Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Artifact
ParticipantFigures: The short sales are still increasing, a little more than last week (low activity from the fires?)and the total listings are definitely going back down. Rich’s comments in the new housing data pretty much sum things up though – the listings are decreasing slightly, but coupled with sales in the basement makes huge difference in supply vs. demand – add to that short sales listings still going up (ai.e. possibly distressed) and things are getting interesting.
[img_assist|nid=5409|title= Short Sales and Total Listings|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=466|height=351]
[img_assist|nid=5410|title= Percent Change and Percent short of Total|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=466|height=351]ParticipantFigures: The short sales are still increasing, a little more than last week (low activity from the fires?)and the total listings are definitely going back down. Rich’s comments in the new housing data pretty much sum things up though – the listings are decreasing slightly, but coupled with sales in the basement makes huge difference in supply vs. demand – add to that short sales listings still going up (ai.e. possibly distressed) and things are getting interesting.
[img_assist|nid=5409|title= Short Sales and Total Listings|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=466|height=351]
[img_assist|nid=5410|title= Percent Change and Percent short of Total|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=466|height=351]ParticipantI am curious what the actual statistics are? Looking at that figure my guess is that, yes that is a significant correlation, but what are the actual numbers (r-squared and p-value) if you are going to post that plot saying it is a significant correlation. I would also guess you could get a similar correlation with a few other factors as well (employment, incomes, education level, etc.).
A comment on the environmental regulations since I work in that field – yes CA has pretty strict regulations, but some of the examples that were brought up fall under federal laws as well, so apply in any state – wetlands are a good example – some of the most “religous” states would have far more expensive mitigation for wetlands impacts if they want to build because so many areas in them are full of wetlands (i.e. LA, MS, SC).
The coastal sage scrub habitat that is so common here is regulated by CA fish and game, but it also falls under federal jurisdiction because of the Gnatcatcher that lives there, so it is not just CA’s rules – my point being that while CA does have some stricter environmental laws, many of the protected resources (endangered species and certain habitats) also fall under federal laws that would effect building in any state – regulated by USFWS and/or ACOE. Often for wetlands, which I am most familiar with, the mitigation for the state is the same as for federal, so the only difference in cost is paying the permit fee, which for most developments is a very small amount of money relatively speaking – they have to pay to have the permit prepared, but they have to do that in other states as well.
I do always enjoy reading about how there is no land to build on here. I just don’t think that is really that big of an issue except right on the coast (west of the 5) – from my view the only thing that has slowed down the rate of building in San Diego is the lack of buyers, not lack of land. There are graded lots being left empty in areas where all of the environmental permitting is done (SEH for example) – so the only reason they are not building is because no one will by them, when they think they can sell, they will start building again.
T
ParticipantI am curious what the actual statistics are? Looking at that figure my guess is that, yes that is a significant correlation, but what are the actual numbers (r-squared and p-value) if you are going to post that plot saying it is a significant correlation. I would also guess you could get a similar correlation with a few other factors as well (employment, incomes, education level, etc.).
A comment on the environmental regulations since I work in that field – yes CA has pretty strict regulations, but some of the examples that were brought up fall under federal laws as well, so apply in any state – wetlands are a good example – some of the most “religous” states would have far more expensive mitigation for wetlands impacts if they want to build because so many areas in them are full of wetlands (i.e. LA, MS, SC).
The coastal sage scrub habitat that is so common here is regulated by CA fish and game, but it also falls under federal jurisdiction because of the Gnatcatcher that lives there, so it is not just CA’s rules – my point being that while CA does have some stricter environmental laws, many of the protected resources (endangered species and certain habitats) also fall under federal laws that would effect building in any state – regulated by USFWS and/or ACOE. Often for wetlands, which I am most familiar with, the mitigation for the state is the same as for federal, so the only difference in cost is paying the permit fee, which for most developments is a very small amount of money relatively speaking – they have to pay to have the permit prepared, but they have to do that in other states as well.
I do always enjoy reading about how there is no land to build on here. I just don’t think that is really that big of an issue except right on the coast (west of the 5) – from my view the only thing that has slowed down the rate of building in San Diego is the lack of buyers, not lack of land. There are graded lots being left empty in areas where all of the environmental permitting is done (SEH for example) – so the only reason they are not building is because no one will by them, when they think they can sell, they will start building again.
