[CA renter]

IMHO, that area of Encinitas is one of the most overpriced areas because most of the residents there are “regular people” who probably earn between $50K and $100K per household. This location has experienced some of the more dramatic price drops in Encinitas because it was the most unsustainable and is the “entry” market in Enc.

I think prices in the NE area (relative to ECR/Enc Blvd intersection) will drop to around $230K-$300K and prices in the SE area will be slightly above this (because the houses and lots are generally larger).

There have been a few better-looking listings lately, compared to peak prices, so if you are seriously considering buying right now, try to get something under $500K for a 3/2. I would highly recommend waiting at least another year, and try to time your purchase around November, as seasonal factors do make a difference.

[CA renter]

Guess which presidential candidate wrote the following in August of 2007?:

Bailing out investors and their risky investments would just induce them to take on bigger risks next time, expecting another bailout, he believes.

More and more, corporate capitalists in side and beyond the financial markets do not want to behave as capitalists-willing to take the losses along with the profits. They want Washington, D.C., meaning you the taxpayers, to pay for their facilities (as with big time sports stadiums) or take on their losses because they believe that they are too big to be allowed to fail (as with large banks or industrial companies).
.
.
.
.
.
.

Ralph Nader. And at least we know where he stands WRT consumers and taxpayers. I’m not in favor of all of his stances, but he does seem to be against the corporate bailouts (iffy on the FB bailout), and is against the war, FWIW.

http://www.counterpunch.org/nader08182007.html

[CA renter]

Guess which presidential candidate wrote the following in August of 2007?:

Bailing out investors and their risky investments would just induce them to take on bigger risks next time, expecting another bailout, he believes.

More and more, corporate capitalists in side and beyond the financial markets do not want to behave as capitalists-willing to take the losses along with the profits. They want Washington, D.C., meaning you the taxpayers, to pay for their facilities (as with big time sports stadiums) or take on their losses because they believe that they are too big to be allowed to fail (as with large banks or industrial companies).
.
.
.
.
.
.

Ralph Nader. And at least we know where he stands WRT consumers and taxpayers. I’m not in favor of all of his stances, but he does seem to be against the corporate bailouts (iffy on the FB bailout), and is against the war, FWIW.

http://www.counterpunch.org/nader08182007.html

[CA renter]

Guess which presidential candidate wrote the following in August of 2007?:

Bailing out investors and their risky investments would just induce them to take on bigger risks next time, expecting another bailout, he believes.

More and more, corporate capitalists in side and beyond the financial markets do not want to behave as capitalists-willing to take the losses along with the profits. They want Washington, D.C., meaning you the taxpayers, to pay for their facilities (as with big time sports stadiums) or take on their losses because they believe that they are too big to be allowed to fail (as with large banks or industrial companies).
.
.
.
.
.
.

Ralph Nader. And at least we know where he stands WRT consumers and taxpayers. I’m not in favor of all of his stances, but he does seem to be against the corporate bailouts (iffy on the FB bailout), and is against the war, FWIW.

http://www.counterpunch.org/nader08182007.html

[CA renter]

Guess which presidential candidate wrote the following in August of 2007?:

Bailing out investors and their risky investments would just induce them to take on bigger risks next time, expecting another bailout, he believes.

More and more, corporate capitalists in side and beyond the financial markets do not want to behave as capitalists-willing to take the losses along with the profits. They want Washington, D.C., meaning you the taxpayers, to pay for their facilities (as with big time sports stadiums) or take on their losses because they believe that they are too big to be allowed to fail (as with large banks or industrial companies).
.
.
.
.
.
.

Ralph Nader. And at least we know where he stands WRT consumers and taxpayers. I’m not in favor of all of his stances, but he does seem to be against the corporate bailouts (iffy on the FB bailout), and is against the war, FWIW.

http://www.counterpunch.org/nader08182007.html

[CA renter]

Guess which presidential candidate wrote the following in August of 2007?:

Bailing out investors and their risky investments would just induce them to take on bigger risks next time, expecting another bailout, he believes.

More and more, corporate capitalists in side and beyond the financial markets do not want to behave as capitalists-willing to take the losses along with the profits. They want Washington, D.C., meaning you the taxpayers, to pay for their facilities (as with big time sports stadiums) or take on their losses because they believe that they are too big to be allowed to fail (as with large banks or industrial companies).
.
.
.
.
.
.

