Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
bearishgurl
Participant[quote=SK in CV]Let’s put some stuff in perspective. San Diego IS growing, whether you like it or not. I don’t know about last year, but 2011 was by about 80,000 people. But more than 1/2 of that growth was organic. People having babies. 40,000 new residents requires somewhere in the neighborhood of 15,000 housing units. (Housing density in SD is a little lower than state-wide averages at 2.75 per household.) I don’t know how over-built SD was in 2007. But I think last year permits were pulled for somewhere around 6,000 homes, higher than the previous few years. That’s enough for 40% of the organic growth, only 20% of total growth. 20,000 fewer homes built than growth requires, just to stay even.
San Diego may or may not be over-built today. I really don’t know. But at the current construction rate, it will be under built in the not too distant future. Which means significantly higher prices. Is that what you want?[/quote]
SK, does that “organic growth” of 40K babies born in SD in 2011 take into account county deaths in that same year?
The county obviously “absorbed” the other supposedly 40,000 “transplants” into its existing housing in 2011. I don’t know but I don’t think there was very much residential construction going on in 2011 at all.
Acc to SDlookup, there are currently 4,620 SFRs + 2,218 condos equaling 7,121 total resale listings in the county. And this doesn’t include pocket listings, unapproved SS contingents (taken off the market for possible approval) and FSBO’s.
http://www.sdlookup.com/Browse_Real_Estate-San_Diego_County
I realize that a good portion of these listings (20-25% ?) are “contingent” SS’s but I am failing to understand why so many prospective buyers are claiming there is “nothing to buy” due to “low inventory.”
Could it be that they THINK they need dozens of properties to consider before making an offer on ONE home?
If so, that’s complete and utter BS, partly fueled by agent/broker incompetency.
And some of these “for-sale” properties will no doubt end up being removed from the market and rented out, instead.
I don’t know how many rental vacancies there are in the county but there are always ads posted for them.
SK, I take it you left SD in 2007? I don’t think there have been very many new construction tracts in SD County that have opened for sale since then.
Yes, removing the unending choices for *new* construction tracts from the housing inventory picture WILL have the effect of eventually raising the sold comps of existing housing in the same market. Commuters from these new tracts have increased the congestion on our fwys 6-8 fold since the first CFD was formed in SD County in 1987. Since SD Co is a “coastal county,” limiting growth to preserve “housing exclusivity” within it is as it should have always been and should be now.
Leaders of several other CA coastal counties have gotten this number long ago and thus, were able to preserve their natural resources and “lifestyle” for existing residents. Just try to get permission to form a CFD and/or a subdivision permit or worse, for a “master-planned-community” in the County of Mendocino, for example.
It’s not gonna happen . . . as it should be.
CA coastal counties were never “set up” in the first place to attract the country’s masses of low and moderate income residents. That’s what CA’s inland counties (and NV/AZ?) are for.
If I were to sell my house next year and leave the county to “retire” elsewhere, I would fully expect that it would cost twice the price should I decide to come back to SD after a few years.
As it should be.
I’ve seen this happen to other retirees in the past who sold and left the county, only to return years later and have to rent. That’s why I may rent it out, instead. To make SURE I won’t want to move back in the future before “pulling the trigger” and selling it :=0
Participant[quote=The-Shoveler] I was going to say,
And the next 4-6 million people SD expected is to grow will fit where?[/quote]They can stay back in their double-wide in the state of MO, where they likely have family to help them in the event they are in need of “social services.” CA doesn’t need any more people, ESP of the “low to moderate income” variety.
There are plenty of Gen Y/millenial young people, (the children of longtime CA residents) here, along with hundreds of thousands of non-residents with work permits, to take CA’s lower-paying service jobs.
It’s actually pretty hard for a young person to find a minimum-wage job these days.
