[Bugs]

One of the big changes in the 1970s was the passing of Proposition 13, which capped the rate at which property taxes could increase (2% per year). In most states, property taxes aren’t capped, which means that if a property value increases by 20% in a year the property tax due also increases by the same amount.

Without Prop 13 just owning a property would get more expensive if the markets increased. For the average $200,000 property in 1997, that property owner’s tax bill would having increased from $2,200/year to $6,600/year by 2006. The other $4,400/year would have debt serviced another $60,000 in mortgage encumbrance. That’s one of the changes in the tax laws.

The demographics factor is a knife that can cut both ways. From the late 1960s on the boomers have been a driving force in our economy. We took consumerism to new heights, and I don’t mean that in a good way.

The natural cycle of a person’s life has them consuming more when they’re in their 20s and 30s and they don’t even think of slowing down until they hit their 40s.

Now the boomers are starting to retire which means they’re also going to be retreating from their consumption. Sure, some won’t be in a financial position to retire, but a lot of them won’t really have the option. What are the job prospects for a 65-year old if they basically get forced out of their job?

San Diego is a nice place to live but it’s only a good place to retire if you have a LOT of money. I think a lot of local boomers are going to end up leaving because they won’t be able to afford to stay. Seeing as how we aren’t building the kinds of businesses that can support all these high dollar houses I question what economic changes can happen that will provide the impetus to sustain any extended pricing runs in the future.

Anyways, we just saw what happened when the investors got out of the RE market – it collapsed due to oversupply. If boomers really do start leaving town in any great numbers in the next five years it’s possible that we may end up with an oversupply situation for quite a while. My former partner once said that SD County has all the “move up” inventory it will need for the next 20 years. If we don’t build another 4,000 SqFt tract homes on 10,000 SqFt subdivision lot in the next 15 years we still won’t run out. What we really need are a lot of 1,200 SqFt starter homes.

[Bugs]

One of the big changes in the 1970s was the passing of Proposition 13, which capped the rate at which property taxes could increase (2% per year). In most states, property taxes aren’t capped, which means that if a property value increases by 20% in a year the property tax due also increases by the same amount.

Without Prop 13 just owning a property would get more expensive if the markets increased. For the average $200,000 property in 1997, that property owner’s tax bill would having increased from $2,200/year to $6,600/year by 2006. The other $4,400/year would have debt serviced another $60,000 in mortgage encumbrance. That’s one of the changes in the tax laws.

The demographics factor is a knife that can cut both ways. From the late 1960s on the boomers have been a driving force in our economy. We took consumerism to new heights, and I don’t mean that in a good way.

The natural cycle of a person’s life has them consuming more when they’re in their 20s and 30s and they don’t even think of slowing down until they hit their 40s.

Now the boomers are starting to retire which means they’re also going to be retreating from their consumption. Sure, some won’t be in a financial position to retire, but a lot of them won’t really have the option. What are the job prospects for a 65-year old if they basically get forced out of their job?

San Diego is a nice place to live but it’s only a good place to retire if you have a LOT of money. I think a lot of local boomers are going to end up leaving because they won’t be able to afford to stay. Seeing as how we aren’t building the kinds of businesses that can support all these high dollar houses I question what economic changes can happen that will provide the impetus to sustain any extended pricing runs in the future.

Anyways, we just saw what happened when the investors got out of the RE market – it collapsed due to oversupply. If boomers really do start leaving town in any great numbers in the next five years it’s possible that we may end up with an oversupply situation for quite a while. My former partner once said that SD County has all the “move up” inventory it will need for the next 20 years. If we don’t build another 4,000 SqFt tract homes on 10,000 SqFt subdivision lot in the next 15 years we still won’t run out. What we really need are a lot of 1,200 SqFt starter homes.

[Bugs]

One of the big changes in the 1970s was the passing of Proposition 13, which capped the rate at which property taxes could increase (2% per year). In most states, property taxes aren’t capped, which means that if a property value increases by 20% in a year the property tax due also increases by the same amount.

Without Prop 13 just owning a property would get more expensive if the markets increased. For the average $200,000 property in 1997, that property owner’s tax bill would having increased from $2,200/year to $6,600/year by 2006. The other $4,400/year would have debt serviced another $60,000 in mortgage encumbrance. That’s one of the changes in the tax laws.

The demographics factor is a knife that can cut both ways. From the late 1960s on the boomers have been a driving force in our economy. We took consumerism to new heights, and I don’t mean that in a good way.

The natural cycle of a person’s life has them consuming more when they’re in their 20s and 30s and they don’t even think of slowing down until they hit their 40s.

Now the boomers are starting to retire which means they’re also going to be retreating from their consumption. Sure, some won’t be in a financial position to retire, but a lot of them won’t really have the option. What are the job prospects for a 65-year old if they basically get forced out of their job?

San Diego is a nice place to live but it’s only a good place to retire if you have a LOT of money. I think a lot of local boomers are going to end up leaving because they won’t be able to afford to stay. Seeing as how we aren’t building the kinds of businesses that can support all these high dollar houses I question what economic changes can happen that will provide the impetus to sustain any extended pricing runs in the future.