Ralph Nader. And at least we know where he stands WRT consumers and taxpayers. I’m not in favor of all of his stances, but he does seem to be against the corporate bailouts (iffy on the FB bailout), and is against the war, FWIW.

http://www.counterpunch.org/nader08182007.html

[CA renter]

FWIW, we sold a house this past summer for 30% off peak price. It was paid-off, and we needed to sell it to settle the estate.

Our realtor wanted to list it at a particular price, even though I wanted to list lower. After a couple of days, I had her drop the price $40,000 — very much against her advice — and had a couple of offers within two weeks or so. Final sale was another $20K off our VERY LOW final list price.

At the time, there were two other houses in the area listed around the price our realtor originally listed at. I believe one of them is still there, and has been listed at our “low” price for many months. I think the other one was expired or withdrawn, but not sure. Another house is now listed across the street from the one we sold for $35,000 less than what we sold it for (we sold for about 2003 price — by far the lowest the n’hood had seen in YEARS), and it has a pool, bigger yard, extra bedroom and is larger.

Point is, there are some sellers out there who can very well sell for 25% off (or LESS than!!!) the peak or list price. All a buyer has to do is find those sellers. That’s where the comps will be coming from.

Sellers are delusional, and will chase the market all the way down. Realtors who aren’t honest with them about what’s happening in the market are doing their clients a disservice. These same realtors are shooting themselves in the foot, as qualified buyers are becoming more and more scarce. Buyers don’t give a da*n about a realtor’s ego, and if realtors can’t do their jobs, then buyers will start going through attorneys, who don’t have any conflict of interest (they aren’t offended by lowballs, and couldn’t care less if other agents “like them” or not).

[CA renter]

FWIW, we sold a house this past summer for 30% off peak price. It was paid-off, and we needed to sell it to settle the estate.

Our realtor wanted to list it at a particular price, even though I wanted to list lower. After a couple of days, I had her drop the price $40,000 — very much against her advice — and had a couple of offers within two weeks or so. Final sale was another $20K off our VERY LOW final list price.

At the time, there were two other houses in the area listed around the price our realtor originally listed at. I believe one of them is still there, and has been listed at our “low” price for many months. I think the other one was expired or withdrawn, but not sure. Another house is now listed across the street from the one we sold for $35,000 less than what we sold it for (we sold for about 2003 price — by far the lowest the n’hood had seen in YEARS), and it has a pool, bigger yard, extra bedroom and is larger.

Point is, there are some sellers out there who can very well sell for 25% off (or LESS than!!!) the peak or list price. All a buyer has to do is find those sellers. That’s where the comps will be coming from.

Sellers are delusional, and will chase the market all the way down. Realtors who aren’t honest with them about what’s happening in the market are doing their clients a disservice. These same realtors are shooting themselves in the foot, as qualified buyers are becoming more and more scarce. Buyers don’t give a da*n about a realtor’s ego, and if realtors can’t do their jobs, then buyers will start going through attorneys, who don’t have any conflict of interest (they aren’t offended by lowballs, and couldn’t care less if other agents “like them” or not).

[CA renter]

FWIW, we sold a house this past summer for 30% off peak price. It was paid-off, and we needed to sell it to settle the estate.

Our realtor wanted to list it at a particular price, even though I wanted to list lower. After a couple of days, I had her drop the price $40,000 — very much against her advice — and had a couple of offers within two weeks or so. Final sale was another $20K off our VERY LOW final list price.

At the time, there were two other houses in the area listed around the price our realtor originally listed at. I believe one of them is still there, and has been listed at our “low” price for many months. I think the other one was expired or withdrawn, but not sure. Another house is now listed across the street from the one we sold for $35,000 less than what we sold it for (we sold for about 2003 price — by far the lowest the n’hood had seen in YEARS), and it has a pool, bigger yard, extra bedroom and is larger.

Point is, there are some sellers out there who can very well sell for 25% off (or LESS than!!!) the peak or list price. All a buyer has to do is find those sellers. That’s where the comps will be coming from.

Sellers are delusional, and will chase the market all the way down. Realtors who aren’t honest with them about what’s happening in the market are doing their clients a disservice. These same realtors are shooting themselves in the foot, as qualified buyers are becoming more and more scarce. Buyers don’t give a da*n about a realtor’s ego, and if realtors can’t do their jobs, then buyers will start going through attorneys, who don’t have any conflict of interest (they aren’t offended by lowballs, and couldn’t care less if other agents “like them” or not).