Participant[quote=no_such_reality][quote=bearishgurl]
Couldn’t have said it any better myself …. except for one caveat. In SD County, we already DO currently have hundreds of “affordable” residential listings within 20 miles of job centers. The areas they are situated in were “affordable” decades ago and are still “affordable” now.
[/quote]Minor nit, with 1.1 million housing units, you don’t hundreds, you need ten’s of thousands.
Owner occupied housing vacancy in SD is 1.9%. Owner occupancy housing is 591,000 units. At a reasonable turnover rate, you need 85,000 sales a year, or just over 7000/month.[/quote]
nsr, where are you coming up with SD County needing “tens of thousands” of (affordable?) housing units?
Why am I seeing some of these “affordable” local resales (SFRs AND condos) sitting on the market longer than 90 days (short of structural defects)?
Does SD County currently HAVE “85,000 sales a year” (incl new construction units)? Has it EVER??
How many of SD County’s annual residential sales are of an existing county resident vacating one home for another? Perhaps 85-90 percent??
nsr, ask yourself what would happen if SD County and its various city officials suddenly decide they will not approve any more subdivisions (some no doubt already have).
Are we suddenly going to fall off the map?
Actually, if there is no more building, this “population influx” we’re supposedly expecting will have absorb the resale listings and rental vacancies currently on the market. That’s the way it’s always been in CA coastal counties.
Do I hear violins? Cry me a river.
I suppose if it comes to the point where there is “no place to live here” (highly unlikely, due to natural mobility of existing residents), then these “potential newcomers” will stay put.
Is there something wrong with that?
Marin, SF and SM Counties don’t seem to think so. And btw, the quality of life is VERY high for the residents of all of those counties :=]
Participant[quote=SK in CV]spdrun, are you arguing that increases in population don’t require additional housing?
I don’t think there’s any question that many areas were over-built for their current populations. The last real economic study I did (and got paid for!) almost 10 years ago predicted that same conclusion. That was 2004. But for at least 20 years, changes in sales of new homes v. existing moved almost identically. Through boom and bust. But for more than the last 4 years, new home sales have been roughly half of what would have been necessary for that track to continue. New home construction lingered at it’s lowest level in 50 years. For 4 years. It just rose in the last 90 days to the lowest levels reached 30 years ago. Yet population growth and more importantly, new household formation have continued.
There probably are still some areas that are over-built. More houses than are necessary. But not everywhere. And current construction levels, though a full third higher than the bottom of the trough, are still a third of the peak construction and would still require a 50% increase to get to average construction levels of the last 50 years.
You make some good points about the type of construction needed. I’m not a big fan of huge homes either. But that doesn’t mean that all new home construction is bad. Some of it is needed. People gotta live somewhere.[/quote]
Yes, SK, “people gotta live somewhere.” But the over-social-service-burdened, under-water-righted CA jurisdictions are not responsible for housing the potentially-incoming masses who are only seeking out *new* construction.
There are hundreds of rental vacancies and at least 5000 resales on the market right now in SD County. If you happen to find yourself “new in town,” go get yourself one!
I’ve always been of the mind that “if you build ’em, they will come” (the “they” usually meaning low-income families who currently need or will eventually need social services). IOW, residential building out in “bumblefuck” actually begets population influx of this sort.
Look at Stockton, Modesto and Temecula and surrounds. Do you actually believe that all of these hundreds of thousands (1M+?) of *newer* residents (who previously lived closer to the coast) would have flocked to these areas over the last 8-20 years had it not been for the “affordable” *new* construction available there?
What happened to the rental homes/apartments these buyers left behind? Did their exodus create more residential vacancies in CA’s urban counties?
Like you, I’ve seen the doubling and then tripling + of the population of SD County over the years. The “quality of life” here is NOT better than it was 10, 20 or 30+ years ago … it is MUCH WORSE. What used to be a “short commute” (=<10 miles) to work is now ridiculously long due to commuters from the outlying CFDs using the same freeways as closer-in residents do.