T
ParticipantI am curious what the actual statistics are? Looking at that figure my guess is that, yes that is a significant correlation, but what are the actual numbers (r-squared and p-value) if you are going to post that plot saying it is a significant correlation. I would also guess you could get a similar correlation with a few other factors as well (employment, incomes, education level, etc.).
A comment on the environmental regulations since I work in that field – yes CA has pretty strict regulations, but some of the examples that were brought up fall under federal laws as well, so apply in any state – wetlands are a good example – some of the most “religous” states would have far more expensive mitigation for wetlands impacts if they want to build because so many areas in them are full of wetlands (i.e. LA, MS, SC).
The coastal sage scrub habitat that is so common here is regulated by CA fish and game, but it also falls under federal jurisdiction because of the Gnatcatcher that lives there, so it is not just CA’s rules – my point being that while CA does have some stricter environmental laws, many of the protected resources (endangered species and certain habitats) also fall under federal laws that would effect building in any state – regulated by USFWS and/or ACOE. Often for wetlands, which I am most familiar with, the mitigation for the state is the same as for federal, so the only difference in cost is paying the permit fee, which for most developments is a very small amount of money relatively speaking – they have to pay to have the permit prepared, but they have to do that in other states as well.
I do always enjoy reading about how there is no land to build on here. I just don’t think that is really that big of an issue except right on the coast (west of the 5) – from my view the only thing that has slowed down the rate of building in San Diego is the lack of buyers, not lack of land. There are graded lots being left empty in areas where all of the environmental permitting is done (SEH for example) – so the only reason they are not building is because no one will by them, when they think they can sell, they will start building again.
T
ParticipantI am curious what the actual statistics are? Looking at that figure my guess is that, yes that is a significant correlation, but what are the actual numbers (r-squared and p-value) if you are going to post that plot saying it is a significant correlation. I would also guess you could get a similar correlation with a few other factors as well (employment, incomes, education level, etc.).
A comment on the environmental regulations since I work in that field – yes CA has pretty strict regulations, but some of the examples that were brought up fall under federal laws as well, so apply in any state – wetlands are a good example – some of the most “religous” states would have far more expensive mitigation for wetlands impacts if they want to build because so many areas in them are full of wetlands (i.e. LA, MS, SC).
The coastal sage scrub habitat that is so common here is regulated by CA fish and game, but it also falls under federal jurisdiction because of the Gnatcatcher that lives there, so it is not just CA’s rules – my point being that while CA does have some stricter environmental laws, many of the protected resources (endangered species and certain habitats) also fall under federal laws that would effect building in any state – regulated by USFWS and/or ACOE. Often for wetlands, which I am most familiar with, the mitigation for the state is the same as for federal, so the only difference in cost is paying the permit fee, which for most developments is a very small amount of money relatively speaking – they have to pay to have the permit prepared, but they have to do that in other states as well.
I do always enjoy reading about how there is no land to build on here. I just don’t think that is really that big of an issue except right on the coast (west of the 5) – from my view the only thing that has slowed down the rate of building in San Diego is the lack of buyers, not lack of land. There are graded lots being left empty in areas where all of the environmental permitting is done (SEH for example) – so the only reason they are not building is because no one will by them, when they think they can sell, they will start building again.
T
Participantsdr –
It is true that the coaster is relatively easy but it still ends up being an hour commute each way including getting to the station, etc.
I use the coaster several times a month from Encinitas to downtown (40 minute train ride) but I often end up driving because it is faster due to the timing of whatever it is I need to do that day. The people who use it all the time I assume are more efficient than I am as far as getting there and using the time on the train to get work done – so the time spent can actually be somewhat productive which is better than sitting behind the wheel staring at the other cars.
If I were going to live north of the merge and commute to La Jolla or downtown I would definitely go for Encinitas or South Carlsbad though as opposed to going inland into CV (just personal opinion on that though). Although at peak morning times the bottleneck at Manchester going south is a bummer as is the lane ending just north of Via de la Valle. Those could be avoided living in CV, but other than those two points and the merge, the traffic is not as bad as some other places in the county.
On a different note, I think that the difference in schools is pretty small in all of the areas people have mentioned – some “score” a little better than others, but overall the schools in all of those areas are pretty good.