[CA renter]

FWIW, we sold a house this past summer for 30% off peak price. It was paid-off, and we needed to sell it to settle the estate.

Our realtor wanted to list it at a particular price, even though I wanted to list lower. After a couple of days, I had her drop the price $40,000 — very much against her advice — and had a couple of offers within two weeks or so. Final sale was another $20K off our VERY LOW final list price.

At the time, there were two other houses in the area listed around the price our realtor originally listed at. I believe one of them is still there, and has been listed at our “low” price for many months. I think the other one was expired or withdrawn, but not sure. Another house is now listed across the street from the one we sold for $35,000 less than what we sold it for (we sold for about 2003 price — by far the lowest the n’hood had seen in YEARS), and it has a pool, bigger yard, extra bedroom and is larger.

Point is, there are some sellers out there who can very well sell for 25% off (or LESS than!!!) the peak or list price. All a buyer has to do is find those sellers. That’s where the comps will be coming from.

Sellers are delusional, and will chase the market all the way down. Realtors who aren’t honest with them about what’s happening in the market are doing their clients a disservice. These same realtors are shooting themselves in the foot, as qualified buyers are becoming more and more scarce. Buyers don’t give a da*n about a realtor’s ego, and if realtors can’t do their jobs, then buyers will start going through attorneys, who don’t have any conflict of interest (they aren’t offended by lowballs, and couldn’t care less if other agents “like them” or not).

[CA renter]

FWIW, we sold a house this past summer for 30% off peak price. It was paid-off, and we needed to sell it to settle the estate.

Our realtor wanted to list it at a particular price, even though I wanted to list lower. After a couple of days, I had her drop the price $40,000 — very much against her advice — and had a couple of offers within two weeks or so. Final sale was another $20K off our VERY LOW final list price.

At the time, there were two other houses in the area listed around the price our realtor originally listed at. I believe one of them is still there, and has been listed at our “low” price for many months. I think the other one was expired or withdrawn, but not sure. Another house is now listed across the street from the one we sold for $35,000 less than what we sold it for (we sold for about 2003 price — by far the lowest the n’hood had seen in YEARS), and it has a pool, bigger yard, extra bedroom and is larger.

Point is, there are some sellers out there who can very well sell for 25% off (or LESS than!!!) the peak or list price. All a buyer has to do is find those sellers. That’s where the comps will be coming from.

Sellers are delusional, and will chase the market all the way down. Realtors who aren’t honest with them about what’s happening in the market are doing their clients a disservice. These same realtors are shooting themselves in the foot, as qualified buyers are becoming more and more scarce. Buyers don’t give a da*n about a realtor’s ego, and if realtors can’t do their jobs, then buyers will start going through attorneys, who don’t have any conflict of interest (they aren’t offended by lowballs, and couldn’t care less if other agents “like them” or not).

[CA renter]

From what I understand, Prop 13 limits the assessment to the full cash value of the property when purchased. After purchase, the assessment can go up no more than 2% each and every year (compounded, if I understand correctly).

In addition to the basic property tax, the voters can vote for additional bonds, etc. to be used for local services. Theoretically, this puts revenues for expenditures in the taxpayers’ hands — which I think is 100% correct. If the public can be convinced that there is a REAL need for additional money for schools, infrastructure, etc., they can always vote that in.

FWIW, the confusion about Prop 13 might explain why so many people complain about it. In reality, Prop 13 is one of the best things that could have happened in CA. The history behind it is informative. For those who are new to California, price volatility is the norm here, and Prop 13 was overwhelmingly voted into law to protect people from being “taxed out of their homes” by speculators and housing bubbles.

I’ve always said that buyers should consider total PITI payments when buying. If enough buyers were smart enough to refrain from buying when prices were too high, they could stop complaining about the disparity between what old-timers pay and what new buyers pay. The buyers have no one to blame but themselves — for over-paying in the first place, IMHO.
——————–

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 13A [TAX LIMITATION]

SEC. 2. (a) The “full cash value” means the county assessor’s
valuation of real property as shown on the 1975-76 tax bill under
“full cash value” or, thereafter, the appraised value of real
property when purchased, newly constructed, or a change in ownership
has occurred after the 1975 assessment.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_13A

more background info:

http://igs.berkeley.edu/library/htTaxSpendLimits2003.html

[CA renter]

From what I understand, Prop 13 limits the assessment to the full cash value of the property when purchased. After purchase, the assessment can go up no more than 2% each and every year (compounded, if I understand correctly).