Anyways, we just saw what happened when the investors got out of the RE market – it collapsed due to oversupply. If boomers really do start leaving town in any great numbers in the next five years it’s possible that we may end up with an oversupply situation for quite a while. My former partner once said that SD County has all the “move up” inventory it will need for the next 20 years. If we don’t build another 4,000 SqFt tract homes on 10,000 SqFt subdivision lot in the next 15 years we still won’t run out. What we really need are a lot of 1,200 SqFt starter homes.

[Bugs]

One of the big changes in the 1970s was the passing of Proposition 13, which capped the rate at which property taxes could increase (2% per year). In most states, property taxes aren’t capped, which means that if a property value increases by 20% in a year the property tax due also increases by the same amount.

Without Prop 13 just owning a property would get more expensive if the markets increased. For the average $200,000 property in 1997, that property owner’s tax bill would having increased from $2,200/year to $6,600/year by 2006. The other $4,400/year would have debt serviced another $60,000 in mortgage encumbrance. That’s one of the changes in the tax laws.

The demographics factor is a knife that can cut both ways. From the late 1960s on the boomers have been a driving force in our economy. We took consumerism to new heights, and I don’t mean that in a good way.

The natural cycle of a person’s life has them consuming more when they’re in their 20s and 30s and they don’t even think of slowing down until they hit their 40s.

Now the boomers are starting to retire which means they’re also going to be retreating from their consumption. Sure, some won’t be in a financial position to retire, but a lot of them won’t really have the option. What are the job prospects for a 65-year old if they basically get forced out of their job?

San Diego is a nice place to live but it’s only a good place to retire if you have a LOT of money. I think a lot of local boomers are going to end up leaving because they won’t be able to afford to stay. Seeing as how we aren’t building the kinds of businesses that can support all these high dollar houses I question what economic changes can happen that will provide the impetus to sustain any extended pricing runs in the future.

Anyways, we just saw what happened when the investors got out of the RE market – it collapsed due to oversupply. If boomers really do start leaving town in any great numbers in the next five years it’s possible that we may end up with an oversupply situation for quite a while. My former partner once said that SD County has all the “move up” inventory it will need for the next 20 years. If we don’t build another 4,000 SqFt tract homes on 10,000 SqFt subdivision lot in the next 15 years we still won’t run out. What we really need are a lot of 1,200 SqFt starter homes.

[Bugs]

One of the big changes in the 1970s was the passing of Proposition 13, which capped the rate at which property taxes could increase (2% per year). In most states, property taxes aren’t capped, which means that if a property value increases by 20% in a year the property tax due also increases by the same amount.

Without Prop 13 just owning a property would get more expensive if the markets increased. For the average $200,000 property in 1997, that property owner’s tax bill would having increased from $2,200/year to $6,600/year by 2006. The other $4,400/year would have debt serviced another $60,000 in mortgage encumbrance. That’s one of the changes in the tax laws.

The demographics factor is a knife that can cut both ways. From the late 1960s on the boomers have been a driving force in our economy. We took consumerism to new heights, and I don’t mean that in a good way.

The natural cycle of a person’s life has them consuming more when they’re in their 20s and 30s and they don’t even think of slowing down until they hit their 40s.

Now the boomers are starting to retire which means they’re also going to be retreating from their consumption. Sure, some won’t be in a financial position to retire, but a lot of them won’t really have the option. What are the job prospects for a 65-year old if they basically get forced out of their job?

San Diego is a nice place to live but it’s only a good place to retire if you have a LOT of money. I think a lot of local boomers are going to end up leaving because they won’t be able to afford to stay. Seeing as how we aren’t building the kinds of businesses that can support all these high dollar houses I question what economic changes can happen that will provide the impetus to sustain any extended pricing runs in the future.

Anyways, we just saw what happened when the investors got out of the RE market – it collapsed due to oversupply. If boomers really do start leaving town in any great numbers in the next five years it’s possible that we may end up with an oversupply situation for quite a while. My former partner once said that SD County has all the “move up” inventory it will need for the next 20 years. If we don’t build another 4,000 SqFt tract homes on 10,000 SqFt subdivision lot in the next 15 years we still won’t run out. What we really need are a lot of 1,200 SqFt starter homes.

[Bugs]

The trendline made a big jump in the late 1940s; most economists attribute this to the postwar boom and the rise of the subdivision. There was another increase in the mid-late 1970s as a result of the changes in the tax laws.

As for why break it down to the 50-year cycle, one look at the charts should be sufficient to see that there was one trendline prior to WWII and a separate and much higher trendline starting in 1950. You could say the baby boom really did trigger that different trendline. Bear in mind, prior to this suburbia as such didn’t exist.

Excluding this last spike the 50-year trendline is reasonable consistent; adding in the pre-WWII trendline only confuses things.

