Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
FutureSDguy
ParticipantOn the subject of gated communities, this is a good laugh.
The person who gave this to me says hes a English actor impersonating a Kazakstan buying in America.ParticipantThe description even feels like desperation. FWIW, Zillow, puts 1.01M on this house.
People are trying to justify the house itself for the price. You can’t. It’s impossible. Yet people try and they make a big hoopla about how the bonus room would make a great music room. Oh BOY! The reality is that this is a remodeled 1962 3/2 house worth $150,000, at this location worth $700,000 (and falling).
“Executive” house? Give me a break. AFAIK, that word doesn’t mean anything other than “really, really, nice” or perhaps “elegant,” and neither of this house is. Or does it mean “suited for CEx’s?” Maybe this is more suited for a teacher, or a grocery store manager. Realtor: “so what are you in the market for, an ‘Executive House’ or a ‘Manager House’?” “Really, just a ‘Janitor House’? Well, if you can manage a 100 mile commute, we might find you something.”
Brian
ParticipantMaybe they stole candy from 7-11 when they were kids. Dig deeper!
Participant“The more conservative and “respectable” someone is, the more likely there are bones in the closet.”
Hmmmmm… I think the more conservative and “respectable” public officials, the more their political enemies try to dig up dirt on them.
ParticipantPerry, of course! 🙂 Sellers talk the market up, buyers talk the market down, and realtors, in the “best interests” of both buyers and sellers, talk the market up. A site like this is a good place to hash out out ideas and explore the assumptions for these scenarios (and it would be nice if people would stick to the dicussions and not the people behind them).
All around I see realtors and other industry advocates being a bit too optimistic. The worst of them are definitely trying to pull the wool over my eyes, and the best of them actually do make a lot of sense and you have to dig down deeper to figure out if they’re right or not. I have a few other things about Jim’s site that are a bit too much “spin” such as a video that basically is advising buyers “don’t worry about the housing market, focus on finding the right house.” Many buyers are flexible, and with the inventory such as it is and climbing, I think it would be bad financial advise.
ParticipantI have read some of the stuff on Jim’s blog. He’s quite a sharp agent with way more backing for his arguments (rather than the usual “San Diego has great weather” justification.)
He presents a scenario where the “superior homes” will fall no more than 5-10%. He bases this mainly on the fact that these houses are unique, i.e. scarce, when compared to tract homes. I’ll buy that. My own definition on superior and inferior has more to do with uniqueness of architecture than location (i.e. anti-cookie-cutter homes), and I’m seeing the prices go down here, all the while being hard to find comparables. In today’s hustle bustle society, location is more about the commute to work than being next to some historical landmarker.
The main weakness in this scenario is the fact that he’s talking about 5-10% off of prices that were driven up from below. Mediocre homes took over the 500’s. Decent homes took over 700’s. Beautiful homes 900’s. And then all the newly anointed “million dollar homes.” The so called superior homes didn’t get their prices on their own merits–it started from the bottom. What goes up must come down–I think it’s reasonable to expect that when the scaffolding goes down, so will the houses that rest upon it. I don’t see an immunity gap, which is what someone who makes in a living in RE would want to see.
What I love about this blog site is that it is active (who wants to wait 2 weeks for someone to follow up with their comments), and you get a good mix of viewpoints.
ParticipantBanks wouldn’t give an interest free loan, but we’re talking about an owner who is weighing giving a 0% interest-free loan against his other obligations and risks associated with that house. I am guessing that this house is not the prettiest house on the block (360k houses in SD usually aren’t), and this move opens him up to a bigger buyer pool, reducing his risk of not selling significantly.
From a buyer’s perspective, I don’t think this makes a difference on decision to resell. The profit (or loss) from the house stays the same, and he/she pays off all the liens just as in any sale.
I see the biggest risk the seller is taking is what happens if the house forecloses–where does he stand in such an event? But liability to the bank–180 or less–is not as likely to be foreclosed on.
Clever, or stupid? I dunno…
ParticipantHere’s a homeowner who seems to be in denial. In six more days, it will have been listed for a full year.
1251 PHILLIPS ST, Vista, CA
MLS 051073083
Price Reduced: 06/14/06 — $559,000 to $549,000
Price Increased: 06/22/06 — $549,000 to $559,000
Price Reduced: 07/07/06 — $559,000 to $549,000
Price Reduced: 08/05/06 — $549,000 to $540,000
Price Reduced: 08/20/06 — $540,000 to $539,000Aside: I have been seeing nice houses in Vista. Spacious, not so cookie cutter. More house for less money. Is this simply because it’s not located so close to the coast?
ParticipantCarlsbadliving, you asked about the Seattle market. It’s “leveling off” (meaning it is about where San Diego was in late 2005/early 2006).
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/284894_realestate13.html
ParticipantThanks, reality. I just wanted to speak my mind about what I see as a darker side of society. I’d hate the Suelimans just as much as the next guy but I see another wrong that I wanted to share.
I wish people in Seattle were better at knowing that the left-most lane is for passing only (barring high congestion). I still have to be “traffic cop” at four way stops because people don’t understand who has the right of way,
ParticipantAnother way to phrase this question: are there sellers who are volunteering to lower their price signficantly rather than the market forcing them to.
ParticipantWhen a reporter doesn’t back off after being assaulted verbally and with a water bottle and continues to hound her after she walks away, he’s was definitely sensationalizing (which is what i meant by glorifying) violence. The “call the police” wasn’t a “decision” as much as a surprised reaction as reporter found himself in over his head. The cameraman could have come to the reporter’s defense, but felt it was more important to record the violence.
Don’t worry, I won’t take down any Neighborhood watch signs… 🙂 but kids, if you see robber, dial 911 and leave the video camera in the closet.
ParticipantI find it interesting that instead of placing the responsibility onto the police department to fight crime, people think that journalists should be helping out. What’s next, the 7th grade civics teacher? This is vigilantism folks.
ParticipantNSR, if you reread what I said, you will see that I did not say that the reporter instigated the violence, but rather I said could have prevented it by departing the scene after the woman was already assaulting him. Now if the woman acted within civil boundaries, then yes the reporter should be able to conduct his investigation. But he was no longer doing that: he was indulging in a media coverage of violence. In your shallow view, it looks as if you think only one side must be wrong (be it a rapist, an assailant, or a thief), and the other side must be right. Both sides wronged on different things. The husband/wife should be punished for their crimes according to the law, but the press should be called on their glorification of that violent scene. In a sense, everyone was acting like animals.
-
AuthorPosts