[DWCAP]

So, is this a tact way of saying there is something to this formula? Cause 17 posts later I still dont see one of the standard ‘it is different here’ rationals being used to discredit this.

Best I can figure, Median SD income is right around 70k (http://www.sandag.org/resources/demographics_and_other_data/demographics/fastfacts/sand.htm)

And average interest rates are right around 5%. (http://signonsandiego.interest.com/)

SO….

70k*4.3466= 304262. Obviously this isnt perfect because interest rates move daily and layoffs/hires effect the job market, but add a +/- 5% so between 290k and 320k seem reasonable?

If so then we could, atleast in theory, compute what an interest rate surge would do to housing prices.

4.75% would =313k
5.50% would =288k
5.75% would =280k
6.00% would =272k

Basically every .25% would be 8k in housing price movement.

[DWCAP]

So, is this a tact way of saying there is something to this formula? Cause 17 posts later I still dont see one of the standard ‘it is different here’ rationals being used to discredit this.

Best I can figure, Median SD income is right around 70k (http://www.sandag.org/resources/demographics_and_other_data/demographics/fastfacts/sand.htm)

And average interest rates are right around 5%. (http://signonsandiego.interest.com/)

SO….

70k*4.3466= 304262. Obviously this isnt perfect because interest rates move daily and layoffs/hires effect the job market, but add a +/- 5% so between 290k and 320k seem reasonable?

If so then we could, atleast in theory, compute what an interest rate surge would do to housing prices.

4.75% would =313k
5.50% would =288k
5.75% would =280k
6.00% would =272k

Basically every .25% would be 8k in housing price movement.

[DWCAP]

Big problem you are facing is that you will have to pay a premium, a big one, to get people out. Someone did that to my dad. He bought back in the 1980’s, and the house has more than trippled on him since then. Anyways, he loves where he lives, and would only consider moving if the price was right X 2, to compensate for his grief. I mean why sell your place for a “reduced” value? It obviously is in demand, people are MAILING you letters out of the blue trying to buy it.

[DWCAP]

Big problem you are facing is that you will have to pay a premium, a big one, to get people out. Someone did that to my dad. He bought back in the 1980’s, and the house has more than trippled on him since then. Anyways, he loves where he lives, and would only consider moving if the price was right X 2, to compensate for his grief. I mean why sell your place for a “reduced” value? It obviously is in demand, people are MAILING you letters out of the blue trying to buy it.

[DWCAP]

Big problem you are facing is that you will have to pay a premium, a big one, to get people out. Someone did that to my dad. He bought back in the 1980’s, and the house has more than trippled on him since then. Anyways, he loves where he lives, and would only consider moving if the price was right X 2, to compensate for his grief. I mean why sell your place for a “reduced” value? It obviously is in demand, people are MAILING you letters out of the blue trying to buy it.

[DWCAP]

Big problem you are facing is that you will have to pay a premium, a big one, to get people out. Someone did that to my dad. He bought back in the 1980’s, and the house has more than trippled on him since then. Anyways, he loves where he lives, and would only consider moving if the price was right X 2, to compensate for his grief. I mean why sell your place for a “reduced” value? It obviously is in demand, people are MAILING you letters out of the blue trying to buy it.

[DWCAP]

Big problem you are facing is that you will have to pay a premium, a big one, to get people out. Someone did that to my dad. He bought back in the 1980’s, and the house has more than trippled on him since then. Anyways, he loves where he lives, and would only consider moving if the price was right X 2, to compensate for his grief. I mean why sell your place for a “reduced” value? It obviously is in demand, people are MAILING you letters out of the blue trying to buy it.

