[an]

weed killer? That would kill them and keep them away for at least 1/2 a year to a year. You just need to spray every year to keep them away.

[an]

92126 inventory problem is even worse than OB. July 2011, there were 165 SFR and 65 condos. A year ago, there were 90 SFR and 36 condos. Today, there are 22 SFR and 7 condo. I too wonder how long this will last. This spring should be interesting.

[an]

[quote=SmellsFeeshy]Based on that criteria I’d say you made the right decision to stay in SD. Bottom line it just depends on what your priorities are. If your top priorities are close commute to tech jobs and good schools then SD is pretty hard to beat. But up here I can drive to San Francisco in 30 mins for great food and culture, or drive 1.5 hours to Laguna Seca for a track day. That’s definitely something I can’t do in SD ;).[/quote]That is very true. If I’m a SINK or DINK, I’d probably be up there as well. Because like you, I’d probably take advantage of food in SF and Laguna Seca (as well as Tahoe), just like you. But priority change when I have dependents and gotten the desire to retire early. It’s much harder to achieve that up there. Down here, I can have a big home near work with good school as well as have enough extra money to buy investment properties. No way I can do the same up there.

[an]

I totally agree with you teaboy. I guess if you have the time to do it, then it’s worth it. But if I have to take a vacation, that’s the cost of 1 day of work just for a chance at recouping <$1500. That seems not worth the time and effort to me. Not to mention the time you need to spend to file the paper work.

[an]

[quote=SmellsFeeshy]Well I wouldn’t say it’s a fair apples to apples comparison you’re describing since you’re comparing the bottom end of the market in UTC to the upper end of the market on the SF Peninsula. Something comparable in square footage and amenities to a mid-range $300k condo in UTC might run around $450k on the Peninsula.

As far as schools I can’t comment but commute it really depends on where you work. There are plenty of tech jobs in San Jose close to Milpitas which would be similar to commuting to Sorrento Valley from MM.[/quote]
You’re right. It depends on where you work. The companies that I’m interested in (Google, Apple, etc) are not in San Jose. If you work in San Jose, then you’re right, the commute wouldn’t be too bad. But if you get a job in the Peninsula, which a lot of the tech jobs are), the commute would be bad and you’d have no option like MM. Which were where I got the offers from. I might have a different opinion if the offers I got were in SJ.

You’re right, it might not be fair to compare the $200-250k in UTC to the $600k in the Peninsula. But my point is, there’s no $200-250k option up there like down here. Here, you can make $100k/yr and have an option to buy a 2/2 for $200k. Up there, if you work in the peninsula, you don’t have the same option. If you make $130k up there compare to down here, your cheapest option is well over $400k. You don’t have an option to live conservatively up there.

Then if you want to move up scale, there’s CV, you have something like this: http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-120053182-12366_Carmel_Country_Rd_107_San_Diego_CA_92130 for low $300k. Anywhere in the peninsula that have the kind of schools CV has, that same place would easily go for $700-800k.

[an]

[quote=SmellsFeeshy]Yeah, it seems the market up here recovered much faster than down in SD (maybe 1-2 years sooner). I guess that’s what happens when jobs are plentiful. Based on my observations 2x-3x would seem a bit high. I would say a more fair comparison would be comparing a condo in UTC to a comparable condo in Redwood Shores, Foster City or Mountain View. If the former sold for $450k a similar condo in the latter would sell for around $600k (which is a little over 30% more) so the numbers are actually pretty close if income is 30% higher.

Similarly a 200-300k condo in Mira Mesa would be worth about $300-400k in somewhere like Milpitas.[/quote]
$450k for a 2/2 UTC is an exception. Most 2/2 in UTC are 200-250k (<1000 sq-ft) or $300-$350k(>1000 sq-ft). How big are the 2/2 in Redwood Shores? So, the $600k in Redwood Shores, Foster City, Mountain View are 2-3x more.

