[an]

Depending on where you work, Mira Mesa is quite reasonably priced w/ decent schools as well.

Elementary school:
Sandburg Elementary – 907
Hickman Elementary – 879
Ericson Elementary – 921
Mason Elementary – 871

Middle School:
Challenger Middle – 864

Mira Mesa High – 823

[an]

Depending on where you work, Mira Mesa is quite reasonably priced w/ decent schools as well.

Elementary school:
Sandburg Elementary – 907
Hickman Elementary – 879
Ericson Elementary – 921
Mason Elementary – 871

Middle School:
Challenger Middle – 864

Mira Mesa High – 823

[an]

This is Mira Mesa, not Sorrento Valley. Sorrento Mesa if you want to get specific. If you look at its history, $755k is definitely out of the norm. Even bigger houses on bigger lots with canyon view north Calle Cristobal would have been happy to have it sold for $755k.

BTW, most of that 1/3 acre is the slope, so they’re not very usable. The backyard in that development is very small and they’re very squished together.

[an]

This is Mira Mesa, not Sorrento Valley. Sorrento Mesa if you want to get specific. If you look at its history, $755k is definitely out of the norm. Even bigger houses on bigger lots with canyon view north Calle Cristobal would have been happy to have it sold for $755k.

BTW, most of that 1/3 acre is the slope, so they’re not very usable. The backyard in that development is very small and they’re very squished together.

[an]

This is Mira Mesa, not Sorrento Valley. Sorrento Mesa if you want to get specific. If you look at its history, $755k is definitely out of the norm. Even bigger houses on bigger lots with canyon view north Calle Cristobal would have been happy to have it sold for $755k.

BTW, most of that 1/3 acre is the slope, so they’re not very usable. The backyard in that development is very small and they’re very squished together.

[an]

This is Mira Mesa, not Sorrento Valley. Sorrento Mesa if you want to get specific. If you look at its history, $755k is definitely out of the norm. Even bigger houses on bigger lots with canyon view north Calle Cristobal would have been happy to have it sold for $755k.

BTW, most of that 1/3 acre is the slope, so they’re not very usable. The backyard in that development is very small and they’re very squished together.

[an]

This is Mira Mesa, not Sorrento Valley. Sorrento Mesa if you want to get specific. If you look at its history, $755k is definitely out of the norm. Even bigger houses on bigger lots with canyon view north Calle Cristobal would have been happy to have it sold for $755k.

BTW, most of that 1/3 acre is the slope, so they’re not very usable. The backyard in that development is very small and they’re very squished together.

[an]

[quote=CA renter]
The last RE cycle topped in ~1989/1990, so that ratio would make sense for 1990. Prices in some very desirable areas crashed ~40% during the downturn of the early 90s, at they didn’t have this massive credit bubble to contend with.

To be sure, things are MUCH better today than they were in ~2004-2007, but when you consider the very large risks to our economy, I think things are still priced optimistically.[/quote]
You seem to discount the interest rate. The ratio of price to income is similar to 1990, yet in 1990, interest rate was much higher. What do you think that ratio would be if people in 1990 can get <5% 30 year fixed rates?

[an]

[quote=CA renter]
The last RE cycle topped in ~1989/1990, so that ratio would make sense for 1990. Prices in some very desirable areas crashed ~40% during the downturn of the early 90s, at they didn’t have this massive credit bubble to contend with.

To be sure, things are MUCH better today than they were in ~2004-2007, but when you consider the very large risks to our economy, I think things are still priced optimistically.[/quote]
You seem to discount the interest rate. The ratio of price to income is similar to 1990, yet in 1990, interest rate was much higher. What do you think that ratio would be if people in 1990 can get <5% 30 year fixed rates?

[an]

[quote=CA renter]
The last RE cycle topped in ~1989/1990, so that ratio would make sense for 1990. Prices in some very desirable areas crashed ~40% during the downturn of the early 90s, at they didn’t have this massive credit bubble to contend with.

To be sure, things are MUCH better today than they were in ~2004-2007, but when you consider the very large risks to our economy, I think things are still priced optimistically.[/quote]
You seem to discount the interest rate. The ratio of price to income is similar to 1990, yet in 1990, interest rate was much higher. What do you think that ratio would be if people in 1990 can get <5% 30 year fixed rates?

[an]

[quote=CA renter]
The last RE cycle topped in ~1989/1990, so that ratio would make sense for 1990. Prices in some very desirable areas crashed ~40% during the downturn of the early 90s, at they didn’t have this massive credit bubble to contend with.

To be sure, things are MUCH better today than they were in ~2004-2007, but when you consider the very large risks to our economy, I think things are still priced optimistically.[/quote]
You seem to discount the interest rate. The ratio of price to income is similar to 1990, yet in 1990, interest rate was much higher. What do you think that ratio would be if people in 1990 can get <5% 30 year fixed rates?

[an]

[quote=CA renter]
The last RE cycle topped in ~1989/1990, so that ratio would make sense for 1990. Prices in some very desirable areas crashed ~40% during the downturn of the early 90s, at they didn’t have this massive credit bubble to contend with.

To be sure, things are MUCH better today than they were in ~2004-2007, but when you consider the very large risks to our economy, I think things are still priced optimistically.[/quote]
You seem to discount the interest rate. The ratio of price to income is similar to 1990, yet in 1990, interest rate was much higher. What do you think that ratio would be if people in 1990 can get <5% 30 year fixed rates?

[an]

Here are the data for 2010, 2000, and 1990.

2010:
Median income – 62.7k
median housing price = 328k
median housing price/median income = 5.22

2000:
Median income – 47.2k
median housing price = 223k
median housing price/median income = 4.725

1990:
Median income – 35k
median housing price = 188k
median housing price/median income = 5.36

So, we’re worse off than 2000 but better off than 1990. This does not account for interest rate at all.

[an]

Here are the data for 2010, 2000, and 1990.

2010:
Median income – 62.7k
median housing price = 328k
median housing price/median income = 5.22

2000:
Median income – 47.2k
median housing price = 223k
median housing price/median income = 4.725

1990:
Median income – 35k
median housing price = 188k
median housing price/median income = 5.36

So, we’re worse off than 2000 but better off than 1990. This does not account for interest rate at all.

[an]

Here are the data for 2010, 2000, and 1990.

2010:
Median income – 62.7k
median housing price = 328k
median housing price/median income = 5.22

2000:
Median income – 47.2k
median housing price = 223k
median housing price/median income = 4.725

1990:
Median income – 35k
median housing price = 188k
median housing price/median income = 5.36

So, we’re worse off than 2000 but better off than 1990. This does not account for interest rate at all.

[Author]

Posts