CA’s population redistribution resulting from CFD formation in (primarily) the last 25 years has done NOTHING for the quality of life of residents of existing communities. In fact, community services (now stretched thin, due to layoffs) are even scarcer for the older areas, due to having to “share” tree trimmers and street/sidewalk maintenance crews, for example, with the residents who live within the distant CFDs.
Another effect the MR CFD Act had on CA was a redistribution of its low and moderate-income families from established cities to what were once rural, outlying areas. In recent years, many of this population influx have found themselves in need of social services that these communities were never “set-up” to provide to anywhere NEAR this large of a population.
If the cheaper *new* construction in CA’s lizardland or farmland has lured in ANY out-of-state families at all (who otherwise would not have moved to CA, had it not been for “cheap” new construction), then those families were “borderline” on needing social services when they first moved into the state and are possibly eligible to collect some services now.
CA doesn’t NEED to be “attracting” this kind of “transplant” from out-of-state. We’re already FULL of “poor” people with their hands out, so much so that the state and counties neither have the personnel to properly handle these applications nor the funds to administer programs to more “needy” people.
AZ has more “water-rights” to the Colo River than SoCal does but I think those leaders in Maricopa County and the cities within it are screwing their own longtime constituencies by approving one subdivision after another. From a traveler’s point of view (who has been going back and forth thru there for 35+ years) it looks grossly overbuilt to me. When AZ officials find they are running out of natural resources (water?) and have a VERY large population in need of social services which they have neither the personnel nor the funds to provide, they are going to be in the same boat as CA and hurting very badly, indeed.
Participant[quote=spdrun]SK in CV:
Yep, let’s build more McHouses, rape more land, use more water, spend more energy to light and climate-control 2000 sf per person. Let the marketeers brainwash people that they actually need a 5000 sf McHouse.
Oh, and make sure that people are priced out of markets that actually have jobs, so they can have the orgasmic pleasure of commuting 2 hr each way from out in bumblefuck, sitting in a steel and glass cage that reeks of stale fast food and cola. Yep. Yep.
The goal should be affordable prices in areas that are actually livable and pleasant, not infinite expansion into the great inhospitable. Oh yeah, and FUCK the people in the construction industry. We shouldn’t base policy on preserving jobs that may or may not actually be needed — that’s what the Soviets did and it worked out really well for them.[/quote]
Couldn’t have said it any better myself …. except for one caveat. In SD County, we already DO currently have hundreds of “affordable” residential listings within 20 miles of job centers. The areas they are situated in were “affordable” decades ago and are still “affordable” now.
The problem lies with most of Gen X-Y buyers (who are entering into or still in “family-raising” mode). These prospective buyers won’t even call their agents to view the “affordable” properties, for whatever (ignorant or misinformed) reasons. They would rather all flock to a handful of zip codes out in “slightly closer-in bumblefuck” and bid up each other’s “over listed-price” offers so they can then “win” one (yay!). After “winning,” they get to bend over to pay exorbitant MR into a “soon-to-be-BK” CFD, school district and (resultant) city.
More power to them. Hope their “net worth” is such at the age of 55+ that they will be able to at least ponder the idea of “retiring” someday, lol ….
The buyers who make offers on the “affordable” homes are the people that grew up nearby or they are bought with cash by their nearby parents (so they can place their children and grandchildren in them, for proximity). The balance are purchased by investors and flippers (who aren’t now and never were “stupid,” btw).
Participant[quote=no_such_reality]…There-in is problem in our current marketplace. The pool of people willing to pay premium price for fully gloss coated greatly outweighs the price of those willing to deal with good enough.
And hence, people that want to live there while they fix it are being out bid by people that want to flip it, because the people that want it fixed right now are outbidding all of them.[/quote]
I don’t think flippers will offer more than costs of acquisition + cost-of-flip + cost of sale + “reasonable profit” (15%+??). Because most of them are looking for a very quick turnaround (to minimize their carrying costs), they have to go by the current sold comps in the area when making offers, even though prices (in general) may be rising.