Besides UTC, you also have option like CV. Where in that area would be w/in 5 miles from major high tech jobs and have the kind of school CV does. Then there’s the cost of a condo in CV: http://www.sdlookup.com/Real_Estate-Carmel_Valley-Condos_For_Sale-92130. You can get 2/2 low $200k in CV. For $450k, you can get a 3/3 in CV. CV school is more in line with Palo Alto, Los Altos, Cupertino and not Redwood Shores, Foster City or Mountain View. Even MM schools would embarrass Redwood, Foster, Mountain View schools.

WRT to MM vs Milpitas, schools in MM is better. I can get to major tech companies in 3 miles while Milpitas is at least 10 miles to Mountain View and if you work around Palo Alto, then it’s much further. Then we get to the price. A 4/3 in Milpitas is currently going for $700-850k. Similar house in MM goes for $450-530k. It’s much easier to come up with $90-100k than $140-170k. Wouldn’t Milpitas distance to big high tech companies would put it more comparable to San Marcos, Escondido, Santee? Then there’s also the fact that, if I have $170k, I rather buy a $500k house and use the remaining $70k to buy a couple investment properties that have CAP rate of 8-10%.

[an]

dup.

[an]

[quote=SmellsFeeshy]Tell me about it. Since I moved up to the Bay Area all I hear are stories about bidding wars with all cash offers, no contingencies and houses selling in a matter of hours.

Looking for inventory on the Peninsula is practically non-existent. Doing a search for condos 2/2 under $600k lands me maybe 10 results or less.

If you ever want to sell your house up here let me know ;).[/quote]Sorry to hear about your frustration. That’s my experience as well when I considered moving up there a few years back. The cost of living increase far out weight the income increase. Which is why I decided to stay. I said this in another thread awhile back. It seems like it’s worse now. A 2/2 in SD near work center can easily be had for $200-300k. So, you’re looking at cost of living that’s 2-3x more but income is only at most 25-30% higher (that’s also before tax).

[an]

[quote=SK in CV]At least the first link you provided also was inflation adjusted (2000 constant dollars).

Here’s what I know. I built 75 virtually identical units in 1980-1981. The early units sold pretty quickly at $71-$72K. By the end of 1981, I barely had nibbles. It took me until the end of 1983 to sell the last units for $66K.

The same houses were selling for less, in 1984 than they did in 1980.

Here’s a chart from this blog showing median prices essentially flat during that period.

http://piggington.com/historical_home_prices_payments_rents_and_rates%5B/quote%5D
You’re right, one of the link I provided have a inflation adjusted chart. But if you look to the right of that page, you’ll also see nominal prices for every year since 1968.

I don’t doubt that you have experienced declined on the houses you built. However, a single data point does not dispute my point. We can look at what’s going on in housing right now for a prime example. Carmel Valley is basically near peak value again while Temecula is still far from it. There was a time when Temecula was down and Carmel Valley was flat or up. We all know RE is very local. So, where were these houses that you built? That might explain the decline you see on your houses while the average was going up.

BTW, the chart you provided, the inflation adjusted show price declining but the nominal chart show price flat to increasing. So, are you talking about inflation adjusted or nominal?

[an]

[quote=carlsbadworker]You are again using historical examples to predict future. Interest rate could rise not because of inflation, but because no one is willing to lend us money. I don’t believe Greek inflation ever topped 3% in recent years.[/quote]
If we get to that point, I think there are many more things to worry about then buying a house or house price dropping. Isn’t Greek unemployment really really high? What good is a low price if you have no job to pay for it?

[an]

[quote=SK in CV]I was there. prices were flat in the early 70’s. then they rose.

Robert Schiller remembers it too.

http://calculatedriskimages.blogspot.com/2011/05/shiller-real-house-prices-ny-times.html%5B/quote%5D
First, what you’re saying is, data is wrong and your memory is better?