[DWCAP]

[quote=uneven]Like I said, we don’t know the agreement or the circumstances for either party. If it’s month to month, then it is 30 day notice for both sides. If its a longer term, then there is legal recourse available if either party breaks the agreement. I’m sorry if it sounds callous, but if you have a month to month agreement, but assume you’ll be there forever is both naive and irresponsible. Renters don’t tend to care about leaving a LL with a vacancy for months (although I’ve had some very nice ones that have helped find new people)

My threat of litigation may have no merit,but if you willfully and maliciously attempt to interfere with someone’s right to conduct business , its against the law. One could say “I was only informing him of public information” but the real question is “why?” If you’ve highlighted things and otherwise made it seem that there is some wrong doing going on with the intent to enrage a tenant or encourage them to take action against the LL, then it’s malicious. That was my point.

My 2 cents, in this market, a tenant’s hardships (having to find a new place) is much more desirable then a LL hardship. But I’m not going to take sides. My whole point is we do not have info and can not throw anyone under a bus. And it’s not right to interfere in this, by assuming the tenant is little red riding hood.

I’m not too worked up… I just get this way sometimes =) I’ve been on both sides of this for the last several years as a tenant and a land lord. It’s just there’s always 2 sides to things.[/quote]

I dont know what you call ‘taking sides’, but bring up the threat the litigation against someone for posting public information sure meets my definition of ‘taking sides’. Nor can I believe that the revilation of PUBLIC information to all parties is ‘throwing someone under the bus’. As you said over and over again, we dont know the full story. Who is to say that the LL isnt in a long term lease, and trying to screw the tenant? It is your assumption about a month-month lease. We dont know. So your assumption is no better than anyone elses.

If the LL had any reasonable expectation of privacy, they would have attempted to conduct a private sale without making any information public.

Now if someone had inside information, (like a private sale)and it was disclosed, that is another story.

BTW, how the frak are they gonna show the property, or have it inspected, without the tenant knowing? Legally they have to give notice dont they?

[DWCAP]

[quote=uneven]Like I said, we don’t know the agreement or the circumstances for either party. If it’s month to month, then it is 30 day notice for both sides. If its a longer term, then there is legal recourse available if either party breaks the agreement. I’m sorry if it sounds callous, but if you have a month to month agreement, but assume you’ll be there forever is both naive and irresponsible. Renters don’t tend to care about leaving a LL with a vacancy for months (although I’ve had some very nice ones that have helped find new people)

My threat of litigation may have no merit,but if you willfully and maliciously attempt to interfere with someone’s right to conduct business , its against the law. One could say “I was only informing him of public information” but the real question is “why?” If you’ve highlighted things and otherwise made it seem that there is some wrong doing going on with the intent to enrage a tenant or encourage them to take action against the LL, then it’s malicious. That was my point.

My 2 cents, in this market, a tenant’s hardships (having to find a new place) is much more desirable then a LL hardship. But I’m not going to take sides. My whole point is we do not have info and can not throw anyone under a bus. And it’s not right to interfere in this, by assuming the tenant is little red riding hood.

I’m not too worked up… I just get this way sometimes =) I’ve been on both sides of this for the last several years as a tenant and a land lord. It’s just there’s always 2 sides to things.[/quote]

I dont know what you call ‘taking sides’, but bring up the threat the litigation against someone for posting public information sure meets my definition of ‘taking sides’. Nor can I believe that the revilation of PUBLIC information to all parties is ‘throwing someone under the bus’. As you said over and over again, we dont know the full story. Who is to say that the LL isnt in a long term lease, and trying to screw the tenant? It is your assumption about a month-month lease. We dont know. So your assumption is no better than anyone elses.

If the LL had any reasonable expectation of privacy, they would have attempted to conduct a private sale without making any information public.

Now if someone had inside information, (like a private sale)and it was disclosed, that is another story.

BTW, how the frak are they gonna show the property, or have it inspected, without the tenant knowing? Legally they have to give notice dont they?