In any case, prices are rising at different rates depending upon micro-area.
This leaves a window for joe6p buyer to bid a little more than a flipper would and get the property … IF they have 20% down and can close in a timely manner.
nsr, your (emphasized stmt, above) is what I’ve been trying to tell lower-tier buyers here (ESP FTB’s) since before the holidays. I’ve been telling them to cease being “part of the problem.” In essence, I’ve been saying:
“Be pro-active, realistic, and make offers contingent upon a VERY TIMELY physical inspection. When your inspector in escrow doesn’t turn up any structural damage AND the repairs they turn up total under 1.5% of the sales price, just suck it up, remove the contingency and deal with it. If you throw the listing back to the market, YOU are back to square one, which could get more expensive by the month. The property you just threw back will sell to someone else, in very short order.
Even if the repairs are 1.5% to 3% of the purchase price, don’t ask for the WHOLE amount in concession from the seller in your counter-offer. If you really want the property, get an expert estimate (ex:. new furnace), present it to the seller and start out by asking them to reduce their accepted price by 70% of the cost of it.
All major cities are getting older and older and many of them have run out of land around their perimeters for new subdivisions.
And you really don’t want to shop 50+ miles away from work (to make offers on *newer* construction in your price range), as getting one of these properties will eventually make your life miserable.
As a lower-tier buyer (incl FTB’s), you can’t have everything. Get as much as you can for the price you can pay and move forward.
If you, as a lower-tier buyer, are stuck in a “dream” of “delusions of grandeur” for your modest price range (new appls, new floor coverings, granite, etc), you are looking at a “flipped house” which will likely get multiple offers and thus, it’s asking price will be run up, very likely beyond your price range.”
********
Flippers and owner-occupant joe6p serial rehabbers didn’t get where they are today by “sweating the small stuff” at the offer/counter-offer and acceptance/escrow stages. SFR buyers in the $320K-$400K price range can no longer afford to either . . . that is, IF they actually want to own their own home in SD County ASAP.
Participant[quote=SD Realtor]Nobody else seems to read ambiguity into my response, even the person who I was responding to. Guess you will have to figure it out.[/quote]
That’s because “nobody else” is responding to you 😉
Participant[quote-sdduuuude]….In fact, owners are seeing prices come up and deciding they could get more later and that is delaying listings…..[/quote]
I agree with this statement. I’ve seen articles and videos online over the weekend that “boomers” have decided to mostly stay put …. for now.
The “boomers” recently interviewed all over the country are apparently “happy” with where they live and don’t particularly want to “downsize.”
Part of this has to do with not being able to re-purchase today the quality of home/location they are currently living in, even if they sell. And a large portion of them can’t qualify for purchase-money mortgages, and, in any case, don’t want one at this late date. I myself can identify with this mindset.
Since there are presumably 77M of us and the vast majority own their own homes, that is a LOT of current listings across the country that don’t seem to be materializing.
Of course, in a few years, this could change, depending . . .
Participant[quote=Rich Toscano] . . . just extrapolating from last year’s chart, we are probably pretty close to “fair value” (which I define as the median historical price to income or price to rent ratio). . . . [/quote]
I agree with this. That “fair value” was in sales occurring sometime between 1999 and 2003 (depending on micro-area).
edit: as I’ve stated here before, the residential RE values in many areas of SD County became decimated beyond fundamentals, due primarly to SS closings (many of which were “fraudulent” and/or “non-arms-length” transactions). These (numerous) closed SS’s skewed the sold comps much lower than they should have been.
Participant[quote=SD Realtor]So funny…
Here is what I wrote
Conditions are not favorable throughout the county compared to the past few years. Not for investment grade, not for owner occupancy grade. . . .
Here is what was commented on.
