Why is San Diego real estate still so expensive?

[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.

[CA renter]

[quote=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.[/quote]

Correct. LA and SD are very different, and you can’t really compare WRT how far an area is from the coast. The Valley, for instance, is inland, but because of its proximity to the studios, etc., a lot of people in the entertainment industry (and other, high paying industries) live there, so it’s more desirable — and more expensive — than Escondido or an area that is equally “inland” in SD County.

I’m pretty busy, but when I get a chance, I’ll try to come up with “equally desirable” houses/neighborhoods to your houses, AN.

[CA renter]

[quote=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.[/quote]

Correct. LA and SD are very different, and you can’t really compare WRT how far an area is from the coast. The Valley, for instance, is inland, but because of its proximity to the studios, etc., a lot of people in the entertainment industry (and other, high paying industries) live there, so it’s more desirable — and more expensive — than Escondido or an area that is equally “inland” in SD County.

I’m pretty busy, but when I get a chance, I’ll try to come up with “equally desirable” houses/neighborhoods to your houses, AN.

[CA renter]

[quote=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.[/quote]

Correct. LA and SD are very different, and you can’t really compare WRT how far an area is from the coast. The Valley, for instance, is inland, but because of its proximity to the studios, etc., a lot of people in the entertainment industry (and other, high paying industries) live there, so it’s more desirable — and more expensive — than Escondido or an area that is equally “inland” in SD County.

I’m pretty busy, but when I get a chance, I’ll try to come up with “equally desirable” houses/neighborhoods to your houses, AN.

[CA renter]

[quote=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.[/quote]

Correct. LA and SD are very different, and you can’t really compare WRT how far an area is from the coast. The Valley, for instance, is inland, but because of its proximity to the studios, etc., a lot of people in the entertainment industry (and other, high paying industries) live there, so it’s more desirable — and more expensive — than Escondido or an area that is equally “inland” in SD County.

I’m pretty busy, but when I get a chance, I’ll try to come up with “equally desirable” houses/neighborhoods to your houses, AN.

[CA renter]

[quote=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.[/quote]

Correct. LA and SD are very different, and you can’t really compare WRT how far an area is from the coast. The Valley, for instance, is inland, but because of its proximity to the studios, etc., a lot of people in the entertainment industry (and other, high paying industries) live there, so it’s more desirable — and more expensive — than Escondido or an area that is equally “inland” in SD County.

I’m pretty busy, but when I get a chance, I’ll try to come up with “equally desirable” houses/neighborhoods to your houses, AN.

[CA renter]

[quote=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.[/quote]

For many people, their incomes have NOT gone up at all. Many have seen wage declines over this period. Also, the price of food, utilities, energy, medical care, education, etc. has also gone up, leaving less money to devote to housing costs. If the pie of expenses has grown larger and faster than income, then it would make sense that housing prices should be lower, not higher.

There are other possible factors, of course, but one cannot automatically assume that housing prices always go up, even if “official” inflation (which I don’t trust at all, one way or the other) is going up.

[CA renter]

[quote=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.[/quote]

For many people, their incomes have NOT gone up at all. Many have seen wage declines over this period. Also, the price of food, utilities, energy, medical care, education, etc. has also gone up, leaving less money to devote to housing costs. If the pie of expenses has grown larger and faster than income, then it would make sense that housing prices should be lower, not higher.

There are other possible factors, of course, but one cannot automatically assume that housing prices always go up, even if “official” inflation (which I don’t trust at all, one way or the other) is going up.

[CA renter]

[quote=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.[/quote]

For many people, their incomes have NOT gone up at all. Many have seen wage declines over this period. Also, the price of food, utilities, energy, medical care, education, etc. has also gone up, leaving less money to devote to housing costs. If the pie of expenses has grown larger and faster than income, then it would make sense that housing prices should be lower, not higher.

There are other possible factors, of course, but one cannot automatically assume that housing prices always go up, even if “official” inflation (which I don’t trust at all, one way or the other) is going up.

[CA renter]

[quote=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.[/quote]

For many people, their incomes have NOT gone up at all. Many have seen wage declines over this period. Also, the price of food, utilities, energy, medical care, education, etc. has also gone up, leaving less money to devote to housing costs. If the pie of expenses has grown larger and faster than income, then it would make sense that housing prices should be lower, not higher.

There are other possible factors, of course, but one cannot automatically assume that housing prices always go up, even if “official” inflation (which I don’t trust at all, one way or the other) is going up.

[CA renter]

[quote=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.[/quote]

For many people, their incomes have NOT gone up at all. Many have seen wage declines over this period. Also, the price of food, utilities, energy, medical care, education, etc. has also gone up, leaving less money to devote to housing costs. If the pie of expenses has grown larger and faster than income, then it would make sense that housing prices should be lower, not higher.

There are other possible factors, of course, but one cannot automatically assume that housing prices always go up, even if “official” inflation (which I don’t trust at all, one way or the other) is going up.

[sdcellar]

And while we’re mentioning sdrealtor, didn’t he say something about eating a house 2×4 by 2×4 if it sold for 2001 nominal? Obviously, his new escrow must not be on his street (or he’s got a tremendous fondness for cellulose).

Again, I trust he’s right on both counts, but I’m guessing this sweet deal he found for his client is the exception rather than the rule. Maybe we’ll see more. Or maybe not.

[sdcellar]

And while we’re mentioning sdrealtor, didn’t he say something about eating a house 2×4 by 2×4 if it sold for 2001 nominal? Obviously, his new escrow must not be on his street (or he’s got a tremendous fondness for cellulose).

Again, I trust he’s right on both counts, but I’m guessing this sweet deal he found for his client is the exception rather than the rule. Maybe we’ll see more. Or maybe not.

[sdcellar]

And while we’re mentioning sdrealtor, didn’t he say something about eating a house 2×4 by 2×4 if it sold for 2001 nominal? Obviously, his new escrow must not be on his street (or he’s got a tremendous fondness for cellulose).

Again, I trust he’s right on both counts, but I’m guessing this sweet deal he found for his client is the exception rather than the rule. Maybe we’ll see more. Or maybe not.

[sdcellar]

And while we’re mentioning sdrealtor, didn’t he say something about eating a house 2×4 by 2×4 if it sold for 2001 nominal? Obviously, his new escrow must not be on his street (or he’s got a tremendous fondness for cellulose).

Again, I trust he’s right on both counts, but I’m guessing this sweet deal he found for his client is the exception rather than the rule. Maybe we’ll see more. Or maybe not.

[Author]

Posts