In addition to the basic property tax, the voters can vote for additional bonds, etc. to be used for local services. Theoretically, this puts revenues for expenditures in the taxpayers’ hands — which I think is 100% correct. If the public can be convinced that there is a REAL need for additional money for schools, infrastructure, etc., they can always vote that in.

FWIW, the confusion about Prop 13 might explain why so many people complain about it. In reality, Prop 13 is one of the best things that could have happened in CA. The history behind it is informative. For those who are new to California, price volatility is the norm here, and Prop 13 was overwhelmingly voted into law to protect people from being “taxed out of their homes” by speculators and housing bubbles.

I’ve always said that buyers should consider total PITI payments when buying. If enough buyers were smart enough to refrain from buying when prices were too high, they could stop complaining about the disparity between what old-timers pay and what new buyers pay. The buyers have no one to blame but themselves — for over-paying in the first place, IMHO.
——————–

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 13A [TAX LIMITATION]

SEC. 2. (a) The “full cash value” means the county assessor’s
valuation of real property as shown on the 1975-76 tax bill under
“full cash value” or, thereafter, the appraised value of real
property when purchased, newly constructed, or a change in ownership
has occurred after the 1975 assessment.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_13A

more background info:

http://igs.berkeley.edu/library/htTaxSpendLimits2003.html

[CA renter]

From what I understand, Prop 13 limits the assessment to the full cash value of the property when purchased. After purchase, the assessment can go up no more than 2% each and every year (compounded, if I understand correctly).

In addition to the basic property tax, the voters can vote for additional bonds, etc. to be used for local services. Theoretically, this puts revenues for expenditures in the taxpayers’ hands — which I think is 100% correct. If the public can be convinced that there is a REAL need for additional money for schools, infrastructure, etc., they can always vote that in.

FWIW, the confusion about Prop 13 might explain why so many people complain about it. In reality, Prop 13 is one of the best things that could have happened in CA. The history behind it is informative. For those who are new to California, price volatility is the norm here, and Prop 13 was overwhelmingly voted into law to protect people from being “taxed out of their homes” by speculators and housing bubbles.

I’ve always said that buyers should consider total PITI payments when buying. If enough buyers were smart enough to refrain from buying when prices were too high, they could stop complaining about the disparity between what old-timers pay and what new buyers pay. The buyers have no one to blame but themselves — for over-paying in the first place, IMHO.
——————–

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 13A [TAX LIMITATION]

SEC. 2. (a) The “full cash value” means the county assessor’s
valuation of real property as shown on the 1975-76 tax bill under
“full cash value” or, thereafter, the appraised value of real
property when purchased, newly constructed, or a change in ownership
has occurred after the 1975 assessment.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_13A

more background info:

http://igs.berkeley.edu/library/htTaxSpendLimits2003.html

[CA renter]

From what I understand, Prop 13 limits the assessment to the full cash value of the property when purchased. After purchase, the assessment can go up no more than 2% each and every year (compounded, if I understand correctly).

In addition to the basic property tax, the voters can vote for additional bonds, etc. to be used for local services. Theoretically, this puts revenues for expenditures in the taxpayers’ hands — which I think is 100% correct. If the public can be convinced that there is a REAL need for additional money for schools, infrastructure, etc., they can always vote that in.

FWIW, the confusion about Prop 13 might explain why so many people complain about it. In reality, Prop 13 is one of the best things that could have happened in CA. The history behind it is informative. For those who are new to California, price volatility is the norm here, and Prop 13 was overwhelmingly voted into law to protect people from being “taxed out of their homes” by speculators and housing bubbles.

I’ve always said that buyers should consider total PITI payments when buying. If enough buyers were smart enough to refrain from buying when prices were too high, they could stop complaining about the disparity between what old-timers pay and what new buyers pay. The buyers have no one to blame but themselves — for over-paying in the first place, IMHO.
——————–

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 13A [TAX LIMITATION]

SEC. 2. (a) The “full cash value” means the county assessor’s
valuation of real property as shown on the 1975-76 tax bill under
“full cash value” or, thereafter, the appraised value of real
property when purchased, newly constructed, or a change in ownership
has occurred after the 1975 assessment.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_13A

more background info:

http://igs.berkeley.edu/library/htTaxSpendLimits2003.html

[Author]

Posts