I disagree that the long-term owner occupier buyer can’t find a decent house
****
I think it is awesome to make up things to disagree with. Kind of like playing chess against yourself![/quote]
What exactly did you mean by “owner occupancy grade,” then?
And do you think owner-occupants should buy and flip or buy and hold??
I was actually “agreeing” with ER’s statement. But I can see by this statement that you’re too much in the “argumentative mode” to understand that.
Participant[quote=sdduuuude][quote=bearishgurl]I disagree that the long-term owner occupier buyer can’t find a decent house in the $320-$400K range. Some of them may need a little work, but they’re out there.[/quote]
Ya “out there” as in “way the hell out there” as in Santee, Lakeside and Ramona.[/quote]
No, there are quite a few other areas in SD County which have this calibur of SFR’s …. yes, even 4 bdrm SFR’s!
A buyer in this price range is in the “FTB range,” whether they are actually shopping for their “first home” …. or not.
Beggars can’t be choosers.
Notice that all three of the areas you mentioned, sdduuuude, are already FULL of residents, a large percentage with a much HIGHER net worth than many Piggs!
And “Ramona” not longer qualifies to have this “calibur” of home readily available. It is mostly out of this price range.
Participant[quote=SD Realtor] . . . Conditions are not favorable throughout the county compared to the past few years. Not for investment grade, not for owner occupancy grade. . . .
Right now it is legging up fast and not a good place for buyers.[/quote]
I disagree that the long-term owner occupier buyer can’t find a decent house in the $320-$400K range. Some of them may need a little work, but they’re out there.
Yes, this is also the “flipper” price range, but if the asking and bid prices are too close to what the property would sell for flipped, the flipper won’t want it.
[quote-earlyretirement]I think it’s different if you are buying something that plan to live in for the foreseeable future that you can comfortably afford and another to be jumping in on investment properties…[/quote]
It’s different for the long-term owner-occupier buyer because they don’t have to fix everything at once to get it back out on the market ASAP. They can move in (or partially move in) and fix as time/money permits.
I’m seeing rental PODS parked on some properties in this price range which recently closed escrow. In any case, there are “pre-fab” tool/garden sheds existing in many backyards of listed properties which can be cleaned out and used for storage, along with the garage. These sheds don’t even cost as much to buy at HD/Lowes as renting a POD costs, even if you build a (leak-proof) wood foundation before putting them up. Your “extra” household goods could be stored at low cost in them indefinitely until you are ready to move them in.
There are more than nine ways to skin a cat. I would urge prospective owner-occupiers who don’t currently own a home to get out there on the street and make offers until they are successful if they want a home of their own in the coming years.
I bought several of the calibur of properties (which are listed at $320K to $400K today) in a 9-12% mortgage interest-rate environment and ended up coming out just fine after selling 🙂
It isn’t going to get any easier to buy a roof over your head in SD County.
Participant[quote=spdrun]If you see an investment property that can yield 7.5% or so after expenses, then why not go for it? They’re out there. One is still languishing in the ss process for me. But I made another offer on an occupied property last week that can actually yield more than 7.5%. We’ll see.[/quote]
You GO, spdrun . . . I for one am rooting for you 🙂
Participant[quote=David J]I believe this is the official California site for the future plans:
Here is a PDF with some more details:
http://www.healthexchange.ca.gov/Documents/CC%20Video%20Slides%20FINAL%20021313.pdf
[/quote]Yikes!!
I just ran the “Covered CA” calculator on myself and found that my premium with the “state pool” would be just $1 mo less than I am currently paying with a potential of nearly $5K more coming out-of-pocket annually!
http://www.coveredca.com/resources/calculating-the-cost/
This is no bargain for persons who are already covered by (grandfathered) individual policies.
My premium would have to be raised the maximum allowable over the course of a few years while the “Covered CA” premiums stayed flat in order to make it worth my while to switch (assuming I wasn’t already MC-eligible, lol). I just don’t see this scenario happening in tandem :=0
-
AuthorPosts