Now if one of the bulls can argue what seismic change in our society – comparable to the effects of the baby boom – has basically tripled the rent/price ratios from 1997-2006 then I’m all ears. Absent fundamental indicators to the contrary, and as supported by the recent pricing trends that support the return-to-trendline direction in pricing – I’m of the personal opinion that our pricing structure is going to go all the way and will probably overcorrect some before it stabilizes.

[Bugs]

The trendline made a big jump in the late 1940s; most economists attribute this to the postwar boom and the rise of the subdivision. There was another increase in the mid-late 1970s as a result of the changes in the tax laws.

As for why break it down to the 50-year cycle, one look at the charts should be sufficient to see that there was one trendline prior to WWII and a separate and much higher trendline starting in 1950. You could say the baby boom really did trigger that different trendline. Bear in mind, prior to this suburbia as such didn’t exist.

Excluding this last spike the 50-year trendline is reasonable consistent; adding in the pre-WWII trendline only confuses things.

Now if one of the bulls can argue what seismic change in our society – comparable to the effects of the baby boom – has basically tripled the rent/price ratios from 1997-2006 then I’m all ears. Absent fundamental indicators to the contrary, and as supported by the recent pricing trends that support the return-to-trendline direction in pricing – I’m of the personal opinion that our pricing structure is going to go all the way and will probably overcorrect some before it stabilizes.

[Bugs]

The trendline made a big jump in the late 1940s; most economists attribute this to the postwar boom and the rise of the subdivision. There was another increase in the mid-late 1970s as a result of the changes in the tax laws.

As for why break it down to the 50-year cycle, one look at the charts should be sufficient to see that there was one trendline prior to WWII and a separate and much higher trendline starting in 1950. You could say the baby boom really did trigger that different trendline. Bear in mind, prior to this suburbia as such didn’t exist.

Excluding this last spike the 50-year trendline is reasonable consistent; adding in the pre-WWII trendline only confuses things.

Now if one of the bulls can argue what seismic change in our society – comparable to the effects of the baby boom – has basically tripled the rent/price ratios from 1997-2006 then I’m all ears. Absent fundamental indicators to the contrary, and as supported by the recent pricing trends that support the return-to-trendline direction in pricing – I’m of the personal opinion that our pricing structure is going to go all the way and will probably overcorrect some before it stabilizes.

[Bugs]

The trendline made a big jump in the late 1940s; most economists attribute this to the postwar boom and the rise of the subdivision. There was another increase in the mid-late 1970s as a result of the changes in the tax laws.

As for why break it down to the 50-year cycle, one look at the charts should be sufficient to see that there was one trendline prior to WWII and a separate and much higher trendline starting in 1950. You could say the baby boom really did trigger that different trendline. Bear in mind, prior to this suburbia as such didn’t exist.

Excluding this last spike the 50-year trendline is reasonable consistent; adding in the pre-WWII trendline only confuses things.

Now if one of the bulls can argue what seismic change in our society – comparable to the effects of the baby boom – has basically tripled the rent/price ratios from 1997-2006 then I’m all ears. Absent fundamental indicators to the contrary, and as supported by the recent pricing trends that support the return-to-trendline direction in pricing – I’m of the personal opinion that our pricing structure is going to go all the way and will probably overcorrect some before it stabilizes.

[Bugs]

The trendline made a big jump in the late 1940s; most economists attribute this to the postwar boom and the rise of the subdivision. There was another increase in the mid-late 1970s as a result of the changes in the tax laws.

As for why break it down to the 50-year cycle, one look at the charts should be sufficient to see that there was one trendline prior to WWII and a separate and much higher trendline starting in 1950. You could say the baby boom really did trigger that different trendline. Bear in mind, prior to this suburbia as such didn’t exist.

Excluding this last spike the 50-year trendline is reasonable consistent; adding in the pre-WWII trendline only confuses things.

Now if one of the bulls can argue what seismic change in our society – comparable to the effects of the baby boom – has basically tripled the rent/price ratios from 1997-2006 then I’m all ears. Absent fundamental indicators to the contrary, and as supported by the recent pricing trends that support the return-to-trendline direction in pricing – I’m of the personal opinion that our pricing structure is going to go all the way and will probably overcorrect some before it stabilizes.

[Bugs]

Don’t really like this place, but I have a limit how much I want to spend on rent.

This is key to what I’m saying. Jg doesn’t LIKE moving down, but the money aspect turned out to be more important.

[Bugs]

Don’t really like this place, but I have a limit how much I want to spend on rent.

This is key to what I’m saying. Jg doesn’t LIKE moving down, but the money aspect turned out to be more important.

[Bugs]

Don’t really like this place, but I have a limit how much I want to spend on rent.

This is key to what I’m saying. Jg doesn’t LIKE moving down, but the money aspect turned out to be more important.

[Bugs]

Don’t really like this place, but I have a limit how much I want to spend on rent.

This is key to what I’m saying. Jg doesn’t LIKE moving down, but the money aspect turned out to be more important.

[Bugs]

Don’t really like this place, but I have a limit how much I want to spend on rent.

This is key to what I’m saying. Jg doesn’t LIKE moving down, but the money aspect turned out to be more important.

[Author]

Posts