[DWCAP]

[quote=uneven]Like I said, we don’t know the agreement or the circumstances for either party. If it’s month to month, then it is 30 day notice for both sides. If its a longer term, then there is legal recourse available if either party breaks the agreement. I’m sorry if it sounds callous, but if you have a month to month agreement, but assume you’ll be there forever is both naive and irresponsible. Renters don’t tend to care about leaving a LL with a vacancy for months (although I’ve had some very nice ones that have helped find new people)

My threat of litigation may have no merit,but if you willfully and maliciously attempt to interfere with someone’s right to conduct business , its against the law. One could say “I was only informing him of public information” but the real question is “why?” If you’ve highlighted things and otherwise made it seem that there is some wrong doing going on with the intent to enrage a tenant or encourage them to take action against the LL, then it’s malicious. That was my point.

My 2 cents, in this market, a tenant’s hardships (having to find a new place) is much more desirable then a LL hardship. But I’m not going to take sides. My whole point is we do not have info and can not throw anyone under a bus. And it’s not right to interfere in this, by assuming the tenant is little red riding hood.

I’m not too worked up… I just get this way sometimes =) I’ve been on both sides of this for the last several years as a tenant and a land lord. It’s just there’s always 2 sides to things.[/quote]

I dont know what you call ‘taking sides’, but bring up the threat the litigation against someone for posting public information sure meets my definition of ‘taking sides’. Nor can I believe that the revilation of PUBLIC information to all parties is ‘throwing someone under the bus’. As you said over and over again, we dont know the full story. Who is to say that the LL isnt in a long term lease, and trying to screw the tenant? It is your assumption about a month-month lease. We dont know. So your assumption is no better than anyone elses.

If the LL had any reasonable expectation of privacy, they would have attempted to conduct a private sale without making any information public.

Now if someone had inside information, (like a private sale)and it was disclosed, that is another story.

BTW, how the frak are they gonna show the property, or have it inspected, without the tenant knowing? Legally they have to give notice dont they?

[DWCAP]

[quote=uneven]Like I said, we don’t know the agreement or the circumstances for either party. If it’s month to month, then it is 30 day notice for both sides. If its a longer term, then there is legal recourse available if either party breaks the agreement. I’m sorry if it sounds callous, but if you have a month to month agreement, but assume you’ll be there forever is both naive and irresponsible. Renters don’t tend to care about leaving a LL with a vacancy for months (although I’ve had some very nice ones that have helped find new people)

My threat of litigation may have no merit,but if you willfully and maliciously attempt to interfere with someone’s right to conduct business , its against the law. One could say “I was only informing him of public information” but the real question is “why?” If you’ve highlighted things and otherwise made it seem that there is some wrong doing going on with the intent to enrage a tenant or encourage them to take action against the LL, then it’s malicious. That was my point.

My 2 cents, in this market, a tenant’s hardships (having to find a new place) is much more desirable then a LL hardship. But I’m not going to take sides. My whole point is we do not have info and can not throw anyone under a bus. And it’s not right to interfere in this, by assuming the tenant is little red riding hood.

I’m not too worked up… I just get this way sometimes =) I’ve been on both sides of this for the last several years as a tenant and a land lord. It’s just there’s always 2 sides to things.[/quote]

I dont know what you call ‘taking sides’, but bring up the threat the litigation against someone for posting public information sure meets my definition of ‘taking sides’. Nor can I believe that the revilation of PUBLIC information to all parties is ‘throwing someone under the bus’. As you said over and over again, we dont know the full story. Who is to say that the LL isnt in a long term lease, and trying to screw the tenant? It is your assumption about a month-month lease. We dont know. So your assumption is no better than anyone elses.

If the LL had any reasonable expectation of privacy, they would have attempted to conduct a private sale without making any information public.

Now if someone had inside information, (like a private sale)and it was disclosed, that is another story.

BTW, how the frak are they gonna show the property, or have it inspected, without the tenant knowing? Legally they have to give notice dont they?

