I know anything about.

[sdcellar]

2003 would be seven years, last I checked, so I happily ignored it (and I was being generous at 8, you know I’m a 2001 guy). And, yes, sdr’s deal is even better (and I actually trust that he’s correct).

Remember, to 1997/98 folks, 2001 was starting to look expensive. Things really didn’t get that much better about San Diego in that four year period either, but at least you could point to something meaningful in that prices may have been “cheap” in 97/98 coming off the early 90’s bust and there was a tech boom or something in there (and a bust that didn’t seem to have any ill effects).

Three sold at 2001 nominal was an exaggeration, of course, because I have no idea what the number is. I just don’t think it’s all that high. At least not in the areas I know anything about.

[sdcellar]

2003 would be seven years, last I checked, so I happily ignored it (and I was being generous at 8, you know I’m a 2001 guy). And, yes, sdr’s deal is even better (and I actually trust that he’s correct).

Remember, to 1997/98 folks, 2001 was starting to look expensive. Things really didn’t get that much better about San Diego in that four year period either, but at least you could point to something meaningful in that prices may have been “cheap” in 97/98 coming off the early 90’s bust and there was a tech boom or something in there (and a bust that didn’t seem to have any ill effects).

Three sold at 2001 nominal was an exaggeration, of course, because I have no idea what the number is. I just don’t think it’s all that high. At least not in the areas I know anything about.

[sdcellar]

2003 would be seven years, last I checked, so I happily ignored it (and I was being generous at 8, you know I’m a 2001 guy). And, yes, sdr’s deal is even better (and I actually trust that he’s correct).

Remember, to 1997/98 folks, 2001 was starting to look expensive. Things really didn’t get that much better about San Diego in that four year period either, but at least you could point to something meaningful in that prices may have been “cheap” in 97/98 coming off the early 90’s bust and there was a tech boom or something in there (and a bust that didn’t seem to have any ill effects).

Three sold at 2001 nominal was an exaggeration, of course, because I have no idea what the number is. I just don’t think it’s all that high. At least not in the areas I know anything about.

[an]

[quote=sdcellar]2003 would be seven years, last I checked, so I happily ignored it (and I was being generous at 8, you know I’m a 2001 guy). And, yes, sdr’s deal is even better (and I actually trust that he’s correct).

Three was an exaggeration, of course, because I have no idea what the number is. I just don’t think it’s that high. At least not in the areas I know anything about.[/quote]
OK, so you’re a 2001 guy. Do you believe we had no inflation over the last 9 years? Do you believe income hasn’t gone up over the last 9 years. BTW, you happily ignore 2003, but then you happily ignore 2002 too. Last I checked, 2010 – 8 = 2002.

[an]

[quote=sdcellar]2003 would be seven years, last I checked, so I happily ignored it (and I was being generous at 8, you know I’m a 2001 guy). And, yes, sdr’s deal is even better (and I actually trust that he’s correct).

Three was an exaggeration, of course, because I have no idea what the number is. I just don’t think it’s that high. At least not in the areas I know anything about.[/quote]
OK, so you’re a 2001 guy. Do you believe we had no inflation over the last 9 years? Do you believe income hasn’t gone up over the last 9 years. BTW, you happily ignore 2003, but then you happily ignore 2002 too. Last I checked, 2010 – 8 = 2002.

[an]

[quote=sdcellar]2003 would be seven years, last I checked, so I happily ignored it (and I was being generous at 8, you know I’m a 2001 guy). And, yes, sdr’s deal is even better (and I actually trust that he’s correct).

Three was an exaggeration, of course, because I have no idea what the number is. I just don’t think it’s that high. At least not in the areas I know anything about.[/quote]
OK, so you’re a 2001 guy. Do you believe we had no inflation over the last 9 years? Do you believe income hasn’t gone up over the last 9 years. BTW, you happily ignore 2003, but then you happily ignore 2002 too. Last I checked, 2010 – 8 = 2002.

[an]

[quote=sdcellar]2003 would be seven years, last I checked, so I happily ignored it (and I was being generous at 8, you know I’m a 2001 guy). And, yes, sdr’s deal is even better (and I actually trust that he’s correct).

Three was an exaggeration, of course, because I have no idea what the number is. I just don’t think it’s that high. At least not in the areas I know anything about.[/quote]
OK, so you’re a 2001 guy. Do you believe we had no inflation over the last 9 years? Do you believe income hasn’t gone up over the last 9 years. BTW, you happily ignore 2003, but then you happily ignore 2002 too. Last I checked, 2010 – 8 = 2002.

[Author]

Posts