Participantsdr –
It is true that the coaster is relatively easy but it still ends up being an hour commute each way including getting to the station, etc.
I use the coaster several times a month from Encinitas to downtown (40 minute train ride) but I often end up driving because it is faster due to the timing of whatever it is I need to do that day. The people who use it all the time I assume are more efficient than I am as far as getting there and using the time on the train to get work done – so the time spent can actually be somewhat productive which is better than sitting behind the wheel staring at the other cars.
If I were going to live north of the merge and commute to La Jolla or downtown I would definitely go for Encinitas or South Carlsbad though as opposed to going inland into CV (just personal opinion on that though). Although at peak morning times the bottleneck at Manchester going south is a bummer as is the lane ending just north of Via de la Valle. Those could be avoided living in CV, but other than those two points and the merge, the traffic is not as bad as some other places in the county.
On a different note, I think that the difference in schools is pretty small in all of the areas people have mentioned – some “score” a little better than others, but overall the schools in all of those areas are pretty good.
Participantsdr –
It is true that the coaster is relatively easy but it still ends up being an hour commute each way including getting to the station, etc.
I use the coaster several times a month from Encinitas to downtown (40 minute train ride) but I often end up driving because it is faster due to the timing of whatever it is I need to do that day. The people who use it all the time I assume are more efficient than I am as far as getting there and using the time on the train to get work done – so the time spent can actually be somewhat productive which is better than sitting behind the wheel staring at the other cars.
If I were going to live north of the merge and commute to La Jolla or downtown I would definitely go for Encinitas or South Carlsbad though as opposed to going inland into CV (just personal opinion on that though). Although at peak morning times the bottleneck at Manchester going south is a bummer as is the lane ending just north of Via de la Valle. Those could be avoided living in CV, but other than those two points and the merge, the traffic is not as bad as some other places in the county.
On a different note, I think that the difference in schools is pretty small in all of the areas people have mentioned – some “score” a little better than others, but overall the schools in all of those areas are pretty good.
Participantraptorduck – you forgot 1 point:
I think she said her husband will be commuting to Downtown – still not horrible from CV or Encinitas, but certainly makes the commute different than just thinking about going to La Jolla – I think it make Scripps Ranch and University City more appealing (I personally would prefer UC based on the things I like to do and would want in a neighborhood). Comparing those areas or Encinitas to CV makes it partly a discussion of newer home developments vs the older neighborhoods – not saying either is better, just different.
Participantraptorduck – you forgot 1 point:
I think she said her husband will be commuting to Downtown – still not horrible from CV or Encinitas, but certainly makes the commute different than just thinking about going to La Jolla – I think it make Scripps Ranch and University City more appealing (I personally would prefer UC based on the things I like to do and would want in a neighborhood). Comparing those areas or Encinitas to CV makes it partly a discussion of newer home developments vs the older neighborhoods – not saying either is better, just different.
Participantraptorduck – you forgot 1 point:
I think she said her husband will be commuting to Downtown – still not horrible from CV or Encinitas, but certainly makes the commute different than just thinking about going to La Jolla – I think it make Scripps Ranch and University City more appealing (I personally would prefer UC based on the things I like to do and would want in a neighborhood). Comparing those areas or Encinitas to CV makes it partly a discussion of newer home developments vs the older neighborhoods – not saying either is better, just different.
ParticipantIf you end up renting (or buying) – I would look in the University City area – north of 52 along Govenor drive. There are areas there that the prices are very high but others you could certainly rent affordably if you can afford a 550K home. The schools are good and the commute to both downtown and La Jolla would be good relatively speaking. La Jolla would be 10 minutes and downtown would be pretty short as well.
I think there are a couple of areas just south of 52 that are okay, but I do not think the schools (lower grades) are as good.
ParticipantIf you end up renting (or buying) – I would look in the University City area – north of 52 along Govenor drive. There are areas there that the prices are very high but others you could certainly rent affordably if you can afford a 550K home. The schools are good and the commute to both downtown and La Jolla would be good relatively speaking. La Jolla would be 10 minutes and downtown would be pretty short as well.
I think there are a couple of areas just south of 52 that are okay, but I do not think the schools (lower grades) are as good.
-
AuthorPosts