Secondly, that chart you’re showing from Robert Schiller is inflation adjusted. That’s a HUGE difference. I was talking about nominal prices. I could have sworn we were talking about price dropping when rate rises. Which mean nominal price dropping. Not price rising slower than CPI.

[an]

[quote=SK in CV]Nationally. Housing prices didn’t move much at all from about 1960 to 1975. They rose sharply through the end of the decade.

Prices did go down in the early 80’s. At least they did in San Diego. Builders got killed with unsold inventory and high interest rates. I was one of them.

I mistyped or misedited, I changed that paragraph a whole bunch. Interest rates peaked in 1980 and fell through the next decade.[/quote]Nationally, price went up 43% between 1960-1970: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/values.html. Price nationally rose another 52% between 1970-1975: http://www.realestatedecline.com/homepricehistory.htm. So, I don’t see how you can say those gains = “didn’t move much at all”. They did rose sharply between 75-80, but only by 77%.

As for San Diego, accord to here: http://www.laalmanac.com/economy/ec37.htm, I don’t see any decline. At least not from 1982 forward. Maybe you’re talking about 1980-1982.

[an]

[quote=SK in CV]It did both. Prices were mostly flat through the mid 70’s. As were rates. There was a bit of a real estate bubble at the end of the ’70’s, though prices did not rise as much as the CPI, as mortgage interest rates had already risen from the 4 to 7% range, to over 9% by mid ’74. RE prices peaked around 1980, then fell sharply through most of the next decade.

I think you’re asking the wrong question. The right question is what would have happened to home prices if not but for the changes in interest rates.[/quote]
Are you talking about CA specific or nationally? Here’s the historical data for rates: http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/mortgage_rates/charts.asp and here’s the historical CA median home price: http://www.realestateabc.com/graphs/calmedian.htm

I don’t see any flattening in the mid 70s. Rates went up from 1971-1974 and price went up in 1971-1974. Rates went down between 1974-1977. Price went up between 1974-1977. Rates doubled in 1977-1981 and CA median home price went up 72%. So, between 1968-1989, there weren’t a single year where the median home price in CA declined (I didn’t count 1984, since it was basically flat). In 1980, CA median home price was $99k and by 1990, the median home price $193k. So, where did you get price fell sharply between 1980-1990?

Also, between 1970-1972, rates was basically flat at ~7.5% and price went up ~16%. Then between 1972-1974, rates went from ~7.5% to 10%, that’s a 33% increase. Over that same period, price went up another 21%. Now, between 1974-1975, rates drop from 10% to ~9% and price went up 20% over just 1 year.

Like FormerSanDiegan said, I don’t see any correlation or causation between rates and price. Do you have data to back up your assertion that there is one?

[an]

[quote=flu]Let’s face it. Does it really matter now?
Rent is more than ownership with a ridiculous low rate. Waiting 5years more on rent, doubt one would come out ahead. Rates are gonna stay low per fed action[/quote]
exactly…

[an]

[quote=zk]I agree you should expect nothing less. In fact, I don’t think you get your money’s worth with any electric or hybrid. I’d rather have almost any other $105k car than a Tesla and most any comparably-priced car to any electric or hybrid. Not sure they help the environment, either.

The Tesla goes 300+ miles on a charge. So it’s not for long road trips, obviously. But pretty decent range for an electric car.[/quote]
I assume that 300+ miles is under ideal condition. If you take it over the grapevine, I think you might find it hard to get 300 miles out of it. Also the Tesla supercharge does a better job, it’s still no gas, where you can stop by any gas station and after 5 minutes, you’re ready to go again. You don’t have to plan your trip around charging station. Which is why I would much rather have a performance oriented hybrid than a full gas.

I agree that you definitely won’t get your money’s worth with electric or hybrid right now. Maybe in the future. Then there’s the long term cost variable. What happens to the battery performance after 5-10 years or after 100k miles? Do you know if the Tesla’s 130MPH top speed is power limited or electronic limited? Why so low for a 400+HP car?

[Author]

Posts