[DWCAP]

[quote=uneven]Like I said, we don’t know the agreement or the circumstances for either party. If it’s month to month, then it is 30 day notice for both sides. If its a longer term, then there is legal recourse available if either party breaks the agreement. I’m sorry if it sounds callous, but if you have a month to month agreement, but assume you’ll be there forever is both naive and irresponsible. Renters don’t tend to care about leaving a LL with a vacancy for months (although I’ve had some very nice ones that have helped find new people)

My threat of litigation may have no merit,but if you willfully and maliciously attempt to interfere with someone’s right to conduct business , its against the law. One could say “I was only informing him of public information” but the real question is “why?” If you’ve highlighted things and otherwise made it seem that there is some wrong doing going on with the intent to enrage a tenant or encourage them to take action against the LL, then it’s malicious. That was my point.

My 2 cents, in this market, a tenant’s hardships (having to find a new place) is much more desirable then a LL hardship. But I’m not going to take sides. My whole point is we do not have info and can not throw anyone under a bus. And it’s not right to interfere in this, by assuming the tenant is little red riding hood.

I’m not too worked up… I just get this way sometimes =) I’ve been on both sides of this for the last several years as a tenant and a land lord. It’s just there’s always 2 sides to things.[/quote]

I dont know what you call ‘taking sides’, but bring up the threat the litigation against someone for posting public information sure meets my definition of ‘taking sides’. Nor can I believe that the revilation of PUBLIC information to all parties is ‘throwing someone under the bus’. As you said over and over again, we dont know the full story. Who is to say that the LL isnt in a long term lease, and trying to screw the tenant? It is your assumption about a month-month lease. We dont know. So your assumption is no better than anyone elses.

If the LL had any reasonable expectation of privacy, they would have attempted to conduct a private sale without making any information public.

Now if someone had inside information, (like a private sale)and it was disclosed, that is another story.

BTW, how the frak are they gonna show the property, or have it inspected, without the tenant knowing? Legally they have to give notice dont they?

[DWCAP]

In my opinion, the problem we are seeing here is that San Diego (+riverside/temecula areas) is bucking the national trend. Wasnt SD only one of 4 cities where the C-S rose instead of fell?

The OP is referencing national numbers, and in a national sense things are not great. Still something like 7-8 months of inventory coupled with increasing defaults and decreasing sales. Plus some areas (AZ,FL,NV) are far more dependent on housing related jobs than our area is.

So while the national market may still ‘need’ (I feel dirty just writing that) all the special treatment (the mods, the low interest rates, the tax credits, the subprime FHA lending, the increased GSE limits etc etc), San Diego doesnt. I dont know if anyone would consider the SD market healthy, but we are getting the steriods same as the rest of the country, even though we have a different disease.

[DWCAP]

In my opinion, the problem we are seeing here is that San Diego (+riverside/temecula areas) is bucking the national trend. Wasnt SD only one of 4 cities where the C-S rose instead of fell?

The OP is referencing national numbers, and in a national sense things are not great. Still something like 7-8 months of inventory coupled with increasing defaults and decreasing sales. Plus some areas (AZ,FL,NV) are far more dependent on housing related jobs than our area is.

So while the national market may still ‘need’ (I feel dirty just writing that) all the special treatment (the mods, the low interest rates, the tax credits, the subprime FHA lending, the increased GSE limits etc etc), San Diego doesnt. I dont know if anyone would consider the SD market healthy, but we are getting the steriods same as the rest of the country, even though we have a different disease.

[DWCAP]

In my opinion, the problem we are seeing here is that San Diego (+riverside/temecula areas) is bucking the national trend. Wasnt SD only one of 4 cities where the C-S rose instead of fell?

The OP is referencing national numbers, and in a national sense things are not great. Still something like 7-8 months of inventory coupled with increasing defaults and decreasing sales. Plus some areas (AZ,FL,NV) are far more dependent on housing related jobs than our area is.

So while the national market may still ‘need’ (I feel dirty just writing that) all the special treatment (the mods, the low interest rates, the tax credits, the subprime FHA lending, the increased GSE limits etc etc), San Diego doesnt. I dont know if anyone would consider the SD market healthy, but we are getting the steriods same as the rest of the country, even though we have a different disease.

[Author]

Posts